SNELSMOOR GRANGE, DERBY ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

SNELSMOOR GRANGE, DERBY
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ON BEHALF
OF BELLWAY HOMES LTD
& CLOWES DEVELOPMENTS (UK) LTD
VOLUME 2
MARCH 2013
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Prepared by:
Authorised by:
Date:
Project Number/Doc Ref:
Kathy Else
Tim Partridge
27 March 2013
JBB8103.C1103
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION AND APPLICATION SITE ...................................................................................... 1
2.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..........................................................................................................17
3.
ALTERNATIVES & SCHEME DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................32
4.
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS ........................................................................................................40
5.
LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL .............................................................................................................54
6.
FLORA, FAUNA AND NATURE CONSERVATION ..........................................................................87
7.
NOISE & VIBRATION.....................................................................................................................135
8.
DRAINAGE, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ......................................................................155
9.
GEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITION ........................................................................................167
10.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT .........................................................................................................185
11.
AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................201
12.
ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ............................................................................237
13.
SITE WASTE ..................................................................................................................................259
14.
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND SOILS .....................................................................................281
15.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS................................................................................................................292
16.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................302
FIGURES (VOLUME 3)
1.1
Strategic Site Location
1.2
Application Site Extent
1.3
Planning Context
1.4
Derby Growth Strategy
1.5
Boulton Moor Sites Plan: Preferred Growth Strategy
1.6
Cumulative Assessment Sites
3.1
Masterplan Alternative Layout
3.2
Phase 1 Alternative Layout
5.1
Landscape Designations Plan
5.2
Landscape & Townscape Character
5.3
Local Topography
5.4
Aerial Photography of Site
5.5
Visual Appraisal Viewpoint Locations
5.6
Photo Viewpoints A, B, C
5.7
Photo Viewpoints D, E, F
5.8
Photo Viewpoints G, H, I
5.9
Photo Viewpoints J, K, L
5.10
Landscape Framework Plan
6.1
Phase 1 Plan
6.2
Bat Roost Potential Plan
6.3
Site Photographs
7.1
Baseline Noise Monitoring Locations
8.1
Environment Agency Flood Map Extract
11.1
Modelled Road Links and Receptors
11.2
East Midlands Airport Wind Rose
11.3
Construction Dust Receptors
12.1
Archaeological Sites and Historic Buildings
12.2
1805 Historic Map of Site
12.3
1833 Historic Map of Site
12.4
19th Century Historic Map: Alvaston & Boulton
12.5
19 Century Historic Map: Chellaston
th
12.6
1887 Ordnance Survey Map
14.1
Agricultural Land Classification
TABLES
Table 2.1
Land Use Budget
Table 2.2
On-site Open Space Provision
Table 4.1
Working-age client group - key benefit claimants (May 2012)
Table 4.2
Summary Occupational Categories
Table 4.3
Sectors of Employment (May 2012)
Table 4.4
Construction Impacts: New Jobs Provided
Table 5.1
Landscape Effects – Summary Table
Table 5.2
Landscape Proposals – Summary
Table 6.1
Desk Study Search Area
Table 6.2
Evaluation of Nature Conservation Importance
Table 6.3
Notable bird records within search area
Table 6.4
Birds recorded during the walkover survey
Table 6.5
Pond Characteristics and Habitat Suitability Indices
Table 6.7
Summary value of Ecological Receptors
Table 6.8
Summary of significant effects without design or mitigation including residual impacts
Table 7.1
Significance Criteria - Construction Phase - Noise
Table 7.2
Threshold Vibration Values for the Evaluation of Cosmetic Building Damage
Table 7.3
Significance Criteria - Construction Phase - Buildings - Vibration
Table 7.4
Significance Rating for Operational Traffic
Table 7.5
BS 4142 – Assessment of the Likelihood of Complaints
Table 7.6
Significance Rating for Mechanical Plant
Table 7.7
BS 8233 Indoor Ambient Noise Levels in Unoccupied Spaces
Table 7.8
BB 93 Upper Limits for Indoor Ambient Noise Level
Table 7.9
Baseline Noise Monitoring Locations
Table 7.10
Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receptors
Table 7.11
Summary of Effects – Noise and Vibration
Table 8.1
Drainage, Hydrology and Water Quality - Sensitivity
Table 8.2
Drainage, Hydrology and Water Quality – Magnitude of Effect
Table 8.3
Drainage, Hydrology and Water Quality – Significance of Effect
Table 8.4
Drainage, Hydrology and Water Quality - Duration
Table 8.5
Drainage, Hydrology and Water Quality – Semantic Scales (Residual Effects)
Table 11.1
Summary of Relevant Air Quality Limit Values and Objectives
Table 11.2
Source Magnitude Ranking Examples
Table 11.3
Risk Allocation - Pathway
Table 11.4
Categorisation of Receptor Sensitivities
Table 11.5
Allocation of Dust Risk Category
Table 11.6
Evaluation of Significance
Table 11.7
Example of Where Air Quality Objectives Apply
Table 11.8
Identified Sensitive Receptors
Table 11.9
Descriptors for Changes in Magnitude of Predicted Pollutant Concentrations
Table 11.10
Impact Descriptors for Annual-Mean NO2 Concentrations at Individual Sensitive
Receptors
Table 11.11
Automatically Monitored Annual-Mean Concentrations
Table 11.12
NAQIA Mapped Annual-Mean Background NO2 Concentrations
Table 11.13
NAQIA Mapped Annual-Mean Background PM10 Concentrations
Table 11.14
Summary of Background Annual-Mean (Long-term) Concentrations
Table 11.15
Calculation of Dust Impact Risk at Individual Receptors
Table 11.16
Predicted Annual-Mean NO2 Impacts at Existing Receptors
Table 11.17
Predicted Annual-Mean PM10 Impacts at Existing Receptors
Table 11.18
Predicted Annual-Mean PM2.5 Impacts at Existing Receptors
Table 11.19
Predicted Annual-Mean NO2 and PM10 Concentrations (μg.m-3)
Table 12.1
Environmental Value (Sensitivity) and Typical Descriptors
Table 12.2
Magnitude of Impact and Typical Descriptors
Table 12.3
Descriptors of Significance of Effects
Table 12.4
Arriving at Significance
Table 12.5
Summary of Potential Heritage Assets
Table 12.6
Summary of Impacts and Significance of Effects on Heritage Assets
Table 13.1
Local Authority Municipal and Household Waste Statistics 2011/12
Table 13.2
Management of Derby City Municipal Waste 2011/12
Table 13.3
Key Performance Indicators 2011/2012
Table 13.4
Waste Reduction Measures
Table 13.5
Waste Management Roles and Responsibilities
Table 13.6
Table of Significance – Waste
Table 14.1
Guidelines for Value/Sensitivity
Table 14.2
Guidelines for Assessment of Magnitude
Table 14.3
Significance of Effects
Table 14.4
Site Specific Climatic Data
Table 14.5
DEFRA County Statistical Data 2010 – Cropping Areas
Table 14.6
Agricultural Land Classification Grades on the Site
Table 15.1
Cumulative Assessment Summary
APPENDICES (VOLUME 3)
1.1
Application Plans
2.1
Application Documentation
3.1
Major sites considered suitable and deliverable for housing (2012 SHLAA)
5.1
Methodology and Assessment Criteria
5.2
Extracts from the Core Strategy Green Wedge Review
5.3
Extracts from the Landscape Character Assessment
5.4
Visual Effects Schedule
5.5
Landscape Management Plan
6.1
Ecological Desktop Information
6.2
Badger Surveys – Private & Confidential (not for public display so bound separately)
7.1
Baseline Noise Monitoring Plan and Summary of Data
7.2
Noise Calculations
7.3
Construction Vibration Predictions
7.4
Traffic Noise Data
8.1
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy March 2013
9.1
Phase I Environmental Review
9.2
Phase 2 Geo-Environmental Site Investigation Report
10.1
Transport Assessment
11.1
Air Quality Consultations
11.2
Model Verification Study
11.3
Traffic Flow Data Summary
12.1
Desk-based Archaeology Assessment
12.2
Archaeological Geophysical Survey
13.1
Waste Planning Policy Review
13.2
Outline Site Waste Management Plan
14.1
Soils and Agricultural Land Quality Site Survey
1 INTRODUCTION AND APPLICATION SITE
1.1
Introduction
1.1.1
This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared to support a hybrid submission
consisting of an outline planning application for a residential led mixed use development of up to
800 dwellings, related community uses and country park on land north of Snelsmoor Lane at
Boulton Moor, Derby. The strategic site location is outlined by Figure 1.1. Full planning
permission is also sought for the first phase of the residential development consisting of 145
dwellings; full details have been provided and are therefore not reserved for later consideration.
1.1.2
The scheme comprises a sustainable urban extension to Derby City for which outline planning
consent is sought with access from Snelsmoor Lane fixed, seeking to identify residential and
open space facilities through a Masterplan layout. The proposed development will be set within
a significant green infrastructure framework enhancing the existing network of hedgerows, water
features, trees and Public Right of Ways (PRoW) through a publicly accessible country park that
will serve as a Green Wedge between the proposed development and Chellaston. The
development is described in more detail in Chapter 2 of this ES and the total site extent
identified in Figure 1.2.
1.1.3
The planning application documentation is referenced through this ES and appended where
necessary. The scheme to be assessed through this ES is identified by the following plans and
are appended at Appendix 1.1:

Site Location Plan;

Site Masterplan;

Landscape Masterplan;

Phase 1 Layout Plan;

