Messrs Christian and Shipp (pdf 2.28mb)

Transcription

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Paul White [[email protected]]
22 November 2013 10:41
Planning Policy and Urban Design
[email protected]; LESLIE SHIPP
Local Plan Allocations (Publication Version) Consultation Comments - Objector Ref
09/0217
Ext Phase 1 Hab Sur-Land West of Emsworth Recreation Ground, Emsworth.pdf;
A083757 Coldharbour Emsworth Noise 23AUG2013 + Sketches.pdf; 320-10c - feasibility
plan for site allocation UE37-opt.pdf; LPAlloc coverOct2013.pdf; LPAllocReps
Oct2013.pdf; Questionnaire Publication Allocations Plan.doc
Dear sirs,
On behalf of our clients Mr Christian and Mr Shipp, we attach our comments on the Local plan Allocations document
within the deadline of 22 November 2013.
Our comments support the allocation of land west of Coldharbour Farm Emsworth (site ref UE37) in housing
allocations policy EM1 although we propose amendments to clarify that the housing target is approximate and
would not operate to prevent a slight increase in the number of dwellings above the 47 specified in the policy. The
representations comprise the duly completed questionnaire, a written statement from Genesis town planning,
report on noise from WYG and ecology report from Ecosulis.
We look forward to receiving an acknowledgement of receipt in due course.
Kind regards
Paul White BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI
Director of Planning
[email protected]
26 Chapel Street
Chichester
West Sussex
PO19 1DL
Tel: 01243 534050
DDI: 01243 534055
Mob: 07833 597790
Web: www.genesistp.co.uk
Offices also in Exeter and London
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. If
you are not the [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify Paul White immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to
be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Genesis Town Planning Ltd therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a
hard-copy version.
Genesis Town Planning Ltd, Amelia House, Crescent Road, Worthing, West Sussex BN11 1QR. Registered in England and Wales, Company Number 6849869
1
HAVANT BOROUGH COUNCIL
LOCAL PLAN (ALLOCATIONS) – OCTOBER 2013
REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF:
Mr Christian and Mr Shipp
NOVEMBER 2013
Genesis Town Planning
t 01243 534050 f 01243 534051 e [email protected] w www.genesistp.co.uk
26 Chapel Street, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1DL
Genesis Town Planning Ltd Registered Office: Salcombe House, 25 Fore Street, Seaton, Devon, EX12 2LE Registered in England & Wales 6849869
Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) Publication Version
1.0
INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF REPRESENTATIONS
1.1
These representations to the Havant Borough Draft Local Plan (Allocations)
Publication Version October 2013 have been prepared on behalf of Mr Christian
and Mr Shipp and concern land allocated for housing development in respect of
land West of Coldharbour Farm Road, Emsworth. The land has been identified as
a draft housing allocation in the Local Plan for 47 dwellings under site reference
UE37 in policy EM1.
1.2
These representations deal solely with policy EM1 and site allocation
UE37. They support the principle of the housing allocation on the 1.94 ha site
but request the policy is amended to ensure it provides the necessary flexibility to
allow an increased capacity of approximately 53 dwellings rather than the
specified 47 dwellings at present.
1.3
Our comments have been informed by a Noise Assessment prepared by White
Young Green, an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Bird Habitat Suitability
Assessment of Ecosulis and the findings of a preliminary Flood Risk Assessment of
Archibald Shaw which in consultation with the Environment Agency has considered
the flood risk implications of the proposed housing allocation.
1.4
An illustrative layout plan has been prepared by architects The Seaman Partnership
to demonstrate the site is deliverable and has sufficient capacity for approximately
53 dwellings and this is also attached.
November 2013
Messrs’ Shipp & Christian
1
2.0
SITE DESCRIPTION AND SUITABILITY FOR ALLOCATION
2.1
The site allocation referenced UE37 in the Site Allocations Plan Policy EM1 is
located between Coldharbour Farm and the existing services and hotel north of
the A27 on the north western side of Emsworth. Emsworth recreation ground
nearby provides a wide range of facilities, including playing fields, tennis courts
and a public car park, all accessed off the B2148 Horndean Road. Access to the
site is from existing residential development located off Coldharbour Farm Road.
There are no statutory ecological designations on the site although the stream west
of the recreation ground which forms the sites east boundary is a local SINC.
2.2
The centre of Emsworth lies a short distance to the south of the site and provides a
comprehensive range of services and facilities including 3 nearby schools. These
services and facilities can be easily accessed on foot from the vicinity of the site via
the underpass, or alternatively, regular bus services run along Horndean Road
north towards Rowlands Castle and Havant and south towards the centre of
Emsworth. The site is also situated in very close proximity to Emsworth railway
station, which is to the south of the site on Horndean Road, just to the south of the
A27 dual carriageway.
2.3
Overall therefore the site is highly accessible by a choice of means of transport
and enjoys absolute advantages in being sustainably located close to the centre of
Emsworth. It is also well related to existing residential development at Coldharbour
Farm Road. The allocation would not extend the built form of Emsworth beyond
the service centre to the west or north where the site boundaries are contiguous
and for all these reasons we support the proposed site allocation UE37 in
Policy EM1. However, whilst noting that the policy already states that
the specified number of dwellings for the site is ‘indicative’ we are still
concerned that this should not be regarded as an upper limit and
revised wording could set this out more clearly.
November 2013
2
3.0
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
3.1
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides guidance on plan making
and paragraph 155 states that ‘early and meaningful engagement and collaboration
with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section
of the community should be proactively engaged so that local plans, as far as
possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable
development of the area including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that
have been made’.
3.2
The Council followed this guidance and carried out a six week consultation exercise of
a range of alternative housing sites in May-June 2012. Over 1,400 representations
were received and the proposed site allocation UE37 came out as the top scoring
individual site for housing at Emsworth with over 25% of respondents who named a
site indicating it as their favourite.
3.3
The inclusion of the site in the Publication Version of the Local Plan Allocations
properly reflects this expressed preference and should be retained with the slightly
modified policy wording to allow more flexibility in its eventual housing capacity.
November 2013
3
4.0
ISSUES FOR THE SITE ALLOCATION UE37 AND CONCLUSION
4.1
The allocated site UE37 is referred to in Policy EM1 with a net site capacity of 47
dwellings. The number of dwellings is ‘indicative’ and the policy states that
planning permission will be granted provided that:
•
The proposals are consistent with the indicative figure for the number of
dwellings; and
•
Take account of all site specific development requirements set out in the
relevant site profile.
4.2
As stated earlier, we support the proposed site allocation UE37 and whilst noting
that 47 dwellings is meant to be ‘indicative’ we do not want it to be regarded as
an upper limit and revised wording could set this out more clearly.
4.3
Also, the pro forma to Policy EM1 need only refer to the site specific development
requirements and the remainder including the ‘Known Constraints’ in the table
could be deleted. The known site constraints for UE37 have all been overcome
anyway and we can confirm this below.
i)
4.4
Minerals Safeguarding Area
Minerals Safeguarding Areas (MSA’s) have been identified by the British
Geological Society. Their document ‘A Guide to Mineral Safeguarding in England’
2007 points out however, that they do not carry any presumption against
permission being granted for development which is incompatible with mineral
extraction. This designation should not therefore preclude development of the
UE37 site.
ii)
4.5
Archaeological Considerations
The site allocation UE37 is alleged to have moderate potential for archaeological
deposits but this potential can be safeguarded in the usual way with the imposition
November 2013
4
of model condition 55 from circular 11/95 on any grant of planning permission
which allows for the protection of sites of archaeological importance.
iii)
4.6
Ecological Considerations
Representations submitted to the previous 2012 draft Local Plan Allocations
document showed standard protection measures as part of any housing scheme
would mitigate the potential impact of Site UE37on the adjacent SINC stream and
its associated population of narrow-leaved water plantain. The potential impacts
on bird habitat have also been assessed and the accompanying report of Ecosulis
dated August 2013 confirms that the site is unsuitable to support wader birds or
Brent geese populations due to a lack of suitable habitats and high levels of
disturbance from adjacent urban environments.
iv)
4.7
Flood and Drainage
Although a small part of the site on its east boundary is in flood zone 2, work has
already been carried out and a drainage strategy agreed with the Environment
Agency in respect of flood mitigation and on site SUDS. A proposed layout plan
has been subject to a pre application enquiry and it is agreed that proposed works
will provide flood relief improvements to the site and wider area in connection with
the Emsworth Flood Alleviation Scheme. Foul water drainage is available to
connect to the existing system.
v)
4.8
Noise
The suggestion in the earlier draft Allocations Plan for mitigation measures to
reduce the noise impact of the adjacent A27 on the UE37 site allocation has
prompted us to provide a Noise and Vibration Assessment. The report dated
August 2013 updates the findings submitted to the last 2012 draft allocations plan
and responds to the revised housing layout for the site currently showing 53
dwellings.
November 2013
5
4.9
It concludes that the internal noise levels in the dwellings should all be achievable
even without the need for secondary glazing because the habitable rooms are
proposed to face away from the A27. There will still be a requirement to install
2.5m high acoustic barriers (in the form of acoustic fences) along the boundary of
gardens which are not screened from the A27 by proposed building envelopes.
The acoustic barriers can easily be provided as suggested behind the proposed
footpath link shown on the feasibility plan.
vi)
4.10
Other Planning Benefits
The development proposal for 53 dwellings has already been considered as a ‘pre
application enquiry’ by the Council and it concluded that ‘overall, there is no
principle objection to the site being brought forward for development’. It will
provide a footpath and cycle path to the service station on the A27 as shown on
the illustrative plan accompanying these representations. This will provide a much
needed safe pedestrian route to the garage/hotel.
