South of Stoneleigh Road), Report Title: Stoneleigh, Warwick

The Hollies (Site 1)

Environmental Assessment

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood (South of Stoneleigh

Road), Stoneleigh, Warwick

Proposal for an Anaerobic Digester and Associated Infrastructure

Environmental Report

Material Change Ltd

Report prepared by: Ecus Ltd. Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW 0114 266 9292

May 2014

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Report to: Material Change Ltd

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood (South of Stoneleigh Road), Report Title: Stoneleigh, Warwick. Proposal for an Anaerobic Digester and Associated Infrastructure

Revision: Final Issue Date: 05.05.2014 Report Ref: 4590

Originated By:

Sarah Brooks Principal EIA Consultant Date: 31.03.2014 Reviewed By:

Dr Holly Smith EIA Team Leader Date: 05.05.2014 Approved By:

Erica Kemp Director Date: 12.05.2014

Prepared by: ECUS Ltd. 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW TEL: 0114 2669292 FAX: 0114 2668243

The report and the site assessments carried out by ECUS on behalf of the client in accordance with the agreed terms of contract and/or written agreement form the agreed Services. The Services were performed by ECUS with the skill and care ordinarily exercised by a reasonable Environmental Consultant at the time the Services were performed. Further, and in particular, the Services were performed by ECUS taking into account the limits of the scope of works required by the client, the time scale involved and the resources, including financial and manpower resources, agreed between ECUS and the client. Other than that expressly contained in the paragraph above, ECUS provides no other representation or warranty whether express or implied, in relation to the services. This report is produced exclusively for the purposes of the client. ECUS is not aware of any interest of or reliance by any party other than the client in or on the services. Unless expressly provided in writing, ECUS does not authorise, consent or condone any party other than the client relying upon the services provided. Any reliance on the services or any part of the services by any party other than the client is made wholly at that party’s own and sole risk and ECUS disclaims any liability to such parties. This report is based on site conditions, regulatory or other legal provisions, technology or economic conditions at the time of the Service provision. These conditions can change with time and reliance on the findings of the Services under changing conditions should be reviewed. ECUS accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of third party data used in this report.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ...... 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 3 2.1 THE APPLICANT ...... 3 2.2 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AND PRODUCTS ...... 3 2.3 SITE SELECTION ...... 3 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 4 3. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY ...... 11 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 11 3.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 11 3.3 PLANNING POLICY AND LEGISLATION ...... 16 3.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS ...... 21 3.5 ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION ...... 31 3.6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 42 3.7 REFERENCES ...... 43 4. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ...... 44 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 45 4.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 45 4.3 PLANNING POLICY AND LEGISLATION ...... 48 4.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS ...... 49 4.5 ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION ...... 56 4.6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 58 4.7 REFERENCES ...... 62 5. ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION ...... 65 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 65 5.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 65 5.3 PLANNING POLICY AND LEGISLATION ...... 72 5.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS ...... 76 5.5 ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION ...... 86 5.6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 92 5.7 REFERENCES ...... 93 6. ODOUR ...... 94 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 95 6.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 95 6.3 PLANNING POLICY AND LEGISLATION ...... 97 6.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS ...... 99 6.5 ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION ...... 103 6.6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 104 6.7 REFERENCES ...... 105

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Figure no. Figure Name Figure 1.1 Site Location Figure 1.2 Proposed Site Layout - Pipelines Figure 1.3 Proposed Site Layout - ADP Figure 3.1 2.54 km Study Area, Landscape Designations and Landscape Character Figure 3.2 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) ‘Bare Ground’ Figure 3.3 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) ‘With Screening’ Figure 3.4 Viewpoint Locations Figure 3.5 Local Context Figure 3.6 Viewpoint 1 – Existing View (submitted under a separate cover) Figure 3.7 Viewpoint 1 - Photomontage (submitted under a separate cover) Figure 3.8 Viewpoint 2 – Existing View (submitted under a separate cover) Figure 3.9 Viewpoint 2 - Photomontage (submitted under a separate cover) Figure 3.10 Viewpoint 3 – Existing View (submitted under a separate cover) Figure 3.11 Viewpoint 4 – Existing View (submitted under a separate cover) Figure 3.12 Viewpoint 4 - Overlay (submitted under a separate cover) Figure 3.13 Viewpoint 5 - Existing view (submitted under a separate cover) Figure 3.14 Viewpoint 6 - Existing view (submitted under a separate cover) Figure 3.15 Site View Points (submitted under a separate cover) Site Plan Showing Non-designated Heritage Assets (based on WHER Figure 4.1 Data) Figure 4.2 Site Plan showing Designated Heritage Assets (based on EH Data) Figure 4.3 1628 Kenilworth Estate Plan (Overlying Modern OS) Figure 4.4 1766 Leigh Estate Map Figure 4.5 1887 Ordnance Survey Map Figure 4.6 1955 Ordnance Survey Map Figure 5.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Figure 5.2 Buffers on Identified Ponds Figure 5.3 Great Crested Newt Ponds in Stoneleigh Park Figure 6.1 Receptor Locations Figure 6.2 Wind Rose for Coventry Airport Meteorological Station

Appendix no. Appendix Name Appendix 1.1 Consultation Correspondence with WDC EHO Appendix 3.1 LVIA Methodology Appendix 3.2 Warwick Landscape Guidelines Appendix 4.1 WHER Data Appendix 4.2 Site Photographs Appendix 5.1 Biological Data Appendix 5.2 Amphibian HSI Results Appendix 5.3 Pond Photographs

iii

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

1. Introduction

1.1 Site Description

1.1.1 Material Change Ltd is proposing to develop an Anaerobic Digestion Plant (ADP) and associated infrastructure on land to the west of, and adjacent to, Kings Wood, south of Stoneleigh Lane, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire. Figure 1.1 shows the location and boundary of the application site. An electricity transmission line and ducting for heat transfer will be installed between the ADP to Stoneleigh Park to the south with a gas pipeline conveying generated biogas to connect with the national gas grid near Crewe Farm to the south west of the ADP, or to the connection point to the north of the junction with the A46 with (Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3). The proposed ADP will ensure that 10 % of Stoneleigh Park’s energy requirements will be met from a renewable source.

1.1.2 The application site for the proposed ADP is located in a rural setting and lies approximately 0.6 km to the north-west of Stoneleigh Village and approximately 0.8 km to the north of Stoneleigh Park in Warwickshire. The site extends to approximately 4.88 hectares (ha) lying at an elevation of between 76.5 and 78.5 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) with the land sloping gently to the south-west. Agricultural fields lie to the north, west and south of the application site, and road access to the proposed development would be taken from Stoneleigh Road approximately 0.1 km to the north which provides wider access to the A46 Kenilworth Bypass located approximately 0.35 km to the west.

1.2 Environmental Report

1.2.1 The proposed development requires planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and by virtue of being greater than 0.5 ha in size falls within Schedule 2 part 10(b) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011. In its original form the proposed development was screened by WDC and the Screening Opinion issued by WDC dated 18th September 2012 confirmed that “having regard to the characteristics of the development, its location and the nature of the potential impacts, it is concluded that an Environmental Statement is not required for the above development”.

1.2.2 The scope of the proposed development has subsequently changed. The balance of the composition of the materials to be used in the digester now comprises a higher proportion (50 %) of non crop feedstock. In the context of the anaerobic digestion process this proportion of non-crop ‘waste’ means that the proposed development falls under the waste planning framework administered by Warwickshire County Council (WCC). However, this alteration in the scope of the scheme is not considered likely to result in a change to the “nature of its potential impacts”.

1.2.3 This Environmental Report presents the findings of technical environmental appraisals carried out in support of the design development of the proposed ADP and accompanies the planning application to WCC for the scheme. The report comprises the following chapters:  Chapter 1: Introduction  Chapter 2: Project Description  Chapter 3: Landscape and Visual Amenity

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd  Chapter 4: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage  Chapter 5: Ecology and Nature Conservation  Chapter 6: Odour

1.2.4 In addition the planning application is accompanied by a traffic assessment, flood risk assessment and preliminary drainage assessment and tree survey report which are provided in a separate reports.

1.2.5 Consultation was undertaken with Mr Micheael Jenkins at WDC regarding the requirement for undertaking a noise assessment. Due to the low level of noise production associated with the scheme and the distance of the application area to the nearest residential property, a noise assessment was not required to accompany the planning application. A copy of this correspondence has been provided in Appendix 1.1.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

2. Project Description

2.1 The Applicant

2.1.1 The Applicant, Material Change Ltd, is using its knowledge, experience and expertise in procuring AD and associated energy generation technology to develop the ADP at Kings Wood. Material Change Ltd are tenants of LaSalle Investment Management Ltd (LIM) which owns the long-term leasehold of Stoneleigh Park, which includes the application site, from the Royal Agricultural Society of England.

2.1.2 Material Change Ltd has a track record in recycling and has identified farm-based AD as an ideal way in which to generate green electricity and help meet the UK's energy gap. Material Change currently operate an ADP in Suffolk and are currently installing an ADP in Northamptonshire.

2.2 Anaerobic Digestion and Products

2.2.1 Anaerobic Digestion (AD) is a natural process whereby organic material such as agricultural crops, livestock slurries and food wastes (collectively referred to as the ‘feedstock’) are converted by bacteria into water, and carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (biogas). The biogas can then be transferred into the national gas grid or burnt to produce heat and electricity in a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant. Wastes from the AD process (referred to as ‘digestate’) can be used as a fertiliser or in a range of industrial and manufacturing processes.

2.2.2 The biogas will be utilised to produce renewable energy in two ways. A Combined Heat and Power (CHP) engine will be used to generate electricity, and potentially heat, which will be distributed to the tenants of Stoneleigh Park by private network, with any excess electricity supplied to the national grid, and a gas clean up system which will allow gas injection into the national gas grid.

2.2.3 The electricity generation is expected to produce around 2,700,000 kWhrs of electricity on an annual basis this is equivalent to the power consumed by 625 three bedroom homes.

2.3 Site Selection

2.3.1 The application site has been selected due to its proximity to Stoneleigh Park, suitable access and proximity to the national gas grid to the west. Stoneleigh Road provides a good link to the A46 and to the local highway network allowing access to the farms which will provide approximately half of the feedstock required for the ADP. Connection to the gas grid to the north can be achieved without affecting known sensitive environmental features.

2.3.2 In addition the proposed development will make use of the existing slurry storage tank in Kings Wood. This wood comprises mixed oak and plantation conifer woodland with numerous trees that are over 15 m in height which will provide screening. The proposed site is at least 0.5 km from the nearest domestic and commercial land uses.

2.3.3 There is no suitable site within Stoneleigh Park itself due to the large area of land required, existing environmental constraints such as the River Avon flood plain, and potential conflict with areas consented for redevelopment and use.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

2.4 Project Description

2.4.1 The layout of the proposed development is shown on Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 (based on Plandescil Consulting Engineers drawings 18156/002/ rev L and 18156/102/rev G). The main elements of the proposed development are described below in relation to the appraisal of landscape and visual amenity, cultural heritage, ecology and odour.

ADP Components

2.4.2 The solid feedstock reception building will receive and store solid waste feedstock and will have a footprint of approximately 54 m by 34 m. It will be c. 8.5 m tall at the eaves with a 15˚ angle to the roof tilt it and will have a ridge height of c. 13.05 m which will be lower than the adjacent mature woodland. The reception building will be clad in grey plastic coated profiled sheets. The walls will be Dark Admiralty Grey (18 B 25) while the roof will be Goose Grey (00 A 05).

2.4.3 The three silage clamps located on a slightly raised landform to the north will have asphalt (impermeable) floors and will each have dimensions of c. 80 m x 20 m. Stored silage feedstock will be covered with impermeable sheeting maintained in good condition. The clamps will be constructed with green vegetated banks to minimise visual impact which would be approximately 2.6 m high.

2.4.4 Each of the three liquid feedstock reception tanks will be constructed from steel or fibre glass and will be grey to blend in with the reception building. They will have a diameter of c. 3 m and a height of 5 m. The inclusion of three tanks will allow for the separation of different types of liquid feedstock. The anaerobic digestion process will occur in three digestion tanks which will be made from unclad reinforced pre-cast concrete panels. Tanks 2 and 3 will include flexible membrane roofs which will be Grey Beige (RAL 1019). The digestion tanks will have safety pressure valves for use in an emergency.

2.4.5 Tank 1 is the primary digestion tank and will have a diameter of c. 23 m and a height of c. 8.5 m. Due to the construction of the foundations and for frost proofing the tank will be sunk c. 1 m into the ground, giving a finished height of 7.5 m. It will have a flat concrete roof.

2.4.6 Tank 2 is the secondary digestion tank and will have a diameter of c. 28 m and a wall height of c. 5.8 m. Gas will be captured in a gas storage bag housed in a flexible membrane dome on top of the roof of Tank 2 which will be a further c. 6 m in height. As with Tank 1, Tank 2 will be sunk c. 1 m into the ground and will have a total height of 10.8 m.

2.4.7 Tank 3 will act as a residual gas collection and storage tank enabling the remaining gas to be extracted from the digestate as it is stored in the tank, and will have a diameter of c. 32 m and wall height of c. 6.8 m. Tank 3 will have a gas storage bag housed in a flexible membrane dome which will be a further c. 7.2 m in height. Tank 3 will also be sunk c. 1 m into the ground and will have a total height of c. 13 m.

2.4.8 A technical building, feedhopper, solid and liquid digestate removal stations, and ancillary infrastructure will be located around the tanks. In addition the existing slurry tank located in Kings Wood, which is c. 32 m in diameter and c. 4 m tall, will be used to store liquid digestate from the AD process.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd 2.4.9 An impermeable concrete access road will be provided from Stoneleigh Road at the point of the existing farm access gate into the site and will have typical dimensions of approximately c. 12 m radii and a c. 6.2 m carriageway width. A weighbridge will be installed at the southern end of the access road. The access will continue as a concrete apron between the silage clamps and reception building. A permeable access track formed and extended with MOT Type 1 stone which will be laid between the storage tank in Kings Wood and the reception building, bio-filter and propane tank base. The bio-filter will have an area of c. 320 m2 providing a volume of c. 800 m3.

2.4.10 The site offices will be located adjacent to the weighbridge and access road and will be a singe storey grey clad portacabin type building.

2.4.11 The gas flare will be c. 7 m high and will be used to flare off excess gas on occasion. The flare stack, and propane gas tank base, will each be located a minimum of 10 m from other infrastructures. The biogas infrastructure will also include a gas-to-grid processing unit and a Remotely Operated Valve (ROV) compound.

2.4.12 The CHP plant will contain a 500 kW engine and will be located adjacent to the solid feedstock reception building. A back-up generator and transformer will be located nearby.

2.4.13 The ADP site will be fenced securely and the fencing itself will be screened by landscape planting.

Grid Connection and Electricity Transmission to Stoneleigh Park

2.4.14 In order to connect the anaerobic digester unit to Stoneleigh Park a new distribution circuit will be required between the anaerobic digester and the park itself. This will use the same route as an existing underground pipeline that already runs from Stoneleigh Park to Kings Wood, which took slurry from the old dairy unit and the showground to Kings Wood, for storage prior to being spread on the land.

2.4.15 Two gas connection locations have been identified as viable by National Grid, one by Crewe Farm and the other to the north west of the site by Kingshill. Depending on which location is selected a gas pipe will be installed from the site to the grid connection point. This will allow gas which is not used for electricity production to be sold to the National Grid. As the construction of this pipework constitutes development it is also included within the planning application. Only one of the connection routes will be used, but in order to prevent a further application when the final feasibility is completed, the planning application includes both routes.

2.4.16 The gas pipeline connection from the ROV compound to the main gas grid is shown on Figure 1.2 and has been routed to minimise impacts on hedgerows and trees by using existing field boundary gaps wherever practicable and routed to maintain maximum possible distances from known newt ponds.

2.4.17 The electricity and heat connection from the CHP plant to Stoneleigh Park is shown on Figure 1.2 and has also been routed to minimise impacts on hedgerows and trees and will be installed adjacent to, or within, the existing road infrastructure within the Park wherever practicable. Where this pipeline crosses the River Avon it will use the existing crossing using where practicable the existing pipe as a duct. It is anticipated that the drainage connection for clean surface water the to the River Avon will use this existing pipe if practicable to do so.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd Lighting

2.4.18 The ADP will only require pedestrian lighting on site to allow staff to walk safely during darkness. These lights will only be used occasionally during winter as all site operations will be planned to take place during daylight hours, as far as possible. External lighting may be used, on a temporary basis, for the few weeks of crop harvest, if needed and will be designed to minimise light spill onto the adjacent woodland.

Drainage

2.4.19 Surface water runoff from the new development will be collected and discharged by a positive drainage system outfalling to the River Avon. To ensure that there is no increase in flood risk elsewhere, surface water will be attenuated on site and discharged at a rate no greater than existing, for all events up to the 1 in 100 year return period, including an allowance for climate change. An outline drainage assessment has been included within the planning application.

2.4.20 All of the key ADP infrastructure and impermeable surfaces used for the storage, processing and digestion process will have a contained drainage system which will enable feedstock effluent to be collected and used in the digestion process. This will avoid the contamination of surrounding land and groundwater. In particular the three silage clamps will have a hot rolled asphalt floor.

Landscaping

2.4.21 The proposed development will be landscaped to minimise visual impacts and provide an enhancement in terms of biodiversity. The ADP compound will be enclosed by a belt of native tree and shrub planting using species which reflect the local vegetation characteristics.

2.4.22 Existing hedges to the north, south, east and west of the development will be allowed to continue to grow taller to further minimise views of the site in the surrounding area over the long term. Views of the site are restricted to the east by the mature trees of Kings Wood which will be managed to ensure that screening remains effective during the operational lifetime of the development.

Construction Phase

2.4.23 Construction of the proposed ADP is anticipated to start in the second half of 2014 and will last approximately 12 months.

2.4.24 Advance works will involve the establishment of a works compound, vegetation clearance (involving the removal of approximately 12.5 linear metres of hedgerow adjacent to the existing field access during the least sensitive time period for breeding newts, i.e. when the are breeding in the ponds) and protection, and ground preparation.

2.4.25 Existing woodland and remaining retained trees and hedgerows will be protected during construction in accordance with BS5837:2012 Tree in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction and taking account of the Tree Protection Plan accompanying the submission. As a minimum root protection areas will be demarcated and fenced off to prevent accidental damage. Any tree works will be undertaken in accordance with BS 3998 (2010) Recommendations for Tree Work. The limited extent of hedgerow which will require temporary removal for the

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd pipeline installation (c. 1 m in total) will be replanted using native appropriate species ensuring no net loss of hedgerows and trees.

2.4.26 Top soil beneath the footprint of the proposed development will be carefully removed and used to make the site bund. Soil will be handled and managed in accordance with the ‘Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites’ (DEFRA, 2009). The bund design will be agreed with the Environment Agency, but is anticipated to be c. 2.5 m high with 1:3 slopes on both sides thereby retaining the viability of the soil as a resource, and will be seeded with native grass mix to stabilise the surface prior to tree and shrub planting. Excess topsoil will be spread in a thin layer over the adjacent agricultural land. The site will then be levelled to an average elevation of 77.5 m AOD with localised falls, where possible utilising the natural contours of the field, to cater for surface water management.

2.4.27 The main construction activities will start once the site has been prepared, and will include the transportation of materials, pre-cast units and other components, erection of the various parts of the ADP, plant movement and operation of machinery, and pipeline and transmission cable laying. Trenching for the pipeline and cable routes will typically be c. 0.5 m wide and c. 1 m deep. Mammal protection measures will be incorporated into the working method, typically involving the provision of a means of escape from the trench such as a plank of wood. All excavated soils will be replaced in their correct order to maintain the soil profile. Any field drains cut during the digging of the trench will be properly repaired to ensure no long term interruption to agricultural field drainage schemes.

2.4.28 Commissioning of the ADP is anticipated to take place during the first half of 2015 with the digestion process gradually built-up over a period of weeks.

Operational Phase

2.4.29 The proposed ADP is anticipated to be fully operational by the second half of 2015. It will operate 24 hours/day and for 7 days/week, and will be staffed during normal working hours (08:00 h – 17:30 h) and remotely monitored outside this time. It is estimated that the plant will operate for approximately 94 % of the time with the remainder used for servicing and maintenance, or if there is power cut in the local area. The main activities at the site will include the delivery of feedstock and export of digestate, and daily monitoring and maintenance operations. Key operational activities are described below in relation to the appraisal of landscape and visual amenity, cultural heritage, ecology and odour.

Feedstock Sources and Storage

2.4.30 The proposed feedstock will comprise silage crops, poultry and livestock manures, and food and drink wastes. All food wastes will be Non-Animal-By-Product (Non- ABPR) containing food wastes which means that they will contain no meat or fish, and must have been kept separately form meat and fish. The plant will be fed by a total of 35,000 tonnes of feedstock per annum, as shown in Table 2.1.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Table 2.1: Likely Composition, Quantities and Sources of Feedstock Feedstock Description Quantity Crop Feedstock Maize silage, Grass Cuttings, Energy 17,500 tonnes Beet and Whole Crop Rye sourced from Stoneleigh Park and local farms. Poultry and Poultry Muck, Cattle Slurry and 4000 tonnes Livestock Manure Manures sourced from local livestock farms Non-Animal-By- Fruit Pumice, Coffee Processing 13,500 tonnes Product Wastes, Vegetable Processing containing (Non- Wastes, De Packaged Food and ABPR) food drink, source-separated non ABPR wastes food waste from catering at Stoneleigh Park

2.4.31 Approximately 40 ha of land on the Stoneleigh Park Estate will be used to grow maize silage as part of the existing arable crop rotation. This will produce 1700 tonnes of the feedstock on site. In addition all grass cuttings from the main Stoneleigh Park site and car parks will be stored as silage. It is estimated that 10 to 15 local farms will provide the remaining quantities of grown crops for the ADP. The arable crops will be stored within the three silage clamps which will each have dimensions of c. 80 m x 20 m each.

2.4.32 Poultry manure will be transported and stored in a dry and covered manner to avoid any release of unwanted odour. Storage may be utilised either in the internal bays of the reception building or in the silage clamps under cover.

2.4.33 There will be three liquid feedstock reception tanks to separately house liquid animal slurries and liquid food processing wastes and de-packaged drinks This will allow the operator to have complete control of how a specific material is blended with other feedstock and fed into the process, which is vital for maintaining a balanced and healthy digester.

Deliveries

2.4.34 The main silage deliveries to the site will occur over the summer months using both farm and HGV-articulated tractors and trailers when harvested crops need to be brought to the site for appropriate storage to avoid a reduction in the quality of AD feedstock. Such deliveries will be determined to some extent by the prevailing weather conditions which can affect the optimum period for harvesting which is usually undertaken on a campaign basis. Harvesting is likely to result in a greater concentration of vehicle movements at specific times.

2.4.35 Vehicle movements involving both deliveries to and collections from the site would result in a worst case scenario of 38 trips per day (19 two-way movements) or 5 per hour evenly distributed over an 8 hour working day typically Monday-Friday (occasionally on weekends during harvest time). A more typical profile reflecting the both the potential campaign nature and 24-hour working of crop harvesting and digestate collection would be represented by 168 trips per day, or 10-11 per hour at certain times of the year. As a very worst case scenario a total of 33 trips per hour would result for a very limited period of time. Peak-hour traffic would be avoided where possible. A traffic assessment undertaken by Entran has been included with the planning application.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd Anaerobic Digestion Process

2.4.36 Most solid waste material will be shredded/macerated within the reception building and then pumped to digestion Tank 1 or transferred to the feedhopper which will discharge to Tank 1. The silage will be moved from the clamp to the feed hopper using a telescopic loader or loading shovel. Poultry manure would be loaded from its storage location (either the reception building or the silage clamp) into the feed hopper with a loading shovel, and covered immediately with silage as is the practice for any solid material that might have a different odour to the silage. Liquids and non-ABPR food waste will be pumped directly from their storage locations to Tank 1. The use of these techniques will ensure that the majority of material movements will occur in an enclosed environment.

2.4.37 The feedstock will then pass through a three stage digestion process which will take approximately 75 days. During this time biogas will be collected and stored in Tanks 2 and 3 and digestate will be collected and removed through an enclosed system between tanks.

Digestate

2.4.38 Once fully digested the odourless digestate will be removed from the digesters as a slurry then de-watered and separated into liquid and solid digestate. The solid digestate will be discharged by a solids separator into a trailer, which can be parked directly underneath the outlet. The solid digestate can then be transported to and stored on the land where it will be spread. The liquid digestate will be pumped to and stored for at least 3 months within the existing slurry storage tank in Kings Wood. Further digestate storage will be arranged off-site at farms where the material is going to be spread to land in accordance with the needs of crop rotations and Environment Agency requirements.

