nexus 25, taunton, somerset local development order · local development order (ldo) for a site...

On behalf of Taunton Deane Borough Council

Project Ref: 38488 | Rev: 01 | Date: July 2017

Office Address: 10 Queen Square, Bristol, BS1 4NT T: +44 (0)117 332 7840 E: [email protected]

Nexus 25, Taunton, Somerset Local Development Order

Environmental Statement, Volume 1 – Main Report

Environmental Statement, Vol. 1 – Main Report

Nexus 25 LDO, Taunton

J:\38488 J25 LDO TDBC\Reports\Environment\ES\J25 ES.docx

ii

Document Control Sheet

Project Name: Nexus 25 LDO, Taunton

Project Ref: 38488

Report Title: Environmental Statement, Volume 1 – Main Report

Doc Ref: 01

Date: July 2017

Name Position Signature Date

Prepared by: Various/

Sophie Nioche

Various/

Senior Environmental

Planner

18/07/2017

Reviewed by: Stefan Boss Senior Associate

18/07/2017

Approved by: Richard Swinden Partner

18/07/2017

For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP

Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved

01 18/07/17 ISSUED SN SB RS

This report has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates LLP (‘PBA’) on behalf of its client to whom this report is addressed (‘Client’) in connection with the project described in this report and takes into account the Client's particular instructions and requirements. This report was prepared in accordance with the professional services appointment under which PBA was appointed by its Client. This report is not intended for and should not be relied on by any third party (i.e. parties other than the Client). PBA accepts no duty or responsibility (including in negligence) to any party other than the Client and disclaims all liability of any nature whatsoever to any such party in respect of this report.

© Peter Brett Associates LLP 2017




iii

Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction and Purpose .............................................................................................. 1

1.2 The EIA and ES ............................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Team ..................................................................... 2

1.4 Structure of the Environment Statement ....................................................................... 2

2 Site and Surrounding Area ......................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Site Location and Context ............................................................................................. 3

2.2 Site Description ............................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................... 3

3 The LDO ....................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Introduction and Objectives ........................................................................................... 5

3.2 Description of the LDO Development ............................................................................ 5

3.3 Construction ................................................................................................................ 11

3.4 Planning Conditions..................................................................................................... 12

3.5 Lifetime of the LDO...................................................................................................... 13

3.6 Consideration of Alternatives ...................................................................................... 13

4 Assessment Method ................................................................................................................. 16

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 16

4.2 EIA Regulations ........................................................................................................... 16

4.3 The EIA Process .......................................................................................................... 16

4.4 Screening and Scoping ............................................................................................... 16

4.5 Consultation ................................................................................................................. 17

4.6 Committed Developments ........................................................................................... 17

4.7 Assessment Assumptions ........................................................................................... 18

4.8 Assessing Effects ........................................................................................................ 19

4.9 Uncertainty .................................................................................................................. 20

4.10 Mitigation of Adverse Effects ....................................................................................... 20

4.11 Residual Effects ........................................................................................................... 20

4.12 Significance Criteria..................................................................................................... 20

4.13 Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................... 21

4.14 Impact Interactions ...................................................................................................... 22

5 Planning Policy and Context .................................................................................................... 23

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 23

5.2 National Policy ............................................................................................................. 23

5.3 Local Policy ................................................................................................................. 23

6 Transport .................................................................................................................................... 27

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 27

6.2 Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 27




iv

6.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 27

6.4 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 31

6.5 Potential Effects ........................................................................................................... 34

6.6 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................... 39



6.9 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 40

7 Landscape and Visual............................................................................................................... 41

7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 41

7.2 Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 41

7.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 43



7.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ....................................................................................... 54



7.9 Conclusions and Summary ......................................................................................... 58

8 Ecology ...................................................................................................................................... 60

8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 60

8.2 Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 60

8.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 61



8.6 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................... 89

8.7 Enhancement .............................................................................................................. 91


8.9 Ecological Features Requiring Appropriate Management in Relation to Legislative Protection and Relevant Policy Considerations ........................................................ 100

8.10 Cumulative Effects..................................................................................................... 101

8.11 Summary ................................................................................................................... 102

8.12 References ................................................................................................................ 103

9 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................. 105

9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 105

9.2 Policy Context ............................................................................................................ 105

9.4 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................... 111

9.5 Potential Effects ......................................................................................................... 113

9.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ..................................................................................... 116

9.7 Residual Effects ......................................................................................................... 119


9.10 References ................................................................................................................ 121

10 Archaeology ............................................................................................................................. 123




v

10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 123

10.2 Policy Context ............................................................................................................ 123

10.3 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 127

10.4 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................... 131

10.5 Potential Effects ......................................................................................................... 133

10.6 Mitigation and Enhancement ..................................................................................... 134

10.7 Residual Effects ......................................................................................................... 134


10.9 Summary ................................................................................................................... 135

10.10 References ................................................................................................................ 135

11 Other Issues Considered ........................................................................................................ 137

11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 137

11.2 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................... 137

11.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 137

11.4 Ground Conditions and Contamination ..................................................................... 138

12 Impact Interactions ................................................................................................................. 140

12.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 140

12.2 Construction .............................................................................................................. 140

12.3 Operation ................................................................................................................... 140

13 Glossary ................................................................................................................................... 142

Appendices

Environmental Statement – Volume 2 (Appendices)




vi



J:\38488 J25 LDO TDBC\Reports\Environment\ES\J25 ES.docx 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction and Purpose

1.1.1 An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been undertaken on behalf of Taunton Deane Borough Council (TDBC) in relation to the Borough Council’s proposed adoption of a Local Development Order (LDO) for a site known as Nexus 25, Taunton (referred to hereafter as ‘the site’). The land within the site is within the ownership of Summerfield Developments, a South West-based property company.

1.1.2 An LDO is intended to give a grant of planning permission to specific types of development within a defined area. They streamline the planning process by removing the need for developers to make a planning application to a local planning authority. They create certainty and save time and money for those involved in the planning process.

1.1.3 The LDO for the site is intended to stimulate the development of a strategic employment site.

The type of development specified by the LDO is employment use and the proposal is

hereafter referred to as ‘the proposed development’.

1.1.4 This Environmental Statement (ES), prepared by Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA), presents

the findings of the EIA. The ES identifies the likely significant environmental effects of the

proposed development at the construction and operation stages.

1.1.5 The EIA has been undertaken in the context of established EIA case law R v Rochdale

Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Tew (1999) and R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough

Council ex parte Milne (2001). As a result, there is the requirement to test the likely significant

effects of development parameters given the flexibility inherent to the LDO. The EIA has

therefore considered the likely significant effects of the LDO through the assessment of the

development parameter plan. This has typically entailed, to ensure a robust approach,

conservative assessment of the maximum development allowed within those parameters.

This is not to say that the development will be implemented to these maximum parameters

(the level of development could be lower as long as it is within the parameters) and therefore

the EIA is considered to represent a conservative assessment of the likely significant effects of

the proposed development.

1.2 The EIA and ES

1.2.1 This ES presents the findings of an EIA undertaken in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015), referred to as the ‘EIA Regulations’. A Scoping Opinion was prepared before 16 May 2017 and therefore this ES is prepared in accordance with the 2011 EIA Regulations (rather than the 2017 Regulations) in accordance with Regulation 76 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

1.2.2 Running concurrently with the formulation of the LDO, the EIA has sought to identify any likely

significant environmental effects. The EIA process then identifies appropriate design and

construction measures and good practice both to mitigate likely significant adverse

environmental effects and to maximise the environmental opportunities that might arise as a

consequence of the construction and operation of the proposed development.

1.2.3 The EIA has also sought to determine the residual likely significant beneficial and adverse

environmental effects remaining after mitigation has been incorporated.

1.2.4 The ES comprises the following volumes:




Volume 1: Main Report (this document);

Volume 2: Appendices; and

Non-Technical Summary.

1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Team

1.3.1 The EIA was undertaken by a project team composed of:

Orion Heritage: Historic Environment and Archaeology;

Lacey Hickie & Caley Ltd: Masterplanning; and

PBA: town planning, EIA coordination, transport, noise, air quality, landscape and visual, ecology, flood risk and hydrology, and lighting.

1.4 Structure of the Environment Statement

1.4.1 The ES is structured as follows:

Volume 1 – Main Report

Chapter 2: description of the site and the surrounding area;

Chapter 3: description of the characteristics of the LDO;

Chapter 4: provides the methodology adopted to undertake the EIA;

Chapter 5: summarises the planning and policy context to the proposed development;

Chapters 6 to 10: comprise the technical assessment chapters which document the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development and describes the likely significant effects of the proposed development;

Chapter 11: documents other issues that have been considered;

Chapter 12: provides a summary and assesses impact interactions; and

Chapter 13: provides a glossary of terms.

Volume 2 – Figures and Technical Appendices

Non-Technical Summary.




2 Site and Surrounding Area

2.1 Site Location and Context

2.1.1 The site comprises approximately 54 hectares of land, of which approximately 17 hectares are planned for built development, located to the east of the M5 motorway, approximately 2.5 miles east of Taunton Town Centre, Somerset. The centre of the site is located approximately at National Grid Reference 325631 124174. An indicative Site Location Plan is provided in Appendix A.1.

2.1.2 The site is located immediately south of Junction 25 of the M5 motorway and bounded by the M5 along its western boundary. Taunton Gateway Park and Ride and Cambria Farm are located immediately to the north east of the site and beyond to the north east is the A358 road. Some buildings associated with Cambria Farm are located within the site boundary. Haydon village is located immediately to the south of the site. Agricultural fields lie to the east of the site and further to the east is the village of Henlade.

2.1.3 Within Taunton, Blackbrook Business Park is located immediately west of the M5 from the site. Beyond the A358 to the north of the site is the Toby Carvery Taunton, Premier Inn Ruishton and also Woodlands Castle, a private function and wedding party venue. The village of Ruishton is north east of the site, its closest properties located approximately 600m north east of the site boundary. Swingrite golf centre is situated adjacent to the site’s southwestern boundary.

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 The site comprises approximately 16 fields of agricultural land, currently used for both arable and pasture grassland. Agricultural buildings associated with Cambria Farm are located in the northwest area of the site, currently used as poultry sheds. These buildings will be demolished as part of the M5 J25 Improvement Scheme. The site extends west along a culvert that passes from the site’s western edge, beneath the M5 motorway; this is part of the Blackbrook watercourse.

2.2.2 The site includes part of Somerset County Council’s (SCC) proposed highway improvements at M5 Junction 25. SCC’s current planning application includes modifications to increase the capacity and safety of the roundabout, alongside the creation of an additional arm on the eastern side of the roundabout, which would provide the ability to access the site and proposed development. It also proposes alterations to the existing access junction for the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride.

2.2.3 The boundary between the Wards of Neroche (within which the majority of the site lies) and Ruishton and Creech is broadly followed by the eastern boundary of the site. This is also the boundary between the parishes of Stoke St Mary and Ruishton.

2.3 Environmental Setting

2.3.1 The site’s topography is low lying and gently undulating land; the lowest level being approximately 12m above ordnance datum (AOD) in the northeast of the site and the highest level at approximately 18m AOD on a low ridge to the south in the area adjacent to properties at Haydon. The soils are characterised by silty sandy clay, cohesive clay soils and silt and clay progressing into mudstone.

2.3.2 The Blackbrook watercourse passes beneath the M5 where it meets the Broughton Brook, which flows from the south along the site’s southwestern boundary. Beyond the confluence, the Blackbrook flows alongside the M5 and site’s north-western boundary and then




underneath the A358. Watercourse locations are shown on Figure 7.1, Appendix E.1 of this ES.

2.3.3 Other watercourses within the site include the Henlade Brook at the southern edge of the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride, the Stoke Brook which passes along part of the site’s eastern boundary and numerous minor watercourses, field ditches and ponds.

2.3.4 The site is located predominately in Flood Zone 1 - the zone with the lowest probability of flooding. Parts of the northern and western areas of the site are located in Flood Zones 2 and 3.

2.3.5 A public footpath runs through the western sector of the site, from Haydon Lane northwards to Cambria Farm and emerging on the A358 at the motorway junction. This footpath links to another public footpath, which passes through Cambria Farm, just north of the poultry sheds, and along the southern boundary of the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride; following the Henlade Brook in a south-easterly direction, to emerge on Haydon Lane close to Arundel Cottages. A Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) leads from Haydon Lane to Haydon Farm, but does not connect to other public rights of way.

2.3.6 The site comprises regular-shaped, medium size agricultural fields. Field boundaries are fences, ditches and hedgerows, some of which include mature trees such as oak, ash, willow and sycamore.

2.3.7 The site comprises a medieval agricultural landscape. There are no known Prehistoric remains recorded within the site, although there is a known area of prehistoric and Roman Settlement at the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride. Archaeological remains from the Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman periods have been found in the wider area and it is possible that contemporary archaeological remains may extend into the site. There are no known Saxon remains on the site and it is considered to have a low potential for activity dating to this period. Geophysical survey suggests the below-ground survival of ridge and furrow agricultural remains from the Medieval period. Most recently, the Historical Environment record (HER) contains two entries related to Post-Medieval and Modern land use for the site: a radar site and an anti-aircraft battery, both of which date to World War II.

2.3.8 There are no Listed Buildings within the site. Nearby Listed Buildings (Grade II) include those at Ruishton Court, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride; Haydon Farm near to the site’s southern boundary; and at Haydon House Farm, south of Haydon Lane. There are no Scheduled Monuments within the site.

2.3.9 The Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) lies approximately 2.9km to the south of the site at its closest point.




3 The LDO

3.1 Introduction and Objectives

3.1.1 The LDO, once adopted by TDBC, will grant planning permission exclusively for the erection of buildings and/or the use of land and associated development as set in this chapter. Further details are also provided in the LDO document (currently in draft for consultation) and the accompanying draft Design Guide.

3.1.2 The following provides a description of the development to be approved and should be read in conjunction with the parameter plan provided in Appendix A.2. The parameter plan set the parameters within which development at the site will be delivered and has formed the basis of the EIA (typically through the conservative assessment of the maximum development parameters).

3.1.3 The LDO has been prepared to help streamline the planning process and enable development of Nexus 25, Taunton. The Nexus 25 masterplan seeks to deliver a strategic employment site of approximately 25 hectares net developable area to support the future growth needs of Taunton.

3.1.4 The design principles underpinning the masterplan are driven by four key objectives;

Creating a pleasant and experientially rich working environment – First and foremost the site will aim to deliver a high quality working environment for businesses and employees.

Creating a ‘Green’ and sustainable development – the site will be a landscape led development to provide generous and connected green campus that enriches both the working environment and preserves existing landscape features and enhances biodiversity. Sustainable approaches to external drainage, building design and transport will also be a key component.

Creating a connected development – the site will aim to maximise connectivity with Taunton town centre and the surrounding region. An improved junction linking the scheme to the M5, as well as new bus connections, and pedestrian and cycle links will ensure that the scheme is accessible.

Creating a flexible and deliverable development – the site will offer flexibility to ensure that development can be delivered in a commercial viable and adaptive manner.

3.2 Description of the LDO Development

Built Areas

3.2.1 The LDO provides flexibility in how development at the site can be brought forward. Table 3.1 sets out the permitted uses as prescribed by the Use Classes Order or in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and /or re-enacting that order with or without modification).

3.2.2 There are limitations on these uses for each of the 6 plots proposed within the LDO, on a plot by plot basis, as set out in table 3.2.




Table 3.1 Development Permitted by the LDO

Use Class

Definition Limitations

A1 Shops- shops, retail warehouses, showrooms. Ancillary use with limited floorspace

A3 Restaurants and cafes Ancillary use with limited floorspace

A4 Drinking establishments Ancillary use with limited floorspace

B1

B1 (a) An office other than a use within class A2 B1 (b) Research and development of products or processes B1 (c) For any industrial process

B2 General industrial

B8 Use for storage or as a distribution centre- Storage Logistics Centre

C1 Hotels and hostels

C2

Residential institutions- provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care, hospital or nursing home, residential school or training school.

D1 Non-residential institutions- medical or health service, crèche, education, public hall.

D2 Assembly and leisure Gymnasium only

Sui Generis

Any use other than listed above Motor car showrooms only

Table 3.2 - Permitted Uses in the Development Plots

Plot 1

Use Class Parameters

A1 Shops Maximum floorspace 1200sq m GIFA across A1/A3/A4.

A3 – Restaurants and Cafés

A4 – Drinking Establishments

B1(a) - An office other than a use within class A2

B1(b) – Research and development of products or processes

C1 - Hotels and hostels

Permitted on the basis that no other application for C1 development on any other plot.

D2 – Assembly and leisure Gymanasium only




Plot 2




B1(c) – Light Industry

B2 – General Industrial

B8 – Storage and Distribution

Sui Generis Car Showroom only

Plot 3


A1 Shops Maximum floorspace 1350sq m across A1/A3/A4.

A3 – Restaurants and Cafés

A4 – Drinking Establishments




C1 – Hotels and hostels


D2 – Assembly and Leisure Gymnasium only.

Plot 4



B2 – General Industrial

B8 – Storage and Distribution

Sui Generis Car Showroom only

Plot 5




C2 – Residential Institutions

D1 – Non Residential Institutions




Plot 6


A1 Shops Maximum floorspace 750sq m GIFA.



C1 – Hotels and hostels


D2 – Assembly and Leisure Gymnasium only.

3.2.3 The development covered by the LDO is also defined by the building heights and maximum floorspace as detailed on the parameter plan. This sets out the building heights that can be delivered across the site as well as the acceptable uses across the site. A proposed building height of up to 12m to ridge has been applied.

3.2.4 An indicative masterplan has also been prepared to illustrate how these parameters may be delivered at the site. The masterplan is however only indicative and provides one illustration of how the parameters can be delivered. The EIA has therefore been based on the parameter plans, rather than the indicative masterplan. The indicative masterplan is provided for information in Appendix A.3.

Non-Built Areas

3.2.5 Land outside of designated development plots will form a cohesive Green/Blue Infrastructure Framework which underpins the masterplan structure and will deliver a connected network of green spaces, ecological and biodiversity gains and surface water drainage and SUDs features combining to develop a ‘green’ character to the site and a pleasant and healthy working environment. Proposed pedestrian and cycle routes will be integrated into this network to ensure that the Nexus 25 masterplan is well connected and legible.

3.2.6 This Green/Blue Infrastructure Framework is shown on the parameter plan (Appendix A.2) as ‘Landscaping/Drainage Attenuation’ areas. The layout the parameter plan to include development plots and landscaping/drainage attenuation is primarily guided around the principle of locating all development in Flood Zone 1. The areas shown as landscaping/drainage attenuation are located with Flood Zones 2 and 3.

3.2.7 The design of the Green/Blue Infrastructure Framework has also been developed in close coordination and in accordance with the green infrastructure strategy produced as part of the Taunton Garden Town initiative.

3.2.8 The key components of the Green/Blue Infrastructure Framework are summarised as delivering;

A ‘green skirt’ around the development, which will offer a generous multi-functional greenspace around the perimeter of the built form. This will provide recreation space, ecological improvements, flood relief and act as a green buffer between the M5 corridor




and development edge. A portion of this land will continue to be managed as agricultural land;

Tree lined streets developing a network of green streets linking open spaces;

Two key axial green corridors transecting the site and running south and east to link the green skirt with the countryside beyond. These will accommodate pedestrian cycle routes, SUDs features and offer green recreational space to those working in nearby businesses;

Retention and enhancement of existing trees and hedgerows along key boundaries of the site;

An integrated surface water drainage and SUDs network within green corridors and public spaces;

Landscaped ponds and wetland areas;

A trim trail and recreational opportunities offering health and fitness opportunities;

Natural play areas; and

Additional woodland and buffer planting around the perimeter of development.

Design Guide

3.2.9 The Design Guide documents the process by which the proposals have been developed, along with the rationale and context for the proposals. It sets out the opportunities and constraints that have been considered in order to develop the parameter plan, including trees and hedgerows, flood risk, ecology, public rights of way, existing services and utilities, and the J25 Highways Improvements Scheme and its associated flood mitigation.

3.2.10 The Design Guide sets out the minimum applicable standards to be applied to the Nexus 25 development. Its purpose is to ensure that a high and consistent standard of design is maintained throughout the Nexus 25 scheme to provide a sustainable and stimulating working environment whilst at the same time enabling the diverse requirements of individual occupiers to be met.

3.2.11 The Design Guide presents the design parameters across 6 development plots, as well as detailing key urban design principles, including guidance on the following:

Landscape and Green Infrastructure Strategy;

Roads, Parking and Access;

Building Design Standards;

Art Strategy; and

Services Infrastructure.

3.2.12 It is a requirement of the LDO, through a planning condition, that development “shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the criteria and conditions set out within this LDO and the accompanying Design Guide”. The EIA has therefore given consideration to the Design Guide as indicating the type of development that is likely to come forward and the principles which have been established by the development.




Site Access

The M5 junction 25 Improvement Scheme

3.2.13 The proposed development will be accessed from an improved M5 Junction 25, being brought forward by SCC (the ‘SCC scheme’), shown at Appendix A.4. The SCC scheme proposes to increase capacity of Junction 25, help to reduce existing traffic congestion at peak times and provide access to Nexus 25 as part of a potential strategic highway improvement. The SCC scheme has been designed to accommodate traffic generated by proposed housing and employment growth in Taunton through to 2033 (including from the proposed development).

3.2.14 The ability of the SCC scheme to provide access to the site which can deliver strategic employment growth for Taunton was key to SCC securing funding for the SCC scheme.

3.2.15 SCC submitted a planning application for the Junction 25 improvement scheme in April 2017, and expect construction to commence in 2018 if approval is granted. However, it should be noted that the SCC scheme will require some amendments in order to tie in with the proposed development.

Highways England A358 Taunton to Southfields Dualling Scheme

3.2.16 Separately, Highways England (HE) is currently (Spring/Summer 2017) running a public consultation on an option for the A358 Taunton to Southfields Dualling Scheme (the ‘HE scheme’), shown on Appendix A.4. The HE scheme being consulted on does not include a direct road connection with the site, but does include the following elements:

Widening of the existing A358 carriageway between West Hatch Lane and Southfields roundabout; and

New dual carriageway section from West Hatch Lane to a new all-movements motorway junction on the M5 located south of the existing Junction 25.

3.2.17 The HE scheme is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the Planning Act of 2008 and will therefore need a Development Consent Order to authorise construction of the scheme. The HE is currently working to the following programme: submitting an application in Summer 2018, Secretary of State decision in Winter 2019, commence construction in 2020.

3.2.18 The relationship between the proposed development the SCC scheme and the HE scheme is shown at Appendix A.4. These two adjacent schemes will ensure that the proposed development is readily accessible by car via strategic links including the M5 and A303, and also the local road network. It should be noted that the proposed development has been designed to be consistent with both the SCC scheme and the HE scheme.

3.2.19 There are two Park and Ride sites in Taunton; one at Silk Mills on the west side of Taunton and another, Taunton Gateway, which is on the east side of Taunton, directly to the north of the proposed development. These sites operate Monday to Saturday and provide services every 12 minutes at peak times and every 15 minutes off-peak, so there is excellent opportunity for the proposed development to be accessed via Park and Ride bus services.

3.2.20 Potential improvements to local bus and/or Park and Ride services are being investigated. It is anticipated that such improvements would be funded by the developer but procured by SCC’s Public Transport team. The exact details of the improvements are unclear at the current time, however, given that the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride is operational and already provides high frequency connections with Taunton town centre, consideration is being given to the ability to alter the existing route such that Park and Ride services can loop through Nexus 25. This would provide users of Nexus 25 with excellent access to a high frequency Park and Ride




service linking to the town centre, and therefore represent an attractive and realistic travel option.

3.2.21 The SCC scheme will not only improve the operation of the road network, it will also provide enhanced facilities for pedestrians and cyclists that allow them to negotiate the Junction 25 roundabout and cross the motorway in a safe and convenient manner.

3.2.22 It is further proposed as part of the proposed development that a dedicated pedestrian and cycle access will be provided at the southern boundary of the site onto Haydon Lane to create permeability with surrounding areas.

3.2.23 Investigation is also being given to the potential for providing a new bridge that would pass over the M5 and provide pedestrians and cyclists with a safe, traffic-free link between Nexus 25 and the town centre passing directly through Blackbrook Business Park. This element remains an aspiration of TDBC to complement the LDO and has not therefore been assessed in this ES.

3.3 Construction

Introduction

3.3.1 The lifetime of the LDO is fifteen years and it is anticipated that development of the plots will

come forward incrementally over this period. The rate of development and construction of the

proposed development shall be subject to market demand but shall proceed in a controlled

and co-ordinated manner. Suitable plots to meet commercial requirements shall be released in

a manner that does not compromise the delivery of the overall development, whilst reflecting

the principles of the concept masterplan and enabling the necessary supporting infrastructure

improvements to be bought forward in a timely manner.

3.3.2 Construction management will be undertaken in a considerate manner and will be a

requirement of all clients and contractors linked to development within individual development

plots or those works required to deliver wider infrastructure delivery.

3.3.3 The LDO will secure a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the

construction works through a planning condition. This will outline the arrangements and

management practices adopted to mitigate the environmental effects of construction and will

need to be agreed with TDBC prior to the commencement of construction. The likely scope of

the CEMP is outlined below.

Construction works and programme

3.3.4 It is expected that the development will be delivered in phases following the adoption of the

LDO (currently anticipated to be in late 2017) potentially through to 2032.

3.3.5 It is anticipated that the key construction activities are likely to include:

earthworks and site preparation;

implementation of the Green/Blue Infrastructure Framework;

utility diversions, upgrades and connections; construction of building foundations, structure, cladding and glazing and internal walls and partitions;

installation of fixtures, fitting and building services; and

external landscaping, highway, car park areas and drainage works.




3.3.6 The construction works will be confined to the site, with the exception of potential off-site utility

works.

Construction management

3.3.7 A CEMP will be developed to manage the impacts of construction. The CEMP will identify a

range of measures, in relation to aspects such as noise and vibration, dust and air pollution,

ecology, and water resources, which will be utilised during the construction of the proposed

development. The CEMP will be secured through a condition of the adopted LDO.

3.3.8 It is anticipated that matters to be addressed in the CEMP would include aspects set out in the

following bullet points, as well as the construction mitigation and enhancement measures

identified in each of the topic chapters of this ES. Measures include:

Health and Safety: contractor’s competence, risk method statements, contractor communication, welfare facilities, accident reporting, standards on personal protective equipment, display of safety notices etc.

Contaminated land: compliance with the Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance, method statements for storage

Noise and vibration: selection of appropriate plant, site operation hours, monitoring, complaints procedure;

Dust and air: prevention and mitigation measures, complaints procedure, wheel washing;

Waste minimisation and management: reduction, re-use, recovery, disposal (including Duty of Care), should include details of waste management and procurement policy;

Ecology: timing of site clearance, tree protection (as necessary);

Water resources: storage of materials, protocol for spillages;

Emergency planning & incident control: incident recognition training, emergency planning, incident reporting and control;

Site logistics & operations: safety and security; working hours; maintaining access, general site layout including compound location, construction traffic, access routes; and

Community liaison: meetings and community contact, telephone helpline, designated point of contact.

3.4 Planning Conditions

3.4.1 The LDO includes a schedule of planning conditions that will need to be discharged prior to the commencement/occupation of the development. These conditions ensure that control is retained for TDBC in how development can be brought forward and also for stakeholders in ensuring that their potential concerns are appropriately addressed.

3.4.2 These planning conditions are inherent to the proposed development and have therefore been considered within the EIA when reviewing the development that will be brought forward by the LDO. Planning conditions of relevance to the EIA include landscaping, ecology, transport, drainage and flood management, ground conditions and archaeology.




3.5 Lifetime of the LDO

3.5.1 The LDO and the terms within it will be active for a period of fifteen years following the day of its adoption and it will expire following this period.

3.5.2 The LPA will review progress with the LDO on the fifth anniversary of its adoption to be able to fully reflect on the continuing suitability of the LDO in light of any changes in planning policy. At the end of the review the LPA will determine whether to:

Retain the LDO as it stands for the remaining ten years of its life;

Retain but revise some elements; or

Revoke and cancel the LDO.

3.6 Consideration of Alternatives

3.6.1 The EIA Regulations require an ES to include an outline of the main alternatives considered by the applicant, indicating the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.

3.6.2 This legal requirement is expressed in very general and high-level terms, requiring only the inclusion of an "outline" of "main" alternatives and an "indication" of "main" reasons. Although a full description of alternatives and a full assessment of their likely environmental effects are not required, sufficient detail should be provided to allow for a meaningful comparison between the alternatives and the proposed development.

3.6.3 It is a matter for the proposer of the development to decide which alternatives it intends to consider. The EIA Regulations do not expressly require that an applicant considers alternatives, although it is widely encouraged at the policy level, both European and domestic, and is a feature of EIA best practice.

3.6.4 The consideration of alternatives in this ES complies with that requirement and has regard to the guidance in the PPG on Environmental Impact Assessment. The PPG states “Where alternative approaches to development have been considered, the Environmental Statement should include an outline of the main alternatives studied and the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.”

3.6.5 Whilst environmental effects are relevant when choosing between alternatives, other factors are also relevant. The main selection criteria which TDBC has used when choosing between the alternatives which it has considered include: planning policy, viability, design quality, market requirements, site constraints and opportunities and environmental effects.

3.6.6 The following provides an outline of the main alternatives considered in relation to the proposed development and the main reasons for choosing the proposed development in preference to them.

No Development and Alternative Sites

3.6.7 The site is currently agricultural land. However, due to its strategic location in proximity to Junction 25 of the M5, it has been identified as suitable for a strategic employment site under policy SS8 Taunton Broad Location for Strategic Employment of the TDBC Core Strategy, 2011-2028. In addition, the Joint Growth Prospectus for Taunton (approved by SCC and TDBC in 2014) includes a commitment to accelerate the delivery of this strategic employment site.




3.6.8 In addition to the Nexus 25 site, the Core Strategy (paragraph 5.88) also proposed two other sites for consideration as sites for strategic employment: Monkton Heathfield and Comeytrowe. However, the Nexus 25 site was found to be the only site capable of meeting the policy requirements of SS8 in the Core Strategy. In particular, Policy SS8 requires that the site is well located in relation to the national route network and the Taunton urban area and capable of delivery within identified timescales. The other sites as part of the Monkton Heathfield and Comeytrowe urban extensions have been considered, but these are less well related to the national route network than the Nexus 25 site. In terms of delivery, the other sites are under the control of house builders and TDBC are concerned that their focus on housing delivery would delay delivery of an employment site. Of the opportunities available, it is considered that the Nexus 25 site is the only reasonable alternative to meet the policy requirements of SS8.

3.6.9 The development of the Nexus 25 site will help to fulfil the Council's growth agenda by making the early provision of an attractive, high quality site for employment development to enhance the area's economy in accordance with the Council’s Corporate Strategy Key Theme 2 “Business and Enterprise”.

3.6.10 It is considered that the adoption of the LDO that provides a sound basis for delivery is the most appropriate and expedient mechanism for delivering development at the site. TDBC and the landowner, Summerfield Developments, have worked together to identify suitability of the site.

Alternative Forms of Development

3.6.11 As stated above, the site has been identified as potentially suitable for a strategic employment site under policy SS8 Taunton Broad Location for Strategic Employment of the TDBC Core Strategy, 2011-2028. For this reason, alternative land uses of retail and residential have not been considered further.

3.6.12 In addition, Policy SS8 specifies that sites should be targeted towards Class B (non-office) use in order to complement rather than compete with Taunton town centre office opportunities. The flexible approach proposed through the LDO will support this as it is designed to respond to market demand and occupier requirements.

Layout of Development

3.6.13 The design of the site masterplan has been carried out in an iterative manner through close consultation with TDBC and other key stakeholders. Within each plot of the parameter plan, several different land uses, and therefore alternative layouts, are inherently proposed.

3.6.14 A number of environmental considerations have been incorporated into the design process, which have informed the design principles underpinning the site masterplan. Through a thorough understanding of existing site features and constraints the masterplan has been developed to minimize affects upon existing trees and vegetation, landscape and ecology. Liaison with the EA has required the masterplan to respond to flood risk and water management issues relating to both the emerging site masterplan and also the SCC scheme.

3.6.15 Landscape and visual impacts have been considered and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the masterplan which seek to minimize effects upon landscape character and visual amenity. These comprise; the retention of many of the existing trees and hedgerow boundaries, setting of scale and siting of development through parameters plans, and maintaining key views within the wider landscape.

3.6.16 The masterplan has also developed to allow for sustainable modes of transport accommodating new bus routes and new pedestrian/cycle routes which will link the development with the wider circulation network.




Conclusion

3.6.17 The location and design of the development has been based on the requirements of Taunton Deane Core Strategy 2011-2028 and the aspiration of TDBC to bring forward this LDO as a strategic employment site. This has limited and shaped the opportunities for alternatives, with the design instead being based on an iterative process to respond to the constraints and opportunities of the site. Flexibility has been retained in the LDO, as set out above, to allow development to come forward that is acceptable in environmental terms and best meets the requirements of the local market.




4 Assessment Method

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This chapter describes the process by which the EIA was carried out. It includes a discussion

of the relevant Regulations, the EIA process, consultations, and the assessment method.

4.2 EIA Regulations

4.2.1 Procedures relating to the assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed

development are described in The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) Regulations 2011 as amended (‘the EIA Regulations’). These implement EC

Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, into domestic legislation. The initial Directive and its three

amendments have been codified by Directive 2011/92/EU. This Directive has also been

amended in 2014 and the implications were enacted in the UK on 16 May 2017. However, the

Scoping Opinion was prepared before 16 May 2017 and, in accordance with the transitional

arrangements, this ES has therefore been prepared in accordance with the 2011 EIA

Regulations.

4.2.2 The EIA Regulations set out the procedures for undertaking an EIA and the information which

is required in an ES. Regulation 29 is specifically concerned with EIA requirements for LDOs.

4.3 The EIA Process

4.3.1 In general terms the main stages in the EIA are as follows:

screening – determining the need for EIA;

scoping – identify significant issues, determining the scope of the EIA;

data review – draw together and review available data;

baseline surveys – undertake baseline surveys and monitoring;

assessment and iteration – assess likely significant effects of development, evaluate alternatives, provide feedback to design team on potential adverse impacts, modify development, incorporate mitigation, assess effects of mitigated development; and

preparation of the ES.

4.3.2 It should also be noted that, as summarised in section 4.5, consultation with relevant

stakeholders has been undertaken at appropriate stages within the EIA process.

4.4 Screening and Scoping

4.4.1 Regulation 29 of the EIA Regulations requires a local planning authority to adopt a Screening Opinion for Schedule 2 development prior to the adoption of an LDO (unless the Secretary of State has provided a Screening Direction). TDBC therefore adopted its Screening Opinion in August 2016 identifying that EIA was required. A copy of the Screening Opinion is provided in Appendix A.5.

4.4.2 For LDOs that have been determined to be EIA development, Regulation 29 states that “… the local planning authority shall state in writing its opinion as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement (“a scoping opinion”)”.




4.4.3 Following adoption of the Screening Opinion, and drawing upon the explanation in the

Screening Opinion as to why EIA is required, PBA was appointed to undertake a scoping

exercise to identify the scope of the EIA. This was informed by the considerable baseline

information that had already been collected, the characteristics of the proposed development,

the likelihood of significant environmental effects and professional judgement based on

experience of comparable developments.

4.4.4 An EIA Scoping Report was prepared which set out the background to the LDO, site conditions, the development to be covered by the LDO, the methodology to be adopted for the EIA, the topics to be scoped into the EIA (and the scope and approach for assessment of these topics) and those topics to be scoped out of the EIA (and the rationale for so-doing).