4.11
The site is large enough to provide for landscape planting to safeguard residential
amenity and mitigate noise and light pollution from the service area and A27
running behind the embankment to the south. The northern boundary would be
strengthened with additional planting to provide a long term and defensible
boundary with the land further to the north. It should be noted that this land is
already protected as a Site of Interest to Nature Conservation (SINC) and this
designation will protect it from future development pressure. As such the
development of the subject site would not lead to further development beyond its
current boundaries.
4.12
The existing footpath Nos. 71 which adjoins the recreation ground as shown on
the layout plan in the south east corner of the site is retained without a need for a
footpath diversion.
4.13
The site area of 1.94 ha can provide around 53 dwellings with adequate open
space and would be equivalent to a density of 27 dph.
November 2013
6
4.14
30% affordable housing can be provided in accordance with adopted Core
Strategy policy CS9 equivalent to 16 dwellings to meet local housing need.
Conclusion
4.15
These representations support the principle of the housing allocation UE37 in
Policy EM1. It is the favoured preference for development amongst local
consultees and in delivering sustainable development it is entirely in accordance
with policy in paragraph 150 of the NPPF. There are no constraints from minerals
safeguarding, noise or vibration, drainage, flood risk or ecology.
4.16
The inclusion of the site allocation UE37 in Policy EM1 therefore contributes
towards the Plan’s overall ‘soundness’ and meets the requisite tests that is, it is
positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
4.17
However, in so far as paragraph 157 of the NPPF requires sites to be allocated to
promote development and flexible use of land, we propose minor changes to the
policy wording of EM1 to ensure it is flexible and does not inadvertently prevent
development coming forward that slightly exceeds the number of dwellings
specified in the policy. Our proposed wording is as follows:
Policy EM1
The following sites are allocated for residential development:
UE13 ……………………………………………………………………..
UE37 - West of Coldharbour Farm - 1.94ha - 53 dwellings
The number of dwellings shown for site UE37 is indicative but based on
known site characteristics and density considerations planning
permission will be granted provided that detailed proposals:
1. As a guide are in the region of approximately 53 dwellings, and
2. Take account of all site specific development requirements set out in
the relevant site profile.
4.18
The pro forma for site UE37 can also be amended to combine the site
opportunities and site specific development requirements under one Site Specific
Development Requirements heading and the deletion of the known constraints as
they no longer apply.
November 2013
7
LOCAL PLAN (ALLOCATIONS) PUBLICATION VERSION
Public Consultation
11th October – 22nd November 2013
Have Your Say!
The consultation period on this document runs from 11 October to 22 November 2013. All
comments and completed forms should be returned to the Planning Policy Team by 23:59 on
22 November 2013.
The document and accompanying evidence base, including the Sustainability Appraisal, is
available on the council’s website at www.havant.gov.uk/
Paper copies of the document and accompanying Sustainability Appraisal are also available at the
Public Service Plaza and at libraries throughout the borough.
Comments can be returned using the questionnaire, via email to [email protected] or
posted to the following address:
Planning Policy Team
Havant Borough Council
Public Service Plaza
Civic Centre Road
Havant
Hampshire
PO9 2AX
If you would like to comment on any part of this document then please complete the form overleaf.
This form has three parts:
Part A - Personal Details
Please note that representations are not confidential and that they will be published on the
council’s website and copies made available for public inspection. However, personal details, other
than the respondent’s name and/or organisation, will not be made public.
Part B - Your Representation(s)
Please fill in Part B for each representation you wish to make e.g. individual representations will
need to be made for each site allocation, strategic or development management policy referred to.
Please request additional copies of this form if necessary or supply information on separate paper
Part C – Any other comments you wish to make
Please fill in Part C for any additional comments you wish to make, not covered under Part B.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss any elements of the consultation document
further then please contact a member of the Planning Policy Team on (023) 92446539.
Please note that comments received cannot be treated as confidential as all comments must be
publicly available in accordance with government regulations. Please be aware that Havant
Borough Council and East Hampshire District Council are working in partnership and information
may be shared across the two organisations.
Please be aware that due to the likely volume of responses officers will be unable to provide a
personal reply to representations made during the public consultation period.
This questionnaire is available in other formats. To request any of these formats please
contact 023 92474174.
If you already have a consultee reference please enter it here: Objector Ref 09/0217
LOCAL PLAN (ALLOCATIONS) PUBLICATION VERSION
Public Consultation (Reg 19)
11 October – 22 November 2013
Part A
Contact Details
Title: Mr
Name: Paul White
Organisation: Genesis Town Planning
Address: 26 Chapel Street Chichester West Sussex PO19 1DL
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 01243 534050.
Important Information:
•
Please provide your name and full address. ‘In confidence’ representations will not be
accepted
•
Please complete Part A and then Part B for each representation made. Please copy or
download additional copies of Part B as required and Part C if necessary
•
All representations are publicly available and can be viewed on request
•
Please make your responses before the deadline of 23:59, 22 November 2013
Part B
Name or Organisation
Mr Shipp and Mr Christian 09/0217
1. To which part of the Allocations Plan does this representation relate?
Strategic
policy no.
Site
Allocation
ref. no.
Paragraph
no.
Page
no.
EM1 and Site Ref
UE37
Dev.
Management
policy no.
Evidence
Base Study
2. Do you consider the Allocations Plan ‘sound’?*
*The considerations relating to a development plan being sound are
explained in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 182)
Yes
No
X
If you ticked the ‘No’ box, do you consider the Allocations Plan is unsound because it is not:
(1) Positively prepared
Yes
(2) Justified
Yes
(3) Effective
Yes
(4) Consistent with national policy
Yes
3. Do you consider the Allocations Plan complies with the legal/procedural requirements
for preparing a development plan?
Yes
No
X
4. Please give details why you consider the Allocations Plan is unsound or not legally
compliant. Please be precise as possible. If you wish to support the soundness or legal
compliance of the Allocations Plan please also use the space below to set out your
comments.
(continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
5. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the Allocations Plan
sound or legally compliant. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your
suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
Whilst we consider the Allocations Plan sound, we propose suggested wording to policy
EM1 (site Ref UE37 – Land West of Coldharbour Farm Emsworth) to reflect the findings
of a pre application enquiry from Havant BC to a proposed planning application for 53
dwellings and associated works. We also include further supporting evidence to
demonstrate that there are no ecological, flood, drainage or noise constraints to the
development that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. The proposed wording to policy
EM1 should clarify that the housing targets are approximate and any slight increase in
site capacity would still be policy compliant. In our view, this would provide more
flexibility in providing for the housing needs of the area and make the plan more
effective all in accordance with paragraph 182 of the NPPF.
Please note your representation should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and
supporting information necessary to support the representation and suggested change, as there
will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further representations based on the
original representation at publication stage. After this stage, further submissions will be only at
the request of the Inspector, based on matters and issues they identify for examination.
6. If your representation is seeking a change do you consider it necessary to participate
at the examination hearings?
No, I do not wish to participate
in the examination hearings
Yes, I wish to participate in
the examination hearings
X
7. If you wish to participate at the examination hearings please outline why you consider
this to be necessary:
To explain why the site allocation would deliver sustainable development and meet the tests of
soundness in plan making set out in the NPPF at paragraph 182.
Please note the Inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those
who have indicated that they wish to participate at the examination hearings.
8. Do you wish to be notified at the address/email stated in Part A of any of the following:
(1) That the Local Plan (Allocations) has been submitted for independent examination
X
(2) The publication of the recommendation of any person appointed to carry out an
independent examination of the Local Plan (Allocations)
X
(3) The adoption of the Local Plan (Allocations)
X
Signature:
Date: 21.11.2013
Part C
Additional Comments
These comments need to be read in conjunction with the Planning Comments in the separate
Report of Genesis Town Planning, the Noise Assessment of White Young Green and the
Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey and Bird Habitat Suitability Assessment of Ecosulis.
Monitoring Questions are listed overleaf – these will be separated from
the main questionnaire on receipt and will not be used to identify you
further.
These questions are optional, but it would be much appreciated if you
could take the time to answer our questions to enable us to review the
effectiveness of our consultation.
Monitoring Questions
The following questions are optional and will help us ensure that we are reaching our community
and are purely for monitoring purposes.
Are you
Male
X
Female
Do you identify yourself as transgender?
Prefer not to say
Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has
lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? (Include problems related to old age).
Yes, limited a lot
Yes, limited a little
No
X
Which of the following age bands do you fall into?
Under 25
45 – 54
25 – 34
55 – 64
35 – 44
65 +
X
What do you consider your ethnic origin to be?
White British
X
Black or Black British Caribbean
White Irish
Black or Black British African
Other White (please give details)
Other Black (please give details)
_______________________________
_______________________________
Mixed White and Black Caribbean
Chinese
Mixed White and Black African
Arab
Mixed White and Asian
Other ethnic group (please give details)
Other mixed (please give details)
______________________________
Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi
Asian or Asian British Pakistani
Asian or Asian British Indian
Other Asian (please give details)
_______________________________
Ecosulis Ltd.
The Rickyard
Newton St Loe
Bath, BA2 9BT
Tel: 01225 874 040
Fax: 01225 874 554
www.ecosulis.co.uk
LAND WEST OF EMSWORTH
RECREATION GROUND,
EMSWORTH
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Bird Habitat Suitability Assessment
Client: Genesis Town Planning
Reference: GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
Date: August 2013
Version:
Draft
Final
Date:
23 August
2013
07 October
2013
Written by:
BM
Amendments by:
SK
Reviewer:
TW
SK
SK
TW
Company Registration Number: 372 4176
VAT Number: 601216305
Ecosulis Ltd. (London Office)
2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE
Tel: 020 8973 2428
Certificate Number
6745
Ecosulis Ltd. (Welsh Office)
Ecosulis Ltd. (Chester Office)
Y Beudy, Manson Lane, Monmouth,
Herons Way, Chester Business Park,
Wales, NP25 5RD Tel: 01600
Chester, CH4 9QRTel: 01244
715712
893130
Ecosulis Ltd. (Exeter Office)
The Innovation Centre, University of Exeter,
Rennes Drive, Exeter, Devon, EX4 4RN
Tel: 01392 247906
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
In July 2013, Ecosulis was commissioned by Genesis Town Planning to undertake
an extended Phase 1 habitat survey and bird habitat suitability assessment for land
at Emsworth. The purpose of this report is to inform a planning application for the
site.