Biogas, Electricity and Heat Generation

2.4.39 The proposed ADP has a capacity of 1.5 MW of electrical energy/hour The majority of the biogas will exported to the grid via a 7-bar high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe which will be routed as shown in Figure 1.2. The grid operates at a high pressure and the proposed development will include pressurisation pumps and a ROV which will turn off the biogas export if the pressure of the flow is too low. Prior to export to the grid the generated biogas will be cleaned and an odour additive applied.

2.4.40 The capacity of the CHP plant will be determined depending on how much electricity is needed for Stoneleigh Park. The CHP will run continuously although when the demand from the Park is lower electricity generation will be reduced and more biogas will be exported.

2.4.41 Biogas will be pumped to the CHP unit where it will be burnt to drive an electricity generator which will also produce heat. The primary purpose of the electricity production will be to distribute electricity to the tenants of the Stoneleigh Park site by private wire, although there will be a connection which enables electricity to feed into the mains distribution grid where supply exceeds local demand. The CHP will also provide the parasitic load to run the plant and provide heat for the digester, when needed.

2.4.42 The remaining gas will be cleaned to 96 % purity in the gas processing unit, tested and then injected into the pipe connection to the main grid.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd Odour Control

2.4.43 Anaerobic digestion is a fully contained process carried out without oxygen in order to capture gas. Odour will not be released from the plant itself. Odour control will be implemented both in relation to the type of feedstock permitted and its storage and handling, and with respect to the treatment of biogas and digestate generated from the AD process. An odour assessment has been included within this report.

2.4.44 Non-ABPR food wastes have a greatly reduced odour compared to kerbside collected food waste. Poultry muck will be stored in a dry and covered manner to avoid odour nuisance. During feedstock handling any solid material that might have a different odour to the silage would be loaded into the hopper and then covered with ‘normal’ silage.

2.4.45 All solid food waste will be taken into the reception building which will be tall enough to enable lorries to tip within the building thereby containing odour release internally. Building doors will be designed to shut quickly and air from the solid waste reception building will be kept at negative pressure and will pass through a bio-filter before being released.

2.4.46 All material in liquid reception tanks and much of the shredded and macerated solid feedstock would be pumped directly into the digester thereby avoiding the need to be exposed to the external environment. The upgraded gas will be injected into the gas grid and will not be burnt on site. The main emission to air from the process is CO2 which is odourless.

2.4.47 Treatments will be employed to remove sulphur from the biogas, and thus minimise hydrogen sulphide and, following combustion in the CHP plant sulphur dioxide, both of which are potentially odourous pollutants. This will involve oxygen injection into the biogas as well as subsequently passing the biogas through an activated charcoal filter and a pressure membrane system to clean it further.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

3. Landscape and Visual Amenity

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Ecus Ltd. has been commissioned by Material Change (Ltd) to undertake an assessment of landscape and visual effects of the proposed development for an anaerobic digester and associated infrastructure at a site near King’s Wood approximately 1.5 km to the north of the centre of Stoneleigh Park. Chapter 2 provides the project description on which this assessment is based.

3.2 Methodology

Consultations

3.2.1 Warwickshire District Council (WDC) and Warwickshire County Council (WCC) were consulted during the assessment to identify potential landscape and visual sensitivities, the extent of the study area and viewpoint locations.

3.2.2 Senior Planning Officer Penny Butler at WDC commented that the viewpoint locations seemed appropriate and that photomontages from viewpoints 1, 2 and 4 would be useful in assessing potential effects.

3.2.3 A review of English Heritage (EH) data including Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments (SMs) was undertaken. Natural England National Landscape Character Areas (NLCAs) and County Landscape Character Assessments (LCAs) for Warwickshire were reviewed.

Overview

3.2.4 The methodology used to carry out the landscape and visual assessment is based on best practice guidance as set out in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact (GLVIA) Third Edition by The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013) and is summarised in Appendix 3.1.

3.2.5 As a full EIA is not required for this development, the scope of the LVIA is reduced. Whilst an EIA assessment identifies ‘significant’ effects in the context of the EIA Regulations, this assessment will identify the likely scale of landscape and visual effects to consider any potential conflicts with landscape planning policy objectives and to identify important effects that require special consideration for the design and mitigation of the scheme.

3.2.6 As the proposed scheme is not an EIA development, the term ‘significance’ is not used in the landscape and visual appraisal to assess landscape and visual effects. The LVIA determines the importance of effects to determine if these would be a material consideration for the planning application.

3.2.7 The assessment of landscape and visual impacts are undertaken separately as outlined in the GLVIA guidance; however the results of one inform the other. Components of the landscape are identified that are likely to be affected by the scheme i.e. overall character and key characteristics, individual elements and features and specific aesthetic or perceptual aspects. The interaction between these landscape receptors and the proposed scheme are then considered at different stages, including construction, operation and decommission stages.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd 3.2.8 The landscape and visual assessment is effectively divided into five stages:  Identification of existing or ‘baseline’ landscape resource and visual amenity.  Project description and design.  Identification of interactions between the proposal and landscape and visual receptors and description of likely effects and assessment of likely landscape and visual effects.  Proposed measures to mitigate adverse effects.  Final statement of residual landscape and visual effects following mitigation and identification of any residual significant effects.

3.2.9 The main potential landscape and visual effects to be considered include the following:  Landscape Effects: Effects on landscape character and quality (condition, intactness, scenic quality), individual components of the landscape, landscape patterns and elements.  Visual Effects: the effect of the development on views, the viewers and the overall effect on Visual Amenity. Effects on the perception of users of the region; and effects on views from designations and their settings.

Baseline Assessment Landscape Receptors

3.2.10 Landscape receptors that could be affected by the scheme include the following:  Physical resources such as landform, trees, hedges, field boundaries, tracks, watercourses, settlement pattern;  Aesthetic and perceptual qualities of the landscape that contribute to overall character such as scale and enclosure, landscape pattern, tranquillity and quality/ condition of the landscape;  Landscape character areas and types;  Landscape and cultural heritage designations, such as parks and gardens on the English Heritage Register and other cultural heritage interests that contribute to landscape character. Visual Receptors

3.2.11 Visual receptors which could be affected by the development include the following:  Residents in their homes.  Recreational users e.g. walkers, cyclists or horse riders.  Tourists or visitors.  Employees at their workplace.  Road users.

3.2.12 The sensitivity of landscape and visual receptors is judged by considering both the susceptibility to the generic change of the type shared by the development in question combined with a judgement of value attached to the landscape receptor or particular views. Sensitivity of the receptor is described as high, medium or low.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd 3.2.13 Existing baseline landscape character assessments refer to sensitivity without reference to a particular type of development. Intrinsic sensitivity is derived from the condition of elements and features in the landscape, value placed on the landscape (e.g. for scenic quality, rarity, representiveness of a particular character, conservation interests, recreation value, perceptual aspects and associations, see Appendix 3.1) and importance such as designated landscapes. However a general assessment of sensitivity cannot be used reliably to inform the assessment of the susceptibility to change since the baseline character assessments do not relate to the specific nature of the proposed development.

3.2.14 Susceptibility to change and value are combined into an overall assessment of sensitivity for each receptor to the type of change resulting from the proposed scheme.

3.2.15 Sensitivity of visual receptors is assessed in terms of susceptibility to change in views and visual amenity and the value attached to particular views.

3.2.16 Susceptibility to visual change is mainly a function of the occupation or activity of people experiencing the view in particular locations and the extent to which their attention is focused on views and the visual amenity they experience at particular locations.

3.2.17 The visual receptors most susceptible to change (and therefore likely to be more sensitive to the proposed scheme) include residents, those engaged in outdoor recreation whose attention is likely to be more focussed on the view, visitors to heritage assets and communities where views contribute to the landscape setting enjoyed by residents in the area.

3.2.18 Generic susceptibility to visual change is mainly a function of the occupation or activity of people experiencing the view in particular locations and the extent to which their attention is focused on views and the visual amenity they experience at particular locations. The visual receptors most susceptible to change (and therefore likely to be more sensitive to the proposed scheme) include residents, those engaged in outdoor recreation whose attention is likely to be more focussed on the view, visitors to heritage assets and communities where views contribute to the landscape setting enjoyed by residents in the area.

Magnitude of Change

3.2.19 The degree that a scheme would change the baseline situation is referred to in LVIA as magnitude of change. Magnitude is derived from considering the susceptibility of the receptor and the predicted scale/ size of change, geographical extent of effect and duration of effect and is described on a scale of none, negligible, low, medium and high. For the purposes of the assessment, duration of effect is described as short-term (0-5 years), medium-term (5 to 10 years) and long-term (10 - 25 years+). The nature of effect can be adverse, neutral or beneficial and reversible or irreversible.

3.2.20 The geographical extent of effects are described on the following scales:  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.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd  On a larger scale, influencing several landscape types or character areas.

3.2.21 The geographical extent of visual effects will vary depending on angle of view, distance from the viewpoint to the proposed development and the extent of the area over which the changes would be visible and is described for each receptor affected.

3.2.22 Susceptibility of a receptor to the change resulting from the specific type and proposed location of the development is assessed by considering the ability of the landscape/visual receptor to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation and/or the achievement of planning policies or landscape strategies.

3.2.23 Magnitude of landscape effects take into account the following:  The extent 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 case these may be quantified.  The degree to which aesthetic or perceptual aspects of the landscape are altered.  Whether the effect changes the key characteristic of the landscape, which are critical to its distinctive character.

3.2.24 Magnitude of visual effects take into account the following:  The scale of the change in the view with respect of the loss or addition of features in the view and changes in its composition, including proportion of the view occupied by the proposed development.  The degree of contrast or integration of new features or changes in the landscape with the existing or remaining landscape elements and characteristics in terms of form, scale, mass, line, 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.

Importance of Effect

3.2.25 Fundamental to the Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVIA) as a whole is the evaluation of the sensitivity of the receptor combined with a judgement of the magnitude of change. It is the consideration of these criteria together that allows a judgement to be made as the nature and level of the landscape or visual effect and a determination of the scale of these effects.

3.2.26 The following scale is used to judge to importance of effect: none, negligible, slight, slight-moderate, moderate, moderate-major and major. Any effects that are judged to be moderate-major or major are judged to be important and material to the planning application.

3.2.27 Where effects are considered to be important and adverse, proposals to avoid, reduce or offset the effects is described (referred to as mitigation). The GLVIA clearly moves away from a standard approach or ‘matrix’ used for combining sensitivity and magnitude to make judgments of effects. Further detailed methodology is provided in Appendix 3.1.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd Timescale for the Assessment

3.2.28 The landscape and visual assessment has been undertaken for the following scenarios and timescales;  Construction Phase: construction activities and temporary works, removal of landscape features to facilitate the development and construction activities associated with buildings, structures and associated infrastructure. The timescale for construction is assumed to be short-term (anticipated to be 12 months).  Year of Operation: completion of the development and presence of new buildings, structures and infrastructure,, initial landscape planting and operational activities associated with the development.  Future Year of Operation: 10 years following year of operation. This timescale assumes continues operation and maturing of landscape planting.

Extent of the Study Area

3.2.29 A judgement has been made on the potential geographical extent of any important effects based on the extent of visibility of the proposals, the distribution of landscape designations and the distribution of sensitive receptors. The study area has been established by ascertaining the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) as shown by Figures 3.2 and 3.3. A judgement has been made on the geographical extent of any potentially important effects based on the extent of visibility of the proposals and a core area of 2.5 km has been the focus for the assessment.

3.2.30 This appraisal found that the primary factors setting the extent of the study area are the following:  A 2.5 km study area encompasses the higher land in either direction of the site, beyond which visibility would be limited by landform.  The existing views are limited by the screening properties of vegetation and edges of settlements.  The most sensitive receptors are located within 2 km of the Application Areas.

Field Survey Method

3.2.31 The field survey was carried out on in November 2013 by a Chartered Landscape Architect when vegetation was partially in leaf. Viewpoints for the assessment were located on publicly accessible land.

Distances

3.2.32 Where distances are given in the assessment, these are distances between the site centre of the Application Area and the nearest part of the receptor in question, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Graphic Techniques

3.2.33 The method used to create photographs followed The Landscape Institutes best practice guidance Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11), and the GLVIA.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

3.3 Planning Policy and Legislation

National Planning Policy

3.3.1 National planning policy in relation to landscape is contained within the recently adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2012).

3.3.2 The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England. The following policies are of relevance to this landscape and visual assessment:  9. Protecting the Green Belt;  10. Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change;  11. Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment, and;  12. Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment.

3.3.3 Paragraph 98 states: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.”

3.3.4 Part 9 Protecting Green Belt Land sets out the Government’s commitment to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and states the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

3.3.5 Paragraph 91 states: “When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources”.

3.3.6 Part 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change sets out the Government’s strategy to plan for a low carbon future. This policy requires local planning authorities to adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk, coastal change and water supply and demand considerations.

3.3.7 Section 11 paragraph 109 states: “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:  “protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;  minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible.”

3.3.8 Paragraph 118 states: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:  aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd  opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.”

3.3.9 Relevant policies pertaining to the historic environment are outlined in the Cultural Heritage chapter (Chapter 4).

Local Planning Policy

3.3.10 The development site is located within the northern part of Warwick district, within the central part of Warwickshire County.

3.3.11 The current development policy framework for the site and its immediate context comprises the Warwick District Local Plan (1996-2011) Saved Policies (September 2010) and relevant landscape policies are outlined in Table 3.1 below.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd Table 3.1: Local Planning Policy Policy Details DAP 3 Protecting Nature This policy applies to King’s Wood within the Application Area and states: “Development will be strongly resisted Conservation, Geology that will destroy or adversely affect the following locally important sites/features:- and Geomorphology b) designated Ancient Woodlands. In assessing the effect of development on a nature conservation or geological/ geomorphological site in relation to b), c), d) and e), proposals will not be permitted unless the applicant can demonstrate that consideration has been given to any mitigation and compensatory measures proposed that take account of the importance of the site/species, the extent to which ecological, geological or geomorphological impact is minimised, the nature of the measures proposed, and proposed long term management of features/sites/habitats of ecological/ geological/ geomorphological importance”. SSP2 Major The development of the anaerobic digester and associated infrastructure is outside of the MDS boundary, whilst Development Sites in the the electricity and heat connection within Stoneleigh Park is within the MDS boundary. Green Belt “Within the following major developed sites within the Green Belt, as defined on the Proposals Map, appropriate limited infilling and redevelopment for employment or other uses identified in the supporting text as being appropriate for each site will be permitted:- Stoneleigh Park in accordance with policy SSP3. The Green Belt within Warwick District contains a number of substantial established developments, many of which pre-date the town and country planning system. Government policy recognises the presence of these and provides a framework for some development to take place within them where this would help secure jobs and prosperity and improve the environment of the Green Belt. Stoneleigh Business Park. This 21 hectare site lies within Stoneleigh Deer Park which is a grade II historic park designated on the English Heritage Register. During World War Two land was levelled and a military hospital established within the Park. Since the War this collection of buildings has had a range of uses and now forms the Stoneleigh Business Park. The redevelopment of this site offers the opportunity to reinstate the landforms of the historic park and replace the presently incongruous buildings with some of a higher quality, and to a design and location appropriate to a Green Belt setting. Following the production of Supplementary Planning Guidance in 1999, planning permission has now been given for the redevelopment of the business park.” SSP3 Stoneleigh This policy relates to the proposal within Stoneleigh Park. This policy states: Business Park “Development will only be permitted at the Stoneleigh Park where it consists of uses related to the promotion of agriculture and associated activities, equestrianism and the well-being of the countryside and its inhabitants.” DP1 Layout and Design “Development will only be permitted which positively contributes to the character and quality of its environment through good layout and design.” Those parts of the policy relevant to the proposed development include: b) relate well to local topography and landscape features, including prominent ridge lines; d) reflect, respect and reinforce local architectural and historical distinctiveness;

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd Policy Details e) enhance and incorporate important existing features into the development; f) respect surrounding buildings in terms of scale, height, form and massing; g) adopt appropriate materials and details.” DP2 Amenity “Development will not be permitted which has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users/occupiers of the development.” DP3 Natural and Historic “Development will only be permitted which protects important natural features and positively contributes to the Environment and character and quality of its natural and historic environment through good habitat/landscape design and Landscape management. Development proposals will be expected to demonstrate that the: a) protect and/or enhance local ecology, including existing site features of nature conservation value; b) protect and/or enhance features of historical, archaeological, geological and geomorphological significance; c) protect and enhance the landscape character of the area, particularly respecting its historic character; d) provide appropriate levels of amenity space which incorporate suitable habitat features and hard and soft landscaping; e) integrate the amenity space and proposed landscaping into the overall development; f) secure the long term management and maintenance of habitat/landscape features; and g) protect best and most versatile agricultural land. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, the Council may consider possible mitigation measures to reduce any harm caused by these adverse impacts. Where mitigation measures are not possible, compensation measures may be appropriate. The results of the programme of Historic Landscape Characterisation to be undertaken by Warwickshire Museum will need to be taken into account when assessing the impact of development proposals on the historic landscape. DP5 Density “Development will only be permitted which makes the best use of land and buildings. Maximising the use of land and buildings is important in avoiding the unnecessary development of green field land. It is also important in ensuring that buildings are kept fully operational and in a good state of repair.” DAP 3 Protecting Nature “Development will not be permitted which will destroy or adversely affect the following sites of national Conservation, Geology importance:- and geomorphology b) designated Ancient Woodlands. Currently designated sites are shown on the Proposals Map; d) any other sites subject to a local ecological or geological/ geomorphological designation unless the applicant can demonstrate that the benefits of the proposal significantly outweigh the ecological/ geological/ geomorphological importance of the area; e) protected, rare, endangered or other wildlife species of conservation importance.” The following policies are relevant to the wider study area: DAP 4 Protection of “Development will not be permitted that will adversely affect the setting of a listed building.” Listed buildings

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd Policy Details DAP 8 Protection of “Development will also be expected to respect the setting of Conservation Areas and important views both in and Conservation Areas out of them.” DAP11 Protecting “Development will not be permitted if it would harm the historic structure, character, principal components and Historic parks and setting of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest included in the English Heritage Register, as defined on Gardens the Proposals Map. Development will be strongly resisted if it would harm the historic structure, character, principal components and setting of locally important historic parks or gardens included in the Warwick District Local Register.”

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

3.4 Baseline Conditions

3.4.1 This Section identifies the existing characteristics of the landscape and visual amenity and identifies potentially sensitive receptors within the context of the proposals that may experience important changes resulting from the proposed scheme.

3.4.2 The broad landscape context of the Application Area (hereon referred to as ‘the Site’) and distribution of landscape designations and landscape character is illustrated in Figure 3.1. The following section first describes the characteristics of the wider study area and then the local context and the site.

Geomorphology

3.4.3 The wider landscape context is shown on Figure 3.1. The 2.5 km study area is characterised by undulating rolling landform ranging in elevation from 60-90 m where there are few dramatic physical features. The majority of the study area is underlain by solid strata of the Ashow Formation, of Permian age. The north and north western part of the study area is underlain by solid strata comprising the Kenilworth Sandstone Formation, composed of mudstones with outcrops of sandstones. The sandstone outcrop forms a high point of 80-90 m AoD near Kenilworth. North west of the Site land forms a broad low ridge at King’s Hill at 85 m AoD.

3.4.4 The River Avon forms a lower lying corridor south to north east of the study area, at an elevation of approximately 60-70 m AoD and the proposed pipeline route will cross the river corridor. The River Avon is formally designated as the River Avon LWS for its varied geomorphology.

3.4.5 Finham Brook lies approximately 0.4 km north of the site and forms a low lying vale between Kenilworth and Coventry at approximately 62 m AoD.

3.4.6 The site area west of King’s Wood lies on a field at 76 to 77 m AoD that gently slopes to the south and east. The site is adjacent to three ponds to the west of the application area.

Land cover and Land use The Study Area

3.4.7 The study area is predominantly rural where parkland and ancient woodland are characteristic features of farmland landscape. The natural vegetation is thought to have consisted of dense broadleaved woodland dominated by oak on the lighter sandy soils and lime on the heavier clay soils. Grassland and wood pasture are remnant within parkland and river floodplain, however many areas of former parkland have been taken into intensive agricultural production and old parkland trees frequently stand isolated and dying within arable fields.

3.4.8 The woodland pattern is characterised by these scattered mature field trees, frequent small to medium sized woodland copses and linear belts associated with roads, watercourses, golf courses and parkland. Mixed and broadleaved woodlands are characteristic and hedged field boundaries are common.

3.4.9 The local context of the site has a well vegetated character. Established native trees and shrub belts flank the A46 north of the site and roadside vegetation to

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd Stoneleigh Road and the B4115 typically comprises overgrown mixed species hedgerows, typically 3-4 m in height with infrequent gaps in places.

3.4.10 Stoneleigh Abbey is an example of a medieval deer park and 18th and 19th century ornamental parkland. Parkland areas have been converted to golf courses, evident at Stoneleigh Deer Park and Kenilworth.

3.4.11 Abbey Park is an employment site and allocated in the local plan as a major developed site, located south east of the site within the Stoneleigh Park Deer Park. Stoneleigh Park (defined as Stoneleigh Business park and a major development site in the local plan) is a located approximately 0.8km south of the site and the proposed pipeline route extends into the northern area.

3.4.12 Other significant non-agricultural land-uses in the area include Finham sewerage works, located on St. Martin’s Road 1.3 km north-west of the site on the river corridor. The Site

3.4.13 The total application area including the proposed pipeline is 4.88 ha. The main development site proposed for built development occupies 3.4 ha of land west of King’s Wood and includes the immediate area adjacent the existing agriculture silo is located in King’s Wood. The fields within the application area comprise were under a crop rotation and at the time of survey and appeared to have been recently ploughed and harrowed and sown as improved grassland.

3.4.14 The proposed pipeline route extends north flanking Stoneleigh Road extending to the A629 Kenilworth Road. The proposed pipeline route extends south of the area proposed for built development, aligned to the field boundary immediately south of the main development area before branching south west towards Crewe Farm and south to follow the field boundary to join the B4115 to join Gate 3 of Stoneleigh Park. Within Stoneleigh Park the proposed pipeline route extends south into the site following existing access roads.

3.4.15 King’s Wood is designated as an Ancient Replanted Woodland and therefore is of high value. It is a mixed woodland, 1.9 ha in size, with approximately 40 % tree cover comprising Scot’s Pine (Pinus sylvestris), pendunculate oak, (Quercus robur), common beech (Fagus sylvatica), European larch (Larix europea), and sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa). The woodland has a dense shrub layer that consists of elder (Sambucus nigra), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and young Scot’s Pine and silver birch (Betula pendula). A small number of trees are scattered through the hedged boundaries and comprise Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and pendunculate oak.

3.4.16 Although the interior of this woodland is dominated by conifers, the belt of broadleaved trees at the periphery of Kings Wood can be described as lowland mixed deciduous woodland, which is a habitat of principle importance (refer to Chapter 5). Several of the trees comprising the broadleaved woodland are veterans and have historical and ecological importance as key characteristics of the Arden parklands landscape character.

3.4.17 A second area of woodland lies immediately to the south of the B4115. Species include common lime (Tilia x europaea), birch, oak and hazel.

3.4.18 A third section of woodland outwith the application boundary appears to have been planted as screening planting for the A46 and is located near to Crewe Farm.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd 3.4.19 There are numerous scattered trees within the hedgerows which are described in detail in the hedgerow section above. An avenue of early mature small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata) line the avenue approach into Stoneleigh Park from the bridge to Gate 3. These trees are in a double row with the western row growing as standards in a box flailed hawthorn dominated hedgerow. To the east of the double row of limes is a strip of trees, which are side flailed on the edge closest to the avenue. The strip of trees includes common lime, beech, guelder rose (Viburnum opulus) hawthorn and blackthorn. These trees will provide a positive visual amenity for future visitors to Stoneleigh Park when the access improvements (associated with a separate planning application) are implemented.

3.4.20 Whilst the application area supports broadleaved mature trees and mixed plantation woodland, these are considered to be of local scale of importance for nature conservation, however positively contribute to the Arden Parklands landscape character and are visually significant providing localised visual screening of the site. Mature oaks and ancient woodland blocks are key characteristics of the Arden Parklands landscape character area.

3.4.21 Twelve hedgerows are located within the application area (refer to Figure 3.5) and are described in detail in the Ecological Assessment in Chapter 5. Nine of these hedgerows are classified as species poor and are mainly dominated by hawthorn, whereas Hedgerows H8 and H11 are dominated by blackthorn (Prunus spinosa). The species rich hedgerows comprise hazel (Corylus avellana), beech, hawthorn, blackthorn, oak, elder, hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), holly (Ilex aquifolium), osier (Salix viminali), field maple (Acer campestre) with mature beech, oak and field maple standards.