Snelsmoor Lane Access Plan; and

Field Lane Access Plan.
1.1.4
The site Masterplan indicates the extent of built development across the application site and the
location of the country park. Key community facilities such as a country park, play areas, playing
fields and the proposed primary school are also identified through the Masterplan.
1.2
Site Context
1.2.1
The site is located within Boulton; a suburb and local government ward of the City of Derby,
England, located 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) to the south-east of Derby City centre. The majority
of the application site, the area within Derby City, is designated as a Green Wedge in the
CDLPR, as demonstrated by the Proposals Map exerts provided at Figure 1.3. The section of
the development that includes Snelsmoor Lane and the highway works south of that, are
located within South Derbyshire’s designated Green Belt.
1
1.2.2
The topography of the site and surrounding area is represented by a gently undulating
landscape which slopes into wide river valleys. To the north of the site, the topography is
generally level across the existing built up area of Boulton and Alvaston before rising steeply
toward the River Derwent. The River Derwent has flood defences along its length as it passes
through the City, whilst active floodplain areas exist to the southeast, such as Elvaston Castle
Country Park.
1.2.3
In terms of the existing education facilities within the surrounding area, there are four schools
within a two kilometre radius of the site; Chellaston Infant School on School Lane, Chellaston
Junior School at Maple Drive, Homefields Primary School on Parkway and Chellaston Academy
(6th form college) on Swarkestone Road. To the north west of the site is the Noel-Baker
Community School (6th form) and Language College (Noel-Baker School) on Bracknall Drive,
Alvaston.
1.2.4
Derby City offers a wide range of employment opportunities, with an expanding car
manufacturing industry led by Rolls Royce with plants at Victory Road, Osmaston Road,
Raynesway, Pride Park and Sinfin the application site is well located to benefit from a large
selection of employment areas to the south and east of Derby City. With regards to major
employment areas in Derby, concentrations of job opportunities exist on business park locations
such as Pride Park and the proposed employment area off Wilmore Road, Sinfin.
1.2.5
In terms of existing facilities and shopping provision the surrounding areas of Alvaston and
Chellaston provide small convenience stores such as Midlands Co-operative Food Stores and
Tesco Express, alongside banks and Post Offices. Larger convenience stores are available at
Sin Fin North, Derby Road and Chaddesden.
1.3
Site and Location
1.3.1
The application site measures 65.83hectares (163acres) to the north of Snelsmoor Lane and
extending up to Field Lane. The site lies outside of, but adjacent to, the built up area of Boulton,
which is a suburb of Derby City, and is located 5.3 kilometres (3.3 miles) south east of the City
Centre. The site is comprised of a series of agricultural fields used for arable crops and grazing
land, alongside associated farm buildings and farmhouse which are now unused. The existing
used of the site corresponds with existing areas of farmland to the east and land south of
Sneslmoor Lane, which is located within South Derbyshire.
1.3.2
To the west of the application site is Chellaston, another suburb of Derby City. To the southwest
and immediately bounding the proposed country park is Chellaston Park, which provides grass
pitches, recreation and leisure facilities. Adjoining the site to the north is Field Lane Community
Centre and Field Lane Football Club, accessed off Field Lane. This facility includes grass
pitches and a play area, part of the Field Lane Playing Fields. North of the playing fields are
allotments.
1.3.3
Residential development within the wider area and directly adjoining the site to the north and
east comprises mainly two storey detached housing (interspersed with bungalows) from the late
1980s and early 90s, which are all very similar in vernacular and materials with few
modifications. The properties are set out in small cul-de-sac formations and tributary roads. The
properties predominantly back onto adjoining fields and areas of open space retained below the
2
pylons and overhead cables, with only a few locations where buildings front these spaces or side
onto them.
1.3.4
Much of this development is typical of ‘edge of town’ residential development, dating back from
th
the 1970s to the remainder of the 20 century. Much of this residential development is in the
form of semi-detached and detached properties, and the streetscape varies from poorly
designed highway led development (with building lines bearing little or no relationship to the line
of the street and often randomly set back from it) to newer better quality development which a
stronger relationship between built form and the public realm which reflects older more
traditional street patterns. Notable exceptions to this include Stubble Close Farm adjoining the
southern boundary and its immediate neighbours along Snelsmoor Lane which generally have
larger foot prints and massing.
1.3.5
The site slopes from a high point approximately 54.5m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum) in the
south adjacent to Stubble Close Farm to approximately 42.0m AOD adjacent to the ditch in the
north east fields. The site is criss-crossed by a series of existing hedgerows with some trees
and various services including overhead and electricity cables and pylons and telephone wires
and underground sewers.
1.3.6
In terms of the local highway network, the A50 provides good connections to the M1 (junction
24) to the east and the M6 (junction 15) to the west. The A50 also connects to the A38 to the
south. The A6 links to the A50 and provides an arterial route along the eastern edge of Derby
City. The A514 (Derby Road) provides local access into Derby City from Chellaston, whilst
Boulton Lane links to Alvaston. Access to these roads can be gained from Snelsmoor Lane or
Field Lane. Cycle routes are provided along the highway network with National route 6 extending
though Boulton from Shelton Lock up to Alvaston and along the River Derwent to Pride Park and
Derby City Centre. The Regional Cycle route 66 also runs to the north of the site along Field
Lane to Alvaston before extending north to Chaddesden and then circulating the City.
1.3.7
One existing PRoW extends along part of the eastern and northern boundaries of the application
site. This existing footpath links Chellaston to Field Lane and the recreation facilities provided
off Field Lane.
1.3.8
Land uses relative to open space are also identified by the proposal map extracts at Figure 1.3,
as well as confirming that no formal landscape designations exist across the application site.
1.3.9
The designations identified by Figure 1.3 also show that an area of the Green Wedge outside of
the red line site to the north-west, is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This
SSSI is known as Boulton Moor (Ref 15W1G) and covers an area of 3.9ha (9.6acres). The
SSSI at Boulton Moor is a geologically significant site underlain by important glacial deposits and
river gravels, including two different types of till and organic deposits from at least two different
temperate intervals. The basal Quaternary or ‘Ice Age’ deposits comprise a glacial complex
filling an East to West treading trough excavated in bedrock across the site. Channelled into this
are gravels containing last interglacial mammalian fauna (including hippopotamus).
1.3.10
The deposits at Boulton Moor SSSI are capped by a veneer of solifluction deposits. The
sediments at Boulton Moor have not been studied fully to date, but sufficient information has
been ascertained to identify their importance within the Trent basin. It can provide a crucial link
between the glacial and fluvial sequence in this valley and is one of very few sites in the East
3
Midlands which have evidence from temperate periods. The latter are of great importance for the
reconstruction of Pleistocene climate and geographical evolution. The SSSI site has been
identified as having potential for further research into the climate and environment of the region
during the Quaternary 'Ice Ages' and for studying the geographic evolution of the Trent valley.
1.4
Planning Context
1.4.1
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides the most up to date planning policy
guidance for the consideration of this proposal. The NPPF was introduced in March 2012 and
replaced with immediate effect the full spectrum of Planning Policy Statements (PPS’s) and
Planning Policy Guidance (PPG’s) that existed previously. The framework sets out the
Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It
identifies how the planning system will contribute to the achievement of sustainable
development.
1.4.2
The Ministerial Forward to the NPPF makes it clear that “the purpose of planning is to help
achieve sustainable development”. Paragraph 6 also explains that the NPPF provides the
Government’s view of “what sustainable development in England means in practice for the
planning system”. It sees three integrated dimensions based on economic, social and
environmental roles and warns that, “These roles should not be undertaken in isolation,
because they are mutually dependent … Therefore, to achieve sustainable development,
economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously
through the planning system” (paragraph 8). These roles are thus key to achieving
sustainable communities.
 The economic role includes ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the
right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation;
 The social role includes supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by creating a
high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s
needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and
 The environmental role includes minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and
adapting to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
1.4.3
Whilst the NPPF thus expects the planning system to play an active role in guiding development
to sustainable solutions (paragraph 8) at the same time it makes it clear that
 moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature;6
 replacing poor design with better design;
 improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and
 widening the choice of high quality homes.
1.4.4
The NPPF also offers specific guidance on the consideration of residential proposals, namely
paragraph 49 which advises that such applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development. Specifically those relevant local policies for
4
the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot
demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
1.4.5
Paragraph 52 goes on to advises that the supply of new homes can sometimes be best
achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or urban
extensions that follow the principles of Garden Cities. The heart of the garden City ideals are
holistically planned new settlements which enhance the natural environment, provide high
quality affordable housing and locally accessible jobs. The key principles have been taken into
account through the preparation of the proposed Masterplan and by the Local Planning
Authorities in their proposed spatial strategy, including:
 Community ownership of land and long term stewardship of assets;
 High quality imaginative design including homes with gardens;
 Mixed tenure homes which are affordable for ordinary people;
 A strong local jobs offer with a variety of employment opportunities within the garden City
and easy commuting distance of homes;
 Generous green space linked to the wider countryside. Over 60% of Hampstead Garden
Suburb is green space, including a mix of public and private networks of well managed,
high quality gardens and open spaces;
 Access to strong local cultural, recreational and shopping facilities;
 Integrated and accessible transport systems; and
 Local food sourcing, including allotments.
1.4.6
In the event that the effects described above are likely to be “significantly adverse”, the NPPF
recommends that development proposals are refused.
1.4.7
The proposal has also been prepared in the context of a number of emerging local planning
policy documents, although the Derby City Local Plan remains in force as well as (at the time of
writing) the East Midlands Regional Strategy. The emerging documents are to form part of the
new Local Development Framework, including an over-riding policy document called a Core
Strategy that will identify the preferred growth strategy for Derby City and seek to identify
strategic housing sites.
1.4.8
Derby City Council (DCC) is currently consulting on a Preferred Growth Strategy (PGS) that
identifies the amount and location of new housing sites and employment land required up to
2028. A key theme of the emerging strategy is to “maintain and, where opportunities arise,
enhance and restore the City’s network of Green Belt, Green Wedges, open spaces, wildlife
corridors and wildlife sites” as part of an enhanced Green Infrastructure network. Despite this
protection, the growth strategy accepts that some development of allocated Green Wedges will
be required in order to provide the level of housing growth proposed:
“there may be some potential for a limited amount of new development on the
southern side of the Green Wedge (Boulton Moor), subject to appropriate
5
Landscape treatment and appropriate location behind the ridge line and park
boundary”.
1.4.9
Through the PGS document the development site is identified as a draft allocation site
(reference DER/0105). The proposed allocation is to accommodate 800 houses and is
considered alongside Boulton Moor Phase 2 site reference DUA2, and Phase 1 DUA PP1, which
has already been granted outline planning permission, as identified by the PGS plan extract at
Figure 1.4.
1.4.10
The PGS identifies that development will progress at Boulton Moor from both the western and
eastern ends to form a comprehensive masterplanned new community. This allocation is
recognised as having longer term potential for further growth to the south beyond 2028, as set
out in South Derbyshire’s PGS
1.4.11
This is the planning context within which the application proposal will be considered.
1.5
Non Significant Effects
1.5.1
Whilst every ES should provide a full factual description of the development and its impacts, the
emphasis of Schedule 4 is on the 'main' or 'significant' environmental effects to which a
development is likely to give rise. Normally only a few of the effects will be significant and
therefore need to be examined in the ES in any great depth. Other lesser impacts may be a
reduced significance and therefore will only need a relative examination through the ES, but still
providing demonstration that the possible impact has been considered. While each ES must
comply with the requirements of the Regulations, it is important that an ES is prepared on a
realistic basis, without unnecessary elaboration and duplication.
1.6
Environmental Impact Assessment Legislation and Process
1.6.1
Circular 02/99 in respect of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) makes it clear that the EIA
Directive’s main aim is to ensure that the decision maker makes a decision in the knowledge of
any likely significant effects on the environment. The possibility of significant effects is a
constant theme of the Circular. Indeed, Regulation 2 of the EIA Regulations defines EIA
Development as being either Schedule 1 development or Schedule 2 development likely to have
significant effects on the environment by virtue of such factors such as nature, scale and location.
1.6.2
The Circular states that only a very small proportion of development will require an Environmental
Statement. The local planning authority must take into account the relevant selection criteria in
Schedule 3 of the EIA Regulations. In light of these criteria the Secretary of State’s view is that in
general, EIA will only be needed in three main types of cases, including:
 Major development of more than local significance,
 Development in particularly environmentally sensitive or vulnerable locations; and
 Development with unusually complex and potentially hazardous environmental effects.
1.6.3
The Secretary of State considers that the number of cases of such development will be a very
small proportion of the total number of Schedule 2 Developments. It is emphasised that the basic
test of the need for EIA in particular cases is the likelihood of significant effects on the
environment. Circular 2/99, states the following:
6
“…..whilst every ES should provide a full factual description of the development,
the emphasis of Schedule 4 is on the main or significant environmental effects to
which a development is likely to give rise. In many cases, only a few of the effects
will be significant and will need to be discussed in the ES in any great depth
…..while each ES must comply with the requirements of the Regulations, it is
important that they should be prepared on a realistic basis and without
unnecessary elaboration.” (Para 82) (RPS emphasis)
1.6.4
In respect of the Secretary of State’s second criterion it is necessary to judge whether the likely
effects on the environment of that particular development will be significant in that particular
location. The Circular provides criteria for thresholds which indicate the types of case in which, in
the Secretary of State’s view, an EIA is more likely to be required.
1.6.5
For urban development projects, in addition to physical scale, particular consideration should be
given to potential increases in traffic, emissions and noise. EIA is unlikely to be required for the
redevelopment of land unless the new development is on a significantly greater scale than the
previous use, or the types of impact are remarkably different, or there is a high level of previous
use, or the types of impact are remarkably different, or there is a high level of contamination. If
the site is not previously developed land, EIA is more likely where the site area is more than five
hectares, or where more than 10,000sqm of commercial floor space is proposed, or where the
development would have significant urbanising effects in previously urbanised areas (e.g. a new
development of more than 1,000 dwellings).
1.6.6
The Circular and the Secretary of State’s view set the context in which the application should be
considered against Schedule 3, the selection criteria for screening Schedule 2 development.
Again it is important to remember that the basic test of the need for EIA in particular cases is the
likelihood of significant effects on the environment. It is also worth considering whether those
effects can only be considered within an ES, bearing in mind local planning authorities already
have a well established general responsibility to consider the environmental implications of
developments which are subject to planning control.
1.6.7
Acknowledging that only likely significant environmental effects will need to be considered
through an ES, the Circular (paragraph 89) indicates that the developer may request an opinion
from the local planning authority about what the main effects of the development are likely to be.
It advises that the developer may wish to indicate what he considers the main issues are likely to
be.
1.7
EIA Requirement
1.7.1
The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (the EIA
Regulations) establish that the EIA main aim is to ensure that the decision maker makes a
decision in the knowledge of any likely significant effects on the environment. Regulation 2 of
the EIA Regulations defines EIA Development as being either Schedule 1 development or
Schedule 2 development likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of such
factors such as nature, scale and location.
1.7.2
The Circular states that only a very small proportion of development will require an
Environmental Statement. Normally it is the local planning authority that must take into account
the relevant selection criteria in Schedule 3 of the EIA Regulations. In light of these criteria the
7
Secretary of State’s view is that in general, EIA will only be needed in three main types of cases,
including:
 Major development of more than local significance;
 Development in particularly environmentally sensitive or vulnerable locations; and
 Development with unusually complex and potentially hazardous environmental effects.
Approach to Screening
1.7.3
A decision was taken by the applicant at the outset of the preparation of the planning application
that an ES would be prepared. This decision was influenced by the nature of the site, scale of
the proposed and the application on the adjacent site that was subject to a Secretary of State
determination, which required an ES.
1.7.4
Developers may decide for themselves that and EIA will be required for their proposed
development. A developer may, therefore, submit an ES with a planning application without
having obtained a screening opinion to the effect that one is required.
1.7.5
Having submitted an ES the application is to be considered EIA development and determined
and processed accordingly by the local planning authority in accordance with EIA Regulation
4(2) (a).
Approach to Scoping
1.7.6
The 2004 Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) guidelines for EIA
confirms that scoping is a method of ensuring the EIA focuses on the important issues and
avoids those that are considered to be less significant and thereby helps to ensure the EIA is a
cost efficient process.
1.7.7
The scope of the ES was apparent from the nature of the site and the proposed development.
Regard has also had to the scope of the ES accepted by the Secretary of State on the adjacent
site. The local planning authority was consulted on the proposed scope of the ES and planning
application during pre-application discussions, and agreement was reached on the content
proposed. Consultees were also engaged in respect of the scope of individual section
assessments.
1.7.8
This ES has therefore sought to assess either in individual chapters or combined within
chapters, aspects of the environment where relevant which relate to: human beings, flora, fauna,
soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets including heritage and archaeology, as well
as the possible inter-relationship between these factors. The chapter headings may differ
slightly from these descriptions, but each chapter provides a full explanation of the
environmental aspects which are considered.
8
1.8
Methodology and Structure of ES
1.8.1
This section explains the general approach taken to the methodology of the ES as contained
within the individual assessment chapters. Whilst there are inevitably variations in the approach
to the methodology taken within chapters of the ES, their structure conforms to a standard
assessment approach. This approach followed the production of an ES template which ensured
the following sections are addressed:
 Introduction and Study Area;
 Legislation, Policy and Guidance;
 Assessment Methodology;
 Existing Baseline Conditions;
 Assessment of Impacts, Mitigation and Residual Effects;
 Cumulative Impact; and
 Summary
Introduction and Study Area
1.8.2
In relation to the first of these headings each chapter contains an introduction which defines the
issues being considered within each chapter and the objectives of the assessment.
1.8.3
The Study Area is generally the application boundary and immediate environs, although this will
vary for each discipline and where relevant has been defined separately within each chapter of
the ES, to explain the area which has been considered in that section of the ES.
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
1.8.4
Working within the legal requirements as indicated above, each chapter of the ES refers to
relevant legal requirements and policies from appropriate statutory and non statutory
publications. This both explains the context for each chapter of the ES and highlights particular
policies which have influenced the content of the chapter.
Assessment Methodology
1.8.5
A range of criteria have been used with the individual chapters of the ES to determine the main
environmental receptors and significance of predicted impacts. Effects have been assessed
quantitatively where possible, although specific areas have required informed qualitative
assessments. Those effects which are considered to be significant prior to mitigation have been
identified in the ES, with any residual effects following mitigation addressed in detail.
1.8.6
Environmental effects can be either beneficial or adverse and include direct, indirect and
secondary effects; short, medium and long term; permanent, temporary, cumulative, positive and
negative effects. For the purposes of this ES it is assumed that short term should be considered
to be the construction period, that is, the period leading up to completion of the scheme.
Medium term should be considered to be the period following the completion of the scheme,
whilst long term reflects 15 - 25 years post completion.
9
1.8.7
The approach to assigning significance of effect is derived from a variety of sources including
industry and professional guidance, codes of practice, advice from statutory consultees and
other stakeholders, as well as expert judgement of the EIA practitioners. Much of the following
text is derived from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11
‘Environmental Assessment’ and provides a generic example of the approach adopted.
1.8.8
One of three methods to determining the significance of effect is employed depending on the
assessment topic – matrix, criteria, and descriptor.
1.8.9
Where sufficient information exists to determine the sensitivity or value of a receptor and to
understand the magnitude of the effect, the assessment methodology often uses a matrix to
determine significance of the effect. In this approach significance of effect in broad terms is
determined by a combination of the value of the receptor being affected and the magnitude of
the effect. This is the case for example with ecological and cultural heritage designations which
have clear relative values (e.g. a site designated at a national level is valued more highly than
one that is undesignated or designated at a local level).
1.8.10
Sensitivity (also referred to as value or importance) is addressed within each chapter which
provides an indication of the potential environmental receptors sensitive to change. The
sensitivity of the receptors and their locations varies within each chapter and between chapters
of the ES and is therefore defined individually. Unless otherwise stated sensitivity is defined as
follows:
1.8.11
Sensitivity (value)
Typical descriptors
Very High
Very high importance and rarity, international scale and very limited
potential for substitution. (Not applicable for this project)
High
High importance and rarity, national scale, and limited potential for
substitution.
Medium
High or medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited
potential for substitution
Low
Low or medium importance and rarity, local scale.
Negligible
Very low importance and rarity, local scale.
Whilst individual chapters may vary, for most relevant identified effects, the magnitude of the
effect is categorised below. The magnitude of the effect prior to and post mitigation is
addressed:
Magnitude of impact
Typical criteria descriptors
Major
Loss of resource and/or quality and integrity of resource; severe
damage to key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).
Large scale or major improvement of resource quality; extensive
restoration or enhancement; major improvement of attribute quality
(Beneficial).
Moderate
Loss of resource, but not adversely affecting the integrity; partial
loss of/damage to key characteristics, features or elements
(Adverse).
Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, features or elements;
improvement of attribute quality (Beneficial).
10
Magnitude of impact
Typical criteria descriptors
Minor
Some measurable change in attributes, quality or vulnerability;
minor loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics,
features or elements (Adverse).
Minor benefit to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key
characteristics, features or elements; some beneficial impact on
attribute or a reduced risk of negative impact occurring (Beneficial).
Negligible
Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more
characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).
Very minor benefit to or positive addition of one or more
characteristics, features or elements (Beneficial).
No change
1.8.12
No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; no
observable impact in either direction.
The overall significance of each effect is determined by assessing its magnitude against the
sensitivity of the environmental receptor and any other relevant factors such as the number and
activities of people affected. This is achieved using the following matrix, an example of which is
shown below.
VALUE /
SENSITIVITY
Very High
Neutral
Slight
Moderate/
Large
Large or
Very Large
Very Large
High
Neutral
Slight
Moderate/
Slight
Moderate/
Large
Large/Very
Large
Medium
Neutral
Neutral/
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Moderate/
Large
Low
Neutral
Neutral/
Slight
Neutral/
Slight
Slight
Slight/
Moderate
Negligible
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral/
Slight
Neutral/
Slight
Slight
No Change
Negligible
Minor
Moderate
Major
MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT
1.8.13
Significance of effect is addressed where relevant in the individual chapter pre and post
mitigation. Where a matrix approach has not been adopted a descriptor approach has been
used. As with the approach to magnitude individual chapter of the ES may provide individual
assessments of significance based on industry standards with reference to the relevant
legislation or guidance governing each discipline, but unless otherwise stated, significance is
categorised as follows:
Significance category
Typical descriptors of effect
Very Large
Only adverse effects are assigned this level of importance as they
represent key factors in the decision-making process. These effects
are generally, but not exclusively associated with sites and features
of international, national or regional importance that are likely to
suffer a most damaging impact and loss of resource integrity. A
major change at a regional or district scale site or feature may also
enter this category.
11
Significance category
Typical descriptors of effect
Large
These beneficial or adverse effects are likely to be very important
considerations at a local or district scale and, if adverse, are
potential concerns to the proposed development and may become
material in the decision making process.
Moderate
These beneficial or adverse effects while important at a local scale
are not likely to be key decision making issues. Nevertheless, the
cumulative effect of such issues may influence decision making if
they lead to an increase in the overall adverse effects on a particular
area or on a particular resource.
Slight
These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors
but are unlikely to be of critical in the decision making process.
Nevertheless they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent
design of the proposed development and consideration of mitigation
or compensation measures.
Neutral or Insignificant
or
No effect
No effect or an effect which is beneath the level of perception, within
normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
Such effects should not be considered by the decision maker.
1.8.14
For some topics where it is very difficult to value an asset and/or quantify the magnitude of the
effect (e.g. socio economics) a simple descriptor - beneficial, neutral or adverse is used to
describe the significance of the effect.
1.8.15
In terms of the EIA Regulations material effects are those where the significance of the effect is
‘moderate’ or greater.
Baseline Conditions
1.8.16
The environmental character of the study area has been established through a number of
baseline studies, whether identified as a current baseline or future baseline as development is
completed. Natural and man-made processes, which are currently present, have been
considered as they may already be altering and may continue to alter the character of the site in
the future. These processes are identified in the research.
1.8.17
The baseline is established using original survey work undertaken to inform the application
submission, alongside the further survey work that has been carried out through the
consideration of the planning application and the consultations entered into with various
‘stakeholders’.
Assessment of Impacts, Mitigation and Residual Effects
1.8.18
These assessments are combined for clarity and to prevent repetition within the ES.
 Impact Assessment. The interaction of the proposed development of the site with the
existing identified baseline conditions and potential future site conditions is considered
and impacts predicted.
 Scope
for
Mitigation/Enhancement
Measures.
Appropriate
mitigation
measures,
incorporating design and operational proposals, to seek to minimise the effect of adverse
impact and enhance beneficial positive impacts is outlined in each ES chapter.
12
 Residual Effects. Following the mitigation and enhancement measures, a statement of the
significance of the resulting impact is provided in relation to each aspect of the
environment considered. This seeks to explain how the magnitude and significance of
effects are affected by the mitigation proposed.
1.8.19
The main assumptions that have been made, and any limitations that have been identified, in
undertaking the EIA are indicated in chapters of the ES with overarching points set out below.
Assumptions specific to certain topics are identified in the appropriate technical chapters:
 Third party data that has been supplied (e.g. species records, traffic information) is
complete and accurate;
 The mitigation and enhancement measures stipulated in each technical chapter will be
implemented, as appropriate;
 All surveys required for the ES have been undertaken as indicated in each chapter
accordance with industry requirements, which has also been accompanied by
professional judgements where this is required;
 The scheme attributes will remain within the parameters assessed, although certain forms
of mitigation have necessitated recommended modifications to the scheme, which is
clearly explained in the relevant chapter;
 Whilst a detailed work programme will be worked up, which may be affected by external
factors, for the purposes of the ES, it has been assumed that construction works will
begin in 2014 and be completed by 2024. However in order to take into account the
impact of the development completed and occupied, a time period to 2026 has been
taken into account by some disciplines;
 Construction activities will take place to a predetermined schedule; and Construction
activities will be undertaken during typical construction industry working hours (generally
taken to be 07.30 – 18.00 Monday to Friday, 08.00 – 13.00 Saturdays);
 A key assumption is that a commitment is made to the delivery of a Construction
Environmental Management Plan; and
 The approach to cumulative impacts is defined in a separate chapter and addressed
where relevant in the related ES chapters. This explains the approach taken to
commitments and the time periods for delivery of developments although it is
acknowledged the actual delivery and time period of developments is outside the control
of this ES and in many instances market dependant.
1.8.20
Extensive stakeholder and public consultation has been undertaken as part of the development
plan preparation and application submission. In addition consultation has taken place with
statutory and non-statutory consultees during the preparation of the application and its
consideration to date. The purpose of these consultations has been to identify any sensitivities
13
or concerns associated with the Proposed Development, which have been considered in the
design process, scheme amendments and assessed as part of the EIA.
1.9
Approach to Cumulative Effects
1.9.1
The EIA Regulations require the EIA to consider cumulative effects. The DCLG Consultation
Draft (2006) ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice and Procedures’
identifies two types of cumulative effects that require consideration through an EIA:
 The combined effect of the proposed development together with other reasonably
foreseeable or committed developments (taking into consideration effects at both the
construction and operational phases); and
 The combined effects caused by the combination of a number of impacts on a particular
receptor (taking into consideration impacts at both the construction and operational
phases), which may collectively cause a more significant effect than individually. For
example, the combination of different types of noise on a receptor as well as noise and air
quality impacts.
1.9.2
According to the Guidelines for Cumulative Effects Assessment prepared for the EC by Hyder in
1999, cumulative effects are defined as “impacts that result from incremental changes caused by
other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project”.
1.9.3
A recent scoping opinion (April 2010) from the Infrastructure Planning Commission (now the
National Infrastructure Directorate of the Planning Inspectorate) advised that major
developments that should be considered for the cumulative effects assessment should be
identified within the following categories:
 built and operational development;
 development under construction;
 application(s) permitted but which are not yet implemented;
 submitted applications not yet determined, and which, if permitted, would affect the
proposed development in the scoping request; and
 development identified in the adopted and emerging development plan (with appropriate
weight being given as they move closer to adoption) recognizing that much information on
any relevant proposals will be limited.
1.9.4
It is appropriate therefore to consider the effects of the development with other projects in order
to assess the cumulative effects on the environment and the interrelationship of the effects on
the environment. Where relevant each chapter of the ES has therefore assessed the cumulative
effects with other committed developments considered of relevance.
1.9.5
Figures 1.5 and 1.6 provide plans which have informed the consideration of cumulative impact
and formed a basis for considering potential commitments to be considered through the
cumulative assessment process. The identified sites are residential sites located in the vicinity
14
of the application site, which are either considered as future residential allocations with planning
applications either proposed or committed:
 Fellowfields (reference DER0176) – Application and Allocation for 190 dwellings
 Boulton Moor Phase 1 (reference DUAPP1) – Outline Consent for 1058 dwellings, Local
Centre, Primary School
 Boulton Moor Phase 1A (reference DUA1) – Allocation for 190 dwellings
 Boulton Moor Phase 2 (reference DUA2) – Allocation for 700 dwellings
1.10
Consultant team
1.10.1
RPS Planning and Development has co-ordinated the input and content of the ES. Meetings
have been held between the consultant team to review existing information and establish the
extent of baseline studies required.
1.10.2
The consultant team assembled to prepare the ES is set out in below. All the consultant team
are familiar with the site and all have past experience of preparing ES.
Area of expertise for environmental statement
Consultant
Town Planning and Development
Transportation and Highways
Ecology
Landscape and Visual
Hydrology, water quality/resources & drainage
Archaeology
Noise and Vibration
Air Quality
Social and Economic analysis
Site Waste
Ground Conditions
Agriculture
Architect
RPS Birmingham
Travis Baker, Derby
FPCR, Derby
FPCR Derby
Travis Baker, Birmingham
Leicester University Archaeology
RPS Brighton
RPS Brighton
RPS Birmingham
RPS Bristol
RPS Manchester
RPS Bristol
RPS Birmingham
Developer
Bellway Homes/Clowes
Developments
Environmental Statement co-ordinators
RPS Birmingham
1.11
Content of Environmental Statement
1.11.1
The ES includes the information as required under Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Regulations, with
the ES prepared by an experienced consultancy team as detailed above, who have the
necessary knowledge to complete an Environmental Impact Assessment. RPS coordinated the
ES submission. RPS is a founding member of the Institute for Environmental Management and
Assessment (IEMA) and, more recently, obtained the IEMA Quality Mark. To ensure appropriate
15
interaction occurred between each discipline, several chapters were dealt with by more than one
consultancy.
1.11.2
The above provides a list of the main aspects of the environment considered by the EIA team
likely to be significantly affected and therefore considered in detail through this ES and therefore
any aspect not covered in the ES is not considered to represent a likely significant effect. Each
chapter of the ES conforms to a consistent approach within the document (explained in the
methodology section below). Further information is contained in the appendices and figures
which correspond to the chapter number.
1.11.3
The ES is contained in three volumes described below:
 Volume 1 – Non Technical Summary (separately bound).
 Volume 2 – Environmental Statement Text.
 Volume 3 – Figures and Appendices.
1.11.4
A hard copy of the ES has been provided to the Local Planning Authority and is available to view
at its offices at The Council House, Corporation Street, Derby, DE1 2FS between the hours of
8:30 to 17:00 Monday to Friday. It is also available to view on the Council web site, quoting the
LPA reference number.
1.11.5
If a hard copy of this ES is required all volumes can be purchased for a fee of £125.00, whilst
separately the Non-Technical Summary will be £25.00, the ES will be £50.00, Technical
Appendices for £50.00 or a CD Rom providing an electronic version of this document can be
made available for £25.00. Requests for such copies should be made to the Local Planning
Authority.
16
2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1
Hybrid Planning Application
2.1.1
This ES is to assess the environmental impact of a mixed use residential led development
proposed through a ‘hybrid’ planning application submission. Hybrid planning applications
consist of an outline planning application for the overall site and a detailed planning application
for phase one of the development. The outline planning application for the whole site will
determine the location of buildings, their height and mass, access points and routes within the
site through a Masterplan that will include the design principles for the new homes, streets and
public spaces.
2.1.2
The detailed planning application for phase one covers a site area of 8.3ha and provides a more
detailed level of information for that first phase of the development, including the appearance of
the buildings, the materials it will be constructed from, and the design of any landscaping. The
site extent importantly includes the necessary works to Snelsmoor Lane and structural
landscaping alongside the Country Park edge. The scheme Masterplan will demonstrate how
this first phase of dwellings will relate to the larger development by identifying linkages, densities
proposed and landscaping requirements.
2.1.3
The result of this format of planning submission will be the issuing of a full planning consent for
the first phase of the development and an outline consent with all matters apart from access to
be agreed for the remaining Masterplan area. Reserved matters applications will be used after
the hybrid application has been approved in order to deal with the outstanding details not
previously submitted, such as appearance of buildings and detailed layouts. The reserved
matters planning applications will include further public and stakeholder consultation as well as
discussions with the Council Planning & Highway Officers.
2.1.4
The hybrid planning application proposal:
OUTLINE planning application for Class C3 residential units up to 800 dwellings, with
all matters reserved except access; access to be fixed off Snelsmoor Lane and Field
Lane, sustainable drainage system providing attenuation ponds/swales, demolition of
existing farm buildings, new primary school (Use Class D1) with playing field,
alongside open space including creation of a country park (including
footpath/cycleways, play spaces, wildflower meadows, public orchards etc) and Green
Infrastructure network.
FULL APPLICATION for 145 dwellings (Class C3) including site roads, infrastructure,
landscaping, attenuation pond and play area.
Application Documentation
2.1.5
The planning application is submitted with a Masterplan for the outline application, alongside
detailed plans for phase 1, a Design and Access Statement alongside supporting technical
reports as identified by DCC. A full list of the submitted and current application documentation is
provided at Appendix 2.1 and Appendix 1.1 contains the key plans. However, this ES is
provided as an all-encompassing document and therefore relevant studies and reports are
17
incorporated through Appendices to ensure that the reader does not have to resource
information directly relied upon through this assessment.
2.2
Application Scheme
2.2.1
A residential development of up to 800 dwellings is proposed at “Land off Snelsmoor Lane,
Boulton Moor, Derby”, relating to an Application Site that includes land immediately to the south
of Snelsmoor Lane and land extending to the north of Snelsmoor Lane up to Field Land. The site
extends to the east up to Mill Lane and to the west to Chellaston. The Masterplan site area
covers 65.84 Hectares, whilst Phase 1 built area extends across approximately 5.7ha. The
components of the Masterplan proposal are set out in the Land Use Budget table below.
Table 2.1 - Land Use Budget
Land Use / hectares
Outline Masterplan
Housing
20.3
Country Park
28.7
School
2.0 – 3.0
Public Open Space
3.9
Green Infrastructure
6.0
Highway Infrastructure
4.9
Total
65.84
2.2.2
Residential use dominates the built development proposed through the Masterplan with parcels
exceeding 20ha identified. However, the largest land area of the site is to be given over to a new
publicly accessible country park, incorporating wildflower meadows, community orchards and
public footpaths and cycle paths. The resulting country park will ensure that an effective Green
Wedge is secured between the proposed development and Chellaston delivering a strategic
purpose alongside enhanced natural open space with public access.
2.2.3
The areas of residential use identified will accommodate up to 800 dwellings integrated with
squares and open spaces, linked by a cohesive Green Infrastructure providing wildlife corridor
linkages through to the country park. The eastern boundary of the built development parcels will
provide a transitional zone. This edge zone will accommodate structural landscaping alongside
formal play spaces in the form of a Locally Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) and a Neighbourhood
Equipped Area for Play (NEAP), with direct access from the adjacent residential parcels.
2.2.4
The DCC ‘Planning Obligations’ SPD, December 2008, standard for the provision of open
space on new developments is 3.8 hectares per 1,000 population, the same level of provision
sought through emerging Local Plan policy. Provision will be regarded as adequate where it is
comprised as follows:
 Incidental public open space (IPOS) of 1.4 hectares per 1,000 population; and
18
 Major open space (MPOS) of 2.4 hectares per 1,000 population for public use.
2.2.5
The population of a development is based upon assumed figures of 1.5 people per 1 bed flat, 2
people per 2 bed flat, 2.5 people for flats with 3 beds or more & houses with 3-4 beds = 2.5
people, whilst houses with 5 beds and above have a residency of 3 people. Based upon this
percentage of occupancy, the development will have a total population of 2004. Taking this
resident population into account would necessitate IPOS measuring 2.81ha and MPOS of
4.81ha, with a total requirement to meet the standard of 7.62ha.
2.2.6
For Phase 1 of the development, a total population for 145 dwellings based on the above % is
360. Taking this resident population into account would necessitate IPOS measuring 0.5ha and
delivery of MPOS to a level of 0.8ha (normally provided off-site for a development of this scale),
with a total requirement to meet the standard of 1.3ha. As part of the Phase 1 development
access to the country park will be provided through the proposed routes, structural landscaping
along the Country Park boundary, alongside 0.29ha of green infrastructure along the western
footpath. This first phase will provide natural open space of a level that fulfils the Major Open
Space requirement for a development of this scale.
2.2.7
As evidence by Table 2.2 below, the proposed development will deliver the required levels of
publicly accessible open space, including formal play areas and sports fields. Including the
proposed country park the development will deliver over 30 hectares in excess of the required
open space, providing new publicly accessible natural open space that will meet a deficit of this
type of open space that was identified by DCC’s PPG17 Open Space study of 2010.
Table 2.2 - On-site Open Space Provision
Open Space / hectares
Outline
Masterplan
Country Park
(28.7)
Sports Pitch
1
0
Incidental
2.68
1.014
Formal
1.22 NEAP
LEAP
Green Infrastructure
6.0
0.29
Play Areas
0.1
0.97
Total
11
2.3
Public Open Space
2.2.8
Phase 1
Within the landscaped areas and public open space water attenuation areas will be located.
Taking the form of shallow basins, lakes, ditches and swales that have been incorporated into
the Masterplan layout to provide a sustainable drainage system as well as enhancing the
biodiversity and ecological activity of the surrounding area. The ponds are located in both the
northern and southern areas of the site on the lowest ground and will provide significant
landscape features at the entrance to the site. The ponds will be linked by a series of swales
19
running north to south within a green corridor along the eastern boundary of the site. Existing
ditches will be maintained and enhanced to allow water to drain naturally and provide a more
effective system than at present to help further reduce the risk from extreme flooding events.
Further water attenuation areas will also be provided in the country park.
Site Phasing
2.2.9
The development is to be delivered through three main phases, the first of which involves 145
dwellings and is identified in full detail through this application. Alongside this first phase of
dwellings other components will be delivered, including the access roundabout and highway
works to Snelsmoor, the LEAP as well as the initial access routes through the country park area.
It is anticipated that subject to the granting of planning permission, this first phase could be
delivered over a period of 24 months and be completed by 2016.
2.2.10
Due to the extensive planting that will be delivered across the country park and the community
initiatives intended such as the orchard area Delivery of the country park will commence with
Phase 1 and be an ongoing commitment through the development’s delivery. Eventually the
parkland will be transferred to the Council’s overall control, although specific projects within the
park may be managed by community groups.
2.2.11
The second phase of the development will entail the primary school, playing field and delivery of
50 dwellings in the northern area of the site. This phase is critical to delivering the required
primary school places for the development as well as a formal playing pitch facility, which will be
provided on the school site for dual use with the proposed community. Pupils from Boulton Moor
Phase I site will be accommodated at the Noel-Baker School. Potential for extensions to this
school will be explored to provide secondary education places.
2.2.12
The third phase of the development will involve the central area of housing of around 600
dwellings. This area of housing will be built out in parcels of various sizes ranging from 50 to
200 dwellings. Subject to the approval of reserved matters and taking into account the delivery
of 100 dwellings a year it is expected that this phase of the development would commence 2018
and be completed by 2024.
2.3
Development Characteristics
2.3.1
The general height of residential buildings in the surrounding context is two storey with,
occasionally, 2½ in limited locations and some single storey bungalows. It is proposed that the
development proposals should reflect this and the majority of new dwellings will be two storeys.
Where 2½ storey units are provided, these will be located along the main routes (and at the
lower contours) to create a better sense of enclosure to the street and further emphasise their
importance in the street hierarchy.
2.3.2
The scale (length and width) of residential buildings in the surrounding area varies from larger
footprints along Snelsmoor Lane to standard sized footprints in more recent development within
the urban areas. Some agricultural type buildings, local village schools and halls for example,
and short terraces and small clusters of buildings also result in larger foot prints. It is perhaps
preferable to mix these arrangements, than to have a single dominant footprint type, to reflect a
more organic nature of settlement development.
20
2.3.3
Keynote buildings may be distinguishable from the rest of the development by their scale or
architectural enhancement. 2½ storey units could, therefore, also be located on key corners and
at the end of street vistas as keynote buildings to reinforce the legibility of the development.
2.4
Layout & Appearance
2.4.1
The proposed net site-wide density will be between 30 to 40 dwellings per hectare, providing up
to 800 dwellings. This is consistent with the overall density and character in the surrounding
areas and makes efficient/effective use of the land available. The net side-wide density is not
distributed uniformly across the site. Rather the density varies across different areas of the site,
in accordance with the character and context.
2.4.2
A variety of changes of character are proposed across the site. These respond firstly to the site’s
relationship with its neighbours; the country park to the west and north, open countryside and
Snelsmoor Lane to the south, the mature landscape boundary to the east and the existing
settlement of Boulton to the north east. They also respond to the landscape structure of the
layout established by the principles described previously. The character areas will help to
establish a distinct and rich sense of place.
2.4.3
Character Areas will consist of a distribution of themes across the proposed layout. Three
different character types are identified; Country Park Edge, Green Corridors and the Avenue.
These character types will be often broken down further into smaller groupings relating to
particular locations within the layout as a whole.
Avenue
2.4.4
The main vehicular access from the new roundabout is set out as a tree-lined Avenue, with a
character quite unique within the layout establishing a strong sense of arrival and providing the
main devise for orientation within the development. The Avenue will be fronted by ‘villas’,
detached and semi-detached houses tightly spaced and carefully set out in relation to one
another, to enhance the relative formality of this area. Vehicular access and parking for these
houses is therefore located as part of the rhythm set up by the street trees. Wide landscaped
verges, low front walls and hedges will make this an attractive green corridor, very different to
the green corridors set up along the existing hedgerows.
Green Corridor
2.4.5
The layout is crossed by a series of landscaped linear green corridors. These follow the existing
hedgerows and underground sewer easements to form pedestrian links from the east of the site,
through the development to the country park and on to the links set up by the development on
Fellow Lands Way. These green corridors comprise an informal sequence of soft landscape
spaces, varying in width, crossed in places by the main residential avenue. These green
corridors will be fronted on both sides by semi-detached and detached buildings, generally
accessed via short private drives, with low hedges enclosing substantial front gardens.
Country Park Edge
2.4.6
The western edge of the development area is characterised by a lane with a ‘rural flavour’. Set
behind existing and new hedgerows and landscape planting this lane, or series of private drives,
will zigzag in and out along the development edge. Its rural flavour will be defined by its essential
21
countryside characteristics and small green spaces along it. Building lines will vary along it
helping to define the route, and building arrangements will include small clusters, larger
detached houses and semi-detached houses situated in larger plots with a greater separation
between them together with a mix of wide and narrow frontages as well a gable ended
properties. Buildings should be set back with small private front spaces defined by subtle
changes in surface treatment. Chimneys or contemporary substitutes together with a variety of
roof profiles will help to reinforce a rural identity.
2.4.7
The facing materials used within this development will reflect and assimilate with the existing
context and character. Therefore, changes in material will not be used to differentiate between
different character areas. Rather, changes in material will be used to highlight and enhance
keynote buildings and create articulation and interest across the layout.
2.5
Access Arrangements
2.5.1
The site is proposed to have two main access points for vehicular traffic, one off Snelsmoor
Lane in the southern area of the site, which will provide connections to the wider road network
and provide the access to the first phase of development, whilst a second access point off Field
Lane is proposed in the North of the site that will serve the proposed primary school and a small
phase of residential dwellings.
2.5.2
The primary access into the application site to be formed off Snelsmoor Lane as detailed in the
access plan at Appendix 1.1, will take the form of a new three arm roundabout junction. This
access point will serve the first phase of the development, for which full planning consent is
sought. The route of Snelsmoor Lane to the east of the new junction will be redirected to
remove a bend in order to improve highway safety. These works and the majority of the
roundabout junction will be located within South Derbyshire District, and a separate submission
regarding these works is made to South Derbyshire Planning Authority.
2.5.3
Details of a secondary access are also provided from Field Lane in the northern area of the site,
upgrading Field Lane to a satisfactory standard through widening works and the provision of
footpaths along the highway. The access from Field Lane is intended to serve the proposed
primary school and a small element of housing (approximately 50 dwellings).
2.5.4
The internal layout of Snelsmoor Grange will seek to provide the maximum degree of priority and
safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Linkages from the proposed development through to
adjacent existing residential areas will be provided to ensure maximum permeability through new
footpath and cycleways as identified on the scheme Masterplan (Appendix 1.1). Linkages are
also achievable to the housing development (Boulton Moor Phase 2) that is located adjacent to
the application site to the east. Routes will be available for pedestrians and cyclists to access the
country park to ensure that the parkland is accessible to the wider population as well as on site
community facilities such as the primary school.
2.5.5
An indicative hierarchy of streets is provided throughout the Masterplan layout that connects and
responds to the overall movement strategy of the site. It includes the avenue, secondary streets
and shared area to provide an overall movement strategy of the site. It includes the avenue,
secondary streets and shared surface lanes and private drives. All highways will be designed to
accord with ‘The 6Cs Design Guide’ standards,
22
2.5.6
Cycling offers strong opportunities for sustainable travel between Snelsmoor Grange and Derby
City Centre. The internal cycle infrastructure will connect directly to Field Lane, which provides
a connection to the National Cycle Route 66 (the ‘Derby Orbital’). Route 66 provides an onward
connection to the City Centre and Derby Railway Station.
2.5.7
New public transport services are also to be accommodated within the development; the aim
being to ensure that a bus route can be delivered for the proposal as an independent
development. However, in conjunction with the adjacent “Boulton Moor phase 2” residential
development site to the east, scope has also been included to provide a linked bus route that will
serve both areas. Bus stops for the service will be sited within the development to ensure such
a service is accessible to all residents within a comfortable walking distance.
2.6
Residues & Emissions
2.6.1
The proposed development’s residues and emissions will be largely restricted to the attraction of
additional residents to this area of Derby, the related vehicle movements and the relative
pollutant increases. Other identified influences will relate to the changing built nature of the site
in relation to site drainage and the effect on potential contaminants in the ground.
2.6.2
Due to the outline nature of the Masterplan no design or construction standard has been applied.
It is the aim of Building Regulations and planning design standards to minimise wastage as
much as possible through the construction process, whilst the use of renewable energy
technologies is also more frequently considered.
2.6.3
Renewable energy generation through the use of air source heat pumps or solar panels may be
deliverable for both the school and housing elements of the scheme. The provision of such
energy generation through the scheme does not form part of the development proposal but may
be options that are considered when agreeing the details of the various phases in order to
satisfy national buildings standards and design codes. The incorporation of such measures
would not reduce the emissions from this development site, rather help reduce emissions at the
point of energy generation i.e. power stations.
2.6.4
Air source heat pumps are considered a decentralised and renewable technology under the
European Directive on Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources ratified by European Council
and Parliament in March 2009. These could cater for the space heating and cooling
requirements to designated areas, within the proposed school. Carbon Dioxide emissions would
be reduced as emissions from heat pumps are nearly 40% lower than a gas condensing boiler.
2.6.5
The association of the overall emissions and the residues from the development will be
assessed in detail through the individual sections of this ES and the relative impacts identified,
alongside any necessary mitigation measures proposed through the application proposal.
2.7
Construction
2.7.1
This section outlines the construction works associated with the proposal. The principal aim in
terms of construction impact is to control construction operations in accordance with targets and
procedures, which ensure the best practicable standards. Any chosen contractor will be
required to conform to the ‘Considerate Constructors Scheme’ Code of Considerate Practice.
Compliance with the Scheme’s Code indicates that a site would achieve a standard beyond
statutory requirements.
23
2.7.2
The main construction phases through each development phase are summarised below whilst
the overall impacts and related mitigation are detailed in the subsequent technical chapters to
provide a thorough assessment of the scheme from construction of Phase 1 onwards.
Outline Phasing of Construction Works
2.7.3
The proposed development will be delivered in three main phases, the last phase of which will
include campaigns of construction (150 – 300 dwellings at a time) to deliver the central area of
housing. The start date on site and to some extent the phasing of construction works will be
determined by matters such as the timing of granting of planning permission, reserved matter
approvals, ecological mitigation requirements and further ground investigations. It is likely,
however, that the work will divide up into five distinct, but overlapping elements, for each phase:
1.
enabling works for the development site e.g. site investigations, utility/services diversions,
new access provision;
2.
formation of overall site foundation levels including those for access routes, service areas
and building plots;
3.
construction of the buildings alongside car parking, access roads, open space and hard
landscaping areas;
4.
planting throughout the country park; and
5.
remaining on site planting (soft landscape) works and play areas.
Description of the Construction Process
2.7.4
The main elements of the Construction Process are as follows:
i)
site investigation works;
ii) tree and vegetation clearance, tree surgery and protection work;
iii) formation of overall site foundation levels;
iv) general site earthworks and drainage;
v) highway construction works;
vi) construction of all access roads, footways etc;
vii) building construction, including foundations, superstructure, cladding works and fit out;
viii) car parks and service yard construction;
ix) external Hard Landscape Works;
x) soft landscape works, including final soiling, tree and shrub planting; and
xi) temporary Site Offices Set Up and Site Compound.
2.7.5
It should be noted that precise details of these process activities are not currently available, as
they depend upon the appointment of a Construction Manager, Contractors and formation of a
works schedule, which at this stage has not been carried out. However, this section attempts to
identify in broad terms those construction operations, which have the potential to impact on the
environment. Mitigation measures to control or reduce these impacts are outlines below and
addressed where relevant within each specific topic heading.
24
i)
2.7.6
Site Investigation Works
Some of the site works have already been carried out, involving a Phase II investigation across
the Masterplan area, in addition to non-intrusive, low impact activities such as ecological and
tree surveys. It is intended that some archaeological investigations will be required through a
watching brief of the early stages of works. Site investigation works involving drilling and
excavation will be required to prove ground conditions for foundation design or ground
permeability characteristics.
ii) Tree Clearance and Surgery Work
2.7.7
The site has a relatively limited number of trees, the majority of which will be retained alongside
the hedgerows. Where trees and hedgerows are identified for removal they will be cleared at
the appropriate time of year and before that development phase begins. In addition some tree
surgery may be required on the trees to be retained. Some of the resulting timber will be
retained on site to provide dead wood habitats.
iii) Formation of Overall Site Levels
2.7.8
The stages of construction will involve the formation of site levels to achieve foundation levels
under buildings, car parks, paved areas and roads around the site. These works will be
relatively restricted due to the site’s relatively uniform relief where development is proposed, as
indicated through the topographical survey of the survey. The proposed design attempts to
balance cut and fill requirements as far as possible and to make use of any surplus excavated fill
within the country park landscaping (such as from the attenuation pond void areas). Some
materials for reuse (e.g. subsoil) may have to be temporarily stockpiled within the Site.
iv) General Earthworks and Drainage
2.7.9
It is not currently anticipated that sub-soils and top-soils will be required to be imported from
outside the development. However, if any soils are imported these works will involve the delivery
and distribution of these materials around the site and soil spreading and final grading works to
verges and embankments.
v) Highway Construction Works
2.7.10
The highway works immediately associated with the proposed scheme will comprise the
formation of a roundabout junction on Snelsmoor Lane/Field lane and associated improvements
along the highway to provide sufficient visibility, improved pedestrian access and straightening of
the highway route. ‘Off site’ highway works involving improvements to the surrounding highway
network and other junctions have been identified and will be delivered through Section 278
Highway Agreements with the Council.
vi) Construction of all Access Roads, Footways etc.
2.7.11
Access roads will be constructed from appropriate foundation crushed stone material, kerbing
and hard surfacing, which will be principally tarmacadam. Footways will be constructed from a
crushed stone foundation and be finished in a material to be agreed.
vii) Building Construction
25
2.7.12
The above ground construction of the residential buildings will generally be of typical timber
frame with brick surrounds. Roofing will consist of clay tiles subject to agreement with the
Council. Construction of the dwellings will follow the outline phasing identified with the third
phase delivered in manageable campaigns. The internal fit out of the dwellings will involve a
period of intense activity contained within the completed areas of development. It will involve an
increased number of small deliveries for contractors and large number of tradesman working on
the Site.
viii) Car Parking
2.7.13
Most car parking areas will be constructed from appropriate foundation crushed stone material,
kerbing and hard surfacing, which will be principally tarmacadam or brick paving.
ix) External Hard Landscape Works
2.7.14
These works will include higher quality paving and hard landscape treatments associated with
the frontage of dwellings and high profile pedestrian areas or community squares. Generally
stone foundation material will be used, a variety of paving materials, including block paving,
paving slabs, kerning and other surface finishes. In addition street furniture items such as
bollards and seating will be provided.
x) Soft landscaping works, including open space and habitat creation works
2.7.15
These works will generally involve grading, cultivation of soil surface, tree, shrub and water plant
planting and twelve months establishment maintenance. Much of the planting proposed within
and on the periphery of the development areas will involve the planting of tree and hedgerow
items. As well as general establishment maintenance (such as irrigation and weed suppression
on certain kinds of planting) bulk deliveries to the site will include lorry loads of trees and shrubs
and bark mulch.
xi) Temporary Site Offices Set Up and Site Work Force Car Park
2.7.16
A construction site for the proposed development will require a site office set for client, main
contractor, sub contractors and security, as well as staff facilities such as toilets and units for
materials and tool storage. These facilities are normally based on portacabins with temporary
paving, car parks and temporary connections to phones, electricity and main drains.
Construction Management Generally
2.7.17
The principal contractor(s) will be appointed several months in advance of commencing the
building works on site. This is with a view to ensuring that the site management personnel are
fully conversant with environmental issues and the temporary effects of construction. This will
ensure that there is time to develop a detailed programme of works and method statements for
the environmentally sensitive elements of the construction process.
2.7.18
The construction site will be registered on the Considerate Constructors Scheme. Construction
site impacts, encompassing energy, water and timber consumption and emissions to air, land
and water, will be closely monitored. Materials storage procedures will minimise wastage due to
spoilt materials.
26
2.7.19
Fuel and chemicals (including paints, resins etc) may be stored on site for short term periods to
refuel site plant and for construction and finishing trades. The applicant is willing to accept a
Condition relating to a Construction Management Plan that will incorporate all of the areas of
work detailed below.
2.7.20
Special attention will be paid to the following provisions:
 to prepare a detailed construction programme;
 to preparing specific method statements and control documents to comply with the
following requirements:
̶
maintaining uninterrupted clear access to properties on Station Road;
̶
detailed proposal for access by heavy goods vehicles to the site for agreement
with the relevant authorities;
̶
details of construction operations affecting the perimeter of the site including the
adjacent public highway indicating specific measures in minimising likely
disturbance;
̶
diversion of PRoW to provide an acceptable and safe route;
̶
highlight construction activities that are likely to extend outside the core site
working hours and agree any specific provisions with the relevant authorities;
̶
details of (1) loading and unloading plant and materials (2) Storage of plant and
materials on site and site vehicle parking;
̶
details of the method of removal of bulk materials and wastage off site and their
disposal;
 the principal contractor(s) will be required to set up regular liaison meetings with the
relevant authorities and groups to ensure that good levels of communication is
established as well as to provide prior notifications, reports on progress of works,
information about any specific construction activity which might cause disturbance;
 all contractors will be required to prepare detailed method statements and adhere to
targets and best practice procedures to limit any disruption or nuisance occurring during
construction. In conjunction with the Authorities, the principal contractor(s) will ensure
that wherever possible, mitigating measures are built into the construction process. By
these means temporary impacts of construction will be minimised and/or eliminated.
Construction Working Hours
2.7.21
Site working hours will be confined to 7.30 am – 6.00 pm on weekdays and 8 am – 1.00 pm on
Saturdays. There will be no working on Sundays and Bank holidays unless requested by the
Highway Authority to undertake works to the public highway during time when there is less
traffic.
27
2.8
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
2.8.1
The EIA regulations, practice guidance circulars, and legislation relevant to each chapter topic
will be used to assess the environmental impact of the proposed development. Each of which
will be identified and assessed through each of the subsequent ES Chapters. In terms of
overarching policy that has been taken into account to inform the proposal, this has been
through the adopted Development Plan for Derby City and South Derbyshire District as local
planning authorities.
2.8.2
The current Derby City Proposals Map designations covering the application site are identified
by an extract of the Proposals Map reproduced Figure 1.3, identifying that the majority of the
application site is designated as Green Wedge. The area of the site south of Snelsmoor Lane
that extends into South Derbyshire District is identified on the District’s Proposals Map as being
Green Belt. Both of these designations have implications for the consideration of planning
proposals, a full analysis of which is provided in the separate Planning Statement.
2.8.3
At present, the East Midlands Regional Plan (EMRP) remains part of the Development Plan,
alongside the CDLPR, whilst the South Derbyshire District Development Plan also includes the
South Derbyshire Local Plan 1998 and the Derbyshire Joint Structure Plan. A number of
Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) have also been produced to provide further
information to reinforce policies in the Local Plans.
Regional Planning Strategy
2.8.4
RSS8: The EMRP was published on 12th March 2009 and provides a ‘broad development
strategy’ for the East Midlands up to 2026. The spatial strategy identifies the scale and
distribution of new housing as well as providing the framework for meeting the Region’s
development needs in a way that promotes a more sustainable pattern of development.
However, in 2010 it was announced that the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) including EMRP
were being revoked. A number of legal challenges have followed which successfully confirmed
that the Regional Strategies form a material consideration until they are revoked. Therefore until
such time as the emerging Local Plan is adopted, the RSS numbers are likely to be regarded as
optimum to determine the housing needs of Derby.
2.8.5
The secretary of State has announced the RSS, EMRP, will be revoked on 12 April 2013.
Thereafter it will have no material weight in decision making.
2.8.6
The EMRP Spatial Strategy Diagram outlines the regional priorities for both urban and rural
communities and identifies the Derby Housing Market Area, classifying Derby as a Principal
Urban Area. Paragraph 11 divides the region into five sub-areas. The area related to this
application is the ‘Three Cities Sub-area’ which comprises “Derby, Leicester and Nottingham
and the surrounding areas” and is described as “containing almost half the Region’s population,
with the cities acting as major administrative, economic and cultural centres”.
2.8.7
EMRP Core Strategy Policy 3: ‘Distribution of New Development’ advises upon development
distribution, namely that ‘new development will be concentrated primarily in and adjoining the
Region’s five Principal Urban Areas, the built up areas centred on Derby, Leicester, Lincoln,
Northampton and Nottingham’. The following priorities are identified for the Derby Housing
Market Area:
28
 Strengthening the role of Derby as a Principal Urban Area though urban intensification
and planned sustainable urban extensions;
 Avoiding unsustainable levels of development in smaller towns in Amber Valley and
South Derbyshire; Supporting the regeneration of Swadlincote, Alfreton, Belper, Heanor
and Ripley in a way that is consistent with the role and function of these towns;
 Meeting affordable housing needs in a way that promotes a more sustainable pattern of
development.
2.8.8
Policy 13a identifies the following housing targets that local planning authorities should plan for
over the plan period 2006-2026:
 Derby Housing Market Area: 36,600 dwellings
 Derby City: 14,400 dwellings;
2.8.9
Policy 13a sets the annual housing requirement from 2006 to 2021. The target for the Derby
Housing Market Area is set at 1,830 dwellings per annum consisting of 720 dwellings within
Derby, 510 dwellings within Amber Valley and 600 dwellings within South Derbyshire.
Policy 14 identifies an indicative affordable housing target for the total amount of affordable
housing for each Housing Market area for the period 2006-2026. The Derby Housing Market
Area affordable housing target is set at 12,100 dwellings.
2.8.10
With regard to the proposed development, the EMRP outlines the Government’s intention for
growth in the Region and sets the housing supply target for the Derby Housing Market Area. The
proposed development site has been formally identified in the recent (October 2012) emerging
Derby Local Development Framework (LDF) development plan document as a potentially
acceptable residential site. The site’s location is consistent with the Derby Principal Urban Area
and it is considered that the site has a sustainable location adjacent to the existing settlement of
Boulton, Derby, and is capable of accommodating the proposed development.
Adopted City of Derby Local Plan Review (CDLPR)
2.8.11
The CDLPR was adopted on 25 January 2006. It forms the basis for most decisions on land use
planning affecting the City and its policies were ‘saved’ for future use or until the emerging policy
documents are adopted.
2.8.12
Key planning objectives, of the CDLPR include reducing the need to travel by car ensuring
accessibility to alternatives to the car, meeting housing needs, and improving quality and design
in the urban environment. These factors have been taken into account when preparing the
development scheme to ensure that the proposal will help achieve these objectives.
2.8.13
Policy E2 refers to the Green Wedge designation that the site falls within and states that
development within the Green Wedge will be restricted to agricultural, forestry related, outdoor
sports and recreation, allotments, nature conservation areas, cemeteries, public utilities,
extensions to dwellings and educational establishments. This restriction of development is
replicated by the existing uses of the application site and its surrounding context including the
playing fields and allotments at Field Lane, as well as the Noel-Baker School.
29
2.8.14
Policy E4 refers to nature conservation sites, including the Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI) to the northern edge of the site, seeking to prevent development that would be likely to
destroy or directly affect such sites. The proposed development excludes this area and takes
proper account of its proximity as demonstrated within Chapter 9.
2.8.15
Policy E6 seeks to protect wildlife corridors, aiming to restrict development proposals that would
severe such corridor linkages. The Green Wedge within which the site is located could be
considered to be a major green corridor, of limited habitat variety. Through the development
proposal however a compensatory feature in the form of a country park will ensure that sufficient
mitigation can be provided through improved habitat provision as well as Green Infrastructure
including wildlife corridor potential are provided throughout the development layout. The
proposed country park will provide a linkage to the existing Derby Canal Wildlife Corridor in
accordance with Policy L9. The former Derby Canal is identified as a wildlife corridor and
follows a route to the north west of the existing Green Wedge area.
2.8.16
Policy L3 identifies the public open space requirements for new developments. Housing
developments are expected to generate need for additional open space and therefore proposals
must incorporate open space within their layout where possible or/and contribute toward
financially toward off site provision. Due to the scale of the proposed development it is required
to identify incidental and formal areas of open space. The areas of open space are identified
within Table 2.2, identifying that the open space required by Policy L3 will be provided in addition
to a large area of natural open space through the country park.
2.8.17
Major open space is normally provided off site through contributions toward the City’s existing
parks; however the proposed development aims to deliver a new major open space through the
proposed country park. This is clearly an over-provision of open space whilst also satisfying the
policy requirements for informal open space, play spaces and playing pitch provision within the
built development identified on the Masterplan.
The Preferred Growth Strategy
2.8.18
The Preferred Growth Strategy (PGS) proposes the allocation of land to the east of the Green
Wedge at Boulton Moor (DER/0105) for 800 houses in conjunction with adjoining land within
South Derbyshire as a Greenfield/Mixed Housing Allocation (Figure 1.4).
2.8.19
The PGS sets out some broad development principles, including:
 Principal access points off Snelsmoor Lane and secondary accesses onto Sevenlands
Drive and Field Lane, Alvaston.
 Public open space will be sought both within the site and off site to improve the remaining
Green Wedge within the City.
 Development will progress from both the western and eastern ends to a comprehensive
Masterplan to create a new community.
 A new primary school will be provided on the area of Boulton Moor within the City.
2.8.20
The proposed development as illustrated on the Masterplan has sought to include all of the
above requirements as well as incorporating the delivery of a defendable Green Wedge area
30
through the country park, which will be publicly accessible open space. This is in full
accordance with the emerging strategy which seeks to “maintain and, where opportunities arise,
enhance and restore the City’s network of Green Belt, Green Wedges, open spaces, wildlife
corridors and wildlife sites” as part of an enhanced Green Infrastructure network. However, the
PGS also goes on to confirm that:
“some development on land currently identified as Green Wedges will be necessary
to deliver the amount of housing we need, but we want to ensure that viable wedges
are retained and that their accessibility and green infrastructure role is strengthened.”
South Derbyshire District Local Plan 1998 (Saved policies 2007)
2.8.21
Part of the application site falls within South Derbyshire District, but development in this area is
restricted only to highways works to the south of the site.
2.8.22
The Council’s Green Belt Policy G1 (Area of the Greenbelts) states that “Green Belt policies will
apply to the area defined on the Proposed Map”. Other Green Belt policies are not considered
relevant to this proposal, and NPPF policy on Green Belt therefore takes precedent (as set out
above).
2.8.23
Policy T6 (New Development), part B, states that “all proposals for development should
incorporate adequate provision for access, (including public transport where appropriate),
parking, manoeuvring and off street parking.”
31
3. ALTERNATIVES & SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
3.1
Development Scheme
3.1.1
The components of the Development Scheme to be assessed through this ES is as detailed in
Chapter 2, are summarised below. This is the applicant’s proposal as set out in the planning
application documentation. Therefore, when considering alternative scenarios these are the
parameters that must be taken into account.
 Up to 800 dwellings;
 Primary School;
 A new access from main distributer road to the site;
 Country park;
 Sustainable drainage system; and
 Green Infrastructure.
Baseline Conditions
3.1.2
The baseline conditions for the consideration of the design of the proposal and alternative
locations for development in south Derby relate to the strategy of the Development Plan,
alongside the nature of the development proposed and the area required to accommodate its
various components, as detailed in Chapter 2.
Locations
3.1.3
In the consideration of alternative locations, those sites allocated through the Development Plan
or identified as preferred locations for future allocations, and applications that are currently being
pursued must be examined first.
3.1.4
The vast majority of the application site is located within the administrative boundary of Derby
City where there is a requirement to meet housing need. Whilst cross boundary provision is
encouraged where appropriate, this already occurs and each authority must look to meeting its
own needs within its own boundaries first. Therefore, the identification of alternative sites will not
encroach into neighbouring authority areas, and importantly cannot consider the other ‘phases’
of the Boulton Moor housing area that are located within South Derbyshire as viable alternatives.
3.1.5
In this assessment of alternative sites it is necessary to start on the basis that a site that could
only produce a scheme that would be of a wholly different character, would not be an
appropriate candidate for assessment. The application of ‘flexibility’ has in this context, to have
regard to the importance that the proposal has in meeting Development Plan policy at regional
and local level, and to the ability of the applicant to deliver the level of required new dwellings
from any such alternative location in an appropriate timescale.
32
Application Site
3.1.6
The existing characteristics of the application site have informed its design, taking into account
the neighbouring land uses, its relationship to the highway and environmental conditions. These
environmental conditions and highway details are established in the subsequent sections of the
ES but the key site characteristics are summarised below.
3.1.7
The site has gently sloping topography with no significant constraints to delivery. Although
incidents of surface water influx have been identified on site, there is no direct flooding across
the site from rivers or stream watercourses. A network of ditches criss-crosses the site area and
provide some capture of surface water runoff from the surrounding fields. Although two existing
overhead power lines cross the site from west to east, these have been accounted for in the
Masterplan design and appropriate safeguard provided to residential dwellings.
3.2
Alternatives
3.2.1
This section of the ES outlines how the design of the development has evolved and the main
alternatives that have been considered in respect of site layout and site location. The suitability
of these alternatives is assessed in regards to meeting southern Derby’s current and future
housing requirements. Taking into account housing requirements to satisfy the identified needs
of southern Derby, the consideration of alternative options is restricted to opportunities in and
around South Derby and not sites elsewhere, as established through the emerging development
plan.
3.2.2
The EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1 require that an Environmental Statement should provide:
“an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the
main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects”.
3.2.3
Whilst the term ‘main alternative’ is not defined in the Regulations, for the purpose of the ES a
main alternative site has been interpreted as firstly being a suitable, available and achievable
site which can provide for the required quantum of new dwellings in the appropriate timescale
alongside associated facilities; and secondly as alternative options for the configuration of the
proposals.
3.2.4
The methodology for considering alternatives to the development proposed firstly examines the
suitability of alternative locations in and around southern Derby through analysis of strategic
spatial proposals and planning policy approaches. The assessment of specific site opportunities
will then follow, seeking to identify alternative sites that could potentially accommodate either the
whole development proposed or separate elements.
3.2.5
This ES has had regard to the appropriate level of flexibility that can be applied to the proposal
in identifying alternative locations. It is considered that the identified housing requirement would
not be met by a development of less than 800 dwellings, which indicates that an area of at least
20 hectares is required within Derby City’s area of control. Although the southern Derby
Planning Authorities have co-operated with cross-boundary allocations (of which the Boulton
Moor series of sites is one), continued redirection of housing beyond Derby City’s boundaries is
not an option. Development below the identified scale would also have significant implications
for the achievement of policy compliance in terms of building a more sustainable community for
Derby City.
33
3.3
The Spatial Strategy
3.3.1
In order to apply sufficient flexibility to the consideration of alternative locations for the proposed
development, this analysis will consider whether the development could be better
accommodated on a series of separate sites. The key consideration of such an alternative
scenario would be whether distributing the residential dwellings across a number of smaller sites
or elsewhere within Derby City is feasible, would have a lesser environmental impact and be
able to deliver similar levels of benefits through open space provision and on-site
facilities/infrastructure.
3.3.2
In looking at the requirement to assess alternative sites it must be borne in mind that the
planning application is the culmination of a long planning process to identify land to meet
Derby’s strategic housing requirement. As such, the alternatives to the development in terms of
scale and location have been considered effectively throughout the development plan process,
via public consultation, profession review and examination. The development plan itself is also
subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment.
Policy Evolution
3.3.3
In addition to National policy guidance through the NPPF, the distribution and approval of
development is determined by local planning authorities, taking into account the adopted
Development Plan that is formed by a number of policy documents that seek to guide and locate
new proposals. The evolution of the application site’s current draft allocation through previous
policy assessments is set out below.
1980 - Derbyshire Structure Plan
3.3.4
The first Derbyshire Structure Plan, approved by the Secretary of State in July 1980, made
provisions for development up to 1996 on the basis of sub-areas of the County. The
Derby/Belper Sub-Area focused on Derby with the Secretary of State identifying that there
should be a general concentration of development at Alvaston, Breadsall, Boulton
Moor/Chellaston and Denby/Belper. Policy 2 stated:
“Provision will be made for main new housing development in the Sub-Area for the
period 1976-1996 for about 23,800 dwellings…Of this provision about 3,900 dwellings
will be located at Breadsall Hiltop, about 2,500 dwellings at Boulton Moor, about 500
dwellings at Chellaston…”
3.3.5
The justification for this strategy was referenced to the proximity of this area to major
employment areas, whilst sewage and highway infrastructure in this location had identified
capacity due to investment schemes.
3.3.6
The 1980 Structure Plan also designated a Green Belt between Derby and Nottingham to
include the area to the south east of Derby. The Green Belt boundary was defined in the South
and South East Derbyshire Green Belts Local Plan, 1983. The Plan drew the Green Belt
boundary at Boulton Moor along the A6/Snelsmoor Lane, and the edge of the City. The
boundary deliberately excluded land north of Snelsmoor Lane.
3.3.7
Following the approval of the Structure Plan in 1980, the County Council began to bring forward
Proposed Alterations to the Plan. In 1984, Proposed Alteration No. 2 was submitted seeking to
amend the provisions for housing development in the Derby/Belper sub-area by deleting the
34
provision for development at Boulton Moor. However, the Secretary of State rejected the
Alteration entirely in May 1984, stating that the alteration:
“should not, and cannot satisfactorily, be considered without a thorough reappraisal of
long term housing needs both in Derby itself and in nearby parts of South and Lower
Erewash sub-areas…..”
1983 - South and South East Derbyshire Green Belts Local Plan
3.3.8
The South and South East Derbyshire Green Belts Local Plan was prepared and adopted. The
Plan purposefully excluded Boulton Moor from the Green Belt. It is considered significant that
Boulton Moor was excluded from the Green Belt since it was clearly regarded as looking inward
towards Derby rather than part of a larger open area stretching outwards into the surrounding
countryside. Paragraph 5.26 specifically referred to Boulton Moor, and stated that:
“The Green Belt proposals make adequate allowance for the long term development of
Derby beyond the end of the century. At Boulton Moor to the south east, the choice of
Snelsmoor Lane as the outer boundary of the Green Belt will leave ample room for the
major new housing development proposed in the Structure Plan.”
3.3.9
It is therefore evident that in defining the Green Belt, the County Council at that time regarded
Boulton Moor as not being an integral part of the surrounding countryside (paragraph 5.24); and
an important part of the adequate allowance for the long term development of Derby (paragraph
5.26).
1990 - Derbyshire Structure Plan
3.3.10
The 1990 Structure Plan also included the opportunity for development at Boulton Moor. The
plan recognised the potential for further housing development in the Boulton Moor area before
being modified by the Secretary of State to remove all the locational guidance from the policies
within the plan. However, the significance of Boulton Moor was reflected in a number of the
documents related to the Structure Plan, and the County Council were recorded as stating that
their locational guidance did not exclude the development of Boulton Moor (paragraph 5.12).
The Panel recommended the removal of the locational reference but stated at paragraph 5.17:
“With regard to the lack of reference to Boulton Moor in HP15, we wish to emphasise
that there is nothing in the submitted plan, or in our recommended modification which
implies any change in the suitability, or otherwise, of the that site for development.”
1998 - Draft South Derbyshire Local Plan 2002 - 2005
3.3.11
The potential for development at Boulton Moor was acknowledged in the adopted South
Derbyshire Local Plan, with reference to land at Boulton Moor, providing the potential for
development in the long term if additional need were to arise.
3.3.12
The First Deposit Draft Replacement Local Plan for South Derbyshire proposed the allocation of
land at Boulton Moor to make a substantial contribution to the housing requirements for the
period to March 2011. Draft Policy H7 provided for the building of a minimum of 1,058 dwellings
on 35 hectares of land, a scale of development that was maintained through the Revised
Deposit Draft (2003).
35
3.3.13
Although the Plan was withdrawn, it is nonetheless notable that as a matter of fact, Boulton Moor
is the only site on the southern edge of Derby that remained in the Draft Plan from first Deposit
Draft through to the Proposed Modifications stage.
2012 - Core Strategy: Preferred Growth Strategy (PGS)
3.3.14
NPPF requires local authorities to meet objectively assessed needs in full.
3.3.15
As part of the emerging Local Development Framework which is intended to replace the existing
expired Local Plan, DCC is currently consulting on its PGS for the amount and location of new
housing and employment land required up to 2028.
3.3.16
The PGS sets out the objectively assessed level of new housing need that must be met in full. A
minimum of 19,230 new homes will be provided in and around the Derby Urban Area over the
plan period of 2008 to 2028. This will include a proportion of affordable housing that is yet to be
determined. This will be made up of:
 New homes in Derby City - 12,000
 Urban extensions to the city in South Derbyshire - 6,700
 Urban extensions to the city in Amber Valley - 530
Total: 19,230dwellings
3.3.17
Of the 12,000 homes to be provided within the City itself, we first need to take account of the
following supply elements:
 Completions 2008-2012 - 1,774
 Estimated completions 2012-2013 - 244
 Sites with planning permission - 1,584
 Windfalls 2014-2028 (unidentified sites) - 1,250
 Losses (demolitions and changes of use) - 500
Total: 4,352 dwellings
3.3.18
This means DCC need to find sites for 7,648 new homes
3.3.19
The PGS also sets out preferred housing sites utilising greenfield sites and mixed greenfield and
brownfield sites. The following greenfield and mixed green and brownfield sites will be allocated
within the City for housing development:
 Land off Rykneld Road, Littleover already allocated in the saved policies of the CDLPR
(DER/0001) - 900
 Former Manor and Kingsway hospital sites already allocated in the saved policies of the
CDLPR (DER/0003) - 700
 Land currently identified as Green Wedge at Boulton Moor - This is part of a larger site of
about 2,800 which includes land in South Derbyshire, of which 1,058 already has
planning permission (DER/0105) - 800
36
 Land to the south of Wragley Way, Sinfin - This is part of a larger site of about 2,850
which includes land in South Derbyshire, of which 500 already have planning permission
(DER/0104) - 180
 Land currently identified as Green Wedge at Brook Farm, Chaddesden (DER/0016) - 275
 Land currently identified as Green Wedge at Mackworth College (DER/0160) - 220
 Land currently identified
(DER/0021/DER/0027) - 200
as
Green
Wedge
at
Onslow
Road,
Mickleover
 Woodlands Lane, Chellaston (DER/0022) - 56
 Holmleigh Way, Chellaston – This is part of a larger site of about 195 which includes land
in South Derbyshire (DER/0155) - 45
Total: 3,376 dwellings
3.3.20
In particular in looking at alterations it is important to consider previously developed/brownfield
land. The availability of brownfield land to meet housing needs, alongside the need to meet the
needs of other uses, is considered. Of the 7,648 additional dwellings that we need to provide,
3,673 homes will be built on brownfield sites within the urban area. Some of these will be
provided on the following strategic sites and broad locations:
 City Centre - 520
 Castleward (DER/0089) - 800
 DRI (DER/0120) - 400
 Osmaston (DER/0006, DER/0008, DER/0009, DER/0011, DER/0134) - 625
 Goodsmoor Road (DER/0118) - 600
Total: 2,945 dwellings
3.3.21
The PGS proposes the allocation of land to the east of the Green Wedge at Boulton Moor
(DER/0105) for 800 houses in conjunction with adjoining land within South Derbyshire as a
Greenfield/Mixed Housing Allocation.
3.3.22
As such the alternatives for the scale of development and its strategic location have been
considered at length through the development plan process. A lesser amount of housing on the
application site would require additional provision elsewhere, which is likely to be in a less
sustainable location. The do nothing option would result in a significant under-provision of
housing land, whereby the local plan would be found to be unsound and there would be no
development plan in place to deliver plan led development. This would result in development
sites coming forward to meet the required housing need targets outside of the development plan
system.
Alternative Site Options
3.3.23
From review of the strategic position of Derby City (Figure 1.3) and specifically the land
allocations proposed through the Core Strategy as identified by Figure 1.4, Derby City has few
alternative locations of the scale required. Furthermore, distribution of the proposed dwellings to
remaining ‘undeveloped’ locations surrounding the City would undermine the strategic approach
37
to providing new Green Wedges. As identified by the NPPF, the delivery of growth can be
preferable in the form of large scale developments, whereby improved infrastructure and new
community facilities can be delivered alongside new housing.
3.3.24
In effect DCC has already undertaken such an analysis through the Strategic Housing Lane
Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which has informed the identification of ‘Potential Additional
Housing Land Allocations’ on the Growth Strategy plan at Figure 1.3. The latest 2012 SHLAA
identifies major sites (over 10 dwellings) that are considered suitable and deliverable for
housing, a plan of which is reproduced at Appendix 3.1. As demonstrated by Figure 1.3, these
sites are already proposed for allocation by the Council to meet the objectively assessed full
housing need and therefore cannot be considered as alternatives. The majority of land that has
not been proposed for allocation has been discounted through the SHLAA as unsuitable,
unviable or undeliverable within the plan period due to ownership, viability and physical
constraints such as flood risk.
3.3.25
The smaller sites that fall outside of the SHLAA are not considered to contribute directly to
strategic housing need – or the requirement to identify a 5 year housing land supply. Instead
these smaller sites are considered as ‘windfalls’ for which a specific allowance is provided for in
the City’s housing requirements. What must be considered when determining whether such
sites represent alternatives to the proposed site, is firstly whether sufficient sites exist as based
upon maximum 10 dwelling capacity there would have to be at least 80 of such sites, deliverable
and without constraints. This cannot be assured and is not evidence as a viable alternative.
Furthermore, providing such a scale of development distributed across so many sites could
cause strain on local facilities without the ability to provide specific community or infrastructure
requirements.
3.4
Different Site Arrangements
Masterplan Layout
3.4.1
The Design & Access Statement considers the design evolution that lead to the proposed layout.
3.4.2
The Masterplan has followed the design principles advanced through the Council’s various
policy documents, particularly in providing linkages to the adjacent phases of the Boulton Moor
allocation. Masterplan proposals for these lands have been available to the design team through
their consideration at public inquiry or submission to various development plan consultations.
3.4.3
In terms of the uses to be accommodated within the Masterplan the delivery of up to 800
dwellings through phased development has resulted in the identification of parcels of housing
development that relate to a highway layout that takes into account the Council’s 6C’s design
guidance. The main alternatives that have been considered relate to the location of the primary
school, playing field provision and boundary limit of the Green Wedge through the country park
layout.
3.4.4
A Masterplan arrangement that located the school more centrally within the main site area was
considered (Figure 3.1) but discounted due to the requirements to deliver the school early on in
the scheme, whilst also considering the access arrangements that must be available for a
school. In addition the requirement to provide playing pitch facilities for the school and wider
community in an area that did not result in nuisance issues whilst also ensuring management of
such pitch facilities. The solution to the school and pitch location was to relocate the school so
that it would be served from the Field Lane access and could be delivered separately to the
38
residential phases. In addition a full size sports pitch was added to the school grounds and
located within the Green Wedge to ensure adequate facilities were provided for education and
community needs. As playing pitches have statutory protection from development it was
considered to be a use that was appropriate within the Green Wedge.
3.4.5
The Masterplan has also evolved as the drainage of the area has been understood, and how the
pooling of surface waters can be accommodated within the layout. This has led to a parcel of
housing in the north eastern corner of the Masterplan in Figure 3.1 to be replaced by a large
surface water attenuation area.
3.4.6
An alternative high rise alternative to minimise land take was discounted as this had greater
visual impact and is not a viable solution for meeting the City’s housing need.
Phase 1
3.4.7
Only the first phase of 145 dwellings is fixed and is a logical and considered approach to the
development of the site that utilises the primary access, provides linkages to the country park
and future development, whilst also accommodating adequate infrastructure provisions such as
on site drainage attenuation. Phase 1 will also deliver the country park. Given that the layout of
the first phase must utilise the access from Snelsmoor Lane and provide access through to the
central area of the Masterplan, the street layout has little flexibility as demonstrated by the draft
layout at Figure 3.2. With a central principal highway and development either side, early
alternative design schematics have considered providing drainage attenuation outside of the
phase 1 area and locating the play area within the housing layout.
3.4.8
However, the location of drainage attenuation measures have been controlled via the
topography of the site as such measures must be provided in the areas of lowest relief. The
lowest area of the Phase 1 site is adjacent to the main access point on the Snelsmoor Lane
frontage. The relocation of drainage attenuation to within the site has meant that a more
appropriate entrance feature will be able to be provided off Snelsmoor Lane to the country park.
3.4.9
The LEAP play area has been relocated to the western edge of the development, effectively
within the country park context. Providing it within the housing layout created conflict with its
resulting relationship to the proposed dwellings, whilst it was also considered that the LEAP
would provide an entrance into the country park from the residential area.
3.4.10
Alternative arrangements for the Phase 1 housing element are not really feasible, given that the
drainage location and spine road can not be relocated, whilst the formation of a Green Wedge
between the development and Chellaston is essential. Redistributing open space and play areas
within the layout would be an inefficient use of the land and less than the optimum viability. The
proposed density of housing for future phases has regard to maximising the area of the country
park (Green Wedge) and providing adequate linkages whilst delivering viable and sustainable
development.
3.5
Summary
3.5.1
The proposed development is the culmination of a long plan making process intended to deliver
the level of housing required by Derby and neighbouring authorities in sustainable locations.
Alternatives in terms of the level of overall provision, different strategies for delivery and different
locations have been considered. The proposed location best meets the agreed strategy in
meeting housing land targets.
39
4. SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS
4.1
Introduction and Study Area
4.1.1
Helping to create communities that are more sustainable is at the heart of government policy.
Creating more sustainable communities means that residents have better access to jobs,
services, shops, education and leisure facilities.
4.1.2
This Chapter sets out the current policy context and socio-economic profile of the area and its
context areas. The impacts of the proposals for the proposal site assessed later in the Chapter
are appraised within the outlined socio-economic policy and baseline context.
4.2
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
4.2.1
The UK has a comprehensive hierarchy of planning and economic policies, beginning with
national guidance, which provides a broad framework for local plans and strategies, through the
Regional Strategy to local development plans and policies. The development proposals for the
application sites will be influenced by these external policy decisions from a national to local
level. In particular, any plans for the application site will need to be reviewed against these
strategies and policies to ensure its relevance and appropriateness.
4.2.2
As a result, a range of planning and economic policies are relevant to the application site and
the proposed development. A review of key relevant socio-economic policies at national
strategic and local levels is presented below.
4.2.3
Local Growth: realising every place’s potential (HM Government, October 2010): The Local
Growth white paper, presented by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to
Parliament, outlines proposals to decentralise many services, empowering local communities to
create their own entrepreneurial local economies, with the active support from the private sector.
It aims to encourage economic recovery by:
 Shifting power to local communities and businesses;
 Promoting efficient and dynamic markets by increasing confidence to invest, and
 Focusing on supporting investment that will have a long term impact on growth.
4.2.4
The focus of the white paper is on private sector led economic recovery at local level.
4.2.5
The path to strong, sustainable and balanced growth (HM Treasury and BIS, November 2010):
As outlined in the Local Growth white paper, the Government recognises the importance of
economic growth for paying down the country’s debts, for giving people throughout the country
new opportunities, and for making sure that the UK is well placed for competing in an expanding
global economy. This document presents the Government’s approach to achieve strong,
sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared across the country and between
industries.
4.2.6
The Government recognises the importance of the private sector to deliver this objective. In
particular, the document states that the corporate sector is in a strong position to drive an
investment-led recovery. To make this happen, the Government recognises its responsibilities.
40
In particular, the document states that the Government has to focus on its own activities in
providing the conditions for private sector growth and investment.
4.2.7
In addition, the white paper recognises construction industry as vitally important to the UK
economy. To this end, the construction sector is amongst the first six to be considered as part of
the Government’s forensic look at dealing with current economic challenges.
4.2.8
Transforming places, changing lives: taking forward the regeneration framework (DCLG, May
2009): This report sets out a package of proposals that aim to shape the way that regeneration is
carried out in the future in England, following consultation in 2008. It contains a renewed focus
on ensuring that development through regeneration tackles the underlying economic challenges
to increase social mobility.
4.2.9
The report also identifies that there continues to be a significant gap between the supply and
rising demand for new homes, which the Government remains committed to respond to by
raising the supply of sustainable housing over the longer term.
National Policy Context
4.2.10
The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected
to be applied. It identifies how the planning system will contribute to the achievement of
sustainable development.
4.2.11
Following the publication of the draft NPPF in July 2011 and the subsequent consultation period,
the Government published its final version of the NPPF on 27th March 2012. In a Ministerial
Statement made by the Minister for Decentralisation and Cities, Greg Clark, details on the
transitional arrangements were confirmed:“I have introduced transitional arrangements suggested by, and agreed with, the
Local Government Association. They accord weight to plans according to how
advanced they are. However, I have gone further in two respects. I have allowed 12
months from today for existing plans to be adjusted to be in complete conformity
with the new framework, and made clear that weight can be given to emerging
plans”.
4.2.12
This 12 month period has now effectively expired, within which DCC has been unable to adopt a
new development plan. Therefore the previously saved planning policies are no longer relevant
and the guidance of the NPPF is the policy that now applies across Derby City.
4.2.13
The Ministerial Forward to the NPPF makes it clear that “the purpose of planning is to help
achieve sustainable development”. Paragraph 6 also explains that the NPPF provides the
Government’s view of “what sustainable development in England means in practice for the
planning system”. It sees three integrated dimensions based on economic, social and
environmental roles and warns that, “These roles should not be undertaken in isolation,
because they are mutually dependent … Therefore, to achieve sustainable development,
economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously
through the planning system” (paragraph 8). These roles are thus key to achieving
sustainable communities.
41
“an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive
economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right
places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying
and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of
infrastructure;
a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing
the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future
generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local
services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and
cultural well-being; and
an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built
and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use
natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt
to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”.
4.2.14
The NPPF reaffirms the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and in paragraph 14
provides a definition of the meaning of the presumption in favour of sustainable development in
the context of ‘plan making’ and ‘decision taking’. The NPPF sets out a number of core
principles that should underpin plan making and decision taking. These include the requirement
for a genuine ‘bottom-up’ plan-led system with greater empowerment for communities in making
decisions in their own areas. It places an emphasis on the need to support sustainable economic
development to deliver new homes and stimulate growth.
4.2.15
With regards to the economy, paragraph 18 states that the Government’s objective is to secure
economic growth to create jobs and prosperity. To achieve this, it places the onus on local
authorities to set out clear economic visions and strategies to encourage growth. Paragraph 47
sets out the measures local authorities should take in ensuring there is adequate supply of good
quality housing. These measures include producing an annual update of deliverable sites to
provide 5 years of housing against the requirement, plus an additional buffer to ensure choice
and competition in the market. The buffer required on top of the 5 years supply is 5% although
this is not in addition to the overall requirements, but brought forward from later in the plan
period. Authorities who have been consistently failing to meet their target must demonstrate a
20% buffer in addition to the required 5 years of housing land supply.
4.2.16
In paragraph 49, it states that planning applications for housing should be considered in the
context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Derby City Housing Position
4.2.17
As the Government has intended to revoke the RSS and has enacted the Localism Act which
provides the framework to do so, the City Council intends to set its own locally derived housing
targets through its Core Strategy. Therefore no measurement of housing delivery has been
based upon RSS targets and there is currently no calculation of five or 15 year supplies. Instead
DCC intends to identify a deliverable 5 year housing land supply using the emerging Core
Strategy housing numbers, and accordingly through the PGS to 2028, within which the proposed
development is included.
42
4.2.18
Therefore, the proposed development will not only deliver the PGS but directly contribute
towards delivering the City’s 5 year housing lands supply. Accordingly this will deliver significant
investment into the local economy through infrastructure provision and improvements delivery of
housing needs (particularly affordable homes), as well as delivering social improvements via the
publicly accessible improved areas of natural open space through the country park.,
4.2.19
Furthermore, the proposed delivery of new housing would generate the New Homes Bonus
(NHB). In certain cases, where the NHB is used to directly contribute toward future infrastructure
associated with the proposed development, it can be a relevant material planning consideration.
In this case the 800 homes proposed will generate approximately £7.1 Million (at current levels)
that will be paid directly to the receiving Council, which in this instance is DCC.
Local Economic Policy
4.2.20
Derby's Economic Strategy for 2011-16 was produced following research into how the local
economy is performing. It provides the framework to guide the activities and investment plans of
partners seeking to improve the economic performance of the City.
4.2.21
The Economic Strategy also advises that economic development must also be set in the context
of long-term sustainability. Derby has aspirations to continue to grow its economy as well as
pursuing the opportunities associated with the low carbon agenda.
4.2.22
The Economic Strategy identifies the challenge as being the requirement to balance the need for
increased competitiveness and increased job opportunities with the need to reduce carbon
emissions and tackle the effects of climate change. The Economic Strategy seeks to maximise
the quality of life in Derby by:
• reinforcing cultural and leisure facilities and the City’s infrastructure
• pursuing low carbon economy opportunities
• developing a vibrant City centre
• realising the potential of Derby’s heritage and tourism assets
4.2.23
Success in these areas will help to generate future employment and productivity growth through
a more vibrant, attractive and sustainable City.
Key Policy Implications: A Positive Response to Policy
4.2.24
As set out in the assessment of alternatives, the development is the culmination of a policy
process to identify land to meet an identified housing need. However, the delivery of construction
related jobs will not be the only direct contribution of the development toward the local economy
as the additional residents will deliver more earning potential within the local areas that will have
a knock on effect on spending, particularly in Derby City shops, services and businesses.
4.2.25
Furthermore, the new community will provide homes for relocated workers employed within
Derby’s expanding manufacturing base, as well as potentially new employees based locally.
The primary school will also generate employment positions at the professional (teachers) and
non-professional (kitchen staff) levels that will be directly accessible to the local population.
4.2.26
Through the urban expansion of Derby City, the proposed development will deliver the policy
aspirations set out in the joint Growth Strategy, whilst also contributing directly toward the local
economy.
43
4.3
Existing Baseline Conditions
4.3.1
This section presents an assessment of the prevailing socio-economic conditions for the
application site’s context area in terms of demographics, income, unemployment and economic
activity. It also considers the role of on-site businesses, farming and the resident population’s
trends.
Demographics: Current Population and Future Projections
4.3.2
The City Council’s PGS identifies that Derby’s population is growing as a result of both natural
increases and because more people are coming to live in the City than are leaving it.
Government projections suggest that this trend is set to continue, although the recently
completed Housing Requirements Study (HRS) suggests that these increases will not be as high
as the national projections suggest. Using this evidence, the strategy identifies 33,700 new
homes to be provided across the Housing Market Area over the plan period 2008- 2028.
4.3.3
Of the 33,700 homes, about 19,230 will be directed into and around the Derby Urban Area. This
reflects the HRS assessment of demographic need generated by the City as well as the City’s
economic growth aspirations. It also takes into account the fact that a substantial element of
Amber Valley's and South Derbyshire’s projected growth is based on people moving out of the
City into these neighbouring authorities.
4.3.4
The proposed figure for the City is 12,000, leaving about 7,200 to be found as urban extensions
to the City in Amber Valley and South Derbyshire to meet the 19,230 provision figure. Planning
permission already exists for about 3,000 of these, mainly in South Derbyshire. Most of the new
homes to be provided within the City will be within the existing urban area. However, there are
insufficient sites available to meet all of the City’s housing needs on brownfield land, especially
in current market conditions. The strategy therefore includes provision for the release of
greenfield sites.
4.3.5
The HRS aims to help the Councils to consider in further detail how much housing should be
planned for over the 2008-28 period. This report is therefore considering on more recent information
of demographic trends, including the 2010 Office for National Statistics (ONS) Sub-National
Population Projections. The HRS also considers the potential impact which economic and housing
market conditions might have on demographic dynamics. This is intended to provide an up-to-date
and informed basis for considering future housing requirements.
4.3.6
In addition to births and deaths and migration it is important to consider how the interaction
between the housing market and economic performance as levels of job creation can influence
migration patterns (both people moving to and from the area to access job opportunities). The
balance between housing and job growth may also influence future changes to commuting
patterns. The relationship between economic and population dynamics is however quite complex
and there are a range of wider factors at play.
44
Economic Activity and Unemployment
4.3.7
Economic activity rate for the application proposal’s context area (Derby City) and benchmarks
has been calculated. This has been measured as a proportion of the resident working age
population. Limitations in availability of recent economic activity data for small areas such as
wards, has resulted in use of Census 2001 data for this analysis. The Chart below shows that
Derby City has a much higher economic activity rate compared to the national average.
Economic Activity Rate (Source: ONS, Neighbourhood Statistics)
2012 Economic Activity Rate
80%
79.5%
79.0%
78.5%
78.0%
77.5%
77.0%
76.5%
76.0%
75.5%
Derby City
East Midlands
National
Geographical Scale
4.3.8
Due to limitation of availability of small area level unemployment data, claimant count as a
percentage of working age residents is used as a proxy for the unemployment rate. The data
suggests that Derby City as a context area has a lower claimant count rate, than the wider East
Midlands area and England. The expanding industrial base in Derby, including numerous Rolls
Royce manufacturing plants, has helped the City to sustain a high economic activity rate of
79.3%. A continued aspect of maintaining Derby City’s economic success is ensuring that it
supplies an adequate base of employees. As such, the provision of new housing will assist in
delivering homes to accommodate a supply of employees for the City’s growing industries.
4.3.9
Despite this high level of economic activity documented within Derby City, it also surprisingly has
a higher level of benefits claimants than the national or regional level. This is particularly the
case in relation to Job Seekers Allowance claimants and incapacity benefits as Table 4.1
identifies.
45
Table 4.1 - Working-age client group - key benefit claimants (May 2012)
Total Claimants / %
Benefit Group
Derby City
East Midlands
Great Britain
Job Seekers
5.2
3.7
3.7
Incapacity
7.0
5.9
6.3
Lone Parents
1.8
1.3
1.5
Carers
1.4
1.3
1.2
Income Related
0.4
0.4
0.4
Disabled
1.3
1.1
1.1
Bereaved
0.2
0.2
0.2
Total claimants
17.3
14.0
14.4
Claimant Count Data (Source: NOMIS 2012)
Business and Employment Sectors
4.3.10
The 2012 employment data sourced from NOMIS suggests that employment in Derby City
largely reflects the national mix of employment occupations, although the City has a higher level
of ‘elementary occupations’ and ‘process plant & machine operatives’. This ‘spike’ in this
occupation group is considered to reflect the manufacturing base that exists in Derby,
particularly in respect of car manufacturing.
4.3.11
To understand how the manufacturing industry influences the job opportunities within Derby City,
job density data has been sourced from NOMIS. This is defined as the total number of jobs as a
proportion of resident population aged 16-64, including employees, self-employed government
trainees and those in the Forces. This provides an indication of whether there is sufficient supply
of employment opportunities in an area.
4.3.12
The chart 4.1 below shows that total job density within Derby City is above regional and national
comparators. This suggests that there are ample sources of employment opportunities in the
Derby context area.
46
Chart 4.1 - Job Density - Jobs per 16-64 Population (%)
0.80
0.79
0.78
0.77
0.76
0.75
0.74
0.73
0.72
Derby City
East Midlands
National
Geographical Scale
4.3.13
An assessment of employment by different sectors has also been undertaken. This is based on
the 2011 Business Register and Employment Survey data sourced from NOMIS. Occupational
categories derived from NOMIS and Census data have been categorised as having high,
intermediate and low value occupational type. The tables below usefully summarise the
distribution of employment by different sectors within Derby City in comparison with the region
and Great Britain.
Table 4.2 Summary Occupational Categories
Occupational Type
Managers and senior officials
Value
High Value Occupations
Professional occupations
Associate Prof & Tech occupations
Administrative and Secretarial occupations
Skilled Trades occupations
Intermediate Value Occupations
Personal Service occupations
Sales and Customer Service occupations
Process, Plant and Machine operatives
Low Value Occupations
Elementary occupations
47
Table 4.3 – Sectors of Employment (May 2012)
Employee Jobs (2008) / %
Industry
Derby City
East Midlands
Great Britain
Manufacturing
18.7
14.8
10.2
Construction
4.1
5.2
4.8
Hotels/restaurants
76.5
77.8
83.5
Transport/Comms
20.2
23.3
23.4
Finance / IT / Business
28.9
26.7
27.0
Education / Health
4.1
4.5
5.8
Sectors of Employment (Source: Annual Business Inquiry, NOMIS)
4.3.14
The data suggests that the largest sectors of industry in Derby City are manufacturing and retail,
hotels and restaurants. There is an above average concentration of employment in these sectors
compared to regional and national averages. Such sector trends highlight two issues. The high
proportion of employees in public administration, education and health suggests an over-reliance
on public sector employment. In the context of projected jobs cuts in the public sector there is a
pressing need for greater private sector based employment opportunities. Private sector led
sustainable job creation is a key priority measure outlined and advocated by the Government in
order to tackle the economic downturn, which the high levels of manufacturing and business
could help to satisfy. However, the high proportion of employees in retail, hotels and restaurants
implies that the retail and leisure sector in the immediate context area is buoyant at present.
4.3.15
Available data suggests that the proportion of the workforce employed in the construction sector
in the Context Area is below the national averages. Therefore the level of development
proposed, its related infrastructure and construction phases could have a significant positive
effect on this area of the economy, and as a result increase the level of construction employment
to reflect the national standard.
On-Site Businesses
4.3.16
As detailed in the Agricultural Land Chapter 14, the majority of the site is in arable or pasture
use, with residential homes, public open space and a dog boarding kennels located immediately
adjacent to the site.
4.3.17
In terms of the agricultural use of the site, two agricultural tenancies exist across the site at
present which are short term arrangements. It is not considered that the removal of the tenancy
for the farming of the arable area will have any direct impact upon the viability of that related
land holding and therefore will not cause the related farm and businesses to close.
4.3.18
One of the existing ‘agricultural’ tenants includes the animal charity ‘Second Chance Animal
Rescue’, which uses some of the pasture land within the application site for the animals it
rescues and to farm a small flock of sheep. The area surrounding Derby does not have a
notable shortfall in provision of pasture land and therefore the identification of alternative sites
48
for agricultural tenants such as the animal shelter is not considered to be insurmountable.
Furthermore, the development of the animal shelter’s land will be through the second phase of
the development around 2016, giving ample opportunity for alternative grazing lands to be
identified. Given that the farm base of the animal charity, Boulton Edge Farm is actually the
subject of the separate planning application off Fellow Lands Way reference 01/13/00082
(Figure 3.1), the animal charity will be required to seek alternative permanent grazing and
accommodation for the animals it cares for on a permanent basis for reasons unrelated to this
application proposal. Although, the grazing land within the application site may be used up until
its development, the lack of animal accommodation will mean that an alternative location in or
around Derby would be required. Currently there is no identified shortfall in agricultural grazing
land surrounding Derby City and therefore it is to be expected that an alternative location for the
animal charity will be able to be found before development of the second phase of the
Masterplan.
4.3.19
The farm that is located on the site, ‘Moor Farm’, is already a closed business, with the
farmhouse and buildings boarded-up or used on a temporary basis for storage. Therefore the
loss of this farm will not result in any business closing or unemployment.
4.3.20
End Cottage Kennels provides a commercial boarding facility for dogs. This business is outside
of, but directly adjacent, to the site. The kennels are located south of the Field Lane recreation
ground and are bounded by the application site along its eastern, southern and western
boundaries. Due to the nature of the business and the fact that residential land use is proposed
along the western boundary, the future potential for complaints and nuisance must be
considered. The potential impact of noise nuisance is considered within Chapter 7,
4.3.21
Due to the nature of boarding accommodation provided by the kennels, with the dog
accommodation located within a building and in the form of bedrooms rather than ‘pens’, the
only opportunity for noise nuisance through barking to occur is when the dogs are exercised.
Currently the dogs are exercised on the adjacent Field Lane recreation ground and let out in the
kennel grounds in small groups for short periods of times, with a member of the kennel staff
supervising.
4.3.22
Therefore, the risk of a nuisance from the dog kennels is very low but the perception of nuisance
may occur and any noise from dogs may be attributed to the kennels in the future even when it
is not the case. To ensure that nuisance complaints do not affect the viability and licensing of
this existing facility, mitigation is proposed through the arrangement of the residential dwellings
proposed to the west of the kennels which will specifically take into account its location through
their site arrangement and internal layout. It is also proposed that dwellings near to the kennels
will be provided with suitable noise attenuation in the form of glazing specification whilst an
acoustic boundary treatment will also be specified and agreed through a planning condition.
These measures are considered to be sufficient to prevent nuisance complaints from affecting
the viability of the kennels as a business.
4.4
Assessment of Impact
4.4.1
This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed development, in terms of:
 Local Economy: construction and operation stage employment impacts as a result of the
proposed development;
49
 Wider benefits: this includes an assessment of the application proposal’s contributions
towards national and local socio-economic policies and priorities.
Construction Effects
4.4.2
One of the core impacts during the construction phase of the proposed development of the
application site is likely to be the creation of the development related employment. Given the
scope of the proposals, the proposed development will support significant full-time and part-time
construction jobs.
4.4.3
The effect of construction related employment is a factor of the scheme’s expenditure for site
works and development works. The development cost estimate provided for the application
proposals is £100m. It is accepted the vast majority of investment in construction is retained
locally in the UK.
Table 4.4: Construction Impacts: New Jobs Provided
Construction related impact
Quantity
Highway Infrastructure Costs
£5m
Masterplan Building Costs
£70m
Phase 1 Building Costs
£15m
Approximate development cost for the site
£100m
Cost for creating an additional construction job
£455,551*
Total: Gross new construction jobs
2,195 Gross FTEs
*-
Calculating Cost Per Job - Best Practice Note No. 4: English Partnerships, March 1999: £31,250 for construction
works (per person year). This relates to construction / development cost of £312,500 per full-time equivalent job
assumed to last ten years at 1999 prices or £455,551 at 2010 prices.
4.4.4
The site wide development is estimated to deliver over 2,000 new construction jobs for the local
economy over the duration of the construction phases. The construction managers of the
proposed development are keen to maximise the value of this impact by engaging with existing
local contractors.
Operational Effects
4.4.5
The operational effects are the delivery of the housing to meet the targets identified in the PGS.
The effects are to provide the levels of housing to accommodate the growing population of the
Housing Market Assessment as a result of natural changes, migration and significantly to
support and enable economic growth.
Cumulative Effects
4.4.6
The development will deliver the draft housing allocation site DER/0105 and contribute toward
the planned supply of housing for Derby City. The cumulative effect of which will help to reduce
50
over-occupancy within Derby City and contribute toward reduced travel times for local
employees as more homes close to the City’s employment sources are provided.
Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Construction Effects
4.4.7
It is considered that the development, alongside the other housing and employment allocations
proposed, will lead to an expansion in the construction workforce in Derbyshire as well as help to
maintain the local level of persons employed in the construction industry. As construction job
creation will not be geographically limited to the site area or Derby City and will be mitigated by
the time period over which the development is to be delivered, no detrimental impact is
envisaged and will not lead to any changes requiring mitigation.
Operational Effects
4.4.8
The development will contribute to the provision of the level of housing required to meet
identified needs. The location and scale of housing within Derby City has been anticipated to
meet existing expanding areas of employment and new business enterprise that are located
within Derby City, such as Pride Park and Rolls Royce. There are no adverse socio-economic
effects anticipated from such provision.
Residual Effects
4.4.9
As demonstrated above, the proposed development of the application site is likely to deliver
direct and indirect positive socio-economic impacts which do not require any mitigation, other
than those improving accessibility to it and accelerating the benefits to the existing urban area of
the country park as a local resource. Providing the country park through this development will
be a significant residual effect and contribute positively toward the health and wellbeing of the
existing local population as well as that of future residents of the scheme. This in turn delivers
social benefits as access to an area of countryside and improved recreational facilities are
provided.
4.5
Summary and Conclusions
4.5.1
DCC’s Preferred Growth Strategy identifies that Derby’s population is growing as a result of both
natural increases and due to more people being attracted to the City than are leaving it.
Government projections suggest that this trend is set to continue, although the recently
completed Housing Requirements Study suggests that these increases will not be as high as the
national projections suggest. Using this evidence, the strategy identifies 33,700 new homes to
be provided across the Housing Market Area over the plan period 2008- 2028. Of the 33,700
homes, about 19,230 will be directed into and around the Derby Urban Area.
4.5.2
Economic activity rate for the application proposal’s context area (Derby City) and benchmarks
has been assessed through the ES. It has been measured as a proportion of the resident
working age population. Derby City has been found to have a much higher economic activity rate
compared to the national average.
4.5.3
A continued aspect of maintaining Derby City’s economic success is ensuring that it supplies an
adequate base of employees. As such, the provision of new housing will assist in delivering
51
homes to accommodate a supply of employees for the City’s growing industries, particularly
manufacturing.
4.5.4
To understand how the manufacturing industry influences the job opportunities within Derby City,
job density data has been assessed. The data suggests that the largest sectors of industry in
Derby City are manufacturing and retail, hotels and restaurants. There is an above average
concentration of employment in these sectors compared to regional and national averages.
Private sector led sustainable job creation is a key priority measure outlined and advocated by
the Government in order to tackle the economic downturn, which the high levels of
manufacturing and business could help to satisfy. However, the high proportion of employees in
retail, hotels and restaurants implies that the retail and leisure sector in the immediate context
area is buoyant at present.
4.5.5
As detailed in the Agricultural Land Chapter 14, the majority of the site is in arable or pasture
use, with residential homes, public open space and a dog boarding kennels located immediately
adjacent to the site. In terms of the agricultural use of the site, two agricultural tenancies exist
across the site at present which are short term arrangements. It is not considered that the
removal of the tenancy for the farming of the arable area will have any direct impact upon the
viability of that related land holding and therefore will not cause the related farm and businesses
to close.
4.5.6
Relocation of the animal charity ‘Second Chance Animal Rescue’ is not considered to be
insurmountable over the time frame and given the extent of pasture land available around Derby.
Therefore the identification of alternative sites for agricultural tenants such as the animal shelter
is not considered to be insurmountable.
4.5.7
One of the core impacts during the construction phase of the proposed development of the
application site is likely to be the creation of the development related employment. Given the
scope of the proposals, the proposed development will support significant full-time and part-time
construction jobs.
4.5.8
The effect of construction related employment is a factor of the scheme’s expenditure for site
works and development works. The development cost estimate provided for the application
proposals is £100 million. It is accepted the vast majority of investment in construction is
retained locally in the UK.
4.5.9
The development will deliver the draft housing allocation site DER/0105 and contribute toward
the planned supply of housing for Derby City. The cumulative effect of which will help to reduce
over-occupancy within Derby City and contribute toward reduced travel times for local
employees as more homes close to the City’s employment sources are provided.
4.5.10
The proposed development of the application site is likely to deliver direct and indirect positive
socio-economic impacts which do not require any mitigation, other than those improving
accessibility to it and accelerating the benefits to the existing urban area of the country park as a
local resource.
Providing the country park through this development will be a significant
residual effect and contribute positively toward the health and wellbeing of the existing local
population as well as that of future residents of the scheme. This in turn delivers social benefits
as access to an area of countryside and improved recreational facilities are provided.
52
4.5.11
There are not considered to be any negative effects on socio-economic receptors arising form
this development. The development is the implementation of detailed consideration of housing
need based on population growth from births and deaths, in migration and economic growth.
However, there would be negative consequences of not making the housing provision proposed,
leading to overcrowding, rising property prices, and an uncompetitive labour market.
53
5. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL
5.1
Introduction and Study Area
5.1.1
A comprehensive landscape, townscape and visual assessment has been carried out for the
proposed development by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. This chapter describes and
evaluates the effect of the proposed development on the landscape, townscape and visual
resources and amenity of the site and its surroundings. It reviews the existing baseline
conditions, assesses the potential significant impacts and outlines design and mitigation
proposals incorporated as part of the overall proposed development. It has been undertaken
within the context of the proposals and development parameters detailed elsewhere within this
ES.
5.2
Methodology
Planning Policy Context
5.2.1
The planning policy context of the site and development in relation to landscape and visual
matters is set out in the Baseline Conditions section. This reviews the planning context
specifically in relation to landscape and visual matters, states the relevant policies and outlines
how the proposed development responds to or addresses each of the respective policies.
Baseline Data Collection
5.2.2
The landscape and visual impact assessment approach combines information and desktop
reviews with on-site surveys and appraisals. The site based assessment involves the recording
of both objective descriptions and subjective impressions of the landscape and townscape, as
well as details of its existing condition. The assessment of visual effects includes a site based
assessment of the likely effects of the proposed development upon each of the identified
receptors.
5.2.3
Existing available and published information and data is sourced and includes Landscape
Character Assessments, planning policies and designated sites and features. Statutory and
relevant bodies are also consulted for other information and comments. The results of the
baseline data collection are used in the assessment process as outlined below.
Assessment Methodology
5.2.4
The assessment methodology used in the preparation of this chapter has been developed from
guidance given in Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Second Edition)
and Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland. In summary the
assessment process comprises:

Establishment of existing or baseline conditions, including identification of landscape
character types, planning designations relating to the landscape, identification of visual
receptors and the recording of landscape features on the site and in the vicinity of the
proposed development;

Description of the development;
54

Assessment of the impact of the development on baseline conditions;

Recommendations for design and mitigation measures to offset or reduce identified
impacts; and

Continual reassessment of impacts based upon the evolving design and mitigation
measures being in place, to determine final impact levels.
5.2.5
The assessment seeks to identify the magnitude and significance of changes to the character of
the existing landscape and visual resources, which would arise from the construction and
operation of the development.
5.2.6
Two broad categories of effect are considered:

Landscape effects are changes in the fabric, character and quality of the landscape.
These could include direct impacts upon specific landscape elements (such as loss of
woodland or hedgerows) or effects on landscape character and designated areas of
landscape.

Visual effects relate to specific changes in the character of views and the effects of
those changes on visual receptors (e.g. users of roads or public Rights of Way (PRoW)
and residents or users of recreational facilities). Visual impact to the setting of cultural
heritage features is also considered (e.g. Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed
Buildings or Conservation Areas) as these interests are protected by planning policies.
5.2.7
In making the assessment, magnitude of change is considered alongside the identified
sensitivity of the individual receptors to determine the significance of the resultant effects.
Magnitude of change (assessed as High, Medium, Low or No discernible change) predicts the
degree to which change to landscape character, landscape features or change in view
character would occur as a result of the development.
5.2.8
Sensitivity predicts the degree to which individual receptors will be affected by the change.
Sensitivity varies between receptor types, for example, a small-scale rural landscape may be
more sensitive to change than an urban fringe landscape which has been modified by manmade detractors; views from PRoW would normally be more sensitive to change than views
from roads.
5.2.9
By combining the assessment of magnitude and sensitivity, it is possible to predict the
significance of the resultant effect, which may be negligible, minor, moderate or major and can
be either beneficial or adverse, depending on the nature of the development and the design and
mitigation measures proposed.
5.2.10
Assessment of visual impact on property is carried out on the basis of predicted effects on
views (including garden views). It should be noted however, that the assessment of views from
properties is based on a best assumption from publicly accessible locations close to the
properties. Where it has not been possible to sufficiently assess the potential effects on
properties from public viewpoints or where confidence in predictions are low this is stated within
the text.
5.2.11
Further details of the methodology and assessment criteria are included in Appendix 5.1.
55
5.3
Existing Baseline Conditions
Planning Policy Context and Designations
5.3.1
This section identifies and considers the relevant planning and legislative framework in the
context of the landscape and visual issues. Not all policies are referred to or listed in full but
those of greatest landscape and visual relevance to the application site and nature of the
proposed development are included.
National Context – The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)
5.3.2
The NPPF sets out the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policy and in
combination these policies give the Government’s vision of sustainable development. The NPPF
makes a presumption in favour of sustainable development and emphasises the need for good
design, promoting healthy communities and conserving and enhancing the natural environment.
Regarding landscape and Green Infrastructure, the Natural Environment section of the NPPF
provides a policy context for open countryside and Green Infrastructure. The key objectives are
to protect valued landscapes and, where possible, provide net gains in biodiversity.
5.3.3
No provision is made within the NPPF for Green Wedge designations.
Local Context – The City of Derby Local Plan Review (CDLPR) – Saved Policies
5.3.4
Key general landscape related saved local plan policies identified as applicable to the site and
its context are listed below. These should be read in conjunction with Figure 5.1 Landscape
Designations Plan.
Policy GD2: Protection of the Environment
5.3.5
This general policy considers the environment within development, noting that:“Development should protect, and where possible enhance, the City’s environment,
its natural resources and its built heritage. Full regard will be paid to the need to
protect and enhance landscape character, local distinctiveness and community
identity. Existing landscape features such as woodland areas, trees, hedgerows,
ponds and buildings of interest should be retained where possible and incorporated
into the overall design.”
Policy GD4: Design and the Urban Environment
5.3.6
This is a general policy that:
“…will only permit development which makes a positive contribution to good urban
design. Proposals should meet the following objectives:
a. Preserve or enhance local distinctiveness and take account of any topographical
or other features;
b. The proposal should respect the urban grain of the surrounding area in terms of
its scale, layout, density, height, massing, architectural style and building types,
materials and landscaping;
56
c. Provide a road network designed to reduce the speed of traffic, traffic congestion
and encourage safe pedestrian and cycle movements both within the site and into
and out of it;
d. Facilitate journeys made by foot, cycle and public transport rather than by private
car;
e. Create an attractive environment, including open spaces which in larger schemes
link together to create an area with a clear identity and structure.
Development proposals for significant or sensitive sites should be accompanied by a
design statement.”
Policy E2: Green Wedges
5.3.7
The Policy permits development within Green Wedges which falls into the following categories:1) Agriculture and forestry;
2) Outdoor sport and recreation, including allotments;
3) Nature conservation areas;
4) Cemeteries;
5) Essential buildings and activities ancillary to existing educational establishments within
the Green Wedge;
6) Public utilities where it can be shown that a suitable site outside the Green Wedge is not
available; and
7) The extension or alteration of existing dwellings and the erection of ancillary buildings.
5.3.8
Planning permission for categories 1 – 7 will be granted provided that:
“a. The scale, siting, design, materials and landscape treatment maintain, and do not
endanger, the open and undeveloped character of the wedge, its links with open
countryside and its natural history value. Built development associated with
categories 1 – 4 above will be small scale and essential and ancillary to the
operation of the main use:
b. The general proposals would not detract from an area where the open character of
the Green Wedge is particularly vulnerable because of its prominence or
narrowness; and
c. The proposal would not lead to an excessive increase in numbers of people,
traffic or noise.”
5.3.9
The site lies within the Alvaston/Chellaston (Boulton Moor) Green Wedge. This is further
considered later within this chapter by the DCC Core Strategy Green Wedge Review (2012).
57
Policy E8: Enhancing the Natural Environment
5.3.10
Policy E8 encourages schemes to
“enhance the natural history value of open land, including public open space,
natural history sites, and educational land”.
5.3.11
The supporting text at paragraph. 9.23 notes that:“When planning applications are considered, the Council may seek appropriate tree
planting schemes or other improvements in the natural environment. The Design
Note 'Nature Conservation on Development Sites' gives specific advice as to how
this can be achieved. All schemes should take into account the targets set by the
Lowland Derbyshire Biodiversity Action Plan.”
Policy E9: Trees
5.3.12
Policy E9 seeks to protect individual trees, groups of trees or areas of woodland which
contribute to the amenity of an area. The policy notes that:“...Conditions will be imposed on outline and full planning permissions to secure the
protection of trees before and during development...”
Policy E16: Development close to important open land
5.3.13
The policy states that:“Planning permission will only be granted for development near to Green Belt,
Green Wedges and wildlife corridors if adequate landscaping is provided to ensure
that the visual amenities and special character of these open spaces is not
adversely affected.”
5.3.14
As stated previously in this chapter, the site lies within the Alvaston/Chellaston (Boulton Moor)
Green Wedge as defined by saved Policy E2 of the CDLPR. Works required to highways
associated with the development lie within the edge of Green Belt.
Policy E17: Landscaping Schemes
5.3.15
Policy E17 requires the undertaking of landscaping schemes in connection with development
where these are necessary to meet the following objectives:

To assimilate the development into its local environment and surroundings;

To screen obtrusive or unsightly features and minimise adverse visual impact;

To retain and incorporate existing natural features such as trees and hedges; or

To provide visual and ecological links between important environmental resources
such as green wedges, public open space, sites of natural history importance and
wildlife corridors.
58
Policy E22: Historic Parks and Gardens
5.3.16
Policy E22 seeks to protect the character or setting of registered historic parks and gardens
“…within or close to the City, or their relationship with any buildings with which they
are historically linked.” This includes Elvaston Castle and grounds to the east of the
site.
Policy L1: Protection of Parks and Public Open Space
5.3.17
Policy L1 seeks to protect Public Open Spaces; such as Field Lane public open space to the
north of the site, and Chellaston Park Public Open Space to the south.
“Within areas of public open space, planning permission will not be granted for any
proposal other than those associated with the provision of leisure or recreational
uses of an open nature, unless an assessment has been undertaken which has
clearly shown the open space to be surplus to requirements.”
Policy L9: Former Derby Canal
5.3.18
The former Derby canal is also designated as National Cycle Route 6, and is located a short
distance to the west of the site. Policy L9 safeguards the route as
“much of the canal route within the City is used now as linear public open space and
for cycling and walking. These sections are also identified as wildlife corridors and
contain specific features of wildlife interest.”
Local Development Framework
5.3.19
The Local Plan will eventually be replaced by the documents produced as part of the Local
Development Framework (LDF). Upon completion the Core Strategy will provide a strategy for
the future development of Derby but is yet to be published in its final form.
5.3.20
Two further landscape related documents form part of Council’s Local Development Framework
evidence base. These are;
5.3.21

DCC Townscape Character Assessment

DCC Core Strategy Green Wedge Review (October 2012)
Both these documents are considered later within this section of this chapter.
6C’s Green Infrastructure Strategy
5.3.22
This Strategy sets out objectives for delivery of Green Infrastructure within the 6Cs sub-region.
The 6c’s sub-region includes the settlement and landscape context of Derby. The study defines
assets and Green Infrastructure corridors. These have been considered as part of the design
process for the development with opportunities identified and incorporated within the
development proposals wherever possible. The assets within the context of the Site are
identified and described within the following paragraphs. Key plans from the document are
included at Appendix 5.2.
5.3.23
The proposed Vision for GI in the 6Cs sub-region is set out at paragraph 3.3.1 as:-
59
“The long term Vision for GI in the 6Cs sub-region is to maintain, enhance and
extend a planned multifunctional Green Infrastructure network. This will comprise
existing and new green spaces, natural and cultural features and interconnected
green links in and around the three cities of Derby, Leicester and Nottingham,
connecting with their surrounding towns and villages as part of the sustainable
growth of the sub-region. The river valleys of the Trent, Soar and Derwent and their
tributaries provide the ‘backbone’ of the network, linking the three cities with each
other.
A major step-change in the scale, quality and connectivity of Green Infrastructure
assets will be required to match the scale of new growth planned, and deliver
environmental, economic and social benefits. This will be achieved through the
commitment of stakeholders involved in planning, delivering and managing GI and
sustainable development across the 6Cs sub-region working in partnership to
establish the network as a lasting legacy for future generations.
The network will provide increased opportunities for communities in and around the
three cities to access a variety of green spaces on their doorsteps and in the wider
countryside. It will be set within, and contribute to, a high quality natural, cultural
and built environment that provides substantial quality of life benefits for residents
and visitors, and is a focus for attracting and retaining economic investment in the
area.
The network will be a framework for delivering biodiversity benefits on a landscape
scale, and as appropriate to the local landscape character, by protecting, connecting
and creating a diverse range of wildlife habitats and providing ecological corridors
for species dispersal and migration.
Investment in the network will contribute to our environmental, economic and social
adaptation and mitigation to the challenges of climate change.
The 6C’s Green Infrastructure Study sets out objectives for the delivery of Green
Infrastructure within the 6Cs sub-region. The study recognises that Derby’s Green
Wedges have the potential to deliver, a range of green infrastructure functions and
benefits. However, it also acknowledges that Green Wedges should be reviewed and
that not all of the Green Wedges should necessarily be retained in their current
form.”
DCC Core Strategy Green Wedge Review (2012)
5.3.24
This technical Green Wedge review has been undertaken at a strategic level and forms part of
the evidence base for the preparation of the Local Development Framework. Importantly, the
Green Wedge review document advises;
“Core Strategy ‘Options Consultation’ document of 2010 identified the strategic
function of Greed Wedges as a ‘Key Challenge and Issue’ that the Core Strategy
needs to address. Stakeholder responses to this included adding a commitment to
reviewing them and releasing land in sustainable locations within them that would
not undermine their strategic function.”
60
5.3.25
The review seeks to:
“…establish the different roles and functions of each of the thirteen Green Wedges
currently identified in the CDLPR, in order to help assess whether the principle of
each individual Green Wedge can still be justifiably maintained. ….This review forms
one part of the site assessment process and will help to inform decisions about
where new development should be located in the future.”
5.3.26
As stated earlier in this chapter, the site lies within the Alvaston/Chellaston (Boulton Moor)
Green Wedge as defined by saved Policy E2 of the CDLPR. The extent of the Green Wedge is
shown on Figure 5.1.
5.3.27
Relevant extracts from the Core Strategy Green Wedge Review (CSGWR) are included at
Appendix 5.2 of this document. However, the more relevant findings for the site and its
immediate context include the following extracts:
“What are the main functions of this Green Wedge?

It helps to define the edges of Alvaston/Boulton and Chellaston/Shelton Lock,
contributing to their separation, character and identity and enhancing the urban
structure of the city;

It provides a vital break in the urban landscape helping to reduce the feeling of
urban sprawl;

The Green Wedge allows the open countryside to penetrate into the urban area
of the city, providing residents with access to the countryside and space for
recreational activities. It also provides a haven for wildlife within the urban area;

The Green Wedge accommodates educational establishments and associated
playing fields, including the newly rebuilt Noel-Baker Secondary School;

The Green Wedge provides vital flood storage and provides space to allow water
to soak away naturally, reducing the need for engineered drainage;

It is a green lung within the city, helping to mitigate the impacts of climate
change;

It provides space for agriculture and is one of the most actively farmed areas of
the city;

The allotments within the Green Wedge provide an opportunity for local food
production;

The open and undeveloped character of the Green Wedge and the recreational
opportunities it provides contribute towards the mental and physical well being
of residents.
Overall Conclusion:
61
The principle of a Green Wedge in this location should be maintained and where possible
opportunities for enhancement should be pursued.”
5.3.28
Notably, the report concludes that:
“The overall width of the Green Wedge means that there is some potential to reconfigure
it to allow a significant amount of new development on the eastern edge.”
5.4
Landscape and Character Context
5.4.1
The combining facets of a landscape set one area apart from those adjacent to it, and make its
character unique to the people who both live in or visit the area. Landscape Character
Assessment (LCA) is a process of characterising a landscape, and the consideration of effects
on landscape character. Published landscape character assessments have been prepared at a
National and Countywide scale, the relevance of these documents to the site and its landscape
context is reviewed below. Relevant extracts of these documents are included at Appendix 5.3.
Published Landscape Character Assessments
National - Natural England (formerly the Countryside Agency) Character Map of England
5.4.2
The Countryside Character Initiative, led by the former Countryside Agency, mapped England
into 159 separate, distinctive character areas on a regional scale. The site and the eastern
extents of the City of Derby are located within the western part of National Character Area 69:
Trent Valley Washlands.
5.4.3
As part of its responsibilities in delivering the Natural Environment White Paper, Biodiversity
2020 and the European Landscape Convention, Natural England is revising the National
Character Area Profiles (NCAPs). The revised NCAP for the Trent Valley Washlands has yet to
be published, so the Joint Character Areas (JCAs) and the Countryside Character Area
descriptions have been used in the assessment and describes the very broad landscape context
and character of the wide geographic area within which the eastern extents of Derby City and
the site fall. The Trent Valley Washlands Character Area extends south east as far as
Loughborough, and as far as Tamworth to the west, and includes Long Eaton, Derby and Burton
upon Trent respectively.
5.4.4
The key characteristics of the Trent Valley Washlands as set out in the JCA are;

“Flat broad valleys, contained by gentle side slopes, with wide rivers slowly
flowing between alluvial terraces.

Constant presence of urban development, mostly on valley sides, in places
sprawling across the valley and transport corridors following the valley route.

Contrasts of secluded pastoral areas, with good hedgerow structure, and open
arable with low hedges.

Strong influence of riparian vegetation, where rivers are defined by lines of
willow pollards and poplars.
62

5.4.5
Open character punctuated by massive cooling towers of power stations and
strongly influenced by pylons, sand and gravel extraction, and roads.”
The Character Area description notes that
“…the Washlands comprise a somewhat fragmented landscape of pastoral and arable
land intermixed with urban development.”
“It is difficult to avoid the constant presence of urban and industrial development, main
roads and railways, even in the quieter pastoral valley bottoms.”
Regional – the East Midlands Regional Landscape Character Assessment, April 2010
5.4.6
This document has been prepared to support the work of the East Midlands Landscape
Partnership. The purpose of the document is to provide a regional overview
“to help ensure that there is a more coherent, consistent and integrated approach to
landscape planning, protection and management across the East Midlands.”
5.4.7
The landscape surrounds to the south and east of Derby are covered by Regional Landscape
Character Type 5c: Undulating Mixed Farmlands. There is no specific reference to the site or to
its context within the Character Description.
5.4.8
The key characteristics of the Undulating Mixed Farmlands include;
5.4.9

“Varied landform of broad rolling ridges, steep sided valleys, rounded hills and
undulating lowlands;

Well treed character arising from abundant hedgerow trees, copses and
woodlands;

Upland areas mark a major watershed in Middle England and are the source of
major rivers;

Mixed farming regime with mainly arable land uses on hills and ridges and in
fertile lowlands; intact hedgerow networks generally associated with pastoral
land uses;

Sparse settlement patterns with limited modern development; widespread use of
local limestone and ironstone in vernacular buildings and churches;

Network of quiet country lanes linking rural communities;

Remote, rural and sometimes empty character; and

Frequent and prominent ridge and furrow and evidence of deserted or shrunken
medieval settlements.”
The following is noted within the general character descriptions;
“Of particular importance to creating this visual unity is the undulating nature of the
landform, interspersed with relatively high hills and ridges, a mixed agricultural regime
63
and areas of permanent pasture preserving widespread ridge and furrow, occasional
woodlands and spinneys, and a network of well treed hedgerows…
…In areas of intensive arable production, hedgerows can be low and trees intermittent,
particularly where they mark later periods of enclosure. However, elsewhere the hedge
cover is generally very good, and contributes significantly to the perception of a well
maintained agricultural landscape. Sinuous hedgerows marking ancient boundaries are
particularly rich. Indeed, in a landscape with relatively low semi-natural vegetation cover,
trees and hedgerows provide important refuges and connective habitats for wildlife.”
5.4.10
Within the Landscape Change and Management Section the following observations and
recommendations are made under the heading ‘Built development’;
“Forces for Change
The Undulating Mixed Farmlands have seen limited late 20th century growth and
development and many areas remain remote and rural. However, modern mixed-use
development is evident on the fringes of larger settlements… This creates visual
intrusion and extends the urban fringe.”
Shaping the Future Landscape
The aim should be to protect the character of the countryside and consider the visual
impact of any new development included areas of large scale mixed use development
associated with the identified Growth Areas. Specific mechanisms include best practice
innovative architectural design and planning solutions, and planting of new trees and
woodland, helping to integrate new development into the landscape...
The findings and guidance of Landscape Character and Historic Landscape Assessments
will together provide tools to inform the development of major urban extensions around
the main settlements…”
5.4.11
The National and Regional Landscape Character Assessments provide a very broad contextual
understanding and descriptions covering extensive landscape areas. In this respect they do not
provide details that are necessarily directly relevant to the site or its immediate surroundings,
other than to establish the underlying characteristics of the wider landscape. More detailed and
site relevant landscape character assessments are contained within the countywide assessment
as outlined below.
County – The Landscape Character of Derbyshire (December 2003)
5.4.12
The Landscape Character of Derbyshire includes a landscape character assessment of the
county. A total of 39 Landscape Character Types (LCTs) have been identified within the 10
National Landscape Character Areas occurring within the county. Although urban areas are
excluded from the assessment, consideration is given to the overall contribution they make to
settlement patterns and how they influence the landscape immediately surrounding them.
Landscape Character areas are illustrated on Figure 5.2.
5.4.13
Within this assessment, the site is located within the Lowland Village Farmlands LCT. The more
relevant key points relating to the Lowland Village Farmlands LCT and its relationship with the
urban edge of Derby can be summarised as follows;
64
“Key Features

Gently rolling, almost flat lowland with river terraces;

Low slopes and summits give a sense of elevation over a broad floodplain;

Mixed farming with arable cropping and improved pasture;

Thinly scattered hedgerow trees including some willow pollards;

Scattered, locally dense, watercourse trees;

Medium to large regular fields with thorn hedgerows;

Discrete red brick villages with farms and cottages; and

Large red brick outlying farms.
Summary
The resultant land-use is typically mixed, with cropping on the flatter, more cultivable,
soils and improved pasture in damper areas…
The enclosure pattern reflects a diverse history. Immediately adjacent to the villages,
fields are medium size, semi-regular, with areas of ridge and furrow reflecting the
enclosure of medieval open fields. The hedges that enclose these fields are species rich.
……
Much of the original character of this landscape has been seriously impacted upon by
modern large scale development. Large power stations dominate views across the
landscape as do the many pylons carrying the resultant electricity. The gentle topography
above the floodplain has always been attractive for road construction and modern roads
like the A50 and A52 pass through this landscape....”
5.4.14
The following Planting and Management Guidelines are considered to be appropriate for the
Lowland Village Farmlands LCT:“Primary woodland character: Thinly scattered small plantations
Primary tree character: Thinly scattered hedgerow
Woodland vision: Thinly scattered small plantations
Tree vision: Thinly scattered hedgerow
Typical woodland size range: 0.5 - 10 ha small
Woodland pattern: Regular plantations

Ensure the use of indigenous tree and shrub species, including a proportion of large,
long lived species;
65
5.4.15

Conserve and enhance the tree groups that occur within and around rural settlements
and isolated farmsteads;

Encourage the continuing practice of pollarding to maintain the traditional riparian
character of the landscape; and

Ensure new woodland does not conflict with features (e.g. ridge and furrow) that help
to define landscape character.”
The recommendations of the landscape character assessments have been considered in the
formulation and design of the Masterplan and associated Green Infrastructure proposals for the
development.
Derby City Council Townscape Character Assessment
5.4.16
DCC has prepared a series of draft Townscape Character Assessments for all of the wards
within Derby. The study advises;
“These present information about the built environment and about what makes up an
area’s identity. Information includes whether the area is historic or new, the age and type
of its housing areas, whether it is entirely residential or has large amounts of other land
uses such as employment areas and so on.”
5.4.17
The site is located between the defined Wards of Boulton and Chellaston respectively (see
Figure 5.2). The northern portion of the site, the adjoining residential area, public open space
and Noel-Baker School to the north, lie within the Ward of Boulton, while the southern portion of
the site and adjoining residential area and public open space lie within the Ward of Chellaston.
The full Townscape Character Assessment for both Wards are included at Appendix 5.3. The
key points relating to the site and its immediate context are summarised as follows:
“Boulton Ward:
Historic Character and Identity:
Boulton ward is located in the south eastern part of Derby. It has developed around the
settlements of Allenton and Alvaston and their shopping areas and forms a large
residential area between the two. It has not developed around a centre of its own but has
grown through continuous residential growth over the years.
The south eastern edge of the ward forms the city boundary but residential growth has
taken place beyond the city in South Derbyshire. Although not a part of the ward, this
area forms part of the neighbourhood of Boulton.
Landscape and Open Space:
Part of the Boulton Moor Green Wedge is located in the south of the ward. It helps to
define the ward of Boulton from the Shelton Lock / Chellaston area to the south. It also
enables the countryside to penetrate the built up area of the city. The Green Wedge
contains Noel-Baker Secondary School and accommodates a large area of public open
space.
66
Heritage, Townscape and Movement:
The townscape of the ward has a suburban feel and is characterised by early / mid 20th
Century housing. There has been more recent residential development, particularly to the
south of the ward.
There are relatively few landmark buildings in the Boulton area…The general
development layout in Boulton is mainly made up of inter war and mid 20th Century style
block patterns with avenues and cul-de-sacs leading off from main distributor roads.
Housing in the area is characterised by medium densities and reasonably sized rear
gardens.
…Noel-Baker School and Merrill College also significantly influence movement by car,
bicycle and by foot across the ward and beyond.
Chellaston Ward:
Historic Character and Identity:
The ward includes the two distinct residential areas of Chellaston to the south and
Shelton Lock to the north. It is located on the periphery of the city and abuts Boulton
ward to the north, Sinfin ward to the west and the administrative area of South Derbyshire
District Council to the south.
Like many of the more mature suburbs of Derby, the Chellaston area was initially a small
and separate village, located outside of the boundary of Derby… There has been
significant residential expansion in the ward in the last 15 years, through the
development of East Chellaston off Snelsmoor Lane and the more recent West Chellaston
area.
Concerns have been raised about some new developments, especially where these have
been developed or proposed within established lower density areas.
Landscape and Open Space:
The main areas of open space and open landscape in the ward are the Green Wedges.
They help to define the built communities of Chellaston and Shelton Lock and separate
the ward from Sinfin to the west and Alvaston and Boulton to the east. They also allow
open countryside to penetrate the built up areas of the city.
The Green Wedges in this area accommodate agricultural and school uses including
playing fields.
The former route of the Derby and Sandiacre canal runs from the south of the city
through Chellaston and Shelton Lock and provides linear open space.
Heritage, Townscape and Movement:
The village centre of Chellaston is the historic core of the ward. There are no
conservation areas located within the ward, although there are a number of important
historic buildings within the village area…
67
The linear development along the main road is characterised by inter war detached and
semi detached housing… The more modern housing estates are also characterised by
detached and semi detached housing, although there is a greater mix of property types.
Away from the more modern housing estates, development is roughly based on a grid
pattern with streets aligned at 90 degrees to the Swarkestone Road corridor. The modern
estates have a tighter street pattern, with smaller plot sizes enabling higher densities.
Layouts tend to be less regimented with small cul-de-sac closes running off the estate
distributor routes.
Pedestrian movements are associated with the key activity nodes in the area such as the
District Centre and Chellaston Secondary School. The former canal route also enables
north / south pedestrian and cycle movements.”
Local Landscape Character
5.4.18
The interaction of topography, vegetation and local townscape/ landscape features result in a
closely defined character area. An assessment of local landscape character has been carried
out, using field evaluation and analysis of maps and other published data based on guidance by
Natural England. Local landscape character is described below and should be read in
conjunction with the Landscape Designations Plan (Figure 5.1), Topography Plan (Figure 5.3)
and Aerial Photograph (Figure 5.4). This provides a finer level and more site specific
assessment than those included within the published landscape character assessments.
Landform
5.4.19
Within the immediate context of the site, the City of Derby lies on lower land, while land to the
south is characterised by a relatively more elevated and gently rolling landscape.
5.4.20
The site itself forms a transition between these two topographic areas; with flatter land within the
north and east of the site (at around 42m to 45m AOD), and the rising slopes within the south
and west forming part of a local ridgeline (at approximately 54m AOD) along Snelsmoor Lane.
Hedgerows
5.4.21
The site consists of a network of agricultural fields of varying sizes, bounded by hedgerows.
Generally, the field sizes tend to be larger within the southern half of the site, and become
smaller and more irregular within the northern half. The northern hedgerows also tend to be
more species rich, with a greater number of hedgerow trees present.
Woodland and Trees
5.4.22
A small copse of trees is located on the rising slopes near the southern boundary. There are
also numerous hedgerow trees, especially in the northern half of the site. A mature line of trees
and planting forms the boundary to the eastern edge of the site, while mature boundary
vegetation along the existing settlement edges to the north and south provide a degree of
screening to the properties beyond.
68
Water Feature, Watercourses and Drains
5.4.23
A network of wet and dry ditches cross the site and are associated with the hedgerows along
field boundaries. As such, a greater number of ditches are found in the northern half of the site
where the topography is lower and flatter. A pond is located within a small copse of planting on
the rising southern slopes.
Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and other Footpaths
5.4.24
The existing routes within and in proximity to the site are identified on Figure 5.1. A single
PRoW traverses the site from north to south along the western boundary, linking Boulton with
Chellaston. Off-site routes are located to the west of the site, including the National Cycle Route
6 along the former Derby Canal, and an adjacent PRoW. These off-site routes generally lie
adjacent the existing settlement edge of Chellaston.
Urban Influences and Infrastructure
5.4.25
Urban fringe influences are evident and in some cases provide an abrupt settlement edge to the
City of Derby. The Noel-Baker School to the north-west of the site provides a local landmark
from the site. Existing residential properties on the sites western and northern edges
predominantly have back gardens facing the site, with some boundary screening. Elevated
power lines cross from east to west through the northern half of the site.
Landscape Condition
5.4.26
The condition of the existing site landscape has been assessed as Medium. This indicates that
the landscape or component part(s) or features are in reasonable condition and are being
managed and maintained to a suitable regime and standard. Other areas or features of the
landscape would however, benefit from a combination of either improved or different
management or maintenance.
Visual Receptors and Existing Views
5.4.27
A detailed visual appraisal has been undertaken for the proposed development. The baseline
appraisal seeks to explore the nature of the existing visual amenity of the area and to establish
the approximate visibility of the site from any surrounding receptors. This section provides a
baseline analysis of the available views and amenity and is supported by a series of photo
viewpoints (Figures 5.6 – 5.9).
5.4.28
An assessment of the visual effects of the proposed development upon the receptors is detailed
in the subsequent effects section. Figure 5.5 details the location of the photo viewpoints. The
viewpoints are described below.
Viewpoint A: View north from Snelsmoor Lane
5.4.29
From Snelsmoor Lane (which tops the southern ridgeline of the site), cropped hedgerows allow
views north across the site and beyond toward the edge of Boulton. The southern half of the site
is open in nature; comprised of large fields bound by few, low hedgerows. The open character is
also emphasised through its slightly elevated position, offering some views out. The overgrown
hedgerow and hedgerow trees along the sites eastern boundary effectively screens and contains
views towards the east.
69
Viewpoint B: View north from properties along Snelsmoor Lane, Chellaston
5.4.30
Properties along Snelsmoor Lane, within Chellaston, top the southern ridgeline and have clear
elevated views of the site toward Boulton. Although it should be noted that views of the site look
to be mostly gained from the backs of properties or back gardens. In this regard they would not
be considered the primary views or aspect from these particular properties.
Viewpoint C: View north from Chellaston Park public open space
5.4.31
Chellaston Park is a dedicated area of public open space, and provides a number of play
opportunities together with parkland trees, shrubs and a footpath network along its perimeter. It
is from this northern perimeter footway that views are afforded of the site through gaps in the
hedgerow. Again, from this slightly elevated position, a large portion of the site is visible, albeit
from limited breaks in the hedgerow.
Viewpoint D: View east from Public Right of Way from within the site
5.4.32
A single PRoW traverses the western edge of the site, from north to south, and links Boulton to
Chellaston. Field sizes become progressively smaller towards the north of the site, and together
with the flatter topography, the intervening hedgerows start to provide screening to the rest of
the site. The rising topography to the southern boundary is a prominent feature from within the
site, with the rear of properties on Snelsmoor Lane visible along the ridge. Other residential
properties can be seen adjoining the site in Chellaston and Boulton however these are partially
screened beyond mature boundary vegetation and hedgerows.
Viewpoint E: View east from Public Right of Way
5.4.33
This view looks east from a public right of way approximately 400m to the west. The site is
effectively screened beyond the successive layering effect of mature and overgrown hedgerows.
What little view might occur, will be in set within the urban context of the exposed settlement
edge of Chellaston, Noel-Baker School and overhead electricity pylons.
Viewpoint F: View east from Public Right of Way along the former Derby canal (National
Cycle Route 6)
5.4.34
The former Derby canal provides green corridor through to the centre of Derby. As such, the
boundaries of the route are planted and afford few views in the direction of the site. Where a
break in the flanking vegetation does occur (to allow access to the adjoining PRoW) the
overlapping effects of the intervening hedgerows and hedgerow trees again provides screening
of the site.
Viewpoint G: View south east from Public Right of Way and County Wildlife Site within the
site
5.4.35
The view is taken from the PRoW through the Boulton Hedges LWS, and as such is bound by
mature hedgerows and hedgerow trees. The smaller, enclosed field structure is most notable in
the northern portion of the site, and helps to contain views across the site and beyond. The
properties to the south of the site on Snelsmoor Lane are again visible, with views of the other
settlement edges of Chellaston and Boulton to a much lesser extent.
70
Viewpoint H: View east from Public Right of Way within the site
5.4.36
Looking east from the north western edge, this northern edge of the site is influenced by the
urban influences of the exposed settlement edge of Boulton. Views are gained in the immediate
vicinity of pasture fields and cropped hedgerows.
Viewpoint I: View south from End Cottage, Boulton
5.4.37
End Cottage is located adjacent the public open space off Field Lane, and is surrounded by the
northern edge of the site. The view is located at the end of Field Lane that links the site to
Boulton to the north. Views of the site can be gained from the rear of End Cottage, with
screened and intermittent views of the site along this boundary, through gaps in the overgrown
hedgerows and planting.
Viewpoint J: View south west from Field Lane public open space
5.4.38
This view looking south west is taken on the edge of the public open space and from the rear
boundaries of the properties in Boulton. Limited views of the site beyond are afforded, screened
by an existing planting belt that reinforces the existing boundary hedgerow to the site. The rising
slopes of Snelsmoor Lane are visible on the horizon.
Viewpoint K: View south west from Mill Hill, Boulton
5.4.39
Properties at the end of Mill Hill lie adjacent the site boundary and are afforded screened views
in a limited number of locations. Any views are softened however, by the intervening hedgerows
and dominated by electricity pylons.
Viewpoint L: View west from Snelsmoor Lane
5.4.40
At the edge of Boulton along Snelsmoor Lane, views are available across the countryside. The
rising southern slope of the site is visible, with the properties on Snelsmoor Lane. The distance
at which the site is viewed and the overgrown vegetation to the site boundary help screen views
of the site. It should also be noted that the current view will change in due course as some of
the intervening land has permission for development.
Summary
5.4.41
The interaction of topography, vegetation and existing urban edge results in a restricted visual
‘envelope’ or visible extent of the site, as shown on Figure 5.5. The photographic viewpoints
demonstrate how visually contained the site area is, and show that there is virtually no
interrelationship with the wider setting. The site is of limited visual significance beyond its
immediate perimeter.
5.4.42
Potential visual receptors to be assessed have been identified through both field work and desk
study and are summarised below;

Residential properties on Snelsmoor Lane, Chellaston;

Residential properties on the settlement edge of Chellaston;

End Cottage, Boulton
71
5.5

Residential properties on the settlement edge of Boulton

Public footpath within the site;

National Cycle Route 6 PRoW and adjacent PRoW;

Users of Chellaston Park and Field Lane public open space adjacent Boulton;

Users of Snelsmoor Lane;