The site comprises species -poor semi-improved grassland, hedgerows, woodland
and scrub habitats. No evidence of protected or notable species was recorded
during the survey, however habitats on site provide some suitable opportunities to
support badgers, bats, small mammals, reptiles, common amphibians and common
nesting birds.
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
2
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
Site name, location, grid
reference and size
Emsworth, Hampshire; SU 745 065; 1.8ha
Scope of Works
Extended Phase 1 habitat survey and web-based
desktop study and bird Habitat Suitability Assessment
(HSA)
Survey/evaluation
methods
Extended Phase 1 habitat survey is carried out in
accordance with JNCC (2010; Annex 1 gives full
methodology). Bird Habitat Suitability Assessment also
undertaken on site.
Plant names follow the nomenclature of Stace (2010)
The evaluation section refers to IEEM (2006) and
Ratcliffe (1977)
Purpose of Works
To accompany and inform a planning application.
Dates of site visits and
names of surveyors
19 August 2013; Ben Mitchell BSc
Overview
The site is divided up into five Habitats:
Hedgerow
Woodland - Broad-leaved - Semi-natural
Scrub - Dense/continuous
Poor semi-improved grassland
Ditches
No evidence of protected or notable species was
recorded during the survey, however habitats on site
provide some suitable opportunities to support badgers,
bats, small mammals, reptiles and common amphibians.
The site is considered unsuitable to support wader birds
or Brent geese populations due to a lack of suitable
habitats and high levels of disturbance from adjacent
urban environments. Hedgerows, woodland and scrub
habitats on site provides some suitable nesting
opportunities for common bird species in combination
with adjacent habitats.
Ecological receptors
Confirmed receptors:
None
Potential receptors:
Badgers
Bats
Small mammals
Nesting birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
3
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
Recommendations for
further surveys
A badger survey (during winter months when vegetation
has died back)
For more information on survey periods, refer to
Ecosulis online survey calendar
http://www.ecosulis.co.uk/page/survey-calendar
Recommendations for
protection of ecological
receptors
A Precautionary Method of Working (PMW) document
should be developed and implemented during vegetation
clearance to cover a pre-check for common nesting
birds (if clearance undertaken in nesting season) and a
watching brief by an Ecological Clerk of Works during all
vegetation clearance to ensure water vole, small
mammals, reptiles and amphibians are protected.
Retention and enhancement of trees, hedgerows and
ditches on site.
Key recommendations
and other
recommendations for
enhancement
Built-in bat roosts (bat bricks) on buildings
Bird nesting features on buildings / trees
Ecological input into the landscaping scheme
Refuge creation (log/rubble piles) for reptiles and
invertebrates
Enhance ditches for amphibians
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
4
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
SITE AND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS
General Site Description
1.
The site comprises two arable fields bounded by hedgerows. The site is located
immediately adjacent to a main road on the southern boundary, a commercial
service station to the west, and residential housing to the east. Farmland extends
north of the site. The site is centred on OS grid reference SU 745 065 and covers
approximately 1.8ha.
Component Habitats
2.
Species lists are provided in Annex 1. The location and extent of habitats is shown
on Figure 1.
Hedgerow
3.
Species-poor hedgerows are present on the boundaries of the site. These
hedgerows appear to be unmanaged and support low species diversity, dominated
by blackthorn and hawthorn.
Woodland - Broad-leaved - Semi-natural
4.
Semi-natural broadleaved woodland is present on the eastern boundary of the site
comprising ash trees with a scrubby understorey.
Scrub - Dense/continuous
5.
Scrub habitats are present on the southern boundary of the site, and through the
centre of the site along a dry ditch. Scrub habitats are dense and species poor,
including blackthorn, hawthorn and gorse species.
Poor semi-improved grassland
6.
Horse grazed semi-improved grassland dominates the site. As a result of horse
grazing regimes, grassland habitats support a short sward and are species poor.
Species include cock’s-foot, Yorkshire-fog, perennial rye-grass, ragwort, creeping
thistle, and dock species.
Ditches
7.
A dry ditch is present through the centre of the site, overshaded by dense scrub
habitats. A wet ditch is present on the eastern boundary of the site.
Adjacent Habitats
8.
The site is located within areas of high disturbance from the adjacent main road to
the south, service station to the west and recreation ground to the north. Agricultural
fields lie to the north and east of the site.
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
5
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
FIGURE 1
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
6
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
Key
Site Boundary
SI
Semi-improved grassland
Woodland
Scrub and woodland
SI
Wet ditch
Dry ditch
Species poor hedgerow
Standard tree
SI Reproduced from Ordnance Survey mapping
of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office © Acc: 100011381
SI
The Rickyard, Newton St Loe, Bath BA2 9BT
T: 01225 874 040 E: [email protected] Client
Project
Emsworth
Title
Phase 1 Habitat Plan
Date
Scale
Figure
Aug 2013
SCHEMATIC ONLY
1
www.ecosulis.co.uk
N
________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______
CONSIDERATION TO RECEPTORS
Designated Sites
Feature
Desk Study
Field Observations
Recommendations (Annex 3 details
legislation and planning policy)
Statutory
sites on
site
None
N/A
N/A
Statutory
sites within
2km
Chichester and Langstone Harbours
RAMSAR (wader bird populations)
The adjacent designated sites have
been predominately designated for
their wader bird populations.
Warblington Meadows is designated
for its unimproved grassland habitats.
A bird Habitat Suitability Assessment was
undertaken on site to asses the suitability of
habitats on site to support wader bird
populations, including Brent geese. The
survey recorded no suitable opportunities for
wader birds on or immediately adjacent to
the site. Disturbance levels are high on site
from adjacent main roads, residential
housing and commercial buildings, therefore
reducing opportunities for bird species. It is
therefore anticipated that there will be no
direct impacts to the adjacent designated
sites.
Chichester and Langstone Harbours
SPA (wader bird populations)
Warblington Meadow SSSI
(unimproved grazing marsh)
within
2.1km-4km
No designations within 4km of the site
with relation to bats
N/A
N/A
Nonstatutory
sites within
2km of the
site
Stream West of Emsworth Recreation
Ground SINC (narrow-leaved waterplantain)
No narrow-leaved water-plantain was
noted on site during the survey,
however access to the ditches was
restricted by dense scrub habitats.
It is recommended that ditches on site are
retained within the scheme with an
appropriate buffer and a suitable
management plan is implemented on site to
enhance opportunities for narrow-leaved
water plantain.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
7
________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______
Key to abbreviations
SPA - Special Protection Area
SSSI - Site of Special Scientific Interest
RAMSAR – wetland site of international importance
SINC – Site of Interest for Nature Conservation
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
8
________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______
Protected/Notable Species
Species/specie
s groups
Evidence of/suitability for
Recommendations (Annex 3 details legislation and
planning policy)
Flora
No notable flora was recorded on site during the survey.
Due to the current management regimes on site it is
considered unlikely that the site supports notable flora
It is recommended that standard trees and hedgerows are
retained within the scheme where possible. Where not
possible, it is recommended that consideration is given to
replacement native planting within the scheme.
Consideration should be given to implementing an
appropriate management plan on site in the long-term to
maximise ecological value within retained and newly
created habitats
Badger
Bats
No evidence of badger activity was recorded on site
during the survey. Suitable sett building habitat is
present in the form of adjacent motorway embankments,
however these were vegetated with dense vegetation
therefore could not be fully accessed. Grassland
habitats provide suitable foraging opportunities for
badgers in combination with adjacent habitats.
It is recommended that a badger survey is undertaken on
site over winter, when vegetation has died back, to fully
assess the use of the site by badgers, particularly within
areas of dense vegetation.
Trees on site are semi-mature and do not support
suitable features for roosting bats. Hedgerows and
scrub habitats provide suitable foraging and commuting
opportunities for bats in combination with adjacent
habitats.
It is recommended that linear green corridors, such as
hedgerows on site, are retained and protected within the
scheme where possible to maintain foraging and commuting
opportunities for bats. Where not possible, consideration
should be given to incorporating replacement linear green
corridors within the landscape plans for the site. This should
include hedgerow planting or tree lines.
Consideration should be given to enhancing the site for
badgers through appropriate planting and a sensitive
lighting scheme. Any excavations during construction works
should be covered at the end of the day, or include a means
of escape for badgers.
Consideration should be given to enhancing the site for bats
in the long-term, including creation of new roosting features
such as bat tubes, and use of native night-scented plant
species such as honeysuckle.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
9
________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______
Water vole and
otter
Ditches on site provide limited opportunities for water
voles. The ditches are heavily overshaded by dense
scrub habitats and have limited connectivity to adjacent
ditches.
It is considered unlikely that the ditches are currently
used by otters due to a lack of suitable opportunities
Other small
mammals
Hedgerows and scrub habitats provide suitable foraging
and refuge opportunities for small mammals, including
hedgehogs, in combination with adjacent habitats.
It is recommended that ditches are retained on site where
possible and enhanced through appropriate management to
enhancing their ecological value. If not possible, it is
recommended that vegetation clearance works follow a
Precautionary Method of Working (PMW) to include
supervision by an Ecological Clerk of Works to ensure that
any water vole burrows are protected (although this is
unlikely given the suitability of the ditches on site to support
this species).
It is recommended that vegetation clearance works are
undertaken under a PMW to include sensitive timings of
works and supervision by an Ecological Clerk of Works to
protect any small mammals present on site during the
works.
Consideration should be given to enhancing opportunities
on site for small mammals through appropriate planting,
management of habitats, and consideration to the creation
of deadwood piles.