4.4.5 The Scoping Report was used as the basis for consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees to obtain their comments on the proposed scope of the EIA.

4.4.6 Following receipt of responses from consultees the Scoping Report was amended, as appropriate, such that TDBC could adopt the amended Scoping Report as its formal EIA Scoping Opinion. A copy of the EIA Scoping Opinion, which includes comments from consultees, is provided in Appendix A.6.

4.5 Consultation

4.5.1 A programme of consultation has been undertaken with statutory and non-statutory

organisations as well as an engagement event with the local community. Such consultations

have been to undertaken to inform the emerging LDO proposals and the EIA.

4.5.2 As part of the EIA process the following consultees have been consulted to agree the scope of

the assessment, to provide information, to discuss assessment methods and findings, and/or

agree mitigation measures and design responses:

The local community;

Local Parish Councils;

Taunton Deane Borough Council;

Somerset County Council;

Highways England;

Environment Agency; and

Natural England.

4.5.3 The EIA has been undertaken to fulfil the requirements of the consultees and the assistance

of these consultees is gratefully acknowledged.

4.5.4 Consultation specific to each of the environmental topics covered in this ES is set out in the

relevant topic chapter.

4.6 Committed Developments

4.6.1 The EIA Regulations require the assessment to consider the likely significant effects of the

proposed development in the context of other local developments likely to come forward, as

well as the cumulative effects that may result from the proposed development and these other

developments.




4.6.2 As set out in the EIA Scoping Report, to ensure a robust approach, the following forms of extant developments have been considered: EIA approvals within 2 km of the site and ‘major development’ approvals within 1 km of the site. Based on professional experience developments beyond these thresholds are unlikely to lead to significant cumulative effects.

4.6.3 The committed developments considered in the assessment of likely significant cumulative effects are provided in the EIA Scoping Opinion in Appendix A.6. These have been factored into the definition of the baseline or identified as receptors, while they have also been considered in relation to cumulative effects as appropriate. Confirmation was received from TDBC on 16 June that this list was still up to date.

4.6.4 It should be noted that the committed developments considered within the Transport Assessment (TA) have separately been agreed with SCC, as the local highways authority. For consistency, the assessment of likely significant transport related effects within the EIA is consistent with the TA.

4.6.5 A further development, submitted to planning since the Scoping Report for the proposed development was finalised, that has been included in the cumulative assessments, is SCC’s proposed highway improvements at M5 Junction 25. Part of this application is within the proposed development site boundary. The proposed improvements to Junction 25 include modifications to increase the capacity and safety of the roundabout, alongside the creation of an additional arm on the eastern side of the roundabout, which would provide the ability to access the site and proposed development. The scheme also proposes alterations to the existing access junction for the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride.

4.6.6 In addition, this ES considers the potential for cumulative effects with the A358 Taunton to Southfields Dualling Scheme. Based on the single options consulted upon, this is approximately 0.6km from the proposed development at its closest location. The extent of this scheme assessed varies each topic and this is explained in each chapter.

4.7 Assessment Assumptions

4.7.1 The following assumptions have been used to ensure that the EIA has identified the likely

significant effects of the proposed development (unless otherwise specified in each of the

technical chapters):

Baseline conditions are generally considered to be current conditions at the site and surrounding area, unless materially affected by the committed developments referred to in Section 4.6 and in the EIA Scoping Opinion in Appendix A.6. Where significant changes are likely to occur in a ‘no development’ scenario such changes are identified as appropriate within each topic chapter. The potential for cumulative effects as a result of the construction and operation of the committed developments has been considered.

The assessment has been based on the parameter plan, rather than indicative masterplan, recognising the flexibility in how the development may be built out. Typically, this has entailed assessment of the maximum development allowance under the parameter plan to provide a conservative assessment. Consideration has been given to the Design Guide as indicating the type of development that is likely to come forward and the principles to be applied and this is in the context of the condition attached to the LDO which requires development to “adhere to the provisions set out in the Design Guide”.

The assessment of likely significant cumulative effects has assumed that the committed developments identified in Section 4.6 will be built out as set out in the documents supporting these applications.

The planning conditions imposed on the LDO will be discharged to the agreement of the LPA and relevant stakeholders. Planning conditions are imposed both for the site as a




whole and also for individual plots as they come forward to ensure that the construction of each plot is managed in an appropriate manner.

4.7.2 Difficulties in preparing this ES are noted in each of the topic chapters as appropriate.

4.8 Assessing Effects

Establishing Baseline Condition

4.8.1 A range of site surveys and data collection exercises have been used to identify

environmental conditions at the site and in the surrounding area. The surveys undertaken are

reported in each of the topic chapters.

4.8.2 The assessment has been based on technical surveys and assessments, the reporting of

which is frequently too detailed and lengthy for incorporation into Volume 1 of this ES. In such

instances the technical survey and assessment reports are provided in full as an appendix to

this ES (Volume 2), with a relevant summary and the reference for the full survey or

assessment provided in Volume 1. The geographical scope of these appended surveys and

assessments has been based on the likelihood for significant effects in accordance with the

scoping exercise summarised above.

4.8.3 Due to the limited potential for conditions at the site to alter, without development proceeding,

between now and the completion of the proposed development current conditions have been

used to define baseline conditions, although the committed developments have been included

in the future baseline where appropriate. The exception to this is where there are potentially

significant changes anticipated (e.g. in traffic levels), in which case future conditions have

been used that are explained in the relevant topic chapter.

Assessing Operational Effects

4.8.4 To provide a robust assessment and one that is generally consistent between topic chapters,

the EIA has focused on assessing the likely significant environmental effects of the completed

development. Reasonable worst case assumptions have been utilised to assess maximum

development and exposure to the potential effects considered. This has been based on the

parameter plan, informed by the Design Guide. This approach ensures that the full

environmental effects of the development have been considered.

Assessing Construction Effects

4.8.5 The EIA has also assessed the likely significant environmental effects that could occur during

the construction phase. Construction is likely to be undertaken in phases and therefore this

has been considered in determining the interim and overall environmental effects of the

development. Further, consideration has been given to the combined and interactive effects

which may occur when the early phases are completed and operational and the latter phases

are under construction.

4.8.6 Given that the construction is likely to be undertaken in phases it is not possible to be

definitive about the construction works and therefore the assessment has been based on

available information and reasoned judgements to enable the likely significant environmental

effects to be identified.

4.8.7 Construction effects will be temporary and intermittent, i.e. they will not occur at one place

throughout the duration of the construction works. The potential duration and intermittency of

effects is identified as appropriate in the relevant topic chapters.




4.9 Uncertainty

4.9.1 The prediction of future effects inevitably involves a degree of uncertainty. Where necessary,

the topic chapters describe the principal factors giving rise to uncertainty in the prediction of

likely environmental effects and the degree of the uncertainty.

4.9.2 Uncertainty also applies to the success or otherwise of measures to mitigate adverse

environmental effects. Where the success of a mitigation measure is uncertain, the extent of

the uncertainty has been identified in the ES and a suitable response identified.

4.10 Mitigation of Adverse Effects

4.10.1 The incorporation of mitigation measures; that is measures to avoid minimise or compensate

for adverse effects, is an integral part of the design and related EIA process. Mitigation

measures are identified as appropriate within each of the topic chapters of this is ES. A

description and the significance of any likely residual effect, namely that which remains after

mitigation has been incorporated, is also presented in each topic chapter.

4.11 Residual Effects

4.11.1 Residual effects are the environmental effects that will remain after mitigation measures have

been secured.

4.11.2 It is these residual effects which should be considered when considering the likely significance

of the effects of the proposed development, not the unmitigated effects. This is because the

mitigation proposed by the development will ensure that the identified unmitigated effects will

not occur in practice.

4.11.3 To provide an objective assessment of residual effects the significance of residual effects has

been determined and is identified in the ES. This allows for comparison of effects between

topics and also strengthens the assessment of impact interactions.

4.12 Significance Criteria

4.12.1 The two principal criteria for determining significance of an environmental effect are the

magnitude of the effect and the sensitivity of the receptor; in addition, the likelihood of the

effect occurring is also considered as appropriate. The approach to assessing and assigning

significance to an environmental effect has relied upon such factors as: consideration of the

EIA Regulations, guidelines, standards or codes of practice, the advice and views of statutory

consultees and other interested parties, and expert judgment. The following questions have

been relevant in evaluating the significance of likely environmental effects:

Which risk groups are affected and in what way?

Is the effect reversible or irreversible?

Does the effect occur over the short, medium or long term?

Is the effect permanent or temporary?

Does the effect increase or decrease with time?

Is the effect of local, regional, national or international importance?

Is it a positive, neutral or adverse effect?




Are health standards or environmental objectives threatened?

Are mitigating measures available and is it reasonable to require these?

4.12.2 Specific significance criteria have been prepared for each specialist topic, based on the

generic criteria, for adverse and beneficial effects, set out in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Significance Criteria

Significance level Criteria

Sig

nific

an

t

Severe Only adverse effects are assigned this level of significance as they represent key factors in the decision-making process. These effects are generally, but not exclusively associated with sites and features of international, national or regional importance. A change at a regional or district scale site or feature may also enter this category.

Major These effects are likely to be important considerations at a local or district scale but, if adverse, are potential concerns to the project and may become key factors in the decision-making process.

Moderate These effects, if adverse, while important at a local scale, are not likely to be key decision-making issues. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall effects on a particular area or on a particular resource.

Not sig

nific

ant

Minor These effects may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be of importance in the decision-making process. Nevertheless they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the project and consideration of mitigation or compensation measures.

Negligible No effect or effect which is beneath the level of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.

4.12.3 Within the framework above, the project team has set significance thresholds for each environmental topic. To ensure a consistent approach, the significance threshold for one topic is equivalent to the significance threshold of any other topic, as far as is possible.

4.13 Cumulative Effects

4.13.1 Section 4.6 identifies the committed developments that have been considered in the EIA with

regards to likely significant cumulative effects. Each of the topic chapters of this ES therefore

includes a section documenting the assessment of the likely significant cumulative effects of




the LDO development and relevant committed developments. This assessment is based on

available information on the committed developments identified in the Section 4.6.

4.14 Impact Interactions

4.14.1 Chapter 12 provides the assessment of impact interactions, i.e. receptors being affected by

more than one environmental effect and therefore potentially being subject to a more

significant combined effect than the individual effects reported in each of the topic chapters.

4.14.2 The approach adopted for the assessment is in accordance with the methodology set out

above, with further details provided in Chapter 12.

4.14.3 Chapter 12 therefore provides an overall summary of the effects of the proposed development

during construction and operation.




5 Planning Policy and Context

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The LDO supports the implementation of existing strategies, plans and policies at national and local levels. The relevant strategies, plans and policies are presented in this chapter.

5.2 National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

5.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) cites the planning system as having an important role in supporting sustainable economic growth. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system (paragraph 19). Planning authorities should positively and proactively encourage sustainable economic growth and identify strategic sites for investment (paragraph 21).

5.2.2 Specifically, the NPPF encourages LDOs to be prepared for particular areas and categories of development, where the impacts would be acceptable, and where this would promote social or environmental gains (paragraph 199).

5.3 Local Policy

Taunton Deane Core Strategy, 2011-2028

5.3.1 The Taunton Deane Core Strategy was adopted in September 2012. The plan sets out the overarching framework for the Borough and its long-term development over the period up to 2028. This section addresses objectives and policies relevant to the LDO.

Strategic Objective 2: Economy

5.3.2 Addresses the overall aim of the Core Strategy in terms of the economy; to provide the right conditions and sufficient land in appropriate locations to retain the Borough’s high levels of self-containment, re-balance the local economy away from its public sector dominance, promote the growth of the green knowledge economy and raise the overall quality of jobs through related strategies, enabling Taunton and the rest of the Borough to fulfil its true economic potential.

5.3.3 In order to enable the Borough to reach its full potential, the Core Strategy seeks to provide sufficiently deliverable land to enable sustainable growth, to avoid unsustainable travel by an increasing residential population needing to commute beyond the Borough to find work.

Strategic Objective 6: Accessibility

5.3.4 Aims to improve accessibility between homes, jobs and services and to encourage sustainable travel.

Strategic Objective 8: Environment

5.3.5 Aims to maintain and enhance the environment of the LDO area while minimising the need to travel.




Policy CP 2: Economy

5.3.6 Aims to meet the forecast growth of around 11,900 net additional jobs in Taunton Deane. It states that to enable the Borough to reach its full economic potential the Core Strategy must provide sufficient, deliverable land in the right place and at the right time to enable sustainable growth (para 3.24). Consideration of a strategic employment site should be taken forward through the Site Allocation DPD and includes the Junction 25 site (para 3.36). Provision will be made for:

36.5 ha of land for Class B1 (b) (c), B2, B8 and Sui Generis uses within the Taunton urban area; and

49,500 sq. m of additional Class B1a. office space, focused on Taunton Town Centre.

Policy CP 6: Transport and Accessibility

5.3.7 Addresses the requirement to improve accessibility to jobs and raises the issue of potential improvements at Junction 25 of the M5 (para 3.87).

Policy CP 8: Environment

5.3.8 The Borough Council will not permit development proposals that would harm these interests or the settings of the towns and rural centres unless other material factors are sufficient to override their importance.

5.3.9 Development outside of settlement boundaries will be permitted where it will:

be in accordance with national, regional and local policies; and

be appropriate in terms of scale, siting and design.

Policy SP1: Sustainable Development Locations

5.3.10 Proposals should promote principles of sustainable development by: minimising and/or mitigating pressures on the natural and historic environment and valuable natural resources; ensuring that sufficient utilities and infrastructure can be provided to support new development; and directing development away from areas of greatest flood risk wherever possible.

5.3.11 The Taunton Urban Area will remain the strategic focus for growth, accommodating at least 9,500 jobs in the Plan period. Key growth sectors are identified and include education and health, business services and distribution.

Policy SP2: Realising the Vision for Taunton

5.3.12 Concerned with realising the forecast growth in the local economy, focusing on health, education and the retail and the promotion of the green economy as well as securing improvement to Junction 25 of the M5.

Policy SS8: Taunton Broad Location for Strategic Employment

5.3.13 Over the period towards a Plan review in 2016 the Borough Council will work positively with the Business Community and other stakeholders to establish an evidenced need for an additional strategic employment site to meet Taunton’s future medium to longer term growth requirements:

a. of a scale to secure strong inward investment, raising the skills base and profile of the town;




b. well located in relation to the national route network;

c. targeted towards Class B (non-office) use in order to complement rather than compete with town centre office opportunities;

d. having no overriding environmental or physical constraints restricting development; and

e. capable of delivery within agreed timescales.

5.3.14 A number of sites have been proposed for investigation including land around Monkton Heathfield, Junction 25 of the M5 and Comeytrowe.

Development Management Policies

5.3.15 The Core Strategy sets out a number of broad development management policies that will be applied at the strategic level across the Borough. Policies relevant to the LDO are summarised in the table below;

Table 5.1 - Development Management Policies

Policy Summary

DM1: General Requirements

Sets out the criteria for development which includes making the most effective and efficient use of land.

DM4: Design Aims to encourage a sense of place by addressing design at a range of spatial scales using planning documents that relate to each scale.

DM5: Use of Resources and Sustainable Development

States that the Council will require all development to incorporate sustainable design features to reduce their impact on the environment.

Site Allocation and Development Management Plan (SADMP) 2016

5.3.16 The purpose of the SADMP is to set out a range of smaller allocations across the Borough consistent with the Core Strategy and to define development management policies.

5.3.17 The J25 Strategic Employment Site emerged through the plan preparation process on the basis of the Core Strategy policy SS8, using Sustainability Appraisal (which considered three locations for such a development) and the relevant evidence base information. As a result of this work, the J25 Strategic Employment Site was demonstrated to be the only site which fulfilled the necessary criteria leading to its inclusion in the SADMP Preferred Options consultation in 2013.

5.3.18 By the time of the 2015 Draft SADMP consultation it had become clear that the timescale of the County Highways Authority’s improvement scheme for M5 J25 (including the provision of access to the New Strategic Employment Site) had become extended to a degree which would very significantly delay the formal publication of a sound SADMP document. In order to form part of a sound plan it was necessary to be able to demonstrate that the allocation was deliverable, including at least funding and planning permission being in place for its access. The consequences of delaying the SADMP process for perhaps two years were considered by the Council to be unacceptable and the strategic employment site proposal was accordingly omitted from the 2015 Draft SADMP, leaving it to be progressed by other means.




5.3.19 The SADMP was subsequently found sound at Examination and was adopted on the 13th December 2016.

5.3.20 In December 2015 the Council resolved to progress the implementation of the New Strategic Employment Site at M5 J25 required by Core Strategy policy SS8 through the preparation of a Local Development Order.

Development Management Policies

5.3.21 There are a number of Development Management Policies in the SADMP, which are relevant to the LDO. These are summarised in the table below.

Table 5.2 - SADMP Development Management Policies

Policy Summary

A1. Parking Requirements New development will normally be required to make provision for car parking in accordance with the standards in Appendix F of the SADMP.

A2. Travel Planning All development proposals which generate a significant amount of movement will be required to include a travel plan.

A3. Cycle Network New development should enhance provision for cyclists.

A5. Accessibility of Development

All major non-residential development should be accessible within walking distance or by public transport to a majority of potential users.

ENV1. Protection of trees, woodland, orchard and hedgerows

Development which would harm trees, woodlands, orchards, historic parklands and hedgerows of value to the area’s landscape, character or wildlife will not be permitted.

D1. Taunton’s Skyline Development which would detract from the distinctive character and attractiveness of Taunton’s skyline will not be permitted.

D2. Approach Routes to Taunton and Wellington

Development which would harm the visual qualities of routes into and out of Taunton and Wellington will not be permitted.

D7. Design Quality New development shall create a high standard of design quality and a sense of place.

D8. Safety The design of new developments shall incorporate measures to reduce the likelihood of crime.

D9. A co-ordinated approach to development and highway planning

A co-ordinated approach shall be adopted to the design of development and associated highways.




6 Transport

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 This chapter considers the environmental impact of the proposed development in terms of traffic and access and has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA). This chapter assesses the likely significant transport and access effects of the proposed development.

6.1.2 A Transport Assessment (TA) is also currently being undertaken, which will provide further traffic and transport information relating to the operational phase of the proposed development. This is due to be completed in late July 2017.

6.1.3 The site will achieve vehicular access from an improved M5 Junction 25. Junction 25 is proposed to be improved by Somerset County Council (SCC) to increase its capacity, help to reduce existing traffic congestion at peak times and provide access to the site as part of a potential strategic highway improvement. The scheme has been designed to accommodate traffic generated by proposed housing and employment growth in Taunton through to 2033 (including from the proposed development). This is referred hereafter as the ‘SCC scheme’.

6.2 Policy Context

6.2.1 The transport and access aspects of the proposed development have been carried out in accordance with the following documents:

Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Practice Guidance (2016).

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

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), Guidelines for the Environmental Impact of Road Traffic (1993).

Department for Transport, Manual for Streets / Manual for Streets 2.

6.2.2 The proposals have also been considered in the context of the following documents:

Somerset County Council, Future Transport Plan (2012).

Taunton Deane Borough Council, Core Strategy (2011).

6.3 Methodology

Study Area

6.3.1 To ensure a consistent approach, the study area for this assessment is consistent with the study area that has been agreed with SCC Highways for the TA.

6.3.2 The study area has been divided into several ‘Links’ that are set out below, and in combination form the A358 Toneway Corridor that connects the M5 to Taunton Town Centre.

Link 1: A358 West between Wickes Roundabout and Creech Castle signalised junction.

Link 2: A358 West between Creech Castle signalised junction and Hankridge Farm Roundabout.




Link 3: A358 West between Hankridge Farm Roundabout and Junction 25.

Link 4: A358 East between Junction 25 and Henlade.

6.3.3 These links are illustrated in Figure 6.1 below.

Figure 6.1 Study area links

Consultation

6.3.4 The TA that will be submitted to support the LDO application is being prepared in accordance with a scope of work that has been agreed with Highways England (HE) and SCC. The trip rates and vehicle distributions for each proposed land use have also been agreed as appropriate by SCC and HE.

6.3.5 The assessment undertaken for this chapter draws upon work that has been undertaken for the TA in consultation with SCC and HE.

Data Collection

6.3.6 The assessment undertaken has utilised the following data:

Base traffic flows provided by SCC.

DfT link count data.

TEMPro growth factors.

Toneway Corridor daily flow profile.

Vehicle trip rates and distributions for each land use as produced for the TA.

Link 1 Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Nexus Site




Assessment

6.3.7 Given the flexible nature of an LDO it is unclear at the current time what the final development mix and whom the end occupiers on the site will be. However, in order to forecast what the potential traffic impact of the development could be, it has been necessary to take the maximum floorspace figures per plot (shown on the parameter plan in Appendix A.2) and make assumptions about how these could be divided between the permissible land uses. This is required to determine the potential traffic generation of the proposed development.

6.3.8 Table 6.1 provides a summary of the assumptions that have been made regarding the proposed development. Supporting ancillary uses that could also come forward have been excluded as they are likely to generate internal trips only that would remain within the site.

Land Use Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 5 Plot 6 Total

B1 a/b 16,057 m2

GFA 2,963 m2

GFA 3,111 m2

GFA

7,407 m2 GFA

7,827 m2 GFA

37,365 m2 GFA

B1c / B2 2,963 m2

GFA 3,020 m2

GFA 1,997 m2

GFA

7,980 m2 GFA

B8 warehousing

storage

2,963 m2 GFA

1,997 m2

GFA

4,960 m2 GFA

B8 commercial

warehousing

2,963 m2 GFA

1,997 m2

GFA

4,960 m2 GFA

C1 hotel 3,020 m2

GFA

7,827 m2 GFA

10,847 m2 GFA

C2 hospital 7,189 m2

GFA

7,189 m2 GFA

D1 education 7,189 m2

GFA

7,189 m2 GFA

Sui generis – car

showroom

2,963 m2 GFA

1,997 m2

GFA

4,960 m2 GFA

Total 16,057 m2

GFA 14,817 m2

GFA 9,150 m2

GFA 7,989 m2

GFA 21,785 m2

GFA 15,653 m2

GFA 85,451 m2

GFA

Table 6.1 Assumed proposed development mix

6.3.9 The following scenarios are assessed in this chapter:

2018 base.

2018 Base + 100% Construction Traffic.




2033 base.

2033 Base + 100% Operational Development Traffic.

6.3.10 The SCC scheme, for which a planning application was submitted in April 2017, is assumed to have been delivered in all future year scenarios.

6.3.11 Given there is considerable uncertainty surrounding how long the site could take to build out, this chapter provides a robust and ‘worst case’ assessment in construction traffic terms. Therefore, it has been assumed that the entire development would be constructed in the opening year of 2018, whereas in reality this is extremely unlikely to be the case and will be undertaken over a number of years.

6.3.12 Due to the inherent uncertainty over the type of land uses that could come forward on the site, the construction traffic impact is assessed on the assumption that the development comprises all B1 office development rather than the mix presented in Table 6.1 that has been used to quantify the potential operational development traffic. Given the aspirations of the LDO, this is very unlikely to be the final development mix but this approach does ensure that the construction traffic impact presented in this chapter can be considered robust.

6.3.13 For the same reasoning, it has been decided to demonstrate the operational traffic impact in 2033 as the full development should be completed by this time and this year represents the end of the Local Plan period and the likely duration of the LDO (which will expire 15 years following its adoption).

6.3.14 The approach to this assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the IEMA’s Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic. The methodology used in this assessment adheres to that set out in the document and therefore focuses on:

Potential impacts from the development on local roads and the users of those roads; and

Potential impacts on land uses and environmental resources fronting these roads, including the relevant occupiers and users.

6.3.15 As previously stated, this chapter considers the effect of construction and operational traffic associated with the proposed development and identifies the predicted increase in terms of AADT on the local highway network forming the study area agreed with SCC for the TA.

6.3.16 Definitions of magnitude have been based on these guidelines and are shown in Table 6.2. Negligible, minor, moderate and major impact magnitudes can have either a positive or negative impact significance as demonstrated in the table.

Subject Area

Impact Significance

Major Moderate Minor Negligible

Construction and operation traffic

Changes to peak or 24hr traffic

within the study area by 30% or

more


within the study area by between

15 and 30%


within the study area by between

5 and 15%


within the study area by less than

5%

Table 6.2 – Impact Magnitude and Significance

6.3.17 The IEMA Guidelines set out a list of environmental effects which should be assessed for their significance. The pertinent issues for the ES in terms of transportation are the magnitude and




consequences of changes within the study area as a result of the construction and operational phase of the development.

6.3.18 This chapter of the ES considers the environmental effects of the proposed development on the following:

Severance;

Driver Delay;

Accidents and Safety;

Pedestrian Delay;

Pedestrian Amenity;

Fear and Intimidation; and

Hazardous Loads.

6.3.19 For the purposes of this assessment, cyclists have also been considered wherever pedestrians are considered.

6.4 Baseline Conditions

Highway Network

6.4.1 Junction 25 of the M5 motorway is the main access point to Taunton and also provides a critical link to the second strategic route into the South West – the A303 via the A358. The A358 West (the Toneway Corridor) provides the key road link into Taunton Town Centre from the motorway. This road is duelled from Junction 25 through to the Wickes Roundabout located approximately 2.5km to the west. The Toneway passes through two junctions known as The Hankridge Roundabout and the Creech Castle signalised junction.

6.4.2 The SCC scheme was submitted in April 2017. SCC expect for construction to commence in late 2018 if approved.

6.4.3 The TA submitted to support the SCC scheme defines the proposal as:

Widening circulatory roads and signalisation of Junction 25 roundabout

Widening Toneway at its junction with the Junction 25 roundabout;

Construction of a new dual carriageway to the new arm of the roundabout leading to the site;

Construction of a new roundabout serving the site and construction of a new A358 westbound link to Junction 25;

Construction of new cycleways to maintain the link from Ruishton Lane junction and Blackbrook Business Park on the west side of the Junction 25 roundabout;

Construction of a dedicated bus lane to link the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride to Junction 25;

Construction of new cycleways to link the site;




Provision of directional, wayfinding signs and street lighting;

Diversion of some right of ways and provision of safe crossing points for pedestrians; and

Landscaping and provision of attenuation systems to collect surface water and gradually discharge to rivers and watercourses.

6.4.4 For the purposes of this transport chapter, the SCC scheme is included within the baseline conditions on the basis that it provides the only means of access to the development, and because a planning application has already been submitted.

6.4.5 The current provision for pedestrians / cyclists at Junction 25 is proposed to be upgraded as part of the SCC scheme. Connections to the improved facilities will be provided to minimise any severance issues that the M5 may otherwise cause. At present, it is anticipated that a reasonable proportion of employees at the proposed development will live within Taunton on the west side of the M5, and hence good connections between the site and the west of the M5 are vital to ensure sustainable travel options are not only viable but attractive.

Traffic Flows

6.4.6 The 2016 base AADT flows for the study area have been calculated from morning and evening peak hour flows provided by SCC. The peak hour trips have been factored using a local 24-hour flow profile from an Automatic Traffic Counter relating to the Toneway Corridor. The flows generated are also appropriately weighted in terms of weekday and weekend traffic, with more weight given to weekday when flows in the area are typically greater.

6.4.7 Growth factors generated using TEMPro software specifically for the local area have been applied to the 2016 base flows to generate flows for the 2018 and 2033 future year base scenarios.

6.4.8 The TEMPro growth factors used are shown in Table 6.3 below.

Year AM Peak PM Peak Saturday

2018 1.0381 1.0372 1.0423

2033 1.2751 1.2759 1.2839

Table 6.3 - TEMPro Growth Factors




6.4.9 The resulting 2018 baseline AADT flows are summarised in Table 6.4 below:

Link 2018 Base AADT

Link 1 – A358 West between Wickes Roundabout and Creech Castle signalised junction

40,065

Link 2 – A358 West between Creech Castle signalised junction and Hankridge Farm Roundabout

49,215

Link 3 – A358 West between Hankridge Farm Roundabout and Junction 25

47,145

Link 4 – A358 East between Junction 25 and Henlade

52,015

Table 6.4 - 2018 Base Traffic

6.4.10 The resulting 2033 baseline AADT flows are summarised in Table 6.5 below:

Link 2033 Base AADT


51,185


62,874


52,015


34,347

Table 6.5 – 2033 Base Traffic

Road Safety Conditions

6.4.11 Collision data within the study area from the most recent five-year period available (2012-2016) has been reviewed using the Crash Map database. The data has been analysed and a summary is included in the Table 6.6:




No. of Accidents within study area

Severity

Slight Serious Fatal

50 46 4 0

Table 6.6 – Collision Analysis

6.4.12 The table above identifies that a total of 50 collisions have occurred within the study area over the most recent five-year time period available. This equates to an average of 10 accidents per year.

6.4.13 Of the 50 accidents to have occurred, 46 were categorised as ‘slight’, 4 as ‘serious’ and 0 ‘fatal’ in terms of severity of injury. Considering the highly trafficked nature of the study area, it is considered unlikely that there are existing highway safety issues in the vicinity of the site that would be exacerbated by the proposed development.

6.5 Potential Effects

Construction Traffic

6.5.1 Potential traffic generated by the proposed development during the proposed construction year has been calculated using a number of specific assumptions related to B1 land use at the site inputted into a construction traffic generation model. This model has been developed by PBA and has been used widely on projects throughout the country, and accepted by various local authorities to date.

6.5.2 The model estimates that the construction phase of the development could generate approximately 134,317 two-way construction vehicle movements.

6.5.3 Assuming that construction will take place five days a week, this equates to approximately 253 construction days. On average, therefore, there will be around 531 construction vehicle movements generated per day.

6.5.4 Based on analysis undertaken for the TA, it has been assumed that 40% of construction trips are made by car or light vehicle and 60% are made by Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV). This split has been applied to the 531 daily construction trips below (see Table 6.7).

Light Construction Traffic (per day)

HGV Construction Traffic (per day)

Total Construction Traffic (per day)

209 322 531

Table 6.7 – Construction Traffic Generation

6.5.5 Car and light vehicle trips associated with the construction phase are assumed to distribute across the study area in the same manner as has been forecast for the operational phase. Separate distributions for light vehicles and HGVs have been calculated for the TA and agreed with SCC and applied in this assessment. The results are presented in Table 6.8 below.




Link

Construction Vehicle Generation (AADT)

Light HGV Total


99 31 130


99 31 130


99 31 130


40 18 58

Table 6.8 - Construction Vehicle Generation

6.5.6 Table 6.9 sets out the 2018 baseline traffic flows, together with the increase in traffic which is forecast to be generated during the temporary construction period, the proportional increase in traffic and the subsequent impact significance.

Link 2018 Baseline Traffic Flow

(AADT)

2018 Baseline + Construction Traffic Flow

(AADT)

Increase (%) Impact

Significance


40,065 40,196 0.32% Negligible


49,215 49,345 0.26% Negligible


47,145 47,276 0.28% Negligible


27,954 28,012 0.21% Negligible




Table 6.9 – Construction Traffic Impact

6.5.7 DfT link counts categorise traffic by vehicle type and demonstrate the breakdown between light and heavy vehicles. The DfT link count data relating to the study area has been obtained and used to estimate the number of HGVs using each link in the 2018 base scenario. The forecast additional number of HGVs associated with the construction phase has been added to the base figures to further demonstrate the impact of the development. The results are summarised in Table 6.10 below.

Link

HGV Vehicles (AADT)

Baseline Increase Impact


1,092 31 2.86%


1,952 31 1.60%


1,870 31 1.67%


2,134 18 0.86%

Table 6.10 – HGV Construction Traffic Impact

6.5.8 The forecast increases in total traffic flows and HGV flows during the construction phase result in a negligible impact level of significance on all routes within the study area. This impact will be temporary and will also be reduced during the weekday peak hours as deliveries associated with construction will be restricted through the Construction Traffic Management Plan to occur outside of these time periods.

6.5.9 On the basis that the access works for the site are being delivered by SCC as part of the SCC scheme, it is likely that this will result in limited impact on receptors.

6.5.10 It is considered that the environmental effect on severance, driver delay, pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation would have a negligible adverse effect.

Operational Traffic

6.5.11 The potential traffic generated by the overall development (based on the land uses and mix set out previously) has been estimated using peak hour vehicle trip rates. These rates have been agreed with SCC for the purposes of the TA and have been factored in the same manner as the base flows to generate AADT flows.

6.5.12 The development flows have not been adjusted to account for modal shift that can reasonably be expected to occur following the implementation of intervention / mitigation measures, and can therefore be considered as robust.

6.5.13 Table 6.11 summarises the total vehicle trips forecast to be generated by the development that will impact on the links forming the study area.




Link Development Vehicles (AADT)


3,849


5,003


5,003


2,131

Table 6.11 - Development Traffic Impact

6.5.14 Table 6.12 sets out the 2033 baseline traffic flows, together with the increase in traffic which will be generated during the full development, the proportional increase in traffic and the subsequent impact significance.

Link 2033 Baseline Traffic Flow

(AADT)

2033 Baseline + Development Traffic Flow

(AADT)

Increase (%) Impact

Significance


51,885 55,034 6.99% Minor


62,874 67,877 7.37% Minor


52,015 57,019 8.78% Minor


34,347 36,478 5.84% Minor

Table 6.12 – 2033 Development Traffic Impact




6.5.15 The impact of traffic generated by the full occupation of the development is considered to have a minor impact on the local highway network within the study area in 2033.

6.5.16 Environmental impacts will occur as a result of operational vehicular traffic associated with the development proposals and the environmental effects are considered in more detail in the following paragraphs.

Severance

6.5.17 The proposed access into the site will be achieved via the improved Junction 25 roundabout, being proposed as part of the SCC scheme. The detailed layout for the development has been designed to enhance provision for pedestrians and cyclists and a number of improvements are proposed (discussed within the mitigation section). This would serve to further reduce the impact of severance.

6.5.18 It is considered that once the upgrade to Junction 25 is undertaken and the full build out of the site is completed, the overall situation for pedestrian and cyclists will be improved compared to the existing situation. This will be a beneficial effect despite the anticipated increase in traffic generated by the proposed development.

Driver Delay

6.5.19 The analysis demonstrates that proposed development traffic will have a minor adverse effect on driver delay overall.

Accidents and Safety

6.5.20 As set out in Table 6.5 previously, there are not considered to be any underlying highway safety issues within the study area considered for this assessment. Given the overall minor increase in vehicle trips associated with the occupation of the site, it is considered that any increase in accidents in the vicinity will be negligible.

Pedestrian Amenity and Delay

6.5.21 Delay to pedestrians and cyclists in terms of road traffic are generally a function of being able to cross the road. Although there may be a level of interruption during the construction phase it is anticipated that the pedestrian amenities available in the vicinity of the site once construction is complete will be a significant improvement on what is currently available. Site users will have high quality walking and cycling links available connecting to the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride which is located immediately to the north of the site.

6.5.22 It should be noted that the location of the site adjacent to the motorway and undeveloped does not currently attract a significant level of pedestrian trips. Existing facilities are limited to the area along the A358 adjacent to the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride. It is therefore considered that any interruption to pedestrian amenities during construction will have a limited impact.

6.5.23 The increase in traffic flows due to the development in absolute terms on the local highway network is expected to have a negligible effect on pedestrian delay.

Fear and Intimidation

6.5.24 It is considered that a comprehensive improvement to the local environment for pedestrians and cyclists means that the proposed development traffic will have a negligible effect on fear and intimidation.