3.4.22 Hedgerows 4, 5 and 12 are considered to be species rich and therefore qualify as ‘important hedgerows’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 under the biodiversity and landscape criteria. The hedgerow network within the study area, including species poor hedgerows, is collectively considered to be of at least local value to nature conservation. All mature hedgerows are key characteristics of the Arden Parklands landscape character.

3.4.23 Four ponds are located within the vicinity of the application area outwith the site to the west of the site. Great crested newts are present in the three ponds to the northwest of the application area comprising Ponds 1, 2 and 3 (see Figure 3.5).

3.4.24 The River Avon is a designated Local Wildlife Site designated for the known presence of protected and notable species in and around the river channel 9refer to the Ecological Assessment, Chapter 5).

Settlements and Communications

3.4.25 The Cultural Heritage chapter (Chapter 4) describes the historic pattern of human development in the area.

3.4.26 Settlement in the local context is generally dispersed and related to agricultural development. The application area is located within 1 km of the historic village of Stoneleigh and the north west fringe of the village is located within the ZTV ‘with screening’ (Figure 3.3). Whilst in the ZTV, Gibbet Hill and Baginton have been scoped out of the assessment as orientated away from the site and screened by localised vegetation.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd 3.4.27 The larger settlements of Coventry and Kenilworth at the wider extents of the study area originated more recently from the time of the industrial revolution. Again, these settlements lie outside of the ZTV ‘with screening’ and have been scoped out of the assessment.

3.4.28 The site is bounded by the A46 to the north west and Stoneleigh Road to the north east. The B4115 is located beyond King’s Wood 0.4 km south east of the site centre. The site is accessed from Stoneleigh Road.

3.4.29 The Coventry-Leamington Spa railway line crosses the north and west of the study area three to four kilometres from the Application site, passing through Gibbet Hill and Kenilworth.

3.4.30 The long distance footpath of the Centenary and Coventry Way (W157) is located along Stoneleigh Road at the site boundary, connecting Kenilworth to Stoneleigh and Stareton village. Footpath W158 connects the B4115 and Stoneleigh Village. These footpaths are shown on Figures 3.1 and Figure 3.5.

Recreation

3.4.31 The Centenary and Coventry Way long distance footpath and Wainbody Wood, a Local Nature Reserve with walks and bridleways, in addition to other local Public Rights of Way are an important recreational resource.

3.4.32 The following public footpaths are within the ZTV and c. 1 km of the site: W157 (c. 0 km along the north east boundary), W158 (c. 0.26 km south east) and W157 (c. 0.92 km south east).

3.4.33 Stoneleigh Abbey is an important visitor attraction in the area where the gardens and parkland are open from Spring to Autumn.

3.4.34 There are golf courses in the area: Stoneleigh Deer Park Golf course is located c. 1.7 km to the south east, Kenilworth Golf Course c. 0.5 km to the south west and Coventry Golf Course c. 1.9 km to the north west.

Designations

3.4.35 Cultural heritage assets within the 2.5 km study area are shown by Figure 3.1. The following heritage assets were identified as being located within the ZTV ‘with screening’ and visibility has been verified on site for the detailed assessment.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd Table 3.2 Cultural Heritage Assets within the ZTV Site List Name Grade/ Type Sensitivity Approx. Number Distance to Site 1106225 King’s Hill Grade II listed High 1.1 km building 1106225 King’s Hill Scheduled High 1.2 km Monument 1005724 King’s Hill Scheduled High 1.2 km Monument Stoneleigh Conservation High 0.5 km Area

Landscape Character National Landscape Character

3.4.36 At a national level, the ‘Character of England Landscape, Wildlife and Cultural Features’ produced by the former Countryside Agency (now Natural England) and English Heritage, subdivides England into 159 National Character Areas (NCAs). This map groups areas of similar landscape character to provide a spatial framework at the national scale.

3.4.37 These NCAs provide background and context to more detailed landscape character assessments produced at county and district level. Their broad geographic reach means that the key characteristics identified as typical of a particular character area may not necessarily apply to a specific location within that character area.

3.4.38 The NCAs of the 2.5 km study area are shown by Figure 3.1. The site and majority of the study area lies within NCA 97 Arden Parklands. NCA 96 Dunsmore and Feldon lies approximately 2 km west and north west of the site.

3.4.39 The NCA boundaries broadly correspond with the district level landscape character assessment that has been undertaken for Warwickshire County. Warwickshire Landscape Project (Warwickshire County Council)

3.4.40 The NCAs broadly correspond with the Regional Character Areas (RCAs) that have common physical, historic ecological and historic associations. These RCAs are characterised as:  Arden: an historic region of historic wood pasture and heath characterised by dispersed settlement pattern, ancient woodlands and mature hedgerow oaks;  Dunsmore: a well wooded and in places urbanised region characterised by low glacial plateaus, sandy soils and remnant heathland vegetation.

3.4.41 Within the RCAs, local landscape types (LLTs) are defined where types of countryside have a unity of character due to particular combinations of landform and land cover. The Warwickshire Landscape Project sets out management guidelines specific to LLTs as this provides an appropriate level of detail specific to landscape type i.e. for land use, field boundaries, trees and woodlands.

3.4.42 The following LLTs are located in the study area:

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Arden: Arden Parklands

3.4.43 Overall character and qualities: An enclosed, gently rolling landscape defined by woodland edges, parkland and belts of trees.

3.4.44 Characteristic features include:  Middle distance views enclosed by woodland edge.  Belts of mature trees associated with estate lands.  Wooded enclosure created by ancient woodlands, often with irregular outlines and belts of trees defining the scale and character of the landscape.  Mature hedgerows, oaks and ancient woodland blocks are characteristic, with remnants of wood pasture within parkland.  Large country houses set in mature parkland.  Remnant deer parks with ancient pollarded oaks.  Thick roadside hedgerows, often with bracken.  Range of historical and ecological features create a strong sense of place. Dunsmore: Plateau Fringe

3.4.45 Overall character and qualities: A rather variable, often large scale farmed landscape with a varied undulating topography and characterised by a nucleated settlement pattern of small, often shrunken villages.

3.4.46 Characteristic features:  An undulating topography of low rounded hills and narrow meandering river valleys.  Large, arable fields, often with a poorly defined field pattern.  Pockets of permanent pasture and smaller hedged fields, usually associated with more steeply sloping ground.  A nucleated settlement pattern typically comprising loose clusters of dwellings.  Isolated, brick built farmsteads. Historic Landscape

3.4.47 Extensive woodland cover probably remained over the area into the Anglo-Saxon period, perhaps as late as the 11th century, with subsequent clearance and enclosure for arable and stock. Many manorial deer parks were established in the 12th and 14th centuries and emparkment continued into the 15th century, the remnants of which accounts for much of the ancient wood pasture landscape seen today. Arden has many well known links with Shakespeare and the Elizabethan period.

3.4.48 Early woodland clearance in much of the Arden gave rise to small, irregular fields with thickly-hedged boundaries. Later enclosure of the deer parks produced larger, semi regular fields divided by straight hedges. Landscape Change and Trends

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd 3.4.49 The landscape has lost parkland to agriculture and urban development in recent years. Other forces for change that threaten the Arden Parklands landscape character include:  Rural character affected by ‘suburbanisation’, including inappropriate building materials and layouts for new development, ornamental planting and upgrading of minor roads;  Loss and deterioration of hedges, the former particularly as a result of field amalgamation, resulting in a more fragmented landscape.  There is a lack of young trees to replace the present ageing tree population, especially in hedges and small clumps.  There is a general lack of woodland management in many places, leading to deterioration, coupled with conversion from oak to faster-growing, often non- native, species.  Expansion at the edges of the smaller towns and Coventry, as well as around villages and hamlets;  Change in agriculture, as well as past management practices, have resulted in straightened river courses and a loss of wetland habitats. Landscape Sensitivity and Susceptibility to Type of Development

3.4.50 Whilst the presence of the existing silo in King’s Wood and similar type of storage at the sewerage works in the area set a precedent for this type of development, the open landscape and historic associations of the landscape and local hamlets and villages are highly sensitive to this type of change.

3.4.51 Frequent vegetation generally limits the extent of visibility and potential changes to the aesthetic and perceptual aspects of landscape character, although field boundaries and existing woodland would be sensitive to potential direct physical effects and disturbance during construction. Land-take of open countryside is sensitive to inappropriate development.

3.4.52 The landscape character is judged to be of medium sensitivity to this type of development as outlined in Table 3.3 below. Landscape Guidelines

3.4.53 The Warwickshire Landscape Project clearly outlines a landscape strategy and management guidelines for Arden Parkland LLT. These are summarised as:  Retain and enhance the effect of wooded enclosure ensuring the continuity of tree cover.  Retain planting to reflect the original design intentions of individual parks.  Conserve primary hedge lines to form key structural element in the landscape particularly where they contain mature hedgerow trees.  Allow hedgerows to grow thicker and taller (up to 2 m in height), strengthening individual gappy hedgerows and encourage natural regeneration of hedgerow oaks.  Identify opportunities for re-establishing heathland on suitable sites.  Species selection along woodland edges should favour native trees and shrubs.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd  Enhance tree cover through the planting of new woodlands and belts of trees paying particular attention to the location and shape of new planting and the space it encloses.

3.4.54 Detailed guidelines including appropriate plant species are contained in Appendix 3.2.

3.4.55 Table 3.3 below outlines key characteristics of the Site landscape character and assesses the overall sensitivity to the type of proposed development. Views of the existing site are shown by Figure 3.15.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Table 3.3 Landscape Sensitivity Key Characteristic of Susceptibility Value of Sensitivity Description Arden Parklands LCA to Type of Receptor Change Landform, Drainage and Medium Medium Medium Flat gently sloping landform. Three ponds within the south west part Waterbodies of the site. Ecological value of ponds as Great Crested Newt habitat. Landcover/Existing Medium High High Agricultural landcover of semi-improved grassland is represented vegetation elsewhere and of limited value. Mature landscape elements (King’s Wood Replanted Ancient Woodland) and intact predominantly continuous hedgerows, with a moderate level of management make a high contribution to surrounding landscape character. Veteran trees, mature woodland and hedgerows are of importance to nature conservation and landscape character at the level of the Landscape Character Area in which the Site lies (Arden Parklands). Landscape pattern Medium Medium Medium Vegetated field boundaries and woodland create a well-defined landscape pattern. Land-use and Medium High High Positively contributes to rural character of Arden Parklands. management Settlement Medium High High Dispersed settlement in local context and few farmsteads. Historic Pattern/Transport Stoneleigh village is a sensitive receptor. A46 adjacent north west Network boundary and B4115 adjacent the north east boundary. Aesthetic and Medium Medium Medium Busy roads are characteristic but well screened by landform/ Perceptual Qualities vegetation. Trees and hedgerows positively contribute to the setting (scale, complexity, of long distance footpath. Large scale field, extensive and simple openness, tranquillity) agricultural rural character, little or no built development. Intervisibility/ Low Low Low Low intervisibility due to intervening vegetation. Relationship with Dunsmore Plateau Fringe Character Overall sensitivity Medium High Medium Site positively contributes to open rural character of a small assessment of Arden proportion of this LCA that is represented elsewhere. Existing mature Parklands LLT landscape elements (trees and hedgerows) are important features.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Visual Baseline

3.4.56 The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) illustrates the extent of potential visibility of the proposals and is illustrated by Figures 3.2 and 3.3. The ‘bare ground’ ZTV (Figure 3.2) does not take into account the localised screening effect of vegetation and buildings within the study area. As there is frequent vegetation cover in the study area, the ZTV has been further refined to take into account visual screening of significant blocks of woodland (refer to Figure 3.3). Viewpoint locations selected for consideration of effects on visual amenity are illustrated by Figure 3.4.

3.4.57 The visibility of the site has been checked in the field. Visibility is limited to the north west by the vegetated embankments of the A46. Vegetation along Stoneleigh Road and Public Footpath W157 generally limits visibility with the exception of a few localised gaps in the hedgerow near the field access. Views north towards the site from the B4115 are very limited with occasional views.

3.4.58 Six viewpoints have been selected for the visual appraisal based on the ZTV and baseline research. Visibility across the study area is governed by a combination of topography and the pattern of screening elements such as tree belts and hedges, in combination with the pattern of human use and settlement in the area.

3.4.59 The patterns of visibility are also affected by the sensitivity and numbers of receptors which afford views towards the site. Table 3.4 below provides a description of the existing viewpoints and those visual receptors represented by these viewpoints are listed. Table 3.4 Viewpoint Assessment View- Viewpoint Description Nature of Receptor Receptor point View Sensitivity Ref (Open, partial, filtered, glimpsed, none) 1 Stoneleigh Road Site Access Glimpsed Road user Low (c.0 km) (between The site is viewed as a flat hedgerow) Recreationa Medium open field, with King’s Wood is l User of block in the middle distance PRoW and hedged boundaries limit W157 views beyond the site. 2 B4115 (c.0.8 km) Glimpsed Road User Medium Glimpsed view over roadside (on (Route to hedgerow towards King’s localised Stoneleigh Wood in the distance. hill) Abbey) 3 Stoneleigh Park Access Filtered Road User Low Gate 3 (c. 0.5 km) The tops of trees within Kings Walkers High Wood are visible over roadside hedgerow, filtered view into fields south west where the pipeline route is proposed. 4 Public Right of Way W157 Open Walkers High North of Stoneleigh Village

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

View- Viewpoint Description Nature of Receptor Receptor point View Sensitivity Ref (Open, partial, filtered, glimpsed, none) View across flat open pasture towards hedged boundary to the B4115, with intermittent mature roadside trees and King’s Wood beyond. 5 Motslow Hill Open Registered High Elevated view from north Parkland facing ridge over Stoneleigh village to wooded countryside beyond. Industrial buildings and blocks of flats on the southern fringe of Finham on the skyline. 6 King’s Hill Open Scheduled High Elevated open view over Monument pasture and undulating countryside. Kings Wood Road users forms a small proportion of the listed in view on the skyline, vehicle table 3.6 movements are discernible in the foreground on Stoneleigh Road.

Cumulative Developments

3.4.60 The following development at Stoneleigh Park is considered relevant to the LVIA and is assessed as cumulative developments:  Upgrading of Gate 3 Access to Stoneleigh Park at the junction with the B4115 (Planning Application reference W/12/0229).

3.4.61 This planning application is to upgrade the entrance Gate 3 and to change its use as the main visitor entrance to Stoneleigh Park.

3.5 Assessment and Mitigation

3.5.1 The proposed development is shown in Figure 1.1 Site Location and Figure 1.2 Proposed Site Layout (based on Plandescil Consulting Engineers drawings 18156/002/ rev K and 18156/102/rev H) and these, in addition to the generation of photomontages, have been used to assess potential effects. Proposed mitigation is outlined below.

Potential Effects

3.5.2 In order to integrate mitigation into the proposals it is important to consider the potential generic effects that this proposal could cause and these are likely to be the following:

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

 Changes to key landscape characteristics e.g. removal of existing vegetation, addition of structural landscape.  Views of the new buildings.  Views of the storage clamps and ancillary structures.  Views of the new access road.

3.5.3 The appraisal of potential effects on landscape resource and visual amenity has been based on the description of the proposal as stated in Chapter 2.

3.5.4 Key proposals relevant to the assessment are:  An anaerobic digester unit and two digestate tanks located in silo like buildings located to the immediate west of Kings Wood would be 13 m high.  Primary digesters would be c.10.8 and 7.5m high above ground level.  The existing silo in Kings Wood will be used for storage of the liquid digestate produced from the AD process. Access to the existing tank would follow the existing cleared route.  Storage clamps 80 m x 20 m will be used for the storage of maize and grass crops, constructed with green (grassed or planted) banks to minimise visual impact, these would be 2.63 m high.  An access road will be constructed from Stoneleigh Road to the site to utilise the existing farm access gate. The access itself would have typical dimensions of 12 m radii and a 6.2 m carriageway width.  The proposed reception building would be 13.05 m high.  New pipework/cabling will be required between the anaerobic digester and the park itself along a similar route as the existing underground pipeline that already runs from Stoneleigh Park to Kings Wood.  A gas pipe connection is also proposed to Crewe Farm where a connection will be made to the National Grid gas mains.  Proposed vehicle movements for deliveries are detailed in the Transport Statement by Entran. The worst case would be 38 trips per day, or 5 per hour based on an 8 hour working day.

Considerations in Scheme Design

3.5.5 This appraisal has been undertaken on the assumption that the following mitigation is incorporated into the proposals:  Retention and protection of King’s Wood and Hedgerows 2 and 3 during the construction of the access road with an appropriate buffer and protection as outlined in the Tree Survey Report (Ecus Ltd, which accompanies the planning application documentation).  A c. 10 m native shrub and tree belt to the perimeter of the proposed site will be created and will include native evergreen tree species similar to King’s Wood which will implemented at the detailed design stage and could be secured through an appropriate planning condition.  Following installation the pipeline, hedgerows will be re-instated with appropriate native hedgerow species to ensure not net long-term loss of this resource.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

 Planting mitigation to be established in the first planting season following granting of any planning permission to ensure plants establish at an early stage to mitigate effects.  Any new planting should be appropriate for the local landscape character area, in accordance with guidelines for Arden Parklands. Potential Landscape and Visual Effects Landscape Effects

3.5.6 Landscape effects include the direct and indirect effects on receptors such as landscape elements and features, as well as the effects upon the general landscape character and its quality or condition. It does not include visual effects which are addressed in the next section.

3.5.7 The following landscape effects are assessed as follows. All effects are irreversible unless otherwise stated. Landscape Effects During Construction

3.5.8 Changes to landscape character will result from the effect of the initial soil strip, which will change the character of the site from an arable field to a construction site, erection of site fencing, construction activities including the use of cranes and the movement of construction vehicles on site and the presence of a contractor’s compound. Furthermore effects during construction include the buildings under construction and formation of the access road and tracks.

3.5.9 Some construction effects, such as presence of cranes, movement of construction vehicles and location of contractor’s compound are judged to be short-term reversible effects. Other factors, such as removal of site landscape elements and the construction of buildings and infrastructure are judged to be irreversible effects. Whilst the land-take of arable field for built development and infrastructure is assessed under construction effects, the final proposed land-use for renewable energy use is assessed under operational effects. The construction of the pipelines would result in a short-term change from arable field to excavations during construction.

3.5.10 Access to the proposed anaerobic digester will be through an existing gap in the hedgerow (H1; Figure 3.5), although removal of a short length (c. 12 m) of this hedge will be required to allow an adequate visibility splay onto Stoneleigh Road. This hedgerow is species poor and as such loss of c. 12 m would effect the landscape character of the immediate context only. A second temporary c. 0.5 m wide access for the gas pipeline to continue north over the A46 will be required within this hedgerow and will use gaps in the hedgerow where feasible (see Figure 1.2 for both gas and heat and electricity connection pipeline routes).

3.5.11 Hedgerows 2 and 3 will be retained and an appropriate buffer has been included within the design as outlined in the mitigation section above.

3.5.12 The gas pipeline and the heat and electricity connection will require construction trenches that will be approximately 0.5 m wide and 1 m deep. Both pipelines will be routed through the existing un-gated field access in H4, therefore no loss of this hedgerow will be required. The pipeline route will then follow H5 and H7 on the western side and an appropriate buffer has been included within the design to protect this hedgerow and mature trees during the construction period.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

3.5.13 The pipeline route will branch adjacent to H7, with one branch (one gas pipeline) providing a grid connection towards Crewe Farm to the south west of the ADP and the second branch supplying gas and heat/electricity via two pipelines to the Stoneleigh Science Park to the south. The grid connection pipe will cross H8 through an existing field gap, but will require temporary removal of c. 0.5 m of H12 to accommodate the pipeline trench. Following installation the pipeline the hedgerow will be re-instated with appropriate native hedgerow species to ensure not net long-term loss of this resource.

3.5.14 The pipe connection to Stoneleigh Science Park will use the existing un-gated field access in H8 and run adjacent to H9 but outside of the root protection area, and as such no impact to these features is anticipated. The heat and electricity pipeline will at this point continue to the Park by crossing the hedgerow (H10) to the north of the B4115 (TN3; Figure 5.1), across the B4115 and into the Park through the existing access. It will require c. 0.5 m temporary loss of this hedgerow. Following installation the pipeline the hedgerow will be re-instated with appropriate native hedgerow species to ensure not net long-term loss of this resource. Within the Park the pipeline will use an existing route and as such will require re-laying only and will be restricted to the existing hard standing and amenity grassland areas.

3.5.15 As all lost sections of hedgerow are to be replaced and any impacts to the hedgerows within the application area are considered to be a short duration, reversible impact on the immediate setting of the site and a slight adverse effect. Landscape Effects During Operation (Year 1)

3.5.16 Landscape effects during operation would result from new landscape planting associated with structural landscape, the proposed final land-use and associated infrastructure. Landscape Effects Future Operation (Year 10)

3.5.17 The nature of effects during this phase would be the continued operation of the site, the maturing of landscaped areas and the changing context. The maturing of vegetation would increase the structural diversity and biodiversity of the site.

Landscape Character

3.5.18 The effects of the proposals on the key characteristics of Arden Parklands LCA have been assessed in Table 3.5. Table 3.5: Impacts on Development Site Character Key Impacts of Proposals Characteristics Landform: Some localised excavations would occur during the construction of foundations for the access road, buildings and the laying of underground cables/pipes. These changes are relatively small in scale however and any effects would be slight adverse. Landscape During construction there would be some small scale pattern: changes associated with hedgerow removal that would affect the immediate setting of the site. The proposals would introduce a building mass into the open arable field to the west of King’s Wood. However the field margins, large part of the field and existing ponds would remain intact. As planting mitigation matures, the block of

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Key Impacts of Proposals Characteristics vegetation around the proposed development would extend the woodland block of King’s Wood and this would mitigate adverse effects. The overall effect would be moderate adverse at Year 1 and moderate neutral by Year 10. Land use: The proposals would change part of the land use from arable to renewable energy generation. The proposed development and access track would result in a total land-take of 3.4 ha of the existing arable field. The construction of the pipelines would result in a short-term change from arable field to excavations during construction affecting 1.48 ha of land, however this would be a short-term reversible effect, reverting back to arable use. The overall change in land-use would be slight adverse during construction, moderate adverse during operation and slight adverse by future year of operation Year 10. Site vegetation/ The construction phase would comprise a site strip of 3.4 ha land cover: for the ADP and c. 1.48 ha for the pipelines that would result in some small scale removal of existing hedgerow (approximately 13 linear metres) to create the field access. New structural landscape planting would mature by Year 10. Effects would be slight adverse during construction, slight neutral during Year 1 and moderate beneficial during Year 10. Ecological Existing vegetation within the Site would be retained. Value: Existing ponds with Great Crested Newt habitat would be retained and protected. Any effects on hedgerows are small scale and would be short-term reversible limited to the Site level of influence. Maturing structural vegetation would result in biodiversity benefits by Year 10. Effects are judged to be negligible during construction and Year 1 and slight beneficial by Year 10. Enclosure and The addition of the building mass west of Kings Wood would scale: be in scale with the block of woodland and the large scale field. The addition of the buildings at Year 1 and maturing of planting by Year 10 will increase the level of enclosure, where change would be limited to the Site and immediate context. The effect would be negligible during construction, slight adverse at Year 1 and Year 10. Visual and During the construction period, the noise, movement and Perceptual visibility of machinery, vehicle movements for deliveries and Qualities of the presence of cranes would have a negative effect on a sense Landscape: of tranquillity; however these effects would be limited to the Site and immediate context and would be reversible.

During operation, the buildings would increase built man- made elements into the Arden Parklands LCA, but would only affect skylines within the Site and immediate context.

Vehicle movements for deliveries would affect the tranquillity of the Site and immediate context.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Key Impacts of Proposals Characteristics Changes to the visual character of the landscape would be limited in geographical extent to the Site and immediate context.

Effects are limited due to frequent vegetation cover and the sparse distribution of receptors. The effects would be slight adverse during construction, Year 1 and Year 10. Settlement The existing farm access from Stoneleigh Road would be pattern/ used, where changes would affect the Site with limited effect transport on the surrounding transport network. The development is network: clearly separate from the nearest settlement. Any effects would be slight adverse during construction and negligible adverse during Year 1 and Year 10. Inter-visibility/ The proposals would be over 1.5 km away from the Plateau Relationship Fringes LCA and would affect a relatively small area. Any with other effects would be negligible during construction, slight adverse typologies: at Year 1 Operation and slight neutral at Year 10. LCA Arden Overall effects would be limited to the Site and immediate Parklands context up to 1 km, due to the high frequency of screening vegetation in the study area. The effects would be slight adverse during construction, slight adverse during Year 1 Operation and slight neutral by Year 10. Summary of Effects on Landscape Character

3.5.19 During construction, none of the effects are predicted to be important as a material consideration for planning. Whilst most ground based construction activities would have minimal effect on the landscape character beyond the Site, the presence of cranes would influence the visual character in the immediate context.