Birds
The habitats on site do not provide suitable
opportunities for wader birds or Brent geese. The site is
currently grazed by horses and is subject to high levels
of noise disturbance from the adjacent main road,
commercial building and residential housing.
Adjacent arable fields provide some suitable
opportunities for birds. Adjacent cropped fields would
provide suitable opportunities for overwintering Brent
geese if stubble were retained over the winter.
However, these opportunities are limited in the area
from noise disturbance as a result of the site’s location.
The main road to the south, commercial buildings to the
west and residential housing to the east limits
opportunities on site for bird populations on site.
Reptiles
Scrub and hedgerows provide suitable refuge
opportunities for reptiles. Grassland habitats provide
It is considered unlikely that the site is used by wader birds
or Brent geese populations. Hedgerows and scrub habitats
on site, however, provide suitable nesting habitats for
common bird species. Where possible vegetation removal
works should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting
season (generally March to September). Where this is not
possible these habitats should undergo a pre-works check
by an Ecological Clerk of Works. Should any nests be
present these would need to be retained with a suitable
buffer until the chicks have fledged.
birds within any future proposals for the site, such provision
of bird nesting features / boxes and native species within
any landscaping scheme.
It is recommended that vegetation clearance works are
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
10
________________________________________________________________________ Ecosulis ______
suitable foraging opportunities for reptiles in combination
with adjacent habitats.
protect any reptiles present on site during the works.
Consideration should be given to enhancing opportunities
on site for reptiles through appropriate planting,
management of habitats, and consideration to the creation
of deadwood piles.
Amphibians
Hedgerow and scrub habitats provide suitable refuge
opportunities for amphibians in combination with
adjacent habitats. The ditches on site do not provide
suitable breeding opportunities for amphibians. One
ditch was dry at the time of survey, and the second ditch
is a flowing drainage ditch. It is therefore considered
unlikely that great crested newts are present on site.
It is considered unlikely that the site supports great crested
newts; however habitats on site provide suitable
opportunities for widespread species. It is therefore
recommended that vegetation clearance works are
protect any amphibians present on site during the works.
It is recommended that consideration is given to retaining
and enhancing ditches on site to enhance opportunities for
amphibians.
Invertebrates
Hedgerows, scrub and grassland habitats provide
suitable opportunities for common invertebrates in
combination with adjacent habitats.
invertebrates through appropriate planting and the creation
of deadwood piles.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
11
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
EVALUATION
Component
habitat
Ecological attributes
(referring to Ratcliffe
criteria, 1977; Annex
4 gives the criteria)
Status (UK
BAP/LBAP,
legal)
Associated
receptors
Overall
Value
(IEEM,
2006;
Annex 5
gives
the
criteria)
Hedgerow
Naturalness
UK BAP
Badgers,
bats, small
mammals,
nesting
birds,
reptiles,
amphibians
Site
None
Badgers,
bats, small
mammals,
nesting
birds,
reptiles,
amphibians
Site
None
Badgers,
bats, small
mammals,
nesting
birds,
reptiles,
amphibians
Site
None
Badgers,
bats, small
mammals,
reptiles,
amphibians
Site
None
Foraging
bats,
amphibians
Site
Diversity
Woodland Broad-leaved Semi-natural
Naturalness
Scrub Dense/continuous
Naturalness
Poor semiimproved
grassland
Naturalness
Ditches
Naturalness
Diversity
Diversity
Diversity
Diversity
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
12
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bat Conservation Trust (2012) Landscape and Urban Design for Bats and
Biodiversity. Bat Conservation Trust, London
Bing Maps Website Accessed at http://www.bing.com/maps/
Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy
Framework Department for Communities and Local Government. Accessed at
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf
Ecosulis (2012) Online interactive survey calendar. Accessed at:
www.ecosulis.co.uk/page/interactive-survey-calendar
HMSO (1981) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and subsequent amendments).
HMSO
HMSO (1992) Protection of Badgers Act 1992HMSO
HMSO (1995) Biodiversity. The UK Steering Group Report
HMSO (2000) The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000HMSO
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for
Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom Website. Accessed at
www.ieem.co.uk
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2010) Handbook for Phase I Habitat
Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit. JNCC Peterborough.
Mitchell-Jones A.J. & McLeish A.P. (3rd Edition, 2004) The Bat Workers’ Manual
Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) Website
Accessed at www.magic.gov.uk
National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Website Accessed at www.nbn.org.uk
ODPM (2005) Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to
Good Practice. ODPM
ODPM (2005) Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory
Obligations and Their Impact within the Planning System TSO
Ratcliffe, D. (1977) A Nature Conservation Review. Volume 1. CUP
Stace, C. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles 3rd Edition. Cambridge University
Press
TSO (2006) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act TSO
TSO (2010) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as
amended) TSO
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
13
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
ANNEX 1: EXTENDED PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Web-based Desktop Study
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Survey undertaken according to Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)
(2010) Handbook for Phase I Habitat Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit.
JNCC Peterborough.
The site, as defined by the client, is systematically walked and all habitats present
along with their dominant flora are recorded and mapped. Where appropriate, target
notes are used to highlight potential features of interest, such as provisional signs of
protected or notable species, or habitat features of note. The survey considers the
suitability of the habitats on site and within the accessible surroundings to support
such species. Habitats are mapped using standard colour codes allowing rapid
visual assessment of the extent and distribution of different habitat types.
Limitations of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey:
The survey will not record any plants or animals that may appear at other times of
the year and were therefore not evident at the time of visit. Some species that might
use the site or be apparent at other times of year, or only in certain years, would not
have been detected.
Web-based Desktop Study
The Bing Maps website was accessed for aerial views of the site and used as a
visual aid to help put the site into context with its surroundings and to identify any
potential features of interest in the surrounding land.
The Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website
was consulted for information on statutory site designations in the area.
The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) website was also consulted for information
on records of protected and notable species in the area.
Limitations of desktop study:
The desktop study can only provide information on species already recorded and
cannot be taken to represent a complete overview of all species present within the
search area.
References:
Bing Maps website accessed at http://www.bing.com/maps/
MAGIC website accessed at www.magic.gov.uk
NBN Website. Accessed at www.nbn.org.uk
Bird Habitat Suitability Assessment
A bird habitat suitability assessment was also undertaken. This survey assessed the
suitability of the site to support wader bird populations (including Brent Geese), the
connectivity between the site and suitable adjacent habitats.
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
14
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
ANNEX 2: SPECIES LIST (SPECIES RECORDED ON SITE)
Nomenclature according to Stace, C.
Edition. Cambridge University Press.
(2010) New Flora of the British Isles 3rd
Flora
Common name
Scientific name
Blackthorn
Prunus spinosa
Cock’s-foot
Dactylis glomerata
Creeping thistle
Cirsium arvense
Dock
Rumex species
Gorse
Ulex species
Hawthorn
Crataegus monogyna
Perennial rye-grass
Lolium perenne
Ragwort
Senecio sp
Yorkshire-fog
Holcus lanatus
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
15
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
ANNEX 3: LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
Bats
All British species of bat and their places of breeding and shelter are protected under
the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats
and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) from deliberate capture, injury and
killing; intentional or reckless disturbance; intentional or reckless obstruction of
access to any structure or place which any such animal uses for shelter or
protection; and deliberate damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place.
This includes buildings and trees and applies throughout the year whether bats are
present or not at the time of survey or work being carried out.
Although foraging areas and commuting routes are not afforded direct legal
protection, the effects of development proposals on these are a material
consideration in planning (NPPF and TAN5) and should be considered when
assessing the impact of the proposal on the maintenance of favourable conservation
status of bat species.
As protected species, bats are covered by NPPF, which states that the presence of
a protected species is a material consideration when considering a planning
application.
All bat species (except Pipistrellus pipistrellus) are listed on both the Habitats
Directive 1992 (transposed by The Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010 (as amended)) and The Convention on the Conservation of
European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). The principal aims of
the Convention are to ensure conservation and protection of wild plant and animal
species and their natural habitats, to increase cooperation between contracting
parties, and to regulate the exploitation of those species (including migratory
species). The Convention imposes legal obligations on contracting parties,
protecting over 500 wild plant species and more than 1000 wild animal species.
There are 18 species of bat found in the UK (17 species are known to breed here)
and all are included in the UK BAP. Seven species are listed as priority species;
priority species are those that have been identified as being most threatened and in
need of conservation. It should be noted that the identification of these seven bat
species as priority species does not extend throughout Britain (seven are priority
species in England and three are priority species in Wales).
Of the seven species identified as priority species, five also have specific SAPs,
which aim to further encourage and help population numbers.
Abbreviations: BAP – Biodiversity Action Plan; SAP – Species Action Plan; NPPF –
National Planning Policy Framework; TAN – Technical Advice Note.
Badgers
Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992,
which makes it illegal to kill, injure or take badgers or to interfere with a badger sett
in any way. The Act defines a sett as ‘any structure or place which displays signs
indicating current use by a badger’.
As a protected species the badger is covered by NPPF, which states that the
presence of a protected species is a material consideration when considering a
planning application.
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
16
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
Badgers are included in the UK BAP. They are not listed as a priority species and
are not afforded any specific SAP.
Abbreviations: BAP – Biodiversity Action Plan; SAP – Species Action Plan; NPPF –
National Planning Policy Framework.
Birds
In Britain all wild birds are granted legal protection under the Wildlife & Countryside
Act 1981 (as amended). This legislation protects birds, their eggs, dependant
young, and nests while being built or whilst in use.
Schedule 1 Bird Species
Schedule 1(1) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) affords full
protection to certain bird species. It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb
at or near an active nest of species on this list.
Birds of Conservation Concern
The bird species found in the UK, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are assigned
a red, amber or green category based on their conservation status:
Red List Species
Red List species are those that are globally threatened according to IUCN criteria;
those whose populations or range has declined or contracted rapidly in the last 25
years by 50% or more; and those that have declined historically (between 1800 and
1995) and not shown a substantial recent recovery.