Hazardous Loads

6.5.25 The development would have no significant effects in terms of hazardous loads.

6.6 Mitigation

Construction

6.6.1 The analysis in this chapter has shown that the predicted effect of the proposed development will, overall, have a negligible impact during the construction phase. Construction traffic has been identified as having a negligible impact across the study area and this will be mitigated by a range of measures or restrictions that will form part of the Construction Traffic Management Plan that will be secured by planning condition as part of the LDO.

Operation

6.6.2 For the operational phase it has been identified that there will be a minor permanent effect on the surrounding highway network for all links within the study area. It is not considered that any further transport or traffic mitigation is required in addition to the improvements to Junction 25.

6.6.3 Mitigation will be provided for the purposes of the TA including:

Introduction of Smarter Choices measures including but not limited to an Employment Travel Plan and Personalised Travel Planning for employees and consideration of improvements to local bus/Park and Ride Services. The requirement for Travel Plans will be secured by planning condition.

High quality pedestrian and cycle links including a connection onto Haydon Lane at the southern boundary will also be incorporated within the site. This will be constructed during the build out of the site.

6.6.4 In addition, consideration has been made to a new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the M5 connecting to Blackbrook Business Park. It is anticipated that this bridge would greatly encourage commuting by sustainable modes of transport as well as linking the proposed development with Blackbrook Business Park. This design element remains an aspiration to the LDO but is not part of the LDO and would be brought forward as a separate planning application.


Construction

6.7.1 The overall increase in daily traffic during the construction period is predicted to be negligible on the highway network within the study area. After implementation of the Construction Traffic Management Plan that will be secured via planning condition, the construction of the proposed development is expected to have a temporary negligible effect on severance, driver delay, accidents and safety, pedestrian amenity and delay and fear and intimidation.

Operation

6.7.2 Following the implementation of the various mitigation measures proposed for the site redevelopment, it is considered that there would be no significant residual effects arising from the development in terms of the impacts assessed.





6.8.1 As identified earlier, TEMPro software was used to calculate growth on the local road network for both 2018 and 2033 future year scenarios. This provides a robust basis with which to take into account all committed development and traffic growth in the area. The application of this growth was used to generate 2033 base traffic flows, and with the addition of development traffic the cumulative impacts are considered to have a minor level of significance. Furthermore, the development traffic considered within this assessment has not taken into account the implementation of a package of travel planning measures (defined previously) which will aim to significantly reduce the level of car driver trips generated by this development, and will be secured by planning condition.

6.8.2 The LDO does not prejudice in any way the potential delivery of the HE A358 dualling scheme that is currently being consulted on.

6.9 Summary

6.9.1 The impact of the development on severance, pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation, accidents and safety, hazardous loads, and pedestrian and driver delay have been assessed based on conditions relating to the future baseline situation with and within the proposed development.

6.9.2 The impact of the temporary construction phase is considered to be negligible, and the operational period in terms of traffic and transport is generally considered to be of minor significance overall.

6.9.3 Following the implementation of the various mitigation measures proposed for the site redevelopment through the TA (as previously defined), it is considered that there would be no significant residual effects arising from the development in terms of impacts assessed.




7 Landscape and Visual

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This chapter provides a landscape and visual baseline report and impact assessment of the proposed Nexus 25 Local Development Order (LDO).

7.1.2 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) identifies and assesses the negative and positive effects and significance of change arising from the proposed development on the landscape as an environmental resource in its own right and on people’s views and visual amenity.

7.1.3 The Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’, (3rd Edition, 2013) notes in paragraph 1.17, page 9, in reference to the European Union Directive 2011/92/EU:

“The Directive is clear that the emphasis is on the identification of likely significant environmental effects. This should embrace all types of effect and includes, for example, those that are positive/beneficial and negative/adverse, direct and indirect, and long and short term, as well as cumulative effects. Identifying significant effects stresses the need for an approach that is in proportion to the scale of the project that is being assessed and the nature of its likely effects. Judgement needs to be exercised at all stages in terms of the scale of investigation that is appropriate and proportional. This does not mean that effects should be ignored or their importance minimised but that the assessment should be tailored to the particular circumstances in each case.”

7.1.4 The LVIA has been carried out by chartered landscape architects at Peter Brett Associates LLP, a registered practice with the Landscape Institute and a corporate member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).

7.2 Policy Context

7.2.1 Figure 7.4, Appendix C.5 illustrates the landscape planning designations applicable to the site and surrounding area. Landscape planning policies which are relevant to the site in whole or in part are summarised below.

National Planning Policy Framework

7.2.2 National planning policy is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012. The overarching objective is to help achieve sustainable development.

7.2.3 Twelve core planning principles are set out in paragraph 17 of the NPPF. Those principles which are of relevance to the landscape and visual issues of the proposed development include the following:

“…seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;

Take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas…;

Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. Allocations for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework…; and




Promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production)”.

7.2.4 Section 7 of the NPPF sets out requirements for good design of the built environment, with references made to inclusive and high quality design for all development, including public and private spaces.

Development Plan

Taunton Deane Core Strategy

7.2.5 Local landscape planning policies are set out in the Taunton Deane Core Strategy, adopted in September 2012. Relevant landscape planning policies are summarised below.

7.2.6 Strategic Objective 8: Environment is focused on maintaining and enhancing the environment:

“To maintain and enhance biodiversity, the natural and man-made environment, minimising the need to travel, waste, pollution and the use of non-renewable resources and to promote good design and materials which respect and enhance local distinctiveness.”

7.2.7 Policy CP8: Environment states that development will be supported at sustainable locations to improve green infrastructure, public access, visual amenity and the overall quality of the natural environment. Development will need to mitigate for adverse impact of landscape. In terms of landscape and visual issues the policy states:

“The Borough Council will conserve and enhance the natural and historic environment, and will not permit development proposals that would harm these interests or the settings of the towns and rural centres unless other material factors are sufficient to override their importance…A network of green infrastructure assets has been identified and should be retained and enhanced, including through the development of green wedges and corridors as envisaged through the Taunton Deane Green Infrastructure Strategy.’

Developments will be expected to adopt Natural England's Accessible Natural Green Space Standards (ANGSt) and contribute to realising the opportunities identified within the Taunton Deane Green Infrastructure Strategy. Development will be supported at sustainable locations to improve green infrastructure, public access, visual amenity and the overall quality of the natural environment. Development will need to mitigate and where necessary, compensate for adverse impacts on landscape…so that there are no residual effects.”

7.2.8 Policy SS8 Taunton – Broad Location for Strategic Employment sets out the criteria for the identification of a strategic employment site:

“To meet the identified qualitative need for a second strategic employment site, an allocation will be made in the Site Allocations and Development Management DPD having regard to the following… criteria:

d: Having no overriding environmental or physical constraints restricting development…”

7.2.9 The Core Strategy sets out a number of broad development management policies that will be applied at the strategic level across the Borough. Policies relevant to landscape and visual issues on the site are:

7.2.10 DM1: General Requirements, states that:




“Proposals for development, taking account of any mitigation measures proposed, will be required to meet the following criteria, in addition to any other Development Management policies which apply in a particular case:

b. Additional road traffic arising, taking account of any road improvements involved, would not lead to overloading of access roads, road safety problems or environmental degradation by fumes, noise, vibrations or visual impact; …

d. The appearance and character of any affected landscape, settlement, building or street scene would not be unacceptably harmed by the development…”

7.2.11 Policy DM4 deals with design, and states that:

“A sense of place will be encouraged by addressing design at a range of spatial scales - town, district, village, neighbourhood, street, space, building – using planning documents that relate to each scale…”

Preferred Options Consultation

The Preferred Options Consultation included the Nexus 25 site.

7.2.12 The preferred Options states that allocating the Nexus 25 site would assist in providing a range and choice of future supply with good access to the national route network and enable Taunton to reach its full economic potential in the south west sub region (para 2.39).

7.2.13 It is proposed to allocate a site of approximately 25 hectares net developable area as a strategic employment site to serve the future growth needs of Taunton. Such a site would be sited in a ‘parkland’ setting and complement rather than compete with town centre employment opportunities. It would therefore not be developed as an ‘office park’ which would also be incompatible with local and national planning policy (pg. 98).

7.2.14 There are a number of Development Management Policies in the Adopted Site Allocation and Development Management Policies Plan (SADMP), which are relevant to the landscape and visual issues of the LDO. They include:

ENV1 Protection of Trees, Woodland, Orchard and Hedgerows which requires that development should seek to minimise impact on trees, woodlands, orchards and hedgerows;

ENV2 Tree Planting within New Developments which sets out that the planting of trees within new developments shall be sought where this would bring benefits;

D1 Taunton’s Skyline where development which would detract from the distinctive character and attractiveness of Taunton’s skyline will not be permitted;

D2 Approach Routes to Taunton and Wellington does not permit development which would harm the visual qualities of routes into and out of Taunton and Wellington; and

D7 Design Quality requires new development to create a high standard of design quality and a sense of place.

7.3 Methodology

7.3.1 The PBA methodology used for undertaking the LVIA is set out in detail at Appendix C.1. It is based on the Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment” (3rd Edition, 2013) (GLVIA3), combined with our professional experience and judgement.




7.3.2 The assessment of landscape and visual effects aims to be as objective as possible, however, as explained in GLVIA3:

“Professional judgement is a very important part of LVIA. While there is some scope for quantitative measurement of some relatively objective matters, for example the number of trees lost to construction… much of the assessment must rely on qualitative judgements, for example about what effect the introduction of a new development or land use change may have on visual amenity, or about the significance of change in the character of the landscape and whether it is positive or negative.” (paragraph 2.23, page 21, GLVIA3).

7.3.3 The LVIA has been based on the proposals shown on the Parameter Plan, Appendix A.2.

7.3.4 The assessment of effects makes comparison with the baseline year 2017, during which time the final site surveys were carried out.

7.3.5 This chapter considers effects of the proposed development on:

Landscape character, within which the site is located;

Landscape elements (the ‘fabric’ or features, which contribute to character); and

Views available to people and their visual amenity, from publicly accessible viewpoints.

7.3.6 Night-time lighting effects are covered in a technical Lighting Assessment at Appendix C.8 of this LVIA.

Study Area

7.3.7 The spatial scope of this LVIA was determined through the production of a preliminary Zone of Theoretical Influence and a desktop study which informed the initial visit to the site and surrounding area, to determine the site’s existing visual envelope and the extent to which the proposed development is likely to be visible from within the surrounding area. The ZTI used potential building heights of 11m and 13m, using the worst case scenario based on land form only and not taking account of other visual barriers such as buildings, woodland and hedges. When the masterplan was developed, a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) was produced, using the same methodology as the ZTI but with building heights of 12m. The ZTV is Figure 7.1 in Appendix C.5. When undertaking the site work, it was clear that the effect of the visual barriers was such that the visibility of the site and potential visibility of the proposals were greatly reduced.

7.3.8 The spatial scope, together with a review of potential visual receptors, guided the selection of representative viewpoints that are included within the visual impact assessment. The locations of representative viewpoints for the visual impact assessment are set out in Section 2 of Appendix C.1, LVIA Methodology and shown on Figure 7.5 in Appendix C.5.

7.3.9 Areas identified with the potential to experience visual effects but which were considered unlikely to experience significant visual effects, were scoped out of the visual impact assessment following the site visit. These are also detailed in Section 2 of Appendix C.1, LVIA Methodology.

Consultation

7.3.10 Consultation was undertaken on a draft Scoping Report, which included an outline of the proposed scope and methodology for the LVIA. Comments received regarding landscape and visual issues are summarised in Table 1.1 of Appendix C.1, LVIA Methodology, including how the LVIA responds to those comments. The Scoping Report was subsequently adopted by TDBC as the Scoping Opinion.




7.3.11 The Scoping Report also sought agreement to the proposed locations of viewpoints for the visual impact assessment.

7.3.12 The council agreed with the selection of viewpoints and the methodology in their email of 20th February 2017.

Site Appraisal

7.3.13 Following the back data trawl and a preliminary desktop study, site visits were made in February 2016 and June 2017 by Chartered Members of the Landscape Institute in order to undertake the landscape and visual appraisal in relation to the proposed development, including review of the computer-generated ZTV, identification of key views, assessment of landscape value and local landscape character, identification of typical viewpoints as a basis on which to undertake the visual impact assessment, and assessment of landscape and visual effects.


7.4.1 The site is located to the east of Taunton and the M5 motorway, and to the south of Junction 25. The A358 and Taunton Gateway Park and Ride form the northern boundary of the site. The M5 motorway forms the western site boundary.

7.4.2 Agricultural fields lie to the east of the site, beyond which is a north-south road connecting the A358 and Haydon Lane.

7.4.3 Swingrite Golf Centre is situated adjacent to the site’s southwestern boundary. Haydon Farm, residential properties of Haydon and Haydon Lane lie to the south of the site.

7.4.4 The site is described in detail in Chapter 2 of this ES. Figures 7.4 Landscape Planning Context, 7.3 Landscape Character and 7.6 Site Character, in Appendix C.5, and the photographs in Appendix C.6 illustrate the baseline conditions.

Landscape Character

7.4.5 Relevant published sources describing landscape character, are:

Natural England, National Character Area Profile 146: Vale of Taunton and Quantock Fringes, 2014; and

Taunton Deane Landscape Character Assessment, undated.

7.4.6 Figure 7.3, Appendix C.5, illustrates the landscape character areas which are applicable to the site and surrounding area.

National Landscape Character

7.4.7 The site lies in the south-eastern corner of National Character Area 146: Vale of Taunton and Quantock Fringes, 2014. Key characteristics of relevance to the site and locality include:

A number of tree-lined streams and rivers wind through the area. The River Tone and its tributaries drain the area to the south;

Woodland cover is generally low, at 6 per cent, although the area has a wooded feel as there are many hedgerow trees (such as oak), orchards, remnants of parkland, small woodlands with ash and oak and bankside trees such as alder and, rarely, black poplar;




Lowland mixed farming landscape, with dense hedgerows enclosing rectilinear fields. Permanent grassland characterises the flood plain with arable, pasture, market gardening and orchards in the vales and pasture and arable on more undulating ground; and

The M5 motorway runs east–west (as does the main rail line), linking several of the larger towns, including Taunton and Wellington. Incremental development and industrialisation from the towns are evident, especially adjacent to the motorway.

7.4.8 About 1.0 km to the east is National Character Area 143: Mid Somerset Hills and part of one key characteristic is relevant to the site, given the distance:

7.4.9 The hills, such as the Poldens, are prominent and dramatic, rising above the surrounding landscape…and giving panoramic views across the lower lands surrounding them.

7.4.10 About 2.0 km to the north-east is National Character Area 142: Somerset Levels and Moors, but there is no intervisibility with the site and it is not considered further.

Regional / Local Landscape Character

7.4.11 In the Taunton Deane Landscape Character Assessment, the site falls lies in the northern part of Landscape Type 1: Farmed and Settled Low Vale, and in the 1A Vale of Taunton Deane Character Area. The key characteristics of the Character Area are:

A low-lying vale landscape centred around the River Tone and the County town of Taunton extending up to the northern boundary of Wellington;

A flat to gently undulating terrain with an elevation ranging from (15m-50m AOD) - the landscape generally being lower and flatter to the east, rising and becoming more undulating in the west;

Principally underlain by a solid surface geology of Keuper Marls (of the Triassic Mercia Mudstone Group), giving rise to well-drained coarse and loamy soils (Grades 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land);

Strong sense of being within a vale or wide, shallow bowl-like landform – with the surrounding Quantock Hills AONB and Blackdown Hills AONB offering visual and physical containment;

Mixed agricultural land use system – dairying, stock rearing, cereals and fruit cropping (orchards);

Strong hedgerow network (with striking hedgerow trees – mainly oak) defining a field system that is both of ancient and recent enclosure;

Limited woodland cover – woodland generally restricted to occasional small copses on areas of higher ground;

A number of villages, hamlets and dispersed farms connected by a network of roads and winding rural lanes;

Notable rural-urban fringe character around the main towns of Taunton and Wellington;

Varied building age and vernacular – in the north red sandstone is prevalent but in the south, blue lias is more common. Painted stone and clay tiles are common throughout;

A number of hills that have been designated as Special Landscape Features make an important contribution to the wider landscape e.g. Knowle Hill, Norton Camp Hill, Rag Hill,




the ridge between Stonegallows Hill and Lipe Hill and the river cliff at Bradford-on-Tone; and

The A38 and M5 motorway have a visual and aural influence on many parts of the vale.

7.4.12 The matrix at 3.12 of the Landscape Character Assessment identifies the landscape quality as moderate, as a result of moderate condition, because:

“Although much of the landscape is working farmland and under good management, there are a number of issues affecting the overall state of intactness of features and characteristics of the landscape. The areas of poorest condition are typically within the rural-urban fringe (around Taunton and Wellington) where marginal farmland appears degraded. Hedgerow condition is poor - often gappy, thin and short flailed with the effect of weakening the landscape pattern.” (Paragraph 3.13.)

7.4.13 In terms of character, paragraph 3.14 describes that:

“The strength of landscape character varies across the vale but is judged to be moderate to strong overall. Moderate strength of character reflects a combination of how visual detractors and a moderate to poor landscape condition have, in places, diluted the pattern of elements defining the Vale. These include factors such as poor and varied hedgerow management leading to a weakened landscape pattern, major transport corridors (and associated linear development and intrusive signage along their length, such as between Taunton and Wellington), pylon tracts and large industrial style agricultural buildings that do not respect the local vernacular nor add to the sense of place.”

7.4.14 The adjacent LCA 2A: The Tone, covers the flood valley of the River Tone, and a narrow finger of the LCA which washes over and runs parallel with the M5, abuts the site adjacent to the M5 junction 25. Views from the LCA is not one of its key characteristics, although the most relevant to the Site are:

Very limited settlement within the rural areas (mainly individual farmsteads) but where the River Tone meets Wellington and Taunton, there is a very clear urban influence.

Man-made infrastructure associated with transport and services – Great Western and West Somerset Railways, as well as prominent pylons carrying overhead cables.

7.4.15 LCA 5A: North Curry, is about 2.5km to the west of the site, and given the distance, the only relevant key characteristics relate to potential intervisibility:

Extensive views from the ridgeline and sides across the low-lying surrounding wetland and beyond e.g. to the Vale of Taunton Deane and Quantock Hills AONB; and

Distinctive wooded knoll of Thorn Hill – occupying a prominent position.

7.4.16 LCA 10C: Blackdown Hills Limestone LCA comes as close as 0.75km to the site to the south-east. It is part of the Character Type 10: Wooded Escarpment, and one of the key characteristics of the type refers to views:

Some clear areas provide glimpsed extensive views across the low-lying vale but generally opportunities for views out from the landscape are greatly restricted by the woodland cover.

7.4.17 This assessment did not establish any relationship between the site and any other LCAs.




Landscape Character of the Site

7.4.18 The site largely consists of open arable land across low lying land and adjacent to the corridor of the M5, beyond which and to the north-west are the suburbs of Taunton. The extensive Taunton gateway Park and Ride facility lies to the north-east. The site is subdivided by hedges and hedgerows into large fields allowing varying intervisibility across the site.

7.4.19 The site can be divided into three landscape character areas as shown on Figure 7.6 in Appendix C.5:

A: M5 Corridor: running along the western edge of the site, where the land partly slopes down to the motorway alongside which runs the Broughton Brook. In summer, the substantial deciduous planting largely separates the M5 from the site, although traffic noise influences the appreciation of this simple landscape. The land is entirely arable with few hedges.

B: Open Arable Core: largely beyond a surrounding network of hedges and hedgerows, this area takes up much of the site, and is characterised by some strong hedgerows, some smaller hedges and varying intervisibility across a simple, functional landscape. To the north-east is the Taunton Gate Park and Ride facility, and to the south west is the small settlement of Haydon, both off site.

C: Poultry Sheds: this small character area consists of the industrial sheds and associated hard standing that forms the only significant buildings on the site.

Landform and Watercourses

7.4.20 The site’s topography is low lying and gently undulating land; the lowest level being approximately 12m above ordnance datum (AOD) in the northeast of the site and the highest level at approximately 18m AOD on a low ridge to the south, adjacent to Haydon. To the north-west, the land rises up onto the embankment of the M5.

7.4.21 The Broughton Brook flows along the site’s north-western boundary before flowing into the Black Brook, which comes under the M5 from the north-west. Beyond the confluence, the Black Brook continues along the north-western boundary and then underneath the A358.

7.4.22 Other watercourses within the site include the Henlade Brook at the southern edge of the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride, the Stoke Brook which passes along part of the site’s eastern boundary and numerous minor watercourses, field ditches and ponds within the site.

Land Use

7.4.23 The site is almost entirely arable farmland, with a complex of poultry buildings in the northern part of the site.

Existing Vegetation and Tree Cover

7.4.24 A survey of tree features (individual trees and groups of trees) was undertaken in October, 2015 for the site:

17 tree features were assessed as Category A (trees of high quality);

171 tree features were assessed as Category B (trees of moderate quality);

Both categories are considered to be a ‘significant material constraint’. Accordingly, the emerging LDO masterplan seeks to retain Category A and B trees within the Proposed Development where possible and practicable;




A further 72 tree features were assessed as Category C (low quality and a minimal constraint to development), and

3 tree features were assessed as Category U (no constraint).

7.4.25 A copy of the tree survey and constraints plan is included at Appendix C.7.

Landscape Designations

7.4.26 There are no landscape designations on or in the immediate context of the site.

7.4.27 Approximately 2.7km to the south of the site is the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and 5.8km to the north-west is the Quantock Hills AONB.

7.4.28 The primary purpose of AONBs is to ensure the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape. The level of protection applied to AONBs in the planning system and under the NPPF, is the same as for National Parks and is of national, as well as local, importance.

7.4.29 No viewpoints leading to issues of intervisibility were identified in the Quantock Hills, but a potential viewpoint was identified in the Blackdown Hills.

Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Register of Historic Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest

7.4.30 The site does not lie within or near to a Conservation Area, and there are no Listed Buildings within the site.

7.4.31 Nearby Listed Buildings (Grade II) include those at Ruishton Court, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride; Haydon Farm near to the site’s southern boundary; and at Haydon House Farm, south of Haydon Lane. There are Conservation Areas at Thornfalcon, 2.1 km to the east, and South Road, Taunton, 1.3 km to the west, although owing to distance and intervening development and vegetation, there is no intervisibility between the site and the Conservation Areas.

7.4.32 There are no Scheduled Monuments or Registered Parks and Gardens on or near the site.

Public Rights of Way and National Cycle Routes

7.4.33 A public footpath runs through the western part of the site, from Haydon Lane northwards to Cambria Farm and emerging on the A358 at the motorway junction. It is joined by a further footpath near the junction, which passes through Cambria Farm, north of the poultry sheds, and just inside the northern boundary of the site adjacent to Taunton Gateway Park and Ride. It follows Henlade Brook in a south-easterly direction beyond the site, emerging on Haydon Lane. A Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) leads from Haydon Lane to Haydon Farm, but does not enter the site or connect to other public rights of way.

7.4.34 There are no national cycle routes near the site.

Landscape Value

7.4.35 Landscapes may be valued at community, local, or national level, or in some cases at a greater level. Existing landscape planning designations are taken to be the initial guide to value, as shown in Table 1.4, Appendix C.1, LVIA Methodology. The value attached to undesignated landscapes also needs to be considered and other factors which influence landscape value, such as landscape or scenic quality, sense of place, rarity, and so forth, are




also taken into account as per the detailed criteria in Table 1.5, Appendix C.1, LVIA Methodology, for determining landscape value.

7.4.36 As part of the baseline review, an assessment of value is made for landscape character areas and the individual elements which contribute to landscape character, which may be affected by the proposed development. Landscape values are set out in detail in the Landscape Effects Table in Appendix C.4.

Key Views and Representative Viewpoints

7.4.37 There are no key or strategic views identified by TDBC within any planning documents.

7.4.38 As a result of the M5 embankment adjacent to the site and the mature and extensive linear mitigation planting along its corridor, there are no views from the area to the west of the site, with the exception of the over bridges over the M5 to the south-west.

7.4.39 To the north, landform and mature and maturing planting associated with the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride and mature planting along the A358 limit views to those in the vicinity of the site.

7.4.40 To the east, the largely level landform combined with development and a pattern of hedges and hedgerows prevent views until higher ground is reached at Thorn Hill, some 2.5km away and beyond.

7.4.41 To the south, there are local views from a network of lanes and as the landform gently rises up to the partly wooded area around Netherclay and the edge of the Blackdown Hills AONB.

7.4.42 Representative viewpoints (which represent specific views from a location) for the visual impact assessment are set out in Section 2 of Appendix C.1, LVIA Methodology and shown on Figure 7.5, Viewpoint Location Plan. Reasons for selection are given in Table 7.1 below.

7.4.43 The baseline description for each viewpoint, including information about the type and relative numbers of people likely to be affected, is set out within the Visual Effects Table in Appendix C.3, and representative photograph panoramas illustrating baseline views in Appendix C.6.

7.4.44 Views which were scoped out of the LVIA are set out in Table 1.3, Appendix C.1, LVIA Methodology.

Value of Views

7.4.45 All visual receptors are people. The value attached to the views experienced has regard to a number of factors including recognition through the planning designation or heritage assets and the popularity of the viewpoint. Table 1.9, Appendix C.1, LVIA Methodology sets out the criteria for determining the value of views from low to high.

7.4.46 As part of the baseline review, an assessment of value has been made for the views and visual amenity which may be affected by the proposed development. These are set out in detail in the Visual Effects Table in Appendix C.3.




Table 7.1: Selection of Viewpoints for Visual Impact Assessment

Viewpoint Reference

Location Reason for Inclusion

1A / 1B Haydon Lane Proximity to Listed Buildings (1A), road users, access to golf driving range, access to

dwellings

2 Public right of way off Haydon Lane

Public rights of way network

3A / 3B Public right of way, adjacent to M5 motorway

Viewpoints on public right of way

4 Public right of way along northern site boundary and

south of Park & Ride


5 Public right of way, off Lipe Lane

Public rights of way network, road users

6 Public right of way, water corridor

Potential views of taller buildings on employment site (existing site not visible),

recreation visitors, public rights of way network. Inclusion of viewpoint subject to

development proposals height.

7 Public right of way, lower foot slopes of Stoke Hill

Public rights of way network, local road users

8 Haydon Lane, M5 motorway overbridge

Elevated position, road users into and out of Taunton

9 Public right of way, north of Stoke St. Mary


10 Broughton Lane Proximity to dwellings, local road users

11 Public right of way, off Stoke Road


12 Stoke Road, M5 motorway overbridge

Elevated position, road users into and out of Taunton

13 Adjacent to beacon, Thorn Hill near Thornfalcon.

Near public rights of way network; viewpoint adjacent to beacon to which public have

access.

14 Windmill Hill, road north of Lillesdon

Road users, national cycle network

15 Public right of way off lane near Shoreditch Road

Public rights of way network, local road users, proximity to AONB boundary

16 Public right of way, off Netherclay Lane

Public rights of way network, within AONB.





7.5.1 Landscape and visual receptors which are considered to be likely to experience change as a result of the proposed development, but which are not likely to experience a significant landscape or visual effect, are scoped out of this LVIA and are not considered further. These receptors are:

National Landscape Character Areas 146: Vale of Taunton and Quantock Fringes and 143: Mid Somerset Hills as the extent of change arising from the proposals is very small compared with the extensive area covered by those NCAs.

Conservation Areas, RHPGs and SAMs as there are none within the area of influence of the proposals; and

Listed Buildings which have been scoped out of the ES.

7.5.2 Potentially significant landscape and visual effects arising from the proposed development are those upon:

Landscape character;

Landscape features of the site; and

People’s views and visual amenity.

Landscape Character

7.5.3 It is likely that adverse changes will occur to the site’s local landscape character, arising from the change from agricultural land to employment land, with new buildings, roads, yards, and loss of some lengths of hedges and some trees. Adverse effects will be minimised by fitting the development proposal into the pattern of the landscape; retaining existing trees and hedges where practicable, together with new tree and shrub planting; and ecology habitat improvements.

Landscape Features

7.5.4 Landscape features of the site, which will potentially be subject to significant changes, arising as a result of the proposed development, include:

Existing vegetation and tree cover: comprising trees, tree groups, hedgerows, scrub, ruderal vegetation and grassland, when there is necessary removal there will be replacement by new tree, shrub and grassland planting elsewhere on the site;

Pedestrian routes: through or adjacent to the site – possible redirections during construction and change of setting in the final scheme;

Landform: adjustments to landform to enable construction of buildings, roads, paths, cycleways and drainage mitigation; and

Land use: change from open, largely undeveloped land to new employment development and associated infrastructure and open space.

People’s Views and Visual Amenity

7.5.5 There are likely to be adverse changes to local views and visual amenity as a result of seeing the new development. These adverse visual changes will be minimised by retention of




existing trees where practicable, together with new tree and shrub planting, and implementation of the integrated landscape and ecology design scheme that forms part of the parameters plan and Design Guide.

7.5.6 Potential visual receptors of the proposed development are:

Residents at Haydon;

Users of footpaths across the site on the northern and western boundaries;

Users of footpaths on the adjacent footpath network including at the edge of the AONB; and

Visitors to the beacon on Thorn Hill.

Sensitivity of Landscape and Visual Receptors

7.5.7 The detailed landscape and visual impact assessments are set out in the Landscape Effects Table in Appendix C.4 and the Visual Effects Table in Appendix C.3. These impact assessments include judgements of receptors’ susceptibility to change, which, combined with judgements on the baseline value attributed to receptors, provides an assessment of the overall sensitivity of each receptor. Appendix C.1, LVIA Methodology sets out the typical scales of sensitivity and the criteria for determining susceptibility to change. A summary of overall sensitivity to change arising from the proposed development is set out below.

Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors

7.5.8 Landscape receptors identified as having a high sensitivity to the proposed development are the Blackdown Hills AONB and Taunton Deane LCA 10C: Blackdown Hills Limestone, a small part of which includes the AONB. This is due to the condition and scenic quality of these features, and their contribution towards recreational activity.

7.5.9 Landscape receptors within the assessment which are identified as having a medium sensitivity to the proposed development are the LCAs: 1A Vale of Taunton Deane, 2A The Tone and 5A North Curry; the site character area identified as the Open Arable Core; the site features Woodland, Trees and Hedges, and Public Rights of Way. Those features are in moderate condition, provide some scenic quality valued at a local level, and have partial tolerance to the type of proposed development.

7.5.10 All other landscape receptors are identified as having low sensitivity.

Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

7.5.11 Visual receptors at viewpoints VP6, VP7, VP9 and VP13 are all identified as having a high sensitivity. In the case of VP6, this is due to its location on a well-used path on the banks of the Tone, VP7 and VP9 because of the unspoiled views and feeling of relative remoteness, and VP13 because of the extensive views across a wide swathe of countryside from an elevated position. Users of the viewpoints are engaged in outdoor recreation and likely to be focussed on views of the surrounding landscape.

7.5.12 Visual receptors at viewpoints VP1B, VP2, VP3A, VP3B, VP4, VP10, and VP11 are identified as having a medium sensitivity. This is due to the views or the view composition including some features of interest and having some amenity value, being of a generally attractive composition with little sign of degradation, or reflecting the viewpoint’s location close to development adjacent to the road network or on local Public Rights of Way.




7.5.13 All other visual receptors are identified as having a low sensitivity. This is a result of the view or composition having low amenity value, containing few or no visually attractive elements or being of a poor visual composition; the views may be incidental to the viewer or be fleeting in motion.

7.6 Mitigation and Enhancement

Primary Measures

7.6.1 Primary measures have been developed through the iterative design process, and are those which have become integrated or embedded into the project/scheme design.

7.6.2 Standard construction and operational management practices are those which will be adopted for avoiding and reducing environmental effects, such as the use of hoardings or tree protection fencing.

7.6.3 Primary mitigation measure practices are described in the Design Guide. Key primary measures incorporated into the proposed development include:

Retention of existing trees and vegetation where practicable, and the protection of trees to be retained in accordance with BS5837:2012;

New tree planting, and planting of new native trees and hedges to replace those which require removal; and

Management of existing trees and hedges to be retained to ensure they remain as sustainable landscape features.

7.6.4 The Design Guide explains how the:

‘Green Infrastructure Framework underpins the masterplan structure and will deliver a connected network of green spaces, ecological and biodiversity gains and opportunity for SUDs combining to develop a ‘green’ character to Nexus J25 and a pleasant and healthy working environment.’

7.6.5 The key components of the green infrastructure framework are illustrated in the Design Guide and those relevant to this LVIA are summarised as delivering:

“• A ‘green skirt’ around the development, which will offer a generous multi-functional greenspace around the perimeter of the built form. This will provide recreation space, ecological improvements, flood relief and act as a green buffer between the M5 corridor and development edge. A portion of this land will continue to be managed as agricultural land.

• Tree lined streets developing a network of green streets linking open spaces.

• Two key axial green corridors transecting the site and running south and east to link the green skirt with the countryside beyond. These will accommodate pedestrian cycle routes, SUDs features and offer green recreational space to those working in nearby businesses.

• Retention and enhancement of existing trees and hedgerows along key boundaries of the site.

• An integrated SUDs network within green corridors and public spaces.

• Landscaped ponds and wetland areas.

• Additional woodland and buffer planting around the perimeter of development.”




Secondary Mitigation Measures

7.6.6 Secondary mitigation measures are proposals to address adverse effects which remain after primary measures and standard construction practices have been incorporated into the scheme. No secondary landscape mitigation measures are required, because achievable mitigation has already been included in the primary mitigation measures and assumed standard construction practices.


7.7.1 Residual effects are those that are predicted to remain after implementation of the described mitigation measures.

7.7.2 The Landscape Effects Table in Appendix C.4 and the Visual Effects Table in Appendix C.3 sets out the detailed impact assessments upon landscape and visual receptors. The results are summarised below.

Summary of Landscape Effects During Construction

7.7.3 As the development is extensive, it is likely that the construction process will be undertaken over a period of several years and over several parts of the site. Nevertheless, the effects will be temporary. Direct adverse effects during construction have been assessed as follows:

a major level of significance for the site’s character area Open Arable Core owing to construction activity being concentrated in that area over a number of years; and

moderate levels of significance on Woodland, Trees and Hedgerows.

7.7.4 These effects arise from the construction activity, excavations and plant operating within the site, including the removal of trees to facilitate the development.

7.7.5 Temporary, adverse effects upon all other landscape receptors were assessed as being either minor or negligible, and therefore not significant.

Summary of Landscape Effects on Completion

7.7.6 On completion, the assessment identified long term, direct, adverse effects of a moderate level of significance on the Open Arable Core site character, as well as Woodland and Trees and Hedgerows owing to the effects on local landscape character of the site, land use and vegetation and tree cover.

7.7.7 However, long term, direct moderate beneficial effects are predicted for Public Rights of Way as well as Watercourses, as a result of the considerable increase in accessibility and in the areas of new water and the potential for improving the appearance of existing water bodies,

7.7.8 All other long term, adverse and beneficial effects on landscape receptors were assessed as being either minor or negligible, and therefore not significant.

Summary of Landscape Effects 15 Years After Planting

7.7.9 15 years after completion, and when planting is expected to have matured, long term, direct adverse effects remain of a moderate level of significance upon the site’s character area: Open Arable Core, as the fundamental change in character will remain.

7.7.10 Long term, direct beneficial effects with a moderate level of significance is assessed for the Poultry Sheds site character area, as the benefits of replacement of the buildings will increase




as the landscape matures; for Public Rights of Way as the benefits of the increased access will remain; and for Watercourses as the benefits of additional areas of water and enhancement of the existing water courses will remain.

7.7.11 All other effects are long term, direct beneficial or adverse with a minor or negligible level of significance and which are assessed as not significant effects.