3.5.20 During operation, there would be short-term adverse effects on the Site and immediate area; the effects would be no more than of slight adverse importance. The buildings would be of agricultural scale and character and the maturing of vegetation would blend the proposals with King’s Wood in the long-term by Year 10. None of the effects during Year 1 operation and Year 10 are predicted to be a material consideration for planning.

Visual Effects

3.5.21 Visual effects are concerned wholly with the effect of the development on views, the viewers and the overall effect on Visual Amenity. Visual effects may include the physical obstruction or blocking of a view and visual intrusion of the proposed development into an existing view, the wider landscape setting and the overall effect on visual amenity as experienced by the viewers or visual receptors. Other visual effects include visual dominance due to colour, movement and height of structures, relative to the surrounding area.

3.5.22 Visual effects have been judged by considering the viewpoint assessment and likely magnitude of change on individual receptors identified in the baseline assessment. Visual Envelope

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

3.5.23 The series of panoramas presented in Figures 3.6 to 3.14 are taken from publicly accessible viewpoints and Figure 3.15 from within the development site boundary. Viewpoint locations are shown by Figure 3.4.

3.5.24 The ‘with screening’ ZTV (Figure 3.3) indicates that parts or all of the elements of the proposals could be visible from the following locations:  Fields immediately north east, south west and east of the site to Stoneleigh Village.  Elevated land of King’s Hill to the north east.  Open elevated landscape near Gibbet Hill 1-2 km north east of the Site.  A small part of Motslow Hill within Stoneleigh New Park registered parkland.  Elevated land south of Baginton east of the study area. Viewpoint Appraisal

3.5.25 A brief Viewpoint appraisal has been undertaken from a number of locations chosen to represent the sensitive receptors listed above.

3.5.26 Table 3.6 below appraises the potential impacts caused by the proposals on users of the Viewpoints and this has been used to help appraise effects on other parts of the study area. All effects in the table are considered adverse and as such worst- case is assumed as the basis for appraisal.

3.5.27 Ground level construction activities include soil strip of existing vegetation and the visual change from arable field to construction site; the removal of existing site features (i.e. hedgerow to site access), the construction of site access, presence of the contractor’s compound and storage areas and earthworks to form the storage clamps.

3.5.28 The most visually dominant elements of the proposals are likely to be the cranes during the construction phase and the digester and storage tanks and reception building. Most ground based activities would be screened by the hedgerows and King’s Wood, considering the sparse distribution of visual receptors.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Table 3.6 Viewpoint Assessment Location and Visual Nature of Magnitude of Change Visual Effect distance to site Receptors and View (all effects are considered adverse) boundary Sensitivity 1. Stoneleigh Road Users Glimpsed, Refer to Figures 3.6 and 3.7. A medium proportion of the view splay would be Road Site infrequent affected and distant views would be obstructed Access Low gaps in Ground based and other construction activity by new buildings. hedgerow would be visible from this viewpoint. c. 0 km at field A moderate proportion of the view would change Recreational access The earthworks of the clamps are viewed in the introducing built development which is different Users of PRoW points. middle distance, with structural landscape belt in character to the existing view and distant view W157 and ridgeline of the reception building and would be obstructed. Built development would domes on the skyline at a similar height as be prominent until vegetation establishes and Medium King’s Wood. Approximately 40% of the further reduces the proportion of development horizontal view splay affected. that is visible.

The viewpoint represents a very limited Road Users: geographical extent of the immediate context of Slight - Construction the Site where the view is glimpsed between a Slight –Year 1 roadside hedgerow for a very short duration. Slight – Year 10

Low – Construction Recreational Users W157: Medium – Year 1 Operation Slight - Construction Low – Year 10 Moderate –Year 1 Slight – Year 10 2. B4115 Road Users Glimpsed Refer to Figures 3.8 and 3.9. A small proportion of the view splay would be (on affected and the proposals would be viewed in c. 0.8 km Medium (Route localised Ground based and other construction activity the distance, glimpsed from the hill for a very to Stoneleigh hill) would be visible from this viewpoint although in short duration, limiting magnitude of change. Abbey) the distance. The larger buildings i.e. the domes and reception building would be visible Road Users: on the skyline next to King’s Wood. Slight – Construction By Year 10 maturing vegetation would integrate Moderate – Year 1 Operation the buildings, although ridgelines may be Slight – Year 10 discernible. Low – Construction

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Location and Visual Nature of Magnitude of Change Visual Effect distance to site Receptors and View (all effects are considered adverse) boundary Sensitivity Medium – Year 1 Operation Low – Year 10 3. Stoneleigh Road Users Filtered, Refer to Figure 3.10. A small proportion of the view splay would be Park Access Low partial During construction, close ranging filtered views affected and the proposals would be viewed in Gate 3 of excavations for the pipeline in the nearby field the distance, filtered by mature vegetation in the Walkers and possibly the tops of cranes in the distance. foreground. (c. 0.5km) High A small proportion of the top parts of the domes Road Users: and reception building may be visible over the Slight – Construction roadside hedge in the distance. By Year 10, Slight – Year 1 Operation maturing vegetation would screen and integrate Negligible – Year 10 the buildings. Walkers: Low - medium – Construction Slight-Moderate – Construction Medium– Year 1 Operation Moderate – Year 1 Operation Low – Year 10 Slight – Year 10

4. Public Right Walkers Open Refer to Figures 3.11 and 3.12. It is likely that the built development would not be of Way W157 During construction any ground based activities discernible as screened by existing vegetation, North of High would be screened by King’s Wood and although small parts of buildings may be visible Stoneleigh roadside hedges, although moving cranes in the winter when vegetation is not in leaf in the Village maybe discernible filtered by vegetation. short-medium term prior to new planting being Figure 3.12 shows the proposed massing of the established. built development, where the majority would be screened behind existing vegetation during Slight – Construction winter and completely screened during summer. Slight – Year 1 Operation Negligible – Year 10 Planting mitigation on the south east of the development would strengthen screening in the long-term. Low – Construction Low – Year 1 Negligible – Year 10

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Location and Visual Nature of Magnitude of Change Visual Effect distance to site Receptors and View (all effects are considered adverse) boundary Sensitivity 5. Motslow Hill, Heritage Asset Open Refer to Figure 3.13. It is likely that the built development would not be Stoneleigh New discernible as screened by existing vegetation, Park Registered High Views towards the site from nearby PRoW although small parts of buildings may be visible Parkland W158 is completely screened by localised in the winter when vegetation is not in leaf in the vegetation. short-medium term prior to additional planting being established. It is likely that the development would be completely screened by woodland from this Negligible – Construction viewpoint. The tops of cranes during Slight – Year 1 Operation construction and small parts of building roofs Negligible – Year 10 may be discernible between trees, however viewed in the context of other development.

Negligible – Construction Low – Year 1 Operation Negligible – Year 10 6. King’s Hill Heritage Asset Open Refer to Figure 3.14. Scheduled Moving vehicles and cranes are likely to be It is likely that the built development would not be Monument High discernible in the distance. readily discernible in the context of the view and New buildings would form a very small would be sufficiently screened by Year 10. Road Users component of the view, viewed against a Heritage Asset: backdrop and in the context of other farm Slight – Construction Low buildings. Slight – Year 1 Low – Construction Negligible – Year 10 Low – Year 1 Negligible – Year 10 Road Users: Negligible – Construction, Year 1 and Year 10

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Summary of Visual Effects

3.5.29 There would be no greater than moderate adverse effects on visual amenity at Year 1 on Viewpoints 1, 2 and 3. These effects would reduce to slight or negligible by Year 10 once the planting mitigation has established. The magnitude of change on these viewpoints is limited by the duration that the viewer would experience the predicted change, as glimpsed or intermittent due to the frequent vegetation screening around the site. None of the predicted effects on viewpoints are considered to be important as a material consideration for planning.

3.5.30 Ground level construction activities would only be infrequently glimpsed by road users and pedestrians on Stoneleigh Road/PRoW 157 through gaps in the hedgerow at field and site access points. Visual effects of the temporary construction compound, storage areas, access tracks, vehicles and equipment are reversible effects resulting in a lower magnitude of change.

3.5.31 The following receptors would experience changes in visual amenity. Settlements

3.5.32 Visibility from all settlements within the ‘with screening’ ZTV (Figure 3.3) was checked in the field to assess potential effects on visual amenity and no settlements are predicted to experience important effects that would be judged as a material consideration for planning.

3.5.33 The predicted effects on Stoneleigh village would be similar to representative Viewpoint 4 where the proposals would be screened by King’s Wood. Properties on the north west fringe of the village may experience slight changes during the winter months until additional mitigation planting has established. No other settlements are predicted to experience visual changes. Individual Properties and Farmsteads

3.5.34 None of the properties within 1 km of the ZTV ‘with screening’ are predicted to experience no more than slight adverse effects, although any effects are likely to be limited due to intervening vegetation. Heritage Assets

3.5.35 Stoneleigh New Park Registered Park and Garden of Historic Interest and King’s Hill Scheduled Monument would experience no greater than slight adverse effects at Year 1, although perceived visual changes are likely to be limited due to other built development in the context of views and level of woodland screening. The proposals would not adversely affect views from the Stoneleigh Conservation Area to any greater degree than assessed for Viewpoint 4 (Figures 3.11 and 3.12). These visual effects would not be important as to be material to any planning consent. Sequential Effects on Routes Public Footpaths

3.5.36 Recreational users of footpath W157 Centenary Way would experience changes in views, although much of the route is well screened from the site by roadside hedges along Stoneleigh Road and the section north of the A46 is screened by vegetated road embankments. South of the B4115, sequential views northwards would be minimal, as shown by Viewpoint 4 (Figures 3.11 and 3.12). There is no

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

visibility towards the site where the path passes through the field north of Stoneleigh Village and any sections southwards through the village and through Stoneleigh New Park. W158 would not experience any changes greater than represented by viewpoint 4 due to intervening woodland between the viewer and the site. Any effects on PRoW are judged to be negligible during construction, slight to negligible at Year 1 and negligible by Year 10. Road Users

3.5.37 Any visual effects on road users are limited due to the frequency of roadside hedgerows, particularly along Stoneleigh Road and the B4115 and vegetated embankments along the A46. Infrequent glimpsed views are possible for a very short duration but the overall effects are judged to be negligible to slight adverse and not an importance consideration that would be material to any planning application. Road users on the B4115 would gain localised views of excavations associated with the pipeline during the construction phase, however any effects would be localised and would be no more than a slight adverse effect. Cumulative Effects

3.5.38 The proposed development is not likely to cause any important effects due to the separation distance between the proposed development at King’s Wood and Stoneleigh Park. There may be localised effects due to the pipeline construction either side of the B4115, however these would be no more than slight and the effects would be reversible. Effects on Landscape Planning Policy

3.5.39 The proposals would result in irreversible land-take of 3.4 ha of agricultural land and temporary land-take of 1.48 ha of agricultural land within the Green Belt and this could potentially conflict with National Planning Policy Protecting Green Belt Land. However, the effects on the openness of the Green Belt would be limited to the Site level and immediate context and the area of land is relatively small compared to surrounding agricultural land in the Green Belt that will remain in use.

3.5.40 Whilst the anaerobic digester may by its nature constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the development would result in significant environmental benefits in providing a comprehensive and sustainable renewable energy source for Stoneleigh Park and is therefore considered to comply with the ‘very special circumstances’ as stated in Paragraph 91 of the NPPF.

3.5.41 The proposals would result in no other conflicts with local planning policy due to the limited geographical extent of potential extents and level of mitigation proposed to minimise landscape effects.

3.6 Conclusions

3.6.1 In conclusion, the assessment has found that any effects would be localised to the Site and immediate context and would be no more than of moderate importance at Year 1 of operation until planting mitigation establishes. The assessment has been supported by a digitally produced Zone of Theoretical Visibility map to identify potentially sensitive receptors and visualisations to represent the likely change in view at Year 1 of Operation and Year 10 once planting mitigation is well established.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

3.6.2 In conclusion, none of the identified residual landscape and visual effects would be considered to be of a level of importance that would present a material consideration for the planning application.

3.6.3 Whilst some moderate visual effects would occur on Viewpoints 1, 2 and 3 at Year 1, the overall effects on the receptors represented would not be important due to the effect of mitigation planting by Year 10 and the limited duration that these views are experienced.

3.6.4 Whilst there is a residual impact on National Planning Policy Protecting the Green Belt due to the land-take of arable field, the proposed renewable energy land-use is considered to be consistent with the ‘very special circumstances’ of Paragraph 91.

3.6.5 In conclusion, no residual effects are considered to be an important factor that would be material to the planning application.

3.7 References Communities and Local Government (2012), National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 9, 10, 11 and 12. Landscape Institute & Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (LI- IEMA) (2013). Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. 3rd Edition. Spons Press, London. Natural England (2012), National Character Area Profile NCA 92 Arden Parklands. Warwickshire County Council (November 1993), Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

This page is intentionally blank

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

4. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Ecus Ltd were commissioned by Material Change Ltd (hereafter ‘the Client’) in June 2013 to prepare a Heritage Statement to inform proposed works north of Stoneleigh Park, near Warwick (hereafter ‘the scheme’), situated at National Grid Coordinate SP 32164 73005 (Figure 4.1).

The Scheme

4.1.2 The proposed development is shown in Figure 1.1 Site Location and Figure 1.2 Proposed Site Layout (based on Plandescil Consulting Engineers drawings 18156/002/ rev K and 18156/102/rev H). Chapter 2 provides the project description on which this assessment is based.

4.1.3 The underlying geology of scheme comprises sandstone and mudstone of the Kenilworth Sandstone Formation (BGS Geology of Britain Viewer).

4.2 Methodology

Scope

4.2.1 The purpose this desk-based assessment is to determine, as far as is reasonably possible from existing records, an understanding of the historic environment resource in order to formulate:  An assessment of the potential for heritage assets to survive within the area of study.  An assessment of the importance of the known or predicted heritage assets considering their archaeological, historic, architectural and artistic interests.  Strategies for further evaluation whether or not intrusive, where the nature, extent or importance of the resource is not sufficiently well defined.  An assessment of the impact of proposed development or other land use changes on the importance of the heritage assets and their settings.  Proposals for further archaeological investigation within a programme of research.

4.2.2 This assessment is undertaken in accordance with the Institute for Archaeologists’ Standard and Guidance for desk based assessment (IfA 1994, revised November 2012); Planning Practice Guidance Conserving and enhancing the historic environment (6th March 2014), published by the Department for Communities and Local Government; and English Heritage’s Guidance on The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011).

Study Area and Sources

4.2.3 Baseline conditions are established through consideration of recorded heritage assets within a 1 km study area around the scheme and desk-based review of existing sources of publicly accessible sources of primary and synthesised information, comprising:

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

 The Warwickshire Historic Environment Record (WHER), comprising a database of all recorded archaeological sites, find-spots, and archaeological events within the county.  National heritage datasets including The National Heritage List for England (NHLE), Images of England, PastScape, Viewfinder, NMR Excavation Index, and Parks and Gardens UK.  Historic manuscripts and maps held at Warwick Archives and Local Studies Library.  Relevant primary and secondary sources including published and unpublished archaeological reports relating to excavations and observations in the area around the scheme were studied.

4.2.4 A bibliography of documentary, archive, and cartographic sources consulted is included in the References section of this report.

Site Visit

4.2.5 The location of the scheme was visited on July 12th 2013 in order to assess its character, identify visible historic features and assess possible factors which may affect the survival or condition of known or potential assets.

Assessment of Importance of Heritage Assets

4.2.6 This report presents an assessment of the nature, extent and importance of heritage assets within the study area, and the contribution made by their setting, in order to identify those assets potentially affected by the proposals. This value is expressed in this report as ‘importance’.

4.2.7 The weighting of heritage significance is based on the consideration of criteria presented in national planning and guidance documents, including: the National Planning Policy Framework (2012); the Department of Culture, Media and Sport’s Principles of Selection for Listed Buildings (2010a) and Scheduled Monuments (2010b); and English Heritage’s Conservation Principles (2008). These criteria are broadly covered by four values, comprising:  Evidential value: derives from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity. Considers age/period, rarity, survival/condition, diversity, and archaeological potential of the site.  Historical value: derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative. Considers documentation, wider context, regional factors, and group value of the site.  Aesthetic value: derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place. Considers architectural and artistic merit, selectivity, and national interest of the site.  Communal: Deriving from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values, but tend to have additional and specific aspects.

4.2.8 The overall importance of heritage assets is expressed on a 5-point scale of: Very High, High, Medium, Low and Negligible using the criteria presented in Table 4.1.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Table 4.1: Criteria for assessing the importance of Heritage Assets

Heritage Criteria Importance

Heritage assets of international importance. World Heritage Sites and the individual attributes that convey their Outstanding Universal Value. Areas associated with intangible cultural Very High heritage activities as evidenced by the register and areas with associations with particular innovations, scientific developments, movements or individuals of global importance.

Scheduled Monuments, all Listed Buildings (Grade I, II*, II). All Registered Historic Parks and Gardens (Grade I, II*, II). Archaeological assets of national importance. Also includes High unscheduled sites and monuments of schedulable quality and/or importance discovered through the course of evaluation or mitigation.

Conservation Areas, Locally Listed Buildings and Sites of Importance within a district level. Archaeological assets of regional importance. Historic townscapes and landscapes with Medium reasonable coherence, time-depth and other critical factor(s). Unlisted assets that can be shown to have exceptional qualities or historic association of importance to regional research strategies and interest groups.

Heritage Assets with importance to local interest groups or that contributes to local research objectives. Robust undesignated Low assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor contextual associations.

Assets with little or no archaeological or historical interest due Negligible to poor preservation or survival.

The importance of asset has not been ascertained from Unknown available evidence.

After assessment guides in DfT 2007 and ICOMOS 2010

4.2.9 In determining the sensitivity of any heritage assets affected, NPPF and planning guidance requires the contribution made by their setting to be assessed (Table 4.2). Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the value of a heritage asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that value, or may be neutral. The key attributes of setting that contribute to the importance of the heritage asset comprise the asset’s physical surroundings, the experience of the asset and the asset’s associative attributes.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Table 4.2: Criteria for Grading the Contribution of Setting to the Importance of Heritage Assets Contribution of Setting Criteria to Heritage Importance A setting which possesses key attributes that make a High Contribution strong positive contribution to the understanding and/or appreciation of the values that embodies its importance. A setting which possesses key attributes that make some Medium Contribution positive contribution to the understanding and/or appreciation of the values that embodies its importance. A setting which possesses key attributes that make little Low positive contribution to the understanding and/or Contribution appreciation of the values that embodies its importance.

Assumptions and Limitations

4.2.10 This report is compiled using secondary information derived from a variety of sources, only some have been directly examined. The assumption is made that this data, as well as that derived from other secondary sources, is reasonably accurate.

4.2.11 In addition, the records held by WHER represent a record of a wide range of information derived from historical sources and previous archaeological discoveries and does not preclude the subsequent discovery of further elements of the historic environment that are, at present, unknown.

4.3 Planning Policy and Legislation

Introduction

4.3.1 There is national legislation and guidance relating to the protection of, and proposed development on or near, important archaeological sites or historical buildings within planning regulations, including:  Scheduled Monuments, under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 as updated by revisions of the National Heritage Acts;  Listed Buildings, under the Town and Country Planning Act (1971), as amended by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990);  Conservation Areas, under the Town and Country Planning Act (1971), as amended by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990);  Gardens and Designed Landscapes, under Section 8C of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953; and  Historic Hedgerows, under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

Local Planning Policy

4.3.2 Warwick District Council is currently preparing a New Local Plan in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Until its completion planning applications will be considered against the policies and objectives

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

contained in the Warwick District Local Plan 1996-2011 (WDLP) Saved Policies (September 2010).

4.3.3 Relevant policies within the WDLP include:  DP3: Natural and Historic Environment and Landscape  DP4: Archaeology  DAP4: Protection of Listed Buildings  DAP6: Upper Floors within Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas  DAP8: Protection of Conservation areas

National Planning Policy Framework

4.3.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force on 27 March 2012 and the policies contained within it are material considerations which must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and in planning decisions.

4.3.5 Policies presented in NPPF Section 12 aim to ensure that Local Planning Authorities, developers and owners of heritage assets adopt a consistent and holistic approach to their conservation.

4.4 Baseline Conditions

Introduction

4.4.1 The following section provides a brief summary of the archaeological and historical development of the scheme and its environs, compiled from the sources listed above. The aim is to establish the known and potential resource which could be affected by the development.

4.4.2 All heritage assets with the 1 km study area identified by the WHER are listed in Appendix 4.1. The WHER and National List entries and other identified sites are assigned a number with a HA (Heritage Asset) prefix within the text for ease of reference and depicted on Figures 4.1-4.2. Where there are numerous assets of the same date at the same location, these records have been amalgamated and assigned a single HA reference for clarity.

Previous Studies

4.4.3 Whilst the WHER records no archaeological fieldwork within the immediate vicinity of the scheme, there are records for work within the study area.

4.4.4 Several archaeological investigations are recorded by WHER within Stoneleigh village, comprising watching briefs at Chestnut Cottage and Old Post Office and archaeological recording at the Church of St Mary. A watching brief was also undertaken at 1-2 Stareton Cottages in Stareton. The WHER records few associated finds from these studies, although evidence for Romano-British activity was observed at Stareton.

4.4.5 A geophysical survey was undertaken at Crewe Close to the east of the scheme. This site is supposed to be the location of a pre-Norman castle which is visible as earthworks.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

4.4.6 Within Stoneleigh Abbey Park there has been a general survey encompassing Stoneleigh Park, as well as detail surveys within the Abbey precinct including tree- ring dating, archaeological watching brief, building recording and evaluation.

Statutory and Local Heritage Designations

4.4.7 Within the study area there are 58 Listed Buildings, 1 Registered Park and Garden and 2 Scheduled Monuments. The location of these assets is shown on Figure 4.2.

4.4.8 Thirty-two of the Listed Buildings are situated within Stoneleigh village to the east of the proposed development site, comprising:  Grade I Listed Church of St Mary  31 Grade II Listed Buildings  The Scheduled site of a Romano-British settlement is situated at Glasshouse Wood, c. 1.3 km to the south west of the scheme.  Within Stareton village c. 650 m to the southeast of the scheme are 2 Grade II Listed Buildings.

4.4.9 The remaining designated assets within the study area are located within the area of Stoneleigh Abbey Park, comprising:  Stoneleigh Abbey, a Grade II* Registered Park & Garden  Stare Bridge, a Scheduled Monument and Grade II* Listed Building  2 Grade I Listed Buildings: Stoneleigh Abby and Gatehouse  4 Grade II* Listed Buildings  19 Grade II Listed Buildings

Archaeological and Historical Context

4.4.10 Known heritage assets are described in this section and their location illustrated on Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Prehistoric

4.4.11 There is no evidence for prehistoric activity within the scheme or its immediate environs. However, there is evidence of prehistoric activity in the wider area comprising find spots of worked flint implements located within the northern half of the study area (HA 1-8) dating from the Palaeolithic to the Bronze Age.

4.4.12 Two Iron Age coins (HA 9-10) have been recovered from within the vicinity of Stoneleigh village, in the northeast of the study area. Both coins were surface finds, and as such cannot be considered definite evidence for settlement activity.

4.4.13 Whilst there is some evidence of prehistoric activity outwith the scheme there is no evidence to suggest this extended to within the scheme. Romano-British (AD 43-410)

4.4.14 There is evidence for Romano-British settlement throughout the area with known sites north of Crewe Farm (HA 11), Glasshouse Wood (HA 12), and possible occupation sites listed at Pypes Mill (HA 13) and recorded during excavations at

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Stareton (HA 14). Romano-British material has also been recorded north of Stoneleigh Abbey (HA 15) and west of Stareton (HA 16).

4.4.15 The settlement at Glasshouse Wood, approximately 1.3 km to the southwest of the scheme, was partially excavated during the construction of the A46 road and subsequently designated as a Scheduled Monument (HA 12, NHLE 1005723).