Amber List Species
Amber List Species are those with an unfavourable conservation status in Europe;
those whose breeding population or range has declined or contracted moderately
(25 – 49%) in recent years, or whose non-breeding populations have declined to a
similar degree; those whose population has declined historically but made a
substantial recent recovery; and those which are rare breeders or have
internationally important or localised populations.
Green List Species
Species that fulfil none of the above criteria are green-listed.
Abbreviations: IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature
Reptiles
All British reptiles are partially protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981
(as amended), under which it is an offence to intentionally kill or injure a reptile.
All six species of British reptiles are included in the UK BAP. All six of these species
are included as priority species in England, though not necessarily throughout the
UK. Just one of the six species, the sand lizard, is subject to a SAP.
Abbreviations: NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework; BAP – Biodiversity
Action Plan; SAP – Species Action Plan.
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
17
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
Amphibians
There is no special protection afforded to the four commoner species of amphibian;
common frog, smooth (or common) newt, palmate newt and common toad.
The natterjack toad and great created newt and their breeding and resting places
are fully protected by both the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). It is an
offence to deliberately capture, injure or kill them or damage, destroy or obstruct
their resting or breeding places. It is also an offence to disturb natterjack toad and
great created newt in their resting or breeding places. This applies throughout the
year whether natterjack toad or great created newt are present or not at the time of
survey or work being carried out.
Four species of amphibian are included on the UK BAP: great crested newt, pool
frog, natterjack toad and common toad. All are priority species but just three are
subject to SAPs.
Abbreviations: BAP – Biodiversity Action Plan; SAP – Species Action Plan.
Great Crested Newt
The great crested newt is protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as
amended) from deliberate capture, injury and killing, intentional or reckless
disturbance, intentional or reckless obstruction of access to any structure or place
which any such animal uses for shelter or protection, and deliberate damage or
destruction of a breeding site or resting place. This applies throughout the year
whether great created newt are present or not at the time of survey or work being
carried out.
As a protected species, the great crested newt is covered by the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF), which states that the presence of a protected species is
a material consideration when considering a planning application.
The great crested newt is listed as a priority species in the UK BAP and has a SAP.
Abbreviations: NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework; BAP – Biodiversity
Action Plan; SAP – Species Action Plan.
National Planning Policy References
Reference should be made to the following documents:
England
Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy
Framework Department for Communities and Local Government
ODPM (2005) Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to
Good Practice. ODPM
ODPM (2005) Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory
Obligations and Their Impact within the Planning System TSO
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
18
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
ANNEX 4: OVERALL SITE EVALUATION – RATCLIFFE CRITERIA (1977)
Ratcliffe, D. (1977) A Nature Conservation Review. Volume 1. CUP.
The criteria for evaluation have been adopted from the widely used set developed by
Ratcliffe (1977). These were originally conceived to provide a systematic framework
for the selection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) by the Nature
Conservancy Council (NCC), but have since been adopted and adapted widely by
ecologists, for example in Local Authorities and Wildlife Trusts.
These criteria provide a useful basis against which to evaluate the intrinsic
ecological quality of a site, but in an urban area it is also important to consider the
value of an area to the local people (GLC 1985). Thus the appeal of a site, its
educational and amenity value, as well as its accessibility as a wildlife area, need to
be included in the evaluation.
Survey results are assessed and evaluated using these criteria as a guide. They
are:
Size
In general, larger sites are more highly valued than smaller ones, all else being
equal. However, relative size to similar sites and other local sites should be
considered. The area of a site is also important in management terms, i.e. whether
short-term neglect/disturbance or any small changes would lead to the loss of a
site’s interest.
Diversity
One of the most important site attributes is the variety of communities and species
which is largely dependent on diversity of habitats. Large numbers of species,
particularly when represented by large populations, are to be valued. Diversity can
also be related to habitat instability that may affect management prescriptions.
Naturalness
Ecosystems least modified by man tend to be rated more highly. However, most
sites are influenced by man, the degree and nature of which is important.
Fragility
This reflects the degree of sensitivity of habitats, communities and species to
environmental change. Fragile sites often represent ecosystems that are highly
fragmented, dwindling or difficult to re-create.
Typicalness
Sites/habitats that are unusual within the wider ecological unit are may be of value,
similarly sites/habitats that are typical and commonplace within a field of ecological
variation may also be of value.
Recorded History
The existence of a scientific record of long-standing adds considerably to the value
of a site.
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
19
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
Permanence
A site that has been occupied by a semi-natural habitat for a long time is usually
more valuable than one that has only recently arisen. This is because they have
had time to acquire rich assemblages of plants and animals.
Lack of Modification
Adverse influences from humans, such as inappropriate management regimes and
pollution, will reduce the quality of an area.
Rarity
Rarity is concerned with communities and habitats as well as species. The
presence of rare species adds to overall ecological value especially when a habitat
also ranks highly on other criteria. The habitat type too may also be nationally or
regionally rare.
Position in an Ecological Unit
In the event of two sites being of equivalent intrinsic value, the close proximity of one
site to a highly rated example of another type increases the value of the site. The
presence of other areas of semi-natural habitat adjacent or close to a site enhances
the value of both habitats.
Potential Value
Certain sites could, through appropriate management or even natural change,
eventually develop a nature conservation interest substantially greater than that
existing at present.
Intrinsic Appeal
While science may view all creatures as equal, pragmatism dictates that in nature
conservation it is realistic to give more weight to the more popular appeal of some
species, groups or habitats than others.
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
20
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
ANNEX 5: DEFINING ECOLOGICAL VALUES FOR COMPONENT
HABITATS – IEEM (2006)
The examples contained in the table below are only for general guidance and other
considerations may apply, e.g. features of low value in isolation but which are
subject to cumulative national decline may be afforded higher values in certain
circumstances.
Level of Ecological
Value
Examples of Criteria
International
•
An internationally designated site or candidate site
(SPA, pSPA, SAC, cSAC, Ramsar site, Biogenetic
Reserve)
•
A sustainable area of a habitat listed in Annex I of
the Habitats Directive, or smaller areas of such
habitat that are essential to maintain the viability of
a larger whole
•
A sustainable population of an internationally
important species, e.g. a UK Red Data Book
species, species listed under categories 1 or 2 of
the UK BAP, or listed under Annex IV of the
Habitats Directive
•
Sites supporting a breeding population of
internationally important species or supplying a
critical element of their habitat requirements
•
A nationally designated site (SSSI, ASSI, NNR,
MNR) or a discrete area that meets the selection
criteria for national designation (e.g. SSSI
selection guidelines)
•
A sustainable area of a priority habitat identified in
the UK BAP, or smaller areas of such habitat that
are essential to maintain the viability of a larger
whole
•
A sustainable population of a nationally important
species or a site supporting such a species, i.e. a
species listed on Schedules 5 and 8 of the W&CA
(as amended) which is a UK Red Data Book
species that is not listed as being of unfavourable
conservation status in Europe, of uncertain
conservation status or of global concern in the UK
BAP
•
A non-Red Data Book species that is listed as
occurring in 15 or fewer 10km squares in the UK
(categories 1 and 2 of the UK BAP). Also sites
supporting a breeding population of such a species
or supplying a critical element of their habitat
requirements
•
Sustainable areas of key habitat identified in the
relevant Regional BAP or smaller areas of such
National
Regional
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
21
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
Level of Ecological
Value
habitat that are essential to maintain the viability of
a larger whole
County/ Metropolitan
District
Local
•
Sustainable areas of key habitat identified as being
of Regional Value in the appropriate Natural Areas
profile
•
A population of a species listed as being nationally
scarce (i.e. occurring in 16 - 100 10km squares in
the UK, or in a Regional BAP or relevant Natural
Area on account of its regional rarity or localisation.
Sites supporting a breeding population of such a
species or supplying a critical element of their
habitat requirements
•
Sites, which exceed the County-level designations
but fall short of SSSI selection guidelines, where
these occur
•
Semi-natural ancient woodland greater than 0.25
ha
•
County/Metropolitan sites and other sites which
meet the ecological selection criteria for
designation
•
A sustainable area of habitat identified in a county
BAP
•
A population of a species that is listed in a
county/metropolitan ‘red data book’ or BAP on
account of its regional rarity or localisation. Also
sites supporting a breeding population of such a
habitat requirements
•
Semi-natural ancient woodland smaller than 0.25
ha
•
Sustainable areas of habitat identified in a subcounty (district/borough) BAP or in the relevant
Natural Area profile
•
Sites/features that are scarce within the
district/borough or which appreciably enrich the
district/borough habitat resource
•
A diverse and/or ecologically valuable hedgerow
network
•
A population of a species that is listed in a
district/borough BAP because of its rarity in the
locality or in the relevant Natural Area profile
because of its regional rarity or localisation. Also
sites supporting a breeding population of such a
requirements
•
Areas of habitat considered to appreciably enrich
the habitat resource within the context of the Parish
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
22
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
__________________________________________ Ecosulis _____
Level of Ecological
Value
or local neighbourhood, e.g. isolated species-rich
hedgerows
Site
•
Small patches of poor semi-improved grassland,
amenity grassland not used by badgers
Negligible
•
Areas of little current or potential ecological value
_________________________________________________________________________
EMSWORTH
23
GENTOW-EMSREC-C5123
Leslie Shipp & David Christian
Proposed Residential Development
Coldharbour Farm, Emsworth
Noise Assessment
August 2013
Executive Park, Avalon Way, Anstey, Leicester, LE7 7GR
Tel: +44 (0)116 234 8000
Email: [email protected]
www.wyg.com
creative minds safe hands
Document Control
Project:
Proposed Residential Development, Coldharbour Farm, Emsworth
Client:
Leslie Shipp & David Christian
Job Number:
A083757
File Origin:
O:\Acoustics Air Quality and Noise\Active Projects\A083757
Document Checking:
Graham Davis
Prepared by:
Consultant Environmental Scientist
Checked by:
Initialled:
GD
Initialled:
Nigel Mann
Verified by:
Initialled:
Director
Issue
Date
Status
1
21st Dec 2012
First Issue
2
24th Dec 2012
Second Issue
3
23rd August 2013
Third Issue – Layout Amendments
NM
4
www.wyg.com
Contents Page
1.0
Introduction.................................................................................................................................1
2.0
Assessment Criteria ......................................................................................................................2
3.0
Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................................3
4.0
Noise Survey ...............................................................................................................................7
5.0
Assessment of Key Effects ............................................................................................................9
6.0
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix Contents
Appendix A – Acoustic Terminology and Abbreviations
Appendix B – Sketches
www.wyg.com
Noise Assessment Report
1.0 Introduction
1.1
Purpose of this Report
This report presents the findings of a noise and vibration assessment for a proposed residential
development west of Coldharbour Farm Road, Emsworth.