Summary of Visual Effects During Construction

7.7.12 Temporary, direct, and adverse visual effects during construction that are of a major level of significance are assessed for views from VP3B and VP4. These views are from footpaths within the site, and result from the extensive earthworks necessary to construct new landscape features and the removal of trees and hedges.

7.7.13 No visual effects of a moderate level of significance have been identified during construction.

7.7.14 All other visual effects during construction are temporary (short term), direct, and adverse visual effects of minor or negligible significance, and therefore not significant.

Summary of Visual Effects on Completion

7.7.15 On completion, long term, direct, adverse visual effects with a moderate level of significance are assessed for VP3B and VP4, both footpaths, respectively within the western and northern boundaries of the site. This is due to the loss of trees and hedges, views of the new buildings and the new footpaths and roads, not yet softened by the new tree planting.

7.7.16 All other visual effects on completion are long term, direct, adverse and have a minor or negligible level of significance, and are therefore not significant.

Summary of Visual Effects 15 Years After Planting

7.7.17 15 years after planting, there are no remaining significant visual effects for the representative viewpoints. All visual effects, 15 years after planting, are assessed as either a minor or negligible level of significance, largely owing to the extensive landscape scheme, the replacement of trees and hedges lost although in different locations, and maturing planting supplementing the existing trees and hedges.


7.8.1 Definition of cumulative landscape and visual effects was first set out in the 2002 edition of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, and since then has been further refined, in terms of windfarm development, by guidance produced in Scotland, which is used widely and not only in Scotland. The current definitions, as set out in 'Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments', Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), 2012, are referred to in paragraph 7.3 of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, 2013, (Landscape Institute and IEMA), (GLVIA3) and comprise:

Cumulative effects – “the additional changes caused by a proposed development in conjunction with other similar developments or as the combined effect of a set of developments, taken together”;

Cumulative visual effects - effects caused by combined visibility, which “occurs where the observer is able to see two or more developments from one viewpoint” and/or sequential effects which “occur when the observer has to move to another viewpoint to see different developments”; and




Cumulative landscape effects - effects that “can impact on either the physical fabric or character of the landscape, or any special values attached to it”.

7.8.2 In accordance with the emphasis in EIA, the assessment is required to focus on the cumulative landscape and visual effects which are likely to be significant, rather than providing a comprehensive listing of every conceivable cumulative landscape and visual effect that might occur. The approach must be reasonable and proportional to the proposed development.

7.8.3 Committed developments which have been identified for the consideration of cumulative effects are set out in Appendix A.4, the Scoping Opinion.

7.8.4 Cumulative landscape and visual assessment considers the effects of the proposal in terms of:

An extension or intensification of the landscape and/or visual effects of other similar developments;

'filling' an area over time with similar development, such that the landscape resource, views and visual amenity are judged to be substantially altered; and

Incremental change arising from the proposal, as a result of successive individual developments.

Cumulative Landscape and Visual Effects

Cumulative schemes

7.8.5 Three committed developments which were identified for the Scoping Opinion (Appendix A.4) have been scoped out of the LVIA for the reasons given below:

31/13/0025, Land at junction of A358 and Stoke Road, 26 affordable houses and associated parking: between existing housing and a caravan site south of A358: small scale of the proposed development 0.85km from the site and no intervisibility with the scheme;

38/10/0030, Land at Polar Road, 12 houses: site is 0.25km west of the M5 and the intervening embankments and substantial mature vegetation belts combined with small scale of the proposed development means that there is no intervisibility with the scheme;

37/12/0008, Haydon House Farm, Haydon, Poultry building: approximately 0.45km south of the site and separated by vegetation and the existing poultry houses, the additional building will result in the loss of the existing southern tree screen, which will be replaced further south to provide a screen for the new building. In the few views from the south in which the new building will be visible, it will be seen as a minor extension to the existing group.

7.8.6 Because of scale, distance and separation, none of those developments will result in an extension or intensification of the landscape and/or visual effects, infilling an area with similar development, so that the landscape resource, views and visual amenity are judged to be substantially altered; or lead to incremental change arising from the proposal, as a result of successive individual developments.

M5 Junction 25 Improvements

7.8.7 Part of the application for Somerset County Council’s (SCC) proposed highway improvements at M5 Junction 25 is within the site boundary. This includes changes to the roundabout at the




junction as well as the construction of an additional arm to the east leading to a new roundabout, providing access the site and the proposed development with a northern link to the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride, where there would also be alterations to the existing access.

7.8.8 Most of the changes brought about by the junction improvement would be minor and local to the existing junction corridor and the Park and Ride, although the eastern arm will extend the road network to the south beyond an enclosed parcel of land containing dwellings and farm buildings, and partly across arable land and the footprint of some of the Cambria Farm poultry sheds, although they are all shown as removed for the LDO scheme. The scheme will require the removal of some short length of hedge and cross some water courses, but it can be anticipated that an accompanying landscape mitigation scheme will partly or wholly mitigate those effects.

7.8.9 Adding the proposed development to the junction improvement will extend the influence of the M5 corridor further south across the landscape, and the proposed development will further extend development to the south and across the site, but in an area relatively contained by hedges, hedgerows and trees. Each scheme will have mitigation proposal. Therefore, the scheme will not be perceived as an extension or intensification of the landscape and/or visual effects, infilling an area with similar development, so that the landscape resource, views and visual amenity are judged to be substantially altered; or lead to incremental change arising from the proposal, as a result of successive individual developments.

A358 Taunton to Southfields Duelling Scheme

7.8.10 Highways England (HE) is proposing the A358 Taunton to Southfields Duelling Scheme, part of their wider ‘A358/A303 Corridor Improvement Programme’. A section of the current option is proposed at least 0.6km to the south of the site, and consists of a new dual carriageway section leading to a new all-movements motorway junction on the M5 located about 3.5km south of Junction 25.

7.8.11 Given the lack of significant intervisibility between them, it is not considered likely that there will be any significant cumulative effects.

7.9 Conclusions and Summary

7.9.1 This Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was conducted to identify the positive and negative effects, and the significance of those effects, resulting from the proposed development at the site. Effects upon the landscape as an environmental resource in its own right were considered, in addition to effects upon people’s views and amenity.

7.9.2 The assessment was undertaken using a methodology based upon the Landscape Institute / IEMA ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (3rd Edition, 2013) (GLVIA3), combined with professional experience and judgement.

7.9.3 The LVIA found that the proposed development will result in site specific temporary (short term) adverse and significant landscape effects during the construction period, for only two receptors which are: the site character area Open Arable Core, and the features of Woodland, Trees and Hedgerows. During construction, adverse, but temporary, changes to landscape features and landscape character within the site are to be expected due to the nature and activity of the construction works required for the proposed development.

7.9.4 On completion, the same two landscape receptors experience moderate adverse effects. However, there are moderate beneficial effects assessed to Public Rights of Way and Watercourses, as a result of the considerable enhancement that the proposed development is able to provide.




7.9.5 15 years after planting, the site’s character area: Open Arable Core will continue to experience moderate adverse effects, whilst the site character area: Poultry Sheds, currently occupied by industrial scale buildings, and two features: Woodland, Trees and Hedges and Watercourses, would experience moderate beneficial effects.

7.9.6 For visual receptors, significant effects are identified for two viewpoints, VP3B and VP4, during construction, but both those viewpoints are located on the site so would be very close to and therefore notably impacted by construction activities.

7.9.7 On completion, the same viewpoints would continue to experience significant adverse effects. However, 15 years after planting, as the surrounding landscape strategy matures, there are no significant adverse visual effects.

7.9.8 No significant cumulative landscape or visual effects are predicted.




8 Ecology

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 This chapter has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA). It contains an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) of the proposed development covered by the LDO.

8.1.2 The EcIA has been undertaken having regard to the ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd edition’ (Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM), 2016), which represent current best practice.

8.1.3 Desk study data and the results of a suite of ecological surveys undertaken by EAD Ecology on behalf of Summerfield Developments (SW) Ltd in 2015 have been used to determine the ecological baseline required to inform the EcIA. The continued validity of these surveys was established following an ecological walkover survey of the site undertaken by PBA on 10th July 2017. The EcIA has also been informed by consultation with Taunton Deane Borough Council (TDBC), West Somerset Council, and Natural England as part of the formal scoping process.

8.1.4 This chapter is supported by Appendices D.1 and D.2 as identified within the sections below). These contain EAD’s baseline survey report (Ecological Baseline Report, EAD Ecology, January 2016), and provide additional detail in relation to legislation and planning policy, and statutory designated areas, habitats and species.

8.2 Policy Context

8.2.1 The assessment set out in this chapter has been informed by current legislation and national and local planning policies, which are relevant to the ecological features associated with the site. Full details are described in Appendix D.1. However, in summary, the following policies and legislation have been considered in preparing this assessment:

Legislation

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended);

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);

The Natural Environmental and Rural Communities Act 2006;

The Protection of Badgers Act, 1992;

Hedgerow Regulations 1997; and

Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 (as amended).

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework, 2012 and associated published Planning Policy Guidance 2016;

Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, 2005;

Taunton Deane Borough Council Adopted Core Strategy 2011 – 2028;




Taunton Deane Adopted site Allocations and Development Management Plan 2016;

Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans

UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework

England Biodiversity Strategy - Climate Change Adaptation Principles 2008

Wild Somerset: The Somerset Biodiversity Strategy 2008-2018

Taunton Deane Local Biodiversity Action Plan 2008

8.3 Methodology

Study Area

8.3.1 The baseline data used to inform this chapter has been collated through ecological surveys which covered the full extent of the Site. The assessment in relation to great crested newts also considered ponds/ ditches located up to 250 m from the site boundary.

8.3.2 The following search radii from the centre of the site were used for the ecological desk study:

3 km for records of protected species, species of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation, and Somerset Biodiversity Strategy species. This was extended to 5 km for records of bats;

3 km for statutory and non-statutory designated areas of nature conservation importance (excluding European designated areas). This was extended to 5 km for sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); and

10 km for statutory designated European site areas.

For designated rivers within this search area; the study area was refined to exclude any rivers for which the catchment area (as defined by the Environment Agency) lies outside of the site boundary. It is considered that there would be no pathways for effects on such rivers; and

The search area was extended to include any Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) located within 30 km of the site for which bats are a qualifying feature.

Consultation

8.3.3 Formal responses were received from TDBC, West Somerset Council and Natural England in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report (PBA, March 2017). Copies of these responses are included in the Scoping Opinion, Appendix A.6. A summary is provided in Table 8.1 below.

Table 8.1: Summary of consultation responses in relation to ecology

Date From To Summary Response

20/02/2017

Biodiversity/ Landscape Officer -

Taunton Deane Borough Council and

Taunton Deane Borough Council

Email confirming that the proposed methodology for the EcIA is acceptable.

It was considered that the site may need to be re-visited given that the




West Somerset Council

ecological survey data is two years old. It was considered that the proposed

development has the potential to affect dormice, water voles slow worms and badgers. It was noted that the majority of hedgerows will be retained, but there may be some breaches for access, and there is potential for impacts on ditches.

27/02/2017 Somerset, Avon &

Wiltshire Area Team – Natural England

Planning and Development

Taunton Deane Borough Council

Letter via email. It was stated that any potential changes to water quality or levels affecting Curry and Hay Moors SSSI and/ or Somerset Levels and

Moors SPA/ Ramsar site would be of concern to Natural England. The ES

should thoroughly assess the potential for the proposed development to affect

this or other designated sites. It was also stated that the ES should assess

the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected species (including, for

example, dormice, reptiles, birds, water voles, badgers, great crested newts, and bats). In addition, the ES should reflect the principles in the NPPF and

England Biodiversity Strategy and identify how the development’s effects

on the natural environment will be influenced by climate change, how

ecological networks will be maintained, and how the proposed development will

contribute to the enhancement of the environment.

Data Collection

8.3.4 Existing data in relation to the site and the wider study area were obtained by EAD Ecology in 2015, in order to secure an understanding of the ecological context of the site and its important ecological features. Records of statutory and non-statutory designated areas of nature conservation importance, and existing species records were obtained from Somerset Environmental Records Centre (SERC).

8.3.5 These records have been supplemented by information on statutory designated areas, priority species, and species distribution obtained by PBA from the following on-line resources:

Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside website (http://magic.gov.uk/)

Natural England website (https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/)

NBN Atlas (https://nbnatlas.org/)

Environment Agency Catchment Data Explorer (http://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/ManagementCatchment/3080)

http://magic.gov.uk/

https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/

https://nbnatlas.org/




8.3.6 Ecological survey data relating to the site has been obtained from Ecological Baseline Report: Land at J25, Taunton (EAD Ecology, January 2016). A summary of the ecological surveys that were completed, and the associated timing and methodologies are provided in Table 8.2 below. Full details are provided within the Ecological Baseline Report in Appendix D.2.

Table 8.2 Summary of ecological surveys undertaken

Survey Date Summary/ methodology

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

16 March 2015 and 7 May 2015

JNCC Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2010)

Hedgerows June/ July 2015

Assessment of hedgerows within the site and along the site boundaries against the ecology criteria in the

Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (as amended). Bickmore, C. J. (2007).

Invasive plants June 2015 Search for evidence of invasive / non-native plant

species including Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed

Great crested newts

April 2015 Environmental DNA (eDNA) survey (Following DEFRA

guidance WC1067, Biggs, J. et al (2014))

Reptiles June-July 2015 Distribution of refugia in suitable habitat on site. Seven survey visits to determine presence/likely absence of

reptiles. Froglife, (1999).

Breeding birds April-June 2015 Three transect surveys. Adapted Common Bird Census

methodology (Gilbert, G. et al, (1998)).

Badgers May 2015 Search for evidence of badgers within and adjacent to

the site

Bat roosts May-September

2015

Tree climbing inspections. External and internal building inspections. Emergence and re-entry surveys. (Hundt,

L. (2012)).

Bat activity April-September

2015

Monthly transects within the site and along site boundaries, and deployment of static devices. (Hundt, L.

(2012)).

Dormice May-October

2015

Survey of nest tubes distributed in suitable habitat within the site and along the site boundaries. Bright, P. et al

(2006).

Otter and water vole

May 2015 Search for evidence in watercourses within and

adjacent to the site. Strachan, R & Moorhouse, T. (2006) and National Rivers Authority (1993).

8.3.7 Given that the ecological survey data obtained from EAD Ecology dates from 2015, a walkover survey was undertaken of the site by PBA on 10th July 2017. This updated the previous Phase 1 habitat survey information, confirming the nature and extent of the habitats now present within the site. The current suitability of the habitats for which species specific




surveys were previously undertaken was re-assessed in order to determine any requirement for existing survey information to be updated, so as to define an adequate baseline for assessment.

Assessment

Approach to Assessment

8.3.8 The nature and extent of the ecological impacts of the proposed development have been informed by other studies reported within and undertaken to support this ES. In particular, the assessment in relation to landscape (Chapter 7), hydrology (Chapter 9), air quality (PBA, July 2017) and lighting (PBA, July 2017) are important as these determine the nature and significance of potential impacts on important ecological features.

8.3.9 This EcIA has been undertaken having regard the CIEEM Guidelines. The CIEEM Guidelines state that ‘EcIA is a process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential effects of development-related or other proposed actions on habitats, species and ecosystems’. It requires an assessment of likely significant effects on important ecological features, and as such, does not require consideration of effects on every species or habitat that may be present within the site.

8.3.10 In order to determine whether there are likely to be significant effects, it is first necessary to identify whether an ecological feature is ‘important’, and therefore whether an effect upon it could be significant, and thus, material in decision-making. To achieve this, where possible, animal species and their populations have been valued on the basis of a combination of their rarity, status and distribution, using contextual information where it exists. Habitats and plant communities have been evaluated against existing selection criteria, wherever possible (such as those developed to aid the designation of SSSIs or non-statutory designated sites).

8.3.11 This assessment examines effects on important ecological features with reference to the extent, magnitude, duration, timing, frequency, and reversibility of the impacts. For each ecological feature within the Study Area (as defined in 9.3.1 and 9.3.2), the baseline is identified and evaluated. For each important ecological feature, relevant impacts are characterised; effects defined and their significance assessed; mitigation identified and residual effects reported. This exercise is performed for the construction and operation phases of the Project separately.

8.3.12 The parameter plan in Appendix A.2 has been developed with regards to the existing ecological features on site. The ecological mitigation and enhancement measures which are embedded within the parameter plan form an integral part of the proposed development and have been designed specifically to avoid or otherwise reduce ecological effects. The assessment of ecological impacts has taken these embedded mitigation and enhancement measures into account, and are described in relation to each important ecological feature in Section 9.5 below.

Determining the importance of ecological features

8.3.13 The importance of each ecological feature within the Study Area has been determined having regard to a number of contributory factors relating to conservation value.

8.3.14 The CIEEM Guidelines recognise that determining ecological importance is a complex process, which is a matter of professional judgement guided by the importance and relevance of a number of factors. These include designation and legislative protection as well as biodiversity value, potential value (e.g. where appropriate management would improve the value of degraded habitats) and secondary/ supporting value (e.g. where habitats may function as a buffer or resource associated with an adjacent designated area). Consideration




of each ecological feature having regard to these factors allows their importance to be determined having regard to the geographic frame of reference below:

International and European;

National;

Regional (South West England);

County (Somerset); and

Local (Taunton Deane District).

8.3.15 Once the importance of each ecological feature that will potentially be affected by the proposed development has been determined, those features that are deemed to be sufficiently important so as to require full consideration in the impact assessment, are identified. These features are those that are important at a ‘Local’ level or above. This approach allows exclusion of those ecological features that are of less than ‘Local’ importance i.e. those that may be considered to be important only within the context of the parish/ neighbourhood or site. This ensures that the impact assessment remains focussed on the most important ecological effects associated with the project.

Determining Significance

8.3.16 Determination of the significance of the predicted ecological effects is based on professional judgement having regard to the positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse) nature; extent; magnitude; duration; timing; frequency; and reversibility of the impacts assessed.

8.3.17 The CIEEM guidelines state that an effect should be determined as being significant when it ‘either supports or undermines biodiversity conservation objectives for important ecological features’. It relates to the weight that should be afforded to effects when decisions are made, and to the consequences, in terms of legislation, policy and/or development control. So, a significant negative effect on a feature of importance at one level would be likely to generate the need for development control mechanisms (if permissible at all), such as planning conditions or legal obligations, in order that proposals will accord with relevant planning policies. In determining significance, consideration is given to aspects of the structure and function of designated sites and habitats, the conservation status of species, and the likely resilience of ecological features to change.

8.3.18 An effect on an important ecological feature may be considered to be significant at a variety of geographic scales from international to less than local (i.e. within the context of the parish or site only). The effect may be significant at the same geographic scale at which the feature is determined to be important (see Section 9.3.14), or at a lesser geographical scale, depending on the characterisation of the impact. By way of example, limited impacts on a woodland of county importance might be assessed as being significant at a local level of importance. This methodology supports an evidence based approach and supersedes and replaces the matrix-based assessment methodologies.

8.3.19 Whilst this EcIA expresses the significance of ecological effects with reference to a geographic frame of reference, as advocated in the CIEEM Guidelines; significance is also expressed using the generic significance criteria used for other topics within the ES. This approach has been taken in order to allow integration with the assessment of all environmental impacts in other chapters of the ES.

8.3.20 The generic criteria used throughout this ES is based on an expression of severity, to describe the significance of environmental impacts. For ease of reference, Table 8.3 below provides a




means of relating the two approaches and is provided in order to allow the EcIA to be integrated into the wider EIA without compromising the CIEEM best practice approach.

Table 8.3 Significance criteria

Significance

level Criteria CIEEM geographical

criteria

Sig

nific

an

t

Severe Only adverse effects are assigned this level of

significance as they represent key factors in the decision-

making process. These effects are generally, but not exclusively

associated with sites and features of international, national

or regional importance. A change at a regional or district scale site or feature may also

enter this category.

Ecological impacts assessed as being significant at

national or higher geographical scales and that have triggered a response in development control terms are considered to represent impacts that overall fit within

this assessment, are of severe significance.

Major These effects are likely to be important considerations at a

local or district scale but, if adverse, are potential concerns to the project and may become

key factors in the decision-making process.

Ecological impacts assessed as being significant at the

regional scales and that has triggered a response in

development control terms are considered to represent impacts that overall within

this assessment are of major significance.

Moderate These effects, if adverse, while important at a local scale, are not likely to be key decision-

making issues. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such

issues may lead to an increase in the overall effects on a

particular area or on a particular resource.

Ecological impacts assessed as being significant at the

county scale, and that have triggered a response in

development control terms, will be considered to

represent impacts that overall within this assessment are of

moderate significance.

Not sig

nific

ant

Minor These effects may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be

of importance in the decision-making process. Nevertheless,

they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the project and

consideration of mitigation or compensation measures.

Ecological impacts assessed as being significant at the local scale, and that have triggered a response in

development control terms, will be considered to

represent impacts that overall within this assessment are of

minor significance.

Negligible No effect or effect which is beneath the level of perception,

within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of

forecasting error.

Ecological impacts that have been assessed as not being significant at any geographic

level





Designated Areas of Nature Conservation Importance

8.4.1 No designated areas of nature conservation importance have been identified within the site.

8.4.2 Two European designated areas have been identified within 10 km of the site, which include designated rivers with a catchment area that includes watercourses within the site: Somerset Levels and Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) and Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar. Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and Ramsar encompasses wetland habitats associated with the River Tone. Blackbrook which flows along the western boundary of the site, and an unnamed watercourse which flows along the northern boundary, both drain into the River Tone, approximately 3.8 km upstream of the Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and Ramsar.

8.4.3 Two European designated areas have been identified within 30 km of the site for which bats are a qualifying feature: Hestercombe House Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Quantock and Oakwoods SAC.

8.4.4 A summary of the qualifying features of these designated areas, and their approximate distance from the site is provided in Table 8.4 below. These European site designated areas are considered to be important at an International level.

Table 8.4 European Designated Areas within the Study Area

European designated area

Qualifying features Distance from

site

Somerset Levels and Moors SPA

Over winter the SPA supports populations of European importance of the following species:

Bewick's Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii, Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria, Shoveler Anas clypeata,

Teal Anas crecca, Wigeon Anas Penelope.

Approximately 4.3 km to the north

east

Somerset Levels and Moors

Ramsar

Lowland wetland habitat supporting bird assemblages and populations/ species of international importance

during the winter. Supports an outstanding assemblage of aquatic invertebrates.

Approximately 4.3 km to the north

east

Hestercombe House SAC

Lesser horseshoe (Rhinolophus hipposideros) bats maternity colony using two roof voids of former

country house. A small number of bats also use these features as a hibernation roost.

Approximately 4 km to the north

Quantock and Oakwoods SAC

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles;

Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion

albae);

Barbastelle bats Barbastella barbastellus – supports a maternity colony utilising a range of tree roosts.

Bechstein`s bat Myotis bechsteinii

Otter Lutra lutra

Approximately 16.4 km to the

north west




8.4.5 Three SSSIs were identified within 5 km of the site. Hestercombe House SAC and Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and Ramsar encompass Hestercombe House site SSSI and Curry and Hay Moors SSSI respectively. Hestercombe House SSSI is designated for supporting lesser horseshoe bats. Curry and Hay Moors SSSI is designated for grazing marsh and ditches supporting important wintering and breeding bird populations and otter. The only other SSSI identified within 5 km of the site is Thurlbear Wood and Quarrylands SSSI which is located approximately 2.7 km to the south and is designated for broadleaved woodland, calcareous grassland and scrub. These SSSIs are considered to be important at a National level.

8.4.6 The nearest statutory designated area of nature conservation importance to the site is South Taunton Streams Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which is located approximately 270 m to the west and upstream of the site, on the opposite side of the M5 motorway. This encompasses Blackbrook and is one of four linear wetland sites comprising this LNR which is designated for supporting water vole, otters, kingfisher, sand martin and dippers, and providing important foraging areas for bats. Blackbrook passes beneath the M5 motorway and continues (undesignated) along the western boundary of the site, flowing in a northerly direction. The LNRs identified within 3 km of the site are designated by Taunton Deane Borough Council as areas of nature conservation value in the district. These features are therefore considered to be important at a Local level.

8.4.7 Eight non-statutory designated areas of nature conservation importance were identified within 3 km of the site. The nearest is Blackbrook Pavillion Local Wildlife site (LWS) located approximately 100 m to the west of the site, on the opposite site of the M5 motorway. This LWS is designated for hedgerows supporting legally protected species. LWSs in Somerset are selected by a LWS Selection Panel comprising representatives from all local planning authorities (amongst others). Selection is based on county-wide criteria set out in the Somerset Local Wildlife sites and Local Geological sites Manual (SERC, 2010). The LWSs identified within 3 km of the site are therefore considered to be important at a County level.

8.4.8 Further details on designated areas of nature conservation importance are included in the Ecological Baseline Report in Appendix D.2.

Habitats

8.4.9 The majority of habitats within the site comprised intensively managed agricultural land including arable fields and cattle-grazed pasture supporting improved grassland and poor semi-improved grassland. Narrow grassy margins, occasionally supporting ruderal vegetation, were recorded at the field edges.

8.4.10 No notable plant species were recorded within the site during the extended Phase 1 Habitat survey and their presence is considered unlikely given the setting of the site and its recent agricultural management.

8.4.11 A complex of agricultural buildings and associated hard standing was present in the north of the site.

8.4.12 The habitats described above are each considered to be important at less than Local level, being common and widespread, and hence no impact assessment is required.

Green infrastructure

8.4.13 Areas of dense and scattered scrub were present at the western boundary with the M5 motorway and elsewhere within the site, and a line of semi-mature cypress trees was recorded in the south-west of the site. Several narrow belts of semi-natural broadleaved woodland were recorded along the field margins within the site. Due to the limited species and




structural diversity, these woodlands were not considered to comprise a habitat of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation (lowland mixed deciduous woodland). Furthermore, the extent of woodland recorded within the site was limited and relatively isolated from other woodland blocks.

8.4.14 The agricultural fields were bounded by a mixture of managed and unmanaged hedgerows which provide a network of green infrastructure within the site. These were generally intact and supported a species-poor ground flora; some contained mature trees. 28 of the 39 hedgerows surveyed were considered to be species-rich and generally located at the perimeter of the area to be developed within the site and along the site boundary. All 39 hedgerows qualified as ‘important’ under the ecology criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (as amended) due to the presence of dormice (see Section 9.4.39 below). However, many would also qualify due to their association with features such as parallel hedgerows, ditches/ banks, and connectivity with other hedgerows.

8.4.15 Hedgerows meeting certain criteria are a habitat of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation, while Hedgerows and Hedgerow Trees are listed as a Priority Habitat in the Somerset Biodiversity Strategy. They function as green infrastructure in providing connectivity for wildlife across the site and with the immediate surroundings. However, the limited links to the wider countryside to the north and west (due to the presence of the M5 motorway, urban area of Taunton and the A358), along with the low species diversity of the some of the hedgerows and their ground flora, compromise ecological importance in some areas of the site. It is therefore considered that the green infrastructure within the site is important at a Local level.

Flowing water, ditches and ponds

8.4.16 Two streams were recorded at the western (Blackbrook), and at the northern (unnamed), boundaries of the site flowing in a northerly direction. Both eventually flow beyond the northern boundary of the site, beneath the A358, and drain into the River Tone approximately 660 m and 875 m downstream respectively. The River Tone forms part of the Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and Ramsar (see Section 9.4.2 above) further downstream.

8.4.17 At the northern boundary, the unnamed stream was associated with a hedgerow. It was approximately 1.5 m wide and 0.5 m deep with a fast flow and a mud substrate.

8.4.18 At the western boundary, Blackbrook was associated with a bank of dense scrub adjacent to the M5 motorway. It drains into the site from the west where it is designated as South Taunton Streams LNR. This watercourse was approximately 2 m wide and 0.5 m deep with steep earth banks and a moderate flow at the time of survey in 2015.

8.4.19 A number of dry or shallow ditches were also recorded at the field margins within the site, supporting some aquatic vegetation.

8.4.20 Eight ponds were also present along hedgerows in the west and north-east of the site. The ponds were generally shallow and shaded by the surrounding trees and shrubs, supporting limited aquatic or marginal vegetation. Ponds are a habitat of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation, and the Somerset Biodiversity Strategy lists Ditches and Ponds as a Priority Habitat.

8.4.21 The Somerset Biodiversity Strategy lists Water and Wetlands as a Priority Habitat in the county.

8.4.22 The flowing water, ditches and ponds recorded within the site were generally shallow and shaded, and supported limited aquatic vegetation. However, they provide connectivity across the site, are likely to influence the hydrology of adjacent habitats, and provide some habitat links with nearby designated areas of nature conservation importance. It is therefore




considered that the network of flowing water, ditches and ponds within the site is important at a Local level.

Amphibians

8.4.23 Semi-natural habitats within the site, including hedgerows, woodland, scrub, and narrow grassy field margins, provided suitable refugia, and foraging and hibernation opportunities for amphibians in their terrestrial phase. Suitable breeding habitat was limited to a small number of generally ephemeral ponds associated with the hedgerow and ditch network at the field boundaries, and within 250 m of the site boundary.

8.4.24 Taken together these habitats are likely to support common toad (a species of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation), smooth newt and/ or palmate newt, for which desk study records were revealed within the Study Area. However, the ephemeral nature of the ponds limits the opportunities for successful breeding, while the limited extent and suitability of semi-natural habitats are such that the site is likely to support only ‘low’ populations of these species. The amphibian assemblage assumed to be associated with the site is considered to be important at less than Local level.

8.4.25 The eight ponds identified within the site were sub-optimal for use by breeding amphibians including great crested newts. This is because ponds were shaded by overhanging trees and shrubs, and egg laying opportunities were limited by there being only minimal aquatic or marginal vegetation. Water levels were low, and only three of the eight ponds were found to contain water during the great crested newt breeding season in April 2015. A further four ponds were identified within 250 m of the site boundary, which could provide suitable breeding habitat for amphibians including great crested newts; only two of these ponds contained water in April 2015. Ponds containing water were tested for the presence of great crested newt eDNA on 20 April 2015; and the likely absence of great crested newts was confirmed. Great crested newts are therefore considered likely to be absent from the site.

8.4.26 Habitat suitable for amphibians within the site was assessed as part of the update walkover survey undertaken on 10th July 2017; many ponds were dry, which confirmed the ephemeral nature of these waterbodies. No material changes in the extent and suitability of these habitats were identified such that the site is assumed to continue to support low populations of amphibians.

Bats

8.4.27 The site supported a number of mature trees within the hedgerow network which contained features suitable for use by roosting bats. However, emergence surveys in 2015 found no evidence that tree roosts were present within the site. Nevertheless, in accordance with best practice guidance (Collins, J. 2016), all trees with bat roost potential should be considered part of a resource that could be used on occasion by tree roosting bats. A small common pipistrelle summer/ transitional (non-breeding) roost was confirmed in a farmhouse approximately 75 m beyond the northern site boundary.

8.4.28 The hedgerows, streams, ditches and woodland habitats on site provide foraging resources and linear commuting features suitable for bats. The cattle grazed pasture is also likely to provide foraging opportunities favoured by some bat species. Bat activity surveys confirmed the presence of a diverse assemblage of bats on site (eleven species), albeit bats were present in relatively low numbers. The majority of bats recorded were common and widespread species including common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, serotine and noctule. However, lower numbers of less common species including nathusius pipistrelle (nationally rare and very rare in Somerset (Somerset Biodiversity Partnership, 2008), greater horseshoe (nationally rare and locally abundant in Somerset), lesser horseshoe (nationally rare and locally abundant in Somerset), and barbastelle (nationally rare and very rare in Somerset) bats were also recorded.




8.4.29 Whilst the site is likely to provide foraging habitat for bats in the local area, the farmland habitats present are common within the vicinity of the site. Larger areas of more suitable habitat for bats are present in the wider landscape. This includes: the Quantock Hills to the north of Taunton, comprising a relatively undeveloped mosaic of woodland, grassland, and agricultural fields; and, large blocks of woodland c. 3 km to the south of the site. Guidance on selection criteria for Local Wildlife sites in Somerset (SERC, 2010) focusses on the presence of bat roosts rather than bat activity. Given the apparent absence of roosts, and the presence of extensive areas of semi-natural habitat of higher value for bats in the wider agricultural landscape, the bat assemblage on site is considered to be important at a Local level.

Badger

8.4.30 Two outlying badger setts were recorded within the narrow belt of woodland in the south-west of the site (see Appendix D.2 Badger Survey Plan), and suitable foraging habitat was present within the site. Badgers are common and widespread in Somerset, and in the UK, and have no conservation status. In addition, there is an abundance of suitable habitat for this species in the local area. The badger population on site is therefore considered to be important at Less than Local level.

Breeding birds

8.4.31 The hedgerow and woodland habitats at the field boundaries on site provided suitable foraging and nesting habitat for breeding birds. A total of 44 species were recorded on site during the surveys, with 33 confirmed to be breeding.

8.4.32 A single kingfisher was recorded on one occasion at Blackbrook on the western boundary of the site, which could potentially use this stream corridor for breeding. However, whilst Blackbrook had steep earth banks for the creation of breeding burrows, the presence of dense vegetation limited their suitability. Taunton Streams LNR is known to support kingfisher and is located approximately 270 m to the west of the site. This LNR is connected to Blackbrook where the kingfisher was recorded and it is therefore likely that this species occasionally utilises other nearby sections of the stream corridor. Kingfisher is listed on Annex I of the Habitats Directive, and Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended); it is also an amber listed species (Eaton, M.A. et al (2015)).

8.4.33 The bird assemblage recorded on site during transect surveys in spring and early summer 2015 included seven further species which are red listed (Eaton, M.A. et al (2015)), and/ or species of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation. These were bullfinch, dunnock, house sparrow, linnet, song thrush, starling and yellowhammer. These species were generally recorded in low numbers (<10) with the exception of linnet and dunnock for which the maximum count was 24 and 26 respectively. Four of these species were confirmed to be breeding on site; the largest numbers of breeding pairs recorded were dunnock (10-20 pairs) and song thrush (at least 5 pairs).

8.4.34 Eight amber listed species were recorded during the surveys, together with other common and widespread species that are typically associated with farmland and urban edge environments. There was an absence of ground nesting bird species recorded, such as skylark, which are typically associated with arable farming.

8.4.35 The surveys confirmed a relatively diverse assemblage of breeding birds on site comprised of species that are generally associated with hedgerow, woodland, and garden habitats, including some which are of conservation concern. This is likely to reflect the setting of the site and presence of species-rich hedgerows which provide food and nesting resources. However, the abundance of birds of each species recorded is such that the assemblage is not considered to be of county importance (SERC, 2010.).




8.4.36 The unmanaged/ infrequently managed species-rich hedgerows within the site, which are linked with other hedgerows beyond the site boundary, supports an assemblage of breeding birds (including kingfisher) considered to be important at a Local level.

Dormouse

8.4.37 The species-rich and unmanaged/ infrequently managed hedgerow habitat within the site provided suitable nesting and foraging resources for dormice. There is some connectivity (although poor) between the site and Stoke Wood which is located approximately 700 m to the south-east, and comprises a large block of woodland likely to be suitable for this species.

8.4.38 Surveys confirmed the presence of dormice within hedgerows in the western parts of the site, including evidence of breeding. It can be assumed that due to the connectivity of the hedgerow network, dormice also forage and disperse along other hedgerows within the site.

8.4.39 Dormice are widespread in south-west England and in Somerset. However, sites supporting dormice are considered to be of county importance in Somerset; this includes ‘contiguous, continuous woody linear features of up to 500 m’ (SERC, 2010). The linear hedgerow and scrub habitats where dormice were recorded during the 2015 surveys measures over 1 km and as such, dormouse population on site is considered to be important at a County level.