4.4.16 The gas main connection to Crew Farm will pass within proximity to a known settlement site and there is therefore potential for remains relating to settlement activity and adjacent agriculture or industries. Although no evidence has yet been found to suggest Romano- British activity across the wider scheme, the proximity of known remains indicates that the scheme may potentially have lain within the area utilised by the settlements. Early-Medieval to Medieval (AD 410-1540)

4.4.17 The possible location of an early-medieval castle is recorded in the WHER to be either located to the northeast of Glasshouse Wood or west of Stoneleigh Abbey (HA 17-18). The location of the castle is based on documentary sources and, despite geophysical survey, has yet to be firmly identified. The only physical evidence for early-medieval activity within the study area comprises a fragment of a brooch (HA 19) discovered by metal detectorists east of Glasshouse Woods.

4.4.18 The place-name Stoneleigh derives from the Old English words stān and lēah, indicating that the present village may have been a stony wood/clearing within the Forest of Arden during the Saxon period.

4.4.19 Before the Conquest (1066 AD) the manor of Stoneleigh had been held by Edward the Confessor, and was retained in royal possession until 1154 when it was given in endowment to a newly founded Cistercian abbey (Salzman 1951, 229-240). In 1204 the whole manor was bought from the king by the abbey.

4.4.20 Stoneleigh (HA 20) is recorded in the Domesday Book of 1086 as comprising 76 households, representing a very large population comparatively within the survey (domesdaymap.co.uk). The survey recorded 35 plough teams, 20 acres of meadow, and c. 80 acres of woodland indicating the large amount of woodland in the manor. Stoneleigh was also the name of the administrative hundred for the area, with Motslow Hill (HA 21), opposite the village, commonly held to have been the site of the Hundred Court. There are a number of listed buildings of medieval date within the study area including St Mary’s Church (HA 22) and a number of dwellings (HA 23-31). The site of Stoneleigh Mill is recorded to the north of the settlement (HA 32).

4.4.21 Stareton is recorded in the WHER as possible site of a deserted medieval settlement (HA 33).

4.4.22 The Cistercian monastic precinct (HA 34-37), which was founded at a bend of the River Avon in, bounded to the north by the thick wood of Echills (HA 387), set about improving the land in their possessing, assarting large areas of woodland during the 12th and 13th centuries and later converting much arable land to pasture (CH 1951, 229-240; Watkins 2004, 203). Medieval woods are recorded by the WHER including, Kings Wood (HA 39), Widenhey (HA 40) and The Grove (HA 41). Other elements of the medieval estate can be identified, including an artificial warren to the south of the abbey (HA 42) Home Grange (HA 43), fish ponds (HA 44-45), several mills (HA 47-51) and a tile manufacturing site (HA 52). Parts of the

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

surrounding road network are recorded including a road (HA 53), and two bridges (HA 54-55) including the Scheduled Stare Bridge (HA 55).

4.4.23 The woods of Echills were at least partially turned over to agriculture during the 12th and 13th century, likely forming part of the abbey’s home grange which by 1291 comprised principally of ploughlands (Watkins 2004, 203). The WHER records the discovery of a medieval drain within Stoneleigh Park (HA 56), indicating a potential for well preserved archaeological remains relating to medieval agricultural activity to survive within the existing development.

4.4.24 North of the River Avon, the land is considered to have been in use by the settlement of Stoneleigh, with Kings Wood and the land to its west and north lying in the Parish of Kenilworth. Agriculture here, as with elsewhere in the River Avon, did not follow the traditional medieval open-field system, with tenants at Stoneleigh operating a mixture of open-fields, crofts and enclosures. Post-Medieval to 19th Century (1540-1901)

4.4.25 After the dissolution of the monasteries in 1535 the Abbey was sold off into private hands, passing by 1561 into the hands of the Leigh family. Whilst the majority of the abbey buildings were pulled down by the end of the 16th century during the conversion of Stoneleigh Abbey to a manorial complex, the gatehouse and numerous structural elements remain.

4.4.26 There are several Listed Buildings of post-medieval date within Stoneleigh including former almshouses (HA 57), several dwellings and commercial buildings (HA 58-70). Within the wider landscape there is evidence of agriculture and industry in the form of a farmstead to the south of Stoneleigh (HA 71), a windmill at Westley Bridge (HA 72) and marl-pits to the north of Stoneleigh (HA 73).

4.4.27 North of the Avon the land had been largely cleared of woodland by the early part of the post-medieval period. A plan of Kenilworth Estate produced in 1628 (Figure 4.3) recording that ‘This part of the Kings Woods is inclosed and contameth’, indicating that the woodland had been cleared for agricultural enclosures. A second map of 1766 (Figure 4.4) illustrates the area surrounding King’s Wood as comprising of rectilinear enclosures west of the Kenilworth border and open fields to the southeast within an area known as Wood Field. The names of the fields within Kenilworth were not described in the accompanying apportionments, although Wood Field was divided into Furlongs with the proposed pipeline passing through Slade, Bird in Bush, Hoar Nook, and Wash Ford.

4.4.28 A plan produced of the Leigh Estate in 1766 (Figure 4.4) illustrates the land within Stoneleigh Park indicating the area comprised several irregular rectilinear enclosures evidently bounded by hedgerows with sparse trees. The names of these enclosures indicate they comprised meadows and pasture with lawns listed in plots 32-33 which are shown to be divided by a fence. In addition there are several dispersed farm structures comprising:  Barns and Yards in plot 11 (Far’s Close);  Hall Close Barn and Yards in plot 17; and  Barn and Yards in plot 35 (Rachel’s Wood).

4.4.29 A significant effect of the passing of Stoneleigh Abbey into secular ownership was the increasing development of parkland adjacent to the manor house, including the formation of a deer park to the south of Stoneleigh by 1597 (HA 74). Stoneleigh

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Abbey Park, now a Grade II* Registered Park and Garden (HA 75), can be seen as originating in this period, with the monastic landscape replaced by landscaped parkland, which became the fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries.

4.4.30 With the development of the parkland came the construction of new buildings throughout the estate including a dog kennel and dovecote (HA 76-77), as well as new infrastructure including bridges (HA 78-82).

4.4.31 The WHER records several post-medieval buildings in Stareton (HA 83-84), a tile kiln (HA 85), quarry (HA 86), and some masonry revealed during excavations in the Abbey precinct (HA 87). The road north of the Avon between Coventry to Warwick has medieval origins and was turnpiked in the mid-18th century (Stephens 1969, 34-39).

4.4.32 The development of the Stoneleigh Estate continued into the late 18th and 19th century, with the majority of WHER heritage assets and designated buildings relating to Stoneleigh Abbey Park and House (HA 88-112), as well as the continued development of Stoneleigh (HA 113-122) and a brickworks (HA 123) to the south of the study area. The only recorded asset within proximity to the scheme is the site of a possible ford (HA 124).

4.4.33 In 1809 the renowned landscape designer Humphry Repton set out proposals for Stoneleigh Abbey Park in one of his Red Books. Although Repton’s scheme was not fully implemented, considerable planting and alterations to the course of the River Avon were carried out.

4.4.34 The effect of the landscaping is discernible through comparison of the 1766 Estate map (Figure 4.4) and the 1887 Ordnance Survey (OS; Figure 4.5). There are several themes to the changes within the limits of the present Stoneleigh Park, comprising the removal of earlier agricultural buildings within proximity to the hall; the alteration of previous enclosures to create curvilinear boundaries; the creation of new woodland plantations and clumps at key points to obscure views of remaining agricultural buildings; and the creation of straight walks and drives with lodges at main entrances. In addition an earlier drain at the southern end of the scheme was expanded into a pond. The changes to the park naturalised the landscape, breaking up earlier linear boundaries and using planting to obscure buildings.

4.4.35 Efforts were possibly also made to open the views looking northwest across the park with hachuring on the 1887 OS indicating that the boundaries towards the centre of the site were possibly sunken fences. The scheme crosses two paths, including the main eastern approach, as well as a footpath that leaves the drive north of the gatehouse and follows a dead straight course aligned with St Mary’s Church in Stoneleigh. A new, un-named, structure is shown at the centre of Stoneleigh Park, within proximity to the scheme, which may represent a garden structure.

4.4.36 North of the River Avon the fields have been subdivided, comprising regular straight boundaries indicative of late surveyed enclosures orientated off of the Coventry to Warwick road. Kings Wood to the north is shown as mixed woodland with amalgamated enclosures to its west likely associated with Kingswood Farm. The 1887 OS map indicates the mains connection passes through a possible former extraction pit (Figures 4.5).

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Modern

4.4.37 There are very few changes within the vicinity of the scheme during the first half of the 20th century. The only WHER record within the study area is the remains of an anti-aircraft battery from the Second World War, comprising a control building and earthworks of three battery structures (HA 125).

4.4.38 To the north of the scheme several pits are shown within the field west of Kings Wood on the 1905 OS (not reproduced), which are marked as wetland and possibly comprised former extractive pits. The 1950 OS also indicates small rectangular structure had also been built on the line of the mains connection, associated with Crew Farm.

4.4.39 Stoneleigh Park remained largely unchanged on the 1955 OS (Figure 4.6), although the parkland was no longer being managed. The character of the Park changed significantly in the 1960s with the development of the National Agricultural Centre (NAC) in the 1960s, which by the 1970s the NAC had largely expanded to its current extent, establishing a grid of streets irrespective of the historic field boundaries but incorporating one of the earlier barns.

4.4.40 The A46 Kenilworth Bypass was completed in 1974 cutting off Kings Wood from the farm to the west. The earlier Warwick to Coventry road survives as the B4115.

4.4.41 In recent years a pipeline was excavated along existing field boundaries to transfer silage from a dairy at Stoneleigh Park to a storage tank in Kings Wood. Previous Impacts on Archaeological Remains

4.4.42 Much of the scheme is situated within an area historically comprising woodland of Kings Wood and Echels Wood. The management of these woods during the medieval period will have resulted in disturbance to upper soil deposits.

4.4.43 There is an existing pipeline from Stoneleigh Park to Kings Wood which is anticipated to have had an impact to potential buried remains.

4.4.44 Within the area of Stoneleigh Park there is anticipated to be a level of impact resulting from modern landscaping and road and services construction, as well as a historic impact from possible landscaping as part of designed parkland.

Historic Landscape

4.4.45 The historic landscape character around the scheme has been assessed as part of the Warwickshire Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC, available from Warwickshire HER). North of the B4115 the area is characterised as large rectilinear fields with straight boundaries, probably planned enclosure formed from part the medieval managed woodland of Kings Wood/The Frith in the 17th century.

4.4.46 Between the B4115 and the River Avon is an area of large rectilinear fields with straight boundaries, probably derived from the planned enclosure of Wood Field during the late 18th century.

4.4.47 South of the River Avon is the National Agricultural Centre. The NAC was formed post-1955 in a former 18th century designed landscape, which itself was formerly agricultural land created by Stoneleigh Abbey from broad-leaved woodland during the medieval period.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Present Site Condition

4.4.48 When visited on the 12th July 2013 the scheme was largely under crop, although the area of the proposed AD had been left unsown (Appendix 4.2- Plate 4.1). No archaeological assets were identified during the walkover beyond the presence of mature hedgerows along field boundaries that conform to those depicted on the 1766 Leigh Estate maps, and are therefore considered ‘Important’ under the Hedgerows Regulations..

4.4.49 Kings Wood bounds the western edge of the AD site, and is sufficiently dense to screen the presence of the existing silage tank within it from most viewpoints (Appendix 4.2- Plate 4.2). From the woods the land drops down towards the River Avon. There are occasional glimpsed views between the houses on the western side of Stoneleigh Village and Kings Wood between breaks in the dense hedgerows along the B4115.

4.4.50 The route of the proposed heat and electricity pipeline south of the AD site follows mature hedgerows to the B4115 and then enters Stoneleigh Park along a track and crossing the Avon at an existing bridge site (Appendix 4.2- Plate 4.3). Within Stoneleigh Park the scheme follows existing roads. The western proposed gas main link option follows a branches from the southern pipeline, passing along field boundaries and crossing through a field before reaching Crew Farm. The alternative gas main link option passes northeast from the AD site into Stoneleigh Road and then turning north along the road to the junction with the A46.

Summary of Heritage Constraints

4.4.51 In line with current planning policy (NPPF Ch.12 Para.128), a description of heritage assets directly affected by the proposed development, based on the current level of available information, is presented below and an assessment of the importance presented in Table 4.2 below. Designated Heritage Assets

4.4.52 There are no designated heritage assets within the scheme.

4.4.53 The scheme lies within the setting of Stoneleigh Abbey Registered Park and Garden, comprising part of an agricultural buffer around the park which encloses the historic settlements of Stoneleigh, Stareton and Ashow; and Stoneleigh Park which was formed within the original extent of the designed landscape. Non-designated Heritage Assets

4.4.54 There are several known heritage assets within the scheme, comprising:  field boundaries, agricultural remains which historically extended through Stoneleigh Park, and  Stoneleigh Abbey Park.

4.4.55 The northern end of the scheme lay within Kings Wood from the early-medieval period, and there is the potential for remains of woodland industries such as saw pits, charcoal manufacturing sites or quarrying to survive. The woodland was increasingly cleared for agriculture during the medieval and post-medieval period, and by the 17th and 18th centuries was enclosed. Remains of this activity are considered to be of evidential value of low importance.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

4.4.56 South of the former woodland, the scheme crosses former openfields associated with Stoneleigh Village to the north of the River Avon, and the parkland of Stoneleigh Abbey to the south. During the 19th century Stoneleigh Park was redesigned by Humphry Repton and the scheme is situated within areas of former agricultural land and lawns crossed by driveways and footpaths. Evidence relating to the parkland and earlier agricultural practices could be of up to medium importance.

4.4.57 In addition, based on the evidence presented within the baseline resource there is also considered to be the potential for as yet unknown buried archaeological remains along the scheme, comprising:  potential remains of prehistoric activity; and  potential remains associated with nearby Romano-British occupation, particularly within proximity to Crew Farm.

4.4.58 The chance recovery of a number of flints within the study area indicates a potential for occupation within the wider area. There is considered to be a low potential for remains relating to this period to be located above the river’s flood plain. Any archaeological remains relating to this period are potentially of regional evidential value in informing research into early occupation in the area and of medium importance.

4.4.59 There is potential for Romano-British activity associated with known settlement sites to the northeast and southwest of the scheme, with remains having been recovered within the vicinity of the proposed mains connection at Crew Farm. Any such remains are likely to be of evidential value that is considered to be no more than of medium importance.

4.5 Assessment and Mitigation

Introduction

4.5.1 The management and mitigation of change to the historic environment is based on the recognition within planning policy that heritage assets are an “irreplaceable resource” (NPPF para. 126).

4.5.2 In line with national and local planning policies, development proposals which have the potential to affect designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings should give weight to the conservation and enhancement of the assets consistent with their level of importance. For designated assets significant weight is given to conservation and for non-designated it is taken into account in a balanced judgement.

Effects During Construction

4.5.3 The potential for impacts to the historic environment to arise during the construction phase relates primarily to the potential for excavations and groundworks to affect any below ground archaeological remains that may be present within the footprint of works. The proposed work within the site will comprise:  Groundwork associated with the creation of a building platform and foundations for the Anaerobic Digester infrastructure.  Groundwork associated with construction of a new vehicular access road.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

 Alterations and removal of part of the hedgerow on Stoneleigh Road to permit access.  Re-excavation and replacement of existing pipeline between Kings Wood and Stoneleigh Park.  Groundwork associated with of pipeline and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) units within Stoneleigh Park.  Groundwork associated with construction of gas main link pipeline either west to Crew Farm or northeast to the Stoneliegh Road/A46 junction.

Effects during Operation

4.5.4 The majority of the effects on the historic environment would occur during the construction phase of the scheme. Impacts during the operation of the scheme, which could have an effect on the historic environment, comprise:  Limited change of setting of Stoneleigh Abbey Park and Stoneleigh Conservation Area.

Statement of Impact

4.5.5 A summary of the proposed works and an assessment of their potential impacts are presented in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 over leaf. Designated Assets

4.5.6 There is no risk of physical impacts to designated assets from the proposed development.

4.5.7 Whilst the works are considered to be situated within the wider setting of Stoneleigh Abbey Park and the Stoneleigh Conservation Area, the proposed development has been designed to avoid impacting the importance of these assets by retaining the dense tree screening between the scheme and the heritage assets. The site visit ascertained that the location of the AD site is screened from Stoneleigh Conservation Area, and lies outside of the historic Stoneleigh Estate. Any potential effect is mitigated through sensitive planting around the AD site that will further limit any potential views of the site from Stoneleigh Abbey Park and Stoneleigh Conservation Area

4.5.8 There will be a temporary impact to the setting of these assets due to plant movement during the creation of construction compounds and groundwork associated with the construction of the pipeline. A summary of these impacts is presented in Table 4.4 below. Non-Designated Assets

4.5.9 There is considered to be potential for construction activities of the proposed scheme to result in the damage to or loss of buried archaeological features which may be present within the site. A summary of these assets is presented in Table 4.3 overleaf. The degree of harm to any buried non-designated heritage assets will be reduced by utilising the course of existing pipelines and road infrastructure.

4.5.10 There is not considered to be a risk of impact to the setting of any non-designated heritage assets.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Mitigation

4.5.11 The principal risk to heritage from the works is the potential for groundworks to impact buried remains relating to the use and management of the Stoneleigh Abbey Park. The principal potential within Stoneleigh Abbey Park is likely to comprise boundary features, paths, and land use evidence of medieval to post- medieval date. In addition there is a lower potential for encountering remains of medieval woodland industries within proximity to Kings Wood and potential Romano-British activity at Crew Farm.

4.5.12 Due to these potential effects, and the likely impact of the proposed works it is considered that in line with local and national planning policy, additional archaeological recording may be required. It is recommended that this would take the form of a targeted archaeological watching brief during works in areas not previously disturbed within the Stoneleigh Park, and during excavations at the ADP and the mains connection.

4.6 Conclusions

4.6.1 The scheme is situated within an area of agricultural land on the Kenilworth side of the historic Stoneleigh-Kenilworth parish boundary. Whilst the works are considered to be situated within the setting of the Grade II* Stoneleigh Abbey Park and the Stoneleigh Conservation Area, the proposed development is screened by Kings Wood.

4.6.2 There is potential for Romano-British activity associated with known settlement sites to the northeast and southwest of the scheme, although no remains have been recovered within the vicinity of the proposed development to date. By the medieval period the scheme lay within Kings Wood, openfields associated with Stoneleigh village, and the estate of Stoneleigh Abbey. The land was progressively assarted during the medieval period, and had fully comprised enclosures by the mid-18th century. The Stoneleigh Abbey estate became an elite residence by 1535 and the grounds gradually emparked, culminating in redesign in the early 19th century by Humphry Repton.

4.6.3 Overall, it is considered there are no over-riding heritage constraints to prevent the development of the scheme. Due to these potentials, and the impact of the proposed works it is considered that in line with local and national planning policy, additional archaeological recording may be required. It is suggested that this takes the form of a targeted archaeological watching brief during works in areas not previously disturbed within the Stoneleigh Park, and during excavations at the Anaerobic Digester site and the mains connection.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Table 4.2: Risk of Encountering, and Potential Impact to, Heritage Assets within the Proposed Development

Impact of the Proposed Risk Asset Importance Summary of Asset proposed Mitigation development

The scheme lies within original extent of Stoneleigh Park. Maps of this area in the 19th century indicate it was crossed by walks and drives associated with the manor, with areas of tree plantations and two farmsteads. The principal potentials comprise Post- a walk from the Gatehouse to Stoneleigh; the east drive; medieval Programme boundaries including ditches and a sunken fence; a possible High adverse to 19th- of mitigation garden structure; and pond deposits at the southern end of the High century Medium (if to allow scheme. encountered) preservation Buried Evidence of the phases and nature of landscape features by record Remains associated with the development of the designed parkland is likely to be of regional interest in understanding the periods of activity and enhancement of parkscape associated with the designated Stoneleigh Abbey park.

The scheme lies within an area that was exploited for wood and increasingly cleared for agricultural use. Associated with the development of Stoneleigh Abbey. The land in the south of the scheme may have formed part of the early home grange. Programme Medieval High adverse of mitigation There is potential within the scheme for evidence relating to land Moderate Buried Low (if to allow use evidence in the form or ditches, boundaries, and ploughing Remains encountered) preservation as well as light industries including saw pits, extraction sites etc. by record This evidence is likely to be of value to local interest groups in understanding the development of the landscape associated with the designated sites of Stoneleigh Abbey and park.

Romano- The scheme lies to the east of a known Romano-British High adverse Programme settlement site at Glasshouse Wood. of mitigation Moderate British Medium (if to allow It is possible that any settlement activity could have extended encountered) Buried preservation 59

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Impact of the Proposed Risk Asset Importance Summary of Asset proposed Mitigation development Remains towards the Avon, and several Romano-British finds have been by record found within the Abbey precinct. Any archaeological remains relating to Romano-British activity are likely to be of regional importance in understanding the wider economy of the nearby scheduled settlement.

The chance recovery of a number of flints within the study area indicates a potential for occupation within the wider area. Programme High adverse Prehistoric There is considered to be a low potential for remains relating to of mitigation Low Buried Medium this period to be located above the river’s flood plain. Any (if to allow Remains archaeological remains relating to this period are potentially of encountered) preservation regional evidential value in informing research into early by record occupation in the area.

The scheme lies within an area that was likely wooded during the Saxon period. Consequently the area is unlikely to have been Programme Saxon High adverse settled, however there is potential for activity associated with of mitigation Low Buried Medium Stoneleigh within the scheme. (if to allow Remains encountered) preservation Any remains of this period are likely to be of up to regional by record importance.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Table 4.4: Contribution to Importance of, and Potential Impact to, Settings of Heritage Assets

Impact of the Asset or Proposed Contribution Importance Summary of Asset/s and Setting proposed Group Mitigation development

The scheme lies within the setting of the Grade II* Temporary The impact to Stoneleigh Abbey Registered Park and Garden, adverse impact to the setting of comprising part of an agricultural buffer around the setting resulting Stoneleigh park; and lying within Stoneleigh Park which was from construction Abbey has been formed within the original extent of the designed activities within mitigated landscape. areas visible on through design Stoneleigh the approach to with the site Medium High The rural setting of the park reflects the historic Abbey park the park. screened by economy of the area, and enhances the aesthetic Kings Wood and value of views out from the registered park. planting. Stoneleigh Park, whilst part of the historical extent of the designed landscape makes a low contribution to the importance of the registered park due to the scale and extent of modern development.

The scheme lies within the agricultural hinterland Temporary The impact to surrounding Stoneleigh Conservation Area. adverse impact to the setting of setting resulting Stoneleigh has The rural setting of the village reflects the historic Stoneleigh from construction been mitigated economy of the area, and contributes to a sense of Medium Conservation Medium activities through design remoteness. Area with the site screened by Kings Wood and planting.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

4.7 References

Bibliography

Department for Communities and Local Government 2012. National Planning Policy Framework.

Department for Communities and Local Government 2014. Planning Practice Guidance.

Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) 2010a. Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings.

Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) 2010b. Scheduled Monuments.

Department for Transport 2007. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB): Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2: Cultural Heritage.

English Heritage 2008. Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance. English Heritage: York. The Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) 1994. Standard and Guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment (revised November 2012).

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 2010. Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties.

Mills, A.D. 2003. A Dictionary of British Place-Names. Oxford University Press.

Salzman, L.F. (ed.) 1951. Victoria County History: A History of the County of Warwick: Volume 6: Knightlow hundred. Available http://www.british-history.ac.uk: Accessed 06/2013.

Stephens, W.B. (ed.) 1969. Victoria County History: A History of the County of Warwick: Volume 8: The City of Coventry and Borough of Warwick. Available http://www.british-history.ac.uk: Accessed 06/2013.

Page, W. (ed.) 1908. Victoria County History: A History of the County of Warwick: Volume 2. Available http://www.british-history.ac.uk: Accessed 06/2013

Historic Maps

1628 Skeleton Map of Kenilworth by Thomas Harding (WA ref: z150(m))

1766 Leigh Estate of Stoneleigh (WA ref: z142)

1843 Tithe map of Stoneleigh Parish (WA ref: CR 509/123)

1887 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 map sheet 26.11 and 26.15

1889 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 sheet 26

1905 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 map sheet 26.11 and 26.15

1905 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 sheet 26

1925 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 map sheet 26.11 and 26.15

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

1926 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 sheet 26

1955 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 sheet 26

1961 Ordnance Survey 1:2,500 map sheet 26.11 and 26.15

1973 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 map sheet SP 37

1983 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 map sheet SP 37

*WA = Warwickshire Archives

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

This page is intentionally blank

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

5. Ecology and Nature Conservation

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The purpose of this Chapter is to provide an appraisal of the ecological value of the application area and to assess the likelihood and nature of any impacts to this ecological value that may result from the proposed scheme. As part of this appraisal ecological surveys and data consultation was undertaken by Ecus Ltd in 2013 and 2014.

5.1.2 The assessment has been carried out in line with the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (IEEM, 2006).