A description of the existing noise environment in and around the site is provided. Noise surveys have been
undertaken and the results used to verify predictions of the short-term and long-term effects of noise. The
noise levels from the proposed development have been predicted at local representative receptors using
CADNA noise modelling software which incorporates ISO 9613 and CRTN methodologies and calculations.
A list of acoustic terminology and abbreviations used in this report is provided in Appendix A and a set of
location plans and noise contour plots relevant to the assessment are presented in Appendix B.
1.2
Legislative Context (England)
PPG24 was replaced by NPPF on 27 March 2012. With regard to noise and planning NPPF contains the
following 4 short statements (section 123):
A. Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of
new development;
B. Mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from
noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;
C. Recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to
develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them
because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and
D. Identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and
are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
1
A083757
August 2013
2.0 Assessment Criteria
2.1
Internal Noise Assessment Criteria
The criteria in BS 8233:1999 ‘Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings – code of practice’ has
been chosen as a suitable method for determining an adequate level of noise control to ensure that noise
levels within existing properties, as a result of the proposed development, meet the following noise
guideline values specified in the standard:
Good
Reasonable
Living rooms
LAeq =
30
-
40 dB
Bedrooms
LAeq =
30
-
35 dB,
Gardens
LAeq =
50
-
55 dB
LAmax, night-time = 45 dB
BS 8233:1999 suggests that a typical façade, regardless of construction, will offer a maximum of 15 dB
sound insulation when windows are open. For the purposes of this assessment, the maximum external
noise level from the source under consideration will be 50 dB(A) during the daytime, and 45 dB(A) during
the night-time to ensure a maximum daytime LAeq of 35 dB, and a maximum night-time LAeq of 30 dB within
habitable rooms are achieved.
These levels are also comparable to the World Health Organisation Recommendations in their ‘Guidelines
for Community Noise’ (1999) publication which states that outdoor levels of 45 dB LAeq,T for open windows
at night or internal levels of 30 dB LAeq,T are guideline values to prevent sleep disturbance.
Similarly
outdoor levels of 60 dB LAmax for open windows at night or internal levels of 45 dB LAmax are also maximum
guideline values to prevent sleep disturbance.
2
A083757
August 2013
3.0 Assessment Methodology
3.1
Noise Modelling Methodology
Three dimensional noise modelling has been undertaken based on the monitoring data to predict LAeq and
LAmax noise levels at a large number of locations both horizontally and vertically. CADNA noise modelling
software has been used (as shown in Figure 3.1). This model is based on the Department of Transport
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) and ISO 9613 noise propagation methodology and allows for
detailed prediction of noise levels to be undertaken for large numbers of receptor points and different noise
emission scenarios both horizontally and vertically.
Figure 3.1
CADNA Noise Model
Proposed
Development
A27
3
A083757
August 2013
The modelling software calculates noise levels based on the emission parameters and spatial settings that
are entered. Input data, assumptions and model settings as given in the table below have been used.
Table 3.1
Modelling Parameters Sources and Assumptions
Parameter
Source
Details
Horizontal distances – around site
Ordnance Survey
Ordnance Survey
Ground levels – around site
Ordnance Survey
Ordnance Survey
Ground levels – other areas
Site Observations and Ordnance
Survey
OS 1:25,000 contours and OS 1:10,000 spot
heights.
Traffic data, main surrounding roads
WYGE
Traffic flows for local roads based on WYGE
observations and experience.
Traffic data – local roads
WYGE
Traffic flows for local roads based on WYGE
observations and experience.
Building heights – around site
WYGE Observations
8 m height for two storey residential properties,
and 4 m for Bungalows
Barrier heights
WYGE Observations
No barriers included within the model other
than proposed barriers.
Receptor positions
WYGE
0.05m from façade, 1m height for gardens,
height of 1.5 m for ground floor, 4 m for first
floor properties with ground floor or bungalow
dormer windows. 7 m for dormer windows on
two storey properties. 1.5 m height for model
grid and monitoring locations for validation.
Absorbent Ground
CADNA
Frequency dependant ground absorption has
been applied based on values specified in VDI
2714/16 clause 6.3.
It is acknowledged that a number of these assumptions will affect the overall noise levels presented in this
report. However it should be noted that certain assumptions made, as identified above, are worst case.
4
A083757
August 2013
3.2
Model Input Data
3.2.1
Traffic Noise Data
All roads expected to make a significant contribution, have been included within this assessment. Noise
emissions from existing traffic flows have been derived from verification of the measured noise levels, along
with observations made during the site survey and/or WYG Environment (WYGE) experience of similar road
systems. Estimates of the vehicle speeds have been made based upon the speed restrictions currently in
force in the area.
3.2.2
Model Verification
The model was verified by modelling the monitoring locations for the ‘existing’ scenario. A daytime and
night time LAeq and night time LAmax scenario has been verified. The comparison between the monitoring and
modelling results are shown in the tables below.
Table 3.2 Modelled vs. Monitored Results LAeq; daytime
07:00 – 23:00
Location
Monitored LAeq
Modelled LAeq
Difference between
Monitored and Modelled
Results
LT1
77.6
77.8
0.2
LT2
66.7
66.7
0.0
All values are sound pressure levels in dB re: 2x 10-5 Pa
Table 3.3 Modelled vs. Monitored Results LAeq; night-time
23:00– 07:00
Location
Monitored LAeq
Modelled LAeq
Difference between
Results
LT1
71.4
71.7
0.3
LT2
60.6
60.6
0.0
Table 3.4 Modelled vs. Monitored Results LAmax; night-time
23:00– 07:00
Location
Monitored LAmax
Modelled LAmax
Difference between
Results
LT1
85.3
83.4
-1.9
LT2
69.6
70.7
1.1
The verification points show a divergence between monitored and modelled results of no more than 1.9 dB.
(15 minute night-time measurement), all models are assumed to be suitably verified.
5
A083757
August 2013
3.2.3
Sensitive Receptors
Existing noise levels have been assessed at properties throughout the site with respect to direct noise from
the existing ambient noise climate surrounding the site. The layout showing the locations of the proposed
receptors assessed is shown of SK02 of Appendix B.
Table 3.5 Residential Receptor Locations
Ref.
R1
Description
Property to the south of the site
Closest Source
Approximate
Distance To
Source (m)
A27
42.5
4.0
Height (m)
R2
A27
33.5
4.0
R3
A27
29.15
4.0
R4
A27
21.5
4.0
R5
A27
39.23
4.0
R6
Property to the north west of the site
A27
76.15
4.0
R7
Property to the north west of the site
A27
97.25
4.0
R8
Property to the north of the site
A27
97.35
4.0
R9
Property to the north of the site
A27
108.68
4.0
R10
Property to the north east of the site
A27
129.35
4.0
R11
Property to the centre of the site
A27
97.52
4.0
R12
A27
78.25
4.0
R13
A27
62.57
4.0
R14
A27
61.2
4.0
R15
A27
65.44
4.0
Closest Source
Approximate
Distance To
Source (m)
Height (m)
Table 3.6 Garden Receptor Locations
Ref.
Description
G1
Plot to the south west of the site
A27
18.7
1.0
G2
Plot to the centre of the site
A27
76.5
1.0
G3
Plot to the centre of the site
A27
66.5
1.0
G4
Plot to the north of the site
A27
95.2
1.0
G5
Plot to the north of the site
A27
107.5
1.0
G6
Plot to the north east of the site
A27
133.5
1.0
6
A083757
August 2013
4.0 Noise Survey
4.1
Noise Survey Methodology
A monitoring survey was undertaken to characterise baseline ambient noise levels currently experienced on
the site and to establish the relative local background and traffic noise levels.
Equipment used during the survey included:
B&K 2260
Environmental Noise Analyser (WYG1)
s/n
2361273
B&K 2238
s/n
2684499
B&K 4231
Calibrator
s/n
2176211
Rion NL-32
s/n
123729
Rion NL-32
s/n
213442
The measurement equipment was checked against the appropriate calibrator at the beginning and end of
the measurements, in accordance with recommended practice and no drift was observed. The accuracy of
the calibrators can be traced to National Physical Laboratory Standards, calibration certificates for which are
available on request.
A baseline monitoring survey was undertaken at five locations (as specified in the following table and
shown in SK01 of Appendix B) from Wednesday 5th December 2012 to Wednesday 12th December 2012.
Attended short term measurements were undertaken at two locations during the day, evening, peak and
night-time periods with three additional locations being measured unattended over a 112 hour period. The
raw data collected from the long term monitoring is available upon request.
Measurements were taken in general accordance with BS 7445-1:2003 The Description and Measurement
of Environmental Noise: Guide to quantities and procedures. Weather conditions during the survey period
were observed as being cold and dry with minor scattered showers. Anemometer readings confirmed that
wind speeds were less than 5 ms-1 at all times during the survey with a predominant westerly wind
direction.