Invasive plant species

8.4.40 A stand of Japanese knotweed measuring approximately 10 m x 10 m in extent was recorded in a narrow belt of woodland in the south-west of the site. A patch of Himalayan balsam was also recorded adjacent to Black Brook along the western boundary of the site.

8.4.41 These are invasive plant species and are not considered to have any ecological value.

Invertebrates

8.4.42 The location of the hedgerows and pond/ ditch habitats in an intensively managed agricultural setting is such that they are likely to support a typical assemblage of common and widespread invertebrate species which can be expected to be important at less than Local level. The management regime limits the diversity and value of habitats present such that the presence of notable invertebrate species (with the possible exception of brown hairstreak (see 9.4.43 below) is considered unlikely.

8.4.43 The distribution of brown hairstreak is centralised around Devon and Somerset in south-west England. Desk study records for brown hairstreak were revealed within the Study Area, and the unmanaged hedgerows containing blackthorn on site could potentially provide suitable egg-laying habitat for this species. Successful breeding within the site is likely to be limited by the extent of unmanaged hedgerows supporting blackthorn; annual flailing is likely to remove any eggs that are laid. Given that the site contains a mix of managed and unmanaged hedgerows containing blackthorn, it is assumed that brown hairstreak is present in low numbers. The assumed population of brown hairstreak is considered to be important at less than local level.

Reptiles

8.4.44 Semi-natural habitats within the site, including hedgerows, scattered scrub, and narrow grassy field margins provided suitable refugia, and foraging and hibernation opportunities for common reptile species including slow worm and grass snake.

8.4.45 Surveys in 2015 confirmed the presence of a ‘low’ population of slow worms along the narrow grassy field margins and exposed banks of ditches within the western parts of the site. No other reptile species were recorded during the surveys; however, it is assumed that low




numbers of grass snake may occasionally forage within the site, particularly in early spring, given the presence of wet ditches and ponds which may support amphibian prey.

8.4.46 Habitat suitable for reptiles within the site was assessed as part of the update walkover survey undertaken on 10th July 2017. Field margins were found to be narrow or lacking, and areas of rough grassland were limited; the most valuable area for reptiles was considered to be the stream corridor along the western boundary of the site (which is where slow worms were recorded in 2015). No material changes in the extent and suitability of these habitats were identified such that the site is assumed to continue to support a low population of slow worms, and to be utilised by a low number of grass snakes.

8.4.47 Slow worms and grass snakes are common and widespread species, and due to the limited extent of suitable habitat for these species on site, and the low numbers found; the reptile assemblage is considered to be important at less that Local level.

Water vole

8.4.48 Water vole is known to be present in Taunton Streams LNR which is connected to the site via Blackbrook at the western boundary (see Section 9.4.6 above).

8.4.49 Surveys in 2015 confirmed the presence of water vole in an unnamed stream along the eastern boundary of the site which is connected to the stream/ ditch along the northern site boundary. Other ditches and streams within the site were of limited suitability for use by water vole being shaded and supporting minimal marginal vegetation, and surveys in 2015 provided no evidence to indicate the presence of water vole. Furthermore, most ditches within the site were found to be dry during the update walkover survey undertaken in July 2017; the ephemeral nature of these ditches also limits their suitability for water vole. Nevertheless, it is possible that small numbers of water vole may forage or disperse along other connected ditches and streams within the site when conditions are suitable.

8.4.50 Water vole is widespread and abundant in Somerset, and the network of ditches and streams in the wider landscape, such as those in Taunton Streams LNR, are evidently suitable for water vole. However, this species has historically suffered dramatic population declines across the UK (88% decline in number of individuals from 1989 to 1998) (JNCC, 2010), and it is listed as a Species of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation. Given the sub-optimal nature of the ditches and streams on site, reflected in the limited distribution of water voles within them, the population of water vole on site is considered to be important at a Local level.

Summary

8.4.51 A summary of the importance of ecological features within the site, with reference to the geographic context, is provided in Table 8.5 below.

Table 8.5 Importance of ecological features

Ecological feature Importance (geographic context)

European sites (Hestercombe House SAC and Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and

Ramsar) International

SSSIs within 3 km of the site National

LNRs within 3 km of the site Local




Non-statutory areas of nature conservation importance within 3 km of the site

County

Arable fields, improved grassland, poor semi-improved grassland, and ruderal habitats

Less than local

Green infrastructure (hedgerows, scrub, semi-natural woodland belts)

Local

Flowing water, ditches and ponds Local

Amphibian assemblage Less than local

Reptiles Less than local

Bat assemblage Local

Badger Less than local

Breeding bird assemblage (including kingfisher)

Local

Dormouse population County

Invertebrate assemblage Less than local

Water vole population Local

8.4.52 The following Important Ecological Features (i.e. those considered to be important at a Local level or greater) are subject to assessment in this EcIA:

Designated areas of nature conservation importance;

Green infrastructure;

Flowing water, ditches and ponds;

Breeding bird assemblage (including kingfisher);

Bat assemblage;

Dormouse population; and

Water vole population.

8.4.53 Impacts on habitats and species valued at less than Local level are not considered further within this assessment as they are not expected to experience significant effects that would form a material consideration in making a planning determination.

8.4.54 Whilst not being of sufficient importance to trigger consideration in the impact assessment process, where the potential exists for adverse effects on these habitats and species as a result of the proposed development, appropriate management measures will be implemented so as to ensure development proceeds having regard to wildlife legislative and policy




regardless of the ecological importance of the feature. These measures are reported in Section 9.9 below.


8.5.1 The following sections set out an assessment of predicted impacts and subsequent effects arising from the construction and/ or operation of the proposed development on the important ecological features identified in Section 9.4 above. The assessment has been made in absence of the additional mitigation and enhancement measures set out in Sections 9.6 and 9.7 below. However, measures that have been incorporated into the parameter plan and Design Guide to minimise any potentially significant effects (embedded mitigation) have been considered as part of the impact assessment and are outlined in Section 9.5.3 below.

Identification of impacts

8.5.2 The following impacts during the construction and operation of the proposed development have been identified:

Construction Impacts

Habitat loss (hedgerows, cattle grazed pasture, hedgerow trees, poor semi-improved grassland). Implementation of the LDO will result in the loss of two species-poor hedgerows (one of which was defunct) and two species-rich hedgerows from within the area to be developed. This accounts for less than c. 25% (approximately 995 m) of the existing hedgerow resource. It is estimated that up to four hedgerow trees will also be lost due to the construction of site access and internal roads;

Hedgerow fragmentation. A species-rich hedgerow with trees at the northern perimeter of the site, and in the south of the developed area (accounting for c. 4% or 175 m of the existing hedgerow resource) will be fragmented to allow for the construction of access into the site, and for internal roads respectively;

Physical damage to retained habitats e.g. by tracking/ operation of machinery;

Dust deposition on retained habitats. The Air Quality Assessment (PBA, 2017) considers the dust emissions magnitude for the site during construction to be high (based on IAQM criteria);

Loss/ disturbance of marginal habitats at ditches and watercourses due to the construction of new drainage connections;

Fragmentation of the ditch at the northern edge of the area to be developed due to the construction of a new access road into the site which will involve the installation of a culvert in this location;

Mortality/ injury of individual animals during habitat clearance;

Changes in surface water quality, for example, as a result of a pollution incident during construction, or through surface run-off carrying increased levels of waterborne pollutants, including chemicals and sediments;

Changes in surface water drainage through the alteration of the rate and route of surface water run-off, re-profiling of the ground surface and with the introduction of temporary drainage channels, and soil stripping;




Changes in lighting levels in areas where site offices, compounds, welfare facilities, parking areas, fuel storage areas, plant storage areas and haul routes are located and / or for task specific lighting depending on weather conditions and time of year; and

Increased visual, noise and vibration disturbance.

Operation Impacts

Severance / loss of habitat resources beneath the development footprint;

Mortality/injury of individual animals during management activities;

Changes in surface water drainage due to an increase in impermeable surfaces within the site;

Changes in surface water quality due to an increase in the risk of contamination of surface water run-off due to vehicle movements etc.; and

Changes in lighting levels due to the installation of external lighting.

Embedded mitigation

8.5.3 The following elements of embedded mitigation contained in the LDO, parameter plan and Design Guide have been taken into account in undertaking the impact assessment:

The majority (more than 3 km and c. 75%) of existing hedgerows on site will be retained. This comprises the hedgerows located in the ‘green skirt’ and those around the perimeter of the area to be developed;

Existing trees, groups of trees and hedgerows will be retained where possible and practicable; in particular, there is an objective to retain the best quality trees and tree groups (Category A and B) (see Tree Survey Report in Appendix C.7);

All existing drainage features (streams, ditches and ponds) will be retained;

SUDs will be installed comprising a network of swales/ open, vegetated ditches, and ponds;

Two key axial multi-functional green corridors will be created to traverse the site, and link with retained hedgerows;

Semi-natural habitats including narrow belts of broadleaved woodland, hedgerows, scrub, and poor semi-improved grassland to the north, east and west of the area to be developed will be retained as part of a ‘green skirt’ surrounding the development, to provide multi-functional green space; and

There will be additional woodland and buffer planting around the perimeter of the development.

8.5.4 The ecological specifications and management prescriptions associated with the embedded mitigation (see 9.5.3), that are necessary to mitigate impacts on important ecological features are described below. It is anticipated that such measures will be contained within a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP), created either as part of a CEMP or comprising a standalone document. These measures should be secured by way of a condition requiring the agreement and implementation of a CEMP/ LEMP.




Specifications for habitat creation including hedgerow, tree and shrub planting and supplementary planting of retained species-poor hedgerows. The species mix should comprise native and locally appropriate species, including berry and nectar producing species to replace lost food resources for birds and to attract invertebrate prey for bats. New/ supplementary planting should also include native woody species suitable for dormice such as hazel, oak, wayfaring tree, and honeysuckle to provide a diversity of food resources throughout the dormouse active period. Consideration could also be given to coppicing and translocating hazel and other suitable species from sections of hedgerow that will be removed e.g. translocation of coppiced hazel from H24 or H7 (see Appendix D.2 Hedgerow Survey Plan) to the narrow belt of woodland in the south-west of the site (see Appendix D.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey). This woodland provides a habitat link between the scrub embankment adjacent to the M5 motorway (where dormice were recorded) and the retained hedgerow network around the development footprint within the site;

Appropriate management of retained and newly created habitats to promote their health and longevity and to safeguard the provision of resources for breeding birds, bats and dormice. This should include the appropriate timing, frequency and rotation of hedgerow and woodland/ scrub management, and grass cutting to avoid the potential incidental mortality of breeding birds, dormice, and reptiles, and to provide structural diversity and to allow shrubs to fruit; and

Appropriate timing and frequency of management of the ditch network within the site, including vegetation clearance and dredging, to avoid the potential incidental injury or mortality of water voles.

Assessment of Construction Effects

8.5.5 This section assesses the potential for the construction impacts identified in Section 9.5.2 above to result in significant effects on important ecological features. The relevant impacts and their potential effects are discussed for each important ecological feature, in turn, below.

Designated areas of nature conservation importance

8.5.6 The construction impacts which are relevant to the assessment for designated areas of nature conservation importance are:

Habitat loss and fragmentation; and.

Changes in the on-site drainage regime and water quality, for example, as a result of a pollution incident during construction.

Hestercombe House SAC and SSSI, and Quantock and Oakwoods SAC:

8.5.7 The proposed development will result in the loss of up to four trees suitable for roosting bats, and approximately 995 m of hedgerows and 19 ha of cattle grazed pasture suitable for foraging and commuting bats. However, the site does not fall within the Bat Consultation Zone (BCZ) for Hestercombe House SAC (TDBC, 2016), which is the area known to support foraging habitat for the lesser horseshoe bats associated with the SAC. Whilst the site falls within the SSSI Impact Risk Zone for Hestercombe House SSSI, which applies to all planning applications affecting farmland and semi-natural habitat; there are no evident habitat links on the OS map or aerial photographs that connect the site with the BCZ, which is located more than 4 km away, to the north of Taunton. Bat roosting, foraging and commuting habitat within the site is therefore considered unlikely to be of any value for bats associated with these designated areas, and no significant effects on these sites are expected.




8.5.8 Similarly, the site is also outwith the BCZ for Quantock and Oakwoods SAC (and therefore does not lie within a known foraging area for the barbastelle bats associated with this designated area (TDBC, 2016). Quantock and Oakwoods SAC comprises an area of woodland, located beyond the city of Taunton and the M5 motorway. The woodland is one of several blocks of broadleaved and mixed woodland within the Quantock Hills which is an extensive and relatively undeveloped area, extending from Bridgwater Bay to the north of Taunton. As such, the SAC appears to be surrounded by more suitable foraging resources for barbastelle bats compared with that within the site. It is considered unlikely that bats would cross the urban area of Taunton and the M5 motorway to forage within the site. No significant effects on Quantock and Oakwoods SAC are therefore expected.

Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and Ramsar, and Curry and Hay Moors SSSI:

8.5.9 Watercourses and drainage features within the site drain into Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and Ramsar, and Curry and Hay Moors SSSI, approximately 3.8 km downstream (see Section 9.4.2 above). Water discharge from the site which is 54 ha in area (of which approximately 25 ha will be developed), represents a small proportion of the catchment of the River Tone (approximately 41,400 ha (Environment Agency website)) which flows through these designated areas. The contribution that water draining from the watercourses and drainage features on site makes to the ecology of the wetland habitats and bird and otter populations supported by the designated areas is likely to be minimal. The qualifying features of these sites are therefore not expected to be affected by any potential changes in surface water drainage within the site.

8.5.10 Surface water run-off from the site during construction could affect water quality in existing drainage features. However, given the distance of the designated areas from the site (c. 3.8 km), any silt or pollutants entering the drainage features are likely to disperse and become diluted and the potential for effects on habitat quality in designated areas is limited.

8.5.11 Given the distance of these designated areas from the site, and the minimal contribution that the drainage features within the site make to the catchment of the River Tone; no significant effects are expected on these designated sites.

Thurlbear Wood and Quarrylands SSSI:

8.5.12 The site does not fall within the Impact Risk Zone for Thurlbear Wood and Quarrylands SSSI, and due to the nature of the proposed development and distance of this SSSI from the site (c. 2.7 km); no significant effects are expected on this SSSI.

South Taunton Streams LNR:

8.5.13 South Taunton Streams LNR is located upstream of the site, such that effects due to potential incidental pollution or siltation during construction are unlikely. Furthermore, given that this designated area is located on the opposite side of the M5 motorway, no disturbance to habitats or protected species within the LNR during construction is anticipated. No significant effects on this LNR are therefore expected.

Blackbrook Pavillion Local Wildlife site (LWS):

8.5.14 Given that Blackbrook Pavillion LWS is located upstream from the proposed development, and on the opposite side of the M5 motorway, no significant effects on this LWS due to changes in water quality or disturbance are expected.




Other designated areas of nature conservation importance located within 3 km of the site:

8.5.15 Given the distances of the other designated areas of nature conservation importance from the site; no significant effects are anticipated on such sites which are therefore considered no further in this assessment.


8.5.16 The construction impacts which are relevant to the assessment of effects on green infrastructure are:

Habitat loss and fragmentation through the removal of hedgerows and trees;

Physical damage to retained hedgerows e.g. by tracking/ operation of machinery; and

Dust deposition on retained hedgerows (see Air Quality Assessment, PBA July 2017).

8.5.17 The permanent loss of hedgerows and trees (see 9.5.2) will reduce the overall extent of green infrastructure on site. However, the loss of four hedgerows, half of which are species-poor and defunct (and therefore of lower nature conservation importance), and the limited loss of hedgerow trees, comprises a small proportion of these habitat types within the site. In addition, the majority (815 m or 82%) of hedgerows to be lost were found to be cut low and boxed during the update walkover survey undertaken in July 2017. This limits their structural diversity and productivity, and further reduces their value for wildlife.

8.5.18 Fragmentation (see 9.5.2) of the hedgerow at the northern perimeter of the area to be developed will disrupt habitat connectivity (on the east-west axis) around the perimeter of the site in that location. Similarly, fragmentation of the hedgerow in the south will disrupt connectivity to an adjacent section of retained hedgerow to the north. However, given that other hedgerow connections and linear woodland and scrub habitats will be retained, fragmentation of these sections is unlikely to substantially affect the ecological function of the overall hedgerow network.

8.5.19 Tracking of vehicles, operation of machinery and storage of materials near to retained hedgerows, trees, and woodland belts during construction could potentially physically damage these habitats. Dust emission from construction activities (See 9.5.2) also has the potential to affect nearby retained hedgerows, trees, and woodland belts, through deposits on leaves disrupting photosynthesis and other biological processes. These impacts could affect the health and quality of retained habitats in the short-term. Whilst the construction of the proposed development will be phased as each plot comes forward such that impacts would be localised, without appropriate mitigation in place, there is potential for temporary direct or indirect damage to retained habitats during construction.

8.5.20 Overall, whilst the extent of habitat loss and fragmentation account for a relatively small proportion of hedgerows on site; taking into account the potential for physical damage and the predicted high dust emissions magnitude, effects on green infrastructure during construction are considered to be significant at a less than local level.


8.5.21 The construction impacts which are relevant to the assessment for flowing water, ditches and ponds are:


Fragmentation of a ditch due to the construction of a culvert;




Physical damage to retained streams, ditches and ponds e.g. by tracking/ operation of machinery

Dust deposition (see Air Quality Assessment, PBA July 2017); and

Changes in surface water drainage and quality.

8.5.22 There is potential for localised disturbance to wetland habitats where new drainage connections will be made, resulting in temporary habitat loss until vegetation re-establishes. However, all existing flowing water features, ditches and ponds will be retained within the proposed development (see 9.5.3). Furthermore, the extent of works to construct new drainage connections is likely to be limited and there is unlikely to be any requirement for hard engineering, such as construction of head walls etc.

8.5.23 The new access road into the site will cross the ditch at the northern edge of the area to be developed, and will involve the construction of a culvert in this location. This will fragment the ditch and cause shading of aquatic and marginal vegetation, which could affect habitat quality. However, during the update walkover survey undertaken in July 2017, this ditch was already heavily shaded and dry, which limits is nature conservation importance. Furthermore, the length of ditch that will be affected represent a small proportion of the total extent of retained watercourses and ditches present within the site such that effects are expected to be limited.

8.5.24 Tracking of vehicles and storage of materials near to retained water features during construction could potentially physically damage these habitats. The predicted high dust emission magnitude during construction (see Air Quality Assessment, PBA 2017) could also result in dust depositing on the water surface and on marginal and aquatic vegetation. The increased mobilisation of sediments in surface water run-off, and the potential for pollution incidents could affect water quality (see Chapter 10, 10.5.5). Changes in surface water drainage could alter flow rates and volumes of water entering retained water features (see Chapter 10, 10.5.4), which could affect water levels. These impacts could affect the quality of retained habitats in the short-term. Whilst the construction of the proposed development will be phased as each plot comes forward such that impacts would be localised, without appropriate mitigation in place, there is potential for temporary direct or indirect damage to retained habitats during construction.

8.5.25 Taking into account the potential for physical damage, the predicted high dust emissions magnitude, and the potential changes in surface water drainage and quality, effects on flowing water, ditches and ponds during construction are considered to be significant at a less than local level.

Bat assemblage

8.5.26 The construction impacts which are relevant to the assessment for the bat assemblage are:

Habitat loss and fragmentation (hedgerows, cow grazed pasture, hedgerow trees, poor semi-improved grassland);

Loss/ disturbance of marginal habitats at ditches and watercourses;

Fragmentation of the ditch at the northern edge of the area to be developed;

Potential injury/ mortality of individual animals; and

Changes in lighting levels.

8.5.27 The loss and fragmentation of hedgerows, hedgerow trees, cattle grazed pasture and poor semi-improved grassland within the site will result in a loss of potential roosting, foraging and




commuting habitat for bats. This could permanently affect the abundance and diversity of bats on site. However, the overall abundance of bats foraging and commuting within the site was found to be relatively low during the 2015 bat activity surveys such that the number of bats affected is likely to be a small proportion of populations present in the local area.

8.5.28 Comparatively high levels of bat activity were recorded along one of the hedgerows that will be removed (see Appendix D.2 H24 on Hedgerow Survey Plan.). However, half of the hedgerows to be lost are defunct, and therefore likely to be of lower value to commuting bats (particularly lesser horseshoe which is reluctant to cross open spaces (Collins, J. 2016)) compared with other retained intact hedgerows on site. The species-poor hedgerows that will be lost are also likely to provide lower quality foraging habitat, compared with retained species-rich hedgerows. The total extent of hedgerow loss represents a small proportion of the area of retained hedgerows and other semi-natural habitat (including narrow belts of semi-natural woodland, ditches, streams, and scrub) available for bats on site, and in the surrounding area.

8.5.29 The gaps that will be created due to the fragmentation of hedgerows (see 9.5.2) are likely to function as a barrier for some bat species recorded on site. However, other hedgerow connections around the perimeter of the developed area and the site boundary will be retained, such that there will continue to be habitat connectivity around the site for bats.

8.5.30 Although no bat roosts were confirmed within the site during the 2015 emergence and return surveys, it is estimated that up to four trees with potential to support roosting bats will be lost as a result of the proposed development. This will result in a permanent loss of roosting resources available for bats on site; however, the majority of such trees will be retained such that this accounts for a relatively small proportion of potential roost resource lost. Whilst the absence of roosting bats was confirmed during the 2015 surveys, there is a risk that suitable trees may be in use by roosting bats in the future, when trees need to be felled as part of construction. This could result in the loss of a bat roost(s) and potential mortality/ injury of bats.

8.5.31 Artificial lighting (see 9.5.2) could potentially illuminate retained hedgerows, trees, ditches and other semi-natural features within the site, and cause light disturbance to bats. The most abundant bat species recorded using the site including common and soprano pipistrelle bats, noctule, and serotine bats all tolerate relatively high light levels. As such changes in lighting during construction are predicted to have a negligible or limited adverse effect on these species. However, a number of bat species recorded on site (including Myotis, barbastelle, lesser horseshoe, greater horseshoe and long-eared) preferentially roost, commute and forage within areas with very low levels of lighting or preferably no artificial lighting. Changes in lighting are likely to temporarily function as a barrier to these more sensitive species, and reduce the extent of habitat resources available to them.

8.5.32 Taken together, the impacts on the bat assemblage are considered likely to result in effects that will be significant at a less than local level.

Breeding bird assemblage

8.5.33 The construction impacts which are relevant to the assessment for the breeding bird assemblage are:

Habitat loss and fragmentation (hedgerows, hedgerow trees);

Mortality/ injury of individual animals; and





8.5.34 The loss and fragmentation of hedgerows on site will result in the loss of food and nesting resources for breeding birds. However, these losses (see 9.5.2) represent a small proportion of resources available for birds on site and in the local area, and include species-poor hedgerows which are likely to provide fewer foraging opportunities compared with retained species-rich hedgerows. Furthermore, the retained narrow belts of semi-mature broadleaved woodland, and areas of dense and scattered scrub associated with the streams and ditches will remain available for breeding birds.

8.5.35 There is potential for direct effects on breeding birds (killing, injury) as a result of hedgerow removal during construction (if this is undertaken during the breeding season). However, the overall extent of hedgerow loss represents a small proportion (less than c. 25%) of the hedgerow network that will be retained, such that the number of breeding pairs and their eggs/ young potentially affected represents a small proportion of the total breeding bird population supported by the site.

8.5.36 There is potential for disturbance to nesting birds in retained hedgerows on site due to increased levels of human activity (noise, vibration, visual disturbance etc.) during construction. This could affect breeding success, and the abundance and distribution of birds on site. However, given that development of each plot will come forward in phases, disturbance is likely to be localised, and effects are expected to be minimal and temporary.

8.5.37 Overall, considering the habitat loss and fragmentation, and effects on small number of birds due to incidental mortality/ injury or disturbance; effects on the breeding bird assemblage are considered to be significant at a less than local level.

Dormouse population

8.5.38 The construction impacts which are relevant to the assessment for the dormouse population are:

Habitat loss and fragmentation (hedgerows, hedgerow trees);

Mortality/ injury of individual animals;

Increased visual, noise and vibration levels; and


8.5.39 The loss of hedgerows within the site will result in a loss of nesting and foraging resources for dormice. No dormice were recorded within the hedgerows that will be lost; however, dormice naturally live at low densities, at an average of 2.2 per hectare (English Nature 2001), and will tend to utilise all suitable habitats within their home range. It must therefore be assumed that the hedgerows to be removed as part of the proposed development are used by dormice.

8.5.40 Half of the hedgerows to be lost are species-poor including a defunct section, which are likely to be of lower value to dormice as a foraging resource compared with other retained intact species-rich hedgerows on site. However, such hedgerows may still be used by young dormice for dispersal. Nevertheless, the total extent of hedgerow loss represents a small proportion of the total area of retained hedgerows and other semi-natural habitat (including narrow belts of semi-natural woodland, and dense scrub) available for dormice on site. Each hedgerow/ hedgerow section that will be removed in order to facilitate the proposed development measures less than 300 m in length (i.e. less than the likely home range of an individual dormouse). It is unlikely that all sections of hedgerow will need to be cleared in the same year, given that the proposed development will be phased, as each development plot comes forward. In effect, this is likely to mean that relatively small sections of the overall hedgerow network will be cleared on a phased basis over the 15 years of the LDO.




8.5.41 It is possible that dormice will avoid crossing the gaps that will be created due to the fragmentation of two hedgerows within the site (see 9.5.2). However, other hedgerow connections around the perimeter of the developed area and the site boundary will be retained, such that there will continue to be habitat connectivity around the site for dormice.

8.5.42 There is potential for direct effects on dormice (mortality, injury) as a result of hedgerow removal during construction. There is also potential for disturbance to dormice in retained hedgerows on site due to increased levels of human activity (noise, vibration, visual disturbance etc.). The introduction of external lighting could potentially illuminate retained hedgerows, trees, scrub and other semi-natural features within the site, and cause light disturbance to dormice. Light spill on these habitats is likely to temporarily function as a barrier to their use by dormice, and would therefore reduce the extent of habitat resources available to them affecting the abundance and distribution of dormice on site. Given that development of each plot will come forward in phases, disturbance is likely to be localised, and the risk of encountering dormice during site clearance is low. However, given that dormice live at low densities, there remains a risk of an adverse direct effect on the dormouse population.

8.5.43 Overall, whilst the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation and disturbance are expected to be minimal; taking into account the low number of dormice likely to be present on site and the potential for incidental mortality/ injury, effects on the dormouse population during construction are considered to be significant at a less than local level.

Water vole population

8.5.44 The construction impacts which are relevant to the assessment for the water vole population are:


Fragmentation of a ditch due to the construction of a culvert;

Mortality/ injury of individual animals;

Changes in surface water drainage and quality; and

Increased visual, noise and vibration levels.

8.5.45 The construction of new drainage connections to the existing drainage network around the perimeter of the site will result in the loss of limited extents of sub-optimal water vole habitat at the banks of the ditches and watercourses. This could result in the loss of potential foraging resources and burrows. However, existing drainage features will be retained as part of the Proposed Development such that the extent of localised habitat loss/ disturbance at new drainage connections represents a small proportion of the total habitat available to this species on site. It is expected that habitats will be allowed to re-establish following completion of the drainage works, so habitat loss will be temporary and any effects on the availability of habitat resources will be short-term.

8.5.46 The installation of a culvert over the ditch at the northern edge of the developed area could potentially function as a barrier to the movement of water voles during construction due to the temporary stopping up of water, and engineering works. This effect will be highly localised and temporary. Furthermore, habitat connectivity beyond the northern boundary of the site will be maintained by the retention of the unnamed stream at the northern boundary of the site, which appears to be connected to this ditch.

8.5.47 The construction of new drainage ditches to the existing drainage network could result in the killing/ injury of any water voles present and/ or the destruction of burrows during habitat




clearance. This could affect breeding success, and the abundance and distribution of water voles on site. Given the limited extent of these works, and the sub-optimal suitability of the ditches; the likelihood of encountering water voles and burrows during construction is considered to be low.

8.5.48 Incidental pollution and siltation events during construction could affect water quality in retained ditches and watercourses, through surface water run-off. This could result in an adverse effect on habitat quality and the abundance of food resources for water voles. Changes in surface water drainage could also affect water levels in retained ditches, which could potentially flood burrows or temporarily reduce their suitability for use by water voles.

8.5.49 There is potential for disturbance to water voles in retained ditches and streams on site due to increased levels of human activity (noise, vibration, visual disturbance etc.) during construction. These effects would be temporary and short-term, and given that development of each plot will come forward in phases, likely to be highly localised. It would therefore account for a small proportion of the total extent of habitat available and the number of water voles on site.

8.5.50 Taking into account the potential effects of habitat loss and fragmentation, disturbance, and changes in surface water drainage and quality, effects on the water vole population during construction are considered to be significant at a less than local level.

Assessment of Operational Effects

8.5.51 This section assesses the potential for the operational impacts identified in Section 9.5.2 above to result in significant effects on important ecological features. This has taken account of the embedded mitigation set out in Section 9.5.3 above. The relevant impacts and their potential effects are discussed for each important ecological feature, in turn, below.

Designated areas of nature conservation importance

8.5.52 The operational impact which is relevant to the assessment for designated areas of nature conservation importance, specifically in relation to Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and Ramsar, and Curry and Hay Moors SSSI is:

Changes in surface water drainage due to an increase in impermeable surfaces within the site (Chapter 10, 10.5.14); and

Changes in surface water quality due to an increase in risk of contamination of surface water run-off (Chapter 10, 10.5.18).

8.5.53 The increase in impermeable surfaces within the site as a result of the proposed development could potentially increase the volume of water discharge into existing watercourses and drainage features which drain into Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and Ramsar, and Curry and Hay Moors SSSI downstream. Notwithstanding the small contribution that water discharge from the site makes to the total catchment area of the River Tone (see 9.5.8); new attenuation features that will be installed as part of the proposed development will control the rate of flow of water from the proposed development such that there will be no increase in surface water run-off (Chapter 10, 10.5). The hydrological impact assessment has concluded that there will be no significant effect on surface water drainage (Chapter 10, 10.5.17). As such, whilst the control of water flow rates could reduce the variation in water levels in the existing drainage network; no significant change in the volume of surface water run-off, and therefore water levels, is expected. Furthermore, the site accounts for a. Hydrological changes on site are therefore not expected to affect the hydrology of the designated areas or the habitats that they support.




8.5.54 Contaminated surface water run-off from the Proposed Development could potentially effect water quality in the existing drainage network. However, notwithstanding the distance of the designated area from the site, the SuDS that will be installed as part of the proposed development will mimic natural run-off treatment processes and manage the quality of discharged water (Chapter 10, 10.5.21). This is likely to include: attenuation basins and tanks, swales/ ditches and flow control devices.

8.5.55 Taking into account the distance of the designated areas away from the site, the small contribution the site makes to the catchment of the River Tone, and the measures that will be put in place to manage surface water drainage and quality; no significant operational effects on designated areas of nature conservation importance are expected.


8.5.56 The operational impact which is relevant to the assessment for green infrastructure is:

Severance/ loss of habitat resources (i.e. hedgerow habitat).

8.5.57 The loss and fragmentation of hedgerows (see Section 9.5.2) will result in a 25% permanent loss of hedgerow habitat on site. However, the loss of the current contribution that these hedgerows make to green infrastructure on site will be mitigated by the creation of the two key multi-functional green corridors which are embedded within the parameter plan and Design Guide (see Section 9.5.3). The two new green corridors will provide linear habitat features, linking with the retained hedgerow network and greenspace in the green skirt surrounding the developed area. This will reinstate the ecological functionality of the hedgerows that will be lost for key species. Furthermore, the additional tree planting, using native and locally appropriate species, will mitigate for the loss of trees and shrubs.

8.5.58 Taking into account new habitat creation, and the supplementary planting and appropriate management of retained hedgerows that will be undertaken within the site which will provide support the retained hedgerow network and provide green links for wildlife; no significant operational effects on green infrastructure are expected.


8.5.59 The operational impact which is relevant to the assessment for flowing water, ditches and ponds is:

Changes in surface water drainage due to an increase in impermeable surfaces within the site (Chapter 10, 10.5.14); and

Changes in surface water quality due to an increase in risk of contamination of surface water run-off (Chapter 10, 10.5.18).

8.5.60 The proposed new drainage scheme within the developed area of the site is likely to comprise a network of vegetated ditches or swales, which will drain into the existing ditch and stream network around the site perimeter. The flow of water from the developed area into existing drainage features around the perimeter and in the ‘green skirt’ will be controlled such that, although the overall volume of water draining into existing drainage features is unlikely to change substantially; the rate of flow will be more constant compared with the current situation. This is likely to reduce the variation in water level in existing drainage features. However, the water catchment extends much further than the extent of the site, such that the existing ditches will receive also water from elsewhere. The hydrological assessment (Chapter 10) has concluded that there will be no significant effects on surface water drainage.

8.5.61 Surface water run-off from within the proposed development will drain into existing drainage features on site. There is a risk of pollutants entering these water features and causing




adverse effects on water and habitat quality. However, the SuDS that will be installed in the developed area of the site (see 9.5.3) will incorporate appropriate pollution control measures to manage pollution risk, and no significant effects on water quality are expected (Chapter 10).

8.5.62 Taking into account element of the development design that will manage surface water drainage and quality, no significant operational effects on flowing water, ditches and ponds are expected.

Bat assemblage

8.5.63 The operational impacts which are relevant to the assessment for bats are:

Severance/ loss of habitat resources; and


8.5.64 Habitat loss (see Section 9.5.2) will reduce the extent of potential roosting and foraging resources on site for bats, and gaps in hedgerows may function as a barrier to the movement of sensitive bat species, including lesser horseshoe bats. The two key multi-functional green corridors will provide foraging resources, and connectivity across the site for commuting bats with links with the retained hedgerow network and habitats in the green skirt surrounding the developed area. Additional woodland and buffer planting around the perimeter of the site will mitigate for the loss of potential roosting opportunities in hedgerow trees in the long-term. Furthermore, the vegetated ditches/ swales that will be created within the developed area of the site, and new ponds in the north and south of the site, are likely to support invertebrates, which will provide new foraging resources for bats.

8.5.65 External lighting, including street lighting, that will be installed in the developed area as part of the proposed development could potentially illuminate retained hedgerows, ditches and other semi-natural features around the perimeter, and newly created habitats within the developed area. This could result in fragmentation effects and reduced available foraging resources for the small number of bats recorded on site which are most sensitive to light levels.

The Design Guide stipulates that the lighting design for the proposed development is ecologically informed, ensuring consideration for local bat species has been appropriately made. Sensitive design features should include in particular, ensuring that light is directed away from the retained hedgerows and ditches around the perimeter of the developed area, to maintain dark corridors for use by bats, dormice and other nocturnal wildlife.

8.5.66 Taking into account the new planting and sensitive lighting design, no significant operational effects on the bat assemblage are expected.


8.5.67 The operational impacts which are relevant to the assessment for breeding birds are:

Severance / loss of habitat resources;

Mortality/ injury of individual animals; and


8.5.68 The loss of hedgerows and trees (see Section 9.5.2) will reduce the availability of nesting and foraging resources for breeding birds. New tree and shrub planting in the two key multi-functional green corridors that will be created as part of the proposed development will provide foraging and nesting opportunities for breeding birds, and connectivity across the site, linking with the retained hedgerow network and habitats in the green skirt surrounding the developed




area. Additional woodland and buffer planting around the perimeter of the site will also mitigate for the loss of nesting and foraging resources.