Noel-Baker School.
Assessment of Effects
Construction Effects
5.5.1
Construction phase details of the project are included at elsewhere within the ES.
5.5.2
The location and design of temporary site compounds, lighting, signage and perimeter screen
fencing, combined with effective project management would seek to ensure that the potential
landscape and visual effects are mitigated and minimised during the construction phase. It is
anticipated that the construction working methods would adopt best practices wherever
practicable and be agreed with the Local Planning Authorities and Statutory Bodies where
necessary.
Landscape Effects
5.5.3
The extent of the planting to be removed represents a small overall proportion and quantity.
Where trees are to be conserved, protective fencing and measures in accordance with BS 5837
(Trees in relation to construction) would be implemented as required to protect the areas; trees
and planting within the site. These would be implemented prior to the commencement of
construction work within the vicinity of the specific areas or planting. The removal of any mature
trees or vegetation would be undertaken outside the bird nesting season (or if unavoidable,
would be inspected prior to removal by a suitably qualified ecologist and only removed following
confirmation that there are no nesting birds present).
5.5.4
In landscape terms, the effects arising during construction would not be significant and would
generally reflect the overall change to the landscape character of the site and loss of landscape
features and resources as outlined in the subsequent Operational Effects section. Overall and
relative to the local landscape character and resources, there would be a Minor Adverse
landscape effect during construction.
Visual Effects
5.5.5
Construction activities and plant movements within the site would be visible from a limited
number of receptors. The clearest views towards the activities and plant movements etc would
be experienced by those properties, PRoW and other receptors in closest proximity. These
would principally include the PRoW within and around the site and from the edge of settlement
at Boulton to the north and Chellaston to the south. Views would be possible from some lengths
of Snelsmoor Lane along the site’s southern boundary. Distant views would be possible to the
72
activity from Snelsmoor lane to the east, and the Noel-Baker School and PRoW to the northwest.
5.5.6
The significance of the visual effects for all of these receptors would vary during the course of
construction and would generally increase at the peak of construction activity. At this time, the
significance of the visual effects is likely to exceed those arising from the completed and
operational development. However, these increased visual effects would only occur for a
relatively short duration and for a limited number of receptors or locations. The sequencing and
phasing of the development would also influence the nature and extent of the visual effects
during the construction period.
5.5.7
Overall, the construction effects on the surrounding visual receptors would vary from Minor
Adverse to Moderate Adverse, with users of the PRoW that cross the site and properties that
immediately surrounding the site with the closest and clearest views towards the construction
activity experiencing the most significant visual effects at the peak of construction activity.
5.5.8
At worst, the significance of the visual effects of construction upon each of the identified
receptors is considered to be generally comparable with the significance assessments outlined
in the Operational Section. These are detailed in the Visual Effects Schedule (Appendix 5.4). In
some cases, the potential visual effects would be relatively worse or better for a period of time,
yet the significance of the effects during the construction period as a whole are considered to be
generally comparable.
Operational Effects
5.5.9
This section details the landscape and visual effects arising from the proposed development of
the site. The assessment is based upon the Concept Masterplan and Landscape Framework
plan (Figure 5.10) contained in this document and forming part of the planning application. The
operational effects consider those effects arising upon completion of the proposed development.
Landscape Effects
5.5.10
The predicted effects are considered with reference to the published landscape character
assessments, local landscape character and site specific landscape features and components.
Landscape Character Assessments
5.5.11
The proposed development would have limited effects upon the relevant landscape types and
character areas identified in the Landscape Character of Derbyshire. This generally reflects the
broader scale of these published assessments and the reduced influence that the proposals
would have over these more extensive landscape tracts.
5.5.12
The proposed development would have a negligible landscape effect upon this broad part of the
Trent Valley Washlands Landscape Character Area (LCA) as detailed in national and county
wide assessments.
5.5.13
At a relatively more detailed level, the proposed development would occupy an urban fringe
location within the Lowland Village Farmlands Landscape Character Type (LCT). The proposed
development would result in a Negligible to Minor Adverse landscape effect upon this LCT
where it lies between the existing urban limbs of Boulton and Chellaston. Beyond this, the
73
proposed development would have a rapidly diminishing influence and no discernible landscape
effect on the wider extents of this particular LCT.
Local Landscape Character
5.5.14
The proposals would extend new built development into an area largely comprising arable
farmland. The proposals would extend from and connect with the existing settlement edge to
the ward of Boulton. The proposals would result in the direct loss of farmland and would
encroach into an area that is largely characterised by the combination of farmland, rolling
topography and a framework of trees and hedgerows. This local landscape character is
however, also influenced by the existing settlement edge.
5.5.15
The landscape sensitivity of this local landscape character area to the nature of the development
proposed (namely, residential and education) has been assessed as Medium. This indicates that
the landscape is of reasonably positive character, yet would be potentially tolerant of well
planned and designed change.
5.5.16
The magnitude of landscape change arising from the proposed development would not be
dramatic. This would in part be due to the current influences of the adjoining settlement edge
and in part due to the conservation of landscape features and characteristics within the site (e.g.
trees, hedgerows and Boulton Moor LWS). The conservation of the vast majority of the existing
planting, tree belts and hedgerows, which occur, together with the inclusion of significant new
planting, areas of open space and a large country park that would form part of the proposed
scheme help to lessen any potential adverse effects and maximise the benefits.
5.5.17
Whilst the proposed development would significantly alter the existing local landscape character
of the site, the nature of the change would include some beneficial as well as adverse effects.
The overall magnitude of this change has been assessed as low.
5.5.18
Overall, the resultant significance of landscape effect upon the local landscape character of the
site and its immediate context would be at worst minor adverse.
Landscape Features
5.5.19
Landform: The proposed development has sought to assimilate the necessary landform changes
as appropriately as possible and with minimal disruption to the existing topographic character of
the site. The proposed development would keep off the rising land to the south, notionally taking
the existing 45m contour as the extent of built development. The significance of the landscape
effect upon the local landform has been assessed as negligible.
5.5.20
Hedgerows: The pattern of existing and new hedgerows would run throughout the proposed
development and would provide an appropriate and distinctive landscape setting to the built
proposals. The proposed development would have a beneficial effect upon the overall character
with an extension of the overall lengths and management improvements. The significance of the
landscape effect upon hedgerows has been assessed as minor beneficial.
5.5.21
Woodland and Trees: The landscape proposals would retain the small copse of trees close to
the southern edge of the site, with new planting linking it to other habitats across the site. This
would include extensive new woodland planting of native trees, shrubs and hedgerow plants as
part of the large country park. This would significantly increase the overall number of plants and
74
related habitats across the site and assist in establishing a robust landscape framework for the
built development proposals. In combination with the conserved planting, it assimilates the built
development proposals. The significance of the landscape effect upon woodland and trees has
been assessed as moderate beneficial.
5.5.22
Water Features, Watercourses and Drains: The existing drains, pond and associated vegetation
would be conserved where possible as part of the proposed development. Other new water
features and wetlands would be formed alongside these as part of the Sustainable Drainage
System (SuDS), flood alleviation and ecological measures. These would enhance and extend
the existing features and would be designed to maximise their landscape and ecological
contribution to the proposed development. The proposals would include a series of open
swales, and a number of ponds and wetlands and large flood alleviation areas that could
accommodate wet grassland and further water features. The significance of the landscape
effect of the proposed development upon water features, watercourses and drains has been
assessed as minor beneficial.
5.5.23
Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and other Footpaths: The existing PRoW extends from north to
south along the western edge of the site, with a number of footways offsite to the west. The
proposed development would conserve the existing PRoW and look to provide new links to the
PRoW to the west through the new country park proposals.
5.5.24
The proposals will considerably increase the footway/cycleway network, through the built
development and extending out into the country park. These will provide connectivity between
the development and beyond to the surrounding settlements of Chellaston and Boulton,
surrounding public open space and Noel-Baker School.
5.5.25
The effects upon the views and visual amenity of users of the PRoW are addressed in the Visual
Effects section. The significance of the landscape effect upon the PRoW has been assessed as
minormoderate Beneficial. The landscape effects of the development are summarised in Table
5.1.
5.5.26
The development aims to establish a strong and robust landscape that is appropriate in
landscape character terms and maximises its contribution to the landscape resources of the site.
The landscape proposals would seek to reflect both the scale of the built development
envisaged and the character of the surrounding landscape.
5.5.27
New trees, shrubs and hedgerow plants would be planted as part of the development. These
would be principally native, indigenous and appropriate to the landscape character of the wider
area and would offer valuable localised landscape and ecological benefits. The Landscape
Framework plan itself (excluding on plot landscape proposals to the building surrounds)
occupies over 30 hectares, which equates to approximately a half of the total site area.
5.5.28
Overall, the landscape effects of the development would generally vary between Moderate
Beneficial and Minor Adverse at the outset of the scheme. These varying landscape effects
reflect the different scales and sensitivities of the site`s landscape character and features. Most
of the adverse effects would reduce in the longer term due to the maturing of the landscape
framework and the application of a comprehensive Landscape Management Plan.
75
Table 5.1 Landscape Effects – Summary Table
Landscape
Landscape
Receptor
Sensitivity
(FPCR
Assessment)
National/ County
Magnitude of
Change
Landscape
Effects
(FPCR
Assessment)
(FPCR
Assessment)
69: Trent Valley
Washlands
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
County Landscape
Character Assessment:
Landscape Character
Types (LCT)
Lowland Village
Farmlands
Medium
Negligible /
Low Adverse
Negligible to
Minor
Adverse
FPCR Local and Site
based Landscape
Assessment: Local
Landscape Character
Site based
Local
Landscape
Character Area
Low / Medium
Low Adverse
Minor
Adverse
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Hedgerows
Low / Medium
Low / Medium
Beneficial
Minor
Beneficial
Woodland and
Trees
Low / Medium
Medium
Beneficial
Moderate
Beneficial
Water
Features and
Watercourses
Low / Medium
Low Beneficial
Minor
Beneficial
Public Rights
of Way and
footpaths
Low / Medium
Low / Medium
Beneficial
Minor /
Moderate
Beneficial
Landscape Character
Assessment:Landscape
Character Areas
FPCR Local and
Site based
Landscape
Assessment:
Landscape
Features
Landform
Visual Effects
5.5.29
A comprehensive visual appraisal of the development has been undertaken to determine the
potential effects upon surrounding receptors. Using the methodology outlined at the beginning
of this chapter and in Appendix 5.4, receptors with potential views to the proposed development
76
have been assessed in terms of sensitivity, the nature and extent of the changes to view and
resulting overall significance of the visual effect.
5.5.30
Two assessments have been conducted for all receptors. The first considers the effects upon
completion of the development and in the winter period (i.e. the screening effects of any
deciduous foliage is not taken into account) and the second predicts the effects 10 years after
completion and in the summer period (thus enabling the effectiveness of any planting to be
evaluated).
5.5.31
Figure 5.5 illustrates the results of the Visual Impact Assessment and Appendix 5.4 includes the
full Visual Effects Schedule. The description of existing views is outlined earlier in this chapter
and the accompanying Photo Viewpoints (Figures 5.6 – 5.9) should also be referenced. The
results of this assessment are described and summarised below.
Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI)
5.5.32
The Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) (Figure 5.5) is the area from within which any part of the
proposed development would be potentially visible. It should be noted however, that the ZVI is
not an indicator of the level of significance of the impact on the view but simply, the potential
extent of visibility.
5.5.33
The ZVI for the proposed development has been prepared based upon site based analysis,
detailed topographical survey and cross sectional information. Although it is approximate, it is
sufficiently well researched and accurate to be representative of the potential visible extent of
the proposals. There could however, be some limited locations (beyond the extent of the ZVI
shown) that could have potential views to part(s) of the development. Equally, there could be
some limited locations shown within the ZVI that would not experience any views to the resultant
development.
5.5.34
The ZVI of the proposed development is primarily contained by the existing urban limits of
Chellaston and Boulton to the west and north respectively, and the undulating topography to the
south west of the site. It is important to note that the ZVI does not extend over any extensive
areas of settlement. This suggests that the proposed development would not be potentially seen
from a large number of residential properties or other receptors.
5.5.35
While there is mature planting along the eastern boundary, the ZVI extends relatively further to
the east and south. However, these are areas with little public access and views become limited
by the distance. The extent of visibility in this direction is therefore approximate and may vary in
specific locations.
5.5.36
Overall, the ZVI of the proposed development is considered to be limited in most directions.
Effects upon Visual Receptors
5.5.37
The effects of the proposed development upon visual receptors are set out in the Visual Effects
Schedule (Appendix 5.4).
Settlement and Properties - Summary
5.5.38
Views from properties along the southern and western edge of the site are likely to vary. Those
along Snelsmoor Lane immediately to the south (Receptor 1) are elevated and are likely to have
77
clear views of the development, albeit from first floor rear windows and back gardens and are
seen in context to Derby to the north. The proposed mitigation measures within the county park
and along the proposed built development edge would screen and filter some of these views.
The significance of the visual effects upon the properties at this location would be Minor to
Moderate Adverse, subject to the extent of the available view.
5.5.39
Properties further west along the southern edge (Receptor 2) get progressively further from the
site and lower in height. This increases the effect of the intervening hedgerows and hedgerow
trees and enables more of the country park proposals to mitigate any views. It should be noted
that the majority of properties likely to have views will do so from rear windows and/or back
gardens. As such the significance of the visual effects upon the properties at this location would
be assessed as negligible.
5.5.40
End Cottage lies adjacent the sites northern boundary. Due to the close proximity to the site, the
property has views over the site and adjacent proposed built development, albeit from the rear of
the property and/or back garden. The significance of the visual effects upon the property would
be moderate adverse.
5.5.41
Properties along the southern edge of Boulton are likely to have a mixture of views. Again,
these views would primarily be from windows at the rear of the property and / or back gardens.
Boundary vegetation to the northern edge of the site provides significant screening to the
development, especially adjacent to the Field Lane public open space. Where properties are
closer to the boundary, this generally coincides with areas of open space within the proposals.
The significance of the visual effects upon the properties at this location would be negligible to
minor adverse, subject to the extent of the available view.
5.5.42
Overall, the significance of the visual effects upon all of the identified properties and settlement
areas would vary from negligible to moderate adverse, to reflect the nature and extent of the
views from the individual properties. It should however be noted that from the majority of the
residential areas at Chellaston and Boulton and any other nearby settlement edge locations
there would be no views towards the proposed development.
Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and Other Footpaths etc - Summary
5.5.43
From the network of PRoW in and around the site, the proposed development would result in
varying visual change. The most significant visual change would occur for the PRoW that
crosses the site (Receptor 6). Although the nature of the views from this route is likely to change
with the proposed primary school, the proposed built development would be seen in context to
the existing settlement edge. The change however would encompass some benefits arising
from the creation of the country park along the western half of the site, with the existing planting
reinforced with new woodland planting and meadow creation within the site. The significance of
the visual effects upon the properties at this location would be negligible to minor adverse,
subject to the extent of the available view.
5.5.44
Potential views towards the proposed development from the PRoW (Receptor 7 and 8) are
effectively concealed by the nature of the intervening mature hedgerows ad planting and
topography. As such the significance of the visual effects from this location would be assessed
as negligible.
78
Roads - Summary
5.5.45
The proposed development would be clearly visible from a short stretch of Snelsbrook Lane,
along the approach into Chellaston along the southern end of the site (Receptor 9). New
highway works will remove sections of existing hedgerows and although a new landscaped edge
will be created, the built development will be fronting the Lane. The significance of the visual
effects has been assessed as moderate adverse.
5.5.46
Views towards the proposed development from users of Snelsmoor Lane close to the settlement
edge of Boulton (Receptor 10) would be possible yet significantly restricted due to distance and
tree planting along the road corridor. These views would effectively be limited to southbound
users. The higher slopes of the site may be visible, however this area would form part of the
country park proposals. The significance of the visual effects has been assessed as negligible.
Other Receptors Summary
5.5.47
The Noel-Baker Community School lies to the north west of the site (Receptor 5) and was
inaccessible at the time of assessment but provides a local landmark from within the site. Views
are likely to be gained from upper storey windows; however a close network of mature hedgerow
vegetation will screen views of the proposed built development. The proposed planting to the
development edge and within the country park would further screen and soften any available
views. The significance of the visual effects has been assessed as negligible.
5.5.48
Adjacent the southern boundary of the site, Chellaston Park (Receptor 11) is enclosed by areas
of parkland tree planting and hedgerows that effectively limit any visual amenity of the site from
the majority of the park. However, a footway along the park’s perimeter provides views from
breaks in the hedgerow. These are in limited locations along the northern boundary, however
due to the elevated position, where a view is available most of the northern portion of the site is
seen. The receptor is located to the edge of the country park proposals and therefore would
have the opportunity to screen views with planting, as well as extend the amenity of users of
Chellaston Park. The resultant visual effects for users of this facility have been assessed as
negligible.
5.5.49
Public open space off Field Lane (Receptor 12) accommodates Field Lane Football Club as well
as providing dedicated play space. Although this open space borders the site, an existing belt of
tree planting along its southern boundary enhances the existing hedgerow and provides
screening to the site. Views are likely to occur along the western edge of the Public Open
Space, along Field Lane. The resultant visual effects for users of this facility have been
assessed as negligible/minor adverse.
5.6
Landscape Design and Mitigation
Introduction and Objectives
5.6.1
The existing landscape resource of the site and its context has been considered by the
assessment, masterplanning and design process. This has extended from preliminary
landscape and visual appraisals through to the production of the guiding design principles and
the Concept Masterplan. This iterative process would continue throughout the subsequent
design development. This would include continued and close collaboration between landscape,
architectural, urban design, engineering, ecological and other professionals.
79
5.6.2
The key objectives of the Landscape Design and Mitigation Proposals are as follows:

Respect existing landscape character;

Conserve and enhance landscape areas and features as an integral and structuring
part of the Landscape Framework plan;

Create a high quality and robust new landscape framework, including woodland and
structure planting, hedgerows, other mixed habitats, open spaces and water features;

Provide significant new planting as part of a thorough and long term approach to the
growth and management of the overall landscape framework;

Minimise any potential adverse landscape or visual effects through the application of
best practice design principles and careful attention to design through all stages of the
development process; and

Adopt specific landscape measures to mitigate any potential adverse landscape, visual
or other environmental effects.
Design and Mitigation Issues

There are a number of key landscape design issues to be addressed by the proposals.
These can be summarised as follows:

Screening and relieving the visual extent of the built development wherever
practicable. Minimising the actual (rather than perceived) visual presence of the built
development and its potential visual effects upon surrounding receptors.

Positively assimilating the necessary ground modelling and earthworks proposals with
the existing landscape and topography.

Establishing a landscape framework that is sufficiently robust and extensive to form a
structure to the built development (rather than vice versa) and establish a suitable
buffer to the neighbouring settlement and uses.
Landscape and Mitigation Design Proposals
5.6.3
Analyses of the existing site environment and its context have shaped the overall Landscape
Framework plan proposals (Figure 5.10).
5.6.4
The design principles for the Landscape Framework plan have also been defined in the context
of the following more general factors:

Conservation of existing planting and landscape features of interest;

Extension and integration of the adjoining landscape, features and corridors;

Maximise opportunities for biodiversity and integrate statutory requirements and
constraints;
80

Mitigate and seek to assimilate the proposed built environment; and

Apply relevant landscape planning policy and strategy guidelines.
5.6.5
A strong Landscape Framework plan would form an essential requirement of the overall
approach and for the subsequent detail design of the landscape proposals.
5.6.6
The proposed development would incorporate strategic landscape proposals. These would
comprise the conservation of existing woodland and trees, reinforced by significant new
woodland, tree and shrub planting; the creation and conservation of landscape corridors through
the development; the provision of new mixed habitats (including significant wetland areas as part
of the sustainable drainage strategy) to satisfy biodiversity objectives; the formation of significant
earthwork proposals and the establishment of high quality landscapes to the built development
plots and surrounds.
5.6.7
At a strategic level these proposals would reflect the broad stated aims and approaches outlined
in the 6C’s Green Infrastructure Strategy
5.6.8
A key feature of the Landscape Framework plan for this proposed development is a significant
new country park to the west of the site, and would be an important Green Infrastructure
component to the City of Derby. This broad swathe would include extensive new habitats and
landscape areas, open space, wetlands and footpaths and cycleways. Significantly, it would
connect with the surrounding PRoW and broader landscape corridors and areas that continue
beyond the site boundary.
5.6.9
On plot landscape areas would be designed and established as part of the respective built
development proposals. Largely native trees and shrubs would be used to reflect those in the
existing locality and the design of the wider landscape framework.
5.6.10
In summary, the landscape proposals would comprise the following areas and features. These
have been shown in comparison to those existing through Table 5.2 (all areas and quantities are
approximate).
81
Table 5.2 Landscape Proposals – Summary
Landscape Area / Habitat
Existing (Approx
quantity/ area)
Conserved / Proposed
(Approx quantity/ area)
Woodland trees and
structural planting
Net Gain / Loss
(Approx quantity/
area)
0.1ha
0.1ha Conserved / 3.6ha
Proposed
3.6ha Net Gain
9300 Lm
8100 Lm Conserved /1700
Lm Proposed
500 Lm Net Gain
Grassland
18.9ha
9.5ha Conserved/ 16.5ha
Proposed
7.1ha Net Gain
Water Features / Wet
Grassland
0.08ha
0.3ha Conserved / 2.9ha
Proposed
3.12ha Net Gain
Total (excluding hedgerow)
19.08ha
9.9ha Conserved /
23.0ha Proposed
13.82ha Net Gain
65.3ha
0.0ha Conserved / 0.0ha
Proposed
65.3ha Net Loss
Hedgerows
Trees
/
Hedgerow
Agricultural Use
Landscape Management
5.6.11
All of the landscape areas and features would be managed and maintained in the long term.
This would be achieved through the implementation of a comprehensive Landscape
Management Plan (LMP), to ensure the successful establishment and continued thriving of the
Landscape Framework plan proposals. The contents of the LMP to be prepared are included at
Appendix 5.5.
5.7
Assessment of Residual and Cumulative Effects
Landscape and Visual Residual Effects
5.7.1
The residual effects consider the effects after the incorporation of mitigation measures. In the
context of the landscape and visual impact assessment, many of these (primary) measures are
incorporated as an integral part of the scheme design. This iterative process has resulted in the
proposed development being designed and modified to take account of the surveys and
82
assessments undertaken. This has enabled the extent and scale of the potential adverse effects
to be continually appraised as part of the evolving Masterplan and scheme design.
5.7.2
The design approaches adopted have included measures to avoid, reduce or remediate
potentially significant adverse effects arising from the proposed development. Primary
measures adopted as part of the proposals have considered many aspects, including, the
location, extent, siting and height of the built development.
5.7.3
Other additional measures considered have included the use of ground modelling and woodland
planting. In this regard, the potential effects of the proposed development have been mitigated
and minimised throughout the design process and consequently at the outset of the
development the residual effects would reflect those described in the preceding Operational
Effects section.
5.7.4
In the longer term, these effects would reduce through the maturing of the landscape proposals
and other existing conserved planting. This would further reduce the significance of the potential
adverse effects upon the landscape and visual receptors over time.
Cumulative Landscape and Visual Effects
Approach:
5.7.5
Cumulative landscape and visual effects arise as a result of a number of different factors and
combined changes. These generally fall into two categories;

Cumulative effects arising from a range of developments, occurring at different
locations. Separately, such individual projects may not create an unacceptable degree
of adverse impact but collectively the results may potentially be significant simultaneous effects

Cumulative effects caused by the proposed development in conjunction with other
developments that occurred in the past, present or are likely to occur in the foreseeable
future – successive effects
5.7.6
As identified in the first point above, cumulative or combined effects are principally those that are
likely to arise when the development is considered in relation to other foreseeable developments
either located in the immediate vicinity or that have a relationship with a similar environmental
resource. Individually the impact of a development may be of minor magnitude but when
combined with the impact from other developments could increase the overall significance of an
effect on an environmental resource.
5.7.7
Cumulative effects require an understanding of the capacity of the receiving environment and
whether critical thresholds would be exceeded by the combination of projects. Geographical
limits and time implications are more important in assessing the cumulative effects than in
assessing the specific environmental effects of the proposed development. Administrative
boundaries are less important than those relating to the natural environment e.g. watersheds.
5.7.8
The results of this process would enable the local planning authority to ensure that this and
future developments are mutually compatible and remain within the environmental capacity of
the area considered.
83
Simultaneous Effects
5.7.9
DCC, along with neighbouring South Derbyshire District Council (SDDC) and Amber Valley
District Councils, have recently consulted on their ‘PGS documents. Boulton Moor has been
identified by the Councils as an area for future growth, and the site is included as a proposed
development site, along with three adjoining sites to the east which cross the border into South
Derbyshire. This is estimated to provide a total of 2,748 new homes. An application has also
been submitted for a 190 new homes adjoining the western edge of the site. One of these sites
has outline planning permission but has not been started.
5.7.10
Currently all the allocated sites are proposed within agricultural land. However, there are a
number of urban influences evident to all of the sites, adjoining the existing settlement edge, with
sites to the east also influenced by the highways infrastructure of the A6.
5.7.11
Some of these potentially simultaneous development projects lie within the same Zone of Visual
Influence (ZVI) as the proposed development. Consequently the proposed development may be
seen against the adjoining sites, but equally, some of the adjoining sites (especially those to the
east and west) may conceal the development from viewpoints identified within this assessment.
Due to the scale of the combined developments, this would suggest that there would be a
resulting increase in visual effects, but this is likely to be contained to the local area
5.7.12
Overall, any cumulative (simultaneous) landscape and visual effects arising from the proposed
development are considered to be predominantly localised and contained.
Successive Effects
5.7.13
Both the surrounding Boulton and Chellaston areas of Derby have seen progressive
development over recent years. Indeed, the proposed site lies alongside and in close proximity
to these areas, which do lessen the impact on the landscape character of the area. Also, within
the wider context, significant highways infrastructure has also contributed to this area’s
increased urban influences. In successive terms, the cumulative effects of the proposed
development are not considered to be significant and will lessen further over time with the
maturing of the landscape proposals.
5.8
Summary and Conclusions
5.8.1
In landscape character terms the site is situated within the Trent Valley Washlands Character
Area (No.69; of the Countryside agency Character Map of England) and Lowland Village
Farmlands Landscape Character Type (Derbyshire’s Current Landscape Character
Assessment).
5.8.2
The key characteristics and features of these broader landscape tracts include:

Gently rolling, almost flat lowland with river terraces;

Low slopes and summits give a sense of elevation over a broad floodplain;

Mixed farming with arable cropping and improved pasture;

Thinly scattered hedgerow trees including some willow pollards;

Scattered, locally dense, watercourse trees;
84

Medium to large regular fields with thorn hedgerows;

Discrete red brick villages with farms and cottages; and

Large red brick outlying farms.
5.8.3
At a local scale, the proposed site occupies an agricultural landscape but is heavily influenced
by the settlement edge and contained by the urban limbs of Chellaston and Boulton. Green Belt
comprising farmland exists directly to the south of the site beyond Snelsmoor Lane. The site
forms a transition between the low lying, flatter land to the north, and the rising slopes to the
south and west to form part of a gently rolling landscape.
5.8.4
Boulton Moor Hedges LWS lies within the northern part of the site, noted for its ecological
importance of its hedgerows. Mature trees, hedgerows and other planting exist along the field
boundaries, together with a network of wet and dry ditches. A small pond surrounded by
vegetation also exists on the rising slopes close to the southern boundary. Moor Farm occupies
a northern position of the site, with a PRoW extending north – south along the western edge of
the site.
5.8.5
A Green Wedge designation applies to the site, however this has been reviewed as part of the
DCC Core Strategy Green Wedge Review (October 2012).
With regard to the
Alvaston/Chellaston (Boulton Moor) Green Wedge the Review concludes that:“…The overall width of the Green Wedge means that there is some potential to
reconfigure it to allow a significant amount of new development on the eastern edge.”
5.8.6
The condition of the landscape has been assessed as medium and the sensitivity of the
landscape (to development of the type and nature proposed) has been assessed as
low/medium. The latter indicates that the landscape is of reasonably positive character, and as
long as the LWS is avoided, the site and would be potentially tolerant of significant change due
to the current width of the Green Wedge (as confirmed in the DCC Core Strategy Green Wedge
Review (2012))
5.8.7
The proposed development has been carefully considered and assessed in the context of the
published and more detailed site based landscape assessments. It would include the creation of
a significant landscape framework comprising the conservation of the vast majority of existing
trees, hedgerow planting throughout the site, significant new woodland and other planting and
habitats throughout the site, and the creation of a significant new country park along the western
half of the site. These proposals would assist in mitigating many of the adverse landscape and
visual effects of the built development, provide adequate landscaping to ensure that the visual
amenities and special character of the Green Wedge and Green Belt is not adversely affected
and offer many valuable longer term biodiversity and access/recreational benefits.
5.8.8
The resultant landscape character effects arising from the proposed development would vary
between negligible (for the effects upon the very broad landscape character area) to minor
adverse (for the initial effects upon the site based and local landscape character). The specific
effects of the proposed development upon landscape features within the site would vary
between moderate beneficial for the effects upon woodland and trees, to negligible for the
effects upon landform.
85
5.8.9
5.8.10
In visual terms, the site is well contained by the existing settlement edge, hedgerows and trees
and tall perimeter hedgerows east. Views towards the proposed development largely fall into
three categories:

Properties and road users along Snelsmoor Lane, Chellaston and End Cottage,
Boulton would be afforded views of the development due to their elevated position and
close proximity to the site. The significance of the visual effects upon the properties at
this location would be minor to moderate adverse, subject to the extent of the available
view.

Properties along the settlement edges of Chellaston and Boulton are likely to be
afforded views from first floor windows at the rear of the property and/or back gardens.
Views are likely to be a restricted due the topography of the site, distance, and
screening effects of the intervening vegetation. The significance of the visual effects
upon the properties at this location would be negligible to minor adverse, subject to the
extent of the available view.

Users of the PRoW through the western and northern edge of the site. Although the
nature of the views from this route is likely to change with the proposed primary school,
the proposed built development would be seen in context to the existing settlement
edge. The change however would encompass some benefits arising from the creation
of the country park along the western half of the site, with the existing planting
reinforced with new woodland planting and meadow creation. The significance of the
visual effects upon the properties at this location would be negligible to minor adverse,
subject to the extent of the available view.
Overall, the landscape and visual effects are considered to be predominantly localised and
contained. The most notable landscape effects arise from the changes to the landscape
character of the site and for the visual effects upon the properties and road users along
Snelsmoor Lane, Chellaston and End Cottage, Boulton. The scheme includes an extensive and
robust Landscape Framework plan that has been carefully devised to provide a suitable green
structure to the site and to conserve and extend those existing features and habitats of value.
The resultant landscape and visual effects will lessen further over time with the maturing of the
proposals and the application of a Landscape Management Plan.
86
6. FLORA, FAUNA AND NATURE CONSERVATION
6.1
Introduction and Study Area
6.1.1
This Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) chapter assesses the likely significant effects of the
proposed development in terms of ecology and nature conservation and is based upon an
ecological assessment of desk study information and habitat and species surveys.
6.2
Site Context
6.2.1
Extensive areas of arable and pastoral farmland occur to the west, east and south, although the
site also lies adjacent to a number of areas of dedicated open space. These include the NoelBaker School with associated public playing fields to the north-west, community centre with
associated formal play, playing fields and allotments to the north, and Chellaston Park with
associated pavilion, playing fields, formal play to the south.
6.2.2
To the immediate west is the Fellows Land Way (ref 01/13/00082) application site and east
Boulton Moor (ref: 9/2005/0611) site granted consent by the Secretary of State in 2009.
6.3
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
Legislative Framework
6.3.1
The following legislation and European Directives afford protection to wildlife and have been
used in particular to inform this assessment:

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC)

Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) (WCA)

The EC Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC), as translated into UK law by The
Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)

The EC Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) as translated into UK law by The
Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)

The Protection of Badgers Act (1992).
6.3.2
Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 places a duty on the
Secretary of State to publish, review and revise lists of living organisms and types of habitat in
England that are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving English biodiversity, and
to consult Natural England before doing so.
6.3.3
The S41 list is used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local and regional
authorities, in implementing their duty under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural
Communities Act 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when
carrying out their normal functions.
87
Policy Framework
National Policy
6.3.4
Guidance on nature conservation planning policy is provided in the 'Conserving and enhancing
the natural environment' section of the NPPF.
NPPF Core Planning Principles

Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that “within the overarching roles that the planning
system ought to play, a set of core land – use planning principles should underpin both
plan – making and decision taking” of the 12 principles outlined, the following are
relevant to ecology and nature conservation.

contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution.
Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value,
where consistent with other policies in this framework.

promote mixed developments and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in
urban and rural area, recognising that some open land can perform many functions
(such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage or food protection).
Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment
6.3.5
6.3.6
At Section 11 paragraph 109 states “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the
natural and local environment by:

protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and
soils;

recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where
possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in
biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more
resilient to current and future pressures;

preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at
inacceptable risk from or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air,
water or noise pollution or total instability; and

remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable
land where appropriate.
Paragraph 113 states “Local Planning Authorities should set criteria based policies against
which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geo-diversity sites or
landscape areas will be judged. Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of
international, national and locally designated sites so that protection is commensurate with their
status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to
wider ecological networks”.
88
6.3.7
Paragraph 118 addresses the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity and requires LPAs
to “conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles;

if significant harm resulting from development cannot be avoided (through locating on
an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or as a last resort,
compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest
likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually
or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where
an adverse effect on the sites notified special interest features is likely, an exception
should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly
outweigh both impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of
Special Scientific Interest and only broader impacts on the National Network of Sites of
Special Scientific Interest;

development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance
biodiversity should be permitted;

opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be
encouraged.

planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or
deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged
or veteran areas found outside or ancient woodland unless the need for, and or benefits
of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss; and

The following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European Sites;
­
potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation;
­
listed or proposed Ramsar Sites; and
­
sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on
European Sites, Potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of
Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar Sites.
Regional Policy
Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands (RSS8)
6.3.8
Polices relating to nature conservation are included in the Natural and Cultural Resources,
Topics Based Priorities section, this includes new targets for biodiversity, amongst others.
Relevant policies include:

Policy 27 - Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Assets, which
encourages the development and implementation of strategies furthering the
sustainable use of the regions cultural and natural assets,

Policy 28 - Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity, which seeks promote
mechanisms to ensure the maintenance of BAP habitats and species and ideally that
net gain is achieved and

Policy 29 - A Regional Target for Increasing Woodland Cover, which seeks to promote
the expansion of native woodland cover in the region.
89
Local Plan Policies & Policy Guidance
City of Derby Local Plan Review
6.3.9
The saved policies of the CDLPR that continue to apply until the adoption of the LDF include
policies EN4 to EN 8
E4
Nature Conservation
Development will not be permitted if it is likely to destroy or adversely affect,
either directly or indirectly, sites of national importance for nature
conservation, including the Boulton Moor SSSI.
Development will not be permitted which does not take proper account of the
need to protect from adverse impact Wildlife Sites, including Local Nature
Reserves and sites identified in Appendix B taking into account their relative
significance.
6.3.10
The City Council will require planning applications likely to affect any of the above sites to be
accompanied by an analysis of the likely effects of the proposal on their nature conservation
value and how these have been minimised. The City Council will seek to negotiate appropriate
mitigating measures such as compensation, enhancement or long term management, for any
damage likely to occur. Relevant policies are:
E5 Biodiversity
Applications for new development on sites which have features of nature
conservation interest will only be approved where provision is made for
the retention of those features. These will include mature trees,
established hedgerows and shrub areas, water features and geological
resources, and other Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats and priority
species. Where the loss of significant features is unavoidable the City
Council may require by condition, or seek to negotiate a planning
obligation to secure, suitable mitigation to compensate for that loss.
E6 Wildlife Corridors
Planning permission will not be granted for development which would
sever wildlife corridors, or otherwise severely undermine their value as
wildlife routes. Proposals which reduce the size of any of these routes will
only be allowed if they include suitable compensatory features for those
which would be lost.
E7 Protection of Habitats
Development which would materially affect sites supporting wildlife
species protected by law will only be permitted where:
1. Proposals are made to minimise disturbance to, and to facilitate the
survival of, the affected species on the site; or,
2. An offer of the creation of alternative habitats is made, supported by a
planning obligation, which would sustain the current levels of the species
population.
E8 Enhancing the Natural Environment
The City Council will prepare, implement and encourage schemes to
enhance the natural history value of open land, including public open
space, natural history sites, and educational land. Schemes will include
the creation of Local Nature Reserves.
90
Lowland Derbyshire Biodiversity Action Plan
6.3.11
The Lowland Derbyshire Biodiversity Action Plan (LDBAP) covers the remainder of Derbyshire
outside the area covered by the Peak District LBAP. It seeks to conserve and enhance Lowland
Derbyshire's existing wildlife and to redress past losses through habitat conservation,
restoration, recreation and targeted action for priority species. The 2011-2020 LBAP was
launched at the Partnership's Annual Forum at the University of Derby in November 2012. The
new LBAP favours a landscape scale approach that will be directed at specific ‘Action Areas’
drawn from regional landscape characterisation work. A range of generic non-target based
actions are provided for habitats and species including:

Surveying & recording

Site management (including management, restoration and creation)

Land management advice

Planning advice/responsibility/commenting on applications

Working with volunteers

Grant aiding

Education & awareness raising
6.3.12
The Derby Area Action Plan with its vision for “an area where all people have access to and
value their wildlife rich environment close to where they live and work. This is provided by an
interlinking green infrastructure system having the River Derwent at its spine. Open land will be
sustainably managed for people and wildlife, new built development will play a part in delivering
new and enhanced habitats.” is relevant to the site.
6.3.13
Key Actions include:

The primary habitat objective within the Derby action area is the maintenance,
restoration and expansion of any semi natural habitat to achieve targets in Table 6.1
below

The secondary objective is to increase connectivity of semi natural habitats to create
larger habitat complexes using priority habitats wherever possible. Habitat creation,
through development, will be key to achieving this objective.

Work with owners of three golf courses to develop and work towards the achievement of
a site biodiversity management plan by 2020.

Work with the staff and pupils of five secondary schools to develop and work towards
the achievement of biodiversity management plans. Schools should be prioritised where
they either include, or are adjacent to, Local Wildlife Sites.

Investigate and develop one ark site for white clawed crayfish.
Other documents
6.3.14
There are a range of additional documents relevant to nature conservation. These include:
91
6.4

Revised Derby Nature Conservation Strategy (April2006), a policy framework guiding
decisions on development, which supplements the CDLPR (It is in part a
Supplementary Planning Document; SPD). It covers Derby City’s administrative area
and covers the period up to 2011 but which still has some relevance)

Greenprint for Derby City (2002), which sets out which habitats are of particular
importance in Derby.
Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria
Desk Study
6.4.1
6.4.2
The site and surrounding area has been the subject of a number of ecological surveys
conducted in the recent past. This information has been reviewed for relevant information
concerning the ecological interest of the site and its wider context. The following information
from this period (which can be provided on request) has been reviewed for baseline information
regarding the site and its setting:

Derby City Hedgerows: Result from the 2003 Derby City Hedgerow Survey (Derby City
and DWT 2003)

Derby City Ponds: Results from the 2004 / 2005 Derby City (Derby City 2005)

Pond Survey for Derby City Council

Badger Survey Report (Aspect Ecology May 2010) focused on the site;

Baseline Ecology Survey Report (LDA Design June 2008) focused on the site;

Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Ecological Appraisal, Boulton Moor Farm Land Northeast
of Back Lane Derby (CBE consulting August 2012) focused on the Fellows Land Way
consented residential development to the west;

Protected Species Survey For the presence of Roosting Bats and Nesting Birds,
Buildings and Land at Boulton Edge Farm (CBE consulting September 2012) focused
on the Fellows Land Way consented residential development to the west;

Boulton Moor Environmental Impact Assessment Technical Appendix 9.1 & 9.2 (Penny
Anderson Associates 2005) incorporating baseline ecological survey, water vole, otter
and badger survey and focused on the Boulton Moor consented scheme to the east.

Boulton Moor Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation 19 response (Penny
Anderson Associates 2006) providing additional information on bats, badgers and water
vole.
In order to compile existing baseline information, relevant ecological information was requested
from a range of organisations/individuals for the purposes of this assessment:

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust;

Derbyshire Badger Group;

Derbyshire Bat Group;

Derbyshire Ornithological Society (DOS);

Derbyshire Amphibian and Reptile Group; and
92

6.4.3
Derbyshire and Notts Entomological Society.
A number of on-line resources were also searched for relevant records including:

Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) websitei

The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) websiteii (only for context)
6.4.4
Further inspection, using colour 1:25,000 OS base maps (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk) and
aerial photographs from Google Earth (www.maps.google.co.uk), was also undertaken in order
to provide additional context and identify any features of potential importance for nature
conservation in the wider countryside.
6.4.5
The search area for biodiversity information was related to the significance of sites and species
and potential zones of influence are described in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Desk Study Search Area
Distance
Source of Information
5km
Sites of International Importance, e.g. Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection
Area (SPA), Ramsar Site
2km
Sites of National or Regional Importance, e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Sites
of County Importance, i.e. Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs)
1km
Species records, e.g. protected, Species of Principle Importance, Shropshire BAP or notable
species
Flora
6.4.6
The area of survey encompassed the application site, i.e. the area within the red line shown on
the Masterplan, and some other areas of adjacent habitat.
6.4.7
Habitats within the site have been classified using the standard Phase-1 Habitat Survey
methodology (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 1990). This survey was completed by
Associate Ecologist Peter Hoy MIEEM and Assistant Ecologists Molly Gorman and Kerri Watson
on 26th February 2013 and 8th March 2013. Target notes were used to record habitats or
features considered as being of greatest nature conservation interest. Species lists were
compiled for representative habitats. Suitably qualified and experienced botanists, who are
members of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM), undertook all
botanical survey work.
6.4.8
The survey period is outside of that considered optimal for botanical surveys, with many species
being either difficult to identify or easily missed; such as hedgerows species not in leaf. As a
result some reliance has been placed on existing information, which is generally of an extensive
nature and derived from a number of different sources.
Fauna
6.4.9
Faunal surveys were undertaken for a number of groups during the above walkover. All
methodologies are provided below and followed published guidelines as accepted by statutory
and non-statutory agencies including Natural England and IEEM.
Badger
93
6.4.10
Particular consideration was also given to the potential presence of badgers within the site and
local area. Field survey methods followed those described in Cresswell, Harris and Jeffries
(1991) and included a search for evidence of this species either occupation within or use of the
site for foraging in or commuting through. The survey involved a search for the following
evidence:

Latrines - often located close to setts, at territory boundaries or adjacent to favoured
feeding areas;

Tracks and pathways;

Hairs caught on rough wood or fencing;

Setts - including earth mounds, evidence of bedding and runways between setts; and

Other evidence (not necessarily conclusive in isolation) including feeding scrapes, and
scratching posts.
Amphibians
6.4.11
Throughout the initial walkover survey of the site consideration was given to the presence of
habitats considered to be suitable for both the terrestrial and aquatic phases of the amphibian
life cycle. Where present, aquatic habitat was assessed using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)
specifically in order to assess its suitability for great crested newts. This is a quantitative
measure of habitat quality. The HSI is number between 0 and 1, derived from an assessment of
potential habitat variables known to influence the presence of newts (Oldham et al, 2000). An
HSI of 1 is optimal habitat, while an HSI of 0 is very poor habitat. The HSI is calculated on a
single pond basis, but takes into account surrounding terrestrial habitat and the presence of
additional ponds within 500m.
Bats
6.4.12
6.4.13
All trees within the site were inspected for their potential to support roosting bats in March 2009
prior to leaf burst, which could have otherwise obscured potential features. Features considered
suitable comprised the following:

thick loose bark,

cavities, fissures,

rot holes,

wood pecker holes

and standing dead wood.
In addition, the presence of dense ivy cover can conceal the above mentioned features or
evidence of bat occupation such as dropping or urine staining. However it should be noted that
that generally ivy covered trees must be sufficiently large or mature to have any potential for
roosting bats.
Water vole
6.4.14
A single water course, a recently created drainage ditch, located in the south of the site was
searched for signs indicating the presence of water vole. The methodology followed the
94
approach recommended by Strachan and Moorhouse (2006). Each survey concentrated on
finding evidence of the presence of water voles within the site such as:

Latrines – usually found near the nest, at range boundaries or where they leave and
enter the water;

Feeding stations – showing feeding remains as a neat pile of chewed lengths of
vegetation. Sections are typically up to 100mm long and show the marks of two large
incisors;

Burrows – typically wider than high with a diameter of 40-80mm;

Lawns – located around land holes;

Nests – sometimes found above ground;

Footprints – at the waters edge leading into vegetation; and

Runways – most often found within 2m of the waters edge taking the form of low tunnels
pushed through vegetation.
Birds with Assessment of Trees for Barn Owl
6.4.15
Throughout the surveys of the site casual observations of birds observed or heard were noted in
order to assess any requirement for further surveys, such as in cases where significant impacts
could occur on any notable avian interests (e.g. S41 list species, specially protected or
otherwise rare/vulnerable species).
6.4.16
All trees and built structures within the site were also visually assessed for the existence of large
cavities of potential use by barn owl for nesting or roosting. Additional signs, such as pellets
and faecal splashing were also searched for on or around potential perches.
Other Fauna
6.4.17
The presence of other statutory and non-statutory species not listed above has also been
considered, as part of the on-going assessment. This includes species protected under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.)
Regulations 1994 or those listed in Red Data Books (RDB), and local and national Biodiversity
Action Plans (BAP).
Assessment Methodology
6.4.18
Reference has been made to the Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (1995) and to
the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) Guidelines for Ecological
Impact Assessment (EcIA) in the United Kingdom (July 2006). These guidelines aim to give a
degree of consistency in approach to evaluating the importance of the ecological features within
the Site and any effects or impacts a scheme will have upon them.
6.4.19
The activities associated with the construction and implementation of the proposed development
has been identified, together with the likely range within which their influence will be felt, given
the nature of the area. The ecological features, which may be affected by such activities, have
been evaluated within a geographical framework which is based on the ecological status of the
features, but which also reflects a wide range of legislation and governmental guidance.
95
Evaluation
6.4.20
An assessment of the nature conservation value of the application site (sensitivity) was made
following the criteria suggested in IEEM (2006) as follows; International, National, Regional,
County, District and Local. A summary is also provided in Table 6.2. below
International
An internationally designated site or candidate site (SPA, pSPA, SAC, cSAC, pSAC , Ramsar site,
Biogenetic Reserve) or an area which meets the published selection criteria for such designation,
irrespective of whether or not it has yet been notified.
A viable area of a habitat type listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive or smaller areas of such
habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.
Any regularly occurring population of an internationally important species, which is threatened or rare
in the UK (i.e. it is a UK Red Data Book species or listed as occurring in 15 or fewer 10km squares in
the UK, of uncertain conservation status or of global conservation concern.
A regularly occurring, nationally significant population/number of any internationally important
species.
National
A nationally designated site (SSSI, NNR, Marine Nature Reserve) or a discrete area, which meets the
published selection criteria for national designation (e.g. SSSI selection guidelines) irrespective of
whether or not it has yet been notified.
Any regularly occurring population of a nationally important species which is threatened or rare in the
region or county (local BAP).
A regularly occurring, regionally or county significant population/number of any nationally important
species.
Regional
Examples
Viable areas of key habitat identified in the Regional BAP or smaller areas of such habitat which are
essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.
Viable areas of key habitat identified as being of Regional value in the appropriate Natural Area
profile.
Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species listed as being nationally scarce
which occurs in 16-100 10km squares in the UK or relevant Natural Area on account of its regional
rarity or localisation.
A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a regionally important species.
Sites which exceed the County-level designations but fall short of SSSI selection guidelines, where
these occur.
County / Metropolitan
Value
Table 6.2: Evaluation of Nature Conservation Importance
Semi-natural ancient woodland greater than 0.25 ha.
County/Metropolitan sites and other sites which the designating authority has determined meet the
published ecological selection criteria for designation, including Local Nature Reserves selected on
County / metropolitan ecological criteria (County/Metropolitan sites will often have been identified in
local plans).
A viable area of habitat identified in County BAP.
Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species which is listed in a
County/Metropolitan “red data book” or BAP on account of its regional rarity or localisation.
A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a County/Metropolitan important species.
96
Value
6.4.21
District / Borough
Semi-natural ancient woodland smaller than 0.25 ha.
Areas of habitat identified in a sub-County (District/Borough) BAP or in the relevant Natural Area
profile.
District sites that meet the published ecological selection criteria for designation, including Local
Nature Reserves selected on District/ Borough ecological criteria (District sites, where they exist, will
often have been identified in local plans).
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.
A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a District / Borough important species during a
critical phase of its life cycle.
Local
Examples
Areas of habitat considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the context of the Parish
or neighbourhood (e.g. species-rich hedgerows).
Local Nature Reserves selected on Parish ecological criteria.
Features with a value of local or above was considered to represent a ‘Valued Ecological
Receptor’ (VER). Those features not meeting the criteria for VERs were classified as having
either site level or negligible ecological value.
Impact assessment
6.4.22
The impacts of the proposals have been predicted, taking into account different stages and
activities within the development process. The significance of likely effects was determined by
identifying those receptors likely to be affected. The features were evaluated to identify the
important ones, i.e. those which, if their level of value reduced, national or local policies (or in
some cases legislation) would be triggered. The nature of the individual and combined impacts
were characterised on each important feature, to determine the longevity, reversibility and
consequences for the feature in terms of ecological structure and function.
6.4.23
Criteria - where it was concluded that an effect would be likely to reduce the value given to an
important feature, it was described as significant. Therefore, the ecological significance of these
impacts has then been assessed based upon the likely effect on the integrity or conservation
status of each feature.
6.4.24
Significance - the ecological significance of these impacts has then been assessed, based
upon the likely effect on the integrity or conservation status of the feature. The assessment of
impact significance is done both to identify the need for mitigation and also to assess residual
impacts.
6.4.25
The significance of likely effects was determined by:

Identifying those ecological features likely to be affected;
97

Evaluating them to identify the important ones (i.e. those which, if their level of value
reduced, national or local policies (or in some cases legislation) would be triggered);
and