Table 4.1
Noise Monitoring Locations
Ref
Grid Reference
Description
X
Y
LT1
Southern Boundary of Coldharbour Farm
474458.80
106493.04
LT2
Western Boundary of Coldharbour Farm
474443.45
106562.41
ST1
Coldharbour Farm Road Facing Coldharbour Farm Field
474634.93
106481.64
ST2
Car Park Facing Playing Fields Adjacent to Coldharbour Farm Road
474677.25
106647.52
7
A083757
August 2013
4.2
Noise Survey Results
Existing ambient noise levels around the site are dominated by the A27. Noise from the railway line to the
south was occasionally audible at the site.
Ambient and background noise levels are usually described using the LAeq index (a form of energy average)
and the LA90 index (i.e. the level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period) respectively. Road traffic
noise is generally described using the LA10 index (i.e. the level exceeded for 10% of the measurement
period).
The results of the statistical measurements and frequency measurements conducted during the survey are
summarised in the following table. All values are sound pressure levels in dB (re: 2 x 10-5 Pa).
Table 4.2
Period
Results of Baseline Noise Monitoring Survey (Average Levels)
Duration
(T)
Monitoring Date and Times
Day
07:00 - 23:00
112 hours
05/12/2012 - 12/12/2012
13:20 - 12:50
Night
23:00 – 07:00
56 hours
05/12/2012 - 12/12/2012
23:00 - 07:00
Day
07:00 - 23:00
112 hours
05/12/2012 - 12/12/2012
13:28 - 12:48
Location
LAeq,T
LAmax,T
LAmin,T
LA10,T
LA90,T
(dB)
(dB)
(dB)
(dB)
(dB)
77.6
87.0
40.5
81.0
65.3
71.4
85.3
32.2
69.7
46.8
66.7
73.5
58.7
66.2
61.2
60.6
69.6
33.0
61.6
48.4
LT1
LT2
Night
23:00 – 07:00
56 hours
05/12/2012 - 12/12/2012
23:00 - 07:00
15 Mins
05/12/2012 14:20
ST1
65.9
90.8
56.4
64.7
60.2
15 Mins
05/12/2012 14:38
ST2
56.2
69.2
50.0
58.3
53.0
Evening
19:00 - 23:00
15 Mins
05/12/2012 20:01
ST1
60.9
67.5
51.1
63.3
56.8
15 Mins
05/12/2012 20:18
ST2
57.6
72.5
44.5
61.3
51.2
Night
23:00 - 07:00
15 Mins
05/12/2012 23:11
ST1
57.1
75.7
41.3
60.5
49.4
15 Mins
05/12/2012 23:28
ST2
53.5
70.2
41.6
55.5
45.9
1 Min
05/12/2012 15:16
67.1
72.9
62.8
70.4
63.9
1 Min
05/12/2012 19:43
66.7
77.7
56.6
70.1
60.4
1 Min
05/12/2012 19:44
71.8
86.4
56.8
75.1
62.1
1 Min
05/12/2012 19:46
65.2
78.0
54.7
68.4
58.3
1 Min
05/12/2012 19:49
66.5
74.6
60.2
68.8
63.0
1 Min
05/12/2012 19:50
70.7
81.1
56.6
76.5
61.4
Day
07:00 - 19:00
Train Passing
@ 3m from
rail line
8
A083757
August 2013
5.0 Assessment of Key Effects
5.1
Noise Intrusion Assessment
Internal noise levels within potential dwellings have been assessed both with windows open, where a
reduction from a partially open window of 15 dB has been used, and with windows closed where an
assumption of glazing with specification RTRA 30 dB (e.g 6/16/8mm double glazing or equivalent) has been
used. In addition the effects of the proposed 2.5 noise barriers are included.
The results presented in tables 5.1 – 5.3 below show the predicted noise intrusion levels at properties
within the proposed development site including road traffic noise from the A27 and rail noise.
The
recommended WHO/BS 8233 internal noise levels are generally met across the site during the daytime and
night-time, assuming a windows-closed scenario.
In order to achieve the recommended internal noise
criteria, a range of mitigation measures are outlined in Section 6.0 of this report; SK05 in Appendix B shows
the glazing and ventilation requirements for bedrooms and living rooms of the proposed development.
Table 5.1 Daytime Noise Intrusion Levels LAeq 16 hour
Location
External LAeq
at 1m from facade
Internal LAeq with
windows open
Internal LAeq with
windows closed
Criteria
Internal LAeq
R1
70.5
55.5
40.5
35
R2
72.1
57.1
42.1
35
R3
71.8
56.8
41.8
35
R4
73.8
58.8
43.8
35
R5
66.6
51.6
36.6
35
R6
64.4
49.4
34.4
35
R7
63.1
48.1
33.1
35
R8
60.3
45.3
30.3
35
R9
53.2
38.2
23.2
35
R10
60.8
45.8
30.8
35
R11
60.9
45.9
30.9
35
R12
61.9
46.9
31.9
35
R13
63.0
48.0
33.0
35
R14
61.8
46.8
31.8
35
R15
64.3
49.3
34.3
35
All values are sound pressure levels in dB re: 2x 10-5 Pa.
9
A083757
August 2013
Table 5.2 Night-time Noise Intrusion Levels LAeq 8 hour
Location
External LAeq
at 1m from facade
Internal LAeq with
windows open
Internal LAeq with
windows closed
Criteria
Internal LAeq
R1
64.4
49.4
34.4
30
R2
66.0
51.0
36.0
30
R3
65.8
50.8
35.8
30
R4
68.0
53.0
38.0
30
R5
60.6
45.6
30.6
30
R6
58.3
43.3
28.3
30
R7
57.0
42.0
27.0
30
R8
54.2
39.2
24.2
30
R9
47.1
32.1
17.1
30
R10
54.7
39.7
24.7
30
R11
54.8
39.8
24.8
30
R12
55.7
40.7
25.7
30
R13
56.9
41.9
26.9
30
R14
55.7
40.7
25.7
30
R15
58.1
43.1
28.1
30
Criteria
Internal LAeq
Table 5.3 Night-time Noise Intrusion Levels LAmax 8 hour
Location
External LAeq
at 1m from facade
Internal LAeq with
windows open
Internal LAeq with
windows closed
R1
75.7
60.7
45.7
45
R2
77.4
62.4
47.4
45
R3
77.1
62.1
47.1
45
R4
79.5
64.5
49.5
45
R5
71.9
56.9
41.9
45
R6
69.7
54.7
39.7
45
R7
68.4
53.4
38.4
45
R8
65.6
50.6
35.6
45
R9
58.5
43.5
28.5
45
R10
65.9
50.9
35.9
45
R11
65.9
50.9
35.9
45
R12
66.8
51.8
36.8
45
R13
68.0
53.0
38.0
45
R14
66.9
51.9
36.9
45
R15
69.6
54.6
39.6
45
10
A083757
August 2013
5.2
Garden Noise Levels
Daytime noise levels in gardens and private external spaces of the proposed development have been
assessed in the table below. The location of the garden receptor locations are shown on SK03 in
Appendix B.
Table 5.4 Garden Noise Levels LAeq,16hr
Ref
External LAeq,16hr
Daytime
BS 8233 Upper Limit
Criteria LAeq
G1
62.9
55.0
G2
54.8
55.0
G3
55.5
55.0
G4
54.7
55.0
G5
52.2
55.0
G6
48.5
55.0
To protect outdoor space, it is recommended that 2.5m high solid timber fence is used at garden
boundaries exposed to the A27. The results in the table above show that daytime LAeq noise levels within
gardens are predicted to be within the target criteria of 55 dB where properties are screened from the A27
by the proposed building envelope.
For gardens to the south-west of the site (plots 6 – 15A) the criteria
will be exceeded.
Although predicted noise levels in this area of the site are in excess of 55 dB, the noise experienced is
considered not to be of such a level as to prohibit the use of these spaces. The decision as to whether
these outdoor spaces are utilised should lie with the occupant with most favouring the option of private
external space than no private external space at all.
11
A083757
August 2013
6.0 Noise Mitigation
6.1 Glazing and Ventilation Strategy
The ventilation strategy provided in SK05 has been designed to achieve internal daytime LAeq of 35 dB, an
internal night-time LAeq of 30 dB and an internal night-time LAmax of 45 dB in habitable rooms of the
proposed development. It also highlights which areas would require enhanced glazing, or an alternative
means of ventilation in order to meet both ventilation and internal ambient noise criteria. Alternative
ventilation can be provided in several ways from acoustic trickle vents (which need to have a minimum
sound reduction equal to or greater than the glazing), other passive ventilation systems or mechanical
ventilations systems.
6.2 Acoustic Barriers
There will be the requirement to install acoustic barriers around gardens within the proposed development
site with the assessment undertaken in Section 5, taking into account the installation of 2.5m high close
boarded fences along garden boundaries which are outlined in SK05. The minimum height of the solid
element of the barriers needs to be at least 2.5 metres; barriers need to be durable and can comprise
either walls, fences or fedges with no air gaps.
12
A083757
August 2013
7.0 Conclusions
Noise and Vibration surveys have been undertaken in connection with the proposed new housing
development on west of Coldharbour Farm Road, Emsworth. The findings of the assessment are presented
below.
NPPF 123 A & B
In considering the NPPF test in section 123, points A & B. The proposed development is not expected to
have an ‘adverse impact’ on health or quality of life. Similarly, with regard to NPPF (123) point B, it is
considered that all ‘adverse impacts on health and quality of life’ (relating to noise) are mitigated by the use
of 2.5m high garden fences and enhanced glazing and alternative ventilation.
NPPF 123 C & D
Given that nearby the site is surrounded by similarly residential properties to the east and noise levels at
the site dominated by road traffic noise from the A27, it is not considered that any existing businesses
wanting to develop would be particularly restricted by the introduction of the new sensitive use of the
proposed development.
The development is situated in a CPRE Zone 4 - 6 area of tranquillity (Zone 1 being the least tranquil and
Zone 10 being the most tranquil), as such is not considered to be an area of Tranquillity.