5.2 Methodology

Desk Study and Data Consultation

5.2.1 As part of the ecological assessment process a data consultation exercise was undertaken to determine whether any sites, habitats or species of note have previously been recorded within 1 km of the application area. Data requested from the consultees included:  statutory and non-statutory designated wildlife sites, and  species and habitats of principle importance in England (those listed by the Secretary of State under the provisions of Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006).

5.2.2 Warwickshire Biological Record Centre (WBRC) hold ecological records for the application area. Records were requested from WBRC in November 2013, and the Magic website (Natural England, 2013) was consulted for information on statutory designated sites within 1 km of application area. In addition data acquired by the applicant in respect of the Outline Consent for the redevelopment of Stoneleigh Park was used as appropriate in the baseline data collation.

5.2.3 Relevant information received from consultees is included as Appendix 5.1, and within the report text as appropriate.

5.2.4 An ecological appraisal was undertaken at the site by CLM in May 2012 which was used as background information within this report.

Definition of the Study Area

5.2.5 Wherever possible the assessment of impacts described below has been made based on the ecological value of the application area, which is the area of land included within the planning application and within which all landtake associated with the scheme will occur. In some cases, particularly in regard to highly mobile species such as birds or bats, it is necessary to evaluate the importance of a wider ecological study area.

5.2.6 The ecological study area includes the application area and appropriate buffers as required (up to 500 m from the application area). This buffer area is termed the ‘study area’.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

5.2.7 An initial Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the study area as shown in Figure 5.1 was undertaken in October 2013 and verified in March 2014 by Ecus Ltd. Survey methodology followed the standard approach described within the Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2010). Plant species and habitat types, according to the Phase 1 classification, were identified and recorded. Botanical recording was aimed at characterising the vegetation present and was not intended to comprise a complete list of all plants occurring on the site.

5.2.8 The abundance of plant species recorded was classified according to the subjective yet commonly used DAFOR abundance rating. The standardised terms are as follows:  D – Dominant;  A – Abundant;  F – Frequent;  O – Occasional, and  R – Rare.

5.2.9 Where necessary, the abundance rating given indicates co-dominance of species (CoD) or that a particular rating is appropriate only within a localised area (rating category preceded by L).

5.2.10 Notable, rare or scarce plants were highlighted if present. The information collected is presented using Target Notes (TN), the locations of which are shown in Figure 5.1.

Protected Species Survey

5.2.11 Any evidence of protected species or groups encountered during each survey visit was recorded. This included observations of field signs and an assessment of the suitability of the habitats present to support protected species. Based on the habitats present within the application area, the survey undertaken aimed to describe the potential of the application area to support the following protected and key species. Bats

5.2.12 The site does not contain any buildings. Individual trees present on site were inspected on a separate survey visit in June 2013 by a licensed bat ecologist (licence number: CLS02006) for any features, such as cracks, cavities or holes that may support roosting bats. Significant woodland blocks were assessed as a unit using the same methodology, as described below.

5.2.13 An individual tree, building or woodland block may have several features of potential interest to roosting bats associated with it. It is not always possible to confirm usage of a feature by bats as often the animals may be present on one day and no evidence of occupation may be found on the next. Consequently trees and specific features of buildings inspected are assigned a category of roosting potential as follows:

Negligible: This category is usually used where a tree or building feature appears initially to have significant bat roost potential but is considered on closer inspection to have low or negligible potential to support roosting bats. It is usually used during surveys to confirm that inspection of a feature has been carried out and has found that the feature is not considered to comprise suitable habitat for roosting bats.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Low: This category is used to describe a tree or building feature that may have some superficial interest to roosting bats, but is considered suboptimal to the extent that bats are not considered likely to use the feature for shelter. A cavity that is open at the top allowing access to wind and rain may be considered to be of low bat roost potential.

Moderate: This category is used to describe a tree or building feature that has some potential to support roosting bats, but is considered to be less than ideal in some way. For example the feature may be occupied by other animals, such as birds or squirrels, it may be subject to disturbance or have sub-optimal connectivity with navigational features. A surveyor would be neither surprised nor expect to find a bat using such a feature. Features considered to be of moderate roosting potential would not automatically be subject to an activity survey unless otherwise highlighted.

High: This category is used to describe an optimal tree or building feature considered to be ideally suitable for use by roosting bats where no evidence of occupation by bats has been found. Features considered to be of high bat roost potential may include upwards-leading cavities of appropriate dimensions and height from the ground, with no obstructions below the cavity entrance. The tree or structure may be particularly prominent within the landscape and is likely to have good connectivity with navigational features and sufficient suitable foraging habitat in the vicinity. Features with high bat roost potential are likely to be subject to activity surveys to assist confirmation of their status, and may be subject to a watching brief during works that may disturb them.

Confirmed: This category is used where positive evidence of bats usage has been recorded from a tree or building feature. For example, bats or bat droppings may be present, or existing bat records may be associated with the feature. A European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) from Natural England is likely to be required if the bat roost is to be disturbed by the development.

Birds

5.2.14 Formal bird survey was not undertaken as part of this assessment, however whilst on site the opportunity was taken to record all species of birds encountered. Badgers

5.2.15 Signs of badger (Meles meles) activity were searched for within and adjacent to the application area as part of the extended Phase 1 habitat survey. The survey followed a standard methodology (SNH, 2003). This included survey for badger setts, along with survey of linear features and boundaries for signs of badger activity including dung pits, foraging marks, feeding signs and pathways. Amphibians Habitat Suitability Assessment

5.2.16 A 1:25,000 scale Ordnance Survey map of the area was used to search for waterbodies within 250 m of the application area. Three ponds were identified within 250 m of the application area, the locations of which are shown on Figure 5.2. All waterbodies within 250 m of the application area, and not separated by a significant barrier to amphibian dispersal, were assessed for their potential to support great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) using a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) (Oldham et al., 2000).

5.2.17 Natural England undertook research on capture efficiency of great crested newts at distances from a known breeding pond and the report suggests that great crested

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

newts are rarely found more than 200 m from breeding ponds (English Nature, 2004). In the report they state that:

5.2.18 “…capture success along [drift] fences declined sharply with distance from ponds, and captures within the 50 – 100 m zone were generally inefficient. Captures on fences (and by other methods) at distances between 100 m and 200 – 250 m from breeding ponds tended to be so low as to raise serious doubts about the efficacy of this as an approach, although a small number of projects did report captures on significant linear features at distances of approximately 150 – 200 m from ponds” (English Nature, 2004).

5.2.19 The HSI approach uses readily observable habitat features in an objective model, which provides an informed view of the value of a site for great crested newt. This species is a habitat specialist and its status in a given waterbody is influenced by the existence of particular features (e.g. fish, heavy shading) and/or the absence of others (e.g. suitable terrestrial habitat within 500 m). The HSI provides a numerical value (ranging from 0 to 1) that indicates the suitability of a waterbody for great-crested newts. The higher the HSI score, the more suitable (or closer to optimum habitat conditions) the waterbody may be considered for great crested newts. HSI scores are provided in the text as appropriate. Great Crested Newt Presence/Absence Survey

5.2.20 Following the HSI assessment, amphibian surveys were undertaken on three of the ponds based on methodologies described in the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature, 2001). To determine presence or absence of great crested newt under these guidelines an initial four survey visits were undertaken. Great crested newts were recorded during these surveys and the number of visits was therefore extended to a total of six to provide a population estimate in accordance with current guidelines. Surveys were undertaken between April and May 2013.

5.2.21 In accordance with the guidelines, three of the six survey visits were undertaken between mid-April and mid-May (peak breeding season) and all visits were undertaken when air temperatures were greater than 5 °C. Survey dates are shown in Section 5.3.

5.2.22 Surveys used a combination of techniques appropriate to the site conditions at the time of survey. Techniques used included trapping with bottle traps, torchlight searches, egg searches and terrestrial search.

5.2.23 Although the survey methods used are designed to determine presence/absence of great crested newts, they are also suitable for detecting other British amphibian species.

5.2.24 Surveys were undertaken under the appropriate Natural England survey licence and by two experienced ecologists. Other Protected and Key Species

5.2.25 The proposed pipeline route will cross the River Avon to the north of Stoneleigh Park, via the existing bridge structure. No impacts to the banks and channel of the river are therefore anticipated and surveys for otter (Lutra lutra), water vole (Arvicola amphibius) and white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) have not been undertaken.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Ecological Assessment Methodology

5.2.26 The value and sensitivity of ecological features was determined based on the guidance given by IEEM (IEEM, 2006). Individual ecological receptors (habitats and species that could be affected by the proposed scheme) were assigned levels of importance for nature conservation at one of the following scales:  international;  UK;  national;  county;  district;  local, or  within the immediate zone of influence only.

5.2.27 For a given receptor, determination of value includes consideration of the size, conservation status and quality of the species population or habitat feature. Valuation of Habitats

5.2.28 Some sites are automatically assigned a nature conservation value through designation and the reason for designation is taken into account within this assessment. Designated sites are considered at the following levels:  International – Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protected Areas (SPA) and RAMSAR Sites.  National – Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (England) and National Nature Reserves (NNR).  County or district – sites designated by Local Authorities or County Wildlife Trusts and others.

5.2.29 Habitats that are not subject to specific nature conservation designations have been valued against published selection criteria where possible, including the following:  Special Areas of Conservation site selection criteria (EC Habitats Directive, Annex III) within the Habitats Directive Atlantic Biogeographical Region (Hopkins & Buck, 1995);  guidelines for the section of biological SSSIs (Nature Conservancy Council, 1989);  Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services (Defra, 2012); and  appropriate habitat inventories.

5.2.30 Habitats are also assessed against the Ratcliffe Criteria (Ratcliffe, 1977) where no appropriate selection criteria exist. Valuation of Species

5.2.31 In ascribing values to populations of species, consideration has been given to the legal status of species, as well as their size and status on the site and within the geographic area. Certain species receive protection under various pieces of legislation and this has been taken into account when determining value.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

5.2.32 The rarity of the species in the context of status, i.e. whether populations of a species are declining either nationally or at a more local level has also been considered. Particular species are typically assigned a higher value if they are included within the appropriate Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP).

5.2.33 The presence of invasive alien species or injurious weeds is considered to represent an ecological disbenefit. Magnitude of Impact

5.2.34 The key sources of impact to the nature conservation interests of the area resulting from the proposed scheme may arise as direct and indirect effects, examples of which are given below:

Direct effects:

5.2.35 Habitat loss (land take), where the severity of impact is directly related to the amount of habitat lost and the conservation value of that habitat.

5.2.36 Habitat fragmentation (severance of habitats and/or wildlife corridors linking them). This can lead to reduced genetic diversity and increase the likelihood of species being lost.

Indirect effects:

5.2.37 Including disturbance (visual or noise), dust deposition, incidental vehicle trafficking, water discharges and surface runoff. These impacts may affect habitats both within and outside the footprint of the works.

5.2.38 Impacts may also be either temporary or permanent in nature. Temporary effects occur during the construction phase of proposed scheme and may include impacts such as short-term increases in dust deposition resulting from construction traffic. It should be appreciated that temporary loss of habitats of high value for nature conservation may have as great or greater impact as permanent landtake of less sensitive habitats.

5.2.39 Landtake comprising the footprint of the scheme following post-construction restoration is considered to be permanent and some indirect effects may also be permanent.

5.2.40 The magnitudes of impacts are evaluated in terms of their predicted effect on the integrity of an ecological receptor, where integrity is defined as:

“[...] the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of species for which it was classified.” (IEEM, 2006).

5.2.41 Consideration is given to the nature and duration of the disturbance, its reversibility, timing and frequency as well as any cumulative effects, and the potential for impact avoidance or minimisation. Significance of Impacts

5.2.42 In assessing the significance of impacts, each has been considered in its entirety, ensuring all identified facets of the impact are considered. The significance of an impact depends upon the nature of the impact, the magnitude and duration of the impact and the sensitivity or importance of the receptors that it affects, as determined using assessment criteria detailed above. For the purpose of this assessment the

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

significance of all potential impacts to habitats of local or higher conservation value has been assessed.

5.2.43 A significant impact is defined as an impact (adverse or positive) on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem, and/or the conservation status of habitats or species within a geographical area, including cumulative impacts (IEEM, 2006).

5.2.44 IEEM have also adapted a description of conservation value form the EC Habitats Directive and applied it to habitats:

“conservation status is determined by the sum of the influences acting on the habitat and its typical species, that may affect its long-term distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species within a given geographical area.” (IEEM, 2006).

5.2.45 And species:

“conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within a given geographic area.” (IEEM, 2006).

5.2.46 The value of the significantly affected receptor is then used to determine the implications, in terms of legislation, policy and/or development control.

5.2.47 If an impact is found not to be significant at the highest geographical level at which the receptor has been valued it may be significant at a lower geographical level. Significant impacts on ecological receptors have been determined in accordance with guidance derived from policies applied at a scale relevant to the value of the feature or resource.

5.2.48 Any significant impacts remaining after mitigation are termed residual impacts and should be considered in the context of legislation, policy and development control in determining the application.

5.2.49 It is also useful to assign a level of confidence to the assessment of individual impacts and the definitions for confidence levels are shown in Table 5.1. Unless otherwise stated confidence levels are high. Table 5.1: Confidence Levels and Defining Criteria Confidence level Criteria The predicted impact is either certain e.g. land take or is High considered to be very likely to occur based on reliable information and/or previous experience. The predicted impact and its level are best guesses generally derived from first principles of ecological theory Low and the experience of the assessor. More information may be required to improve the level of confidence.

Limitations

5.2.50 This report serves to indicate the value of the site in nature conservation terms based upon the survey data gathered. As with any survey of this kind, the information collected defines the habitat types and quality and is not intended to be a record of every species present.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

5.3 Planning Policy and Legislation

5.3.1 Both the habitats and species assessments have taken account of the relevant domestic legislation, and in particular the transcriptions of international legislation into domestic law. National and local policy and guidance has also been considered, and the most relevant statutes and guidance have been summarised below.

International Legislation The Birds Directive – Directive 2009/147/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codified version)

5.3.2 The Birds Directive is the means by which the European Union meets some of its obligations under the Bern Convention and Bonn Convention, and provides a framework for the conservation and management of all bird species and their habitats within the EU member states. In particular, it requires special protection for a range of species (listed in Annex I of the Directive) and requires member states to establish Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for the protection of internationally important bird habitats. There are no SPAs within 1 km of the proposed development. The Habitats Directive – Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

5.3.3 The Habitats Directive is the means by which the European Union meets part of it obligation under the Bern Convention. The aim of the Directive is to promote the maintenance of biodiversity within the EU member states by establishing a network of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). Special Areas of Conservation are designated to protect the habitats and species of nature conservation importance in Europe, which are listed in Annex I and Annex II of the Directive respectively. Together, the network of SACs and SPAs are called the Natura 2000 network. There are no SACs within 1 km of the proposed development. Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 5.3.4 The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. There are presently 168 Contracting Parties to the Convention, with 2,168 wetland sites, totalling over 206 million ha, designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. There are no RAMSAR sites within the influence of the site or the proposed development.

UK Legislation Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as Amended) 5.3.5 The habitats and species protection provided within the EU Birds Directive is transcribed into UK legislation through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and its amendments.

5.3.6 The 1981 Act allows for the designation of National Nature Reserves (NNRs) and SSSIs to protect areas that support habitats and species of national or international importance. The network of SSSIs forms the basis for selection of the sites of the Natura 2000 network within the UK. There are no NNRs or SSSIs within 1 km of the site of the proposed development.

5.3.7 All bird species, including eggs, young and nests while in use, are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside 1981 Act as amended. These include a number of specially

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

protected birds (listed in Schedule 1). Other animals that are afforded protection are listed in Schedule 5 and a number of protected plant species are included in Schedule 8. The nests of certain bird species that re-use their nests are also protected while no longer in use as a result of an amendment made under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006.

5.3.8 Key amendments to the 1981 Act are made through the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000, which applies to England and Wales only. Relevant amendments include the strengthening of legislation to protect sites designated for nature conservation by imposing heavier penalties on offenders. The NERC Act 2006 also adds intentional or reckless damage, destruction or disturbance of designated flora or fauna within a SSSI as an offence.

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 5.3.9 The habitats and species protection provided within the EU Habitats Directive is transcribed into UK legislation through the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (The Habitats Regulations

5.3.11 The Regulations make it an offence (subject to exceptions) to deliberately capture, kill, disturb, or trade in the animals listed in Schedule 2 of the Regulations, or pick, collect, cut, uproot, destroy, or trade in the plants listed in Schedule 5. However, these actions may be permitted through licenses granted by Natural England. Licenses may be granted for a number of purposes, such as science and education, conservation, preserving public health and safety, but only after Natural England is satisfied that there are no satisfactory alternatives and that such actions will have no detrimental effect on wild population of the species concerned. Schedule 2 and Schedule 5 are comprised of the list of species included in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive and that occur within the UK. These species are termed European Protected Species (EPSs)and are afforded the highest level of protection in the UK.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 5.3.12 The NERC Act 2006 defines the roles of the various statutory conservation organisations throughout the UK countries to reflect devolved powers.

5.3.13 The NERC Act 2006 imposes a ‘duty to conserve biodiversity’ through fulfilment of their functions on all public authorities. Under the Act (2006) the Secretary of State for England and the National Assembly for Wales must compile and maintain a list of species and habitats that they consider to be of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity, these are referred to at the Section 41 and Section 42 lists respectively.

5.3.14 Enforcement powers in relation to wildlife have been strengthened and the possession of certain pesticides harmful to wildlife has been made an offence. In addition, codes of practice in connection with invasive non-native species must now be approved by the Secretary of State.

Protection of Badgers Act 1992 5.3.15 Under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 it is an offence to kill or injure badgers, to damage, destroy or obstruct access to an active badger sett, or to disturb badgers while they are occupying a sett. The Act does however include provisions to allow Natural England to grant licences permitting interference with a badger sett in the course of development. Such a licence will normally incorporate conditions to ensure that undue disturbance and suffering to badgers is avoided in the course of the

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

development works.

Hedgerow Regulations 1997 5.3.16 Under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, provision is made for the notification of “important” hedgerows. To qualify for notification, hedgerows must fulfil a range of criteria relating to their historical, landscape or wildlife character. In accordance with the Regulations, the intention to remove any hedgerow should be notified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) via a hedgerow removal notice. The planning authority may issue a Hedgerow Retention Notice to prevent the loss of an “important” hedgerow. Where permission is granted to remove an “important” hedgerow, the LPA may impose conditions to mitigate the loss.

Central Government Policy, Strategic Plans and Development Control National Planning Policy Framework 5.3.17 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and was brought into force on the 27th March 2012. Section 11 of the NPPF deals with Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment through 15 paragraphs and the most relevant to the proposed development are given below.

5.3.18 Paragraph 9 states that “Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to)[…]moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for nature[…]”.

5.3.19 Paragraph 109 states that “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

 protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;  recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;  minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;[…]” 5.3.20 Paragraph 113 states that “Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged. Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks”.

5.3.21 Paragraph 114 states that LPAs should “set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans, planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure”.

5.3.22 Paragraph 118 “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

 if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;….  …opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;  planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss; ..” Biodiversity Action Plans 5.3.25 The current biodiversity policy framework for England is described in Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s Wildlife and Ecosystem Services (Defra, 2012). This supersedes the original UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) (JNCC, 1994) prepared following the 1991 Rio Earth Summit and the signing of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

5.3.27 The UK BAP Partnership, which previously administered the UK BAP, no longer operates. However many of the tools and resources developed by the Partnership still remain in use. This includes the list of priority species and habitats and the descriptions used to define these, which was used to compile the list of habitats and species of principle importance maintained by the Secretary of State under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. The actions described within the original UK BAP were disseminated at a smaller scale through Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs), which were typically prepared by partnership organisations at a county level. Many of these plans have be retained or updated and may still be relevant to development within the boundary of a particular administration.

5.3.28 The application area is located within the Warwick District Council area and is covered by the Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Local Biodiversity Action Plan. The plan is under review although in remains in force at the present time. A total of 26 species and 24 habitats are included within the plan, each with a separate plan or included group plan. The following plans are considered to be potentially relevant to the proposed development:

 Bats.  Farmland birds.  Great crested newts.  Song thrush.  Hedgerows.  Woodland.  Wood-pasture, old parkland and veteran trees. Local Planning Policy 5.3.29 Under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Local Development Framework (LDF) system was introduced. The Warwick District LDF is currently under development and will consist of a series of Development Plan Documents (DPDs). Until these DPDs are completed the saved policies of the Warwick District Local Plan 1996 – 2011 remain in effect. The only saved policy relevant to this assessment is:

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

DP3 Natural and Historic Environment and Landscape ”Development will only be permitted which protects important natural features and positively contributes to the character and quality of its natural and historic environment through good habitat/landscape design and management. Development proposals will be expected to demonstrate that they:-

a) protect and/or enhance local ecology, including existing site features of nature conservation value;

b) protect and/or enhance features of historical, archaeological, geological and geomorphological significance;

c) protect and enhance the landscape character of the area, particularly respecting its historic character;

d) provide appropriate levels of amenity space which incorporate suitable habitat features and hard and soft landscaping;

e) integrate the amenity space and proposed landscaping into the overall development;

f) secure the long term management and maintenance of habitat/landscape features; and

g) protect best and most versatile agricultural land

Development proposals which have a significant impact upon the character and appearance of an area will be required to demonstrate how they comply with this policy by way of a Nature Conservation and Landscape Analysis. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, the Council may consider possible mitigation measures to reduce any harm caused by these adverse impacts. Where mitigation measures are not possible, compensation measures may be appropriate”.

5.4 Baseline Conditions

5.4.1 The findings of the ecological survey and desk study are described in this section of the report, which aims to identify and evaluate the importance of ecological receptors in respect of the proposed scheme. The assessment of the potential impacts to these receptors is presented in Section 5.5.

Character of the Study Area

5.4.2 The study area comprises a group of improved grassland fields surrounded by hedgerows and Kings Wood within a setting of similar land use.

Designated Sites

5.4.3 No sites subject to statutory designation for their nature conservation value were identified within 1 km of the application area.

5.4.4 A total of 12 non-statutory designated sites have been identified by WBRC within 1 km of the application area and are shown on Figure 5.1. These sites include all locations for which WBRC hold information. The list is comprised of Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), which have been formally designated by Warwickshire County Council; potential Local Wildlife Sites (pLWS), which fulfil the Council’s criteria for LWSs but are yet to be

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

formally designated; and several sites where there is evidence of higher nature conservation value but no assessment has been carried out.

5.4.5 The River Avon, over which the proposed pipeline will cross, is formally designated as the River Avon LWS for its varied geomorphology and the known presence of protected and notable species in and around the river channel. These species include otter, water vole, grass snake and amphibian species. As a naturalistic river with a good variety of features, the River Avon LWS is considered to be of up to regional importance for nature conservation.

5.4.6 Two of the identified non-designated nature conservation sites are located within the application area. These sites are Kings Wood (Ecosite 75/37), which is located immediately adjacent to the ADP and in which the existing tank is situated, and Crewe Farm (Ecosite 56/37), which is immediately to the west of the scheme and through which the gas pipeline will pass.

5.4.7 Neither of these Eco sites have been assessed under to LWS criteria or formally designated by the Council and as such their nature conservation status is ungraded.

5.4.8 Kings Wood is an area of ancient replanted woodland and the available Ecosite description states “This pine plantation was felled in the late 1990’s although mature trees were being retained around the perimeter and around the slurry tank within the plantation. It is probable the area will be replanted. There is an understorey of elder around the perimeter; and a ground cover of brambles; nettles; rosebay willowherb; male fern and bracken”. Kings Wood is considered to be of Parish value to nature conservation.

5.4.9 Crewe Farm Ecosite is currently ungraded, but is included in the results of the data consultation “due to a literature reference to species rich 4ft hedgerows”, which is supported by current survey information (see Hedgerows section below). Species rich, well managed, intact hedgerows these features are considered to be of at least local value to nature conservation. The interior of the agricultural fields, comprising a recently sown improved grassland at the time of survey, are species poor habitats that are common both locally and nationally. The agricultural fields of Crew Farm Ecosite are not considered to be of nature conservation value outwith their zone of immediate influence.