Characterising the nature of the individual and combined impacts on each important
feature, to determine longevity, reversibility and consequences for the feature in terms
of ecological structure and function.
6.4.26
Where it was concluded that an effect would be likely to reduce the value given to an important
feature, it was described as ecologically significant at a given scale and, in order to provide
some consistency between disciplines within the EIA, reference is also made to the Table
provided at Para 1.9.13.
6.5
Existing Baseline Conditions
Statutory Designations
6.5.1
Boulton Moor SSSI, designated for its geological interest, is located to the north west of the site.
It adjoins the proposed development site on two sides in the sites western extent. As a
geological designation, with no identified ecological interests it is not considered further in the
Chapter.
Non-Statutory Designations
6.5.2
The current system used in Derbyshire for non-statutory designated sites refers to Local Wildlife
Sites (LWS) several of which occur close to the site. One Local Wildlife Site, Boulton Moor
Hedges LWS, is present within the site boundary. This is located at OS grid reference SK 383
317 in the west of the site. Immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the site is the
Alvaston Stream LWS.
6.5.3
As LWS’s these sites have been assessed against the Derbyshire Site Selection guidelines and
are of County significance.
6.5.4
Desk study data is provided at Appendix 6.1. However this can sometimes contain confidential
and sensitive spatial information regarding protected species, where relevant this information
has been removed from the Appendix and is summarised in the relevant section.
Habitats
6.5.5
Broad habitat types within the proposal site are identified on Figure 6.1: Phase 1 Habitat Plan
and further additional species lists and habitat descriptions are provided in the information at
Appendix 6.1.
6.5.6
A range of habitats predominate within the site and are mainly associated with the current
agricultural management of the site. The site is dominated by arable fields and improved
pasture divided by species-rich and species-poor hedgerows with ditches. There are occasional
species-poor, semi-improved grasslands and semi-improved grasslands, some of which have
evidence of ridge and furrow, often a characteristic of older grasslands.
6.5.7
Mature Trees are occasionally located within hedgerows, particularly in the east of the site.
98
Broad-leaved plantation woodland
6.5.8
Small broad–leaved woodland located around a deep, flooded, depression was located in the
south of the site (TN 1). The rather open canopy comprised mature beech Fagus sylvatica with
wych elm Ulmus glabra, elder Sambucus nigra and bramble Rubus frticosus. The ground flora
includes a suite of tall ruderal specie including common nettle Urtica dioica, cow parsley
Anthriscus sylvatca, willowherb, hogweed Heracleum sphondylium and daffodils Narcissus sp.
The woodland is note considered to be of significant interest, being of Parish significance at
most.
Mixed plantation woodland
6.5.9
Along the eastern boundary of the site, off site, and viewed only from within the site is a mixed
shelter belt that is characterised by Scot’s pine Pinus sylvestris, holly, pedunculate oak, alder
Alnus glutinosa, field maple, horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum and crack willow.
6.5.10
The woodland forms a relatively continuous belt through otherwise intensively managed
agricultural land and is therefore likely to provide shelter and foraging and breeding habitats for
a wide range wildlife and a corridor for dispersal through an otherwise largely inhospitable
environment. As a result this habitat type is considered to be of Parish significance, which is
consistent with its assessment of this habitat in the Boulton Moor ES Ecology Chapteriii.
Mature trees
6.5.11
Pediculate oak and ash trees dominate within the tree stock and mainly occur along field
boundaries, where generally mature specimens predominate. Mature trees within the site
significantly enhance he structural diversity of and availability of niches within the site that can
be used by wildlife and, as such, are considered to be of Parish significance.
6.5.12
Over-mature and potential veteran trees occur locally e.g. TN 2 (pedunculate oak) and TN3
where a group of over-mature crack willow pollards are located (Photographs 1 and 2 at Figure
6.3). The value of veteran trees is acknowledged in the NPPF and these features are
considered to be of District significance.
Hedgerows
6.5.13
Hedgerows form the boundaries of many of the arable fields and grasslands. Those in the west,
mainly in association with improved field compartments, are typically wider and taller than those
in the east of the site where they form the boundaries to arable field compartments and more
heavily managed.
6.5.14
Some hedgerows are noted in previous surveysiv as being species-rich, although due to the
nature of the survey methods used there is some inconsistency. Species rich hedgerows were
considered to be those identified either previously or during the survey as supporting at least 7
species throughout its length, with at least 4 frequent throughout the hedge (as reflected in the
Derbyshire Local Wildlife Site Selection Guidelines).
6.5.15
Dominant species included common hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and blackthorn Prunus
spinosa with frequent and generally more widespread species including dog rose Rosa canina,
field rose Rosa arvensis, ash Fraxinus excelsior, elder Sambucus nigra, , field maple Acer
campestre and whych elm Ulmus glabra. Less frequent more localised species included
99
pedunculate oak Quercus robur willow Salix spp, hazel Corylus avellana, holly Ilex aquifolium,
aspen Populus tremula and dogwood Cornus sanguinea. Species- poor hedgerows were often
largely dominated by hawthorn with occasional associates such as elder, blackthorn, wych elm
and roses.
6.5.16
The ground flora below hedgerows was generally poor along the hedge bottom include lesser
celandine Ranunculus ficaria, Lords and Ladies Arum maculatum, cow parsley Anthriscus
sylvestris, cleavers Galium aparine and common nettle Urtica dioica.
6.5.17
All hedgerows are considered to be of at least Parish significance as they appreciably enrich
biodiversity at a local scale. Furthermore, those considered to be species-rich qualify as LWS
under the Derbyshire Local Wildlife Site Selection Guidelines and as a result are considered to
be of District significance. The Boulton Moor Hedges LWS, which includes two longer
hedgerows, supporting a total of ten and twelve species, connected by two short hedgerows,
are particular species-rich and of excellent structure and are considered to be of County
significance.
Improved/ Species-poor Semi-improved Grassland
6.5.18
Improved grasslands and poor semi-improved grasslands occur in the north and west areas of
the site, where they are used for pony grazing semi-improved grassland of negligible nature
conservation interest. Some support ridge and furrow and are therefore unlikely to have been
ploughed, although little variation in the sward was observed.
6.5.19
All grasslands were dominated by a range of grass species including abundant common
Agrostis capillaris and creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera, with abundant perennial rye grass
Lolium perenne, rough meadow grass Poa trivialis, red fescue Festuca rubra and Yorkshire fog
Holcus lanatus. Herbs were conspicuously absent with only very rare plants of common nettle
Urtica dioica, creeping buttercup Ranauculus common ragwort Senecio jacobaea, curled dock
Rumex crispus and common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum.
6.5.20
The current tenant has confirmed that current management is confined to occasional
pony/donkey grazing. It is understood that no fertilizers have been applied at least for the past 5
years and it is suspected that this may be the case to a number of years previous. However,
herbicide treatment has been undertaken to eradicate ragwort, thistle and other weeds, which is
commensurate with the conspicuous absence of forbs. It appears that the sward has been
over-seeded with both perennial and Italian rye grass Lolium multiflorum, although vigour
appeared low, again commensurate with the lack of fertilizer input.
Arable Fields
6.5.21
Arable fields dominate much of the survey site. At the time of the survey all arable field had
been sown with cereals. Few arable weeds were observed, perhaps more as a result of the
early survey period rather than absence, field margins were of very limited extent and mainly
dominated by coarse grasses with scattered tall ruderal herbs. As a result this habitat type was
considered to be of negligible nature conservation value.
Watercourses/Wet Ditches
6.5.22
Alvaston Stream, Local Wildlife Site (TN 4) is located to the north of the site, immediately
adjacent to a small proportion of the northern boundary. This watercourse, although variable
along its length, is heavily influenced by the presence of residential properties, to the north and
100
to the south by the adjacent hedgerow. The northern bank is composed of a mixture of
substrates associated with the adjacent gardens, with some sections having no aquatic
vegetation, a narrow channel with little water and concrete sides, and other sections supporting
aquatic and marginal vegetation, mud banks and slow flowing water.
6.5.23
Vegetation along the stream includes great willowherb Epilobium hirsutum, brooklime Veronica
beccabunga, Glyceria maxima floating sweet-grass Glyceria fluitans and water starwort
Callitriche sp. As a LWS it is accepted as being of County nature conservation significance.
6.5.24
Ditches occur across the whole site, associated with the hedgerows. The majority of these
ditches are narrow and either dry or with little standing water. Some, however, are of greater
ecological interest, with slow-flowing and aquatic and marginal plant species. Species recorded
include frequent fool’s watercress Apium nodiflorum, watercress Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum,
great willowherb, a water starwort (suspected Callitriche platycarpa), duckweed Lemna minor,
reed canary-grass Phalaris arundinacea, blue water speedwell Veronica anagalis-aquatica and
the moss Fontinalis antipyretica. Despite the survey period a range of aquatic species were
noted some of which, such as blue water speedwell and various leaved water starwort and of
local occurrence; being noted as “a rare native perennial” and “a very rare native annual”
respectively in the Flora of Derbyshirev, and, in respect of the latter, is included in the
Derbyshire Red Data Bookvi as Locally Scarce and Declining. The ditches are also likely to
provide a relatively continuous network through the agricultural farmland and as a result are
considered to be of District significance.
Ponds
6.5.25
Areas of standing water were uncommon within the site and where present are unlikely to
support permanent water. All were significantly degraded and as a result are of no more that
Parish significance.
6.5.26
TN 5 represents a deep ditch with standing water up to 600mm deep. Wetland vegetation was
limited to floating sweet grass.
6.5.27
TN 6 occurs in the corner of the Boulton Moor Hedges LWS and comprises a widened section of
ditch largely over-shaded by the adjacent hedge and ditch. Some limited aquatic vegetation
comprising floating sweet grass.
6.5.28
The pond denoted by TN 7 appears to be only seasonal and is heavily affected by the tipping of
farm waste/debris (Photograph 4 at Figure 6.3). No aquatic vegetation was noted.
Fauna
6.5.29
A summary of identified potential receptors identified through either past or the current survey or
through desk study is outlined below.
Badgers
6.5.30
Field signs suggesting that badgers are active locally were observed, which supports
consultation data and the previous survey of the site and wider area. Ten records of badger
setts were provided by DWT as part of the data search and a number of setts have been
confirmed by LDA design and CBE Consulting during surveys within and around the site in the
last 5years.
101
6.5.31
Four badger setts were recorded on land to the east of the survey site in 2000, during survey
work completed by Penny Anderson Associates (PAA) for the Boulton Moor Environmental
Statement. These setts were again confirmed as being present during survey work carried out in
2003 by PAA.
6.5.32
Further information can be found in Appendix 6.2, which is confidential and should only be
provided to bone fide organisations.
Bats
6.5.33
A number of bat records were provided for the area of search from DWT and Derbyshire Bat
Group. None of these records relate directly to the site, the nearest record is for a common
Pipistrellus roost, approximately 250 metres to the west of the site. The wider area is known to
support further species with Elvaston country Park identified as supporting common and
soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Noctule Nyctalus noctula and brown long-eared bat
Plecotus auritus
.
6.5.34
Previous surveys of land to the east by PAA in 2005 identified both common pipistrelle and
noctule bats, with foraging and commuting activity recorded consistently along the eastern
boundary of the current application site. In the absence of further focused surveys for this
group, which will be completed during the active season in 2013, it is likely that this feature is of
at least Parish significance.
Potential Bat Roost Habitat - Trees
6.5.35
Throughout the survey of the site consideration was given to the potential presence of bat roost
habitat. Potential was noted in association with mature trees, which supported splits, cracks
and rot and animal holes. No evidence of occupation of any tree was noted. Trees considered
to have potential are identified on Figure 6.2: Trees with bat roost potential.
Potential Bat Roost Habitat - Buildings
6.5.36
Buildings are present to the north of the site and comprise a farm house and outbuildings known
as Moor Farm and a small partially roofed barn located to the east.
6.5.37
It should be noted that none of these buildings have been surveyed or assessed in any detail for
their potential to support roosting bats, as access was not permitted at the time of this survey.
6.5.38
Moor Farm is a two-storey, concrete rendered brick-built farmhouse with a gabled slate-tiled
roof. Structural features of note included two brick chimneys, lead flashing, fascia boards and
brick lintels. A small, single storey brick-built annex structure was also present which had a
single pitched slate-tiled roof. The roof was in a good state of repair with only occasional gaps
under roof / ridge tiles noted as potential bat access points. A small gap was noted on the gable
verge adjacent a chimney where a section of mortar was missing (photograph 5 at Figure 6.3).
6.5.39
To the north of the farmhouse a single-storey brick-built barn with a half-hipped half-gabled roof
covered with slate tiles was present. Structural features of note included brick lintels, ridge
ventilation tiles, lead flashing and a skylight. Numerous potential bat access points were
observed under loose / missing slate tiles, through ridge ventilation tiles, open doors / windows
and gaps behind brick window lintels (photograph 6 at Figure 6.3).
102
6.5.40
A number of smaller associated farm outbuildings were also recorded including small, singlestorey brick/breezeblock structures with pitched slate roofs.
6.5.41
To the east of these buildings, associated with the farm, is a small partially roofed brick barn
(Photograph 7 at Figure 6.3). The corrugated tin roof was partially under-boarded, although this
was in poor repair and only provided limited opportunity for bats.
Birds (with specific reference to barn owl)
6.5.42
A range of bird species records from the local area (to 2km from the site boundary) were
provided by the DWT and the Derbyshire Ornithological Society (DOS) and included a number
of protected and S41 list species. Most of those provided by the DWT were of records from
Elvaston Country Park or other sites equally remote from the current application site, while
several of those provided by the DOS were relevant. A summary of notable species is provided
in Table 6.3 below.
Table 6.3: Notable bird records within search area
Species
Date recorded
Location
Pink Footed Goose
09/01/10
Chellaston
Barn Owl
09/12/05
Boulton Moor
Sch 1,
Black Headed Gull
16/09/07
Chellaston
Amber
Brambling
31/12/09
Chellaston
Sch 1
Bullfinch
10/12/00
Chellaston
S.41, Amber
Common Gull
08/12/07
Chellaston
Amber
Corn Bunting
29/04/98
Chellaston
S.41, Red
Crossbill
05/06/12
Chellaston
Sch 1
Cuckoo
20/05/02
Chellaston
Red
Dunnock
22/11/08
Chellaston
S41, amber
Fieldfare
17/01/12
Chellaston
Sch 1
Grasshopper Warbler
06/05/05
Chellaston Covert
S41, red
Green Woodpecker
05/02/12
Chellaston
amber
Grey Partridge
20/05/02
Chellaston
S41, red
Grey Wagtail
08/07/08
Chellaston
amber
Hawfinch
20/02/08
Chellaston
red
Hobby
15/05/11
Chellaston
Sch 1
House Sparrow
26/08/12
Chellaston
S41, red
Kestrel
05/10/01
Chellaston
amber
Kingfisher
27/09/11
Chellaston
Sch 1, amber
Lapwing
24/10/07
Chellaston
S41, red
Linnet
28/06/08
Chellaston Covert
S41, red
103
Status
Species
Date recorded
Location
Status
Marsh Harrier
12/04/07
Chellaston
Sch 1, amber
Mistle Thrush
09/12/00
Chellaston
amber
Peregrine
17/12/05
Chellaston
Sch 1
Pink Footed Goose
29/09/07
Boulton
amber
Red Kite
16/03/08
Chellaston
Sch 1, amber
Redstart
20/07/02
Chellaston
amber
Redwing
25/09/01
Chellaston
Sch 1, red
Reed Bunting
20/02/06
Chellaston
S41, red
Skylark
09/10/08
Boulton Moor
S41, red
Song Thrush
03/07/03
Chellaston
S41, red
Starling
14/11/11
Boulton
S41, red
Tree Sparrow
15/03/09
Chellaston
S41, red
Willow Tit
22/05/03
Chellaston
S41, red
Willow Warbler
13/04/08
Chellaston Covert
amber
Wood Warbler
03/08/08
Chellaston Covert
red
Yellowhammer
08/04/04
Chellaston Hill
S41, red
6.5.43
During the walkover survey of the site a range of species were recorded and included a range of
mainly resident species; as could be expected given the survey period, which occur prior to the
arrival of most migrant species. Protected or notable species recorded included a single
specially protected species, barn owl Tyto alba and three S41 and red listed species: house
sparrow Passer domesticus, dunnock Prunella modularis and bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula.
6.5.44
The former species was recorded in association with the urban edge, whilst the latter species
was recorded in small numbers from scrub within the site. A number of other species typical to
farmland habitats were also recorded and given the nature of the site a typical assemblage of
farmland species could be expected to occur.
104
Table 6.4: Birds recorded during the walkover survey
Site Name
Status (e.g. specially protected under
Schedule 1 of WCA, UK BAP priority
species, Local BAP)
Notes
Fieldfare Turdus pilaris
Schedule 1
Winter visitor onlyassage
House sparrow
domesticus
Passer
S.41, red list
Several colonies adjacent
to existing residential areas
Prunella
S.41, red list
Widespread
Dunnock
modularis
Greater-spotted
woodpecker Dendrocopos
major
Single territory – drumming
to south of site
Blackbird Turdus turdus
-
Widespread
Wood pigeon
palumba
Coumba
-
Widespread
Gold
finch
carduelis
Carduelis
-
Frequent
adjacent
residential areas
to
Greenfinch
chloris
Carduelis
-
Frequent
adjacent
residential areas
to
Wren
troglodytes
Troglodytes
-
widespread
Great tit Passer major
-
widespread
Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs
-
widespread
Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula
S.41, red list
At least two pairs present.
6.5.45
Throughout the walkover assessment trees were inspected for evidence of barn owl activity
such as faecal splashing below perches/potential roosts, pellets (regurgitated indigestible prey
remains), feathers and nest debris. Only a single feature was found to be used by this species,
the barn located to the east of Moor Farm where abundant evidence including faecal splashing
and regurgitated pellets was noted (photograph 8 at Figure 6.3) and, although difficult to expect,
there is the potential that nesting may occur behind under-boarding (photograph 9 at Figure 6.3)
6.5.46
During the survey an adult barn owl was flushed from within the building.
6.5.47
In the absence of further detailed survey, which will be completed between April and June 2013,
and although a full evaluation of the site’s significance for this species cannot be made the
presence/records of a range of notable farmland species in addition to the potential presence of
breeding barn owl suggests that the site is of at least District significance for breeding birds.
Amphibians
6.5.48
Great crested newts are known to be present in the wider area and a number of records were
returned by both the DWT and Derbyshire Amphibian and Reptile Group (DARG). None of these
records relate directly to the site and recent confirmed records for great crested newt are
concentrated in two areas along the A6 Alvaston Bypass and around Chellaston, mostly due to
organised monitoring surveys.
105
6.5.49
It is noted by the DARG that common toad seems to be relatively uncommon in and around
Derby and there are no records from the search area. Previous surveys by LDA in 2008
identified that some features within the site were used by common frog.
6.5.50
Ponds and ditches within the site appeared to be of poor quality for amphibians with ponds
generally appearing to be ephemeral and/or overshared and ditches generally appearing to
have a flow of water. Nevertheless, in order to assess the suitability of the ponds to support a
population of great crested newts the HSI was used in order to identify the likelihood of ponds
supporting this species. A summary of results is provided in Table 6.5 below.
i http://www.magic.defra.gov.uk/
ii http://www.nbn.org.uk/
iii Boulton Moor Environmental Impact Assessment Technical Appendix 9.1 & 9.2 (Penny Anderson Associates 2005)
iv E.g. Derby City Hedgerows: Result from the 2003 Derby City Hedgerow Survey (Derby City and DWT 2003) and
Baseline Ecology Survey Report (LDA Design June 2008)
v http://www.derby.gov.uk/apps/flora/Flora.aspx?gotopage=home (accessed 14.03.2013)
vi Moyes, N.J. & Willmot, A. (2009) Red Data List of Derbyshire’s Vascular Plants. Derby Museum.
106
Table 6.5: Pond characteristics and Habitat Suitability Indices (HIS).
1.
Suitability indices
2.
Pond 1 (TN5)
3.
Pond 2(TN6)
4.
Pond 3(TN7)
5.
6.
Field
Result
7.
Score
SI
8.
Field Result
9.
Score
SI
10.
Field Result
11.
Score
SI
12.
SI 1 - Geographical location
(A,B,C)
2
19.
SI 2 - Pond area (m )
13.
A
14.
1
15.
A
16.
1
17.
A
18.
1
20.
5
21.
0.01
22.
20
23.
0.05
24.
50
25.
0.1
27.
Sometimes
28.
0.5
30.
0.1
0.1
34.
Moderate
35.
0.67
37.
0.67
31.
Dries
annually
38.
Bad
32.
33.
SI 4 - Water quality
40.
SI 5 - Shade (% cover at
perimeter)
47.
SI 6 - Water fowl
29.
Dries
annually
36.
Moderate
39.
0.01
41.
0%
42.
1
43.
100%
44.
0.2
45.
10%
46.
1
48.
Absent
49.
1
50.
Absent
51.
1
52.
Absent
53.
1
54.
SI 7 - Fish
55.
Absent
56.
1
57.
Absent
58.
1
59.
Absent
60.
1
61.
SI 8 - Pond count
62.
2
63.
0.57
64.
2
65.
0.57
66.
2
67.
0.57
68.
SI 9 - Terrestrial habitat
69.
Moderate
70.
0.67
71.
Moderate
72.
0.67
73.
Moderate
74.
0.67
75.
SI 10 - Macrophyte (% cover)
76.
10%
77.
0.4
78.
50%
79.
0.8
80.
0%
81.
0.3
82.
89.
96.
HSI score
Predicted Presence
83.
84.
0.47
85.
86.
0.43
87.
88.
0.32
90.
97.
91.
98.
Poor
92.
99.
93.
100.
Poor
94.
101.
95.
102.
Poor
26.
SI 3 - Permanence
107
6.5.51
Typically ponds within the site were of poor suitability for great crested newts and their
presence is considered to be reasonably unlikely. Therefore, in the absence of further
aquatic survey, which will be completed in 2013, and although a full evaluation of the site’s
significance for this species cannot be made, it is considered unlikely that any particularly
important population is likely to be present. Nevertheless, terrestrial habitats were assessed
for their potential suitability for this species to ensure that, in the unlikely event that they were
confirmed, any potential impacts could be effectively mitigated within the scheme boundaries.
6.5.52
Typically suitable amphibian habitats around all ponds are limited. Whilst some limited
terrestrial habitats for ponds is present and includes hedgerow bases and some areas of
scrub and grassland, habitats are generally too intensively farmed to be of high value; due to
a general lack of cover and the appropriate micro –climate required. More suitable habitats
do, however, occur to the south and west respectively, where habitats comprise a mixture of
young plantation and tall unmanaged grassland.
Otters and Water vole
6.5.53
Records of water vole and otter were returned by the DWT for the wider area. However all
were historic, dating from at least 2003, with no recent records and none taken from the site
itself.
6.5.54
No evidence of either species was noted during the survey of the site, which is largely
isolated from other habitats in the wider area by extensive culverts, and these species are not
therefore considered to be present within the site.
Other fauna
6.5.55
Other fauna recorded incidentally during the survey of the site included evidence of rabbits in
a number of scattered locations within the site.
6.5.56
Although no relevant records are held by the Leicestershire County Recorder for the local
area, consideration was given during the walkover survey to the potential for reptiles to occur.
However, due to the management of the site, which has reduced the structural diversity of
most habitats, and reduced the availability of edge habitat, the site was not considered to be
particularly suitable. Some use of habitats in the west of the site by grass snake may occur,
along, and in association with wet ditches for example, although it is highly unlikely that the
site represents a significant feature for any local population.
6.5.57
Habitats within the site were not considered to be of particular value for invertebrates. The
relatively small number of mature trees were isolated by more intensively managed habitat
and open, flower-rich habitats that could be used by grassland species or as forage by other
species of interest were also generally lacking.
Summary of Valued Ecological Receptors
6.5.58
Features with a value of local or above are considered to represent a ‘Valued Ecological
Receptor’ (VER) or one that could lead to significant effects arising, should impacts be
sufficiently adverse. Those features not meeting the criteria for VERs were classified as
having either site level or negligible ecological value.
6.5.59
A summary of VERs identified within or within the potential zone of influence are identified in
Table 6.7 below.
108
Table 6.7: Summary value of Ecological Receptors
Valued
Nature
Ecological
Conservation
Receptor
Significance
Non-statutory Designated Sites
- Habitats/Flora
Local Wildlife
County
Sites
Boulton Moor
Hedges LWS
Alvaston
Stream LWS
Other Habitats
Broad-leaved
woodland
Mixed plantation
woodland
Mature trees
Veteran Trees
(TN 2)
Species-rich
hedgerows
Hedgerows
Parish
Parish
Parish
District
District
Parish
Ditches
District
Ponds
Parish
Rationale
Designated as of county importance.
Supports habitats of principle importance.
Support a relatively rich suite of indicator species
Qualifies for LWS selection.
Support a relatively rich suite of indicator species
Qualifies for LWS selection.
Supports species of cultural/intrinsic appeal
Habitat of principle importance under S41 NERC Act and
uncommon resource in the wider area
Important and species rich resource providing a potentially
important dispersal function through the site
Generally introduced species but is extensive and likely to
appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the context of the
Parish or neighbourhood
Provides a strong network of wetland habitats within the site
and supports notable vascular plant species
Some potential value and appreciably enriches the habitat
diversity of the site
Fauna
Bat assemblage
Parish (tentative)
Breeding birds
District
All bats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 and Habitats Regulations 2010 and are included on the
NERC Act S41 list.
Important foraging resource for Noctule and pipistrelle
identified previously along eastern boundary (daubentons) bats
and important for commuting by Common and soprano
pipistrelle, Myotis and Noctule bats
Potentially supports a good assemblage of breeding birds
including the specially protected species Barn owl
109
6.6
6.6.1
6.6.2
Assessment of Impacts
The legislation requires that attention be paid to all likely forms of effects. These may be:

Direct or indirect;

Short or long-term;

Intermittent, periodic or permanent; and

Cumulative.
Potential effects prior to mitigation include:

Direct loss of habitats and associated flora and fauna within the application site
boundary, interruption of wildlife corridors, decrease in value to wildlife through
reduction in species and/or habitats;

Indirect effects on retained vegetation within and bordering the application site,
through increase disturbance and through local changes in soils, drainage and
hydrology;

Potential effects upon protected and scarce species through disturbance;

Operational effects such as pollution incidents from chemical spills, pollution of
streams and fragile habitats from runoff and incorrect storage of materials; and

Long-term beneficial effects arising as a result of the favourable enhancement of
parts of the application site to beneficial after-use.
6.6.3
From the outset and following review of the ecological baseline the potential effects arising as
a result of the design of the proposed development have been reviewed in order that, where
possible, potential impacts can be avoided through an alteration in design, layout or working
methods.
6.6.4
The assessment of potential impacts has been made with reference to the description of
development, the Parameters Plan and design principles as set out in the Design and Access
Statement and Landscape Masterplan.
Construction Phase
Direct Impacts on Designated Sites
6.6.5
No statutory designated sites of nature conservation significance are likely to be affected by
the proposals.
6.6.6
Two non-statutory designated wildlife sites occur within or adjacent to the development site
boundary: the Boulton Moor Hedges LWS and Alvaston Stream LWS. No direct impacts on
any identified LWS are anticipated.
Loss of Other Semi-Natural Habitats
6.6.7
Semi-natural habitats of significant nature conservation value are rare within the site due to
the predominance of intensive agriculture. As a result the vast majority of built development,
which includes:
110

20.3 ha of residential development,

4.9ha of highway infrastructure; and

2.0ha school and playing field
6.6.8
The majority will occur on arable or improved/species-poor semi-improved grassland of
negligible nature conservation value.
6.6.9
The site does support a relatively continuous network of hedgerows that, due to their lack of
intensive management and or continuous nature, are of nature conservation interest in a
Parish, District and, in the case of the Boulton moor Hedges LWS, County context.
6.6.10
While the length of hedgerows loss has been minimised as part of the developmental design
of the site, some inevitable loss and disruption would be unavoidable. This includes:

the loss of a single species poor hedgerow totalling 125m, which is isolated within an
arable field and only of Parish significance; and

the loss of c. 420m of species-rich roadside hedgerow of District significance along
Snelsmoor Lane required for highways improvements/road straightening ;

the loss of a number of short sections of hedgerow where access roads, cycle paths
and pedestrian ways require access. As a result individual lengths lost are not likely
to total more than 20m. The total loss is estimated at c. 145m of species-poor
hedgerow of Parish significance and 40m of species-rich hedge on the eastern
boundary of district significance.
6.6.11
Further habitat loss would also occur in association with the loss of approximately 85m of wet
ditch of district significance below internal access routes.
Effect on Fauna through Habitat Loss and Disturbance
Badgers
6.6.12
The presence of a number of badger setts has been confirmed locally and at least one
occupying badger social groups utilises the site for foraging. However, within the built
development area the presence of suitable foraging habitat and dispersal corridors is largely
restricted to hedgerows and grassland habitats located in the north and west, with little
potential associated with the more intensively managed arable habitats that dominate within
the built development area.
6.6.13
Optimal habitat, such as grassland, woodland and scrubvii, will largely be retained as part of
the proposals although some limited loss (c. 6.5ha) would occur in the north and west of the
built development. Remaining available habitat within the site extends to at least 10. 5ha, with
further additional extensive habitat occurring off-site
6.6.14
Badgers often range over large distances to forage with normal ranges extending to between
15ha and 300ha (Neal and Cheeseman 1996, Kruuk 1989) and it is generally accepted that
the loss of 25% or more of the social groups range could have a major negative impact. The
site is, however, expected to represent only a very small proportion of the badger social
group’s likely range and the loss of habitat is not therefore considered to be a major impact
such that the viability of the badger social group would be significantly affected. Furthermore,
111
it is clear that badgers can adapt successfully to urban habitats in urban areas (Davison et al
2009)viii, food availability to badgers is considered to be over-abundant suggesting that the
loss of foraging habitat is only likely to be short-term in nature.
6.6.15
A number of badger setts were identified within and adjacent to the site. Badger setts are
protected from interference or disturbance under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and
while badgers setts within the development are to be retained due to their location in
hedgerows, some inadvertent disturbance could occur. This is unlikely to significantly impact
on badgers as it is generally considered that they are relatively tolerant of disturbance, given
the fact that they regularly occupy area where disturbance appears high. Nevertheless,
where construction work occurs close to setts there is some potential for setts to be
inadvertently damaged/disturbed in the absence of mitigation. Whilst this is unlikely to
significantly affect the badger social group, due to the main setts locations well away from
built development, in the absence of mitigation this could lead to an effect on individual
badgers, potentially causing entrapment and leading to an offence under the above act.
Bats
6.6.16
While the loss of trees is to be largely avoided, some tree removal may inevitably be required
for the provision of access routes through the development. Trees with bat roost potential
have been identified. Aerial inspection surveys by licensed bat workers of any trees destined
to be removed as part of the current proposals will therefore be undertaken to ensure that
any impacts associated with the loss of bat roost are fully accounted for in the decision
making process. The result of these surveys will be provided in a supplementary report.
6.6.17
Furthermore, additional roost habitat could be created through natural processes such as
wind damage or rot and additional trees may require removal at a later date for health and
safety reasons or as part of any future reserved matters application for subsequent phases.
If bat roosts are confirmed as present the impact is likely to be minor at most, as tree roosts
are generally transitory in nature.
6.6.18
Further potential bat habitat could be affected during the demolition of Moor Farm, which
supports suitable features for bats to roost in. A full evaluation of impact significance cannot
be made in the absence of further detailed surveys which will be completed in spring/summer
2013 and included within a supplementary report. However, a precautionary approach is
adopted and it is fully expected that, were a bat roost discovered, appropriate mitigation could
be easily incorporated into the proposals such that any impact is minimised for the species of
bat likely to occur within the site and identified during the desk study.
6.6.19
All species of bats are protected under Section 41 of the Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010 and under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
Taken together, these make it an offence to:

deliberately capture or intentionally take a bats;

deliberately or intentionally kill or injure a bats;

to be in possession or control of any live or dead bats or any part of, or anything
derived from a bat;

damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat;
112

Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place that a bat uses for shelter or
protection;

intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it
uses for shelter or protection;

deliberately disturb any bat, in particular any disturbance which is likely to:
­ impair their ability to survive, breed, reproduce or to rear or nurture their young;
or in the case of hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or
­ affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they
belong.
6.6.20
Although the law provides strict protection to bats, it also allows derogation from this
protection under Section 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
through the issuing of EPS licences for development works. These licences in England are
currently determined by Natural England (NE).
6.6.21
Where a lawful operation is required to be carried out, which is likely to result in one of the
above offences, an EPS licence may be obtained from NE to allow the operation to proceed.
6.6.22
As part of the licence applications process a number of ‘Tests’ have to be met by the
application.
6.6.23
Natural England Guidance Note: European Protected Species and the Planning Process –
Natural England’s Application of the ‘Three Tests’ to Licence Applications (March 2011)
states:
“In determining whether or not to grant a licence Natural England must apply the
requirements of Regulation 535 of the Regulations and, in particular, the three tests
set out in sub-paragraphs (2)(e), (9)(a) and (9)(b)6. (1) Regulation 53(2)(e) states: a
licence can be granted for the purposes of “preserving public health or public safety
or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social
or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the
environment”.
(2) Regulation 53(9)(a) states: the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence
unless they are satisfied “that there is no satisfactory alternative”.
(3) Regulation 53(9)(b) states: the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence
unless they are satisfied “that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the
maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation
status in their natural range.”
6.6.24
Conservation status is defined as “the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned
that may affect the long term distribution and abundance of its population within its territory”.
It is assessed as favourable when:

population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining
itself on a long term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and

The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced
for the foreseeable future, and
113

There is, or will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its
populations on a long term basis.
6.6.25
These tests must not only reach agreement with Natural England when assessing a Licence
application they must also be assessed by the planning authority when determining a
planning application and as a result it will be necessary to ensure that the presence of other
wise of bat roost is fully taken into account during the decision making process.
6.6.26
The small losses of hedgerow to allow access (i.e. up to 20m stretches) are unlikely to affect
bat corridor routes as these distances are regularly crossed by members of this group.
However, the use of high intensity lighting can impact on bats during the construction phase
of works, particularly where lighting is close to important habitat such as that used for
foraging and as corridors of movement by some of the slower flying species such as the
Myotis and brown long-eared bat species. While this is unlikely to significantly affect the
viability of any local population, it could lead to their displacement from some areas or decline
in foraging efficiency in the short-term during construction. Other species, including Noctule,
perhaps the most notable species recorded and Pipistrellus, the most numerous, are likely to
benefit from the increase in floodlighting as they feed on the insects attracted to the light.
Birds - general
6.6.27
With the exception of barn owl, the site was not considered to potentially provide any
particularly valuable habitat for wintering or breeding bird species, predominantly due to the
dominance of intensively managed arable and improved grassland habitat. As a result it was
not considered likely to support any particularly rare or vulnerable species previously
recorded in association with the wider Trent Valley and associated wetland habitats.
However, the site is likely to provide a habitat for a range of common and widespread
farmland bird species of conservation concern. Those that are more likely to be negatively
affected by the proposals are those that have more restricted habitat requirements such as
skylark and lapwing; ground nesting species that may opportunistically use habitats within the
site when crop type/management is conducive and those more tied to open farmland
habitats, such as linnet. However, as a result of the widespread nature of the majority of
species recorded utilising habitats within the site, a significant impact on any wider population
is considered reasonably unlikely for the majority of species, although this will be better
informed following breeding bird surveys to be completed in 2013.
6.6.28
The effect of habitat loss on the breeding bird assemblage, which given the nature of habitats
is considered unlikely to be of any greater than District significance is unlikely to lead to a
major reduction in the species richness of the site, although a reduction in the local
population size of many of the farmland specialists could be expected.
6.6.29
Nevertheless, construction works, such as initial ground and vegetation clearance, have the
potential to disturb breeding birds and potential cause the loss or abandonment of nest.
Whilst there is unlikely to be any major impact on local bird populations, it should be noted
that all birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law and it is an offence, with certain
exceptions, to intentionally:

Kill, injure or take any wild bird,

Take damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built,

Take or destroy the egg of any wild bird,
114

and, in the case of birds listed on schedule 1 (barn owl, disturb any bird while it is
nest building or is at or near a nest with young; or disturb the dependant young of
such a bird.
Birds- Barn Owl
6.6.30
The potential for impacts on barn owl to occur can be summarised as those associated with
loss of a potential nest site and foraging habitat. Both features are considered to be limiting
factors within the wider landscape, potentially reducing the further dispersal and colonisation.
In the absence of mitigation, the loss of either could limit the success of this species within
the district spatial scale and its potential loss from the immediate area may arise.
6.6.31
Whilst proposals indicate the loss of the nest site, suitable foraging habitat is highly limited
within the site. Ideal foraging habitat for barn owls support large numbers of field vole. The
optimum habitat for field voles is rough tussocky grassland with a thick litter layer through
which field voles will tunnel and nest.
Grazing, which is currently the main agricultural
practice undertaken within grassland field compartments within the site, breaks down the litter
layer where anything but very light. Although some limited habitat for small mammals is
likely to occur along field boundaries, optimal field vole habitat is currently localised and is
only present in a quantity centrally (0.4ha) and in the northeast (c. 1ha), where the formation
of attenuation lagoons is proposed. Further good quality habitat occurs off-site to the west
where at least 7.5ha is present.
6.6.32
Typically, during the breeding season most barn owl hunting occurs within a1km radius of a
nest site, in which there should be at least 4ha of rough grassland for breeding to be
successful. Barn owls have been known to breed with much smaller areas available, with
less than 0.5ha within 1km of the nest. As at least 7.5ha of suitable foraging habitat is
potentially available and with more anticipated to occur further afield the loss of a small area
of habitat within the site is unlikely to be of any more than minor significance in the absence
of mitigation or enhancement.
Fragmentation and isolation of habitats
6.6.33
The development layout and Green Infrastructure provision has sought to provide links from
adjacent corridor habitats, such as the woodland habitats on the western boundary, into the
retained parts of the site. However, some features within the proposals, such as the access
routes within the development, have the potential to isolate and fragment existing habitats.
This could slow the colonisation of species and limit the use of the operational site to wildlife.
Valued ecological receptors that could be affected in the absence of mitigation include
badger and potentially bats leading to a reduction in the use of the site and avoidance of the
local area.
Potential Degradation through Pollution
6.6.34
In the absence of suitable mitigation, there is some potential for accidental pollution
incidences and silt-laden construction site run-off to affect retained wetland features and
habitats downstream, such as the Alvaston Stream LWS, leading to an impact on both flora
and fauna.
6.6.35
Additional impacts can arise as a result of an increase in airborne dust, during periods of dry
weather when soil-stripping, earth moving is being undertaken for example. This can damage
115
vegetation and potentially affect associated fauna including invertebrates, which are
particularly susceptible. Where impacts are severe, some species may disperse from
affected areas in the short-term. This is therefore likely to lead to a short-term negative
impact on lower plants and invertebrates and is greatly dependant on mitigation measures
and weather conditions. However, in the absence of mitigation, the impact from dust could
lead to minor temporary effects on some.
Operational Impacts
6.6.36
Operational impacts include the increased disturbance of wildlife resulting from the operation
and use of the site by residents.
6.6.37
Many species will benefit from the country park proposals; however, some operational impact
may occur through the severing of corridor habitats and vehicular use of the site and through
the disturbance of the Green Infrastructure by both occupants of the development and their
pets. Many of the impacts associated with the use of Green Infrastructure habitats can be
mitigated by the operation of appropriate site management from relative seclusion to more
intensive recreational use.
6.6.38
An important requirement will be to maximise the potential benefits of the Green
Infrastructure to biodiversity wherever possible and as such a range of measure can be
incorporated into the design of the scheme.
6.6.39
Badgers densities within urban habitats have been shown to be similar to those in rural areas
and established urban habitats are generally accepted to often provide an over-abundance of
food, as such any long-term impacts arising as a result of the change in land use on the
continued viability on the local badger population are generally unlikely. However, there is a
potential effects arising as a result of habitat loss include the severance and disruption of
corridor route due to the implementation of the access roads. In the absence of mitigation,
this could have a significant effect on the badger social group through increased road
casualties potentially leading to a decline in the social group’s viability in its current location.
6.6.40
With an increase in domestic animals it would be expected that wildlife, including birds and
small mammals associated with retained habitats, might be subject to increased predation
and disturbance from cats and dogs. While this impact may affect the local distribution of
some species it is considered to be of minor significance; offset by the substantial increase in
garden habitats, which will occur, alongside structural landscaping.
6.6.41
Any lighting around retained habitat used by bats as corridor of foraging habitat can lead to a
reduction in use by this group. Some species such as Myotis and brown long-eared bats,
which are generally slower flying, are particularly sensitive to lighting and will avoid heavily lit
areas as a predator avoidance strategy.
6.7
Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Habitat Enhancement
6.7.1
The proposals include the provision of an extensive Green Infrastructure package, totalling
38.6ha of the 65.8ha application site boundary. The Green Infrastructure can be roughly
subdivided into the following forms:
116

Country Park – 28.7ha of informal open space forming the western part of the
development site;

Public Open Space – 3.9ha designated as open space and located within the built
development area; and

6.7.2
Green Corridors – 6ha situated along existing field boundaries and ditches.
Habitat creation and enhancement opportunities presented within the Green Infrastructure
are driven by a number of factors including:

a requirement to compensate for minor loss of habitat used by fauna and where
possible ensure that there is a net gain in biodiversity arising as a result of the
development

a desire to benefit Local Biodiversity Action Plan targets;

the maintenance of habitat corridors through the site and incorporation of habitat
links to surrounding habitats of interest; and

the presence of existing features of interest that would benefit through sympathetic
management.
6.7.3
The application site, being situated close to a large population and including a significant area
of informal open space, therefore provides an excellent opportunity to aid the LBAP, and in
particular the Derby Area Action Plan with its vision for “An area where all people have
access to and value their wildlife rich environment close to where they live and work. This is
provided by an interlinking green infrastructure system having the River Derwent at its spine.
Open land will be sustainably managed for people and wildlife; new built development will
play a part in delivering new and enhanced habitats”.
6.7.4
The following habitats will be created as part of the proposals and should be read in
conjunction with the Landscape Framework plan (FPCR Drg no 5513-L-01-B) and has been
based on the habitat creation proposals within the DWT Habitat Creation Guide (undated).
Woodland Scrub and Hedgerows
6.7.5
New hedgerows and scrub habitat would be created within public open space and within the
Green Infrastructure, including areas within the country park, which provides a habitat
corridor through the site and wider area with off-site habitats in the northwest. Shrub species
should be based on the composition of existing hedgerows bounding and within the site.
Existing hedgerows would be maintained as they provide sheltered corridors for wildlife to
move along; encouraging dispersal throughout a site. Hedgerows already provide good
structural diversity and associated under-storey vegetation adds more variety to the habitat.
This may be sustained through appropriate management with the aim of maintaining
continuous hedgerows at least 3-4m wide.
6.7.6
Hedgerows would be trimmed every 5-10 years or perhaps on alternate sides every 2-5 years
which would allow hedgerows to thicken; this may be combined with gapping up with similar
species where necessary. Hedgerow management would be carried out during late winter to
allow wildlife to take advantage of fruit and berry during the winter and during a period when
trees are dormant and work will cause minimum disturbance to wildlife.
117
6.7.7
New woodland planting will be undertaken within the Woodland Valley in order to augment
existing wet woodlands, increase connectivity between them and buffer the existing
woodlands from the effects of development. The planting mix would be representative of
local woodlands and based on the W6 National Vegetation Community (NVC) where ground
conditions (water-logged) allow. Little management would be undertaken initially to ensure
that the area is as little disturbed as possible although some thinning/coppicing/pollarding
may be required in time to encourage the development of structurally diverse woodland.
6.7.8
Where new tree and shrub planting within the structural landscaping and Green Infrastructure
is to be undertaken, native species will be used wherever possible to ensure target for the
creation of native woodland. The following species are proposed which would comprise at
least 50% climax species such as oak:
Core Woodland
Oak - Quercus robur
Field rose - Rosa arvensis
Field maple - Acer campestre
Hawthorn - Crataegus monogyna
Hazel – Corylus avellana
Holly - Ilex aquifolium
Woodland edge
Field rose - Rosa arvensis
Dogwood – Cornus sanguinea
Crab apple - Malus sylvestris
Grey willow – Salix cinerea
Holly - Ilex aquifolium
Hazel - Corylus avellana
6.7.9
Hedgerow planting, based on the mix below would use a range of fruit bearing species
particularly attractive to flocks of winter thrushes and foraging mammals. Hedgerows would
be planted to ensure at least five species per 30m stretch, will increase the total length of
hedgerow within the site and as these would be species rich hedgerows they would more
than compensate for those loses within the site.
Major Species (70-75%)
Hawthorn
Blackthorn
Minor Species (remaining 25-30%)
Field maple
Hazel
118
Holly
Crab apple
Dogwood
Wych elm
6.7.10
Where possible, all tree and shrub plant material would be sourced locally to ensure the
retention of genetic diversity unique to the area.
6.7.11
The creation of significant areas of woodland and scrub is likely to lead to be of beneficial
impact at a site/parish scale.
Community Orchard
6.7.12
The developmental design also incorporates a new community orchard in the north of the
site. Traditional orchards, where sympathetically managed and if supporting appropriate
complimentary habitats, such as unimproved and semi-improved grassland are included on
the S41 List as habitat of principle importance to the conservation of biodiversity.
Grassland
6.7.13
The nature of many of the existing pastoral fields and their recent lack of fertilizers provides
great potential for the development of more species-rich grassland habitats following a
relaxation of their current intensive grazing regime. Grassland habitats would be restored to
more favourable condition either through the introduction of sympathetic management or
through a more focused approach such as the spreading of green hay from other local sites
of interest or over-seeding with a neutral grassland mix based on the NVC MG 5 community
or mix recommended in the DWT Habitat Creation guide for Neutral grassland in the Trent
Valley and Rises Natural Area. Species will be agreed with local nature conservation
organisations. Once seeded the grassland will be left to develop naturally under a
sympathetic cutting regime.
6.7.14
As with neutral grassland areas within the main body of the site, road verges will be seeded
with a fine grass mix to allow natural establishment of a more diverse sward or with an
appropriate flowing lawn mix such as the Emorsgate Flowering Lawn Mix EL1. Mowing
regimes will vary between a once annual, twice annual and more frequent cutting regime
where required.
6.7.15
The aim of grassland enhancement will be to allow the development of a varied species-rich
sward to develop over time. Management should be generally of a low intensity throughout
much of the area allowing the development of a patchy network of grasslands of varying
sward heights. This will provide the structural and microhabitat diversity required by a range
of species including a number of the invertebrates and small mammals
6.7.16
Initial management of grassland areas is likely to include the control of undesirable species
such as ragwort, which has been favoured by the current stock grazing regime, followed by
cutting in autumn (only a third cut in any one year), to maintain a varied sward with frequent
patches of short (<50mm) grassland.
6.7.17
It is noted that a commitment to the enhancement of the grassland field compartment
enclosed by the Boulton Moor Hedges LWS has been made in connection with the
119
development of the Friar Gate Station site which given a resolution to grant planning consent
at committee in October 2011 (App. Ref: 03/11/00246)
Wetland
6.7.18
The primary function of the surface water drainage system will be to control flows and reduce
the potential for pollution of the aquatic environment. However, It is important that SUDS are
considered holistically and that each element is recognised as part of a network of habitats
and wildlife corridors.
6.7.19
A significant opportunity exists in association with surface water attenuation proposals to
provide a range of habitats that would complement those of existing interest along ditches.
6.7.20
Principles followed will include:

Where possible, SUDS will be located close to but not immediately directly
connected to existing wetland areas, so plants and animals can naturally colonise the
new SUDS ponds.

Well vegetated shallow bays will be created allowing the establishment of areas of
marsh.

Smoothly finished surfaces would be avoided; although they give the impression of
tidiness they provide less micro habitat diversity for plants and animals.

If planting is essential, such as for the earlier phases ensure only native plants of
local origin are used.
6.7.21
The attenuation facilities and other wetland feature should include permanent open water set
within a mosaic of adjacent wet woodland, marsh and grassland, which could benefit the
existing interest and disperse through the site and stream/ditch network.
6.7.22
The water body will be shaped to provide a range of bank angles and heights. Gradients will
vary from 15º - 25º from horizontal and will be enhanced by the excavation of small
embayments. This will create differing conditions of light and temperature and will thus
encourage diversification in the flora and associated fauna. Variations in water depth will be
created from shallows to deeper pools (50mm – 1000mm) to enhance nature conservation
value and to maximise the development of biodiversity. The shallowest areas will grade into
an expanse of seasonally wet mud that may attract a variety of invertebrates and plants,
which will, in turn, attract other fauna including birds and mammals.
6.7.23
The attenuation ponds will largely be supplied by rainfall and surface water run-off and thus
would allow for seasonal variations in water level. It is envisaged that a range of peripheral
communities including wet grassland, marsh and wet (carr) woodland will be established, and
provide a gradual transition to drier habitats to the south; on high ground. The greater habitat
diversity and extent of edge habitat is likely to provide good invertebrate habitat throughout
the season and therefore provide a potentially important foraging resource for bats, which are
known to utilise this part of the site in particular.
120
General Impact Avoidance Measures
6.7.24
From the outset and following review of the ecological baseline the potential effects arising
as a result of site design have been reviewed in order that, where possible, potential impacts
can be avoided through an alteration in design, layout or working methods. As a result the
majority of potential Valued Ecological Receptors identified in the wider survey area have
been avoided through sensitive design.
6.7.25
The potential for impacts on retained habitats outside of the immediate working area during
construction activities would be minimised by retaining and protecting all unaffected habitats
within the site to ensure that disturbance is kept to a minimum and any sensitive species are
retained in situ. All existing hedgerows and, where relevant, its associated ditch will be
retained where possible, with the exception of where vehicular or pedestrian access may be
necessary and a single hedgerow that is isolated with an arable field. Each would either be
included within a retained 10m green corridor or buffered by at least 5m. Similarly, works
beneath the canopy/within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of any retained trees would be
avoided or, if necessary, mitigated for (refer to Arboricultural Assessment: FPCR, 2013).
6.7.26
Retained habitats would also be set back from the built development and garden habitats.
Where existing hedgerows are becoming wide with much lateral outward growth, they would
be protected and development plots/gardens would be set back and fenced to ensure that
they remain intact both during and following development.
6.7.27
The buffer strip management will be sympathetic to their current interest and agreed with
interested parties. The potential for the tipping of garden waste into and around retained
habitat would be reduced through the careful design of the development, which would not
only include the provision of a wide buffer strip but also by ensuring that most immediately
adjacent properties do not have private gardens backing onto buffer strips.
6.7.28
In order to prevent indirect effects through an alteration in water chemistry or siltation of
ditches/stream and the consequent smothering of flora and fauna appropriate measures will
be implemented in line with best practice.
6.7.29
The relevant Pollution Prevention Guidelines listed below will be adhered to, to ensure
construction works are undertaken in an environmentally responsible manner. Any
environmentally hazardous material used will be kept in dedicated stores and storage tanks
will have appropriate bunding.
PPG1: General Guide to the Prevention of Pollution;
PPG2: Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks;
PPG3: Use and Design of Oil Separators in Surface Water Drainage Systems;
PPG5: Works in, Near, or Liable to Affect Watercourses;
PPG6: Working at Construction and Demolition Sites;
PPG21: Pollution Incident Response Planning;
PPG23: Maintenance of Structures over Water
6.7.30
Earthworks will be undertaken according to the guidelines given in PPG6: Working at
Construction and Demolition Sites. The following measures will be implemented as required
to prevent pollution from earthworks;
121

erosion control measures – including avoidance of works close to water bodies
including ditches during inclement weather and covering of temporary stockpiles
where necessary to prevent runoff from flowing across exposed ground and
becoming polluted with sediments;

sediment control measures – including cut-off ditches and silt traps to slow runoff and
allow for settlement of sediment as close to the source as possible.
Mitigation for Habitat loss and Disturbance to Fauna
Badger
6.7.31
Factors key to effective badger mitigation in this case are: 
Protection of setts during development

Where sett closure is essential, ensuring badgers are not harmed during sett closure
or construction activities.

Provision of badger underpass where important dispersal corridors are severed.

Retention/enhancement of foraging habitat and corridors of movement.

Provision of additional and enhanced badger foraging habitat.
6.7.32
The results of the badger survey indicate that at least one badger social group territory would
be affected by the development proposals. Mitigation measures seek to ensure long term
sustainability of the group within the area. It will be necessary to ensure that existing disused
badger setts or newly excavated setts are taken into account as part of the proposals. A full
badger survey will therefore be completed for each phase of construction works to assess
any change in status of identified sett and any need for further mitigation measures.
6.7.33
Although all identified existing setts have been retained and buffered from development,
should any active setts be identified and their retention not possible within the scheme, it may
be necessary to close them under licence. Where this is the case, closure would be
undertaken using one-way badger gates following guidance as to the use, operation and
monitoring provided by Natural England. Closure would be undertaken only during the period
from July to November (inclusive) unless under exceptional circumstances and licensed by
Natural England.
6.7.34
Other measures to ensure that construction works do not impact on badgers would include:

Provision and protection of buffer strips from between 3-10m in width either side of
retained hedgerows

Where trenches/voids are created and left overnight, they will be covered or
measures taken to ensure that badgers can escape if inadvertently trapped (e.g.
placement of scaffold boards).

Careful consideration given to the location of topsoil storage mounds that can readily
become used by badgers for the creation of new setts.
122
6.7.35
Corridor habitat is likely to be severed where access routes are required through hedgerows.
Most residential roads are unlikely to be significantly affected as they are likely to be heavily
used and will have a restricted speed limit. However, the primary road is likely to be used
more frequently and, potentially, at higher speeds and badger underpass will therefore be
incorporated into the road design in close proximity to the existing corridors and at no more
than 500m apart. Their design would be based on those contained within the Design Manual
for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Badger fencing and landscape planting comprising native
species will be designed so as to funnel badgers into these features.
Again fencing
specification would accord with those recommended in the DMRB.
6.7.36
Proposals include for woodland and scrub and wildflower and amenity grasslands, will
provide additional foraging habitat for badgers over and above that currently available such
that no significant impact on the availability of foraging habitat would occur.
6.7.37
Green Corridors will be created throughout the main development, around residential blocks
linking to existing habitats in and outside of the site.
6.7.38
As a result of the above measures the overall impact on badgers is likely to be of negligible
significance with a potential beneficial impact expected in the long term when residential and
public open space habitats become established.
Bats
Potential Roosts
6.7.39
Bats are rigorously protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Further assessment of the Moor
Farm buildings and any tree will be undertaken to ensure that the status of bats is fully taken
into account. The results of surveys would be provided in a supplementary report/addendum
to this chapter.
6.7.40
Due to the cyclical nature of the creation and loss of tree roosts and their sporadic use by
bats the potential presence of bats should also be considered where development is likely to
be phased or where there is any delay between the surveys identified above and the
commencement or construction works, particularly where future applications indicate the loss
of management of trees such as in the interests of public safety. Any tree that is to be
removed will therefore be subject to a detailed assessment for bat roost potential and method
statement agreed with Natural England. This will include emergence/roost/aerial inspection
of the trees concerned. If bats are found, removal would be postponed and a DEFRA licence
applied for. Trees will be taken down in sections, each section will be lowered to the ground
and checked by a licensed bat worker, trees will then be left in situ for five days. Erecting
three bat boxes for each roost lost will mitigate for any trees to be removed that provide roost
sites. These will be erected on trees at a height between 5m and 6m at north, southwest and
southeast aspects. Irrespective of whether any bat roosts are confirmed within the site, a total
of twenty bat boxes will be positioned around the site under the supervision of a licensed bat
worker.
6.7.41
In the event that bats are found to be roosting in any feature, maintenance of favourable
conservation status would require the provision of a range of measures to ensure that bats
can continue to roost within the site. This could be expected to include a range of bat boxes
throughout the scheme, which will provide new potential roosting sites, or in the event that
species requiring more open roost habitat, such as brown-long-eared bats, are discovered, a
123
specially designed building/bat cote will be incorporated into the proposals. The inclusion of
these features would be in addition to any mitigation that may be required for the purposes of
European Protected Species licensing.
6.7.42
Additional enhancement will also include the incorporation of bat boxes and / or bat tubes into
the fabric of the buildings to be constructed, if possible. These should include Schwegler
1FR and 1FQ bat tubes or the Ibstock Enclosed Bat Boxes B and C. These are bat boxes
which can be incorporated into the brick walls of buildings and are maintenance free. The
small size of the box means they are more suitable for smaller colonies. The tubes will be
placed within walls at least 4m from the ground on a suitable aspect i.e. south, east or west
and away from lighting to ensure roosting behaviour is not affected. The tubes will be placed
on buildings on the site periphery, adjacent tree lines or hedgerows for cover once the bats
have emerged These measures are generally suitable for Pipistrelle bats, however, the bat
tube is also suitable for a wide range of British bat species.
6.7.43
It is accepted that the future use trees by bats cannot be discounted; particularly given that a
tree’s roosting potential can change with time and the natural process of ageing and decay as
well as following the activities of animals and influence of the weather. In accordance with
the precautionary approach and as recommended in Good Practice Guidelines, it is
recommended that update surveys are undertaken as necessary, such as part of a reserved
matters application for future phases for example.
Foraging and Dispersal/Corridor Habitat
6.7.44
During the operational phase of the development losses of small length of hedgerows to
allow access (i.e. up to 20m stretches) are proposed. These hedgerows crossing the site are
likely to provide dispersal corridors through the site.
6.7.45
All hedgerows will be maintained within a 10m buffer (exceptions being the requirement for
pedestrian or vehicular access) which in addition to the retention of the majority of trees is
likely to reduce the any impacts. To further minimise the potential impact to foraging routes
when the hedgerow linkages within the completed site are broken the retained hedgerow will
be reinforced with native species planting. Where the proposed breach of the hedgerow
exceeds 10 m in length the planting will also include the implementation of standard trees
adjacent to the road/footpath which will grow to be above the level of vehicle movement. The
lower branches of such trees should be regularly pruned back to the trunk in order to ensure
that the most suitable flight line is above the maximum traffic height (where applicable lowlevel lighting columns may also be used in this instance to reduce the likelihood of the bats
using the lower tree regions). The implementation of such ‘hop-overs’ will allow continued
echolocation across the break thereby allowing continued usage of the hedgerow as a
foraging/commuting area.
6.7.46
Whilst the hop-overs will take a little while to establish, the tree standards to be used shall be
of an appropriate size and will be planted early in the development cycle. Whilst the breach
will be present during the construction period until the hop-over is established due to the
small size of the proposed breaches the impacts upon bats potentially commuting along them
is considered to be minor.
6.7.47
The other key impact considered was the potential effect of lighting across the site. In
addition to the implementation of the 10m buffer, it is considered that the scale of this
potential impact will be significantly reduced through the use of low-level light or directional
124
lighting. Street- and flood-lighting will also use directional LED lighting where possible
instead of mercury or metal halide lamps as they emit limited levels of UV light (which attracts
insects, and hence, bats) and the light is easily diverted. Furthermore, the use of glass
glazing for the lights is also recommended as this further reduces UV light emissions. The
lighting proposed will minimise light spill onto the potential foraging routes (including the
proposed flood attenuation facilities) and minimise potential disturbance caused through
lighting of these corridors of movement.
6.7.48
The use of high intensity lighting can impact on bats during the construction phase of works,
particularly where lighting is close to important habitat used by some of the slower flying
species such as the Myotis and brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus species. While this is
unlikely to significantly affect the viability of any local population, it could lead to their
displacement from some areas or decline in foraging efficiency in the short-term during
construction. However, with the implementation of appropriate habitat enhancement it is
considered that the potential impact of this disturbance on bats potentially commuting across
the site is not significant.
6.7.49
A large number of the hedgerows are being retained as a result of the proposals, with large
areas of habitat currently considered unsuitable for bat commuting or foraging being
enhanced as a result of the proposals. It is therefore considered that the proposals could
have a positive impact on the available foraging/commuting habitat within these areas.
Avifauna
General
6.7.50
To avoid disturbance to breeding birds, where vegetation is to be removed it will be removed
prior to the bird-breeding season (March to August/September). If this is not possible,
vegetation will be checked prior to removal by an experienced ecologist. If active nests are
found, vegetation will be left untouched until all birds have fledged. Specific advice will be
provided prior to undertaking the clearance. This would be a statutory requirement due to the
protection of all nesting birds and their nests under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. A
suitably qualified ecologist would supervise this.
6.7.51
If an active bird nest is found in vegetation or other feature/habitat to be removed, the area
would be retained and clearance operations would recommence only when the nest is no
longer in use.
Barn Owl
6.7.52
The proposals will lead to the loss of a heavily used roost an, potential, nest site. In order to
compensate for the loss, at least four barn owl boxes will be erected in peripheral parts of the
site as far from works as possible (refer to: The Barn Owl Trust advice leaflets: Nest boxes
for use of vertical trunks leaflet no. 2ix for design). This will be completed in the first phase of
development to ensure that boxes are found and used prior to the loss of the existing roost.
Nest box siting would be agreed with the LPA prior to erection, although would follow the
recommendations within the above leaflet.
6.7.53
Habitat enhancement will also be undertaken in the Green Infrastructure/country park. This
will include areas of rough grassland occupying up to one third of the grassland present and
new woodland/scrub planting, which provides good foraging habitat in the early years of
125
development. It is likely that on this basis the availability of foraging habitat locally would be
significantly increased.
Management Plan
6.7.54
A biodiversity management plan will be produced for all habitats retained and created for
nature conservation purposes. The plan will be produced in consultation with the LPA and
statutory and non-statutory consultees to ensure that all aspects of site management are
included within the plan. Where possible the long-term management of the site will be
carried out in consultation with an organisation with a proven track record of managing areas
to maximise their nature conservation potential.
6.8
Residual Effects
Assessment of Residual and Cumulative Effects
6.8.1
The residual effects consider the effects after the incorporation of mitigation measures. In the
context of ecological assessment, many of these measures are incorporated as an integral
part of the scheme design. This iterative process has resulted in the proposed development
being designed and modified to take account of the surveys and assessments undertaken.
This has enabled the extent and scale of the potential adverse effects to be continually
appraised as part of the evolving Masterplan and scheme design.
6.8.2
The design approaches adopted have included measures to avoid or reduce potentially
significant adverse effects arising from the proposed development. Compensatory measures
are also proposed where impacts, such as habitat loss, are unavoidable and where this is
proposed compensatory habitat creation measures have sought to provide habitats that
complement those located within and close to the site.
6.8.3
A summary of residual impacts resulting from construction and operation of the site are
summarised in Table 6.8.
vii E.g. see Hofer H. (1988). Variation in resource presence, utilisation and reproductive success within a population
of European badgers (Meles meles). Mammal Review 18: 25–36.
viii J. Davison, M. Huck, R. J. Delahay & T. J. Roper (2009) Restricted ranging behaviour in a high-density population
of urban badgers. Journal of Zoology 277: 45–53
ix http://www.barnowltrust.org.uk/content_images/pdf/Nestboxes_for_use_on_Trees1357645529.pdf
126
Table 6.8: Summary of significant effects without design or mitigation including residual impacts
Description
of
Valued
Ecological
Receptor
Proposed Activity
Characterisation of unmitigated
impact
Alvaston Stream
LWS (TN 4)
Site clearance works and
ground remodelling
Degradation of water quality
through site run-off during
construction and operation
leading to reduction in
interest/biodiversity value.
County value
Meets LWS
criteria
 Presumption
against loss
unless
compensation
provided
Boulton Moor
Hedges LWS
Impact
on
integrity
or
conservation
status
Minor negative
impact at the
County level
Proposed
Measures
Mitigation/
Design
Good site management and
adherence to Pollution Prevention
Guidelines, and in particular PPG6:
Working at Construction and
Demolition Sites during construction.
Scale of Ecological
Significance
of
Residual Impact
No Impact