Glazing and Ventilation Strategy
The recommended WHO/BS 8233 internal noise levels are generally met across the site during the daytime
and night-time, assuming a windows-closed scenario. A glazing and ventilation strategy has been provided
which achieves both ventilation and internal ambient noise level requirements of LAeq daytime 35 dB, LAeq nighttime
of 30 dB and LAmax
night-time
of 45 dB in all residential bedroom and living spaces of the proposed
development. The suggested glazing specifications are understood to be achievable. Double glazing with a
sound reduction of RTRA 30 dB is sufficient across the majority of the site in order to achieve the target
internal noise levels when windows.
Barriers
There will be the requirement to install 2.5m high acoustic barriers (in the form of acoustic fences) along
the boundary of gardens to the west of the site which are not screened from the A27 by proposed building
envelopes.
13
A083757
August 2013
Appendices
A083757
August 2013
Appendix A – Acoustic Terminology and Abbreviations
Acoustic Terminology
dB
Sound levels from any source can be measured in frequency bands in order to provide detailed
information about the spectral content of the noise, i.e. whether it is high-pitched, low-pitched, or
with no distinct tonal character. These measurements are usually undertaken in octave or third
octave frequency bands. If these values are summed logarithmically, a single dB figure is
obtained. This is usually not very helpful as it simply describes the total amount of acoustic
energy measured and does not take any account of the ear’s ability to hear certain frequencies
more readily than others.
dB(A)
Instead, the dBA figure is used, as this is found to relate better to the loudness of the sound
heard. The dBA figure is obtained by subtracting an appropriate correction, which represents the
variation in the ear’s ability to hear different frequencies, from the individual octave or third
octave band values, before summing them logarithmically. As a result the single dBA value
provides a good representation of how loud a sound is.
LAeq
Since almost all sounds vary or fluctuate with time it is helpful, instead of having an instantaneous
value to describe the noise event, to have an average of the total acoustic energy experienced
over its duration. The LAeq, 07:00 – 23:00 for example, describes the equivalent continuous noise level
over the 12 hour period between 7 am and 11 pm. During this time period the LpA at any
particular time is likely to have been either greater or lower that the LAeq, 07:00 – 23:00.
LAmin
The LAmin is the quietest instantaneous noise level. This is usually the quietest 125 milliseconds
measured during any given period of time.
LAmax
The LAmax is the loudest instantaneous noise level. This is usually the loudest 125 milliseconds
measured during any given period of time.
Ln
Another method of describing, with a single value, a noise level which varies over a given time
period is, instead of considering the average amount of acoustic energy, to consider the length of
time for which a particular noise level is exceeded. If a level of x dBA is exceeded for say 6
minutes within one hour, then that level can be described as being exceeded for 10% of the total
measurement period. This is denoted as the LA10, 1 hr = x dB.
The LA10 index is often used in the description of road traffic noise, whilst the LA90, the noise level
exceeded for 90% of the measurement period, is the usual descriptor for underlying background
noise. LA1 and LAmax are common descriptors of construction noise.
Rw
The weighted sound reduction index determined using the above measurement procedure, but
weighted in accordance with the procedures set down in BS EN ISO 717-1. Partitioning and
building board manufacturers commonly use this index to describe the inherent sound insulation
performance of their products.
A083757
August 2013
Abbreviations
CADNA – Computer Aided Noise Abatement
DMRB – Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
HGV – Heavy Goods Vehicle
PPG24 – Planning Policy Guidance
UDP – Unitary Development Plan
UKAS – United Kingdom Accreditation Service
WYGE – WYG Environment
A083757
August 2013
Appendix B – Sketches
SK01
Noise Monitoring Locations
SK02
Site Layout and Receptor Locations
SK03
Daytime LAeq,16hr
SK04
Night-time LAeq,8hr
SK05
Glazing and Ventilation Strategy
A083757
August 2013
474300
474320
474340
474360
474380
474400
474420
474440
474460
474480
474500
474520
474540
474560
474580
474600
474620
474640
474660
474680
474700
474720
474740
474760
474780
474800
474820
474840
474860
474880
Client:
106700
106680
106660
106620
106560
106580
106600
106640
106700
106680
106620
106560
106580
106600
106640
106660
106720
474280
106720
474260
Project:
Coldharbour Farm,
Emsworth
Project Number:
A083757
Drawing Title / Scenario:
Noise Monitoring Location
Plan
Drawing Number:
SK01
Key:
Site Boundary:
106520
106540
Scale : Not to scale
106500
106500
106520
106540
LT2
Leslie Shipp & David
Christian
106480
106460
106460
106480
LT1
106440
106420
106380
106360
106400
Contour Plot Presented For
Indicative Purposes Only
WYGE Leicester 23.08.13
This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material reproduced
by WYG on behalf of Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
© Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes
Crown copyright and may lead to civil proceedings.
Licence Number AL 553611
106280
106240
106260
106300
106320
106340
106380
106280
106240
106260
106300
106320
106340
106360
106400
106420
106440
A27
Executive Park
Avalon Way
Anstey
Leicestershire
LE7 7GR
Tel 0116 234 8000
© WYG Environment
474260
474280
474300
474320
474340
474360
474380
474400
474420
474440
474460
474480
474500
474520
474540
474560
474580
474600
474620
474640
474660
474680
474700
474720
474740
474760
474780
474800
474820
474840
474860
474880
474430
474440
474450
474460
474470
474480
474490
474500
474510
474520
474530
474540
474550
474560
474570
474580
474590
Client:
Christian
106600
106600
Project:
Coldharbour Farm,
Emsworth
Project Number:
A083757
106590
106590
G6
Receptor Locations
106580
106580
Drawing Number:
G4
R8
G5
Key:
Site Boundary:
R9
106570
106570
R7
R10
SK02
106560
106550
106550
106560
R11
106540
106540
R6
G3
106520
G2
106520
R15
106530
106530
R12
R14
R13
106510
106510
R5
106500
R3
R4
106490
106490
106500
G1
R1
106480
106480
R2
Executive Park
Avalon Way
Anstey
Leicestershire
LE7 7GR
Tel 0116 234 8000
© WYG Environment
474430
474440
474450
474460
474470
474480
474490
474500
474510
474520
474530
474540
474550
474560
474570
474580
474590
474360
474380
474400
474420
474440
474460
474480
474500
474520
474540
474560
474580
474600
474620
474640
474660
474680
474700
474720
474740
474760
474780
474800
474820
474840
474860
474880
Client:
106740
106720
106700
106680
106660
106740
106720
106700
106660
106680
106760
474340
106760
474320
Christian
Project:
Coldharbour Farm,
Emsworth
Project Number:
A083757
Daytime Noise Contour Plot
LAeq, 16hr
Drawing Number:
SK03
106640
106620
106600
Site Boundary:
0.0 - 55.0 dB
55.0 - 65.0 dB
65.0 - 75.0 dB
>75.0 dB
106440
106420
106400
106340
106320
106360
106380
106460
106480
106500
106520
106540
106560
106580
106640
106600
106440
106420
106400
106340
106320
106360
106380
106460
106480
106500
106520
106540
106560
106580
106620
Key:
Executive Park
Avalon Way
Anstey
Leicestershire
LE7 7GR
Tel 0116 234 8000
© WYG Environment
474320
474340
474360
474380
474400
474420
474440
474460
474480
474500
474520
474540
474560
474580
474600
474620
474640
474660
474680
474700
474720
474740
474760
474780
474800
474820
474840
474860
474880
474360
474380
474400
474420
474440
474460
474480
474500
474520
474540
474560
474580
474600
474620
474640
474660
474680
474700
474720
474740
474760
474780
474800
474820
474840
474860
474880
Client:
106740
106720
106700
106680
106660
106740
106720
106700
106660
106680
106760
474340
106760
474320
Christian
Project:
Coldharbour Farm,
Emsworth
Project Number:
A083757
Night-time Noise Contour
Plot LAeq, 8hr
Drawing Number:
SK04
106640
106640
106620
106620
106600
106600
Key:
Site Boundary:
0.0 - 55.0 dB
55.0 - 65.0 dB
65.0 - 75.0 dB
>75.0 dB
106580
106560
106540
106520
106500
106480
106460
106440
106420
106400
106380
106340
106320
106360
106440
106420
106400
106340
106320
106360
106380
106460
106480
106500
106520
106540
106560
106580
Executive Park
Avalon Way
Anstey
Leicestershire
LE7 7GR
Tel 0116 234 8000
© WYG Environment
474320
474340
474360
474380
474400
474420
474440
474460
474480
474500
474520
474540
474560
474580
474600
474620
474640
474660
474680
474700
474720
474740
474760
474780
474800
474820
474840
474860
474880
474430
474440
474450
474460
474470
474480
474490
474500
474510
474520
474530
474540
474550
474560
474570
474580
474590
Client:
Christian
106600
106600
Project:
Coldharbour Farm,
Emsworth
106590
106580
106580
106590
Project Number:
A083757
Glazing & Ventilation
Strategy
Drawing Number:
SK05
106570
106560
106550
106540
106540
106550
106560
106570
Key:
2.5m Garden Barriers:
Enhance Glazing (RTRA 38 dB)
and Alternative Ventilation
Required:
Required:
Required:
106530
106530
Alternative Ventilation
Required (RTRA 30 dB):
106520
106510
106500
106520
106500
106510
106490
106490
106480
106480
Executive Park
Avalon Way
Anstey
Leicestershire
LE7 7GR
Tel 0116 234 8000
© WYG Environment
474430
474440
474450
474460
474470
474480
474490
474500
474510
474520
474530
474540
474550
474560
474570
474580
474590

Messrs Christian and Shipp (pdf 2.28mb)

Transcription

Similar documents

The truth about… The truth about… habitats

theBoom "O"

Pantallas Acusticas Pared Verde (EN)

Untitled - Amorim Cork Composites

ReseaRch consultancy documentation

SQUID Sensors

Automatic leak location – correlating noise logger network

quietzone® noise control solutions