Habitats

5.4.10 Descriptions of all habitats recorded within the study area are provided below. Target notes (TN) are used to indicate the location of habitat features described in the text (see Figure 5.2). Agricultural Land

5.4.11 The fields within the application area comprise the dominant habitat type and were under a crop rotation and at the time of survey. The fields appeared to have been recently ploughed and harrowed and sown as improved grassland. Improved grassland is a common habitat, both locally and nationally and is typically comprised of a very limited number of plant species. The improved grassland within the study area is considered to be of value to nature conservation within the zone of immediate effect only.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Hedgerows

5.4.12 Hedgerows are included on the Section 41 list of habitats of principle importance, and those recorded within the application area are detailed in Table 5.1 and the locations are shown on Figure 5.1. Table 5.1: Summary of Hedgerow Survey Results Hedge 1 (H1) Species Poor Description: Species poor hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) dominated hedge, with ditch and bank, box flailed to a height of approx. 3 m and a width of 3 m. Only a few small gaps. Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) (CoD) Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) (CoD) Elder (Sambucus nigra) (O) Cherry (Prunus sp.) (O) Standard trees: Mature cherry Hedge 2 (H2) Species Poor Description: Species poor hawthorn dominated hedge, box flailed to approx. 3.5 m tall and 2.5 m wide. Hawthorn (D) Hornbeam (F) Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) (O) Oak (Quercus sp.) (O) Standard Trees: Early mature ash Early mature oak

Hedge 3 (H3) Species Poor Description: Species poor hawthorn dominated hedge forming woodland edge and side flailed to a height of approx. 4 m. Southern part of this hedge is fronted by a recently excavated drainage ditch, which was wet at the time of survey. Hawthorn (D) Hazel (Corylus avellana) (F) Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) (F) Holly (Ilex aquifolium) (O) Hedge 4 (H4) Species Rich Description: Species rich hedgerow, box flailed to approx. 2.5 m tall and 2 m wide. Hazel (O) Beech (Fagus sylvatica) (O) Hawthorn (F) Blackthorn (O-F) Oak (O) Elder (O) Standard trees: Mature beech Mature oak Hedge 5 (H5) Species Rich Description: Species rich hedgerow, managed by box flailing and uneven in dimensions. Typically between 3 and 4 m tall, and between 1 and 3 m wide.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Elder (R) Hawthorn (A) Hornbeam (A) Field maple (Acer campestre) (O) Hazel (F) Osier (Salix viminalis) (R) Holly (R) Blackthorn (F) Beech (R) Standard trees: Mature field maple Mature holly Mature beech Hedge 6 (H6) Species Poor Description: Species poor hawthorn dominated hedge with ash standards. Recently gap planted with hawthorn. Hawthorn (D) Standard trees: Young ash Hedge 7 (H7) Species Poor Description: Species poor hawthorn dominated hedge box flailed to a height of approx. 3 m. Hawthorn (D) Holly (O) Field maple (R) Standard trees: Mature Norway maple (Acer platanoides) Hedge 8 (H8) Species Poor Description: Species poor blackthorn dominated hedgerow, box flailed to approx. 2.5 m tall. Hawthorn (A) Blackthorn (D) Hedge 9 (H9) Species Poor Description: Species poor hawthorn dominated hedge standing at approx. 4.5 m tall. Unmanaged at the time of survey. Dry ditch on the western side. Hawthorn (D) Oak (R) Ash (R) Ivy (Hedera helix) (O) Field maple (R) Dog rose (Rosa canina) (O) Standard trees: Mature Norway maple Mature oak Mature cherry Hedge 10 (H10) Species Poor Description: Species poor hawthorn dominated hedge, box flailed to approx. 2.5 m tall and 3 m wide.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Hawthorn (D) Standard trees: Mature common lime (Tilia x europaea) Hedge 11 (H11) Species Poor Description: Species poor blackthorn dominated hedge, box flailed to approx. 2.5 m tall and 2.5 m wide. Ash (O) Hawthorn (F) Blackthorn (D) Elder (R) Standard trees: Mature oak Hedge 12 (H12) Species Rich Description: Species rich hedge standing at approx. 3 m tall. Unmanaged at the time of survey. Elder (R) Hawthorn (A) Hornbeam (A) Field maple (Acer campestre) (O) Hazel (F) Holly (R) Blackthorn (F) Ash D – Dominant; A – Abundant; F – Frequent; O – Occasional; R – Rare.

5.4.13 Hedgerows 4, 5 and 12 are considered to be species rich and therefore qualify as ‘important hedgerows’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 under the biodiversity and landscape criteria. The hedgerow network within the study area, including species poor hedgerows, is collectively considered to be of at least local value to nature conservation. Woodland

5.4.14 Kings Wood (TN5, Figure 5.1) is an area of ancient replanted woodland and identified as an Ecosite by WBRC. It is the largest area of woodland within the study area.

5.4.15 Kings Wood is a mixed woodland with a scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) plantation block in the interior, which is surrounded on all sides by a strip of broadleaved species, including sweet chestnut, oak , ash, blackthorn, hazel, dog rose, holly, ivy, birch (Betula pendula), beech and willow (Salix sp.). The field layer is dominated by bramble (Rubus fruticosus), with locally abundant bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), frequent foxglove (Digitalis purpurea) and red campion (Silene dioica). Within the southern part of the woodland is a clearing containing a disused slurry tank together with some above ground pipework. The vegetation of the clearing includes frequent tufted hair grass (Deschampsia cespitosa), soft rush (Juncus effusus), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius) and gypsywort (Lycopus europaeus).

5.4.16 Although the interior of this woodland is dominated by conifers, the belt of broadleaved trees at the periphery of Kings Wood can be described as lowland mixed deciduous woodland, which is a habitat of principle importance as listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act. Several of the trees comprising the broadleaved woodland are mature and

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

have been considered for their potential to support protected species in the appropriate sections below.

5.4.17 A second area of woodland (TN3; Figure 5.1) lies immediately to the south of the B4115. Species include common lime (Tilia x europaea), birch, oak and hazel. This area of woodland falls within the lowland mixed deciduous woodland priority habitat type.

5.4.18 A third section of woodland outwith the application boundary appears to have been planted as screening planting for the A46 and is located near to Crewe Farm.

5.4.19 The mature broadleaved trees within areas of woodland are not readily replicable and these habitats contribute significantly to the structural and botanical diversity of the habitats within the study area.

5.4.20 The application area supports broadleaved mature trees and mixed plantation woodlandwhich collectively are considered to be of value to nature conservation at a local scale. Ditches A narrow c. 0.5 m, man-made drainage ditch was present adjacent to Kings Wood. The ditch did not support aquatic plant species at the time of survey and was considered to be seasonally wet (c. 10 cm water at the time of survey) and likely to dry up for several months of the year. Due to the lack of connectivity and lack of aquatic plant species, ditches within the application area are not considered to be of importance to nature conservation outwith the zone of immediate influence. Scattered Trees

5.4.21 There are numerous scattered trees within the hedgerows which are described in detail in the hedgerow section above and within the tree survey which accompanies the planning application.

5.4.22 On the approach to Bridge 3 (access into Stoneleigh Park) is an avenue of early mature small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata) (TN4; Figure 5.1). These trees are in a double row with the western row growing as standards in a box flailed hawthorn dominated hedgerow. To the east of the double row of limes is a strip of trees, which are side flailed on the edge closest to the avenue. The strip of trees includes common lime, beech, guelder rose (Viburnum opulus) hawthorn and blackthorn. The avenue has a gravel surface with mown grass immediately underneath the scattered trees.

5.4.23 These scattered trees are planted and as such, whilst comprising early mature specimens and native species, are considered to be of nature conservation value within the zone of immediate influence only.

Species Amphibians

5.4.24 Two records of great crested newt and one record of a common toad (Bufo bufo) have been supplied by WBRC. The closest great crested newt record is located approximately 50 m to the west of the proposed application area, apparently located in Pond 1 or 2 (Figure 5.2). The remaining two records of protected amphibians originate from within Stoneleigh Park, south of the River Avon. In addition, previous amphibian surveys undertake by Ecus in relation to proposed development within the adjacent Stoneleigh Science Park in spring 2012 detected the presence of a small population of

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

great crested newts. Of 10 ponds surveyed only two were found to support great crested newts, with the peak count of three individuals on any one survey visit.

5.4.25 Great crested newt are a European Protected Species and are included on Schedule 2 of the Habitat Regulations (2010), which protect great crested newts, including their eggs, from deliberate capture, injury or killing, from deliberate disturbance and from deliberate damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place.

5.4.26 Great crested newts are also included on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and under this Act (as amended) are protected from intentional killing, injuring or taking (capture). The Act (1981) makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy any place used for shelter or protection, disturb great crested newts while they are using such a place or obstruct access to such a place. It is also an offence to possess, sell, transport for sale or advertise for sale any great crested newt or part.

5.4.27 Both great crested newt and common toad are included as a priority species on the Section 41 list.

5.4.28 All ponds recorded within 250 m of the application area and not separated by a barrier to amphibian dispersal (A46, River Avon) were considered to be suitable for supporting great crested newts and are shown as Ponds 1-3 on Figure 5.2 (see Appendix 5.2 for HSI results). As such presence/absence surveys were undertaken in spring 2013 and the results are presented in Table 5.2 below. Table 5.2: Summary of Amphibian Survey Results (See Figure 5.2), Showing Combined Amphibian Numbers Recorded using all Survey Methods. Peak count shown in bold. No. No. Visit Date of No. Newt Eggs Other Pond Smooth Palmate No. visit GCN recorded? Amphibians newts newts Pond 1 1 25/04/13 10 3 1 × 0 2 07/05/13 2 7 1 × 0 3 16/05/13 14 5 0 × 1 4 06/06/13 0 0 0 × 0 5 13/06/13 0 0 0 suspected 0 6 17/06/13 0 0 0 × 0 Pond 2 1 25/04/13 2 1 0 × 0 2 07/05/13 4 0 0 × 0 3 16/05/13 2 4 0 × 0 4 06/06/13 0 2 0 × 0 5 13/06/13 4 1 0 × 0 6 17/06/13 0 1 0 × 0 Pond 3 1 25/04/13 11 0 0 × 0

2 07/05/13 5 0 0 × 0 3 16/05/13 11 0 0 × 0 4 06/06/13 1 0 0 × 0

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

No. No. Visit Date of No. Newt Eggs Other Pond Smooth Palmate No. visit GCN recorded? Amphibians newts newts 5 13/06/13 0 0 0 × 0 6 17/06/13 0 0 0 × 0

5.4.29 The results in Table 5.2 above show that great crested newts are present in the three ponds to the northwest of the application area. The highest total counts of great crested newts were:  14 on the third visit to Pond 1;  4 on the second visit to Pond 2; and  11 on both the first and third visit to Pond 3.

5.4.30 These findings are consistent with adult newts returning to their breeding pond following emergence from hibernation from February onwards.

5.4.31 Based on the current guidance (English Nature, 2001), the results indicate a small population and medium population size class in Ponds 1 and 3 respectively, and a small population size class in Pond 2. As a whole the ponds are considered to be of value for great crested newt up to a district level.

5.4.32 Following the great crested newt breeding period the adults usually migrate to the terrestrial habitats adjacent to the breeding pond. The distance travelled from a pond is influenced by the quality of the terrestrial habitats within the vicinity. As the habitat immediately adjacent to the ponds is improved grassland, which is poor quality terrestrial habitat for great crested newts, it is likely that adult newts will migrate to the nearby hedgerows and woodland. This may include habitats within the study area. Due to the importance of the UK population of great crested newts overall and the known presence of this species within the wider landscape, the hedgerows and woodland within the application area can be considered collectively as important for great crested newts at a local scale.

5.4.33 Common toad are included as a species of principle importance under the provisions of Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. No common toad were recorded during the amphibian survey and it is considered unlikely that this species is present in large numbers within the study area. The habitats within the study area are considered to be of value to common toad within the zone of immediate effect only. Bats

5.4.34 A total of 22 records of bats and bat roosts have been supplied by WBRC for the area within 1 km of the application area. The records include the species common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii), brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus) and noctule (Nyctalus noctula). The closest record is common pipistrelle located approximately 100 m to the east of the application area and a noctule bat approximately 375 m north of the proposed site.

5.4.35 All species of bat occurring within the UK are included in Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations). Under the Habitats Regulations bats are protected from deliberate capture, injury or killing, from deliberate disturbance and from deliberate damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

5.4.36 All UK bats are also included on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, their protection is limited to certain offences. Under the 1981 Act (as amended) it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb bats while they are occupying a structure or place used for shelter or protection, or to obstruct access to any such place. Brown long-eared bats and noctule are also included as priority species in the list of species of principle importance produced under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006.

5.4.37 There are no buildings currently within the application area. Trees within, or immediately adjacent to, the application area were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats. Descriptions of those features assessed are provided in Table 5.3 Table 5.3: Summary of Bat Roost Potential within the Study Area Tree/Woodland Bat Roost identification Description Potential (Figure 5.1) Mature sessile oak 5 m from woodland No features T1 edge, with no visible features of potential recorded interest to roosting bats. Difficult to inspect. Mixed plantation woodland including several mature broadleaved trees around the Woodland perimeter. Conifer trees generally negligible Negligible (TN5) potential and mature broadleaved trees with negligible potential. Veteran pedunculate oak next to road, approx. 25 m tall with bracket fungi. T2 Unoccluded knot hole on east side at 9 m, Moderate to high unoccluded knot hole at 12 m on side limb and open knot hole at 7 m. Mature sessile oak with ivy covering on T3 trunk. Possible gap around knot collar on Low to moderate side limb, approx. 12 m high. Mature oak with tear-out at 8 m, rot T4 associated with flush cuts, and unoccluded Moderate knot hole.

5.4.38 Kings Wood has been assessed as of negligible potential for supporting bats. There are a number of mature trees towards the southern end of the proposed pipeline with up to high potential to support roosting bats, however it is not anticipated that these trees will be affected by the proposed scheme. The remaining immature-semi-mature trees within the application area (associated with hedgerows) were considered to be low-negligible potential to support roosting bats.

5.4.39 The application area is dominated by recently planted improved grassland habitats which are low in structural and botanical diversity and therefore unlikely to be support a diverse invertebrate assemblage. Due to a lack of foraging resource these habitats are considered to be suboptimal as bat foraging habitat. However, the study area also includes intact hedgerows and woodland, which could provide good quality habitat for foraging and commuting bats should they be present which could be of importance to foraging/commuting bats up a local level. Birds

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

5.4.40 All species of bird are protected through section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Under Act (as amended) it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly kill, capture or injure, or otherwise damage, destroy or collect any wild bird, their nests (including nests under construction), eggs or young.

5.4.41 No bird records have been supplied by WBRC however the study area includes habitats such as well managed hedgerows, woodland and mature trees that are likely to be of value to a variety of bird species. However, due to the availability of similar habitats within the immediate vicinity, the habitats within the application area are not considered to vital for maintaining the current conservation status of any particular species of bird. The application area is not considered to be of importance for foraging or nesting birds outwith the zone of immediate influence. Badgers

5.4.42 Badgers are widely regarded as being vulnerable to persecution, and specific badger records have not been supplied by WBRC, although the Council have stated that several records exist within the search area. During a telephone conversation with the Council on 6th December 2013 it has been confirmed that none of these records, which comprise a mixture of setts and road casualties, occur within the application area.

5.4.43 Under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 it is an offence to kill or injure badgers, to disturb them while they are occupying a sett, or to damage, destroy or obstruct access to an active sett.

5.4.44 A badger survey was undertaken within the study area as part of the extended Phase 1 habitat survey. A small rabbit warren consisting of two holes was recorded in Hedge 5 (TN2; Figure 5.1) and in the screen planting woodland by Crewe Farm (TN6; Figure 5.1) however no evidence for the presence of badger was recorded at the time of survey. No other evidence of sheltering badger was recorded within the application area or within 30 m of the application area boundary.

5.4.45 As records of badgers exist within the vicinity of the site it is considered likely that badger could use the site on occasion, as part of a wider foraging resource. However, given that the habitats within the application area are common within the local landscape, the application area is not considered to be of value to badger outwith the zone of immediate influence. Other Protected Species/Species of Nature Conservation Concern

5.4.46 The local record centre have supplied a large number of records that indicate the presence of otter, including fresh spraint and footprints. These records are all restricted to the water courses to the north and south of the application area; Finham Brook and River Avon respectively. The ditch within the application area is seasonally wet and lacks botanical species and as such is not considered likely to be of interest to water voles or otter and as such species are not considered likely to be receptors in respect of the proposals.

5.4.47 The data consultation provided two records of hedgehog (Erinaceus europeaus) from within 1 km of the application area. Both were records of road casualties and date from 1981 and 1982. Hedgehog is listed under section 41 of the NERC Act. The use of the application area by hedgehog, and in particular the hedgerows, cannot be ruled out. However, as the majority of habitats on site are unlikely to provide optimal foraging habitat for hedgehog the site is not considered of importance to hedgehog outside of the zone of immediate influence.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

5.4.48 A total of three records of grass snake (Natrix natrix) have been supplied for the area within 1 km of the application area. Records were made in 1984 and 1985, with a further four individuals recorded in 2004. None of the records originate from within the application area. The majority of on site habitats are considered suboptimal for grass snake. However it cannot be entirely ruled out that grass snake may use field margin habitats for foraging and commuting from time to time and therefore the application area is considered to be of importance to grass snakes within the zone of immediate influence only.

5.4.49 No records of brown hare (Lepus europaeus) have been returned through the data consultation. However, the habitats within the application area have the potential to support this species as part of a wider habitat resource. The habitats within the application area are therefore considered to be of importance to brown hare within the zone of immediate influence only.

5.5 Assessment and Mitigation

5.5.1 This Section of the report aims to assess the impacts that will result from implementation of the proposed scheme to the baseline condition described above. Full details of the proposed development which has been assessed are provided in Chapter 2.

5.5.2 Based on the development as described permanent landtake of improved grassland will be required for the proposed development. The proposed pipelines have been routed where possible to use existing gaps in hedgerows and maintain tree root protection buffers, but limited landtake of H12 and H1 (Figure 1.2) will be required for the installation of the gas grid pipeline.

Designated Sites

5.5.3 No direct or indirect impacts to statutorily designated sites for nature conservation have been identified. There is no direct connectivity, either via running water or boundary features, between the proposed development site and any of the statutorily designated sites for nature conservation identified within 1 km of the site. No other mechanisms through which impacts to designated sites could occur have been identified and no sites designated for their nature conservation value are considered to be receptors in respect of the proposals.

5.5.4 The proposed pipeline to Stoneleigh Park will cross the River Avon LWS via a the existing footbridge. The installation of a pipeline will use the existing structure and assuming standard pollution prevention measures are used during construction it is not anticipated to result in an impact to the River Avon LWS. The River Avon LWS is therefore not considered to be a receptor in respect of the proposed development.

5.5.5 The potential for impacts to Kings Wood EcoSite and Crewe Farm EcoSite are discussed under the appropriate habitats heading below.

Habitats Agricultural Land

5.5.6 Both temporary and permanent landtake (c. 1.48 ha and 3.40 ha respectively) of agricultural land will be required to construct the proposed anaerobic digester and install the pipeline/cables.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

5.5.7 The agricultural land within the study area is under a crop rotation, and at the time of survey had recently been sown as improved grassland. Improved grassland, including the examples within the study area, is typically of limited botanical diversity. This habitat type also exhibits a low degree of naturalness and can be readily recreated. Given the extent of this habitat within the local landscape and across the UK temporary and permanent landtake of this habitat is anticipated to represent an impact to nature conservation within the zone of immediate effect only. Hedgerows

5.5.8 Access to the proposed anaerobic digester will be through an existing gap in the hedgerow (H1; Figure 5.1), although removal of a short length (c. 12 m) of this hedge will be required to allow an adequate visibility splay onto Stoneleigh Road. This hedgerow is species poor and as such loss of c. 12 m is not anticipated to be result in a significant impact to nature conservation outwith the zone of immediate effect. A second temporary c. 0.5 m wide access for the gas pipeline to continue north over the A46 will be required within this hedgerow and will use gaps in the hedgerow where feasible (see Figure 1.2 for both gas and heat and electricity connection pipeline routes).

5.5.9 Hedgerows 2 and 3 will be retained and an appropriate buffer has been included within the design to protect this hedgerow during the construction of the access road and ADP (see the Tree Survey by Ecus Ltd which accompanies the planning application documentation).

5.5.10 The gas pipeline and the heat and electricity connection will require construction trenches that will be approximately 0.5 m wide and 1 m deep. Both pipelines will be routed through the existing un-gated field access in H4, therefore no loss of this hedgerow will be required. The pipeline route will then follow H5 and H7 on the western side and an appropriate buffer has been included within the design to protect this hedgerow and mature trees during the construction period.

5.5.11 The pipeline route will branch adjacent to H7, with one branch (one gas pipeline) providing a grid connection towards Crewe Farm to the south west of the ADP and the second branch supplying gas and heat/electricity via two pipelines to the Stoneleigh Science Park to the south. The grid connection pipe will cross H8 through an existing field gap, but will require temporary removal of c. 0.5 m of H12 which is designated an Ecosite and an important hedgerow under the Hedgerow Regulations, to accommodate the pipeline trench. Following installation the pipeline the hedgerow will be re-instated with appropriate native hedgerow species to ensure not net long-term loss of this resource. As such temporary loss of c. 0.5 m of H12 is not considered to result in a significant impact to this non-statutorily designated habitat.

5.5.12 The pipe connection to Stoneleigh Science Park will use the existing un-gated field access in H8 and run adjacent to H9, but outside of the root protection area, and as such no impact to these features is anticipated. The heat and electricity pipeline will at this point continue to the Park by crossing the hedgerow (H10) to the north of the B4115 (TN3; Figure 5.1), across the B4115 and into the Park through the existing access. It will require c. 0.5 m temporary loss of this hedgerow. Following installation the pipeline the hedgerow will be re-instated with appropriate native hedgerow species to ensure not net long-term loss of this resource. Within the Park the pipeline will use an existing route and as such will require re-laying only and will be restricted to the existing hard standing/amenity grassland habitats.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

5.5.13 The proposed scheme includes planting of native trees to provide additional visual screening for the development (see Chapter 3). This planting will comprise a belt of native tree species around the anaerobic digester structure. The landscape chapter also specifies that any hedgerow removed to install the pipeline will be replanted following installation using native species appropriate to each particular hedgerow.

5.5.14 As all lost sections of hedgerow are to be replaced, in terms of botanical value any impacts to the hedgerows within the application area are considered to be significant within the zone of immediate effect, and within the short term only. Ditches

5.5.15 Based on the development as proposed the ditch will be retained and protected during construction through standard pollution prevention measures. As such no impact to this resource is anticipated to occur. Woodland and Trees

5.5.16 The proposed scheme will require re-use of an existing tank and pipelines within Kings Wood. There is an existing access track to the tank which will be used and no additional tree clearance is anticipated to be required. A pipeline will be refurbished and connected from the tank to the proposed ADP. As such no landtake of woodland habitats will be required and based on the current scheme design all works will maintain the root protection area for Kings Wood and other individual trees.

5.5.17 As stated above the proposed scheme includes planting of native trees and hedge species to provide additional visual screening (see Chapter 3) and as such there will be a net enhancement of native trees which would be of benefit to nature conservation within the zone of immediate effects.

Species Amphibians

5.5.18 No loss of great crested newt breeding ponds will be required as part of the proposals. However, temporary and permanent landtake of suboptimal terrestrial habitat will be required. The proposed scheme is located c. 210 m from Pond 1, c.150 m from Pond 2 and c. 300 m from Pond 3.

5.5.19 Ponds 1 and 2 are surrounded by trees and rough vegetation and are adjacent to H4. Pond 3 is surrounded by trees and scrub and is located adjacent to H8. Trees/scrub habitat around these ponds together with H4 and H8 are therefore likely to be used by great crested newts during their terrestrial phase (see Appendix 5.3 for photographs of the ponds). There is not anticipated to be any landtake of these hedgerows as the proposed pipeline will use existing gaps in H4 and H8. Given the proximity of suitable terrestrial habitat to the ponds, set in a wider improved grassland habitat, the core terrestrial for great crested newts is likely to be immediately around the ponds and the hedgerow network which will not be affected by the proposed scheme.

5.5.20 The proposed development is sited in recently sown improved grassland and will require a combined permanent landtake of 1.99 ha of improved grassland habitat to construct the ADP within 250 m of Pond 1 and Pond 2.

5.5.21 In addition there will be temporary disturbance of c. 0.84 ha of improved grassland within 250 m of Pond 1 and Pond 2, c. 0.03 ha of which will be within 50 m of Pond 2 (see Figure 5.2). This temporary disturbance is required to install the landscape planting which is included within the scheme design.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

5.5.22 Simple structured habitats such as improved grassland are less likely to support great crested newts during their terrestrial phase than the adjacent woodland and hedgerows. As such the risk of impacts occurring to individual great crested newts during the construction phase within the improved grassland is considered to be low.

5.5.23 Small sections of hedgerows H1 and H12 will require temporary removal to install the access road and pipeline respectively. However, the required temporary loss of both H1 and H12 will be located at least 250 m from the nearest newt pond.