Project design incorporates
substantial buffer habitats between
built environment and green corridors
and SUDS.
Formation of pedestrian
access routes
Loss of c. 3m section of hedge of
least species richness
County value


Meets LWS
criteria
Presumption
against loss
unless
compensation
provided
127
Minor negative at
County scale
Incorporation of hedges into country
park proposals and future sympathetic
management of proposed and
existing resource
Minor Beneficial
Impact at County
Scale
Description
of
Valued
Ecological
Receptor
Proposed Activity
Characterisation of unmitigated
impact
Mixed plantation
woodland on
eastern boundary
Site clearance works and
ground remodelling
Clearance operations will lead to
the permanent loss of two 20 x
10m sections to facilitate site
access to the adjacent Boulton
Moor development
Construction works
Damage to trees through damage
to roots, compaction and
reduction in vigour of trees and
potential loss
Parish value
• No policy/legislative
implication although
habitat is extensive
and appreciably
enriches local area
Mature and veteran
trees
Parish to District
value
 Appreciably
enriches local
area
 Veteran trees are
irreplaceable as
identified in NPPF
128
Impact
on
integrity
or
conservation
status
Minor negative
effect on
conservation
status certain.
Proposed
Measures
Miti
Minor negative
effect up to district
significance
Retention of all ma
protection of Root
(RPA) and appropr
management of ne
Green Infrastructur
Project design inclu
habitat creation inc
replacement nativ
shrub species
Description
of
Valued
Ecological
Receptor
Proposed Activity
Characterisation of unmitigated
impact
Species-rich
hedgerows
Construction works,
including formation of site
accesses, pedestrian routes.
Loss of 40m of species-rich
hedge on the eastern boundary
Loss of c. 420m of species-rich
roadside hedgerow along
Snelsmoor Lane required for
highways improvements/road
straightening
District value
 Appreciably
enriches local
area
 Provides relatively
continuous
corridor of
relatively
undisturbed seminatural habitat
 Hedgerows listed
on S41 of NERC
Act

129
Impact
on
integrity
or
conservation
status
Moderate
negative effect of
district
significance
Proposed
Measures
Miti
Protection and man
retained hedgerow
Replanting of road
and additional hed
within country park
Description
of
Valued
Ecological
Receptor
Proposed Activity
Characterisation of unmitigated
impact
Species–poor
hedgerows
Construction works,
including formation of site
accesses, pedestrian routes.
Loss of a single species poor
hedgerow totalling 125m, which is
isolated within an arable field
And loss is estimated at c. 145m
of species-poor hedgerow for
access routes
Parish value
 Appreciably
enriches local
area
 Hedgerows listed
on S41 of NERC
Act
 Provides relatively
continuous
corridor of
relatively
undisturbed seminatural habitat
Badgers
Construction works close to
setts.
Parish Value

Protected under
the Protection of
badgers Act 1991
Operation of site and country
park
Potential avoidance of setts and
disturbance during sensitive
periods during badger life-cycle.
Potential road casualties leading
to lowering of viability of social
group where severe.
Impact
on
integrity
or
conservation
status
Moderate
negative effect of
parish
significance
Proposed
Measures
Miti
Moderate adverse
impact at parish
scale
Implementation of
zone
Protection and man
retained hedgerow
Replanting of road
and additional hed
within country park
Retention and crea
where possible (e.g
and buffering/fenci
construction of tho
Construction of Ma
below primary rout
Enhancement of ex
within country park
130
Description
of
Valued
Ecological
Receptor
Proposed Activity
Characterisation of unmitigated
impact
Bats
Removal of dispersal and
foraging habitat
Adverse impact could occur on
some species (Myostis spp) as a
result of the avoidance of floodlit
areas during both construction
and operation of site.
Unknown value
(estimated District)


Legal protection
under WCA and
Conservation
(Natural Habitats
&c.) Regulations
Species of
principle
importance in
NERC Act S 41
list and inclusion
in LDBAPS
Some introduction of light
into areas which are not
currently subject to lighting
may be experienced
dependant on the location of
site compounds and working
areas leading to the
avoidance of areas by bats.
Demolition of Moor Farm building
could lead to the loss of bats
roosts of unknown species and
status
Demolition of Moor Farm
Impact
on
integrity
or
conservation
status
Moderate to major
adverse impact at
unknown scale
and high degree
of uncertainty
Proposed
Measures
Miti
Retention and buff
likely to be importa
Creation of a range
value to bats includ
scrub and wetlands
area of low disturb
the Country Park.
New lighting schem
be designed to avo
light in areas adjac
or newly planted fe
Provision of replac
commensurate with
affected and status
131
Description
of
Valued
Ecological
Receptor
Proposed Activity
Characterisation of unmitigated
impact
Breeding birds
(excluding Barn
owl)
Site clearance for access
roads will lead to the loss of
habitat for hedgerow/scrub
nesting species and potential
disturbance of ground
nesting species.
Construction works during the
breeding season could lead to
nest desertion or failure as a
result of disturbance. A
temporary decline in the breeding
success could result.
Construction works/site
clearance leading to
disturbance
Similarly some
disturbance/habitat loss for
ground nesting species is likely
to occur leading , although the
magnitude is unknown
Demolition of potential
roost/nest site
Potential harm to individuals or
desertion/abandonment of
territory.
Unknown value
(estimated District)


Partial legal
protection under
WCA
Species of
principle
importance in
NERC Act S 41
list occur
Barn Owl
District value
 Specially
protected under
WCA
Site clearance
Loss of c. 1.4 ha of rough
grassland of potential use for
foraging
Impact
on
integrity
or
conservation
status
Moderate to major
adverse impact at
unknown scale
and high degree
of uncertainty
Proposed
Measures
Miti
Provision of replac
habitat for scrub ne
within developmen
Provision of additio
habitats and area o
for use by a wider
species
Avoidance of bird b
pre-commencemen
advice followed
Major adverse at
District scale
Erection of four ba
peripheral parts of
works as possible
the first phase of d
Habitat enhanceme
the Green Infrastru
to include areas o
occupying up to a 1
grassland present
woodland/scrub pla
provides good fora
early years of deve
132
Cumulative Ecological Effects
Approach
6.8.4
Cumulative landscape and visual effects arise as a result of a number of different factors and
combined changes. These generally fall into two categories;
6.8.5
Cumulative effects arising from a range of developments, occurring at different locations.
Separately, such individual projects may not create an unacceptable degree of adverse impact
but collectively the results may potentially be significant - simultaneous effects
6.8.6
Cumulative effects caused by the proposed development in conjunction with other developments
that occurred in the past, present or are likely to occur in the foreseeable future – successive
effects
6.8.7
As identified in the first point above, cumulative or combined effects are principally those that are
likely to arise when the development is considered in relation to other foreseeable developments
either located in the immediate vicinity or that have a relationship with a similar environmental
resource. Individually the impact of a development may be of minor magnitude but when
combined with the impact from other developments could increase the overall significance of an
effect on an environmental resource.
6.8.8
Cumulative effects require an understanding of the capacity of the receiving environment and
whether critical thresholds would be exceeded by the combination of projects. Geographical
limits and time implications are more important in assessing the cumulative effects than in
assessing the specific environmental effects of the proposed development. Administrative
boundaries are less important than those relating to the natural environment e.g. watersheds.
6.8.9
The results of this process would enable the local planning authority to ensure that this and
future developments are mutually compatible and remain within the environmental capacity of
the area considered.
Assessment of Cumulative Effects
6.8.10
A consented scheme exists locally; the Boulton Moor Phase 1 and a current application is being
determined at Fellows Land Way for a residential development. These sites occur to the east
and southwest of the application site respectively.
6.8.11
Both schemes have the potential to affect species of interest within the site including badgers
and barn owl through the loss of foraging habitat. The Boulton Moor development considered
the effects on badgers, with none expected, and being mainly arable farmland is not likely to
affect the availability of foraging for barn owl and as a result is not considered further.
6.8.12
The Fellows Land Way site currently supports rough grassland and is therefore likely to provide
a potentially significant foraging resource for barn owl, the loss of which was not commented
upon. However, the enhancement proposals associated with this current scheme are such that
any unforeseen effects are likely to be compensated such that no cumulative effects are likely to
occur.
133
6.9
Summary and Conclusion
6.9.1
This assessment assesses the likely significant effects of the proposed development in terms of
ecology and nature conservation and is based upon both existing information regarding the site
ascertained through desk study information and through undertaking a suite habitat and species
surveys.
6.9.2
A range of habitats were found to be present on the site. All are heavily influenced by the
current agricultural practices, which have generally limited the development of areas of high
nature conservation interest or colonisation by species of restricted occurrence. Nevertheless
some habitats of interest were present, albeit only locally, including the hedgerows, associated
ditches and mature trees some of which are likely to be of veteran status.
6.9.3
The site also supports a range of wildlife including two protected species, badger, barn owl and
at least two species of bat, recorded previously along the eastern boundary.
6.9.4
From the outset and following review of the ecological baseline the potential effects arising as a
result of site design have been reviewed in order that, where possible, potential impacts can be
avoided through an alteration in design, layout or working methods. However, potential impacts
were identified and will inevitably arise through the loss of habitats and effects on wildlife.
6.9.5
The mitigation and compensation strategy relies on the retention of biodiversity corridors through
the development, in the form of the hedgerow and ditch network that is present, and in the
enhancement of a significant proportion of the site, which will form a country park. Biodiversity
enhancement in this area will focus on recreating a range of habitats both of intrinsic nature
conservation value and of potential use by species known to occur locally.
6.9.6
Residual effects are unlikely to be significant with all species identified at this stage appropriately
retained either within the site or compensated for through the development of a comprehensive
Green Infrastructure network and country park.
134
7. NOISE & VIBRATION
7.1
Introduction and Study Area
7.1.1
This chapter was prepared by the Acoustics Team at the Brighton office of RPS Planning and
Development and provides an assessment of the potential noise and vibration effects
associated with the proposed Boulton Moor development, with respect to the construction and
operation, and the suitability of the site for the noise sensitive, residential and educational
elements of the development. Consideration of the noise effects at ecological receptors is
provided in Chapter 6 ‘Flora, Fauna and Nature Conservation’.
7.1.2
A description of the baseline environment within the existing site and surroundings is provided;
the likely construction and operational noise and vibration effects are described as are the
mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects. The
residual effects and their significance, after these measures have been employed, are also
described.
7.2
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
Legislation
Control of Pollution Act, 1974
7.2.1
Part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (CoPA) [1] is specifically concerned with pollution.
With regards to noise it covers construction sites; noise in the street; noise abatement zones;
codes of practice and best practicable means (BPM).
7.2.2
Section 60, Part III of the CoPA refers to the control of noise on construction sites. It provides
legislation by which local authorities can control noise from construction sites to prevent noise
disturbance occurring. In addition, it recommends that guidance provided by British Standard
(BS) 5228 [2] be implemented to ensure compliance with Section 60.
7.2.3
Section 61, Part III of the CoPA refers to prior consent for work on construction sites. It provides
a method by which a contractor can apply for consent to undertake construction works in
advance. If consent is given, and the stated method and hours of work are complied with, then
the local authority cannot take action, i.e. serve a notice, under Section 60.
7.2.4
Section 71, Part III of the CoPA refers to the preparation and approval of codes of practice for
minimising noise.
7.2.5
Section 72, Part III of the CoPA refers to BPM, which is defined as:
“reasonably practicable, having regards among other things to local conditions
and circumstances, to the current state of technical knowledge and to the
financial implications’. Whilst ‘Means’ includes ‘the design, installation,
maintenance and manner and periods of operation of plant and machinery, and
the design, construction and maintenance of buildings and acoustic structures.”
135
National Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework
7.2.6
NPPF [3], published in March 2012, sets out the Governments planning policies for England.
The document revokes and replaces Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 ‘Planning and Noise
(PPG 24) [4].
7.2.7
The document does not contain any specific noise policy, or noise limits except in relation to
noise from mineral workings, but it provides a framework for local people and local authorities to
produce their own local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their
communities.
7.2.8
In Section 11, ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’, paragraph 123 relates to
noise and states:
‘123. Planning policies and decisions should aim to:




avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts27
on health and quality of life as a result of new development;
mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts27 on
health and quality of life arising from noise from new
development, including through the use of conditions;
recognise that development will often create some noise and
existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of
their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put
on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they
were established;28 and
identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained
relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their
recreational and amenity value for this reason.'
27-See Explanatory Note to the Noise Policy Statement for England (Department
for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).
28-Subject to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other
relevant law.’
7.2.9
The first bullet point refers to ‘significant adverse impacts’ which relates back to SOAEL in the
NPSE although the term ‘effect’ is used instead of the term ‘impact’ although these have been
deemed to be interchangeable in this context. Therefore, given the comments above on the
NPSE with regard to assessment methods and criteria, the current content of the NPPF does
not require any change in previously adopted approaches.
Noise Policy Statement for England
7.2.10
The Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) [5], published in March 2010 by Defra, aims to
provide clarity regarding current policies and practices to enable noise management decisions
to be made within the wider context, at the most appropriate level, in a cost-effective manner
and in a timely fashion.
7.2.11
Paragraph 1.6 of the NPSE sets out the long-term vision and aims of Government noise policy:
"Noise Policy Vision
Promote good health and a good quality of life through the
effective management of noise within the context of Government
policy on sustainable development."
136
"Noise Policy Aims
Through the effective management and control of environmental,
neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of
Government policy on sustainable development:



avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life;
mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality
of life; and
where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and
quality of life."
7.2.12
The aims require that all reasonable steps should be taken to avoid, mitigate and minimise
adverse effects on health and quality of life whilst also taking into account the guiding principles
of sustainable development, which include social, economic, environmental and health
considerations.
7.2.13
With regard to the terms ‘significant adverse’ and ‘adverse’ included in the ‘Noise Policy Aims’,
these are explained further in the ‘Explanatory Note’ as relating to established concepts from
toxicology that are currently being applied to noise impacts, for example, by the World Health
Organisation which are:
NOEL – No Observed Effect Level
This is the level below which no effect can be detected. In simple
terms, below this level, there is no detectable effect on human
health and quality of life due to noise.
LOAEL – Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
This is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality
of life can be detected.
7.2.14
Defra has then extended these concepts for the purpose of the NPSE to introduce the concept
of:
SOAEL – Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level
This is the level above which significant adverse effects on health
and quality of life occur.
7.2.15
The accompanying explanation states:
“It is not possible to have a single objective noise-based measure
that defines SOAEL that is applicable to all sources of noise in all
situations. Consequently, the SOAEL is likely to be different for
different noise sources, for different receptors and at different
times. It is acknowledged that further research is required to
increase our understanding of what may constitute a significant
adverse impact on health and quality of life from noise. However,
not having specific SOAEL values in the NPSE provides the
necessary policy flexibility until further evidence and suitable
guidance is available.”
7.2.16
With regard to ‘further evidence’, Defra has commissioned research to try and identify the levels
at which the above effects occur but this is not yet in the public domain. However, early
indications are that this research has been largely inconclusive. On this basis, and until further
guidance becomes available, there is no justification to vary assessment methods and criteria
from those previously adopted from British Standards etc.
137
Regional Planning Policy
City of Derby Local Plan Review,
7.2.17
The CDLPR [6] is the current adopted local plan for DCC until the Local Development
Framework (LDF) is in place. Policy GD5 'Amenity’ and Policy E12 ‘Pollution’ relate to noise and
vibration. These are provided below.
GD5 Amenity
Planning permission will only be granted for development where
it provides a satisfactory level of amenity within the site or
building itself and provided it would not cause unacceptable harm
to the amenity of nearby areas. In considering harm, the Council
will consider the following:
a. Loss of privacy;
b. Overbearing (massing) effect;
c. Loss of sunlight and daylight;
d. Noise, vibration, smells, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit;
e. Air, water, noise and light pollution;
f. Hazardous substances and industrial processes;
g. Traffic generation, access and car parking.
E12 Pollution
Planning permission will not be granted for development which
would generate pollutants that would be unacceptably detrimental
to the health and amenity of users of the development, users of
adjoining land or the environment; or where the level of existing
pollutants would be unacceptably detrimental to the health and
amenity of users of the proposed development.
Additional Standards and Guidance
7.2.18
Additional guidance can be found in:





7.3
British Standard (BS) 5228 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on
construction and open sites’
Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA). Guidance Notes No. 1. Guidelines for the
Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic. 1993 [7]
BS 4142: ‘Method for Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial
areas’ [8]
BS 8233: 'Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of Practice' [9]
Building Bulletin 93 ‘Acoustic Design of Schools: A Design Guide’, 2003 (BB 93) [10]
Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria
Assessment Methodology
Baseline Characterisation
7.3.1
Baseline noise monitoring was carried out at three locations in and around the vicinity of the site
to establish the existing noise climate; the locations are shown on Figure 7.1.
7.3.2
There are no existing sources of vibration within the vicinity of the site, so a baseline vibration
assessment has not been carried out.
138
Construction Phase
7.3.3
An assessment of construction-related noise and vibration impacts has been undertaken based
on the indicative construction information available and applying professional judgement, making
reference to relevant standards and guidance, as described below.
7.3.4
Construction activities will only take place during the daytime period, during standard
construction hours (e.g. Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00 hours, Saturday 08:00 to 13:00 hours,
with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays except for essential maintenance).
Noise
7.3.5
A quantitative assessment has been undertaken making reference to the source levels and
methodology in BS 5228 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and
open sites’ Part 1 - Noise.
Vibration
7.3.6
A quantitative assessment has been undertaken making reference to the guidance in BS 5228
‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites’ Part 2 –
Vibration.
Operational Phase
7.3.7
Assessment of operational-related noise and vibration impacts has been undertaken to evaluate
the potential sources of noise and vibration.
Road Traffic
7.3.8
Traffic noise changes on identified links associated with the operational phase have been
predicted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise
(CRTN) [11] which is recommended in the IEA guidelines for the calculation of traffic noise and
noise change. An assessment has been carried out in accordance with noise change criteria.
Mechanical Plant
7.3.9
Any mechanical plant associated with the proposed Development has been assessed in
accordance with the methodology of BS 4142. BS 4142 is used to assess noise from industrial
and commercial developments. The Standard provides a method for rating industrial noise
affecting mixed residential and industrial areas and has been extensively used by local
authorities and consultants to rate noise from fixed installations, such as mechanical plant noise.
7.3.10
Mechanical plant includes heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) plant; pumping
stations; sub-stations; and any other mechanical plant associated with the proposed
development.
Suitability of the Site for Residential Development
7.3.11
Internal noise levels in habitable rooms have been assessed with reference to BS 8233.
7.3.12
Habitable rooms include living rooms and bedrooms. Non-habitable rooms include kitchens,
utility rooms, bathrooms and hallways, unless the internal layout includes open plan living, in
which case the whole room should be treated as habitable.
139
7.3.13
External noise levels in outdoor living areas have been assessed with reference to BS 8233.
Outdoor living areas include gardens, balconies and roof terraces.
Suitability of the Site for Educational Development
7.3.14
Suitability of the Application Site for a school has been considered in accordance with BB 93.
7.3.15
The aim of the Bulletin is to provide guidance on the acoustic design for schools and is
supported by the Building Regulations.
Significance Criteria
Construction Phase
Noise
7.3.16
A significant effect is deemed to occur if the predicted total noise (preconstruction ambient plus
construction noise) exceeds the pre-construction ambient noise by 5 dB or more, subject to the
lower cut-off values of 65 dB, 55 dB and 45 dB LAeq,period, from construction noise alone for
the daytime, evening and night-time periods, respectively, for a duration of 1 month or more.
7.3.17
A significant effect is therefore deemed to occur if the predicted total noise (preconstruction
ambient plus construction noise) exceeds 70 dB LAeq,day (e.g. the cut-off value of 65 dB for
the daytime period, plus 5 dB). In addition, it is standard practice to categorise the degree of
effect according to the extent of the predicted noise change. This is frequently implemented by
the use of semantic descriptors associated with noise change bands as provided in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1: Significance Criteria - Construction Phase - Noise
Predicted Change in LAeq,T dB
Significance
Rating
Increase of 4.9 dB or less
Not Significant
Negligible
Increase of 5.0 dB to 9.9 dB
Significant
Minor Adverse
Increase of 10.0 dB to 19.9 dB
Significant
Moderate Adverse
Increase of 20.0 dB or more
Significant
Substantial Adverse
*1
*2
*3
Note: The use of one decimal place is merely intended to avoid ambiguities over the categorisation
boundaries. It is not to be interpreted as an endorsement of the accuracy to be used in the noise
assessment.
*1
: A significant minor adverse effect is deemed to occur if the predicted total noise (preconstruction
ambient plus construction noise) exceeds the pre-construction ambient noise by 5 dB to 9.9 dB.
*2
: A significant moderate adverse effect is deemed to occur if the predicted total noise (preconstruction
ambient plus construction noise) exceeds the pre-construction ambient noise by 10 dB to 19.9 dB.
*3
: A significant substantial adverse effect is deemed to occur if the predicted total noise (preconstruction
ambient plus construction noise) exceeds the pre-construction ambient noise by 20 dB or more.
Vibration
7.3.18
BS 5228-2 provides guidance on the levels of vibration above which buildings could suffer
damage. The vibration levels above which cosmetic damage could occur are provided in Table
140
7.2. Minor damage to a structure is possible at vibration magnitudes that are greater than twice
those given in Table 7.2 and major damage to a structure may occur at values greater than four
times those in Table 7.2. The significances of the various levels are defined in Table 7.3.
Table 7.2: Threshold Vibration Values for the Evaluation of Cosmetic Building Damage
Type of Building
Frequency range of
Vibration
Transient Vibration
Continuous Vibration
4 Hz to 15 Hz
15 mm/s at 4 Hz
increasing to
20 mm/s at 15 Hz
7.5 mm/s at 4 Hz
increasing to
10 mm/s at 15 Hz
15 Hz and above
20 mm/s at 15 Hz
increasing to
50 mm/s at 40 Hz and
above
10 mm/s at 15 Hz
increasing to
25 mm/s at 40 Hz and
above
4 Hz and above
50 mm/s
25 mm/s
Reinforced or light
framed structures
Residential or light
commercial type
buildings
PPV
Reinforced or framed
structures
Industrial and heavy
commercial buildings
Note: Values referred to are at the base of the building.
Source: Adapted from BS 5228-2, Table B.2 – Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage,
Annex B.
Table 7.3: Significance Criteria - Construction Phase - Buildings - Vibration
Predicted Change
Significance
Rating
Not Significant
Negligible
Equal, to twice the values
provided in Table 7.2
Significant
Minor Adverse
Twice to four times the values
provided in Table 7.2
Significant
Moderate Adverse
More than four times the values
provided in Table 7.2
Significant
Substantial Adverse
Below the values provided in
Table 2.2
141
Operational Phase
Road Traffic
7.3.19
The Institute of Environmental Assessment IEA guidelines are for the assessment of the
environmental impact of off-site road traffic associated with major new developments. They
instruct that detailed environmental impact studies would normally only be required where road
links experience a change in traffic of greater than 30%, or more than 10% where the links
contain sensitive interest.
7.3.20
The guidance acknowledges the use of a change of +/- 3 dB as the threshold of significance for
steady traffic, but notes that:
‘Where people experience a change in noise level, particularly
where the noise changes in character due for instance to the
increase in the number of heavy goods vehicles, the reported
change in nuisance is far greater than would be predicted from the
steady state model.'
7.3.21
The significance rating for operational traffic is provided in Table 7.4 below.
Table 7.4: Significance Rating for Operational Traffic
Predicted Change, LAeq,T or LA10,T
Significance Rating
Decrease of 10.0 dB or more
Major Beneficial
Decrease of 6.0 to 9.9 dB before
Moderate Beneficial
Decrease of 3.0 to 5.9 dB
Minor Beneficial
Decrease of 2.9 dB or less
Negligible
Increase of 2.9 dB or less
Negligible
Increase of 3.0 to 5.9 dB
Minor Adverse
Increase of 6.0 to 9.9 dB
Moderate Adverse
Increase of 10.0 dB or more
Major Adverse
Note: The use of one decimal place is merely intended to avoid ambiguities over the categorisation
boundaries. It is not to be interpreted as an endorsement of the accuracy to be used in the noise
assessment.
Mechanical Plant
7.3.22
When BS 4142 is used to rate the likelihood of complaints, the rating level is determined and the
background noise level is then subtracted. Where positive differences occur, the greater the
difference between the two levels, the greater the likelihood of complaints. Where negative
differences occur, the greater the difference between the two levels, the lesser the likelihood of
complaints. A difference of around +10 dB or higher indicates that complaints are likely; a
difference of around +5 dB is of marginal significance; and a difference of -10 dB is a positive
indication that complaints are unlikely; these descriptions are summarised in Table 7.5, with the
significance criteria adopted for this assessment provided in Table 7.6.
142
Table 7.5: BS 4142 – Assessment of the Likelihood of Complaints
Rating Level
relative to
Background
Level dB(A)
BS 4142 Description
Difference of -10 dB ‘If the rating level is more than 10 dB below the measured background level then this
or less
is a positive indication that complaints are unlikely’
Difference of -10 dB No BS 4142 description but the more negative the difference, the less the likelihood
to +5 dB
of complaints.
i
Difference of +5 dB
‘A difference of around +5 dB is of marginal significance’
Difference of +5 to
+10 dB
No BS 4142 description but the more positive the difference, the greater the
likelihood of complaints.
Difference of + 10
dB or more
‘A difference of around 10 dB or more indicates that complaints are likely’
i
Source: Adapted from BS 4142, Section 9 Assessment Method, page 6.
i
Note the use of the term ‘around’ so for the +5 dB situation, this should be taken to include >+3 to <+7
dB and for the +10 dB situation, this should be taken to include > +8 dB.
Table 7.6: Significance Rating for Mechanical Plant
Rating Level
relative to
Background
Level dB(A)
Significance
< 3 dB
Negligible
3 dB to < 8 dB
Minor adverse
8 dB to < 15 dB
Moderate adverse
15 dB or above
Substantial adverse
Suitability of the Site for Residential Development
7.3.23
Significance criteria do not apply to the assessment of residential suitability, i.e. this aspect is
not the effect of the development on the environment, it is the effect of the environment on the
development. It is therefore, out with the scope of an EIA but is included as it is a requirement of
the planning process to show site suitability for residential development.
7.3.24
BS 8233 defines a range of indoor ambient noise levels in spaces which are unoccupied from
intrusive, external but anonymous sources below which good or reasonable conditions are
achieved. A summary of the levels recommended in BS 8233 for rooms used for resting and
sleeping is provided in Table 7.7.
143
Table 7.7: BS 8233 Indoor Ambient Noise Levels in Unoccupied Spaces
Design Range LAeq,t dB
Criterion
Reasonable
resting/sleeping
conditions
Typical Situation
Living Rooms
1
Bedrooms
Good
Reasonable
30
40
30
35
1
For a reasonable standard in bedrooms at night, individual noise events (measured with F timeweighting) should not normally exceed 45 dB LAmax.
Source: Adapted from BS 8233, Table 5 – Indoor ambient noise levels in spaces when they are
unoccupied, page 19.
7.3.25
In addition, the second paragraph of 7.6.1.2 states that:
“As well as protection for the building, barriers or bunds should
be considered to protect the gardens. In gardens and balconies
etc. it is desirable that the steady noise level does not exceed
50 LAeq,T dB and 55 LAeq,T dB should be regarded as the upper
limit.”
Suitability of the Site for Educational Development
7.3.26
Similarly for residential suitability, educational suitability significance criteria do not apply to the
assessment of educational suitability.
7.3.27
BB 93 ‘Acoustic Design of Schools: A Design Guide’, 2003 (BB 93) defines a limit for the indoor
ambient noise level in different types of room within a school below which acceptable conditions
are achieved. A summary of the levels recommended in BB 93 for different types of room is
provided in Table 7.8.
Table 7.8: BB 93 Upper Limits for Indoor Ambient Noise Level
Type Of Room
Upper Limit LAeq,30min
Nursery school playrooms
35
Primary school: classrooms, class bases, general teaching areas,
small group rooms
35
Secondary school: classrooms, general teaching areas, seminar
rooms, tutorial rooms, language laboratories
35
Source: Adapted from BB 93, Table 1.1 – Performance standards for indoor ambient noise levels – upper
limits for the indoor ambient noise level, LAeq,30min
7.3.28
In addition to BB 93 Building Bulletin 101 ‘Ventilation of School Buildings, Regulations
Standards and Design Guidance’ 2006 [12] states that if spaces are to be naturally ventilated
via opening windows the criteria detailed in BB 93 will be met when the limits are increased by 5
144
dB LAeq,30 mins.BB 93 states the following with respect to external teaching areas: 'Noise
levels in unoccupied playgrounds, playing fields and other outdoor areas should not exceed 55
dB LAeq,30min and there should be at least one area suitable for outdoor teaching activities where
noise levels are below 50 dB LAeq,30min.
7.4
Existing Baseline Conditions
Baseline Noise Monitoring
7.4.1
Details of the site specifically relating to noise and vibration are provided below. Full details of
the site description and scheme are provided in Chapter 2.
7.4.2
The main existing sources of noise on site are considered to be road traffic on the nearby A6
and on Chellaston Road adjacent to the south of the proposed site. Other noise sources include
agricultural machinery from nearby farms, residential noise (such as car alarms) and birdsong.
7.4.3
Baseline noise monitoring was undertaken on site at three separate locations (NML_A, NML_B
and NML_C). The surveys were carried out between Monday 25th February 2013 at 15.00 and
Monday 4th March at 15.00, with data logged in 100 ms periods. The baseline noise monitoring
locations are summarised in Table 7.9 and are shown on the plan provided in Appendix 7.1. A
summary of the measured noise data is also provided in Appendix 7.1.
Table 7.9: Baseline Noise Monitoring Locations
Description
Location
Noise Sources
NML_A
Southern edge of site
adjacent to the Stubble
Close Farm.
The microphone was
*1
installed in free-field
conditions, mounted on a
pole approximately 2.5 m
above local ground level
to minimise the screening
effect from hedgerows.
Road noise from vehicle
movements on Snelsmoor
Lane.
Road noise from vehicle
movements on the A6.
Bird noise.
NML_B
North east corner of the
site.
Close to Mill Hill road and
residential properties.
The microphone was
*1
installed in free-field
conditions, mounted on a
tripod approximately
1.5 m above local ground
level.
Road noise from nearby
A6 to the east and
Snelsmoor Lane to the
south. Car alarm from Mill
Hill and some distant
agricultural noise. Some
bird noise.
NML_C
North west corner of the
site south of Field Lane.
The microphone was
*1
installed in free-field
conditions, mounted on a
tripod approximately
1.5 m above local ground
level.
Road noise from nearby
A6 to the east and
Snelsmoor Lane to the
south. Car alarm from Mill
Hill and some distant
agricultural noise. Some
bird noise.
*1
7.4.4
Position
: Free-field is at least 3.5 m from any reflecting surfaces, excluding the ground.
All instrumentation used during the survey was checked for calibration prior to and immediately
following each set of survey measurements and no significant deviation was found.
Metrological conditions have been considered as suitable for the period of noise monitoring and
as such no data has been discarded.
145
Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receptors
7.4.5
A summary of the nearest existing and proposed noise and vibrations sensitive receptors
(NVSRs) is provided in Table 7.10. This includes both existing and proposed NVSRs.
Table 7.10: Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receptors
Receptor
Description / Location
Distance
Mill Hill
Approximately 30m from the façade of the nearest
Existing
residential, NVSR to the Application Site Boundary.
located to the north-east
Approximately 70 m from the façade of the nearest
of the application site.
NVSR to the nearest building plot.
Epworth
Drive
Approximately 20 m from the façade of the nearest
Existing
residential, NVSR to the Application Site Boundary
located to the north of the
Approximately 100 m from the façade of the nearest
Application Site.
NVSR to the nearest building plot.
Approximately 5 m from the façade of the nearest NVSR
Existing
residential, to the Application Site Boundary.
Snelsmoor
located to the south of Approximately 150 m from the façade of the nearest
Lane
the Application Site.
NVSR to the nearest building plot.
Approximately 80 m from the façade of the nearest
Existing
residential, NVSR to the Application Site Boundary.
Whitehaven
located to the south-east
Grove
Approximately 500 m from the façade of the nearest
of the Application Site.
NVSR to the nearest building plot.
Boulton
Moor
Phase 2
Approximately 30 m from the façade of the nearest
Future
consented
NVSR to the Application Site Boundary.
residential, located to the
east of the Application
Approximately 50 m from the façade of the nearest
Site.
NVSR to the nearest building plot.
Approximately 10 m from the façade of the nearest
Future
consented
Land
off
NVSR to the Application Site Boundary.
residential, located to the
Fellow
south-east
of
the
Approximately 350 m from the façade of the nearest
Lands Way
Application Site.
NVSR to the nearest building plot.
146
7.5
Assessment of Impacts
Construction Noise
7.5.1
Predictions have been undertaken using the reference source levels and methodology in
BS 5228-1. As noise source terms for plant are given at 10 m from the item of plant, corrections
have been made for attenuation due to distance and soft ground, together with the assumed
percentage on-time of each item of plant (i.e. the amount of time the equipment is operating
over a typical construction day). Calculations are provided in Appendix 7.2.
7.5.2
Construction activities have been modelled as occurring simultaneously, at the same location,
although in practice this is unlikely to be the case except during the most intense periods of the
construction phase. In addition, noise levels from construction activities would be influenced by
several factors including the type of equipment; the percentage on-time; the magnitude,
duration and frequency of the activity; and the actual distance between the worksite and nearest
NVSRs. Modelling is therefore considered to be “worst case”.
7.5.3
Site hoardings and portable acoustic barriers would be used to reduce noise emissions from the
worksite, but the acoustic performance of these barriers would depend on their siting, height
and the character of works. Attenuation provided by site hoardings has therefore not been
included in the calculations. Modelling is therefore considered to be “worst case”.
7.5.4
During intense periods when construction activities are occurring simultaneously and at the
same location, the predicted noise levels are likely to exceed the construction criterion at
NVSRs on Mill Hill and Boulton Moor Phase 2 which are immediately adjacent to the of the
application site boundary, thus the level of significance at this receptor is considered to be at
most moderate adverse. At all other residential locations within the vicinity of the site the level of
significance is considered to be negligible.
7.5.5
A CEMP will be implemented by all contractors to minimise noise disturbance, where
reasonably practicable and measures would be expected to be imposed by way of condition.
Construction Vibration
7.5.6
Predictions indicate that without any specific mitigation, vibration levels from construction
activities are unlikely to exceed the values in Table 7.2 at the foundations of the nearest
residential buildings or commercial units (Appendix 7.3). Therefore, the level of significance is
considered to be negligible.
Operation/Permanent Effects
Operational Traffic
7.5.7
The predicted change in noise levels on all significant road links within the vicinity of the
Application Site due to vehicle movements associated with the Proposed Development has
been predicted in accordance with the procedures outlined in CRTN. Calculations are provided
in Appendix 7.4.
147
7.5.8
Noise change has been predicted based on the two-way daytime 18-hour Average Annual
Weekday Traffic (AAWT) flows (06:00 to 00:00 hours) and night-time 6-hour AAWT (00:00 to
06:00 hours), including percentage of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and speeds, for all
significant road links identified by the projects traffic consultants (Travis Baker Transport
Planning Ltd). The assessment only takes into account data for the road links provided; any
additional roads within the immediate vicinity of the Application Site, which are not listed, do not
form part of this assessment. A list of the road links assessed is included in Appendix 7.4. Full
details of the traffic forecasting methodology and assumptions are provided in Chapter 15 Transportation.
7.5.9
Based on the traffic data provided for the opening year (2014) and future year (2026),
predictions indicate that there is a noise increase of less than 3 dB on all the road links
assessed, with a maximum increase of 1.6 dB. In accordance with the semantic scale provided
in Table 7.4, a noise increase of less than 3 dB is not considered to be significant.
7.5.10
Predictions indicate that there is a noise decrease on some of the road links assessed, with a
maximum decrease of -4.4 dB on one road link. In accordance with the semantic scale provided
in Table 7.4 of this report, this is considered to be of minor beneficial effect.
7.5.11
As a minor beneficial effect is predicted to occur only on one road link of the overall network,
overall traffic changes associated with the development are considered to be negligible.
Mechanical Plant
7.5.12
At this stage in the design process, as the type, number and location of mechanical plant
associated with the proposed development is not known, a detailed assessment cannot be
undertaken.
7.5.13
Mechanical plant associated with the proposed development will be specified and operated in
such a manner as to comply with BS 4142, where the rating level will be at less than 3 dB
above the representative background noise level (LA90) at 1 m from the closest façade of the
nearest existing or future NVSR.
7.5.14
The nearest existing and future NVSRs are located at least 50 m from the closest proposed
residential building and other facilities where mechanical plant may be required. In addition, any
mechanical plant associated with the development will be designed such that suitable internal
and external environments will be achieved for the proposed residential dwellings. Therefore,
with appropriate measures, noise associated with mechanical plant is unlikely to have a
significant effect; thus the level of significance is considered to be negligible.
Site Suitability
Residential
7.5.15
Residential areas located on the proposed site have been assessed using the baseline data for
the site provided in Appendix 7.1.
7.5.16
From Table 1 of Appendix 7.1, the average daytime noise levels experienced on site at the
location of NML_A are 50 dB LAeq,16hr and the average night-time noise levels are 45 dB
LAeq,8hr. From Table 2 of Appendix 7.1, the average daytime noise levels experienced on site
at the location of NML_B are 47 dB LAeq,16hr and the average night-time noise levels are 42
148
dB LAeq,8hr. From Table 3 of Appendix 7.1, the average daytime noise levels experienced on
site at the location of NML_C are 45 dB LAeq,16hr and the average night-time noise levels are
41 dB LAeq,8hr. This is an indication that noise levels are fairly constant throughout the site,
with the highest noise levels being experienced at NML_A, potentially due to the closer
proximity to Snelsmoor Lane
7.5.17
On the basis of the noise surveys at the location of NML_A, in order to achieve the ‘Good’
criterion in BS 8233, a façade reduction of 20 dB Rw would be required. In order to achieve the
‘Reasonable’ criterion in BS 8233, a façade reduction of 10 dB Rw would be required.
7.5.18
In accordance with The Building Regulations 2000 Approved Document L 'The Conservation of
Fuel and Power in Buildings', all new dwellings must be constructed with appropriate thermal
double glazed window units. From BS 8233, a standard thermal glazed unit (6-12-6) would
typically provide 33 to 35 dB Rw. With respect to the above criterion, standard thermal double
glazing would therefore provide a suitable level of sound insulation for the residential façades of
this site.
7.5.19
For a façade insulation of 33 to 35 dB Rw, maximum night-time external noise levels should not
normally exceed 78 to 80 dB LAFmax in order to meet the criteria for internal noise levels with
windows closed. From the data in Table 1 of Appendix 7.1, night-time maximum noise levels do
exceed 78 to 80 dB LAFmax. On this basis, standard double glazing is also considered to be
appropriate to mitigate for maximum noise levels.
7.5.20
The sound insulation provided by any type of window when partially open will be in the region of
10 to 15 dB (A). On the basis of the measured data the ‘reasonable’ criterion in BS 8233 can
be therefore be achieved with natural ventilation by open windows.
7.5.21
Daytime noise levels at all three monitoring locations are at or below the level of 50 dB LAeq,T
stated in BS 8233 as desirable for a steady noise in gardens.
7.5.22
On the basis of the above, the site is considered to be suitable for residential development.
Residential Properties adjacent to End Cottage Kennels
7.5.23
There is a dog kennels, 'End Cottage Kennels', located adjacent to the northern site boundary.
The site is currently laid out such that the kennel building is adjacent to the site with the external
areas to the west of the buildings. Dogs are normally inside the building but are taken outside at
certain times in small groups for walks. The development site will be partially screened from any
noise from dogs in external areas by the external buildings. This will also prevent the dogs
seeing any activity in the development area which can result in disturbance and bark responses.
7.5.24
Notwithstanding this, care should be taken in the design of any residential properties located
near to the kennels. For any properties that are closer than this 20m to the kennels additional
façade mitigation to that stated above may be required and gardens should be to the rear of the
properties, i.e. on the opposite side to the kennels. If any gardens are proposed within 20 m of
the kennel, then it is advised that acoustic measures be implemented to boundary fencing to
ensure that noise from dogs does not disrupt residential amenity. The exact specifications of
any mitigation for noise from the dog kennels will need to be determined at the detailed design
stage once the site arrangement proposals have been clarified.
149
School
7.5.25
The suitability of the site for an educational development has been assessed using the baseline
data in NML_C, as this is the most representative location for the current location of the school.
7.5.26
From Table 3 of Appendix 7.1, the average daytime noise levels experienced at NML_C are 45
dB LAeq,16hr. The upper limit for indoor ambient noise levels in classroom areas as detailed in
BB 93 is 35 dBA. Therefore in order to comply with BB 93, a façade reduction of 10 dB Rw
would be required. Any standard construction will achieve this level of façade reduction.
7.5.27
The average daytime noise levels at NML_C are below the level of 50 dB LAeq,T, that is
specified for external teaching areas within the site. Therefore there should be no specific
restrictions with respect to noise for areas to be used for external teaching.
7.5.28
On the basis of the above the site is considered suitable for use as a school.
Cumulative Effects
Construction Phase
7.5.29
Construction of the development is unlikely to coincide with the construction phasing of other
proposed developments within the area including Boulton Moor Phase 2 and the Land off
Fellows Way. Therefore there are unlikely to be any significant cumulative effects during the
construction phase of the development. and with cumulative effects considered the noise impact
during the construction of the development is still considered to be moderate adverse and the
vibration impact is still considered as negligible.
Operational Phase
Road Traffic Noise
7.5.30
There is potential for cumulative effects from road traffic from Boulton Moor Phases 1 and 2 and
the Land off Fellows Way. The noise and vibration chapter for Boulton Moor Phases 1 and 2 in
May 2005 indicates that there is an estimated noise change of up to 5 dB LAeq at residential
properties on Snelsmoor Lane. On the basis of the traffic data assessed in this report, a further
increase of between 1 and 2 dB LAeq is expected from this scheme on Snelsmoor Lane.
7.5.31
Information provided for the development on the Land off Fellows Way indicates that there was
no assessment of traffic noise for the scheme. The scale of the development and transport
statement for the site indicate that traffic figures are below those for the development site.
Therefore this site is likely to have a negligible contribution to traffic noise on Snelsmoor Lane.
7.5.32
On this basis, the overall cumulative effect of traffic noise from the development site, and other
committed and proposed development within the area, will be in the worst case moderate
adverse.
Mechanical Plant
7.5.33
Mechanical plant associated with the development will be designed in such a way as to achieve
suitable environments on the site itself. On this basis there is not likely to be any cumulative
150
effects with mechanical plant from other proposed and consented sites within the area and the
impact remains as negligible.
7.6
Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Construction Effects
7.6.1
Construction works will follow Best Practicable Means (BPM) outlined in Section 72 of the
Control of Pollution Act 1974 (as amended) (CoPA) (Ref. 13.14) to minimise noise and vibration
effects. Such details will be required by condition to be set out in a CEMP to be submitted to
and agreed in writing with DCC prior to commencement of development and following the
appointment of a contractor.
7.6.2
It is recommended that standard mitigation measures should include:

Communication (i.e. a Construction Liaison Officer will be appointed to take primary
responsibility for the day-to-day implementation of the CEMP during the construction
phase and to act as the first point of contact on environmental matters for WBC, other
external bodies and the general public);

Standard Construction Hours (i.e. standard construction hours are Monday to
Friday 08:00 to 18:00 hours and Saturday 08:00 to 13:00 hours, with no works on
Sundays, Bank Holidays or National Holidays. The contractor will adhere to these
standard working hours, however, for certain activities, it may be necessary to work
outside these hours and in this instance the contractor will apply for written consent
prior to work commencing by submitting either a Section 61 consent application or an
agreed method statement in line with the CoPA);

Access Routes (i.e. construction traffic will be routed away from existing NVSRs,
where reasonably practicable);

Equipment (i.e. quieter alternative methods, plant and equipment will be used, where
reasonably practicable);

Worksite (i.e. plant, equipment, site offices, storage areas and worksites will be
positioned away from existing NVSRs, where reasonable practicable);

Hoardings (i.e. site hoardings or portable acoustic enclosures/screens will be used,
where reasonably practicable);

Maintenance (i.e. all vehicles, plant and equipment will be maintained and operated
in an appropriate manner, to ensure that extraneous noise from mechanical vibration,
creaking and squeaking is kept to a minimum); and

Piling (i.e. if piling is required, the method will be agreed in consultation with WBC
prior to work commencing and it will be undertaken using the most appropriate
technique, with minimal noise and vibration generation in mind).
Operation/Permanent Effects
Road Traffic Noise
151
7.6.3
As the effects of road traffic are negligible, no mitigation is proposed to minimise the effects of
road traffic noise.
Mechanical Plant
7.6.4
7.7
It is recommended that standard mitigation measures should include:

Specification (i.e. specifying mechanical plant to meet BS 4142 guidance and DCCs
reasonable requirements and to avoid tonal and impulsive noise emissions, where
reasonably practicable);

Location (i.e. locating mechanical plant away from NVSRs and amenity areas, both
existing and proposed, where reasonably practicable);

Maintenance (i.e. regularly maintaining mechanical plant to ensure that the units are
operating efficiently and do not generate undue noise); and

Enclosures (i.e. specifying plant rooms or acoustic enclosures, where reasonably
practicable).
Residual Effects
Construction Effects
7.7.1
On the basis that the mitigation measures, as described above, are implemented, noise and
vibration from construction activities may still have a negligible to minor adverse residual effect
during the most intense periods of activity.
Operation/Permanent Effects
Road Traffic Noise
7.7.2
Noise from vehicle movements associated with the Proposed Development is unlikely to result
in any residual effects
Mechanical Plant
7.7.3
On the basis that the mitigation measures, as described above, are implemented, noise from
mechanical plant associated with the Proposed Development is unlikely to result in any residual
effects.
7.8
Summary and Conclusion
7.8.1
Table 7.11 contains a summary of the likely significant effects associated with the construction
and operation of the Proposed Development on existing NVSRs.
152
Table 7.11 Summary of Effects – Noise and Vibration
Likely
Potential
Effect
Nature of Effect
Geographical
Importance
Likely
Significance of
Effect (before
mitigation)
Mitigation
Measures
Residual
Effect (after
mitigation)
Construction
Negligible to
Noise
Temporary
Local
Negligible to
BPM & CEMP
Moderate Adverse
Vibration
Minor Adverse
Temporary
Local
Negligible
BPM & CEMP
Negligible
Traffic
Permanent
Local
Negligible
None
Negligible
Mechanical
Plant
Permanent
Local
Negligible
BPM
Negligible
Operation
7.8.2
The summary provided in Table 7.1 above indicates that only the construction phase will,
potentially, result in significant noise effects. However, the assessment was based upon worst
case assumptions and significant effects should not generally arise for the construction of a
residential development. Any effects would, in any case be temporary and hence the overall
assessment of this element is that it should not be significant given the duration and control
measures that can be applied.
153
References
1. The Stationery Office Limited. Control of Pollution Act, Chapter 40, Part III. 1974.
2. British Standard 5228: Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and
open sites. Part 1: Noise, Part 2: Vibration. 2009.
3. Department for Communities and Local Government. National Planning Policy Framework:
HMSO. March 2012.
4. Department of the Environment. Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and Noise (PPG 24).
HMSO. 1994.
5. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Noise Policy Statement for England.
Defra. 2010. British Standards Institution.
6. CDLPR:http://www.cartogold.co.uk/DerbyLocalPlan/text/00cont.htm
7. Institute of Environmental Assessment. Guidance Notes No. 1. Guidelines for the
Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic. 1993
8. British Standards Institution. British Standard 4142: Method for Rating industrial noise
affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. 1997.
9. British Standards Institution. British Standard 8233: Sound insulation and noise reduction for
buildings - Code of practice. 1999. Department for Education and Skills. Building Bulletin 93.
Acoustic Design of Schools: A Design Guide. The Stationery Office. 2003 as amended.
Department of Transport. Calculation of Road Traffic Noise. HMSO. 1988.
10. Department for Education and Skills. Building Bulletin 101. Ventilation of School Buildings.
Regulations, Standards, Design Guidance. The Stationery Office. 2006.
154
8. DRAINAGE, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
8.1
Introduction and Study Area
8.1.1
This section of the ES covers issues relating to water, including drainage, hydrology and water
quality. The drainage topic examines the drainage system to be constructed, the hydrology
aspect examines the effect of the development upon the natural catchment and water flow, and
the effect of the development upon the local water quality. The effect of works upon subsurface
flows is dealt with in the hydrogeology section of the Geology, Soils and Ground Conditions
Chapter 9 of the ES.
8.1.2
To facilitate the design of the development a number of studies have been undertaken. These
are referred to in the formulation of this chapter. The salient reports used to formulate the
content of this chapter are listed below :
Snelsmoor Grange – Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy March 2013. A copy of
this report is included at Appendix 8.1.
8.1.3
As part of the planning process for a development of this size an Environmental Statement is
required to assess the environmental effects of the development. This chapter consequently
considers the environmental effects of drainage, hydrology and water quality to support the
proposed development.
8.2
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
8.2.1
The main legislations that have to be considered in relation to the proposed development are
described below.

Water Resources Act 1991 – this act aims to prevent the pollution of water. It confers powers
to the Environment Agency to police this. It identifies the act of knowingly discharging
polluting material as an offence.

Land Drainage Act 1991, as amended 1994 – this act places duties upon riparian owners for
maintenance of watercourses, and gives powers to local authorities to enforce maintenance
works if desired.

UK Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2001 – this act defines the recognition of
source protection zones and defines the sampling and testing, and sets the limitations of
micro biological organisms or chemicals within the water.

Environment Act 1995 – this act formed the Environment Agency as the overseeing
organisation, bringing together the former bodies of the National Rivers Authority, Her
Majesties Inspectorate of Pollution and Local Waste Authorities.

The EC Groundwater Directive 80/68/EC – This directive sets controls upon various
substances from entering groundwater. It defines lists of hazardous and non hazardous
substances requiring permits to discharge to the ground. The Groundwater Act 1998 sets
this within a legislator framework for the UK.
155

Floods and Water Management Act 2010 - This Act became law in April 2010. One of the
major aspects of this legislation is the change in the extent of adoptable sewers. This
legislation transferred ownership of any private sewer serving more than one residential
property into the water company’s ownership for maintenance.
Additionally this Act places duties upon local lead flood authorities to develop, apply and
maintain a strategy for local flood risk within the local area. It advocates cooperation
between other relevant authorities. It gives all drainage bodies a duty to contribute towards
sustainable development. It also allocates defined named roles to various bodies, as well as
the identification of the flood risk features.
It also places powers with the local authorities to undertake flood management works where
considered desirable, which is an extension of powers originally granted in the Land
Drainage Act 1991. The Act introduces the role of the SUDs approval body, which will
require that all surface water drainage systems are approved via them. This body will have
responsibility for the approval of drainage systems in the near future.
National Planning Policy Framework
8.2.2
In March 2012, the government published the NPPF which aimed to bring together various
policies that had been published under the guise of Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Notes. In
relation to drainage and flooding the former guidance was Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25:
Development and Flood Risk. With the publishing of the NPPF this main guidance document
has been superseded, although the related guidance document remains in place.
8.2.3
In the place of PPS25, the NPPF describes the following policies that relate to hydrology,
drainage and water quality issues.