8.5.69 Inappropriate timing and frequency of cutting/ trimming/ coppicing of retained hedgerows, trees, scrub and woodland habitats within the site during the operation of the proposed development could potentially result in the incidental injury or mortality of breeding birds. It could also affect the availability of food resources in the short and long term. However, due to the legislative protection afforded to breeding birds, appropriate management measures will be implemented to avoid the risk of incidental injury or mortality and destruction of nests (see Section 9.6.7 below).

8.5.70 There is potential for disturbance to nesting birds in retained hedgerows on site due to increased levels of human activity (noise, visual disturbance etc.) during the operation of the Proposed Development. This could affect breeding success, and the abundance and distribution of birds on site. However, due to the nature of the proposed development for employment use, disturbance effects are expected to be minimal. The indicative layout for each plot in the Design Guide also shows some retained hedgerows as being off-set from the development footprint, such that the potential for disturbance effects is further reduced.

8.5.71 Taking into account the retained woodland and shrub habitats, and the new planting that will be undertaken in the two key multi-functional green corridors and around the site perimeter as part of the proposed development; no significant operational effects on breeding birds are expected.

Dormouse population

8.5.72 The operational impacts which are relevant to the assessment for dormice are:

Severance/ loss of habitat resources;

Mortality/injury of individual animals; and


8.5.73 The loss and fragmentation of hedgerows will reduce the availability of nesting and foraging resources for bats, and gaps in hedgerows may function as a barrier to the dispersal or movement of dormice. The two key multi-functional green corridors will provide foraging resources, and connectivity across the site for dormice which links with the retained hedgerow network and habitats in the green skirt surrounding the developed area. Additional woodland and buffer planting around the perimeter of the site will also mitigate for the loss of nesting and foraging resources in the long-term.

8.5.74 Inappropriate timing and frequency of cutting/ trimming/ coppicing of retained hedgerows, trees, scrub and woodland habitats within the site during the operation of the proposed development could potentially result in the incidental injury or mortality of dormice. It could also affect the availability of food and nesting resources in the short and long term. However, due to the legislative protection afforded to dormice, appropriate management measures will be implemented to avoid the risk of incidental injury or mortality and destruction of nests (see Section 9.6.8 below).

8.5.75 External lighting, including street lighting, that will be installed in the developed area as part of the proposed development could potentially illuminate retained hedgerows, trees and other semi-natural features around the perimeter, as well as newly created habitats within the developed area (including the two axial multi-functional green corridors and the SUDs network). Dormice are nocturnal, and will forage along hedgerows and other suitable habitats during hours of darkness. Light spill on these habitats could function as a barrier to the use of these habitat resources by dormice. However, the sensitive lighting design (see Section 9.5.3)




will ensure that light is directed away from the retained hedgerows and ditches around the perimeter of the developed area, to maintain dark corridors for use by dormice and other nocturnal wildlife.

8.5.76 Taking into account the new planting and sensitive lighting design, no significant operational effects on the dormouse population are expected.

Water voles

8.5.77 The operational impacts which are relevant to the assessment for water voles are:

Changes in surface water drainage due to an increase in impermeable surfaces within the site;

Changes in surface water quality due to an increase in risk of contamination of surface water run-off; and

Mortality/ injury of individual animals.

8.5.78 The increase in impermeable surfaces within the proposed development could potentially result in an increase in surface water run-off into existing retained drainage features which may be used by water voles. A substantial increase or decrease in water levels could reduce the availability of cover/ escape for water voles from predators, or the flooding of burrows. New drainage features installed as part of the proposed development (see Section 9.5.3) will ensure that the overall volume of water draining into existing drainage features is unlikely to change substantially. The rate of flow will also be controlled and therefore more constant. The hydrological assessment (Chapter 10) has concluded that there will be no significant effects on surface water drainage.

8.5.79 Contaminated surface water run-off could potentially affect water quality in ditches and watercourses suitable for water voles. However, SuDS will be installed to control and manage pollution risk, such that the hydrological assessment predicted no significant effects on surface water quality.

8.5.80 The construction of a culvert over the ditch at the northern edge of the developed area could potentially function as a barrier to water voles passing through the culvert during periods of high and fast flow. Given the low levels of water in this ditch during the 2015 survey, and given that temporal variation in water levels in the ditch network are likely to reduce as a result of the proposed development; the likelihood of this occurring is considered to be low. Furthermore, the retention of other ditches and watercourses will maintain connectivity around the site for water voles.

8.5.81 Inappropriate timing and frequency of management of the ditch network within the site during the operation of the proposed development, such as vegetation clearance and dredging, could potentially result in the incidental injury or mortality of water voles and the destruction of burrows. However, due to the legislative protection afforded to water voles, appropriate management measures will be implemented to avoid the risk of incidental injury or mortality (see Section 9.6.9 below).

8.5.82 Taking into account the measures incorporated into the proposed development to manage surface water drainage and quality, and the limited potential for fragmentation effects; no significant effects on the water vole population are expected.




8.6 Mitigation

8.6.1 This section describes the mitigation measures that should be implemented on site during construction and operation in order to reduce the likelihood of significant effects on important ecological features (as identified in Section 9.5.2).

8.6.2 Management measures in relation to ecological features affected by the proposed development, which are necessary to ensure legislative and policy compliance are set out in Section 9.9.

Construction

8.6.3 It is anticipated that a CEMP will be used to minimise the adverse ecological effects of construction and remain in place throughout the construction period. The following measures should be incorporated into the CEMP and secured by way of a planning condition requiring the agreement and implementation of the CEMP. These measures are discussed in more detail in relation to each important ecological feature below, for which significant effects were identified in the impact assessment.


8.6.4 Impacts on green infrastructure during construction are expected to be habitat loss and fragmentation, and physical damage or indirect impacts on retained hedgerows. Mitigation measures to address these impacts during the construction phase, which should be included in the CEMP, are:

Best practice measures to manage dust creation during construction, which could affect retained hedgerows and other semi-natural habitats. These will comprise standard low risk mitigation measures from the IAQM 2014 guidance (see Air Quality Assessment, PBA July 2017); and

Measures to protect retained hedgerows from damage during construction, including specifications for protective fencing and signage (see Chapter 7, 7.6).


8.6.5 Impacts on flowing water, ditches and ponds during construction are expected to be loss/ disturbance of marginal habitats at new drainage connections, physical damage or indirect impacts through tracking of machinery, dust deposition etc., and fragmentation of ditches due to the construction of a physical barrier. Additional mitigation measures to address these impacts during the construction phase, which should be included in the CEMP, are:

Best practice measures to protect water quality, in line with guidance in CIRIA publication C697 the SuDS Manual and the C698 Site Handbook for the Construction of SuDS (see Chapter 10);

Best practice measures to minimise the risk of dust creation. These will comprise standard low risk mitigation measures from the IAQM 2014 guidance (see Air Quality Assessment, PBA July 2017); and

Measures to protect retained streams, ditches and ponds from damage during construction, such as specifications for protective fencing and signage (see Chapter 7, 7.6).




Bat assemblage

8.6.6 Impacts on bats during construction are expected to be habitat loss and fragmentation, potential injury/ mortality of individual animals and/ or destruction of a bat roost, and changes in lighting levels. Additional mitigation measures to address these impacts during the construction phase, which should be included in the CEMP, are:

Precautionary measures for the felling of trees supporting features suitable for use by roosting bats. The mitigation approach within each development plot should be informed by an updated assessment of the potential for the tree(s) to support roosting bats, and any surveys necessary to confirm the presence or likely absence of bat roosts, prior to felling. Trees with low potential should be felled during the winter when bats (and nesting birds) are unlikely to be present. Should this not be possible, such trees should be soft-felled under an ecological watching brief. In the unlikely event that a bat roost is found during the updated assessment/ survey work, an appropriate mitigation strategy should be determined and agreed with Natural England as part of a derogation licence application; and

Best practice measures to control construction phase lighting. This will include a range of design and control measures, including the use of shields and hoods on luminaires, appropriate timing of working hours and operation of security lighting, as well as consideration of the orientation of luminaires, and the avoidance of ‘over-lighting’ (see Lighting Assessment, PBA 2017).

Breeding birds

8.6.7 Impacts on breeding birds during construction are expected to be habitat loss and fragmentation, potential injury/ mortality of individual animals and increased disturbance. Additional mitigation measures to address these impacts during the construction phase, which should be included in the CEMP are:

Measures to avoid the mortality/ injury of breeding birds, their nests and eggs/ young. Any clearance or cutting of woody vegetation should avoid the breeding bird season (generally taken to be March to August inclusive. If this is not possible, the vegetation should be checked prior to removal for the presence of any active birds' nests. If active nests are present, an appropriate exclusion zone should be retained around the nest and works should be delayed until the young birds have fledged and the nest becomes inactive.

Dormouse population

8.6.8 Impacts on dormice during construction are expected to be habitat loss and fragmentation, injury/ mortality of individual animals, disturbance (visual, noise, vibration), and changes in lighting levels. Mitigation measures to address these impacts during the construction phase, which should be included in the CEMP, are:

Measures to avoid the incidental mortality/ injury of dormice during the removal of hedgerows. A detailed mitigation strategy, and any requirement for licensing should be determined on a plot-by-plot basis, depending on habitat quality and the extent of hedgerow loss, as development within the LDO comes forward. The mitigation strategy should be developed in accordance with best practice, including a variety of proven techniques; and

Best practice measures to control construction phase lighting. This will include a range of design and control measures, including the use of shields and hoods on luminaires, appropriate timing of working hours and operation of security lighting, as well as




consideration of the orientation of luminaires, and the avoidance of ‘over-lighting’ (see Lighting Assessment, PBA 2017).


8.6.9 Impacts on water voles during construction are expected to be habitat loss and fragmentation, potential injury/ mortality of individual animals, changes in water drainage and quality, and increased disturbance. Additional mitigation measures to address these impacts during the construction phase, which should be included in the CEMP are:

Measures to avoid the mortality/ injury of any water voles present and the destruction of burrows. Prior to constructing new drainage connections, an updated survey to confirm the presence or likely absence of water voles along each affected ditch or watercourse should be undertaken. The updated survey would inform any water vole mitigation strategy and licence application that may be required in order to undertake the work. Given the limited extent of suitable habitat likely to be affected by connecting new drainage ditches to existing ditches (i.e. ≤50m), an appropriate mitigation approach is likely to be the displacement of water voles into adjacent retained sections of ditch/ stream in the spring (15th February to 15th April depending on the weather) prior to works commencing. Such an approach would include removal all vegetation on both banks of the watercourse using hand-held tools until only bare earth remains, plus an additional 3 m either side of the working area. The cleared area would be left for a period of five days to allow animals to relocate before a destructive search of burrows would be undertaken under an ecological watching brief. It should be noted that, if required, the water vole licence would need to be granted for the purposes of conservation. The works would therefore need to demonstrate a conservation benefit for this species. This is likely to be delivered through the creation of SUDs features within the site (see Chapter 10 Hydrology);

Best practice measures to protect water quality, in line with guidance in CIRIA publication C697 the SuDS Manual and the C698 Site Handbook for the Construction of SuDS (see Chapter 10).

Operation

8.6.10 No additional mitigation measures, beyond those embedded within the parameter plan and Design Guide, should be implemented during the operation phase have been identified as no significant effects were identified on important ecological features as part of the impact assessment.

8.7 Enhancement

8.7.1 Opportunities should be maximised to increase the nature conservation value of the site. The implementation of biodiversity enhancement measures will deliver on relevant policy objectives. A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan will be created which will incorporate appropriate ecological enhancement measures. The measures described below should be secured by way of a planning condition requiring the agreement and implementation of the LEMP.

Ecological input to the design and management of SUDs features including ditches and attenuation ponds. The sensitive design of these features could provide new habitat resources for water voles, which will be connected to existing drainage features and therefore provide habitat links for water voles across the site. It could also provide additional habitat suitable for invertebrates and amphibians;

Measures to enhance the value of existing and retained ditches and watercourses within the site for water voles. For example, sensitive and targeted clearance of scrub from




some sections of Blackbrook along the western boundary of the site (whilst also taking account of the presence of dormice and nesting birds) would increase light levels within the ditch and promote aquatic and marginal vegetation growth. This could increase the availability of food resources for water voles;

Measures to enhance the value of retained ponds for amphibians, such as vegetation management to reduce shading and supplementary aquatic planting to increase egg laying opportunities;

Retention of deadwood habitat and creation of herptile hibernacula within retained habitats on site;

Details of appropriate management of hedgerows containing blackthorn within the site to increase the availability of new blackthorn growth as egg laying sites for brown hairstreak (whilst taking account of the presence of other ecological considerations including dormice and nesting birds.

Locations and specifications for the installation of bird nest boxes in appropriate locations within the site such as the two key axial multi-functional green corridors, green skirt and other areas of semi-natural habitat within the site to replace lost nesting opportunities. Annual maintenance of bird nest boxes to replace damaged/ lost boxes and to ensure they remain suitable for breeding birds;

Locations and specifications for the installation of bat roost boxes in appropriate locations within the site such as the two key axial multi-functional green corridors, green skirt and other areas of semi-natural habitat within the site to replace lost roosting opportunities. Annual maintenance of bat roost boxes to replace damaged/ lost boxes and to ensure they remain suitable for roosting bats.

Locations and specifications for the installation of dormouse nest boxes in retained hedgerows and woodland to increase the carrying capacity of retained hedgerows and woodland, in order to provide additional resources for displaced dormice. Annual maintenance of dormouse nest boxes to replace damaged/ lost boxes and to ensure they remain suitable for use by dormice;

Sensitive design of the culvert that will be installed along northern edge of the developed area, such as use of over-sized culverts and installation of earth/ silt ledges to provide crossing opportunities for water vole in periods of high flow.


8.8.1 Tables 8.6 and 8.7 set out the residual effects remaining for the important ecological features considered within this EcIA, during construction and operation.




93

Construction

Table 8.6 Residual construction effects

Feature/ Affected group

Importance of

feature

Effect Magnitude/ spatial extent

Duration

Mitigation/ response

(embedded mitigation)

Significance of effect (with embedded mitigation)

Additional mitigation (if

required)

Significance of Residual Effect

Hestercombe House SAC and

SSSI

International

Loss of bat foraging habitat

Minor

Permanent

Foraging habitat unlikely to be of

value to bats associated with the

SAC/ SSSI

Not significant None Not significant


and Ramsar, and Curry and

Hay Moors SSSI

International

Hydrological changes on site, and changes in

water quality

Minor

Temporary

Existing drainage features retained



Local Habitat loss & fragmentation

Physical damage or indirect impacts on

retained habitats e.g. tracking of machinery,

or dust deposition.

Minor/ permanent

Minor (individual development

plots)/ temporary

c. 75% hedgerows to be retained

Best quality trees and tree groups

(Category A and B) to be retained

Less than Local Best practice measures in

CEMP to minimise risk of damage to

retained habitats

Less than Local

Flowing water, ditches and

ponds

Local Localised habitat loss/ disturbance at new

drainage connections

Physical damage or indirect impacts on

Minor/ permanent

Existing drainage features to be

retained


CEMP to minimise risk of pollution/

Not significant




94


Importance of

feature


Duration





required)


retained habitats e.g. tracking of machinery,

or dust deposition.

Fragmentation of ditches due to the construction of a physical barrier


water quality

Minor/ temporary

Minor/ permanent

Minor/ temporary

siltation and damage to retained drainage features


Local Habitat loss and fragmentation

Mortality and injury

Disturbance

Minor/ permanent

Minor/ temporary


Narrow belts of semi-mature broadleaved

woodland, and areas of dense and scattered scrub to

be retained


CEMP to minimise risk of killing, and

injury

Not significant

Bat assemblage Local Habitat loss and fragmentation

Mortality and injury

Light disturbance

Moderate/ permanent

Minor/ temporary


Best quality trees and tree groups

(Category A and B) to be retained

Narrow belts of semi-mature


CEMP to control

construction lighting

Precautionary mitigation

Not significant




95


Importance of

feature


Duration





required)


broadleaved woodland, scrub,

and existing drainage features to

be retained

measures for the felling of

trees

Dormouse population

County Habitat loss and fragmentation

Mortality and injury of individual animals

Disturbance

Minor/ permanent

Minor/ temporary


Narrow belts of semi-mature broadleaved

woodland, and areas of dense and scattered scrub to

be retained

Less than Local

Best practice measures in

CEMP to control

construction lighting

Best practice measures in

CEMP to minimise risk

of killing, injury and

disturbance

Not significant


Local Localised habitat loss/ disturbance at new

drainage connections

Fragmentation of ditches due to the construction of a physical barrier

Mortality/ injury of individual animals

Minor/ temporary

Minor/ permanent

Minor/ temporary

Existing drainage features to be

retained


CEMP to minimise risk of killing and

injury

Not significant




96


Importance of

feature


Duration





required)



water quality

Disturbance

Minor/ temporary

Minor/ temporary

Operation

Table 8.7 Residual operation effects


Importance of

feature


Duration





required)



and Ramsar, and Curry and

Hay Moors SSSI

International

Hydrological changes and changes in water

quality

Minor/ permanent New drainage scheme will incorporate appropriate

pollution control measures



Local Habitat loss and fragmentation

Minor/ permanent Creation of two key multi-functional green corridors across the site

Additional tree and shrub planting





97


Importance of

feature


Duration





required)


Flowing water, ditches and

ponds

Local Hydrological changes and changes in water

quality

Minor/ permanent New drainage scheme will incorporate appropriate

pollution control measures



Local Habitat loss & fragmentation


Disturbance

Minor/ permanent

Minor/ temporary

Creation of two key multi-functional green corridors across the site


Species mix for new planting to

include native and berry producing

species


Bat assemblage Local Habitat loss & fragmentation

Light disturbance

Minor/ permanent Creation of two key multi-functional green corridors across the site


Species for new planting to include nectar producing





98


Importance of

feature


Duration





required)


species to attract invertebrates

Creation of SUDs incorporating open ditches and ponds

Sensitive lighting design

Dormouse population

County Habitat loss & fragmentation


Disturbance

Minor/ permanent

Creation of two key multi-functional green corridors across the site


Species mix to include woody

species of value for dormice

Appropriate management of

retained and newly created habitats

Sensitive lighting design

Not significant

None Not significant


Local Hydrological changes and changes in water

quality

Minor/ permanent New drainage scheme will incorporate





99


Importance of

feature


Duration





required)



appropriate pollution control

measures Appropriate timing and frequency of

ditch management

Sensitive design of bridge/ culvert




8.9 Ecological Features Requiring Appropriate Management in Relation to Legislative Protection and Relevant Policy Considerations

8.9.1 A number of ecological features are considered to be of insufficient importance to be included in the impact assessment. Nevertheless, due to their protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), consideration needs to be given to appropriate management measures during the design and implementation of the Project, so as to ensure no breach of the protective legislation. These measures are identified for each ecological feature below, and should be included in the CEMP and secured by way of a planning condition requiring the agreement and implementation of the CEMP.

Badgers

8.9.2 Badgers are afforded protection under the Protection of Badgers Act (1992) (as amended). Any elements of the proposed development affecting the narrow belt of woodland in the south-west of the site (TN 9) where two outlying badger setts were recorded will give due regard to the legislation protecting badger, i.e. protection against injury and killing, disturbance, and destruction/ obstruction of badger setts.

8.9.3 The area of woodland in question will be retained as part of the proposed development. Whilst no direct effects on these badger setts are anticipated, any landscape works in this area and on-going management post-construction, should ensure that a suitable buffer is maintained around the setts (c. 30 m) to avoid potential damage and disturbance.

Invasive plant species

8.9.4 Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam are invasive plant species which are legally controlled under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended). It is illegal to cause these plants to grow in the wild.

8.9.5 The areas on site where these plants were recorded are unlikely to be disturbed during construction. Nevertheless, the CEMP should incorporate measures to ensure that any landscape works close to these areas should maintain a 7 m buffer away from the plants to avoid any risk of causing them to spread. This should include demarcating the plants with appropriate fencing and signage during construction. In the event that it is necessary to disturb stands of these plants during construction; appropriate management and control measures should be implemented to avoid causing the spread of these species in accordance with best practice guidance.

8.9.6 In the long-term, as a best practice measure, an appropriate management and control strategy should be produced which aims to eradicate Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam from the site during the operation of the proposed development.

Reptiles

8.9.7 Reptiles are afforded protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended). Any elements of the proposed development affecting the limited areas of potential reptile habitat will give due regard to the legislation protecting common and widespread reptile species, i.e. protection against intentional injury and killing.

8.9.8 No slow worms were recorded within the area of the site that will be developed. However, suitable habitat for reptiles was recorded (albeit limited in extent), and slow worms are present in the west of the site. It is therefore possible, that slow worms (or other common reptile species) could colonise these areas during the 15 year period of the LDO. Prior to the development of each plot, depending on the extent habitat clearance required, it may be




appropriate to implement precautionary mitigation measures to avoid the potential incidental injury or mortality of reptiles during site clearance and/ or to undertake an updated survey to confirm the presence or likely absence of reptiles. The updated survey would inform any necessary plot-specific reptile mitigation strategy that may be required.

8.9.9 Appropriate management measures should be included in the CEMP, and implemented prior to undertaking landscape works, or other works affecting grassland and scrub habitats located in the green skirt in the western part of the site to minimise the risk to reptiles of killing/ injury. Given the limited extent of suitable habitat likely to be affected by such works, this will be achieved through the displacement of any reptiles present into areas of retained habitat within green skirt prior to works commencing through the following approach:

Progressive removal of suitable low-lying vegetation, including long grass, ruderals and scrub, using hand-held tools. The final stages of clearance to ground level should take place during suitable climatic conditions at a time of year when reptiles are active (generally April to September inclusive);

Dismantling of any potential hibernacula or refugia by hand, including compost heaps and log piles;

Where appropriate, ground level clearance work will be overseen by a suitably experienced ecologist who would relocate any reptiles encountered to an area of suitable retained habitat within and adjacent to the site; and

Following the clearance of vegetation, the vegetation will be maintained at ground level to prevent re-colonisation prior to works commencing.


8.10.1 The ES has identified the following planning applications within 1 km of the site, which require a cumulative impact assessment:

4/38/17/0205 M25 Junction Improvements – located within 75 m to the north of the site;

31/13/0025, Land at junction of A358 and Stoke Road, 26 affordable houses and associated parking – located approximately 920 m to the east of the site;

38/10/0030, Land at Polar Road, 12 houses – located approximately 360 m to the west of the site on the opposite side of the M5 motorway;

37/12/0008, Haydon House Farm, Haydon, Poultry buildings – located approximately 220 m to the south of the site; and

A358 Taunton to Southfields Dualling Scheme – located approximately 440 m to the south of the site.

8.10.2 Due to the distance of the locations of 31/13/0025, Land at junction of A358 and Stoke Road and 38/10/0030, Land at Polar Road away from the site (and in the case of Land at Polar Road, the location on the opposite side of the M5 motorway); no likely cumulative effects on the important ecological features identified in this EcIA are anticipated.

8.10.3 Available information on 37/12/0008, Haydon House Farm indicates that the existing hedgerow at the boundary of the development plot (which has some limited connectivity with the hedgerow network within the site) will be retained. No significant cumulative effects on the hedgerow network or other important ecological features within the site in relation to the proposed Haydon House development are expected.




8.10.4 From a review of aerial photographs, there appears to be poor connectivity between the hedgerow network on site with the hedgerows that would be affected by Highways England’s A358 Taunton to Southfields Dualling Scheme (the HE scheme). It is therefore considered that effects on these hedgerows would not result in cumulative effects on the hedgerow network within the site, or the important ecological features associated with them. It is assumed that potential effects on Broughton Brook, which is connected with Black Brook along the western boundary of the site would be mitigated through appropriate pollution prevention and control measures in a CEMP. Available information on the HE scheme suggests that there will be effects on nearby designated areas of nature conservation importance; however, no effects on designated areas of nature conservation importance are expected as a result of the proposed development. No significant cumulative effects on important ecological features within the site, in relation to the HE scheme are expected.

8.10.5 Available information on the assessment and management of ecological effects for the proposed 4/38/17/0205 M25 Junction Improvements is limited. The main ecological impact arising from this proposed scheme is likely to be associated with the proposed diversion and culverting of the unnamed stream located along the northern boundary of the site. A bridge is also proposed over Blackbrook at the northern extent of this watercourse within the site, which could potentially affect habitat quality. There are no direct impacts on these watercourses as a result of the Proposed Development, and potential effects due to pollution or siltation will be managed through implementation of best practice measures secured through a CEMP. It is assumed that appropriate mitigation will be implemented as part of the M25 Junction Improvements associated with these watercourses and protected species including water voles, such that no significant cumulative effects are expected.

8.11 Summary

8.11.1 This chapter presents the ecological baseline of the site. It provides an evaluation of the relevant ecological features and has been informed by a combination of baseline ecological desk study and survey data.

8.11.2 The methods used to determine the impacts of the Proposed Development on current baseline conditions are described. The mitigation measures embedded within the parameter plan and Design Guide to prevent, reduce or offset any adverse effects are set out, together with additional mitigation and management measures which will be secured through delivery of a CEMP/ LEMP. Likely residual effects after these measures have been employed are assessed.

8.11.3 The majority of habitats within the site comprised intensively managed agricultural land including arable fields and cattle-grazed pasture supporting improved grassland and poor semi-improved grassland. Semi-natural habitats present on site included hedgerows, belts of broadleaved woodland, scrub, and a network of open, earth drainage ditches, streams and ponds. The site was found to support important populations and assemblages of protected species including breeding birds, bats, dormice and water voles, which will be affected by the Proposed Development. A small population of slow worms, the assumed presence of brown hairstreak, and an assumed assemblage of amphibian species are not considered to be of importance within the ‘Local’ context or greater, and as such, have not been considered within the assessment.

8.11.4 There are a number of designated areas of nature conservation importance within the wider area, including Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and Ramsar, Curry and Hay Moors SSSI, and South Taunton Streams LNR, which are connected to the site via the flowing water/ ditch network.

8.11.5 In summary, important ecological features that have been considered within this chapter comprise:




Designated areas of nature conservation importance;

Green infrastructure;

Flowing water, ditches and ponds;

Breeding bird assemblage;

Bat assemblage;

Dormouse population; and

Water vole population.

8.11.6 The Proposed Development has the potential to: result in the loss and/or fragmentation of hedgerows, trees and cattle grazed pasture; result in localised habitat loss/ disturbance at ditches; cause hydrological changes and changes in water quality; cause disturbance effects associated with lighting proposals to bats and dormice.

8.11.7 This assessment informs the LDO application and includes for implementation of a number of measures in relation to habitat and species protection, and habitat enhancement, within the relevant legislative and policy context. These measures relate to the approach to works affecting hedgerows and ditches and the species they support (bats, birds, dormice, water voles), operational effects associated with changes to the drainage of the site during operation, and ecological input relating to the habitats to be retained and created as part of the Proposed Development.

8.11.8 Although the construction phase of the Proposed Development will result in residual adverse effects on green infrastructure at a less than local level; once operational, the Proposed Development provides enhancement opportunities for protected and notable species namely through the enhancement and appropriate management of SUDs, the two key axial multi-functional green corridors, and retained habitat in the ‘green skirt’. In the long-term, this will deliver high quality, biodiverse habitat on site and provides connectivity for wildlife across the site and with the surrounding area. This is in accordance with national and local planning policy and guidance (NPPF, 2012; ODPM, 2005, and NPS EN1) and the 2006 NERC Act.

8.12 References

Bickmore CJ (2007). Hedgerow Survey Handbook: A standard procedure for local surveys in the UK, 2nd edition. Defra, London.

Bright PW, Morris PA and Mitchell-Jones A (2006). Dormouse Conservation Handbook, 2nd Edition. English Nature, Peterborough.

Collins, J. (ed.) (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Eaton MA, Aebischer NJ, Brown AF, Hearn RD, Lock L, Musgrove AJ, Noble DG, Stroud DA and Gregory RD (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708–746.

Froglife (1999). Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife, Halesworth.

Gilbert G, Gibbons DW and Evans J (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods: A manual of techniques for key UK species. RSPB, Bedfordshire.




Hundt, L. (2012). Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines (2rd Edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey - a Technique for Environmental Audit. Reprinted by JNCC, Peterborough.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). UK priority species: Arvicola terrestris version 2.

National Rivers Authority (1993). Otters and River Habitat Management. Conservation Technical Handbook Number 3.

Somerset Biodiversity Partnership (2008). Wild Somerset: The Biodiversity Strategy 2008 – 2018.

Somerset Environmental Records Centre (2010). Somerset Local Wildlife sites And Local Geological sites Manual: Policies and Procedures for the Identification and Designation of Wildlife sites. Version 6.

Strachan R and Moorhouse T (2006). Water Vole Conservation Handbook, 2nd Edition. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), Oxford University.

Taunton Deane District Borough Council (2016). Taunton Deane Adopted site Allocations and Development Management Plan.




9 Hydrology

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 This chapter provides an assessment of the potential impacts on surface water and groundwater receptors, together with the flood risk associated with the proposed development. Information has been collected from a variety of sources to provide a baseline review of hydrology and hydrogeology.

9.1.2 Consideration is given to temporary effects during the construction phase as well as the effects during the operation of the proposed development. The need for site specific mitigation measures is also identified and described. The nature of any residual effects that remain after mitigation is also discussed.

9.1.3 Impacts on the water environment resulting from the proposed development relate to four main events:

Erosion/sediment transport.

Chemical/pollution events.

Alteration/interruption of surface water flows.

Alteration/interruption of groundwater flows.

9.1.4 This chapter has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates LLP.

9.2 Policy Context

9.2.1 There is a wide range of legislation and policy pertaining to water resources and flood risk. However, this section only refers to legislation and policy that is directly relevant to the proposed development and the range of potential impacts identified.

Legislation and National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance

9.2.2 The NPPF and the accompanying PPG sets out the Government’s policy on development and flood risk. The NPPF aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, to direct development away from areas of highest risk and not increase flood risk elsewhere post-development. In exceptional circumstances where new development is necessary in flood risk areas the policy also aims to ensure it is safe and residual risks are safely managed, without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

9.2.3 In February 2016, the Environment Agency (EA) updated its guidance on Climate Change. This included updating the guidance for peak river flow by river basin district, peak rainfall intensity, sea level rise and offshore wind speed and extreme wave height. For the individual river basin districts, the climate change allowance for peak river flows range from 10% to 70%, while peak rainfall intensity allowance ranges from 5% to 40%.

9.2.4 The 2015 updates to the PPG reflect the updated non-statutory technical standards for SuDS.




Water Framework Directive

9.2.5 The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 2000/60/EC) establishes a single framework for water policy across Europe. Its aim is to ensure all inland and near shore watercourses and water bodies (including groundwater) are of ‘good’ status or better in terms of ecological, but also chemical, biological and physical parameters by the year 2015. Therefore, any activities or developments that could cause a detriment to a nearby watercourse, or prevent the future ability of a water resource to reach its potential status, must be mitigated so as to reduce the potential for harm and allow the aims of the Directive to be realised.

9.2.6 A Water body is assessed for ecological status and chemical status as part of the WFD. The methodology for determining status has been set out by the UK Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) on the WFD. The Environment Agency is responsible for monitoring and ensuring targets are met. Water bodies are classified as being High, Good, Moderate, Poor or Bad.

9.2.7 The Ecological status is based on biological quality which includes inverterbrates, fish and macrophytes: physiochemical quality which includes temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, pH and nutrients and hydromorphological quality which assesses the range of available habitats.

9.2.8 Chemical Status is assessed on the presence and concentration of priority substances for which standards have been established. A full list is provided in the UKTAG advice for classification. UKTAG has also proposed water quality, ecology and water abstraction and river flow standards to be adopted in order to ensure that water bodies in the UK (including groundwater) meet the required standard.

Flood and Water Management Act, 2010

9.2.9 The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been written to comply with National Planning Policy; National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the associated Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The NPPF aims to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at high risk.

9.2.10 The NPPF states that an FRA must be undertaken for all developments in Flood Zones 2 or 3, or for all sites greater than 1 hectare in area.

9.2.11 An FRA is required to assess the significance of any flooding to the proposed development and to assess the flood risk to third parties arising from the proposed development.

9.2.12 The NPPF advocates the use of the risk-based flood risk sequential test to steer new development to areas at lowest probability of flooding. It also matches the flood risk vulnerability of a development proposal to appropriate Flood Zones. For example, more sensitive developments like hospitals would not be permitted in areas at high risk of flooding, although leisure and tourism developments may be allowed.

Local Planning Policy

Core Strategy

9.2.13 Taunton Deane Borough Council’s (TDBC) adopted Core Strategy 2011-2028 contains three relevant policies to the site, which are as follows; Policy SD1: Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development, Policy CP 1: Climate Change and Policy CP 8: Environment.

9.2.14 Policy SD1 states that “the council will take a positive approach to proposed developments that are considered to be sustainable, and will work proactively with applicants jointly to find




solutions which mean that proposals secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.”

9.2.15 Policy CP1: Climate Change states the following:

“Development proposals should result in a sustainable environment, and will be required to

demonstrate that the issue of climate change has been addressed by:

a. Reducing the need to travel through locational decisions and where appropriate, providing a mix of uses;

b. Specifying how the development meets the relevant code level in the Code for Sustainable Homes, or, in the case of commercial development, the BREEAM standards;

c. The protection of the quality, quantity and availability of the water resource, for example by the use of water conservation and recycling measures and minimising off site water discharge through methods such as Sustainable Urban Drainage systems;

d. Incorporation of measures which promote and enhance the resilience of ecosystems and biodiversity networks within and beyond the site;

e. Measures to minimise and mitigate the risks to the development associated with expected climate change impact such as average temperature increases, the urban 'heat island' effect, extreme weather events and soil moisture decreases in the summer and autumn;

f. The adoption of the sequential approach and exceptions test to flood risk in accordance with Policy CP8 (Environment) and incorporation of measures in design and construction to reduce the effects of flooding.

Proposals for the development of renewable and low carbon sources of energy, including

large-scale freestanding installations will be favourably considered provided that:

g. Their scale, form, design, materials and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily assimilated into the landscape or built environment and would not harm the character of these areas and has no overriding adverse impact on the amenity of the area in respect of noise, dust, odour and traffic generation;

h. Impact on the local community, economy, nature conservation or historical interests does not outweigh the economic and wider environmental benefits of the proposal, and,

i. Provision is made for the removal of the facilities and reinstatement of the site should it cease to be operational.”

9.2.16 The following sections of Policy CP8: Environment are relevant to the proposed development:

“A network of green infrastructure assets has been identified and should be retained

and enhanced, including through the development of green wedges and corridors as

envisaged through the Taunton Deane Green Infrastructure Strategy. A number of

green and blue links are proposed. New green wedges are proposed to be delivered

as an integral part of urban extensions at Comeytrowe / Trull in Taunton and in

Wellington at Longforth and Cades / Jurston. Extensions to existing green wedges are

proposed at Staplegrove, along the Tone east of the M5 and at Wellington. A new

Priorswood country park is proposed to be provided as an integral part of the urban

extensions at Monkton Heathfield and Nerrols. New green links are proposed from the

town through the existing green wedges to the Quantock Hills AONB to the north and




the Blackdown Hills AONB to the south. Developments will be expected to adopt

Natural England's Accessible Natural Green Space Standards (ANGSt) and contribute

to realising the opportunities identified within the Taunton Deane Green Infrastructure

Strategy.

Development will be supported at sustainable locations to improve green

infrastructure, public access, visual amenity and the overall quality of the natural

environment. Development will need to mitigate and where necessary, compensate for

adverse impacts on landscape, protected or important species, important habitats and

natural networks, river and ground water quality and quantity so that there are no

residual effects.