5.5.24 Hedgerow 8 which is located adjacent to Pond 3 and likely to be used by newts in their terrestrial phase will not be affected by the proposed scheme as the existing field gap located c. 280 m from Pond 3 will be used for the proposed pipeline to pass through the hedgerow.

5.5.25 Temporary disturbance of 0.14 ha rough grassland vegetation in Kings Wood would be required to re-furbish the existing pipes and existing slurry tank which is located c. 165 m from Pond 1 and Pond 2.

5.5.26 The proposed heat/electricity pipeline into Stoneleigh Park will be within 130 m of a known great crested newt pond in the Park (Pond 5 and Pond 6; Figure 5.1). However it is anticipated that the pipeline will be located within the existing pipeline route and as such construction will require re-excavation of an existing trench which is located within existing hard standing or mown amenity grassland. As such it is not anticipated that the proposed installation of this pipeline will impact great crested newts due to the lack of suitable habitat within the zone of works.

5.5.27 However, without mitigation it cannot be ruled out that great crested newts could be present within the construction zone at the time of works which could affect a small number of great crested newts. Appropriate measures to avoid impacts to great crested newts are described in Section 5.6 below. Bats

5.5.28 By virtue of the areas of mature woodland and presence of species rich hedgerows, the application area is considered to be of value to foraging bats which may be present within the study area up to a local scale. However, the proposed development will require only limited temporary landtake of hedgerow with gaps c. 0.5 m that contribute to the value of the application area for foraging and commuting bats. However, it is not anticipated that creation of temporary gaps of only c. 0.5 m in width in the hedgerow will adversely affect bats using the hedgerows for commuting, particularly as the hedgerows will be gap planted after works with native hedgerow species. Landtake of improved grassland is not considered to be of importance to foraging and commuting bats outwith the zone of immediate effects.

5.5.29 Kings Wood was considered to support negligible interest to roosting bats. However, bats are considered likely to use the woodland edge for foraging and commuting. Therefore without appropriate design there is potential for the lighting scheme to adversely affect any foraging/commuting bats in this area without proper consideration. Birds

5.5.30 Birds are highly mobile and adaptable, and therefore able to relocate in response to disturbance within their normal range. As the habitats surrounding the study area include grasslands, hedgerows and woodland similar to that found within the study area, and assuming these habitats have capacity, birds currently using habitats to be

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

lost within the application area would be able to relocate to adjacent habitats. Improved grassland is considered to be suboptimal for supporting nesting or foraging birds.

5.5.31 The proposed permanent loss of c. 12.5 linear meters of H1 and temporary loss of c. 0.5 linear meters of H8, H12 and H10 is not anticipated to result in an impact to foraging birds outwith the zone of immediate effects. However, these habitats could be used by nesting birds and should hedge removal works be undertaken during the nesting bird season (March-August inclusive) without appropriate mitigation loss of bird nesting habitat could be of importance to bird species up to a local level. Badgers

5.5.32 Based on the survey data no badger setts were recorded within 30 m of the proposed development. However, badgers have been recorded by the biological data centre within the wider landscape and as such badgers may use habitats within the application area as part of a wider foraging resource from time to time.

5.5.33 The improved grassland within the application area is suboptimal for foraging badgers. Landtake of improved grassland compared to its wide availability within the immediate vicinity, is not considered likely to result in an impact to foraging badgers outwith the zone of immediate effect. Whilst badgers were not recorded within the woodlands or hedgerows within 30 m of the proposed development, rabbit warrens were recorded and as such it cannot be entirely ruled out that badgers could become established prior to, or during construction, given their known presence within the wider landscape. Without appropriate precautions, should this happen, the proposed development could affect badgers up to a local level. Other Protected Species/Species of Nature Conservation Concern

5.5.34 The habitats within the application area have been evaluated as of importance for hedgehog, grass snake and brown hare within the zone of immediate influence only. As the habitats within the application area are common locally and nationally, and are immediately adjoined by habitats of the same type, landtake associated with the proposed development is not considered likely to result in a significant impact to these species outwith the zone of immediate effect.

Mitigation Measures

5.5.35 This Section describes the nature and extent of any actions necessary to mitigate the impacts of the proposals described above. Habitats

5.5.36 Landtake of agricultural land, which was seeded as improved grassland at the time of survey, represents the main impact that will occur as a result of the proposed scheme. As impacts to nature conservation arising from this are considered likely to be significant within the zone of immediate effect only, no mitigation is proposed in this respect.

5.5.37 There will be a net enhancement of tree planting from the scheme as proposed which will be to a greater extent than the permanent loss of H1 and therefore no further mitigation is proposed. All recommendations within the tree survey report that accompanies the Application should be adhered to in order to safeguard existing trees and hedgerows during construction.

5.5.38 Temporary loss of species-rich H12 will be required to install the pipeline. Prior to works commencing a meth statement detailing the works required and the method for re-

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

instating the hedgerow, together with appropriate native species, should be agreed with the LPA. The screen planting proposed within the scheme will result in a net enhancemet to the hedgerow resource within the site and as such no further planting is proposed.

5.5.39 Temporary disturbance of the ground flora the vegetation in Kings Wood will be required. This vegetation should allowed to re-colonise from the existing seed bank and monitored for success with additional supporting herb and grass planting if required using an appropriate native woodland flora mix which should be agreed with the LPA prior to being undertaken. Species Amphibians

5.5.40 The proposed development is unlikely to require a Natural England European Protected Species Licence (using the Natural England risk tool) as the scheme has been designed to minimise affecting newt habitat (core habitat around the ponds and connective features such as hedgerows).

5.5.41 All works affecting great crested newt habitat (hedgerows, grassland) should where possible be undertaken when newts are in breeding ponds to minimise impacts (March- early June depending on weather conditions). It is therefore recommended that hedgerow removal of H12 and H1 and any required vegetation removal in Kings Wood is undertaken between March. As a further precaution, and if feasible, the footprint of the ADP in the improved grassland could be kept ploughed following harvest in 2014 to further minimise any potential impacts during construction assuming it commences early 2015. In addition fencing should be used to ensure that the construction works do not encroach into P1-3 or their surrounding rough vegetation.

5.5.42 The scheme as proposed includes attenuation storage which could be managed and designed to provide additional newt breeding habitat which would be of benefit to the local newt population.

5.5.43 All vegetation removal works should be overseen by a licensed ecologicist and finger tip searches undertaken prior to works commencing. All works should be agreed within a Working Method Statement with respect to amphibians and approved by the LPA prior to commencing once the construction method statements are known. This Working Method Statement with respect to amphibians should include measures to handle any newts found and consideration could be given to creation of a hiberbaculum within Kings Wood. Should in the unlikely event any newts be found or suspected during the construction period, works in this area should cease and an ecologist contacted for further advice. Bats

5.5.44 The layout of the proposed scheme includes a standoff between Kings Wood trees and the ADP, which ensures that no construction occurs within the root protection areas for the woodland trees.

5.5.45 In order to maintain the current potential value of the site for any bats that may be using the site for foraging or commuting, a sensitive lighting scheme should be developed with an ecologist and agreed with the LPA to minimise impacts on foraging/commuting bats. Such a scheme should minimise any lighting spill on to adjacent hedgerows and the periphery of Kings Wood.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

5.5.46 It should be noted, that bats are highly transient and that individual bats require only very small gaps in which to roost. Should bats be discovered on site then works must stop immediately in that area and a suitably trained and experienced ecologist contacted for advice. Badgers

5.5.47 Badgers are a widespread and active species and have been recorded in the wider area. As woodland and hedgerow habitats, which are potentially suitable for supporting badger setts, are present within 30 m of the proposed working area a pre-construction badger check should be carried out prior to the start of works. Should evidence of badger be recorded appropriate mitigation should be put in place prior to works commencing within 30 m of the recorded feature. To prevent individual badger becoming trapped during the construction phase, any trenches should be left open over night with a means of escape (e.g. scaffold plank). If a mammal hole is discovered within 30 m of works at any time during the construction phase then works in this area should cease and a suitably experienced ecologist should be contacted for further advice. Other Protected Species/Species of Nature Conservation Concern

5.5.48 Should during the works hedgehogs, reptiles or brown hare be encountered, they should either be left to move out of the area by their own volition or carefully removed to an area of suitable habitat.

5.6 Conclusions

5.6.1 The application area is within an area of predominantly arable agricultural land with a hedgerow network and with areas of woodland surrounding the site.

5.6.2 The development will require permanent landtake of c. 3.40 ha of arable land and temporary landtake of c. 1.48 ha of arable land which will result in loss of suboptimal foraging habitat for badger, hedgehog, grass snake and brown hare and is not significant outwith the zone of immediate influence.

5.6.3 Temporary loss of c.1.5 m hedgerow will be planted with native species and c. 12 m of permanent loss of species poor hedgerow will be mitigated through the proposed native screen planting resulting in a net enhancement of this habitat within the site. The scheme has been designed to use existing field gaps where possible and a tree survey has been undertaken to ensure adequate root protection zones are established prior to works commencing.

5.6.4 Great crested newts have been recorded in the ponds in the vicinity of the development and this species is considered likely to be using the hedgerows and woodland adjacent to the application area during their terrestrial phase. A working method statment will be agreed with the LPA prior to works commencing to ensure that this species is safeguarded during works.

5.6.5 The habitats within the site, although limited in their value for roosting bats, are likely to be used by various bat species for foraging. The temporary loss of short sections of hedgerow is not anticipated to affect the ability of bats to navigate within the site, or to navigate to the site from neighbouring areas. A suitable lighting design, following the advice of an experienced bat ecologist, will be developed and this will ensure that bats are not discouraged from using the site for foraging.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

5.7 References

Defra. (2012). Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services. London: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

English Nature. (2001). Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. Peterborough: English Nature.

Hopkins, J. J., & Buck, A. L. (1995). Report 247: The Habitats Directive Atlantic Biogeographical Region: Report of the Biogeographical Region Workshop, Edinburgh, Scotland, 13-14 October 1994. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

IEEM. (2006). Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the united kingdom. Winchester, Hampshire: Institute for Ecology and Environmental Managment .

JNCC. (1994, January). Retrieved December 2012, from JNCC Web Site: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_Action-Plan-1994.pdf

JNCC. (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit (2010 ed.). Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committe.

Natural England. (2013). MagicMap. Retrieved 20th April 2014, from MAGIC: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx

Nature Conservancy Council. (1989). Guidelines for selection of biological SSSIs (1998 ed.). Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Commitee.

Oldham, R. S., Keeble, J., Swan, M. J., & Jeffcote, M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal, 10(4), 143-155.

Ratcliffe, D. A. (1977). A nature conservation review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SNH. (2003). Best Practice Guide - Badger Surveys. Inverness Badger Survey 2003. Commissioned Report No. 096.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

This page is intentionally blank

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

6. Odour

6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 This Chapter outlines the assessment of odours from the proposed ADP at Stoneleigh in Warwickshire. The facility will process 35,000 tonnes of feedstock per annum, consisting of maize, rye and grass silage, poultry and livestock manure, and non- animal organic wastes. The waste will be digested to produce bio methane which will be cleaned and upgraded and injected into the gas grid for supply to local homes and businesses.

6.1.2 The assessment identifies the potential for odours to be generated during the operation of the proposed AD facility, and the risk of any odour releases leading to annoyance, nuisance or loss of amenity at nearby sensitive receptor locations. The assessment has been carried out by Air Quality Consultants Ltd.

6.1.3 The assessment follows a qualitative risk-assessment methodology. The following report outlines the approach, assessment and conclusions.

6.2 Methodology 6.2.1 The odour assessment of the proposed Stoneleigh AD facility set out in this report is based on a Source-Pathway-Receptor approach, which describes the concept that in order for an odour impact (such as annoyance or nuisance) to occur there must be a source of odour, a pathway to transport the odour to an off-site location, and a receptor (e.g. people) to be affected by the odour.

6.2.2 The risk of odour effects at a given receptor location may be estimated using the following fundamental relationship:

Effect ≈ Dose x Response

6.2.3 In this relationship, the dose is a measure of the likely exposure to odours, in other words the impact. The response is determined by the sensitivity of the receiving environment and thus the overall effect is the result of changes in odour exposure at specific receptors, taking into account their sensitivity to odours.

6.2.4 In order to determine the risk of potential odour effects from the Stoneleigh AD facility, the ‘FIDOR’ factors for odour exposure, as outlined in the Environment Agency’s H4 guidance document on odour management (Environment Agency, 2011), have been used. The FIDOR factors are:

 Frequency – the frequency with which odours are detected;

 Intensity – the intensity of odours detected;

 Duration – the duration of exposure to detectable odours;

 Offensiveness – the level of pleasantness or unpleasantness of odours; and

 Receptor – the sensitivity of the location where odours are detected, and/or the proximity of odour releases to an odour-sensitive location.

6.2.5 Potential odours from each of the specific sources within the Stoneleigh AD facility have been assigned a risk-ranking based on the effect ≈ dose x response relationship,

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

whereby the dose (impact) is determined by FIDO of FIDOR, and the response is determined by the R (receptor sensitivity). The risk of odour effects can therefore be described as:

Effect ≈ Impact (FIDO) x Receptor Sensitivity (R)

6.2.6 The key factors that will influence the effect of odours are the magnitude of the odour source(s), the effectiveness of the pathway for transporting odours, and the sensitivity of the receptor. There is no published method currently available that describes the use of the Source-Pathway-Receptor approach to odour risk assessment. The methodology adopted is therefore outlined below. It includes an element of professional judgement.

6.2.7 The assessment examines the source odour potential (source magnitude) of the Stoneleigh AD facility, and then identifies the effectiveness of the pathway and receptor sensitivity at a number of nearby receptor locations.

6.2.8 Error! Reference source not found. describes the risk rating criteria (high, medium and low) for source magnitude, pathway effectiveness and receptor sensitivity applied in this assessment.

Table 6.1: Source-Pathway-Receptor Risk Ratings Risk Source Magnitude Pathway Effectiveness Receptor Sensitivity Rating Very short distance between source and Large-scale odour receptor; receptor source and/or a Highly sensitive downwind of source source with highly receptors e.g. High relative to prevailing unpleasant odours residential properties wind; ground level (hedonic tone -2 to - and schools. releases; no obstacle 4); no odour control. between source and receptor. Medium-scale odour source and/or a Moderate distance Moderately sensitive source with between source and receptors e.g. moderately Medium receptor; receptor commercial and retail unpleasant odours downwind or near premises, and (hedonic tone -0 to - downwind of source. recreation areas. 2); basic odour controls. Long distance between Small-scale odour source and receptor source and/or a Receptors not (>500 m); receptors source with pleasant sensitive e.g. Low upwind of source odours (hedonic tone industrial activities or relative to prevailing +4 – 0); best practise farms. wind; odour release odour controls. from stack/high level.

6.2.9 The risk ratings for source magnitude and pathway effectiveness (for each receptor) identified using the criteria in Table 6.1 are then combined using the matrix shown in Table 6.2 to estimate an overall risk of odour impact at each specific receptor location.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Table 6.2: Assessment of Risk of Odour Impact at a Specific Receptor Location

Pathway Source Odour Potential (Source Magnitude) Effectiveness High Medium Low

High High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Medium Medium Risk Low Risk Negligible Risk Low Low Risk Negligible Risk Negligible Risk

6.2.10 The next stage of the risk assessment is to identify the potential odour effect at each receptor location. This is done using the matrix presented in Table 6.3, which combines the overall odour impact risk descriptor for each receptor with the receptor sensitivity determined using the criteria in Table 6.1. As a final stage of assessment, an overall significance of odour effects is determined, based on professional judgment and taking into account the significance of effect at each specific receptor location.

Table 6.3: Assessment of Potential Odour Effect at a Specific Receptor Location

Risk of Receptor Sensitivity Odour Impact High Medium Low Substantial Adverse Moderate Adverse High Risk Slight Adverse Effect Effect Effect Medium Moderate Adverse Slight Adverse Effect Negligible Effect Risk Effect Low Risk Slight Adverse Effect Negligible Effect Negligible Effect Negligible Negligible Effect Negligible Effect Negligible Effect Risk

6.2.11 The following sections set out the assessment of source magnitude, pathway effectiveness and receptor sensitivity, and identify the overall likely odour effects resulting from the operation of the proposed Stoneleigh AD facility.

6.3 Planning Policy and Legislation 6.3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) introduced in March 2012 now sets out planning policy for the UK in one place. It replaces previous Planning Policy Statements, including PPS23 on Planning and Pollution Control. The NPPF contains advice on when air quality should be a material consideration in development control decisions. Existing, and likely future, air quality should be taken into account, as well as the EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, the presence of any AQMAs and the appropriateness of both the development for the site, and the site for the development. 6.3.2 The NPPF places a general presumption in favour of sustainable development, stressing the importance of local development plans, and states that the planning system should perform an environmental role to minimise pollution. One of the twelve core planning principles notes that planning should “contribute to…reducing pollution”. To prevent unacceptable risks from air pollution, planning decisions should ensure that

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

new development is appropriate for its location. The NPPF states that the effects of pollution on health and the sensitivity of the area and the development should be taken into account. 6.3.3 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was formally issued in March 2014 (DCLG, 2014). It provides guiding principles on how planning can take account of the impacts of new development on air quality. The guidance sets out the types of developments for which air quality may be a relevant consideration, and makes clear that odour and dust can also be a planning concern, for example, because of the effect on local amenity. It covers the information that may be required in an air quality assessment and how considerations about air quality fit into the development management process. The NPPG also provides guidance on options for mitigating air quality impacts, and provides examples of the types of measures to be considered. In particular it notes that: “mitigation options where necessary, will be locationally specific, will depend on the proposed development and should be proportionate to the likely impact.”

Odour Guidance and Criteria 6.3.4 There are currently no statutory standards in the UK covering the release and subsequent impacts of odours. This is due to complexities involved with measuring and assessing odours against compliance criteria, and the inherently subjective nature of odours.

6.3.5 It is recognised that odours have the potential to pose a nuisance for residents living near to an offensive source of odour. Determination of whether or not an odour constitutes a statutory nuisance in these cases is usually the responsibility of the local planning authority or the Environment Agency. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (1990) outlines that a local authority can require measures to be taken where any:

“dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on an industrial, trade and business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance…” or

“fumes or gases are emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or cause a nuisance..”

6.3.6 Odour can also be controlled under the Statutory Nuisance provisions of Part III of the Environmental Protection Act.

6.3.7 The Environment Agency has produced horizontal guidance on odour assessment and management (H4). The H4 guidance document is primarily aimed at process operators looking to control and manage the release of odours, but also contains a series of recommended assessment methods, some of which have informed the methodology employed in this assessment.

6.3.8 Defra released Odour Guidance for Local Authorities in March 2010 (Defra, 2010). This is a reference document aimed at environmental health practitioners and other professionals engaged in preventing, investigating and managing odours. The purpose of the guide is:

“…to support local authorities in their regulatory roles in preventing, regulating and controlling odours...”

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

6.4 Baseline Conditions Process Description 6.4.1 The proposed AD facility will process organic waste to produce biogas, which will be cleaned and upgraded and supplied to the gas grid for use locally. The facility will process 35,000 tonnes of feedstock per annum, consisting of maize, rye and grass silage (17,500 tonnes), poultry and livestock manure (4,000 tonnes), and non-animal organic wastes (13,500 tonnes).

6.4.2 The facility will incorporate a primary digester, a secondary digester, a storage tank, three 80 m x 20 m silage clamps, solid and liquid digestate removal stations, a feedhopper, a reception building, a CHP engine, a gas flare, a technical building, gas preparation and upgrading equipment, and a biofilter.

6.4.3 Silage will be stored in three large silage clamps on the site, with other waste streams typically stored in the reception building, although in some cases other solid wastes such as poultry manure will be stored in the silage clamps under sheeting. Waste will be transferred to digesters which will produce bio methane gas; this gas will be upgraded and injected to the gas grid. Some of the bio methane will be used to fuel a CHP engine to provide heat and power to the processes on site. The solid and liquid digestate (waste by-products from digestion) will be stored on site before removal and use as fertiliser. The facility includes an emergency gas flare for combustion of excess bio methane in the event that the gas upgrading equipment and CHP cannot process all of the gas produced, or are not operational due to faults or maintenance.

Source Odour Potential

6.4.4 The production and combustion of biogas by anaerobic digestion of biological material is intrinsically odourous. As biological material breaks down it releases odourous compounds, such as hydrogen sulphide and ammonia. These gases are detectable to the human nose even at very low concentrations in air, which may lead to annoyance and loss of amenity. It is therefore important to evaluate the risk of odour impacts from such a facility and provide mitigation to minimise any impacts wherever possible.

6.4.5 The first step of the odour risk assessment is to identify the source odour potential or odour magnitude. This takes into account the scale and nature of the odourous processes; continuity of odour releases; intensity of odour releases; offensiveness of odour releases; and any odour control measures that will be used. In essence, it must consider the odour potential of the source with respect to the FIDO of FIDOR.

6.4.6 There are a number of sources at the proposed Stoneleigh AD facility where there is a potential for odours to be released into the outside environment. The main potential odour sources have been identified via discussions with the applicants and AD plant supplier, and drawing on the professional experience of Air Quality Consultants Ltd. The main potential odour sources and overall odour source odour potential are described in Table 6.4.

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Table 6.4: Identification of Odour Sources and Overall Odour Source Odour Potential

Odour Proposed Mitigation Detailed Description Source Waste will be delivered to the site by Reception building to be road. Vehicles delivering waste will enter kept under negative the yard and unload into either the silage pressure with a fast-acting clamps or the reception building, shutter door. Air extracted Reception depending on the particular waste from reception building is of waste stream. There is potential for odour treated with the biofilter. releases from these vehicles as they arrive at site and unload waste. Odour releases will be short, infrequent, and during operating hours only. Silage is to be stored in three 80 m x 20 Most odourous waste m external clamps, poultry and livestock streams are to be stored in manure is to be stored within the the reception building under reception building, or sheeted in a silage negative pressure or in clamp; liquid food waste will be stored in liquid storage tanks which a liquid storage tank. The waste is likely are connected to the to be odourous, and storage for digesters via a sealed feed. prolonged periods of time is likely to Extracted air will be treated Storage of increase the level of odour produced, with the biofilter. waste particularly in the case of the silage. Odours from silage clamps will be seasonal and will increase in intensity with length of storage. Intensity will be highest during disturbance by front end loader for hopper loading. These will be short-lived and infrequent odour releases. Solid wastes will be loaded into an Hopper loading is not a external hopper near to the silage continuous process and will clamps. The waste will be transported take place for short periods, there by a loading shovel. Liquid wastes usually once a day, during will be pumped directly into the digester operating hours only. from the liquid storage tank. Odours are Loading of likely to be generated primarily during the hoppers disturbance of waste by the loading shovel, and to a lesser extent during the transport of waste across site to the external hoppers. No odours will be released during pumping of liquid waste into the digesters as the feed from the liquid storage tank will be sealed.

100

Land Adjacent to Kings Wood: Anaerobic Digester Material Change Ltd

Odour Proposed Mitigation Detailed Description Source Solid digestate will be removed from the Solid digestate will be digesters as slurry and dewatered. It will dewatered and largely inert, Solid then be stored on site in a bunker for a therefore relatively digestate short period before being removed from odourless (similar to mature site by tractor and trailer. compost). Some liquid digestate will be stored in Liquid digestate will be Liquid tanks prior to removal from site via stored in covered tanks, digestate tankers. Liquid digestate has the thus reducing the potential potential to be odourous. for odour releases. The digesters themselves are airtight and Releases are anticipated to therefore will not generally release be short-lived and Digesters / odours; however, each digester will be infrequent as valves will Digester fitted with emergency pressure release only be used in exceptional release valves that will be opened if there is a circumstances. valves need to reduce pressure within the tanks. Opening the release values is likely to release odours. Most of the biogas produced will be Biogas cleaned before cleaned and upgraded, and injected to combustion to remove the gas grid, but a small amount of the sulphur which is odourous biogas produced will be combusted in a as H2S or SO2. CHP engine to provide heat and power for on-site processes. CHP stack There is potential for odours associated with the release of CHP exhaust gases. The exhaust gases will include unburned hydrocarbons (primarily CH4), NOx, CO2, CO and water vapour, none of which are odourous. Excess gas produced will be combusted The gas flare will be used in the gas flare. The gas flare will infrequently, and is unlikely Gas flare combust gas in a high temperature, air- to be used for prolonged rich environment which is unlikely to yield periods. significant odour emissions. Air extracted from the reception building The biofilter will be will be passed through a biofilter before designed to remove as being released to the atmosphere. The much odour from the Biofilter a biofilter is part of an odour emission extracted air as is control system for the facility, but some practicable. residual odours may remain.

101