The Council will seek to direct development away from land at risk of fluvial or other

causes of flooding (including areas likely to be subject to flood risk in the future as a

result of climate change) adopting a sequential approach to the location of

development, as set out in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2. Development

sites will need to ensure that flood risk is not exacerbated from increased surface

water flows by ensuring that existing greenfield rates and volumes are not increased

off-site through the adoption of multi-functional SUDS. The Council will seek to reduce

flood risk and mitigate for the impacts of climate change within Taunton Deane (and in

particular the Taunton urban area) through the provision of a strategic flood

attenuation scheme to which development sites will need to contribute.”

Somerset Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment

9.2.17 Somerset County Council produced a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in June 2011 and concluded that Taunton is not considered to be a ‘significant flood risk area’. However, Taunton was found to contain a cluster of ‘blue squares’ areas where >200 people, >20 non-residential properties or more than one item of critical infrastructure is identified by the Environment Agency to be at risk of flooding.

TDBC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2011)

9.2.18 TDBC published its latest Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) in 2011. The SFRA was carried out in close collaboration with key stakeholders such as the EA and Wessex Water, with the results allowing the Local Authority to undertake the Sequential and Exception Test required as part of the NPPF.

9.2.19 The requirements for proposed developments will be in terms of infrastructure that will have to be implemented in order for the development of Taunton to remain sustainable. TDBC have set out along a sustainable path by aspiring to locate all of their proposed allocations within Flood Zone 1 as they have enough land suitable for development, thereby applying the sequential test for preferred sites.

9.2.20 In terms of preferred infrastructure requirements, the most appropriate strategic option that should be implemented is limited to:




“New or re-development must seek opportunities to reduce overall level of flood risk at the

site for example by:

Reducing volume and rate of runoff

Relocating development to zones with lower flood risk

Creating space for flooding”

9.2.21 The TDBC SFRA states that all surface water discharge from the site is to be restricted to 2l/s/ha. It should be noted that while the masterplan for the proposed development has been tested to demonstrate there is sufficient space on the site to manage surface water, the downstream impacts have not been assessed due to the delay in the receipt of the Somerset County Council flood modelling. This is currently expected mid-September 2017.

Environment Agency (EA) Policy and Guidance

Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3)

9.2.22 The EA has set out a framework for the regulation and management of groundwater in a set of documents, collectively known as Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3) which replaces previous policy covered in the Environment Agency’s ‘Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater’.

EA Climate Change Guidance

9.2.23 In February 2016 the EA released new guidance on the application of climate change allowances in flood risk assessments which is available on the EA’s website: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances.

9.2.24 This guidance provides contingency allowances for potential increases in peak river flow in Table 1, and for potential increases in rainfall intensity in Table 2. The latter requires consideration in any surface water drainage strategy for new development and is discussed in the standalone Drainage Strategy Report for this site.

9.2.25 The peak river flow allowances table provides a range of allowances based on percentile (i.e. the degree of certainty of an event occurring, based on the range of climate change scenarios assessed through scientific investigations). The provided allowances are also subject to the vulnerability classification of the proposed use and the river basin district of the site.

9.3 Methodology

Study Area

9.3.1 The site comprises approximately 54 hectares of land, of which approximately 17 hectares are gross development area, located to the east of the M5 motorway, approximately 2.5 miles east of Taunton Town Centre, Somerset. The centre of the site is located approximately at National Grid Reference 325631 124174. An indicative Site Location Plan is provided in Appendix A.1. The full site details are available in Chapter 2.

9.3.2 The site includes part of Somerset County Council’s (SCC) proposed highway improvements at M5 Junction 25 (the SCC scheme). The current consultation scheme includes modifications to increase the capacity and safety of the roundabout, alongside the creation of an additional arm on the eastern side of the roundabout, which would provide the ability to access the site. The scheme also proposes alterations to the existing access junction for the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride. See Appendix A.4 for a plan illustrating the current proposed scheme.




9.3.3 The site comprises approximately 16 fields of agricultural land, currently used for both arable and pasture grassland. Agricultural buildings associated with Cambria Farm are located in the northwest area of the site, currently used as poultry sheds. The site extends west along a culvert that passes from the site’s western edge, beneath the M5 motorway; this is part of the Black Brook watercourse.

9.3.4 The western border of the site is formed by the Broughton Brook which joins with the Black Brook after the culvert beneath the motorway. The Henlade Brook forms part of the northern border flowing in a westerly direction before turning north to pass beneath the A358. Watercourse locations are shown on the plan in Appendix A.4.

Consultation

9.3.5 The EA has participated in the Delivery Board meetings for the project to date and provided general guidance as the masterplan is developed. Further consultation with the EA will be organised once the flood modelling has been undertaken.

9.3.6 Flood information such as flood levels, extents and flood zone information will be assessed on receipt of the updated Somerset County Council modelling.

9.3.7 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), which is Somerset County Council, will be consulted as the project progresses to discuss any flood risk to the proposed development or caused by the proposed development.

9.3.8 TDBC has been contacted to provide their flood history for the site.

9.3.9 The utilities companies have been contacted to provide the location of the utilities in the vicinity of the site, in particular, South West Water, for their sewerage maps for both surface water and foul drainage.

Data Collection

9.3.10 Baseline data on water resources and flood risk in the vicinity of the proposed development has been collated with reference to the following sources:

EA– Flood Map for Planning, Risk of Flooding from Reservoirs, Risk of Flooding from Surface Water and Groundwater Mapping.

British Geological Survey – Geology of Britain Mapping.

Cranfield Soil and Agrifood Institute Soilscapes (by Cranfield University) – Soil types of Britain Mapping.

SCC – Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment.

TDBC – Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

EA Catchment Data Explorer data.

Assessment

9.3.11 A detailed site specific FRA has been undertaken and the FRA accompanies the LDO. This chapter draws on the assessment undertaken within the FRA.

9.3.12 The FRA has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and assesses the risk of flooding from a variety of potential sources including fluvial flooding from the




Broughton Brook, Black Brook and Henlade Brook, from the failure of structures associated with reservoirs, canals and other artificial structures, from groundwater emergence and from surface water (pluvial, sewer and highways). The assessment has been based on a detailed review of the information provided in the sources listed as references and informed by consultation with relevant stakeholders.

9.3.13 The FRA report presents a package of measures to mitigate on and off-site flood risk. The mitigation measures have been informed by the previously referenced information sources and consultees.

9.3.14 Hydrogeological information for the site, including borehole data on underlying geology, groundwater levels and water quality has been sourced from the British Geological Survey (BGS) data provided online.

9.3.15 The evaluation of effects is always subject to particular location-specific characteristics which need to be taken into account. Therefore, the assessment and evaluation of impact significance in particular will not always correlate exactly with the cells in an assessment matrix. Professional judgement and knowledge of local conditions has therefore been applied to assess potential impacts. Cumulative effects have been taken into account through prediction and evaluation of effects at a catchment-wide level.


9.4.1 Baseline conditions at the site are set out below.

Flood Risk

9.4.2 The Environment Agency Flood Map for the site identifies that the area of the site where it is proposed to locate the development plots lies within Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding). The NPPF defines the Flood Zones as:

“Flood Zone 1 – Land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river

or sea flooding in any year (<0.1%)

Flood Zone 2 – Land assessed as having between 1 in 1000 (0.1%) and 1 in 100 (1%)

annual probability of river or sea flooding in any year

Flood Zone 3 – Land assessed as having a greater than 1 in 100 annual probability of river

or sea flooding in any year (>1%)”

9.4.3 The western and northern parts of the site are located within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability of flooding) and Flood Zone 3 (high probability of flooding) and have therefore been set aside for the landscaping/drainage attenuation, as shown on the parameter plan at Appendix A.2.

9.4.4 The area of the site where it is proposed to locate the development plots has been assessed as being at a ‘Very Low’ risk from surface water flooding, which is defined as a less than 1 in 1000 (0.1%) annual probability of flooding from surface water.

9.4.5 The area proposed for landscaping/drainage attenuation, which will remain undeveloped, ranges from being at a ‘Medium’ risk of surface water flooding (between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 100 annual probability of flooding) and ‘High’ risk of surface water flooding (greater than a 1 in 30 annual probability of flooding).

9.4.6 The BGS’s Aquifer Maps, available on the EA’s website, show that the whole site lies within an area defined as a Secondary B classification, which is defined as:




“predominantly lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of

groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and

weathering. These are generally the water-bearing parts of the former non-aquifers.”

9.4.7 The NPPF and the PPG specifies that planning applications for development proposals of 1 ha or greater in Flood Zone 1 and all proposals for new development within Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3 should be accompanied by an FRA. A detailed site specific FRA has been undertaken by PBA to accompany the LDO as a standalone document.

Watercourses

9.4.8 Watercourse locations are shown on the plan in Appendix A.4. All of the main watercourses within and in the vicinity of the site are tributaries of the River Tone, which flows in an easterly direction approximately 700m north of the site. The main tributaries are the Broughton Brook (forming the western border), the Black Brook, the Henlade Brook and the remainder of the watercourses close to the site are drainage channels between fields.

9.4.9 Broughton Brook flows in a northerly direction up the western border of the site, and exits the site via a culvert beneath the A358 at the north-west corner of the site. This is classified as a main river.

9.4.10 Black Brook is also classified a main river and flows in an easterly direction through Taunton, before being culverted beneath the M5 and joining the Broughton Brook channel and flowing north.

9.4.11 Henlade Brook flows east to west along the northern border of the site, before flowing through a culvert beneath the A358 heading north towards the River Tone.

9.4.12 Two European designated areas have been identified within 10 km of the site, which include designated rivers with a catchment area that includes watercourses within the site: Somerset Levels and Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) and Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar. Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and Ramsar encompasses wetland habitats associated with the River Tone. Blackbrook which flows along the western boundary of the site, and an unnamed watercourse which flows along the northern boundary, both drain into the River Tone, approximately 3.8 km upstream of the Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and Ramsar.

Topography and Drainage

9.4.13 An OS 3D topographic survey of the site was carried out by the Lewis Brown surveyors in August 2015. The survey shows that the highest point of the site, towards the centre of the southern border, is at approximately 17.4m AOD and the land falls from this point towards the east and north.

9.4.14 The topographic survey shows that the site generally falls from the high point at the south to south of the existing farm buildings at Cambria Farm which are at approximately 11.4m AOD, and the slope reduces from the buildings to the north and western borders.

9.4.15 The eastern border of the site varies from approximately 13.7m AOD at the south-east to 12.0m AOD at the north-east corner. Levels along the northern border from the north-west corner fall to approximately 11.0m AOD where the Henlade, Black and Broughton Brooks are culverted beneath the A358. The western border is marked by the Broughton Brook and the levels vary from approximately 11.0m AOD at the north-west corner to 13.3m AOD at the south-west corner.

9.4.16 Channel surveys of all three tributaries named above have been undertaken by Lewis Brown surveyors in August 2015 and includes the profiles of the drainage ditches in the vicinity of the site.




Geology and Surface Hydrology

9.4.17 The BGS website indicates that the site is underlain by the Branscombe Mudstone Formation, and the Cranfield soilscape maps show that the majority of the site is underlain by loamy and clayey floodplain soils with natural high groundwater.

9.4.18 The topographic survey shows that the surface water runoff will be flowing either to the east into the ditches forming the border, west into the Black and Broughton Brooks or east into the ditches which lead up to the Henlade Brook.

Surface Water Quality

9.4.19 Water quality of surface watercourses is measured with references to standards set by the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC). The Directive requires Member states to establish River Basin Districts (RBD) and for each of these a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP).

9.4.20 Annex B of the River Basin Management Plan for the South West River Basin District provides information relating to the current status of all the water bodies within the South West River Basin District. Ecological status is recorded on the scale of high, good, moderate, poor or bad. High denotes largely undisturbed conditions and the other classes increasing deviation from this natural condition.

9.4.21 Table 9.1 below lists the status for the river catchments in the area. The “Tone DS Taunton” includes the Henlade Brook in the catchment, and the Broughton Brook catchment also includes the Black Brook catchment.

Table 9.1urrent River Status

Water Body ID Water Body (and reach)

Ecological status/

potential

Overall physio

chemical quality

Hydro morphological

quality (designation)

GB108052015482 Tone DS Taunton (includes Henlade)

Moderate/ Good by 2021

Good

River, heavily modified

GB108052015420 Broughton Brook (includes Black Brook)

Poor/ Good by 2027

Does not require assessment

Not designated, artificial or heavily modified


9.5.1 The impacts described in this section can have a range of magnitudes, this assessment uses a conservative approach in assessing the significance of the impact by considering the highest magnitude value where there is a range. The proposed mitigation is therefore based on the worst case scenario and will provide mitigation for lesser impacts.

9.5.2 It is anticipated that any construction effects are temporary and any operational effects are permanent unless otherwise stated.




Construction

Flood Risk

9.5.3 The area of the site where it is proposed to locate the development plots is located in Flood Zone 1, which is considered to be at a low risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. Therefore, the effect of construction on flood risk, pre-mitigation, is considered Negligible. It should be noted that while the masterplan for the proposed development has been tested to demonstrate there is sufficient space on the site to manage surface water, the downstream impacts have not been assessed due to the delay in the receipt of the Somerset County Council flood modelling. This is currently expected mid-September 2017. Surface Water Drainage

9.5.4 All construction sites have the potential to increase surface water runoff rates and volumes, alter drainage patterns and thereby affect localised and catchment wide flood risk. Key potential increases in surface water flood risk from construction activities include:

Alteration to the rate and route of surface water runoff in temporary drains while the operational surface water drainage system is being constructed;

Stripping of soil or the import of fill affecting surface water runoff potential and drainage patterns through the compaction and smearing of soils; and /or

Alteration to the surface water runoff regime through reprofiling of the ground surface and with the introduction of temporary drainage channels

9.5.5 Therefore, there is a potential adverse effect on the surface water runoff from the site during the construction phase.


9.5.6 Construction sites lead to an increase in the mobilisation of sediments in surface water runoff from the development areas. This is due to the removal of vegetation, open soil surfaces, ground disturbance, stockpiles of soil and other construction materials, and the erosion caused by movement of heavy plant and other traffic on temporary access roads or unprotected surfaces.

9.5.7 Polluted water could be generated and enter watercourses through concrete washout or batching operations.

9.5.8 Construction at the site may require the use and storage of hydrocarbons and other chemicals. The construction may also involve the delivery of materials by heavy goods vehicles and the use of construction plant on the site.

9.5.9 Without the inclusion of mitigation measures during the construction phase there is the potential for an adverse effect on surface water quality of the various watercourses in the vicinity of the site, including the Black Brook, the Broughton Brook and Henlade Brook.

Groundwater Quality

9.5.10 Construction may involve the delivery, use and storage of hydrocarbons and other chemicals, associated with the construction plant. Accidental spillages of hydrocarbons or other chemicals in any areas of the site could lead to pollution via contaminated groundwater. The low permeability of the geology underlying the site and the fact that the site does not act as an aquifer means that the risk of groundwater contamination is low




Operation

Flood Risk

9.5.11 Given that the area of the site where it is proposed to locate the development plots lies within Flood Zone 1 and this will not change as a result of the operation of the development, it is considered that the operation of the development will have Negligible significance on the flood risk to the site.

Surface Water Drainage

9.5.12 The impermeable area of site will increase as a result of the proposed development. Left unmitigated this would lead to an increase in peak surface water runoff rates and the total runoff volumes would increase flood risk downstream.

9.5.13 All development sites require surface water drainage to be attenuated prior to disposal. Swales and attenuation basins have been proposed in the illustrative masterplan, as well as green corridors between sections of the development to contain up to the 1 in 30 annual probability flood event and release at the controlled rate of 2l/s/ha, which provides a betterment compared to the existing greenfield runoff rate.

9.5.14 Cellular attenuation tanks are proposed beneath the car parks to retain up to the 1 in 100 annual probability plus 40% climate change allowance flood event and release at the controlled rate of 2l/s/ha.

9.5.15 The above two measures will ensure the surface water runoff from the site during operation will be reduced and the effect on surface water drainage would be a moderate beneficial effect.


9.5.16 The increase in impermeable area and in traffic will lead to an increase in the risk of contamination of surface runoff due to accidental spillage of contaminants and from flushing of pollutants from impermeable surfaces. Contaminated surface runoff could enter and pollute the nearby watercourses via overland flow.

9.5.17 The quality of surface water runoff generated by industrial development is generally reasonable as much of it will arise from falling on roofs of buildings and the hardstanding areas. The greatest risk lies with the possibility of hydrocarbon spillages from the movement and parking of vehicles.

9.5.18 As all development sites require surface water drainage to be attenuated prior to disposal, the implementation of attenuation basins would provide a natural filtration mechanism, leading to a Negligible overall significance.

9.5.19 The impacts on water quality will be managed by utilising types of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) which mimic natural runoff treatment processes. The following types of SuDS features are proposed as part of the surface water management strategy:

Attenuation basins;

Attenuation tanks;

Swales; and

Flow control devices




9.5.20 The proposed surface water strategy is currently limited by the proposed development being an LDO. The strategy for the site will utilise strategic swales draining to attenuation basins and attenuation storage. As the design progresses and development plots are delivered, additional SuDS techniques, such as bioretention and filter strips, can be detailed to form a comprehensive treatment train to minimise the risk of pollution affecting surface waters. Further information will therefore be provided to discharge the Drainage and Flood Management planning conditions imposed by the LDO.

Groundwater Quality

9.5.21 Due to the predicted low permeability of the geology underlying the proposed development site, the risk of contamination via groundwater is low. Additionally, the proposed development will provide more impermeable surfaces thus reducing potential areas for infiltration. Therefore, the effect of the proposed development on the groundwater quality is considered to be Negligible.


Construction

Flood Risk

9.6.1 No specific mitigation measures are required as the proposed development will not lead to an increase in the Flood Zone of the site. However, measures will be incorporated, such as no works or structure to take place within 5m of any of the Brooks in the vicinity of the site. An appropriate spatial strategy has been prepared for the site, where areas shown as being affected by fluvial flooding are set aside as areas of public open space.


9.6.2 The surface water drainage system to be installed as part of the development will limit the rate and volume of surface water runoff to 2 l/s/ha, thus providing betterment from the existing greenfield runoff rates, and in line with the requirements set out in the TDBC SFRA (see Section 10.2.21).

9.6.3 Swales and attenuation basins are proposed as part of the development which will contain up to the 1 in 30 annual probability flood event and provide natural filtration and reduction in sedimentation. Cellular storage beneath the car parks will provide the extra attenuation required to store up to and including the 1 in 100 annual probability plus 40% climate change scenario.

9.6.4 It is proposed that a phased approach will be undertaken on site to ensure the drainage system is in place at the earliest opportunity. However, it can be difficult to deliver attenuation in a phased manner running in parallel with the advancement of impermeable areas. In reality it is likely that the full attenuation facilities will be constructed in advance of construction. If it is not practically possible to deliver the attenuation basins, swales and cellular storage in advance, the contractors will provide temporary measures as part of their Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

9.6.5 The surface water drainage facilities will limit surface water ponding within the construction site and ensure that the risk of localised flooding is not increased.

Water Quality

9.6.6 Mitigation is required during construction to protect water quality. Guidance on appropriate measures can be found in a variety of publications, although the most relevant to this




application site will be CIRIA publication C697 the SuDS Manual and the C698 Site Handbook for the Construction of SuDS.

9.6.7 Mitigation measures in line with the above guidance will be included in the CEMP to ensure that best practice is employed and the environment is safeguarded. The CEMP will include method statements for the construction works and will provide details of the materials (type and quantity) to be taken to and from the site. The CEMP will also provide a pollution control and contingency plan. Although the CEMP will aim to protect surface water quality, it will also benefit other water resource aspects together with associated areas of the environment.

9.6.8 The following specific measures for the protection of surface water quality during the construction activities will be included within the CEMP:

Management of construction works so as to comply with the necessary surface water quality standards;

Surface water runoff from the site will be managed through a temporary and / or permanent drainage infrastructure, including measures for removing suspended solids and potential contaminants;

Plant machinery and vehicles will be maintained in good condition with washing and dust suppression measures used to prevent the migration of pollutants; (particularly in relation to works using concrete and in areas where dust and mud can build up);

Working areas with risk of spillage will be carefully sited and protected (e.g. bunds) so as to minimise the risk of hazardous substances affecting surface water quality – this may include vehicle maintenance and storage areas for hazardous materials;

The movement of plant machinery and vehicles and the storage of materials during the construction works will be limited near to surface water features;

Excavation activities will be carefully monitored and coordinated with forecasted dry periods, where possible, with excavation works covered during periods of heavy rain to minimise the entry and collection of rainwater and the transport of pollutants; and

The movement of plant and machinery over bare soil areas will be limited so as to avoid soil compaction and smearing, with suitable preparatory works included where this cannot be avoided so as to minimise effects on the surface water runoff regime.

9.6.9 Additional mitigation measures for reducing effects will include an emergency activity plan for enabling a timely and efficient clean-up operation, including consideration for the use of shut off valves, such as at the discharge points from the surface water drainage strategy. Temporary stilling basins can be used to allow silt to gravitate out of the runoff before off-site discharge. Temporary bunding can form temporary attenuation areas which can prevent a rise in flood risk. Furthermore, careful development phasing can ensure that important SuDS features for water quality are in place before construction starts in dedicated areas.

Groundwater Quality

9.6.10 Due to the impermeable nature of the ground there is little potential for a detrimental effect on the groundwater quality, however mitigation measures as described above through the CEMP will minimise any effects as posed to groundwater quality.




Operation

Flood Risk

9.6.11 No specific mitigation measures are required as the proposed development will not lead to an increase in the Flood Zone of the site. However, measures will be incorporated, such as no works or structure to take place within 5m of any of the Brooks in the vicinity of the site. An appropriate spatial strategy has been prepared for the site, where areas shown as being affected by fluvial flooding are set aside as areas of public open space.


9.6.12 Mitigation will be in the form of an appropriate drainage system designed to sustainable principles, as guided by the strategy described below and included in the FRA.

9.6.13 Responsible surface water management can often be achieved through the adoption of SuDS, including a range of measures which aim to manage the discharge of surface water from a site in a sustainable way. SuDS are used to control the rate and route of surface water runoff as close to its point of origin as possible, using solutions that seek to mimic the natural drainage regime. SuDS offer many benefits, including a reduction in flood risk, improvements to water quality, groundwater recharge and provision of amenity and wildlife benefits.

9.6.14 For the proposed development, the proposed surface water management strategy will comprise of surface water runoff being directed to numerous swales and attenuation basins within the development sites, dependent on the topography. This will limit the rate and volume of surface water runoff to 2 l/s/ha thus providing betterment from the existing greenfield runoff rates.

9.6.15 The attenuation basins will be sized to cater for rainfall events up to the 1 in 30 annual probability flood event, and the extra storage capacity required to capture the 1 in 100 annual probability plus 40% climate change allowance will be in cellular storage beneath the car parks in the development.

Water Quality

9.6.16 To ensure that water quality is maintained, the design of the surface water drainage system will adopt the treatment train as advocated by CIRIA C697 the SuDS Manual.

9.6.17 The impacts on water quality will be managed by utilising types of SuDS which mimic natural runoff treatment processes, thus ensuring a high quality water discharge to all the Brooks and drainage ditches within and in the vicinity of the site. The following types of SuDS features are proposed as part of the surface water management strategy:

Attenuation basins;

Attenuation tanks;

Swales; and

Flow control devices.

9.6.18 Upstream of the attenuation areas, there is a wide range of source control SuDS techniques that can be utilised to further manage the rate and quality of surface water leaving the site. Permeable paving will be used where possible to allow runoff to infiltrate into the underlying geology and to treat surface water runoff as it filters through the pavement sub layers. In addition, bioretention areas and filter strips can be used to facilitate vegetative filtering and promote settlement of particulate pollutants and infiltration.




Groundwater Quality

9.6.19 The effect of the operation of the proposed development on groundwater quality was found to be Not Significant, therefore no additional mitigation is required.


Construction

Flood Risk

9.7.1 Post mitigation it is considered to be Negligible, due to allocating areas of higher flood risk as Landscaping/Drainage Attenuation.


9.7.2 The mitigation measures proposed will lead to a series of attenuation features including swales and attenuation basins which will slow down both the rate and volume of runoff. Surface water will discharge off the site at 2 l/s/ha which is a betterment to the existing greenfield runoff rate.

9.7.3 Therefore, the mitigation measures for the proposed development will reduce the surface water discharge from the site to 2l/s/ha, which is an improvement on the existing greenfield runoff rate (of approximately 5l/s/ha) and provide a moderate beneficial effect.

Water Quality

9.7.4 The proposed surface water drainage strategy (attenuation basins and swales) will ensure there is no increase in the risk of water contamination within Broughton, Black and Henlade Brooks. Therefore, the effect on water quality of the proposed development is considered to be Negligible.

Groundwater Quality

9.7.5 The mitigation measures discussed in the Mitigation Measures Surface Water Drainage section will ensure there is no increase to the risk of groundwater contamination. Therefore, the effect of the proposed development on groundwater quality with mitigation is reduced to Negligible.

Operation

Flood Risk

9.7.6 Post mitigation it is considered to be Negligible, due to allocating areas of higher flood risk as Landscaping/Drainage Attenuation.


9.7.7 The mitigation measures proposed will lead to a series of attenuation features including swales and attenuation basins, which will slow down both the rate and volume of runoff. Surface water will discharge off the site at 2 l/s/ha which is a betterment to the existing greenfield runoff rate, which is an improvement on the existing greenfield runoff rate. Hence, the effect of the proposed development is considered to be Negligible.




Water Quality

9.7.8 The proposed surface water attenuation will ensure there is no increase in the probability of water contamination within Broughton, Black and Henlade Brooks and is therefore, the effect on water quality of the proposed development is considered to be Negligible.

Groundwater Quality

9.7.9 The mitigation measures discussed in the Mitigation Measures Surface Water Drainage section along with the implementation of pollution prevention measures will further reduce the probability of groundwater contamination. Therefore, the effect of the proposed development on groundwater quality with mitigation is considered to be Negligible.


9.8.1 Section 5.6 identifies the major local committed developments that have the potential to lead to likely significant cumulative effects close to the site are the following developments:

31/13/0025, Land at junction of A358 and Stoke Road, 26 affordable houses and associated parking;

38/10/0030, Land at Polar Road, 12 houses;

37/12/0008, Haydon House Farm, Haydon, Poultry buildings; and

A358 Taunton to Southfields Dualling Scheme (in particular Section 1 of the scheme)

Junction 25 Capacity Improvements

9.8.2 Each of the above developments has been assessed in the following sections.

Flood Risk

9.8.3 The first three named developments lie within Flood Zone 1 and are therefore at low risk of flooding, and unlikely to increase any flood risk to or caused by the proposed development at the site.

9.8.4 The majority of the proposed A358 dualling scheme is located within Flood Zone 1 ‘Low probability’, though the scheme passes through areas of Flood Zone 3 ‘High probability’. However, mitigation measures will be provided where required to ensure there is no increase in flood risk due to the A358 development.

9.8.5 The proposed improvements for Junction 25 of the M5 motorway are located within Flood Zone 3 ‘High probability’. The proposals for this committed development will include floodplain compensation on a level for level basis, as per the requirements by the EA, therefore mitigating any floodplain storage loss due to the proposed works.

9.8.6 As such the cumulative effect of additional development within the Taunton area is considered to be Negligible.


9.8.7 The committed developments considered under the cumulative assessment are greenfield sites which are to be developed into predominantly residential areas. This will increase the rate and volume of surface water runoff. However, it is assumed the surface water drainage systems to be installed as part of each proposed development will limit the rate and volume of surface water run-off to pre-development values as is required by regulations. Therefore, the




cumulative effect of the proposed developments within Taunton area considered to be Negligible and (depending on the individual drainage strategies proposed) may provide betterment to the existing situation.

Water Quality

9.8.8 Rainfall draining from the site as well as from the committed developments considered under the cumulative effect assessment ultimately drains to the River Tone. This is currently either directly via overland flow or indirectly via sewers.

9.8.9 As with the proposed development it is assumed that surface water drainage systems for the committed developments will be installed utilising SuDS and to the standards set out in the SuDS Manual. This will ensure a high quality discharge to receiving water body / sewer and ultimately the River Tone. Therefore, the cumulative effect of additional development in the Taunton area is considered to be Negligible.

Groundwater Quality

9.8.10 None of the committed developments lie within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone. An initial assessment of the relevant geological maps shows the committed developments to be underlain by predominantly impermeable mudstone geology with the majority of Taunton being within a Secondary B aquifer, which consists of lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering. These are generally the water bearing parts of the former non-aquifers. As such the cumulative effects of the committed developments with the proposed development on the groundwater quality is assessed as being Negligible.

9.9 Summary

9.9.1 This chapter assesses the likely significant effects of the proposed development in terms of water resources and flood risk, in particular water supply, water quality, groundwater quality, foul water drainage, surface water drainage and flood risk.

9.9.2 The proposed development is shown to be within Flood Zone 1, is not underlain by an aquifer and is not currently served by public surface or foul water sewers.

9.9.3 Of the environmental effects assessed for the proposed development, surface water quality and surface water drainage are the most likely detrimental effects to the environment if no surface water attenuation is provided. However, surface water attenuation is a requirement within the NPPF. Additional mitigation measures in the form of a comprehensive SuDS treatment train has been provided, allowing sedimentation to occur leading to an improvement in water quality entering the system, as well as ensuring surface water is held on the site for up to the 1 in 30 annual probability flood event, only allowing to discharge off the site at 2 l/s/ha therefore providing betterment to the existing situation.

9.10 References

Context Legislation, Policies and Guidance Documents

International Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC

The Groundwater Directive

National

The Water Act 2003

The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003




The Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001

The Groundwater Regulations 1998

The Surface Waters [Dangerous Substances (Classification)] Regulations 1998

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations (1998)

The Environment Act 1995 (as amended)

The Surface Water (River Ecosystem) (Classification) Regulations 1994

The Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended 2003)

The Land Drainage Act 1991 (as amended)

Food and Environment Protection Act, 1985

The National Planning Policy Framework, 2012

CIRIA C753 the SuDS Manual, 2015

Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water (the ‘Water Code’) (DEFRA 1995 PB2289)

Environment Agency (EA) Pollution Prevention Guidleines (PPG), the most relevant being:

PPG 1 – General guide to water pollution and prevention

PPG 2 – Above ground oil storage tanks

PPG 3 – Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems

PPG 5 – Works in, near or liable to affect watercourses

PPG 6 – Working at construction and demolition sites

PPG 8 – Safe storage and disposal of used oils

PPG 21 – Pollution incidence response planning

PPG 22 – Dealing with spillages on highways; and

PPG 23 – Maintenance of structures over water

Local

Somerset Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment

Taunton Deane Borough Council, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Taunton Deane Borough Council, Core Strategy 2011-2028

Other sources of information

EA website ‘What’s in your backyard’

Wessex Water – Asset Location Maps

Cranfield University Soilscapes website

British Geological Society website




10 Archaeology

10.1 Introduction

10.1.1 This chapter considers the likely significant effects of the proposed development on ‘archaeological assets’. It describes the legislative and policy framework, the assessment methodology, the baseline conditions within the site and its environs, the likely significant environmental effects upon identified and potential archaeological heritage assets, the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce, or offset any significant adverse effects, potential enhancement measures, and the likely residual effects after these measures have been employed. Potential cumulative impacts are also considered.

10.1.2 It has been prepared by Orion Heritage Ltd.

10.1.3 The chapter is supported by Technical Appendices F.1 – F.3. The technical appendices comprise:

Appendix F.1: Illustrative Figure;

Appendix F.2: An Archaeological Geophysical Survey and Desk-Based Assessment Henlade, Taunton, Somerset (desk-based assessment undertaken by Context One Archaeological Services in 2015; geophysical survey carried out by Stratascan in 2015); and

Appendix F.3 – M5 Junction 25 Business Park, Taunton. Phase 1 and 2 Ground Condition Assessment (Contamination and Geotechnical) (Peter Brett Associates (PBA) 2015).

10.1.4 Built heritage has been scoped out of the EIA (see Section 8.7 of the PBA Scoping Report April 2017, Appendix A.6).

10.2 Policy Context

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979

10.2.1 The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (as amended) protects the fabric of Scheduled Monuments, but does not afford statutory protection to their settings.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

10.2.2 Government policy in relation to the historic environment is outlined in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), entitled Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. This provides guidance for planning authorities, property owners, developers and others on the conservation and investigation of heritage assets. Overall, the objectives of Section 12 of the NPPF can be summarised as:

Seeking the delivery of sustainable development;

Understanding the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits brought by the conservation of the historic environment;

Conservation of England's heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance; and




Recognition of the contribution that heritage assets make to our knowledge and understanding of the past.

10.2.3 Section 12 of the NPPF recognises that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained for the long term.

10.2.4 Paragraph 128 states that planning decisions should be based on the significance of the heritage asset and that the level of detail supplied by an applicant should be proportionate to the importance of the asset and should be no more than sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal upon the significance of that asset.

10.2.5 Heritage Assets are defined in Annex 2 as: a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).

10.2.6 Archaeological Interest is defined as a heritage asset which holds or potentially could hold evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.

10.2.7 Designated Heritage Assets comprise: World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Park and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and Conservation Areas.

10.2.8 Significance is defined as: the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

10.2.9 Setting is defined as: the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

10.2.10 The NPPF is supported by the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG). In relation to the historic environment, paragraph 18a-001 states that:

“Protecting and enhancing the historic environment is an important component of the National Planning Policy Framework’s drive to achieve sustainable development (as defined in Paragraphs 6-10). The appropriate conservation of heritage assets forms one of the ‘Core Planning Principles’.”

10.2.11 Paragraph 18a-013 outlines that the assessment of the impact of a proposed development on the setting of a heritage asset needs to take into account and be proportionate to the significance of the asset being considered and the degree to which the proposed development enhances or detracts from the significance of the asset and the ability to appreciate the significance.

10.2.12 The PPG outlines that although the extent and importance of setting is often expressed in visual terms, it can also be influenced by other factors such as noise, dust and vibration. Historic relationships between places can also be an important factor stressing ties between places that may have limited or no intervisibility with each other. This may be historic as well as aesthetic connections that contribute or enhance the significance of one or more of the heritage assets.

10.2.13 Paragraph 18a-013 concludes:




“The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to access or experience that setting. This will vary over time and according to circumstance. When assessing any application for development which may affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities may need to consider the implications of cumulative change. They may also need to consider the fact that developments which materially detract from the asset’s significance may also damage its economic viability now, or in the future, thereby threatening its on-going conservation.”

10.2.14 The key test in NPPF paragraphs 132-134 is whether a proposed development will result in substantial harm or less than substantial harm. However, substantial harm is not defined in the NPPF. Paragraph 18a-017 of the PPG provides additional guidance on substantial harm. It states:

“What matters in assessing if a proposal causes substantial harm is the impact on the significance of the heritage asset. As the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear, significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed.”

10.2.15 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF outlines that where a proposed development results in less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset, the harm arising should be weighed against the public benefits accruing from the proposed development. Paragraph 18a-020 of the NPPG outlines what is meant by public benefits:

“Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 7). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits.”

10.2.16 In considering any planning application for development (or, in this case, an LDO), the planning authority will be mindful of the framework set by government policy, in this instance the NPPF, by current Development Plan Policy and by other material considerations.

Local Planning Policy

10.2.17 The Taunton Deane Core Strategy 2011-2028 was adopted in September 2012. The 2004 Taunton Deane Local Plan included policies EN21 Nationally important archaeological remains and EN22 Development affecting sites of County archaeological importance; these have been replaced by Core Strategy policy CP8 (Environment) which states:

“The Borough Council will conserve and enhance the natural and historic environment, and will not permit development proposals that would harm these interests or the settings of the towns and rural centres unless other material factors are sufficient to override their importance.”

“Justification: The Core Policy attempts to establish a clear and consistent approach to protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment. The natural environment includes wildlife sites of international, national and local importance; geological sites; protected wildlife species; protected trees, woodlands, orchards and hedgerows; Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; landscape character areas and green wedges. The historic




environment includes Conservation Areas; Listed Buildings; parks and gardens of special historic interest; archaeological sites of national and county importance and areas of high archaeological potential.”

10.2.18 The 2004 Taunton Deane Local Plan Policy EN23 Areas of high archaeological potential has been retained. This states:

“Where a proposal affects a site of archaeological interest or Area of High Archaeological Potential, or it is suspected the development could affect archaeological remains, developers must provide for satisfactory evaluation of the archaeological value of the site, and the likely effects on it, before planning applications are determined.

Where evaluation is considered to justify designation of an archaeological site of national or county importance, policies EN21 or EN22 will apply, otherwise, if it is decided that development is to be allowed, developers must provide for an adequate watching brief.”

Guidance

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice In Planning Note 2 Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (Historic England 2015).

10.2.19 The purpose of this document is to provide information to assist local authorities, planning and other consultants, owners, applicants and other interested parties in implementing historic environment policy in the NPPF and NPPG. It outlines a five stage process to the assembly and analysis of relevant information relating to heritage assets potentially affected by a proposed development:

Understand the impact of the proposal on that significance;

Avoid, minimise and mitigate impact in a way that meets the objectives of the NPPF;

Look for opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance

Justify any harmful impacts in terms of the sustainable development objective of conserving significance and the need for change; and

Offset negative impacts on aspects of significance by enhancing others through recording, disseminating and archiving archaeological and historical interest of the important elements of the heritage assets affected.

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England 2015)

10.2.20 Historic England’s Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 provides guidance on the management of change within the setting of heritage assets.

10.2.21 The document restates the definition of setting as outlined in Annex 2 of the NPPF. Setting is also described as being a separate term to curtilage, character and context; while it is largely a visual term, setting, and thus the way in which an asset is experienced, can also be affected by noise, vibration, odour and other factors. The document makes it clear that setting is not a heritage asset, nor is it a heritage designation, though land within a setting may itself be designated. Its importance lies in what the setting contributes to the significance of a heritage asset.

10.2.22 The Good Practice Advice Note sets out a five staged process for assessing the implications of proposed developments on setting:




Identification of heritage assets which are likely to be affected by proposals;

Assessment of whether and what contribution the setting makes to the significance of a heritage asset;

Assessing the effects of proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset;

Maximising enhancement and reduction of harm on the setting of heritage assets; and

The final decision about the acceptability of proposals.

10.2.23 The guidance reiterates the NPPF in stating that where developments affecting the setting of

heritage assets results in a level of harm to significance, this harm, whether substantial or less then substantial, should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

10.3 Methodology

Study Area

10.3.1 The study area for this chapter comprises the site itself and its immediate surrounding area. This approach has been agreed with the Senior Historic Environment Officer for the South West Heritage Trust, who advises TDBC on archaeological matters.

10.3.2 The archaeological desk-based assessment (Context One Archaeological Services 2015), was focussed upon the site itself and included a review of archaeological investigations beyond the site to provide a firm archaeological context.

10.3.3 The desk-based assessment included the results of a geophysical survey of the site (Stratascan 2015).

Consultation

10.3.4 Discussions have been held with the Senior Historic Environment Officer for the South West Heritage Trust, who advises TDBC on archaeological matters.

Data Collection

10.3.5 Detail of how the baseline data was collected for the desk-based assessment (Context One Archaeological Services 2015) is included at Appendix 10.2.

10.3.6 Additional data has been collected via consultation with the South West Heritage Trust and via consultation of documents uploaded to the Somerset County Council planning website in support of the M5 J25 improvement scheme, which includes land within the proposed development site boundary.

Assessment

The Value of Heritage Assets

10.3.7 Value is defined in the NPPF (Annex 2) as ‘… the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting’.




10.3.8 The NPPF identifies designated heritage assets ‘of the highest significance’, namely Scheduled Monuments, protected wreck sites, Registered battlefields, Grade I and II* Listed Buildings, Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens, and World Heritage Sites.

10.3.9 Current national guidance for the assessment of the significance of heritage assets is based on criteria provided by Historic England in ‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment’ (English Heritage 2008). Within this document, significance is weighed by considering four distinct types of value, namely: Evidential Value; Historical Value; Aesthetic Value; Communal Value.

10.3.10 Table 10.1 below sets out the criteria for assessing heritage asset value (ie sensitivity of the receptor).

Table 10.1 Criteria for Assessing Heritage Asset Value

Value Criteria Definition

High Archaeological sites of schedulable quality and significance

Designated Heritage Asset

Medium Archaeological remains not of the ‘highest significance’ but of demonstrable regional

importance

Non-Designated Heritage Asset

Low

Archaeological remains with local heritage significance and importance. Archaeological sites whose significance is limited by poor preservation

and poor survival of contextual association


Negligible/None

Archaeological remains where little or no significance remains (i.e. most of the asset is no

longer extant, with little or no contextual associations)


Assessment of Magnitude of Impact

10.3.11 The impact upon historic assets is defined as the change resulting from the proposed development that affects the heritage asset. The classification of the magnitude of impact on heritage assets is rigorous and based on consistent criteria. This takes account of such factors as the physical scale and type of disturbance anticipated to affect them and whether features or evidence would be lost that are fundamental to their historic character and integrity. Changes may be adverse or beneficial. Depending on the nature of the change and the duration of development, effects can be temporary and/or reversible or permanent and irreversible. Change in itself, however, may not necessarily be harmful to heritage assets.

10.3.12 The descriptions of change describe the ways in which an asset or elements of its setting may be harmed (or benefitted) by the proposed development, and will include the consideration of such issues as which, and how many, elements of an asset are affected; whether the change physically modifies the asset or whether it comprises changes in visual aspects, noise or access that would alter its setting; and whether the change in the significance of an asset will be adverse or beneficial.

10.3.13 The magnitude of impact (summation of direct and indirect impacts) on each individual heritage asset is assessed using the criteria in Table 10.2 below. Impacts may be adverse or beneficial. The magnitude of impact is measured taking account of mitigation and enhancement measures put in place.




Table 10.2 Assessment of Magnitude of Impact on Heritage Assets

Magnitude of Impact Description

Substantial

Total or substantial loss of the significance of an archaeological asset (i.e. the significance of an asset would be reduced to such a degree that its categorisation as an asset would be questionable).

Moderate Partial loss or alteration of the significance of an archaeological

asset.

Slight

Slight loss of the significance of an archaeological asset. This can include the removal of fabric that forms part of the asset, but that is

not integral to its significance (e.g. the removal of later extensions/additions to the below ground remains of

structures/buildings of little intrinsic value). Level of harm perceivable, but insubstantial relative to the overall

interest of the archaeological asset.

Negligible A very slight change to an archaeological asset. This can include a change to a part of an archaeological asset that does not materially

contribute to its significance.

No change No change to heritage assets or their settings

Determination of Significance of Effect

10.3.14 The significance of effect upon any heritage asset is a product of its value/significance, and the magnitude of impact upon it. This is illustrated in Table 10.3 below. Where two alternatives are given in the table, professional judgement is used to decide which best reflects the significance of effect upon the heritage asset.

10.3.15 The significance of effect is then discussed. Key principles to be considered are whether the effect comprises significant harm. In Environmental Impact Assessment terms, ‘significant’ effects are considered to be of ‘Moderate’ or ‘Major’ significance. When a significant effect is identified, it may be appropriate to propose suitable mitigation measures in order to remove, reduce or offset this effect.

10.3.16 The significance of effect can be adverse or beneficial. Such effects may also be temporary and/or reversible, or permanent and irreversible.




Table 10.3 Significance of Effect

High

heritage value

Medium heritage

value

Low heritage value

Negligible heritage

value

No heritage value

Substantial magnitude of

impact

Major adverse or beneficial

Major or moderate adverse or beneficial

Moderate or minor

adverse or beneficial

Negligible None

Moderate magnitude of

impact

Major or moderate adverse or beneficial

Moderate or minor


Minor adverse or beneficial

Negligible None

Slight magnitude of

impact

Moderate or minor


Minor adverse or beneficial

Minor or negligible adverse or beneficial

Negligible None

Negligible magnitude of

impact Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible None

No magnitude of impact None None None None None

10.3.17 The measured significance of effect may be expressed according to the definitions and criteria in Table 10.4 below. This corresponds to key heritage principles that are considered, in accordance with the NPPF, including whether the effect comprises substantial harm or total loss, and whether the value of an asset is such that change should be exceptional or indeed wholly exceptional. This therefore represents a ‘qualitative’ description of the identified effects.

Table 10.4 Description of Effects with reference to Heritage Policy

Description

Major beneficial Development will deliver a positive contribution and / or better reveal the value of a heritage asset of recognised international value such

that an application should be treated very favourably

Moderate beneficial Development will deliver a positive contribution and / or better reveal

the value of a designated heritage asset (or asset worthy of designation) such that an application should be treated favourably

Minor beneficial Development will deliver a positive contribution and / or better reveal the value of a non-designated heritage asset

Negligible So small or unimportant as to not be worth considering

Minor adverse

Harm to a non-designated heritage asset that can be adequately compensated through the implementation of a programme of

industry standard mitigation measures Less than substantial harm to the value of a designated heritage

asset, of a lesser degree than that perceived as Moderate Adverse,




but which should still be weighed against the public benefit delivered by the development to determine consent

Moderate adverse

Less than substantial harm or total loss of the value of a designated heritage asset (or asset worthy of designation) such that the harm

should be weighed against the public benefit delivered by the development to determine consent

Total loss of a non-designated heritage asset of medium value (i.e. which may contribute to regional research objectives) with

compensatory mitigation measures agreed with statutory consultees Harm to a non-designated heritage asset, of a greater degree than

that perceived of as Minor Adverse, which should be taken into account in determining an application

Major adverse

Substantial harm or total loss of the value of a designated heritage asset (or asset worthy of designation) such that development should

not be consented unless substantial public benefit is delivered by the development

Total loss of a non-designated heritage asset of medium value (i.e. which may contribute to regional research objectives) without

compensatory mitigation measures agreed with statutory consultees.

Limitations

11.3.19 This archaeological chapter is based upon a potential development scenario on how the parameter plan of the LDO would be implemented. It is important to note that the parameter plan does not specify a particular design. It is also important to note that the potential development impacts have been assessed assuming that the full extent of the parameter plan is to be built out – that is, a conservative scenario has been assessed.


10.4.1 A desk-based assessment of the site and surrounding area and a geophysical survey of the site (Appendix F.2) have established the baseline conditions.

10.4.2 There are no designated archaeological assets (i.e. scheduled monuments) within the site or within a 1km search radius.

10.4.3 Detail on the recorded and anticipated archaeological remains within the site is given within the desk-based assessment (Appendix F.2) and is summarised below.

10.4.4 An illustrative plan included at Appendix F.1 shows the locations of archaeological assets referred to in the text below.

Prehistoric

10.4.5 There are no known Prehistoric remains recorded within the site. Archaeological excavation at the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride, immediately to the north of the site, recorded archaeological remains from the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age periods. Settlement remains comprising a minimum of five roundhouses and three possible post-built structures dated to the Late Bronze Age and to the Late Iron Age and had associated pits, gullies, post-holes and an extensive spread of burnt stone. It is possible that contemporary archaeological remains may extend into the site.




Roman

10.4.6 Two findspots, one relating to Roman pottery and a second to a concentration of Roman artefacts, including building tile and possibly representing a Roman building, are recorded within the site, close to its boundary with the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride. Evidence of a field system and agricultural buildings were recorded on the Park and Ride site, along with 30 inhumations. There is potential for further Roman remains to be present on the site, especially along the northernmost boundary. Geophysical survey suggests a potential for further evidence of field systems within the central tranche of the site.

Saxon

10.4.7 There are no known Saxon remains on the site. A post-hole recorded at the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride immediately to the north of the site, contained a sherd of pottery which might be dated to the Saxon period. However, given the overall absence of Saxon recorded remains, the site is considered to have a low potential for activity dating to this period.

Medieval

10.4.8 No Medieval findspots are recorded on the site; however geophysical survey does suggest the below-ground survival of ridge and furrow agricultural remains, especially within the eastern and southern parts of the site.

Post-Medieval and Modern

10.4.9 The HER contains two entries for the site: a radar site and an anti-aircraft battery, both of which date to World War II and would be mobile features leaving no permanent remains on site.

Geophysical Survey

10.4.10 Geophysical survey of the site identified a number of features of archaeological origin which are likely to represent former enclosures and possible settlement activity; tentatively suggested as being of Roman origin. Field boundaries, evidence of ridge and furrow and modern ploughing suggests that the site formed part of an agricultural landscape from the Medieval period onwards. The former course of the Black Brook was recorded in the western quarter of the site.

Archaeological Monitoring of Geotechnical Investigations for M5 J25 Scheme Improvements

10.4.11 Archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations was carried out in advance of M5 J25 improvement works (Appendix F.3). No archaeological features, deposits or artefacts were recorded during excavation of the test-pits and it was concluded that archaeological remains were less likely to be present in those areas which were not covered by geophysical survey anomalies.

Archaeological Evaluation Trial-Trenching of M5 J25 Scheme Improvements

10.4.12 It is noted that the M5 J25 scheme improvements is to be the subject of archaeological evaluation trial-trenching (Written Scheme of Investigation prepared by WSP Parsons Brinkerhoff (April 2017) and submitted in support of the application).

10.4.13 These evaluation trial-trenches are located within the proposed development site boundary. The exact timing of when this phase of archaeological investigation will be implemented has not yet been agreed with TDBC. However, the results will be used to inform an archaeological written scheme of investigation for the proposed development following the LDO adoption.





10.5.1 The site has potential to contain archaeological assets principally relating to Prehistoric and Roman activity and to Medieval agricultural practice. Potential effects on these archaeological assets are identified with reference to the parameter plan included at Appendix A.2 and are considered prior to the incorporation of mitigation measures.

Construction

10.5.2 Construction of the proposed development may impact upon any archaeological features that may be located within the site. Archaeological activity identified within the Taunton Gateway Park and Ride site (and also part of the proposed development site boundary) may extend south into the site, and geophysical survey has recorded possible archaeological features extending across parts of the site. It is noted that the geophysical survey may not have recorded all archaeological features and, consequently, there is the potential for as yet unrecorded remains. Within the area of construction, any archaeological remains would be impacted by earthmoving operations such as topsoil stripping, cutting foundations, and the construction of infrastructure. This will result in their removal.

10.5.3 Table 10.5 sets out the potential effects of the construction phase.

Table 10.5 Potential Effects

Archaeological Asset

Heritage Value Description of

Potential Effect Type of Effect

Potential Prehistoric remains Up to Medium value

Removal of archaeological

remains

Up to Moderate to Major Adverse

Roman pottery findspot Up to Medium value


remains


Possible Roman building Up to Medium value


remains


Potential Roman field systems Low to Medium


remains

Minor to Moderate Adverse

Potential Medieval agricultural remains (ridge and furrow)

Low Removal of

archaeological remains

Minor Adverse

Potential Post-Medieval and modern agricultural remains

(ploughing)

Negligible to Low Removal of

archaeological remains

Negligible Adverse

Operation

10.5.4 All impacts on as yet to be discovered archaeological assets will result from the construction stage of the proposed development and suitable mitigation proposals in relation to this impact are set out below. Once these mitigation measures have been implemented ahead of




construction, archaeological remains within the site will have been fully excavated and recorded.

10.5.5 There will be no additional impacts on operation of the development to those identified during the construction phase.

10.5.6 Consequently, following the implementation of the proposed mitigation proposals, there will be no change to non-designated archaeological assets from the operational phase of the project.


Construction

10.6.1 In order to reduce potential impacts on the potential archaeological features identified in Table 10.5 above and as yet to be discovered non-designated archaeological remains, a programme of archaeological mitigation, comprising evaluation trial-trenching and, depending upon the results of the evaluation, other mitigation measures, as appropriate, will be implemented prior to construction.

10.6.2 The LDO will include a condition requiring a phased programme of archaeological investigation. The condition will also include a requirement for an archaeological mitigation strategy. This archaeological mitigation strategy will be agreed in advance with the Senior Historic Environment Officer for the South West Heritage Trust and advisor to TDBC on archaeological matters and will be set out in a formal Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI).

Operation

10.6.3 Mitigation measures implemented prior to construction will ensure that there are no direct impacts from operation of the proposed development on archaeological remains.


Construction

10.7.1 Following the implementation of the proposed mitigation above, there will be an overall negligible effect due to the archaeological investigation, post-excavation analysis and report research undertaken and the contribution which this will make to the understanding of the archaeology of the area.

Operation

10.7.2 Following the implementation of the proposed mitigation above, there is considered to be a negligible effect due to the archaeological investigation, post-excavation analysis and report research undertaken and the contribution which this will make to the understanding of the archaeology of the area.


10.8.1 The schemes to be considered for potential cumulative effects are:

Land at junction of A358 and Stoke Road, 26 affordable houses and associated parking;

Land at Polar Road, 12 houses;

Haydon House Farm, Haydon, Poultry Buildings;




M5 J25 proposed highway improvements; and

A538 improvement scheme.

10.8.2 Potential effects from these cumulative schemes on archaeological assets will be contained within their boundaries. Consequently, there will be no cumulative effects on archaeological assets from any of these schemes.

10.8.3 The M5 J25 highway improvement scheme is partially located within the LDO site. The archaeological desk-based assessment (Context One Archaeological Services 2015) and geophysical survey (Stratascan 2015) in Appendix F.2 have also been submitted in support of that scheme. An Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation for evaluation trial-trenching has also been submitted in support of that scheme. This programme of archaeological investigation has not yet been implemented (June 2017) and the timing of its implementation has not yet been determined (discussion with the Senior Historic Environment Officer June 2017). However, following adoption of the LDO, results from the M5 J25 improvement scheme evaluation will help to inform understanding of the LDO site’s archaeological potential and value and, as such, will help to develop the most appropriate archaeological mitigation strategy for the LDO site.

10.9 Summary

10.9.1 The LDO has been informed by an archaeological desk-based assessment (Context One Archaeological Services 2015), geophysical survey (Stratascan 2015) and analysis of recent archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations (Peter Brett Associates 2015). This analysis has been carried out by Orion Heritage Ltd and in discussion with the Senior Historic Environment Officer for the South West Heritage Trust and advisor to TDBC on archaeological matters.

10.9.2 The site has potential to contain archaeological assets principally relating to Prehistoric and Roman activity and to Medieval agricultural practice. The proposed development may have a minor up to major adverse impact on archaeological remains. However, it is considered that the archaeological potential of the LDO site can be secured through a carefully worded condition to be set out in the LDO. This condition will require implementation of a formally agreed archaeological evaluation and, should significant remains be recorded, a formally agreed mitigation strategy. The knowledge gained from excavation, post-excavation analysis and publication, along with public dissemination of the results, will result in an overall negligible effect in the long-term at local level.

10.10 References

CLG 2012 National Planning Policy Framework

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Chapter 9

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament 1983 National Heritage Act 1983

Historic England 2008 Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance

Historic England 2011 Valuing Places: Good Practice in Conservation Areas




Historic England 2012 Understanding Place: Historic Area Assessments in a Planning and Development Context

Historic England 2013 Conservation Basics

Historic England 2015 Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment, March 2015

Historic England 2015 Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets, March 2015

Historic England 2016 Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management: Historic England Advice Note 1

Historic England 2016 Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice




11 Other Issues Considered

11.1 Introduction

11.1.1 The Scoping Opinion (Appendix A.6) identifies the topics that have been scoped out of the EIA but that do need to be addressed for the proposed development. These are noise and vibration, air quality, ground conditions and contamination.

11.2 Noise and Vibration

11.2.1 The existing dominant noise sources affecting the site are road traffic on the local surrounding road network and the M5 to the west of the site.

11.2.2 The impact from the existing noise sources on the proposed development is not considered significant due to the commercial nature of the uses being provided. Noise sensitive receptors such as dwellings are not proposed within the development. Therefore, any impacts from existing noise and vibration sources on the development can be considered negligible.

11.2.3 Noise and vibration effects due to construction phase works will be of a temporary nature. The nearest noise sensitive receptors to the site are likely to be along Haydon Lane and the A358. It should be noted that these receptors are currently likely to be subject to high noise levels from the M5 and A358 and therefore additional impacts associated with construction are unlikely to significantly change the noise climate. Furthermore, the impact from construction can be managed by appropriate mitigation measures such as screening and hoarding, limited working hours and specific work methods. These measures (and other relevant matters, such as routing and access for construction vehicles) will be set out in the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). With effective mitigation through the CEMP, the impact from construction on existing noise sensitive receptors would be minimised.

11.2.4 The development is likely to result in a change in traffic flows on and around the site. This will have an effect on the prevailing ambient noise environment both on the site and in the surrounding areas. A review has been undertaken of the traffic flows supplied by the transport consultant for the A358 and M5 (in Appendix G.1). Based on the review of these traffic flows the impact on existing noise sensitive receptors is not likely to be significant with increases in noise below 3 dB which Design Manual and Road and Bridges describes as being a negligible increase in the long term.

11.2.5 Plant related to the development may be considered as a future noise source and could impact on nearby dwellings. However, given the nature of the proposals the plant is likely to be typical building services plant such as chillers and air handling units. It is anticipated that the impact would not be significant, due to the likely high existing background noise levels due to the M5. Furthermore, the control of noise from building services plant can be secured through the operational noise planning condition proposed in the LDO, and designed in accordance with the condition.

11.2.6 In summary, based on the understanding of the development and site location, significant noise and vibration effects are not likely.

11.3 Air Quality

11.3.1 An initial assessment of potentially significant air quality impacts was undertaken to inform the Scoping Report and it was not considered that there would be significant air quality effects from the development. The Scoping Report was formally adopted as TDBC’s Scoping Opinion. Further information was received from the TDBC Environmental Protection Officer in May 2017 relating to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in Henlade, less than 1km east




of the site. Air quality monitoring was carried out at sites in the AQMA at Henlade in 2016, which indicated that levels of pollutants were still exceeding the air quality objectives.

11.3.2 Therefore, an air quality assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken. This is presented in Appendix G.2. The assessment concluded that there would be not significant air quality effects. The assessment found:

The construction works have the potential to create dust. As part of the planning conditions for the LDO, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be required to ensure that, during construction, mitigation measures are put in place to minimise the risk of elevated PM10 concentrations and dust nuisance in the surrounding area. With this mitigation in place the construction impacts are assessed as being not significant.

Concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 have been predicted for a number of worst-case locations representing existing properties adjacent to the road network. Although there are a number of exceedances of the annual mean NO2 objective predicted in 2016, there are only two predicted exceedances of this objective in 2033 (both with and without the proposed development). There are no predicted exceedances of the PM10 or PM2.5 objectives at any of the existing receptor locations in close proximity to the site in either 2016 or 2033.

It is expected that the robust development traffic flows assumptions, together with the conservative nature of the assessment, will have significantly over predicted the assessment year roads traffic impacts. Overall, the air quality effects of road traffic generated by the proposed development are considered to be not significant as there are only two predicted exceedances of the relevant air quality strategy objectives at the existing receptor locations without or with the development in place, and the change in concentration related to the development at this location is approximately 2% of the objective.

The increase in NOx concentrations and nitrogen deposition on ecological receptors is unlikely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Children's Wood/Riverside Park Local Nature Reserve. Taking into account the predicted concentrations, the overall air quality effect of the development is considered to be not significant.

11.4 Ground Conditions and Contamination

11.4.1 A combined phase 1 and phase 2 ground conditions study was undertaken in 2015. The study included desk based reviews of published information sources, followed by ground investigation works comprising boreholes and trial pits. The assessments are presented in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Ground Conditions Assessments Report (PBA, 2015) in Appendix F.3. At the time of these assessments the study site boundary was slightly smaller than the current application boundary as it excluded the area of proposed landscaping between the proposed development plots and the M5 motorway. Whilst this area was outside of the previous study site boundary it was considered within the appraisals as part of the bordering site areas.

11.4.2 The site generally comprises agricultural fields, with the farmyard of Cambria Farm in the north. A historical landfill permit is recorded in the southwestern corner of the site, adjacent to the motorway. Three permits are associated with this area; one for ‘inert’ and ‘industrial’ waste from 1990 to 1994; one for ‘inert’ waste from 1990 to 1994; and, one for ‘inert, industrial, household, special’ waste from 1993 to 1994. Details of the actual type of waste deposited, its thickness and the construction/operation of the landfill are unknown.

11.4.3 Geology on-site comprises Topsoil overlying superficial Head Deposits and Alluvium (Secondary Aquifer), with Mercia Mudstone Group (Secondary B Aquifer) present at depth. The ground investigations recorded localised Made Ground within the farmyard in the north that comprised sandy clay with occasional fragments of concrete. Exploratory holes were completed on the southwestern edge of the proposed development plots where they border the historical landfill permit boundary. No waste or Made Ground was encountered in this




area. Exploratory holes have not been undertaken within the historical landfill permit boundary itself.

11.4.4 Groundwater levels were recorded ranging from 0.8 – 2.9m below ground level within installation wells.

11.4.5 Geo-environmental laboratory analysis of soils undertaken as part of the investigation recorded low concentrations of all test parameters. The assessment criteria for a commercial end use scenario were not exceeded, indicating that potential hazards associated with the soils are low. One soil sample was reported to contain asbestos (Chrysotile) fibres, however, the quantification test for this sample indicated a value below the reporting limit of 0.001%. The location of the asbestos detection was within the yard at Cambria Farm, which falls outside of the proposed development area.

11.4.6 Ground gas monitoring was undertaken to assess the potential risks associated with the historical landfill permit. Exploratory holes were located on the boundary of the proposed development plot closest to the landfill permit boundary, and across the wider development areas. Ground gas concentrations remained low and evidence of landfill gas was not recorded.

11.4.7 The Tier 2 Geoenvironmental Risk Assessment completed as part of the 2015 ground investigation report assessed the potential for contamination to be present at the site as generally Very Low, but locally Moderate where the historical landfill permit is located. Whilst the landfill is within the site it corresponds with an area of proposed landscaping and is outside of the proposed development plots. It is considered that the potential geoenvironmental risks associated with the majority of the site, including the proposed development plots, is Very Low. In the area of the historical landfill permit, whilst any previous waste deposition could introduce contamination hazards, the proposals do not include any changes to the existing land uses in this area and the risks are therefore considered to be limited. Further exploratory works undertaken in this area as part of future detailed design stages will facilitate full characterisation of the ground and thereby inform consideration of future public access to this area as necessary.

11.4.8 The site is underlain by Secondary Aquifers, and existing surface water bodies are present on-site across the north and west. There could be potential for surface water and groundwater to be impacted during the construction works as a result of potential fuel and chemical spillages. However, the sensitivity of these water bodies as potential receptors is not unusual and it is considered that the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with standard industry practice will be sufficient to reduce and/or eliminate the potential risk to the environment.




12 Impact Interactions

12.1 Introduction

12.1.1 Environmental effects can result from incremental changes caused by the interactions between effects resulting from a project. For the purpose of this assessment, the interactions between effects associated with the proposed development are defined as ‘combined effects’.

12.1.2 The direct and indirect effects of the proposed development have been assessed within the relevant topic chapters of the ES prepared by suitable technical specialists. Environmental effects are assessed relative to the topic under consideration. This approach can lead to the interaction of effects being reported in separate chapters but the collective effect on the same environmental resource(s) not being considered.

12.1.3 This chapter therefore considers the principal findings of each topic chapter of the ES to enable assessment of the potential for impact interactions. This chapter also therefore provides a summary of the likely significant environmental effects identified throughout the ES.

12.2 Construction

12.2.1 The assessment documented within this ES has identified that the majority of effects during the construction period will not be significant. However, those effects that have been determined to be significant (i.e. of level moderate or above in Table 4.1) and non-significant minor effects have been reviewed to identify whether there are any likely significant cumulative effects as a result of a receptor being affected by multiple impacts.

12.2.2 The LDO is proposed in response to local circumstances, in this case to plan proactively for employment generation in Taunton and the purpose of the LDO is to create a new strategic employment site for Taunton. The proposed development will result in the creation of construction-related jobs during the construction phases. This is a beneficial effect.

12.2.3 For visual receptors, significant effects during construction were identified for two viewpoints, VP3B and VP4. Both these viewpoints are located on the site so would be very close to and therefore notably impacted by construction activities.

12.2.4 However, no other significant effects were identified in relation to the local community so there should be no likely significant cumulative effects.

12.2.5 Site specific temporary (short term) adverse and significant landscape effects during the construction period were found for two landscape receptors: the site character area Open Arable Core and the features of Woodland, Trees and Hedgerows. These changes to landscape features and landscape character within the site are to be expected due to the nature and activity of the construction works required for the proposed development. No significant ecological effects were found for the proposed development.

12.2.6 The hydrology assessment identified that the runoff rate of surface water discharge will be reduced as a result of the proposed development, assessed as being a moderate beneficial effect.

12.2.7 No other likely significant cumulative effects have been identified during construction.

12.3 Operation

12.3.1 The assessment documented within this ES has identified that the majority of effects during operation will not be significant. However, those effects that have been determined to be




significant (i.e. of level moderate or above in Table 4.1) and non-significant minor effects have been reviewed to identify whether there are any likely significant cumulative effects as a result of a receptor being affected by multiple impacts.

12.3.2 A beneficial effect for the local community was identified due to the generation of, and support to, employment during operation.

12.3.3 For visual receptors, on completion the two viewpoints located within the site, VP3B and VP4, would continue to experience significant adverse effects. However, 15 years after planting, as the surrounding landscape strategy matures, there are no significant adverse visual effects.

12.3.4 Significant impacts have been identified in relation to air quality. The assessment predicted two exceedances within the East Reach AQMA in Taunton at two properties along East Reach, of the annual mean NO2 objective during operation of the proposed development (assessed for the year 2033). This was assessed as Moderate adverse impact at ‘receptor R2’ and Substantial adverse at ‘receptor R4’. However, predicted NO2 concentrations at these two receptors R2 and R4 are already above the annual mean NO2 objective without the development in place and the concentration increase brought by the proposed development is 0.7 µg/m3. These receptors are not predicted to experience any other potentially significant effects and therefore no significant cumulative effects are anticipated.

12.3.5 No other significant effects were identified in relation to the local community so there should be no likely significant cumulative effects.

12.3.6 On completion of the proposed development, the same two landscape receptors that experiences significant effects during construction: character area Open Arable Core and the features of Woodland, Trees and Hedgerows, will experience moderate adverse effects during operation. However, moderate beneficial effects are assessed to Public Rights of Way and Watercourses, as a result of the considerable enhancement that the proposed development is able to provide. No significant ecological effects were found for the proposed development.

12.3.7 15 years after planting, the site’s character area: Open Arable Core will continue to experience moderate adverse effects, whilst the site character area: Poultry Sheds, currently occupied by industrial scale buildings, and two features: Woodland, Trees and Hedges and Watercourses, would experience moderate beneficial effects.

12.3.8 No other likely significant cumulative effects have been identified during operation.




13 Glossary

AMS – Arboricultural Method Statement AOD – Above Ordnance Survey

AONB – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AQAP - Air Quality Action Plan

AQMA - Air Quality Management Area ATC - Automatic Traffic Counter

BS – British Standard CA – Conservation area

CAMS - Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy

CEMP - Construction Environmental Management Plan

CFMP - Catchment Flood Management Plan CIEEM – The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines

CROW Act – The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

CRTN - Control of Road Traffic Noise

CS Core Strategy CTA – Conservation Target Areas

CTMP - Construction Traffic Management Plan DAS – Design and Access Statement

dB - Decibel DEFRA - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DERT – Department for Environment Transport and Regions

DfT - Department for Transport

Diffusion Tube - A passive sampler used for collecting NO2 in the air

DMRB - Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

EA - Environment Agency EcIA – Ecological Impact Assessment

ECMS – Ecological Construction Method Statement

EDP – The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd.

EFT - Emission Factor Toolkit EFT - Emission Factor Toolkit

EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment EMP – Ecological Management Plan

EPUK - Environmental Protection UK EPUK Environmental Protection UK

ES – Environmental Statement EU - European Union

FEH - Flood Estimation Handbook GI – Green Infrastructure

GIS – Geographical Information Systems GLVIA – Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – Landscape Institute

GLVIA3 – Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Third edition)

GVA – Gross Value Added

HDV - Heavy Duty Vehicle HDV - Heavy Duty Vehicle; a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight greater than 3.5 tonnes, includes Heavy Gross Vehicles and buses

HGV - Heavy Goods Vehicle IAQM - Institute for Air Quality Management

IAQM - Institute of Air Quality Management IEA - Institute of Environmental Assessment

IEMA - Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment

LAP – Local Area for Play




LAQM - Local Air Quality Management LAQM - Local Air Quality Management

LCA – Landscape Character Area LCA – Landscape Character Assessment

LCA – Local Character Area LCT – Landscape Character Type

LDO – Local Development Order LDP – Local Development Plan

LEAP – Local Equipped Area for Play LEP – Local Enterprise Partnership

LI – Landscape Institute LLFA - Lead Local Flood Authority

Lmax - Lmax is the maximum sound pressure level recorded over the period stated.

LOAEL - Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level

LPA – Local Planning Authority

Lsmax - Lsmax is the maximum sound pressure level recorded over the period stated where the meter has a slow response (1 second) as opposed to a fast response which is usually set to 0.125 seconds.

LVA – Landscape and Visual Appraisal LVIA – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

LWS – Local wildlife site MAGIC – English Government’s online mapping tool

mph - Miles per hour MTC - Manual Turning Count

NAQO - National Air Quality Objective as set out in the Air Quality Strategy and the Air Quality Regulations

NAQO - National Air Quality Objective

NCA – National Character Area NEAP – Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play

NERC – The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

NNR – National Nature Reserve NO2 - Nitrogen dioxide

NO2 - Nitrogen Dioxide NOEL - No Observed Effect Level

NOx - Nitrogen oxides, generally considered to be nitric oxide and NO2.

NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NSIP – Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project

NTS – Non Technical Summary ODPM – Office of the Deputy Prime Minster

PAS – Planning Advisory Service PBA – Peter Brett Associates LLP

PFRA - Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment PIC - Personal Injury Collision

PM10 - Small airborne particles less than 10mm in diameter

PM10 - Small airborne particles less than 10 m in diameter

PM2.5 - Small airborne particles less than 2.5mm in diameter

PoE – Proof of Evidence

PPG - Planning Practice Guidance PRoW - Public Rights of Way

PSC - Potential sources of contamination r.m.s - Root Mean Square

RBMP - River Basin Management Plan Receptor - A location where the effects of pollution may occur

RPG – Registered Parks and Gardens RSA – Regional Scenic Area

SAC – Special Conservation Area SAM – Scheduled Monument




SCI – Statement of Common Ground SFRA - Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

SLA – Special Landscape Area SLS – Soft Landscaping Scheme

SOAEL- Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level

SoC – Statement of Case

SoCG – Statement of Common Ground SPA – Special Protection Areas

SPG – Supplementary Planning Guidance SPZ - Source Protection Zone

SSSI – Site of Special Scientific Interest SuDS - Sustainable urban drainage systems

TEMPro - Trip End Model Presentation Program TPO – Tree Perseveration Order

TRICS - Trip Rate Information Computer System TVIA – Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment

TVREC – Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre

TW - Thames Water

VE – Visual Envelope VER – Valued Ecological Receptor

VDV - Vibration Dose Value WFD - Water Framework Directive

WHS – World Heritage Site WTR – Woodland Trust Reserve

ZTV – Zone of Theoretical Visibility