Paragraph 14 advocates a preference to sustainable development, i.e. development that has
a minimal impact upon the environment. In terms of drainage, hydrology and water quality
this means that development must be designed for minimum impact with measures that
manage water in terms of runoff volumes, profiles and water quality.
Paragraph 99 requires that new developments should be planned to avoid increased
vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change over the longer term. In
terms of a site such as this, the main climatic risks arise from water issues, be this from
surface runoff, fluvial flood risk or groundwater flooding. As part of the development
assessment all of these aspects have been considered and assessed.
Paragraph 100 requires that development is directed away from the highest risk areas for
flooding.
Paragraph 103 ensures that local authorities check that the development does not lead to
increased flood risk to other areas and only consider development in areas where there is a
flood risk when a flood risk assessment has been produced following the sequential test and
if required an exception test.
8.2.4
Furthermore, within the site the development aspects more vulnerable are to be located in the
areas of the site at the lowest flood risk, and that the development has resilience to flooding with
inbuilt safe access and escape routes. It should also give priority to sustainable drainage
systems.
8.2.5
In addition to the legislative framework the following guidance material has been referred to
within the design:
156

Interim Code of Practice on SuDS (July 2004);

C609 SuDS Design Manual –Hydraulic, Structural and Water Quality advice (2004;

C697 The SuDS Manual;

C624 Development and Flood Risk – Guidance for the Construction Industry (2004);

C532 Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites – A Guide to Good Practice (2001);

Environment Agency: Pollution Prevention Guidelines (2002-04);

Sewers for Adoption 7th Ed (2012)

BRE Digest 365 – Soakaways (1991)
8.3
Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria
8.3.1
A qualitative assessment has been undertaken based upon the potential issues as established
based around the categories established in Chapter 1 of this document. To undertake this, a
number of aspects have been examined. These are based around three characteristics.
8.3.2

Sensitivity - the sensitivity of the receiving environment to change.

Magnitude – the level of effect upon the receptor

Duration – The longevity of the effect
Sensitivity: The sensitivity of a receptor can vary and large magnitudes of change can have
different effects upon different aspects. Following the assessment of magnitude, an assessment
will be made using the following semantic scale below.
Table 8.1:
Drainage, Hydrology and Water Quality - Sensitivity
Magnitude
Description
High
The environment is very susceptible to changes in water quantity / quality
Moderate
The environment has some susceptibility to changes in water quality /
quantity
Low
The environment is relatively un-sensitive to changes in water flow / quality
No change
There would be no effect upon the environment following works.
157
8.3.3
Magnitude of Effect: The magnitude of the effect is rated against the following scale.
Table 8.2: Drainage, Hydrology and Water Quality – Magnitude of Effect
8.3.4
Magnitude
Description
High
The effect upon the environment would be readily evident
Moderate
The effect upon the environment would be evident to the majority of people
under examination
Low
The effect upon the environment would negligible and go unnoticed
No change
There would be no effect upon the environment following works.
For the purposes of this assessment, the following matrices will be used to assess the
significance of effect of the two parameters above.
Table 8.3: Drainage, Hydrology and Water Quality – Significance of Effect
Sensitivity \ Magnitude
Low
Moderate
High
8.3.5
Low
Moderate
High
1(Negligible)
2(Minor)
3(Moderate)
2(Minor)
4(Moderate)
6(Major)
3(Moderate)
6(Major)
9 (Major)
Duration: For the purposes of this ES it is assumed that short term should be considered to be
the construction period, that is, the period leading up to completion of the scheme. Medium term
should be considered to be the period following the completion of the scheme, whilst long term
reflects 15 - 25 years post completion (operational stage). To provide assessment the resultant
scores from the table above, will be combined with the following score to give an overall effect.
Table 8.4:
Drainage, Hydrology and Water Quality - Duration
Time Period
Multiplier
Short term (construction period)
0.5
Medium term (2 years post scheme)
1
Long term ( > 2 years post scheme)
2
158
Table 8.5: Drainage, Hydrology and Water Quality – Semantic Scales (Residual Effects)
Semantic Scale
Description
Major (>=9)
The project results in a long term or permanent change to the
environment that cannot be mitigated
Moderate(6<9)
The project results in an effect upon the environment that causes a
permanent change to the environment that is noticeable.
Minor(3<6)
The project causes an effect upon the environment but is
unnoticeable, may be permanent.
Negligible (<=3)
The effect of the project is temporary and the environmental effect is
unnoticeable.
8.3.6
Effects of a project can be positive or negative upon the environment and this is documented
through the terminology of adverse or beneficial. Where an effect is rated as minor or above, it
will also be demoted by a statement of adverse or beneficial to provide clarity.
8.4
Existing Baseline Conditions
8.4.1
The proposal is for the construction of up to 800 new residential units. From a review of the
EA’s Indicative Flood Map (Figure 8.1), the site is deemed to lie in Flood Zone 1. As can be
seen from the flood map there is a local area of flooding in the centre of the site. As part of this
report, this flooding area has been investigated further and recommendations are proposed to
ensure that there is no risk of flooding for the built development.
8.4.2
In accordance with current EA guidelines, an FRA must be undertaken for all sites greater than
1ha, including those in Flood Zone 1. The FRA must demonstrate the development will be safe
for its proposed lifetime. A suitable FRA will also consider the risk of flooding from sources other
than fluvial or tidal and make an assessment of the potential of the proposed development to
increase flooding elsewhere through changes in the generation and management of surface
water.
8.4.3
The site falls from a level of 51mAOD in the south west to 42mAOD in the north east. The site
currently benefits from a series of land drainage ditches that take surface water run-off in a
northerly direction towards the Thulston Brook. The Environment Agency’s website indicates
that a small part of the development lies within Flood Zone 3. However, on further investigation
it has been proven that this area of predicted flooding is not associated with fluvial flows but is in
fact a low lying area that cannot be drained away by the local watercourses.
Flood Risk Assessment Summary
8.4.4
The aim of an FRA is to assess the risks of all forms of flooding to and from a development. The
Environment Agency emphasises the need for a risk-based approach to be adopted by Local
Planning Authorities through the application of the Source-Pathway-Receptor model. Travis
Baker’s approach to an FRA is based on the Source-Pathway-Receptor model.
159
8.4.5
The Source-Pathway-Receptor model firstly identifies the causes or ‘sources’ of flooding to and
from a development. The identification is based on a review of local conditions and consideration
of the effects of climate change. The nature and likely extent of flooding arising from any one
source is considered, e.g. whether such flooding is likely to be localised or widespread.
8.4.6
The presence of a flood source does not always imply a risk. The exposure pathway or ‘flooding
mechanism’ determines the risk to the receptor and the effective consequence of exposure. For
example, the presence of a sewer does not necessarily increase the risk of flooding unless the
sewer is local to the site and ground levels encourage surcharged water to accumulate.
8.4.7
The varying effect of flooding on the ‘receptors’ depends largely on the sensitivity of the target.
Receptors include any people or buildings within the range of the flood source, which are
connected to the source by a pathway.
8.4.8
In order for there to be a flood risk all the elements of the model must be present. Furthermore,
effective mitigation can be provided by removing one element of the model, for example by
removing the pathway or receptor.
8.4.9
A desk based review of available information has been undertaken to establish the likely flooding
sources and mechanisms for the site. Once the flood risk has been established, mitigation
measures are proposed (where necessary) and residual risks explained.
Drainage Strategy Summary
8.4.10
The site generally falls from a level of 51m AOD in the south west to 42m AOD in the north east.
Ground levels will slope away from the buildings (where possible) to promote drainage of
surface water away from buildings. It is proposed that Finished Floor Levels (FFL) will be set at
least 150 mm above surrounding ground levels.
8.4.11
As previously mentioned, the site has numerous small ditches which all generally flow in a north
easterly direction. The ditches have been surveyed to establish their connectivity and direction of
flow. Through this development it is proposed that the ditches are reprofiled to improve their
hydraulic performance and to ensure that the flow is safely conveyed through the development.
8.4.12
It is also proposed to create a flood attenuation area in the north east part of the site. This will
be constructed by reducing the level of a field to approximately half the depth of the
watercourses each side of the field. Therefore, during periods of low rainfall the watercourses
will flow as normal, however, during heavy rainfall the depression would be encouraged to flood
with a downstream check dam to control the flow.
8.4.13
In summary, the above strategy will ensure that overland flow is safely conveyed through the
development and would provide some betterment to flows released from the site.
8.4.14
In addition, as part of the creation of the country park to the east of the site it is proposed to
introduce 3no. wetland ponds with check dams controlling the downstream flow. These would
provide on line flow attenuation and reduce the risk of surface water flooding within the
development.
8.4.15
A review of the levels for the Phase 1 parcel shows that the existing land generally falls in a
south easterly direction and overland surface water run off discharges to a watercourse in the
south easterly corner of the site.
160
8.4.16
The drainage strategy for Phase 1 proposes to replicate the existing flows and will discharge
flow into an attenuation pond in the south eastern corner of the site. Flows would be attenuated
in the pond to the 100 year plus climate change event and would discharge to the watercourse
at greenfield run off rates.
8.4.17
The addition of the swale on the eastern boundary would further enhance the water quality
aspect of the development.
8.5
Assessment of Effect, Mitigation and Residual Effects – Long term effects
Flood Risk
Effect
8.5.1
Any change to the environment has a potential to increase flood risk through changes to the
hydrology of the catchment.
8.5.2
The flood risk assessment has been undertaken to assess flood risk for the proposed
development. The assessment has considered the effect of potential rainfall events upon local
watercourses and has established that flood risk at the site is extremely low.
8.5.3
Although the development will increase impermeable area, this water falling upon this area is to
be balanced to a reduced outflow. Additionally fluvial flood response times are longer term than
typical new piped drainage systems due to the increased time of concentration of the flows from
the much larger, and essentially Greenfield catchments. It is considered with the assessments
undertaken within the Flood Risk Assessment and the Drainage Strategy that the effect of this
upon the risk of flooding is Low.
Sensitivity
8.5.4
The development will be well outside the fluvial flood plain and as such any susceptibility to
flooding is not an issue.
Mitigation
8.5.5
Due to the low risk, it is considered that no mitigation works will be necessary to further reduce
flood risk.
Residual Effects
8.5.6
As a result of the low initial risk and no need for mitigation, it is considered that the residual
effects are negligible.
Surface Water Runoff & Hydrology
Effect
161
8.5.7
The construction of a new development at this location would, with the increase in hard paved
surfacing and roofs, increase the speed and peak quantity of runoff from this area. Additionally
the potential for polluted runoff to the local area needs consideration.
Mitigation
8.5.8
Following the grant of permission further assessment for the potential of utilising infiltration
drainage will be undertaken through ground investigation works. Through the related discharge
of planning conditions of any resulting consent, appropriate approvals for finalisation of the
drainage scheme and inclusion of infiltration measures if appropriate will be gained. . The
infiltration method approach will be governed by the need to provide effective drainage and will
be assessed through assessment of the porosity and prevailing ground water levels at the site.
8.5.9
To ensure water quality is maintained and protected, treatment trains in line with
recommendations made in CIRIA C697 have been proposed.
Duration
8.5.10
The duration of the effects are long term as a permanent change to the drainage regime will be
made by the proposed development, which is therefore a long term effect.
Residual Effects
8.5.11
Examining this through the assessment structure undertaken as part of this report, it is
considered that the effect upon surface water runoff are long term, the magnitude of the effect
would be low as flow and water quality impacts have been mitigated. The sensitivity of the site
is also considered to be low.
8.5.12
As flows are attenuated to greenfield runoff levels, and current design recommendations have
been incorporated, it is considered that there will be negligible long term effects of this.
Water Quality
Effect
8.5.13
Water quality can be affected by changes to runoff. Runoff passing over paved areas where
debris and pollutants can migrate through the action of water into the drainage network and to
outfall. Typically the main issue is the presence of debris, petrochemicals and oils washing off
the drained surface. The effect of these can be classed as Moderate Adverse.
Sensitivity
8.5.14
The water quality of the receiving watercourses, and the volume of flow that they are subjected
to influences the concentration of pollutants. During dry weather, pollutant concentrations are
higher than during storm events, with the exception of the “first flush” which, from conventional
systems, can deliver pollutants rapidly from surface wash-off into the storm system and
consequently to the environment.
Mitigation
162
8.5.15
To provide mitigation drainage systems from surface areas where vehicles are active will pass
through trapped gullies. Swales and on line ponds will further help to improve the quality of
water discharged from the site.
Residual Effect
8.5.16
As a result of the implementation of the trapped drainage system and on line ponds and swales,
it is assessed that the major constituent pollutants, from initial low levels, will be removed and
therefore the residual effect is minor.
Foul Water
Effect
8.5.17
The construction of new development and its associated activities will result in the generation of
foul water. Foul water by its very nature requires treatment and sufficient capacity of the
receiving networks has to be considered to ensure problems are not simply passed downstream.
Mitigation
8.5.18
The site has existing foul sewers crossing it at several locations although it is envisaged that
2no. adoptable pumping stations will be required.
Duration
8.5.19
The duration of the discharge of the foul drainage will of course be for the entire life of the
development. This is therefore a long term effect.
Residual Effect
8.5.20
8.6
The discharge of foul water is a long term effect, with a low magnitude and thoroughly mitigated
through the implementation of a properly designed and constructed foul sewer. The subsequent
infrastructure, owned and maintained by STW, offers sufficient capacity to cater for the low
additional flows that will be generated by the proposed development. The remaining effect upon
the environment is therefore negligible.
Assessment of Effect, Mitigation and Residual Effects – Construction effects
Flood Risk
Effect
8.6.1
Considering the flood risk during construction relates essentially to the existing and proposed
risk levels. Flood risk will only be increased if an incorrect build programme is implemented and
then this would generally be very localised.
Mitigation
8.6.2
It is considered that the only mitigation required is to ensure that the balancing facilities and
drainage are installed, as necessary for a logical construction process anyway, prior to the hard
surfacing of any areas.
163
Residual Effects
8.6.3
It is considered that the residual effect is negligible.
Surface Water Runoff and Hydrology
Effect
8.6.4
During construction, various activities and processes, the build programme and site operations
can potentially impact the environment in many ways. Water quality can be affected through the
disruption and exposure of sub-soils that then are transported as rainfall runoff over the site into
watercourses. Similarly dewatering of excavations can result in suspended solids being
transferred to watercourses.
8.6.5
Construction of paved areas without attenuation increases the rate of runoff from the site area
resulting in a flood risk.
Mitigation
8.6.6
In order to prevent water quality impacts from excavated sub-soils being transported during
rainfall, the construction site will be properly managed. Guidance from the Environment Agency,
such as Pollution Prevention Guideline 6: Working at Construction and Demolition Sites 2012,
will be followed to ensure pollution to watercourses or subsoil is avoided.
8.6.7
Any dewatering requirements during construction phases will have site waste discharges passed
through settlement tanks to reduce the material conveyed onward within the water.
8.6.8
The construction of the balancing installation and drainage network will be undertaken prior to
the paving of areas. This will prevent high flow rates
Residual Effect
8.6.9
The construction period is long term by its definition, although the initial disruption to the
environment during this time can have a clearly noticeable effect. However, properly managed
construction sites provide management of these drainage issues through mitigating strategies in
line with guidance from the Environment Agency.
8.6.10
It is considered that as the site will be properly managed during its construction period and
therefore excavated materials will be correctly managed, and any runoff from these managed to
ensure that sediments migrating to watercourses are minimised.
164
Foul Drainage
Effect
8.6.11
During construction no effluent will be discharged from the site until the foul sewer network has
been connected and constructed, therefore the effect of this is no change.
Mitigation
8.6.12
As there is deemed to be no change in the network, and sufficient capacity has been confirmed
to exist to accommodate additional foul drainage from the site, there is no need to provide
mitigation.
Residual Effect
8.6.13
There are no residual effects.
8.7
Cumulative Impact
8.7.1
Flood risk has been assessed in the flood risk assessment and has been established as
negligible. The site is well outside the extreme flood predicted outline shown by the Environment
Agency flood mapping at Figure 8.1 and firmly within Zone 1.
8.7.2
The changes made to the catchment are primarily the creation of hard surfaced areas where
previously Greenfield areas existed. This essentially changes the response to rainfall of the
catchment, with the reaction to rainfall more instantaneous than for the former Greenfield
surface.
8.7.3
In response to this, to prevent potential flooding, flow balancing would be undertaken to restrict
flows to former peak levels. The restriction of surface water flows from the site is proposed to be
achieved through attenuation ponds with controlled flow outlets. These replicate the slow
response of the current Greenfield site to rainfall.
8.7.4
It is considered that with the various treatment trains to be implemented, that follow the guidance
in CIRIA C697, water quality effects will also be negligible.
8.7.5
It is considered that all developments within the local area will be subject to restrictions to
manage the rapid response runoff and as such resultant catchment hydrology will be unaffected.
8.7.6
With regard to foul water flows, consultation with Severn Trent Water has been undertaken to
ensure that the downstream network has sufficient capacity to cater for the additional flows.
STW have given assurances that the capacity in the existing network is sufficient to cater for the
anticipated additional flows. As the sewerage undertaker, Severn Trent Water will have the
opportunity to approve or object to any discharge to their network and additionally to make the
developer of any proposal fund any necessary improvement works. It is therefore considered
that the cumulative effect of the proposed development and other local proposals is within the
capacity of the system at present and therefore the effect is negligible.
8.7.7
This development has also been considered in conjunction with other proposed developments in
the immediate vicinity. The scheme off Fellow Lands Way has been developed to have a
standalone drainage network which will discharge by way of sustainable drainage systems to
165
local watercourses. The Boulton Moor development to the east of the site also has a standalone
drainage system discharging to the east. Therefore there is no impact from our development
onto adjacent proposed developments.
8.8
Summary
8.8.1
This ES chapter addresses issues relating to the water environment, including drainage,
hydrology and water quality, which assesses the proposed drainage system and the effect upon
the natural catchment and water flow, and the local water quality.
8.8.2
The effect of constructing hard surfacing upon the existing greenfield site affects the rate at
which rainwater runs off the land. It both increases the proportion of rainfall that drains off the
site, due to the lack of ability to drain directly into the underlying ground and reduces the time it
takes to drain to the discharge point.
8.8.3
Storm-water balancing is a tried and tested technique that seeks to replicate the runoff profile of
the original greenfield, through the use of large storage volumes and restricted outflow controls.
This reduces peak rates of discharge, but discharges for a longer time period. This replicates
what happens from the greenfield site. Rainfall events are classified upon the intensity of rainfall
and the statistical likelihood of its occurrence. The drainage system for the store has been
designed well in excess of what replicates the existing greenfield runoff rates, by restricting flows
with a likely occurrence of once in 100 years. To add further robustness to the assessment,
additional rainfall of 30% over the 100 year event has been incorporated within the design.
8.8.4
To mitigate the potential deposition of oils on the water quality the proposals firstly removes any
suspended solids during maintenance that have been transported along the drainage system.
Foul drainage, takes waste water from the site to be conveyed by the sewerage undertaker for
treatment. The discharge to the system is very low, and Severn Trent Water Limited have
confirmed this to be the case and that their infrastructure can cope with the additional flows
proposed.
8.8.5
Following the proposed implementation of these management regimes it is considered that a
negligible residual effect remains for water quality and for storm-water discharges, some
betterment is effectively provided to reduce discharges from rainfall events below that from the
existing site area. In terms of foul, the flows are simply conveyed through the site for treatment
elsewhere and sufficient capacity for this has been confirmed.
166
9. GEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITION
9.1
Introduction and Study Area
9.1.1
The objective of the assessment has been to identify likely effects of geology, soils and ground
conditions during the construction and completed stages of the development. This has been
informed through the collation of baseline data from a range of sources, including published data
sources, an Envirocheck Site Report (Landmark 2013), consultation with relevant organisations
and a review of the Phase I Environmental Review. RPS Health, Safety & Environment Ltd has
undertaken a Phase II Site Investigation on the initial development area of the site (the detailed
application area). Information from this report has also been used where applicable. The
remainder of the proposed residential area will be investigated prior to development of these
areas of the site.
9.1.2
Based on this information, the likely effects of the project have been assessed. Due to the links
with groundwater quality issues in this chapter it also considers hydrogeological baseline
conditions and potential effects.
9.2
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
9.2.1
The methodology employed in assessing and evaluating the project has had regard to the
following legislation:
 Part 2A of the Environment Protection Act (EPA) (1990);
 Contaminated Land (England) (Amended) Regulations (2012);
 Water Resources Act (1991); and
 Groundwater Regulations (1998);
 Water Act (2003);
 The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations
2003.
9.2.2
The Environmental Protection Act (1990) includes contaminated land legislation, which is
principally contained within Part 2A of the Act. This sets out a scheme for the identification of
contaminated land and for the enforcement of remediation.
9.2.3
The Environment Act 1995 (Section 57) amends the Environmental Protection Act (1990) and
makes provisions for a risk based framework for the identification, assessment and management
of contaminated land within the UK. The provisions of the Act came into effect in April 2000.
9.2.4
Part 2A is implemented by the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2006 and the
Contaminated Land (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012. Supporting Contaminated Land
Statutory Guidance was issued by DEFRA in April 2012.
9.2.5
The Part 2A regime is aimed at ensuring that actions taken with respect to contaminated land
are directed by a technically well-founded assessment of risk that considers the ‘contaminant-
167
pathway-receptor’ scenario (contaminant linkage). Under the legislation, contaminated land is
defined as: “…any land which appears to the Local Authority in whose area it is situated to be in
such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that:
(a) ‘Significant harm’ is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being
caused; or
(b) Significant pollution of controlled waters is being caused, or there is a significant
possibility of such pollution being caused.”
9.2.6
‘Significant harm’ is defined in the guidance according to risk-based criteria and must be the
result of ‘contaminant linkages’. Such linkages can be assessed using a qualitative and/or
quantitative risk assessment that addresses the identification of:
 Contaminant sources;
 Sensitive receptors; and
 Migration pathways linking the potential contaminant source(s) to the sensitive
receptor(s).
9.2.7
All three of the above must be present to complete the pollutant linkage and for a potentially
significant risk to exist. As such, the presence of contamination in itself does not necessarily
indicate a need for remedial action. Accordingly, a site can only be considered ‘contaminated’
when a risk to the environment or human health is present due to the presence of a
‘contaminant-receptor-pathway’ linkage. In such circumstances and where there is a significant
risk posed to human health and/ or the environment, the above Acts state that Local Planning
Authorities (LPAs) must adopt a ‘suitable for use’ approach. This means that the degree of site
contamination remediation is dictated by the site’s proposed end use.
9.2.8
The Water Resources Act (1991 and as amended 2009) introduced the definition of controlled
waters and outlined measures that should be undertaken to protect water resources. The Act
also details the responsibilities of the Environment Agency in relation to water pollution, resource
management and flood defence.
9.2.9
The Groundwater (England and Wales) Regulations (2009) supplements existing regulations to
protect groundwater in England and Wales. These regulations control groundwater pollution
from contaminated land. The regulations provide a more flexible, risk-based approach than
previous legislation and cover a wider range of substances.
9.2.10
European Water Framework Directive – This came into force in December 2000 and became
part of UK law in December 2003. The Directive aims to protect and enhance the quality of:
 Surface freshwater (including lakes, streams and rivers)
 Groundwater
 Groundwater dependant ecosystems
 Estuaries
 Coastal waters out to one mile from low-water
168
9.2.11
Where appropriate the assessment has also had regard to the following guidance documents:
 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11) (EA, 2005);
 Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs) most notably PPG8: Safe
Storage and Disposal of Fuel Oils (EA, 2004) and Working at construction and demolition
sites: PPG6 (EA, 2010);
 Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3) (Environment Agency).
 British Standard requirements for the ‘Investigation of potentially contaminated sites Code of practice’ (ref. BS10175:2011);
 National Planning Policy Framework (2012); and
 DEFRA Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A - Contaminated Land Statutory
Guidance (2012).
9.2.12
The UK planning approach to the management of land contamination is risk-based, as was
formerly implemented by Planning Policy Statement Number 23 (PPS23). PPS23 was formally
withdrawn on the 27th March 2012 and replaced by the NPPF.
9.2.13
The NPPF gives Local Authorities the power to determine the requirement for assessment and
remediation of sites during the planning process. Given the recent withdrawal of PPS23, the
Local Authority is likely to have adopted a strategy based upon PPS23. Therefore, this risk
assessment will be based primarily on the withdrawn PPS23, with broad consideration for the
contents of the NPPF.
9.2.14
The risk assessment methods adopted by PPS23 reflected those adopted by Part 2A of the
Environmental Protection Act (1990), as detailed above. PPS23 specified that, as a minimum
requirement, a desk study, including a site walkover, must be undertaken and any ground
investigation would have to be carried out in accordance with BS10175 (2011) ‘Code of Practice
for the Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites’. Furthermore, in determining applications,
the LPA will need to be satisfied that the development does not create or allow the continuation
of unacceptable risk arising from the conditions of the land in question or from adjoining land. In
particular, it should demonstrate that existing significant pollutant linkages will be broken by
removing the source, pathway or receptor(s) and that the development will not create any new
pollutant linkages by changing or creating exposure pathways, (e.g. creating new pathways to
groundwater by site investigation drilling or piling). As a minimum, the new development should
not be capable of determination as contaminated land under Part 2A of the EPA 1990.
9.2.15
The following planning policies are relevant to Land Contamination and Ground Conditions:
 RS Policy EM 2: Remediating contaminated land;
 UDP Policy EN16: Contaminated Land;
 UDP Policy EN7: Pollution Control); and
 UDP Policy EN18: Protection of Water Resources.
169
9.3
Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria
Impact Assessment Methodology
9.3.1
The baseline characterisation enables the development of a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) from
which the nature and likely significance of effects can be determined. The CSM also allows the
significance of pre-existing ground conditions to be determined on the basis of source-pathwayreceptor linkages:
 Source: Potential contaminant sources;
 Pathway: The mechanism by which the source may affect a receptor; and
 Receptor: Identified features that may be affected, based on the sensitivity of the site.
9.3.2
The assessment considers the potential risk to environmental receptors and the pathways by
which the receptors may be affected. This includes an evaluation of the probability of harm
occurring, taking into account potential sources of contamination and receptors that may be
affected by such contamination.
9.3.3
The significance of predicted effects likely to occur during the construction and post
development are determined by consideration of the sensitivity of the key attributes of the
geology and hydrogeology that may be affected and the magnitude of the predicted impact.
9.3.4
Two main receptor types are associated with contaminated land. These are humans and
controlled waters (i.e. rivers or groundwater/aquifers). The sensitivity of an attribute of controlled
water is largely determined by its quality and scale (i.e. local, national and international). The
sensitivity for humans is determined by proximity to the source of contamination, age structure of
the people and duration of residence/presence in proximity to contamination. Sensitivity of
attributes relevant to this chapter has been informed by professional judgement.
Receptor Sensitivity
9.3.5
Two main receptor types are relevant to this chapter. These are human health and controlled
waters (i.e. rivers or groundwater/aquifers). The sensitivity of an attribute of controlled water is
largely determined by its quality and scale (i.e. local, national and international). The sensitivity
for humans is determined by proximity to the source of contamination, age structure of the
people and duration of residence/presence in proximity to contamination. Sensitivity of attributes
relevant to this chapter has been informed by professional judgement and the criteria outlined in
Section 9.3.7.
170
Definitions of Sensitivity or Value
Sensitivity
Very High
Typical Descriptors
Controlled Waters - Attribute with a very high quality and rarity on a
regional to international scale with very limited potential for substitution.
Examples include: Principal aquifer providing potable water to a large
population.
Humans – Schools, Hospitals and Care institutions.
High
Controlled waters - Attribute with a high quality and rarity on a local
scale with limited potential for substitution, or attribute with a medium
quality or rarity on a regional to national scale with limited potential for
substitution. Examples include Aquifer providing potable water to a
small population and/or large resource potential or Regionally Important
Geological/Geomorphological Sites (RIGS).
Humans – Residential Areas, Recreational areas, Construction workers.
Medium
Controlled Waters - Attribute with a medium quality and rarity on a local
scale with limited potential for substitution, or attribute with a low quality
and rarity on a regional to national scale with limited potential for
substitution. Examples include: Secondary aquifer unit supporting
abstraction for agricultural or industrial use and/or moderate resource
potential or Non designated geological exposures important at a
regional or local scale
Humans - Commercial/Retail/Industrial employment areas,
Low
Attribute with a low quality and rarity on a local scale with limited
potential for substitution. Examples include: previously disturbed land
or Non designated geological exposures important at a very local scale;
Abandoned quarries and mining activities;
Negligible
Attribute with very low importance and rarity at the local scale.
Examples include Non aquifer unit that does not afford protection to
underlying water bearing units; Non designated geological exposures
common at a regional or local scale;
Significance Criteria
9.3.6
Where the matrix (presented in Section 1 of this report) offers more than one significance option,
professional judgement has be used to decide which option is most appropriate.
171
9.3.7
The broad definitions of the terms used should be in line with the following:
 Substantial: Only adverse effects are normally assigned this level of significance. They
represent key factors in the decision-making process. These effects are generally, but not
exclusively, associated with sites or features of international, national or regional
importance that are likely to suffer a most damaging impact and loss of resource integrity.
However, a major change in a site or feature of local importance may also enter this
category.
 Major: These beneficial or adverse effects are considered to be very important
considerations and are likely to be material in the decision-making process.
 Moderate: These beneficial or adverse effects may be important, but are not likely to be
key decision-making factors. The cumulative effects of such factors may influence
decision-making if they lead to an increase in the overall adverse effect on a particular
resource or receptor.
 Minor: These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors. They are
unlikely to be critical in the decision-making process, but are important in enhancing the
subsequent design of the project.
 Negligible: No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal
bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
9.4
Existing Baseline Conditions
9.4.1
Baseline surveys including desk based surveys and field based assessments have been
undertaken which include:
 Phase 1 Environmental Review, RPS report reference RCEI25279-002 R, RPS, March
2013; and
 Phase 2 Geo-Environmental Site Investigation Report, RPS report reference RCEI25324003 R, March 2013.
9.4.2
The Phase I Environmental Review covered the entre site including the proposed country park.
This document is presented in full as Appendix 9.1.
9.4.3
The review was undertaken by reference to information held by an environmental information
service provider and includes information provided by the following bodies:
 Derby City Council
 South Derbyshire District Council
 Environment Agency
 British Geological Survey
 Coal Authority
172
 Health Protection Agency
 Natural England
9.4.4
The information collected as part of these studies has been used to inform the baseline
conditions which is summarised in the following Sections.
9.4.5
The site investigation was carried out between the 19th February 2013 and 22nd February 2013
and comprised:
 Advancement of twenty eight window sample boreholes to a to a maximum depth of 4.0
m.bgl;
 In-situ standard penetration testing (SPT) at regular intervals throughout the depth of the
boreholes
 Installation of eight gas monitoring wells;
 Collection of representative soil samples for chemical analysis.
9.4.6
The Phase 2 Report is presented in full as Appendix 9.2. Please note that the Phase 2 Report
only applies to the initial development area. Subsequent development areas will be covered by
separate site investigation reports.
9.4.7
No specific point sources of contamination were identified by the Phase I Review on or adjacent
to the area of the site subject to this investigation. Exploratory holes were therefore positioned
on a 50m grid across the site to provide effective site coverage. Figure 3 of the site investigation
report (Appendix 9.2) shows the location of all intrusive locations. Borehole logs are presented
as Annex A of this report also.
9.4.8
The soil arisings from each hole were carefully examined for visual and olfactory evidence of
contamination. Headspace testing was undertaken on site for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) using a portable Photo-Ionisation Detector (PID), which responds to a broad range of
VOCs.
9.4.9
Soil samples were collected in clean jars and tubs for chemical laboratory testing, and forwarded
to a UKAS accredited laboratory for analysis under chain of custody procedures.
9.4.10
Return visits to monitor the installations for concentrations of methane, carbon dioxide and
oxygen, in addition to atmospheric pressure, flow rate and groundwater levels, were made on
the 21st February 2013, 28th February 2013, 7th March 2013 and 14th March 2013.
Published Geological Mapping
9.4.11
British Geological Survey map, 1:50,000 scale, Sheet 141, Loughborough, Solid and Drift Edition
indicates that the majority of the site is underlain by Superficial Deposits comprising of River
Terrace Deposits (Allenton Terrace Deposits). These deposits are described as sand and gravel
with lenses of silt, clay and peat. These deposits are indicated to underlie the north-eastern
extent of the site. The presence of River Terrace Deposits roughly correlates with the area of
the proposed residential development.
173
9.4.12
The south-western extent of the site is indicated to be underlain by Glacial Till deposits (Oadby
Member) which is described as grey diamicton with brown weathering and subordinate lenses of
sand and gravel, clay and silt. This outcrop roughly correlates with the area of proposed country
park.
9.4.13
The underlying bedrock is indicated to comprise of the Branscombe Mudstone Formation which
is described as red brown mudstone and siltstone with grey green reduction patches. This
material weathers to clay.
9.4.14
Land immediately to the west of part of the western perimeter of the site has been classified as a
SSSI due to its important glacial and fluvial sequence of superficial deposits. Information
provided by Natural England states that the Boulton Moor SSSI area is underlain by an
important glacial and fluvial sequence. The deposits comprise a glacial complex filling an eastwest trending trough excavated in the underlying bedrock.
9.4.15
The Boutlon Moor SSI is described as consisting of an area of land underlain by glacial deposits
and river gravels. The site boundaries, enclosing the area where these deposit have been
found, follow existing fence lines.
9.4.16
The latest inspection of the Boulton Moor SSSI is reported as being undertaken by Natural
England on 5th May 2009. The condition was assessed as favourable with a note which states
‘SSSI is a greenfield site where the geological interest is underground. The field is grazed
pasture so no threats to the interest’.
9.4.17
Natural England has set out management principles for such sites. One of the key principles is
that features are not damaged and remain accessible for excavation. Activities identified that
may cause direct or indirect damage to the interest include deep ploughing, trenching, and
modifications to the drainage. Construction or planting of trees can cause damage and inhibit
access for future excavation. Removal of the materials of interest may cause irreparable
damage. Natural England have compiled a list of operations likely to damage the special
interest which is as follows:
 Cultivation, including ploughing, rotovating, harrowing and re-seeding.
 Dumping, spreading or discharge of any materials.
 Introduction of tree and/or woodland management including aforestation and tree or shrub
planting.
 Drainage (including moor-gripping and use of mole, tile, tunnel or other artificial drains.
 Modification of the structure of watercourses (e.g. ditches and drains), including their
banks and beds, as by re-alignment, regarding and dredging.
 Extraction of minerals, including peat, shingle, sane and ravel, topsoil, subsoil and spoil.
 Construction, removal or destruction of roads, tracks, walls, fences, hardstands banks,
ditches, or other earthworks or the laying maintenance of removal of pipelines and cable,
above or below ground.
 Storage of materials.
174
 Erection of permanent or temporary structures or the undertaking of engineering works
including drilling.
Identified Ground Conditions
9.4.18
The following ground conditions were identified across the initial development area (the south
eastern quadrant of the residential development area) site during the Phase II site investigation.
Strata
Topsoil
Depth to Top of Strata
Thickness
(m bgl)
(m)
Ground Level
0.1 to 0.4
0.1 to 0.4
0.8 to >3.8
0.8 to >3.8
Not proven
Red brown clay with occasional
bands of sand (Weathered
Mudstone)
Mudstone
9.4.19
Topsoil in the form of organic sandy gravelly clay was identified across the surface of the site to
depths ranging between 0.1 m.bgl and 0.4 m.bgl.
9.4.20
Red brown clay with lithorelicts of mudstone was identified beneath the topsoil in all boreholes
with occasional bands of red brown clayey sand. This material was identified to depths ranging
between 1.2 m.bgl and 3.8 m.bgl and is representative of weathered mudstone. Red brown
laminated mudstone was encountered beneath the clay/sand deposits. SPT N values in the clay
deposits increased with depth and ranged between N=4 and N=>50. The N values in the bands
of sand ranged between N=4 and N=5. The N values in the mudstone bedrock ranged between
N=7 and N=50.
9.4.21
The River Terrace Deposits (Allenton Terrace Deposits) identified as being present beneath this
area of the site were not identified during the site investigation. These deposits are described as
sand and gravel with lenses of silt, clay and peat.
Hydrogeology
9.4.22
Environment Agency Aquifer Designation Maps indicates that the superficial deposits are
classified as a Secondary Aquifer (Undifferentiated).
9.4.23
Secondary Aquifers are described as permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at
a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow
to rivers.
9.4.24
The underlying bedrock is classified as Secondary B Aquifer which is described as low
permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised
features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering.
9.4.25
The site is not situated within a groundwater Source Protection Zone.
175
9.4.26
The groundwater chemical quality and predicted 2015 groundwater quality has been assessed
as ‘poor’ under the River Basin Management Plan.
9.4.27
There is a single groundwater discharge consent located within 500m of the site. This is located
immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the site at Stubble Close Farm. The consent
(reference Wq/72/3598, dated 22/02/1983) permits the discharge of treated sewage effluent to
underground strata via a soakaway.
9.4.28
No groundwater abstractions have been identified within 1km of the site.
Hydrology
9.4.29
Reference to Ordnance Survey Mapping indicates that a series of surface water drainage
ditches are present within the eastern half of the site. Ordnance Survey mapping indicates that
the site drainage flows towards the east via small unnamed watercourses. These watercourses
join the River Derwent approximately 5km to the east of the site.
9.4.30
No watercourses within 1km of the site have been assessment as part of the River Basin
Management Plan.
9.4.31
There are a series of five licensed surface water discharge consents situated within 500m of the
site. These are all licensed to Severn Trent Water Ltd and permit the discharge of sewage and
surface water to a stream which is located approximately 200m to the north of the site. The
stream flows to the east and joins the River Derwent.
9.4.32
There are five recorded pollution incidents to controlled waters located within 500m of the site.
These are dated between April 1996 and June 1998. None are directly associated with the site.
9.4.33
No groundwater was identified during advancement of the boreholes in the deposits of topsoil,
clay or mudstone. Perched groundwater was identified in several of the bands of sand.
Ecologically Important Sites
9.4.34
There are no nationally/internationally recognised ecological sites on the proposed development
site.
Site History
9.4.35
Historical maps dated from 1885 to 2012 been reviewed as part of the assessment. Historical
maps are presented as Annex C of the Phase I Review which is presented as Appendix 9.1 of
this document.
9.4.36
The site has largely existed as undeveloped agricultural land from prior to the earliest historical
map dated 1885, to the present. Notable features within the site boundary identified during the
historical map review are summarised as follows:
 Moor Farm (northern boundary) Pre 1885 to present (due to be demolished).
 Orchard (adjacent to Moor Farm) 1885 to 1955.
 Power Lines (across northern area) 1975 to present.
176
9.4.37
Early historical maps show the area surrounding the site being dominated by agricultural land
use. The historical plan dated 1975 shows residential properties were developed to the north of
the site. The historical maps dated 1991 shows encroachment of residential properties from
Chellaston towards the western perimeter of the site.
9.4.38
Notable features identified during the historical maps review within 250m of the site boundary
are summarised as follows:
 End Farm (Farmhouse and kennels) - 0m North. Pre 1885 to present.
 Stubble Close Farm – 0m South. Pre 1885 to present.
 Handhurst Farm – 100m east. Pre 1885 to present.
 Allotment gardens – 100m north. 1955 to present.
 Boulton Edge Farm – 200m west. Pre 1885 to present.
9.4.39
Several small ponds are identified in the area surrounding the site, some of which are likely to
have been in filled and may represent a ground gas source.
Land Subsidence
9.4.40
Information provided by the Coal Authority indicates that the site is not situated within an area
affected by coal mining activities.
9.4.41
British Geological Survey data indicates that the site is situated in an area with a low to very low
risk rating associated with collapsible, compressible, ground dissolution, landslide, running sand
and shrinking or swelling clay ground stability hazards.
Potential Contamination Sources
9.4.42
The Phase I Environmental review identified the following potential contamination sources:
 Agricultural use of site and surrounding area (diffuse pesticide contamination);
 Farm Buildings (localised fuel, oil and pesticide contamination); and,
 In filled ponds and natural organic materials (ground gas).
9.4.43
The Phase I Review concluded that agricultural land use is unlikely to have resulted in significant
soil contamination but did identity a limited potential For diffuse pesticide residue to remain in
shallow soils due to agricultural use of the site and that there was the potential for localised
contamination in the immediate vicinity of farm buildings. No such contamination was however
identified during analysis of soil samples collected from the initial development area during the
Phase 2 Site Investigation.
9.4.44
The Phase I review also concluded that there was a limited potential or the presence of ground
gas associated with natural organic matter within topsoil and in filled ponds. The ground gas
monitoring programme undertaken on the initial development area as part of the Phase 2 Site
Investigation did not identified any significantly elevated ground gas concentrations.
177
9.4.45
No notable soil contamination was identified during the Phase 2 Site Investigation. Although this
investigation only covered the area of the initial stage of residential development, land use
across the wider site has been very similar and it is not considered likely that significant
contamination will be identified during investigation of later phases of the residential
development area.
9.4.46
The following table summarises the identified receptors and the sensitivity of each receptor.
Sensitivity
Very High
Typical Descriptors
Boulton Moor SSSI (buried geological features)
Although this receptor represents a very high sensitivity receptor it is
located outside of the development site and will not be disturbed during
the construction or operational phase of the proposed development.
High
Humans
Residential Areas of the proposed development and adjacent residential
properties. Recreational areas of the proposed development and off-site
area and construction workers.
Low
Secondary Aquifers
The Secondary Aquifers associated with the superficial deposits and
underlying bedrock so not support any abstractions and are considered
to represent low sensitivity receptors.
Negligible
The superficial deposits and underlying bedrock that underlie the site
are not designated units ad are common at a regional or local scale.
(Natural England has confirmed that the feature protected by the SSSI
is not likely to encroach within the development boundary).
9.5
Assessment of Impacts
Construction Effects
9.5.1
The development would be undertaken in a phased manner such that only a relatively small part
of the site would be affected by construction activities at any one time. The initial phase of
construction is located in the south-eastern quadrant of the site. The western extent of the site
will remain as open space and will form a country park. This half of the site will be subject to
limited physical change and therefore the potential impact to Boulton Moor SSSI is considered to
be negligible.
9.5.2
General site works across the residential development area of the site will require shallow
excavations for the formation of building foundations and roadways. No large scale excavation
or cut and fill works are proposed.
178
9.5.3
No deep piling works are anticipated to be required during the redevelopment hence the risk
associated with generating vertical preferential contaminant pathway to strata and associated
groundwater is not considered to be significant.
9.5.4
The key potential impacts associated with ground conditions during the construction that may
impact receptors include:
1. Mobilisation of any existing contamination and dust as a result of general ground
disturbance, earthworks, establishment of haul routes and removal of vegetation;
2. Contamination from the use, storage or spillage of construction related chemicals, fuels,
oils, cement; and vehicle/wheel washing.
9.5.5
The following receptors are relevant to these potential impacts:
 Construction Workers - High Sensitivity
 Off Site Receptors (i.e. neighbouring residents/workers) - High Sensitivity
 Groundwater (secondary aquifer) – Low Sensitivity
9.5.6
The proposed construction works will be undertaken in accordance with a Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which will be developed for the site prior to the onset
of works.
9.5.7
The CEMP will prescribe a wide range environmental management procedures for
implementation during the construction phase, including issues in relation to ground conditions
and contamination including but not limited to the following:
 The provision of appropriate Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) for workers;
 The implementation of industry standard practice dust suppression measures e.g.
dampening/sheeting of stockpiles and exposed soils;
 Site personnel will be vigilant for any unusual visual or odorous characteristics of the
earth which could indicate the presence of unexpected contamination;
 Maintenance of a ‘clean/dirty area’ regime, if contamination is identified. Smoking, eating
and drinking will not be permitted in the buildings and during demolition works. A high
standard of hygiene will be maintained at all times;
 With respect to public safety, the site will be secured;
 Appropriate disposal of waste soil generated during construction and demolition;
 Any soils imported for use will be certified ‘clean’ and suitable for use;
 Appropriate storage of potentially polluting materials and chemicals in accordance with
the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) Regulations (England) 2001; and
179
 Leaks or spillages of potentially polluting substances to be contained, collected then
removed from site in an appropriate manner e.g. use of absorbent material, bunding or
booms. An emergency action plan will be formulated which all site personnel will have
read and understood.
 In the unlikely event that previously unidentified soil contamination is identified during
development of the site remediation should be undertake under a watching brief following
consultation with the Local Planning Authority.
1) Mobilisation of Existing Contamination and Dust
9.5.8
The potential for significant soil contamination to be present on site is considered to be low.
Investigation of the first phase of the development did not identify significant soil contamination.
9.5.9
The CEMP will include provision of mitigation measures to control fugitive dust emissions during
the construction phase.
9.5.10
Given that the potential for existing contamination is considered to be low, the magnitude of
impacts potentially arising during the construction phase is considered to be Negligible providing
that effective environmental management practices are in place during the construction phase.
9.5.11
If contamination is encountered during the construction phase it will be appropriately assessed
and remediated in accordance with the CEMP; therefore a Moderate Beneficial impact would be
associated with the proposed development in this situation.
2) Contamination Associated with Accidental Emissions
9.5.12
The soil contamination potential associated with the use, storage or spillage of construction
related chemicals, fuels, oils, cement; and vehicle/wheel washing during the construction phase
will be controlled through implementation of environmental management measures prescribed
by the CEMP.
9.5.13
The use of vehicles and heavy machinery and/or the storage and use of hazardous materials
may result in accidental emissions of liquid contaminants to ground. This is most likely to be
associated with the storage of fuel or accidental leakage from vehicles during construction
(including refuelling). Accidental spillage or leakage of hazardous materials would detrimentally
impact soil quality and may ultimately impact groundwater. This is of greatest concern in the
vicinity of the surface water ditches.
9.5.14
The shallow groundwater that underlies the site represents a limited resource potential and
therefore the sensitivity is considered to be low. The sensitivity of geological deposits underlying
the site is also considered to be low. Given that protocols regarding the storage, handling and
use of hazardous materials would be implemented as part of the CEMP, the magnitude of this
impact is considered to be negligible to minor.
9.5.15
Potential impacts arising from the construction phase would be expected to be localised and
short-term. Consequently, it is concluded that the significance of impacts will range from
negligible to minor (in the event of failure to contain accidental spillage).
180
9.5.16
In the event that previously unidentified contamination is identified during development of the
site, or soil is impacted as a result of an accidental spillage during development, the
contamination would be assessed and remediated under a watching brief following consultation
with the Local Planning Authority. These measures, as prescribed by the CEMP, will mitigate
the potential impact to human health receptors, therefore the magnitude of impact is considered
to be negligible to minor.
Operation/Permanent Effects
9.5.17
Impacts from the proposed development during the operational phase relate to the potential for:
 Any existing contamination (if present) in the soils and/or groundwater to impact on
sensitive receptors; and
 Contamination to be introduced as a result of operational activities and to impact on
sensitive receptors.
9.5.18
The western half of the site is to remain as open green space and the character of land use will
not change significantly, hence future operational activities are not considered likely to have an
impact on receptors including Boulton Moor SSSI. Given that the potential for existing
contamination is considered to be low and there is a limited potential for contamination to be
introduced as a result of operational activities the magnitude of impacts is considered to be
negligible.
9.5.19
At present no hardstanding is present on site. The residential development site will result in a
significant increase in the overall proportion of hardstanding and building cover, thereby
reducing the infiltration of surface water and the potential for mobilisation of any contaminants
that may currently leach to groundwater. The presence of hardstanding across the residential
development site will also break physical contact pathways between future site users and any
soil contaminants (if present) and reduce mobilisation of soils to the atmosphere.
9.5.20
The following activities that may effect the ground conditions/contamination status of the site can
be anticipated during the operational phase:
 Washing of vehicles;
 Oil and fuel associated with motor vehicles;
 Oil, fuels or chemicals used in small volumes at residential properties; and
 Garden maintenance (pesticides, herbicides etc).
9.5.21
The increase in hardstanding surface cover across the site will limit the infiltration of any (likely
small scale) contamination arising from the above activities into the underlying ground and/or
groundwater.
9.5.22
In qualitative terms, given that the potential for both historical contamination and operational
contamination is considered to be low. Potential impacts arising from the operational phase
would be expected to be localised. Consequently, it is concluded that the significance of impacts
will range from negligible to minor.
181
Cumulative Effects
9.5.23
Only negligible to minor impacts have been identified in relation to ground conditions and
contamination associated with the proposed development.
9.5.24
The project is not considered to represent a significant risk in terms of future contamination of
soils, groundwater or surface waters as the sources of future contamination are limited.
Therefore, the project is not considered to make a significant contribution to any cumulative
adverse effect on these features in relation to ground conditions and contamination.
9.6
Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Construction Effects
9.6.1
Despite the negligible to minor potential impacts associated with the construction and
operational phase, the impact would be managed through the investigation of proposed
residential areas of the development site (where this is yet to be undertaken) to quantify soil
contaminant concentrations. The Phase II site investigation process includes quantitative
assessment of the risk to human health receptors from soil contaminants and any potential risk
would be mitigated through remediation techniques that would be designed through an options
appraisal process. A formal Remediation Strategy would be submitted to the Local Planning
Authority for acceptance prior to any remediation works being undertaken.
9.6.2
Furthermore, the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will set out
methodologies and protocols what measures should be taken if unexpected contamination is
identified during construction works. The CEMP will prescribe a wide range environmental
management procedures for implementation during the construction phase, including issues in
relation to ground conditions and contamination including but not limited to the following:
 The provision of appropriate Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) for workers;
 The implementation of industry standard practice dust suppression measures e.g.
dampening/sheeting of stockpiles and exposed soils;
 Site personnel will be vigilant for any unusual visual or odorous characteristics of the
earth which could indicate the presence of unexpected contamination;
 Maintenance of a ‘clean/dirty area’ regime, if contamination is identified. Smoking, eating
and drinking will not be permitted in the buildings and during demolition works. A high
standard of hygiene will be maintained at all times;
 With respect to public safety, the site will be secured;
 Appropriate disposal of waste soil generated during construction and demolition;
 Any soils imported for use will be certified ‘clean’ and suitable for use;
 Appropriate storage of potentially polluting materials and chemicals in accordance with
the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) Regulations (England) 2001; and
182
 Leaks or spillages of potentially polluting substances to be contained, collected then
removed from site in an appropriate manner e.g. use of absorbent material, bunding or
booms. An emergency action plan will be formulated which all site personnel will have
read and understood.
 In the unlikely event that previously unidentified soil contamination is identified during
development of the site remediation should be undertake under a watching brief following
consultation with the Local Planning Authority.
9.6.3
In qualitative terms, given that the potential for existing contamination is considered to be low,
the magnitude of impacts potentially arising during the construction phase would
correspondingly be Negligible, provided good environmental management practices are in place.
9.6.4
If any previously unidentified contamination is encountered during the construction phase, this
will be appropriately assessed and remediated under a watching brief as prescribed by the
CEMP and therefore a Moderate Beneficial impact would be associated with the proposed
development.
9.6.5
Potential impacts arising from the construction phase would be expected to be localised and
short-term. Consequently, it is concluded that the significance of impacts will range from
Negligible to Minor (in the event of failure to contain accidental spillage).
Operation/Permanent Effects
9.6.6
No specific mitigation measures
operation/permanent effects.
are
considered
to
be
necessary
in
relation
to
9.6.7
In the event that previously unidentified contamination is identified during development of the
site, or soil is impacted as a result of an accidental spillage during development the
contamination would be assessed and remediated under a watching brief following consultation
with the Local Planning Authority to ensure no significant residual impacts. These measures, as
prescribed by the CEMP, will mitigate the potential impact to human health receptors, therefore
the magnitude of impact is considered to be Negligible to Minor.
Residual Effects
9.6.8
In the case of all Brownfield development projects, there are potential risks to sensitive
receptors, such as construction workers, end users and controlled waters, from the disturbance
and mobilisation of ground contamination. However, these can be appropriately mitigated
through the implementation of environmental management practices during the construction
works, as discussed above.
9.6.9
Assuming the proposed mitigation measures are adopted, residual effects arising from ground
conditions and contamination at the site are considered to be of negligible significance during
both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development.
183
9.7
Summary and Conclusion
9.7.1
The Phase I Environmental investigation concluded that agricultural land use is unlikely to have
resulted in significant soil contamination. The risk to human health receptors and controlled
waters associated with current and historical land use is considered to be low.
9.7.2
The Phase I review identified a limited potential for diffuse pesticide contamination in soils,
localised contamination in close proximity to farm buildings and a limited risk associated with
ground gas. The Phase II Site Investigation and associated gas monitoring programme that
covered the initial development area did not identified any significant soil contamination or
ground gas concentrations.
9.7.3
Boulton Moor SSSI is located immediately to the west of the site, however the area of the site
close to the SSSI will remain as undeveloped open land and will form part of a country park.
The potential impact to the Boulton Moor SSSI is therefore considered to be negligible.
9.7.4
Prior to development of later phases of the site these areas will be subject to Site Investigation
to assess the risk to human health and controlled waster receptors associated with soil
contamination and ground gas. Any potential source-pathway –receptor linkages will be further
assessed or mitigated prior to development of that area of the site.
9.7.5
The CEMP will prescribe wide range environmental management procedures for implementation
during the construction phase, including issues in relation to ground conditions and
contamination.
9.7.6
Through the implementation of the above mitigation measures, including those specified in the
CEMP, it is considered that the effect of the project on Geology, Soils and Ground Conditions
including the associated risk to human health and controlled waters receptors is considered to
be Negligible to Minor during both the construction phase and operational phase.
184
10. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT
10.1
Introduction and Study Area
10.1.1
The proposed development would be primarily served by a new spine road, which would
eventually link Snelsmoor Lane (to the south) with the Chellaston Link Road (to the east), via the
adjoining Boulton Moor Phase 1 and 2 residential developments, both of which lie within the
South Derbyshire District Council area to the east.
A secondary access to the proposed
development would be provided from Field Lane (to provide vehicular access to no more than 50
dwellings and the primary school).
10.1.2
A Transport Assessment (TA) has been prepared of the proposed development and is submitted
in support of the planning applications to DCC and SDDC. The TA is included as Appendix
10.1 within this ES, and details all of the transport modelling and assessment that underpins this
ES.
10.2
Study Area and Consultation
10.2.1
The scope of the TA was discussed and agreed in advance with officers of DCC, which is the
local highway authority responsible for various parts of the adjoining road network. The study
area for the TA therefore comprises the following junctions, and all highway links that connect
them:
 Junction A: Snelsmoor Lane/Site Access – a proposed 3-arm normal (at-grade)
roundabout junction forming the primary access to the site.
 Junction B: Snelsmoor Lane/Fellow Lands Way – 3-arm normal (at-grade) roundabout
junction.
 Junction C: Snelsmoor Lane/Acrefield Way – 4-arm normal (at-grade) roundabout
junction. The southern arm provides access only to a private development.
 Junction D: A514 Derby Road/High Street/Station Road – 4-arm staggered crossroads junction controlled by traffic signals. It is referred to throughout this TA as the
"Chellaston High Street" junction.
 Junction E: A514 Derby Road/Maple Drive/Parkway – 4-arm normal (at-grade)
roundabout junction.
 Junction F: A514 Derby Road/Sutton Avenue – 3-arm simple priority “T” junction at
which the A514 forms the major (priority) route.
 Junction G: A514 Derby Road/Merrill Way/Boulton Lane – 4-arm cross-roads junction
controlled by traffic signals.
 Junction H: A514 Derby Road/A5111 Ostmaston Park Road/A5111 Harvey Road
(“Spider Island”) – 4-arm signalised at-grade roundabout junction with pedestrian
overbridges.
 Junction I: A5111 Harvey Road/A5111 Raynesway/Shardlow Road/Beech Avenue
(“Blue Peter junction”) – 4-arm normal (at-grade) roundabout junction (with additional
bus facilities and nearby signalised pedestrian crossings).
 Junction J: A6 London Road/A5111 Raynesway (“Raynesway Island”) – 3-arm
normal (at-grade) roundabout junction (with nearby signalised pedestrian crossings).
 Junction K: Shardlow Road/Bembridge Drive/Keldholme Lane – 4-arm normal (atgrade) roundabout junction.
185
 Junction L: Shardlow Road/Chellaston Link – 4-arm normal (at-grade) roundabout
junction. The eastern arm is constructed to dual-carriageway standards. Junction M:
A6 Bypass/B5010/Shardlow Road – 4-arm normal (at-grade) roundabout junction. All
arms except the B5010 are constructed to dual-carriageway standards.
 Junction N: A50/A514/Junction – grade-separated two-bridge roundabout that passes
above the A50, and to which it is connected by four one-way slip roads. The roundabout
is entirely subject to priority control (i.e. un-signalled).
10.2.2
It has been agreed with DCC that further assessments will be required following submission of
the TA, to be based on a full run of the Derby Area Transport Model (DATM). It has been
agreed with DCC that this supplementary information will be provided within an “Addendum TA”,
to be submitted after the planning application has been registered.
10.3
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
10.3.1
It is considered that the most significant transport-related policies of relevance to the proposal
are contained within the following documents:
 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
 The East Midlands Regional Plan (EMRP)
 The City of Derby Local Plan Review and Local Development Framework
 The South Derbyshire Local Plan and Local Development Framework
 The Third Local Transport Plan for Nottinghamshire, 2011-2026 (LTP3)
 "The 6Cs Design Guide" – DCC's adopted guidelines on infrastructure requirements for
new developments.
10.3.2
The transport policy framework relevant to this ES, as set out in the above documents, is
reviewed below. Non-transport polices are covered by other elements of the planning
submission.
The NPPF
 In the context of transport, the NPPF guides decision makers to apply the following key
principles:
 Encourage development that balances the transport system in favour of sustainable
modes, recognising that policies and measures required will vary according to location;
 Encourage solutions that support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and
congestion;
 Provide strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure as required to support
sustainable development, working with neighbouring authorities where necessary.
10.3.3
The NPPF states that all developments generating significant movement should be supported by
a TA or a Transport Statement. Schemes generating significant movement should also be
accompanied by a Travel Plan. Plans and decisions should then take account of whether:
186
 Opportunities for sustainable transport have been taken up as a means of reducing
infrastructure requirements;
 Safe and sustainable access can be provided for all;
 Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network to cost effectively limit the
significant impacts of the scheme.
10.3.4
The NPPF states clearly that development should only be refused or prevented where the
residual cumulative impacts of the scheme are severe.
10.3.5
As in previous national guidance, there is a requirement to ensure that development generating
significant movements is located where it can be accessed by sustainable travel modes. Priority
should be given to walking, cycling and public transport and conflicts between vehicles and
vulnerable road users should be minimised through effective layout design.
Regional Planning Policy
10.3.6
Notwithstanding recent policy changes regarding regional planning, the EMRP provides a longterm land use and transport planning framework for the region up to 2026. In addition to
identifying the general distribution of new housing and other development, it incorporates a
Regional Transport Strategy (RTS), which sets out a number of specific transport policies for
new development. The most relevant of these in terms of transport and the proposed
development are as follows:
 Policy 43 – requires local authorities to support regeneration priorities and to promote
opportunities for modal shift away from the private car via innovative transport measures.
It is considered that the proposed development would, through the development of a
Residential Travel Plan, provide such an opportunity.
 Policy 44 – sets out objectives and priorities for transport infrastructure and services in
the Three Cities Sub-Area, within which the site lies. There are specific requirements to
reduce car use and develop public transport links between the various parts of the region,
particularly the main urban areas, and to encourage the use of walking and cycling.
 Policy 45 – requires local authorities to contribute to progressive reductions in traffic
growth via the promotion of measures to manage the demand for travel, improve the
quality and quantity of public transport and encourage walking and cycling for short
journeys.
 Policy 46 – sets out requirements of local authorities in securing behavioural change as a
means of reducing travel. For new developments, there is a requirement to develop and
enforce travel plans and to provide safe access for pedestrians and cyclists and secure
cycle parking. The need to develop quality transport partnerships is also emphasised.
 Policy 48 – states that maximum parking provision for new development should not
exceed PPG13 guidelines, with more challenging levels being set where appropriate
(however, PPG13 has recently been superseded by the NPPF - see above).
187
City of Derby Local Plan Review (CLDPR) and Local Development Framework
10.3.7
The current development plan for the area comprises the saved policies of the CDLPR. This
document will eventually be replaced by the Local Development Framework (LDF). The local
policies of greatest significance to this TA are as follows:
 Policy T1 – requires the submission of a TA in support of development proposals to
identify the impact of the scheme and to propose suitable mitigation measures where
necessary.
Travel Plans must also be provided for development proposals of
significance. This TA and the accompanying Draft Travel Plan seek to address this
requirement.
 Policy T4 – states that planning permission will only be granted for development that
makes safe provision for access/egress by pedestrians, cyclists, powered two-wheelers
(PTWs), public transport users and private cars. Service vehicle access and appropriate
parking for cars, cycles and PTWs must also be provided.
 Policy T5 – states that the City Council will improve the pedestrian environment around
community uses, such as schools and will, where appropriate, seek to secure
improvements from developers such as safe, accessible and convenient links alongside
and/or within a development site.
 Policy T6 – states that, in considering planning applications for new development, the City
Council will seek to secure safe links to the strategically important cycle network,
contributions towards enhancement of this network and the provision of safe routes and
suitable facilities for cyclists within the development.
 Policy T8 – states that the City Council will promote public transport and will seek to
ensure that development does not adversely affect existing or proposed bus facilities.
Development should also take into account access by bus and taxi users. Where
appropriate, the City Council will seek to negotiate improvements to public transport as
part of development proposals, in order to reduce the need to travel by car.
 Policy T12 – proposes a new road to link Wilmore Lane at Sinfin with Holmleigh Way at
Chellaston (thus connecting Sinfin to the A50). The new route is expected to remove
some traffic from the A514. It is understood that this scheme now has provisional funding
and is proposed for implementation by late 2014; i.e. – around the same time as the
proposed development. DCC has confirmed that its transport effects therefore need to be
considered in this TA.
 Policy T13 – states that planning permission will not be granted for development that
prejudices the re-use of former canals or railway lines which have an existing or potential
function.
 Policy T14 – states that planning permission will not be granted for development that
would either sever existing PRoW or prejudice access to them, unless an alternative route
is secured that is at least equally safe, attractive and convenient.
188
 Policy T15 – identifies various proposed new routes for pedestrians, cyclists and horse
riders. These include a route from the adjacent Fellow Lands Way application site (T15
(5)), which would potentially improve pedestrian and cyclists access between the
proposed development and the former Derby Canal (part of the National Cycle Network)
to the north.
10.3.8
The Local Plan will eventually be superseded by the LDF, which is now being prepared. The
LDF will comprise a series of documents, including the Core Strategy, which will provide
strategic policies on the location and scale of development in the City.
10.3.9
The PGS identified the Snelsmoor Grange development site as a preferred allocation site
capable of providing 800 dwellings (site ref: DER/0105). Development is closely associated with
the neighbouring allocation sites in South Derbyshire; Boulton Moor Phase 1 (1058 dwellings,
with outline planning consent) and Boulton Moor Phase 2 (700 dwellings as currently proposed).
10.3.10
The PGS identifies two options for addressing future traffic growth arising from new development
in the Sinfin area; one being the aforementioned link road (CDLPR Policy T12) and the other
being a new junction with the A50. The former is a committed scheme modelled within DATM,
while the latter currently has no firm status and cannot therefore be taken into account in the TA.
10.3.11
The delivery of the T12 Link Road is closely associated with the proposed Chellaston Business
Park, which was previously granted planning permission by DCC. The proposal is now the
subject of a series of planning applications for the renewal of those consents. DCC has
requested that both the Chellaston Business Park and T12 be treated as committed
developments for the purpose of the TA, and considers that both will be in place within the
assessment period covered by the TA.
South Derbyshire District Council (SDDC) Local Plan and Local Development Framework
10.3.12
The current development plan for South Derbyshire comprises the saved policies of the 1998
adopted Local Plan. This document will eventually be replaced by the Local Development
Framework (LDF), but in the meantime is supplemented by a “Planning Policy Position
Statement”, which identifies other documents and material considerations of relevance when
preparing and determining planning applications. Some of these documents (planning policy
guidance notes and the RSS) have been or are to be superseded by the NPPF and/or LDF.
10.3.13
Based on a review of South Derbyshire planning documents, and with due regard to changes
made to planning procedure in recent years, the following policies of greatest significance to this
TA are considered to be as follows:
 Policy T6 – states that major development should be located close to the principal road
network but should not prejudice the free and safe flow of traffic. All development should
include adequate means of access, parking and servicing. Where appropriate, the
Council will seek to negotiate Section 106 contributions towards the cost of necessary
highway improvements.
 Policy T7 – provides for the improvement of infrastructure to assist pedestrians and
people with disabilities as resources permit.
189
 Policy T8 – provides for the improvement of the local cycle network, including the re-use
of disused transport corridors such as canals and railway lines as resources permit.
Provision for the needs of cyclists is to be made in all highway improvements and traffic
management schemes.
10.3.14
The forthcoming SDDC PSG identifies several “preferred sites” for residential development in
the vicinity of Snelsmoor Grange. Boulton Moor Phase 1 (SDDC ref: DUA PP1) has outline
planning consent for a total development of 1058 dwellings, while Boulton Moor Phase 2 (SDDC
ref: DUA2) would yield a further 700 dwellings. The PSG states that the road network is likely to
have sufficient capacity to support a development of this scale, and is likely to be accessible by
public transport, being close to a proposed Park and Ride site.
10.3.15
Boulton Moor Phase 1 has planning consent and must therefore be treated as a committed
scheme for the subsequent assessments presented in this TA. However, the Boulton Moor
Phase 2 scheme does not yet benefit from a planning consent and is not therefore regarded as a
committed development for the purpose of the TA.
Derby Local Transport Plan (LTP3)
10.3.16
DCC’s third Local Transport Plan covers the period 2011 to 2026, with a shorter-term
Implementation Plan. The overall objectives of LTP3 are to support economic growth whilst
encouraging sustainable travel, improving safety and health addressing climate change.
10.3.17
The LTP identifies the A514 corridor as experiencing peak period congestion, particularly at the
A50 end. The northern section of the A514, approaching the junction with the A5111 Outer Ring
Road (“Spider Island”) is identified as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), for which an Air
Quality Action Plan (AQAP) has been developed. The potential traffic impact of the proposed
development within this area is considered in Chapter 7 of the TA, but is to be subject of more
detailed assessments to follow.
10.3.18
The first LTP3 Implementation Plan covers the three-year period 2011-2013, and contains a
number of County-wide and local schemes for delivery during this period. However, the only
significant LTP scheme that would affect the network in the vicinity of the proposed development
is the proposed the T12 Link Road from Holmleigh Way to Wilmore Road.
10.3.19
The LTP is supported by a number of policy and guidance documents including the "6Cs Design
Guide" which the City Council’s adopted guidance on development transport infrastructure
requirements and specifications. The access and internal infrastructure required to serve the
proposed development will be designed with due regard to this guidance. The TA itself has also
been prepared with regard to the advice given in the 6C’s Design Guide.
10.4
Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria
Impact Assessment Methodology
10.4.1
The majority of the assessment work required for the ES is taken directly from work within the
TA. The TA itself has been prepared in accordance with the pre-application consultations with
DCC and with due regard to the Department for Transport's "Guidance on Transport
Assessment" (March 2007), Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 2/2007 and relevant
national, regional and local planning policy.
190
10.4.2
The TA report has been structured as follows:
 The site and conditions of the surrounding highway and transport networks are described
(including local accident records);
 The site’s accessibility by sustainable travel modes is assessed;
 Relevant transport policies and proposals are reviewed;
 The proposed development scheme and its vehicular access arrangements are
described;
 The proposed strategies for providing access to the site by walking, cycling and public
transport are summarised;
 The trip generation and traffic flow forecasts for future year scenarios with and without the
proposed development are presented;
 The net residual impact of the development scheme on the surrounding highway network
is considered;
 Where appropriate, junction capacity assessments are provided;
 The proposed off-site mitigation strategy is confirmed; and
 The main findings of the TA are summarised and conclusions are presented.
10.4.3
The TA therefore estimates the traffic flows associated with the proposed development, and
provides numerical assessment of the resultant traffic flows throughout the study area. These
flows then allow modelling of the resultant impacts on junction operation with regard to specific
technical criteria (e.g. Ratio of Flow-to-Capacity, queuing and delay).
10.4.4
With regard to personal injury traffic accidents, the TA examines the Personal Injury Accident
(PIA) records for the local area and determines sites of potential concern for further analysis.
Such analysis is somewhat limited by the data available (for reasons of confidentiality and data
protection, not all accident details have been provided) but in essence focuses on the likely
cause of an accident, the vehicles involved and their movements.
10.4.5
Where other potential environmental concerns which would not normally form part of a TA are to
be examined with regard to transport impact (e.g. driver stress, view from the road etc.),
appropriate guidance with the “Design Manual for Roads and Bridges” has been followed. This
usually indicates assessment on a coarse, graduated scale by visual assessment and
engineering judgement.
Significance Criteria – Network Capacity
10.4.6
For the purposes of network capacity assessment individual junctions are considered to act as
receptors under the matrix assessment methodology. To assess where material traffic flow
increases would occur within the study area, both volumetric and percentage changes in traffic
flow have been considered (as detailed within the TA). This allows for determination of which
junctions need to be examined in further detail.
191
10.4.7
With regard to volumetric assessment, the advice provided within the DfT’s “Guidance on
Transportation Assessment” has been followed. This document suggests that a two-way
increase in traffic flow of more than 30 vehicles would normally require detailed assessment.
10.4.8
With regard to percentage assessment the DfT guidelines provide no specific thresholds for
material traffic flow increases and do not advocate the use of percentage thresholds alone to
determine where there is a material increase in traffic flow. However, previous guidance and
industry practice suggests that a 5% increase in traffic flow could be considered to be a material
impact.
10.4.9
Use of both volumetric and percentage methodologies in combination provides a robust
methodology for determining at which junctions within the study area traffic impacts can be
considered material. Junctions A to G, and Junctions K to N are thus deemed subject to
material traffic impacts (as detailed within the TA).
10.4.10
With regard to Sensitivity (Value) of the each receptor it is deemed that Highways Agency (HA)
junctions, being part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN), are of ‘High’ sensitivity in accordance
with Section 1.9.10 of this ES. Impacted junctions on key radial routes (the A514 Derby Road
and Shardlow Road) are deemed to be of ‘Medium’ sensitivity, while below this junctions on nonradial routes are deemed to be of ‘Low’ sensitivity. As such, the sensitivity of each junction
(receptor) can be summarised as follows:








Junction A: Snelsmoor Lane/Site Access – Low
Junction B: Snelsmoor Lane/Fellow Lands Way – Low
Junction C: Snelsmoor Lane/Acrefield Way – Low
Junction D: A514 Derby Road/High Street/Station Road – Medium
Junction E: A514 Derby Road/Maple Drive/Parkway – Medium
Junction F: A514 Derby Road/Sutton Avenue – Medium
Junction G: A514 Derby Road/Merrill Way/Boulton Lane – Medium
Junction H to J – N/A (no material impact)
 Junction K: Shardlow Road/Bembridge Drive/Keldholme Lane – Medium
 Junction L: Shardlow Road/Chellaston Link – Medium
 Junction M: A6 Bypass/B5010/Shardlow Road – High
 Junction N: A50/A514/Junction – High
10.4.11
Notwithstanding the fact that numerical values can be assigned to several individual aspects of
junction operation (including Ratio of Flow-to-Capacity, queuing and delay), it is not appropriate
to consider each value independently with regard to Magnitude of Impact. Instead the overall
magnitude is derived through consideration of specific junction layout, local circumstance and
engineering judgement in combination with these values. Following this process it is then
possible to assign a significance to effect on junction operation in accordance with the Matrix
Assessment methodology discussed in Sections 1.9.11 to 1.9.13 of this ES.
Significance Criteria – Accident Data
10.4.12
For the purposes of the TA and this ES accident sites of concern have been taken to include any
location with more three or more accidents in 5 years, and any serious / fatal accident where the
location of the accident can be identified. This has led to the identification of 21 accident sites
192
for further analysis, which are considered to act as receptors under the matrix assessment
methodology. These sites and the accidents occurring at them are detailed within the TA.
10.4.13
For the purposes of Sensitivity (Value), each accident site is assigned a severity based on the
route on which it lies. As detailed above, HA managed roads are deemed to be of ‘High’
sensitivity, radial routes of ‘Medium’ sensitivity and other routes of ‘Low’ sensitivity. On this
basis the sites can be grouped by Sensitivity (Value) as follows:
 High: Sites 7 and 12
 Medium: Sites 1-6 and 13-21
 Low: Sites 8-11
10.4.14
With regard to the Magnitude of Impact at each accident site (receptor) this is determined
through a function of forecast traffic flow increase at that location and the perceived existing
risk/hazards at the location, combined with engineering judgement in relation to specific local
circumstances, actual turning movements and so forth.
Following this process it is then
possible to assign a significance to effect on junction operation in accordance with the Matrix
Assessment methodology discussed in Sections 1.9.11 to 1.9.13 of this ES.
Significance Criteria – Other Impacts
10.4.15
Where “Design Manual for Roads and Bridges” indicates assessment of additional transport
impacts on a coarse, graduated scale the significance criteria applied are as recommended by
the relevant guidance (e.g. low/medium/high).
10.5
Existing Baseline Conditions
Traffic Flows and Network Capacity
10.5.1
The basis for traffic impact assessments within the TA is a set of forecast AM and PM traffic
flows from DATM, for assessment years of 2014 and 2026, as supplied by DCC. These flows
are understood to contain all traffic growth associated with committed and planned major
developments in the vicinity of the site and the wider Derby City area.
10.5.2
The DATM forecasts thus include the proposed T12 Link Road from Holmleigh Way to Wilmore
Road and the closely associated Chellaston Business Park. They also include the consented
Boulton Moor Phase 1 development to the east of Snelsmoor Grange.
10.5.3
The above approach has been agreed in advance with DCC. It has also been agreed that a full
bespoke DATM assessment of the scheme will need to be undertaken following submission of
the TA, to provide sensitivity tests of the impact assessments presented in this report. This
further test will allow for dynamic reassignment of traffic flows in response to changing traffic
conditions at various parts of the highway network, and will be presented in a TA Addendum in
due course.
10.5.4
However, the “static” assessments of traffic impact presented in the TA are based on fixed
assumptions regarding the assignment of development and other traffic, and do not allow for
factors such as modal shift, reassignment to alternative routes or re-timing of journeys. The TA
is therefore considered to be robust and sufficient to support the outline planning application.
193
Accident Data and Accident Risk
10.5.5
Travis Baker has recently examined several sites in Chellaston and a PIA dataset is therefore
already available for much of the study area. This data was obtained from Derbyshire
Constabulary (DC) for the complete 5-year period from 01/09/2007 to 31/08/2012.
10.5.6
This original dataset has now been supplemented by additional data covering an enlarged study
area as required for consideration of the Snelsmoor Grange development. The supplementary
datasets cover the complete 5-year period from 01/12/2007 to 30/11/2012.
10.5.7
Whilst there is a three month discrepancy between the datasets, coverage of at least 5-years is
available at all locations in the study area in accordance with accepted requirements. It is
therefore considered that a combined analysis based on these datasets is valid for the purposes
of accident cluster identification.
Other Impacts
10.5.8
Where “Design Manual for Roads and Bridges” indicates assessment of additional transport
impacts not usually considered within a TA such considerations are largely qualitative and as
such it is not possible to predetermine appropriate baseline data.
10.6
Assessment of Impacts
Construction Effects
10.6.1
Prior to the commencement of construction, the developer will submit a Construction Traffic
Management Plan (CTMP) to the planning and highway authorities. The Plan will outline
predicted vehicle movements, proposed routes and any special arrangements that might be
required for the movement of large vehicles on the highway network.
10.6.2
It is highly unlikely that construction traffic would be volumetrically greater (in Passenger Car
Unit terms) than the traffic associated with the completed development, not least as such traffic
will typically be scheduled to avoid peak hours wherever possible. As such, construction traffic
would not result in detrimental effects on network capacity or increase accident risk beyond the
significance of values already determined for development traffic. As such, no further
assessment of construction traffic is considered appropriate at this time.
10.6.3
While there may be other detrimental effects associated with construction vehicles (such as any
increased noise and/or pollution arising from large numbers of heavy vehicles and construction
plant) these effects are assessed elsewhere within this ES. Notwithstanding this the aim of the
CTMP will be to minimise nuisance and disturbance to residents of both Boulton and Chellaston,
and to avoid unnecessary disruption to the highway network during construction of the proposed
accesses.
10.6.4
All car parking provision for construction-related staff will be made on-site, to minimise on-street
parking. Details of the number of spaces to be provided will also be detailed within the above
CTMP.
194
Permanent/Operational Impacts – Network Capacity
10.6.5
The Magnitude of Impact at each junction has been determined by engineering judgement as to
the overall effects of various modelling outputs on junction operation, as detailed above and
discussed in the TA.
10.6.6
This overall effects have then been placed within ‘bands’ of magnitude equivalent to those
identified Section 1.of this ES, taking into account the existing operation of the junction in the
“No Development” case with regard to loss of performance.
10.6.7
On this basis, the Magnitudes of Impact for each junction can be said to be as follows:












10.6.8
Junction A: Snelsmoor Lane/Site Access – N/A (constructed by development)
Junction B: Snelsmoor Lane/Fellow Lands Way – No change
Junction C: Snelsmoor Lane/Acrefield Way – No change
Junction D: A514 Derby Road/High Street/Station Road – Moderate
Junction E: A514 Derby Road/Maple Drive/Parkway – Minor
Junction F: A514 Derby Road/Sutton Avenue – Minor
Junction G: A514 Derby Road/Merrill Way/Boulton Lane – Minor
Junction H to J – N/A (no material impact)
Junction K: Shardlow Road/Bembridge Drive/Keldholme Lane – No change
Junction L: Shardlow Road/Chellaston Link – Negligible
Junction M: A6 Bypass/B5010/Shardlow Road – Minor
Junction N: A50/A514 grade-separated junction – Minor
Considering the Sensitivity (value) of each junction and applying the above Magnitude of Impact
results in the following Significance category being assigned to each junction, in accordance with
Section 1.9.13 of this ES:












Junction A: Snelsmoor Lane/Site Access – N/A (constructed by development)
Junction B: Snelsmoor Lane/Fellow Lands Way – Neutral
Junction C: Snelsmoor Lane/Acrefield Way – Neutral
Junction D: A514 Derby Road/High Street/Station Road – Moderate
Junction E: A514 Derby Road/Maple Drive/Parkway – Slight
Junction F: A514 Derby Road/Sutton Avenue – Slight
Junction G: A514 Derby Road/Merrill Way/Boulton Lane – Slight
Junction H to J – N/A (no material impact)
Junction K: Shardlow Road/Bembridge Drive/Keldholme Lane – Neutral
Junction L: Shardlow Road/Chellaston Link – Slight / Neutral
Junction M: A6 Bypass/B5010/Shardlow Road – Moderate / Slight
Junction N: A50/A514 grade-separated junction – Moderate / Slight
Permanent/Operational Impacts – Accident Risk
10.6.9
The Magnitude of Impact at each accident site has been determined by engineering judgement
as to the overall effects increased flow and existing accident risk at each site. This overall effect
has then been placed within a ‘band’ of magnitude based on an equivalency with Section 1.9.11
of this ES.
10.6.10
On this basis, the Magnitudes of Impact for each accident site can be said to be as follows:
195




10.6.11
Negligible:
Minor negative:
Moderate negative:
Major negative:
Sites 3, 5, 6, 16 and 21
Sites 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 20
Sites 7, 11, 15 and 19
Sites 4 and 10
Considering the Sensitivity (value) of each site and applying the above Magnitude of Impact
results in the following Significance category being assigned to each site, in accordance with
Section 1.9.13 of this ES:





Neutral / Slight negative:
Slight negative:
Slight / Moderate negative:
Moderate negative:
Moderate / Large negative:
Sites 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16 and 21
Sites 1, 2, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 20
Sites 10 and 12
Sites 15 and 19
Sites 4 and 7
Permanent/Operational Impacts – Other Impacts
10.6.12
With regard to journey times for non-motorised users it is expected that the development will
have No Effect on any existing non-motorised trips made within Chellaston and Boulton.
Capacity of pedestrian and cycle routes in these areas is not an issue. While the proposed
development will further extend the network of non-motorised routes within the local area the
principal users of the new sections will be residents of the development.
10.6.13
With regard to several other possible impacts it is only considered appropriate to examine these
on the Snelsmoor Lane development frontage itself. On all other links throughout the study area
the existing character of the highway links is unlikely to be substantially altered, and the effect of
the flow increases described within the TA is unlikely to impact on significantly criteria other than
network capacity.
10.6.14
Accordingly, the additional issues considered only on Snelsmoor Lane are as follows:
 Amenity
 Severance
 View from the Road
 Driver Stress
10.6.15
With regard to Amenity (which is defined by the DMRB as “the relative pleasantness of a
journey for pedestrians and others”) it is expected the development would have a slight positive
impact. The provision of a new foot/cycleway along parts of Snelsmoor Lane would be of
benefit to any non-motorised users in this area, whilst the pleasantness of the route for car
drivers would be largely unaffected.
10.6.16
With regard to Severance (which is defined by the DMRB as “the separation of residents from
facilities and services… caused by increased traffic flow”) it is expected the development would
have a No Effect, as no facilities of note are provided south of Snelsmoor Lane itself. Beyond
Snelsmoor Lane pedestrians etc will still use able to use existing crossing facilities on major
radial routes.
196
10.6.17
‘View from the Road’ is influenced by the quality and variety of the view taken from a given
carriageway. It is considered that the proposed development would have Negligible Effect on
‘View from the Road’. While an extension of the built-form may slightly reduce variety the highquality nature of the development’s architecture and creation of the new county park would
conversely increase quality of the view from Snelsmoor Lane.
10.6.18
Driver Stress is defined in the DMRB as “the adverse mental and physiological effects
experienced by a driver traversing through a road network [sic]”. It comprises a function of a
driver’s frustration (typically with traffic/congestion), fear of accidents and their certainty or
otherwise as to the route being followed. Of these issues the first two have been addressed
elsewhere within the TA and this ES across the local highway network. With regard to routefinding existing users of Snelsmoor Lane are mostly local drivers well aware of the route
followed, which would remain unaltered with regard to decision points with the sole exception of
the site access roundabout (and at which clear signage would be provided). Accordingly, the
only change to Driver Stress is that the Snelsmoor bends realignment would reduce fear of
accidents, potentially decreasing their stress level from “Medium” to “Low”, which would equate
to a Moderate positive effect.
Cumulative Effects
10.6.19
The cumulative impacts of the proposed development in combination with other committed
schemes (i.e. those with planning consent) in the locality have been fully assessed as part of the
overall modelling work undertaken within the TA. The results show that cumulative impacts can
be substantially accommodated by the existing highway network, or by the provision of
mitigation works as identified below.
10.6.20
Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Network Capacity
10.6.21
Junction D (A514 / High Street / Station Street) is the only junction at which a Moderate negative
effect (or worse) could be caused by increased traffic associated with the proposed
development.
10.6.22
Based on the traffic demands identified using the currently available DATM data, the only
options for significantly increasing the junction’s capacity would be to provide additional lanes on
either the High Street or A514 southbound approaches. In this case of High Street, this is not
possible without impacts on adjacent land and property.
10.6.23
However, there is scope to widen the A514 southbound approach to provide two lanes, using
part of the verge in the south-east quadrant of the junction. This scheme would require removal
of the existing advanced cycle stop-lines and reservoirs from the A514 approaches. However,
the proposed development would create new links for cyclists between the High Street corridor
and NCN Routes 6 and 66, which can be accessed via quiet routes such as Glenmoor Road,
Fellow Lands Way and Field Lane. As a result, the removal of these facilities and the
encouragement of cyclists to divert away from a heavily trafficked junction onto quieter signed
routes are likely to be of benefit to road safety.
197
10.6.24
This scheme would result in the junction operating within capacity at 2026 with the full
development in place, in contrast to the junction currently operating over capacity. It would thus
provide a Moderate positive effect once implemented.
Accident Risk
10.6.25
In general it is considered that while assigning given sensitivity to various receptors is valid for
many ES assessments it is less suitable in the case of accident risk analysis. Any risk of
serious or fatal injury to road users should be given equal weighting regardless of the relative
prominence of a link within the wider network, and as such some of the sites detailed below
comment on this accordingly.
10.6.26
Accident sites 10 and 12 (as identified within the TA) would incur Slight / Moderate negative
effects with regard to road safety as a result of the development.
10.6.27
At Site 10 it is proposed to realign the Snelsmoor Lane bends, using land south of Snelsmoor
Lane which is within the control of Bellway Homes. This would result in the removal of four tight,
alternating bends, and their replacement with two new curves of more generous radius, which
have been designed in accordance with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Design
Standard TD9/93. The effects of this scheme should be to reduce accidents in the area, with
the likely effect being categorised as a Slight / Moderate positive effect. This is considered
especially important as the assignment of a ‘Low’ sensitivity to Snelsmoor Lane may otherwise
downplay the accident concerns at the Snelsmoor Lane bends within this ES.
10.6.28
With regard to Site 12 it is considered that the magnitude of effect in this area is insufficient to
propose alterations to a major HA junction. It is also noted that the assignment of a ‘High’
sensitivity to the HA junctions magnifies the effects of accident risk and as such may raise
disproportionate concern in this ES when compared to the more detailed accident assessment
within the TA.
10.6.29
Accident sites 15 and 19 (as identified within the TA) would incur Moderate negative effects with
regard to road safety as a result of the development.
10.6.30
At Site 15 (the junction of Shardlow Road / Field Lane) it is proposed to provide a traffic calming
feature, such as a vehicle activated sign on the northbound approach to the junction which
would both improve the awareness of the Field Lane junction and assist in slowing the
approaching traffic. It is anticipated this would mitigate the effects of the development resulting
in a negligible overall effect on accident risk at this junction.
10.6.31
With regard to Site 19 (Chellaston Road between Carlton Avenue and Weston Park Avenue) it is
has not been possible to determine a common cause for the two serious accidents at this
location. As such it is considered that the effect at this point may be being distorted by a chance
occurrence of two serious but unrelated incidents, and as such no mitigation is proposed.
10.6.32
Accident sites 4 and 7 (as identified within the TA) would incur Moderate / Large negative effects
with regard to road safety as a result of the development.
10.6.33
With regard to Site 4 (Junction D) it is anticipated that the capacity-led scheme detailed above
would also have at least a Slight / Moderate positive effect on accident risk at this junction.
198
10.6.34
With regard to Site 7 (Junction N) it is understood that an improvement scheme for the junction
was agreed at the South Derbyshire Public Inquiry (SDPI). The Chellaston Business Park TA
acknowledges that the Chellaston Business Park development would be required to fund this
scheme by means of a developer contribution. However, it is understood that the trigger level at
which this contribution becomes payable is still being discussed with the HA, who are in turn
considering whether the SDPI Scheme remains a suitable solution. It is assumed such an
improvement scheme would help mitigate existing accident risk at this junction, which would in
turn reduce the attributed significance of the effect of the proposed Snelsmoor Grange
development on road safety at the junction. As such, no further mitigation is proposed at this
time.
10.7
Residual Effects
10.7.1
As demonstrated above, the proposed development would deliver positive effects at the A514/
High Street /Station Street junction, a known congestion hot-spot, and mitigate the accident risk
of the Snelsmoor Lane bends.
10.7.2
The proposed development may still cause some negative effects on network capacity and
accident risk following implementation of the identified mitigation strategy. However, the vast
majority of these would be rated at Slight /Moderate negative or below, and as such should not
prevent delivery of the above positive benefits at two key locations on the transport network, nor
of the wider positive benefits detailed within this ES and the wider planning application.
10.8
Summary and Conclusion
10.8.1
The assessment of environmental effects on the highway and transport network is based on a
detailed TA, the scope of which was discussed and agreed in advance with officers of DCC, the
local highway authority responsible for various parts of the adjoining road network. The TA was
been prepared in accordance with the pre-application consultations with DCC and with regard to
the national, regional and local planning policy.
10.8.2
This environmental assessment has considered the impacts both of the construction of the
development and of the completed scheme.
10.8.3
Construction traffic is not expected to be volumetrically greater than the traffic associated with
the completed development, and such traffic will be scheduled to avoid peak hours wherever
possible.
Construction traffic would not, therefore, result in detrimental effects to network
capacity or increase accident risk beyond the extent predicted for development traffic.
10.8.4
The completed scheme is predicted to have Minor or Negligible impacts at the majority of
locations. Moderate impacts are predicted at A514 Derby Road/High Street/Station Road traffic
signal junction and these are to be mitigated by a proposed minor improvement scheme which is
presented in the TA for consideration by DCC. This scheme is expected to provide a net benefit
in terms of congestion and delay.
10.8.5
In terms of road safety, the scheme could have adverse impacts at the Snelsmoor Lane bends,
to the south-east of the site. It is therefore proposed that these bends will be realigned, and this
is expected to reduce accidents in the area to the overall benefit of road safety being positive.
Elsewhere, overall safety effects are not considered sufficient to warrant major intervention,
other than minor traffic management measures.
199
10.8.6
With regard to journey times for non-motorised users, it is expected that the development will
have No Effect on any existing non-motorised trips made within Chellaston and Boulton. The
proposed development will further extend the network of non-motorised routes within the local
area, to the benefit of both development users and the wider community.
10.8.7
Other impacts in the vicinity of Snelsmoor lane, (driver stress, severance, view from the road,
etc.) would range from Slight/Moderate positive impact to No Effect or Negligible Effect.
10.8.8
The cumulative impacts of the proposed development in combination with other committed
schemes (i.e. those with planning consent) in the locality have been fully assessed as part of the
overall modelling work undertaken. The results show that cumulative impacts identified can be
substantially accommodated by the existing highway network, or through the provision of
mitigation works.
10.8.9
The proposed development may result in some negative residual effects on network capacity
and accident risk following implementation of the identified mitigation strategy. However, the
vast majority of these would be rated at Slight /Moderate negative or below, and as such should
not prevent delivery of the above positive benefits at two key locations on the transport network,
nor of the wider positive benefits detailed within this ES and the wider planning application.
200
11. AIR QUALITY
11.1
Introduction and Study Area
11.1.1
This chapter details the air quality assessment undertaken for the proposed development at
Boulton Moor, to the south east of Derby. DCC has designated several Air Quality Management
Areas (AQMAs), all due to high levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentration attributed to road
traffic emissions. An AQMA is also designated for 54 dwellings at the northern end of Victory
Road, 2.5 km from the proposed development, due to high levels of particulate matter (PM10)
attributable to activities at the adjacent QDF Components Ltd foundry site. It is expected that
the Victory Road AQMA will be revoked in the future following the closure of the foundry in
autumn 2005. The nearest AQMA to the proposed development is an area encompassing the
ring-roads, located approximately 1.2 km to the north.
11.1.2
The key objectives of the air quality assessment are:
 Construction Effects: to evaluate the effects from fugitive dust and exhaust emissions
associated with construction activities and recommend appropriate mitigation measures;
 Operational Effects: to describe the significance of the air quality effects resulting from
changes in traffic flow characteristics on the local road network due to the operation of the
Proposed Development, with due regard for the air quality effects on the nearest AQMA;
and
 Site Suitability: to establish the environmental suitability of the proposed development
site for its proposed uses, having regard to the appropriate air quality criteria.
11.1.3
This chapter begins by setting out the policy and legislative context for the assessment. The
methods and criteria used to assess potential air quality effects are then described. Local
authority documents and the results of local monitoring have been reviewed to establish existing
air quality conditions. The results of a risk assessment of nuisance dust effects and effects from
vehicle and plant exhaust emissions during construction are set out. Predicted pollutant
concentrations at the façades of proposed and existing properties are presented to determine
the suitability of the site and the operational effects of the development. Where potentially
adverse air quality effects have been identified, measures to eliminate, reduce or mitigate the
effects are proposed.
11.2
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
European Legislation
11.2.1
The European Union Framework Directive 2008/50/EC [x] on ambient air quality assessment
and management came into force in May 2008 and had to be implemented by Member States,
including the UK, by June 2010. The Directive aims to protect human health and the
environment by avoiding, reducing or preventing harmful concentrations of air pollutants.
201
National Legislation
Air Quality Standards Regulations
11.2.2
The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 [xi] implement limit values prescribed by the
Directive 2008/50/EC. The limit values are legally binding and the Secretary of State, on behalf
of the UK Government, is responsible for their implementation.
UK Air Quality Strategy
11.2.3
The first Air Quality Strategy was published in March 1997 setting out policies for the
management of ambient air quality and thus fulfilling the requirement of the Environment Act
1995 for a national air quality strategy. This was reviewed and a revised Air Quality Strategy
(AQS) for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland [xii] was published in January 2000.
The AQS described the Government’s strategy for improving air quality in the UK. One of the
key aspects of the strategy was the setting of air quality objectives for eight pollutants, namely
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulates and
sulphur dioxide. The objectives are statements of policy intentions made by the UK Government
and its Devolved Administrations. The AQS objectives are based on the evidence supporting
the identification of the limit values and, in some instances, are more onerous than the
requirements established by the limit values.
11.2.4
The Government announced tighter objectives for particulates (since removed), benzene and
carbon monoxide and a new objective for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in an Addendum to
the AQS [xiii], published in February 2003. The Addendum included new provisional objectives
for particulates in addition to existing objectives within the 2000 Strategy.
11.2.5
The current UK AQS [xiv] was published in July 2007 and updates the original strategy to set out
new objectives for local authorities in undertaking their local air quality management duties.
Objectives in the current AQS are in some cases more onerous than the limit values set out
within the relevant EU Directives and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. In addition,
objectives have been established for a wider range of pollutants.
11.2.6
Under the AQS, local authorities have a duty to review and assess local air quality within their
administrative area. The Review & Assessment (R&A) process requires local authorities to
undertake a phased assessment to identify any areas likely to experience exceedences of the
air quality objectives. The process involves regular Progress Reports and Updating and
Screening Assessments (USAs). If required, the authority must progress to Detailed
Assessments and Further Assessments. Any location likely to exceed the objectives must be
designated an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP)
must be prepared and implemented, with the aim of achieving the objectives in the designated
area.
11.2.7
It is expected that local air quality management in the UK will be assessed and controlled under
the AQS for the foreseeable future. For the purposes of this assessment, the limit values set out
in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 and the objective levels specified under the
current UK AQS have been used. There is no legal requirement to meet objectives set within
the UK AQS except where equivalent limit values are set within the EU Directives.
11.2.8
The limit values and objectives relevant to this assessment are summarised in Table 11.1.
202
Table 11.1 Summary of Relevant Air Quality Limit Values and Objectives
Pollutant
Nitrogen
(NO2)
Particulate
(PM10)
Particulate
(PM2.5)
Averaging Period
Objectives/
Values
Limit
-3
1 hour
200 μg.m
Annual
40 μg.m
-3
24 Hour
50 μg.m
-3
Annual
40 μg.m
-3
Annual
Target of 15%
reduction in
concentrations at
urban background
locations
Variable target of up
to 20% reduction in
concentrations at
urban background
locations (c)
Dioxide
Matter
Matter
25 μg.m
-3
25 μg.m
-3
Annual
Not to be Exceeded
More Than
18 times per
calendar year
Target Date
-
-
-
35 times per
calendar year
-
-
-
Between 2010 and
2020 (a)
Between 2010 and
2020 (b)
01.01.2020 (a)
01.01.2015 (b)
(a) Target date set in UK Air Quality Strategy 2007
(b) Target date set in Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010
(c) Aim to not exceed 18 μg.m -3 by 2020
Limit Value Compliance Summary in the UK
11.2.9
The UK is required to submit air quality data annually to demonstrate compliance with the limit
values in Directive 2008/50/EC. To facilitate this, the UK is divided into 43 zones and
agglomerations.
11.2.10
Regarding PM10, the UK identified in 2010 an exceedence of the daily-mean limit value in the
Greater London Urban Area zone and applied for an extension until June 2011; the daily-mean
PM10 limit value was met in all other zones and agglomerations. The latest Compliance
Assessment Summary [xv] published in September 2012 indicates that, taking into account the
maximum margin of tolerance, the daily-mean limit value was met in 2011. The annual-mean
PM10 limit value was also met in all zones in 2011. The UK is now required to comply with the
daily and annual-mean limit values for PM10.
11.2.11
Regarding NO2, the latest Compliance Assessment Summary reported that the hourly-mean limit
value was exceeded in three zones in 2011: the Greater London Urban Area, the Glasgow
Urban Area and the South East. Furthermore, the annual-mean NO2 limit value was exceeded at
40 out of the 43 zones and agglomerations in 2011. The UK government has been granted a
203
time extension at nine zones and agglomerations and compliance with the annual-mean NO2
limit value must now be met by January 2015, with the exception of Reading/Wokingham where
compliance must be demonstrated by January 2013.
11.2.12
For the remaining zones and agglomerations, the UK government has abandoned its application
to the EU for a time extension to 2015 to meet the annual-mean NO2 limit values, acknowledging
that it will take up to 2025 in some areas to meet these limits and leaving itself open to EU legal
action.
National Planning Policy and Guidance
Local Air Quality Management Policy Guidance
11.2.13
Policy Guidance: Local Air Quality Management LAQM.PG(09) [xvi], issued under Part IV of the
Environment Act 1995, is designed to help local authorities with their local air quality
management duties.
The guidance requires that local authorities integrate air quality
considerations into the planning process at the earliest possible stage. As a result, the land use
planning system is integral to improving air quality.
11.2.14
The guidance applies to all English local authorities both with and without AQMAs. This
common approach to air quality will provide benefits such as raising the profile of air quality in
transport planning, and increasing communication across local authority departments.
National Planning Policy Framework
11.2.15
The NPPF provides a framework within which plans will be produced at a local level to reflect the
individual needs and priorities of separate communities. The NPPF constitutes guidance and is a
material consideration for local planning authorities and decision-takers in determining
applications. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
For determining planning applications, this means approving development proposals if they
accord with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. If the
development plan is absent, silent or the policies are out of date, then planning permission
should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly outweigh the benefits, or
specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
11.2.16
The NPPF states that sustainable development has economic, social and environmental
dimensions. In the environmental dimension, the planning system contributes to “protecting and
enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve
biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and
adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.” (Paragraph 7)
11.2.17
Within the overarching roles, the NPPF sets out 12 core land-use planning principles. The
relevant core-principle in the context of this air quality assessment is that planning should
“contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution”.
(Paragraph 17)
11.2.18
Under the heading ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment’, the NPPF states:
“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
environment by:
204
 preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at
unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil,
air, water or noise pollution or land instability… (Paragraph 109)
To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies
and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The
effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment
or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development
to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. (Paragraph 120)
In doing so, local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself
is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of
processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under
pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these
regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made
on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the
permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities. (Paragraph 122)
Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit
values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air
Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual
sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air
Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.”
(Paragraph 124)
11.2.19
The NPPF is not prescriptive in terms of the methodology for assessing air quality effects or
describing significance; practitioners continue to use guidance provided by Defra and nongovernmental organisations, including Environmental Protection UK and the Institute of Air
Quality Management.
Low Emissions Strategies
11.2.20
In January 2010, Defra published good practice guidance [xvii] for advising local authorities on
ways in which the planning system may be used to reduce transport emissions. The guidance
informs local authorities that Low Emissions Strategies, packages of measures designed to
mitigate the transport impacts of development through the use of low emission fuels and
technologies, can be secured through planning conditions and legal obligations (section 106
agreements). The guidance complements the NPPF, providing local authorities with typical
measures and examples of good practice including:
 On-site parking - residential/customer parking spaces set aside for car clubs or low
emission vehicles;
 Low emission infrastructure – provision of charging electric charging bays or low
emissions fuelling points, cycle rental schemes, development and promotion of car clubs;
205
 Innovative and creative ideas;
 Commitments via procurement and supply chains; and
 Contributions to local plans – standardised for all developments over a certain threshold
but related to the actual impact.
11.2.21
The guidance states that where local authorities elect to use a standard charging system, the
levels should be published in advance in public documents such as a Local Development
Framework or a supplementary planning document.
Local Planning Policy
11.2.22
The key policy with regard to air quality within the Local Plan Review is:
“E12 Pollution – Planning permission will not be granted for development which
would generate pollutants that would be unacceptably detrimental to the health and
amenity of users of the development, users of adjoining land or the environment; or
where the level of existing pollutants would be unacceptably detrimental to the health
and amenity of users of the proposed development.
Adverse effects of development proposals of air… pollution are an important
consideration in determining planning applications…
…The City Council will operate in accordance with the ‘precautionary principle’ as
defined within Government advice. This principle essentially means that the Council
will take a cautious approach to development proposals that might have pollution
implications. The Council is aware of the need to ensure that national air quality
standards are not breached and has declared a number of Air Quality Management
Areas (AQMAs)…”
11.3
Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria
11.3.1
The approach to this air quality assessment includes the key elements listed below and is
consistent with Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance: LAQM.TG(09)[xviii]:
 consideration of relevant Air Quality Review and Assessment (R&A) documents;
 assessment of existing local air quality conditions through a review of available air quality
monitoring data for the area;
 qualitative assessment of potential construction phase impacts on local air quality; and
 quantitative assessment of the effect of changes in vehicle emissions associated with
changes in traffic flow characteristics generated by the proposed development on local air
quality in the vicinity of the application site.
11.3.2
RPS’ approach to the Air Quality assessment was agreed with Karl Suschitzky, Environmental
Health Officer (EHO) at DCC on 06/03/2013. The approach was also agreed with John Mills,
206
EHO at South Derbyshire District Council (12/03/2013) due to the presence of some potential
receptors within that district. The consultations are included in Appendix 11.1.
Summary of Key Pollutants
11.3.3
During the construction phase of the proposed redevelopment, the major influences on air
quality are likely to be dust-generating activities, such as movement of plant and vehicles both
on and around the site. Potentially, nuisance can be caused by the deposition of construction
dust.
11.3.4
Regarding the operational phase of the proposed development, the UK AQS identifies the
pollutants associated with road traffic emissions and local air quality as nitrogen oxides (NOx),
particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), 1, 3-butadiene and benzene. Emissions of
total NOx from motor vehicle exhausts comprise nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO oxidises in the
atmosphere to form NO2. Currently, AQMAs designated in the UK attributable to road traffic
emissions are associated with high concentrations of NO2 and PM10.
11.3.5
This assessment focuses on changes in NO2 and PM10 concentrations associated with the
proposal. The effects of the proposal on fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5 (a subset of
PM10) concentrations have also been considered.
Impact Assessment Methodology
Construction Phase
Construction Traffic
11.3.6
Construction of the proposed development will have associated construction traffic, comprising
contractors’ vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), diggers, and other diesel-powered
vehicles. This will result in emissions of NOx, particles and other combustion-related pollutants.
The operation of these vehicles will be localised and temporary. The EPUK guidance [xix]
recommends that the air quality assessment should include construction traffic for those large,
long-term construction sites that will generate large HGV flows (> 200 movements per day) over
a period of a year or more, or will affect annual average daily traffic flows (> 5 - 10%). This is not
the case for the proposed development and, therefore, construction traffic has not been
considered further in this assessment.
11.3.7
Based on the above and assuming standard levels of maintenance, emissions from
construction-related vehicles on the local road network are expected to be negligible in terms of
the effect on local air quality. On that basis, modelling of emissions from construction-related
vehicles has not been undertaken. Nevertheless, emissions of pollutants from constructionrelated vehicles on the local road network are considered to the extent that they are included
within the risk assessment that follows.
Construction Dust
11.3.8
Dust is the generic term used to describe particulate matter in the size range 1-75 µm in
diameter [xx]. Particles greater than 75 µm in diameter are termed grit rather than dust.
207
11.3.9
Dusts can contain a wide range of particles of different sizes. The normal fate of suspended (i.e.
airborne) dust is deposition. The rate of deposition depends largely on the size of the particle
and its density; together these influence the aerodynamic and gravitational effects that
determine the distance it travels and how long it stays suspended in the air before it settles out
onto a surface. In addition, some particles may agglomerate to become fewer, larger particles;
whilst others react chemically.
11.3.10
The effects of dust are linked to particle size and two main categories are usually considered:
PM10 particles, those up to 10 µm in diameter, remain suspended in the air for long periods and
are small enough to be breathed in and so can potentially impact on health; and nuisance dust,
generally considered to be particles larger than 10 µm which fall out of the air quite quickly and
can soil surfaces (e.g. a car, window sill, laundry).
11.3.11
Concentration-based limit values and objectives have been set for the PM10 suspended particle
fraction, but no statutory or official numerical air quality criterion for nuisance dust has been set
at a UK, European or World Health Organisation (WHO) level. Construction dust assessments
have tended to be risk based, focusing on the appropriate measures to be used to keep dust
impacts at an acceptable level. This approach has continued to evolve and in December 2011
(revised in January 2012), the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) published Guidance
on the Assessment of the Impacts of Construction on Air Quality and the Determination of their
Significance. The IAQM guidance aims to estimate the impacts of both PM10 and nuisance dust,
together, through a single risk-based assessment procedure. The IAQM guidance document
states: “As the effects depend to a large extent to the mitigation measures adopted, the
emphasis has been on classifying sites according to the risk of the effects, to identify the
mitigation appropriate to the risk.”
11.3.12
The IAQM guidance provides a methodological framework, but notes that professional
judgement is required to assess effects: “This is necessary, because the diverse range of
projects that are likely to be subject to dust impact assessment means that it is not possible to
be prescriptive as to how to assess the impacts. Also a wide range of factors affect the amount
of dust that may arise, and these are not readily quantified.”
11.3.13
The impact at a particular receptor will depend on how much dust there is (dust exposure) and
the sensitivity of the receptor to dust. Receptors are the users of the adjacent land and they may
vary in their sensitivity to dust. Consistent with the recommendations in the IAQM guidance, a
risk-based assessment has been undertaken for the development, using the well-established
source-pathway–receptor approach. The importance of the source, the pathway through the air,
and the receptor sensitivity have been considered in detail below; before being considered
together to produce an overall assessment of impact taking professional judgement into account.
11.3.14
The organisation engaged in assessing the overall risks should hold relevant qualifications
and/or extensive experience in undertaking air quality assessments. The RPS air quality team
members involved at various stages of this assessment have professional affiliations that include
Member of the Institute of Air Quality Management, Chartered Chemist, Chartered Scientist,
Chartered Environmentalist and Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry and have the
required academic qualifications for these professional bodies.
208
Source
11.3.15
The IAQM guidance categorises the likely magnitude of the dust sources during demolition,
earthworks and construction. These dust emission classes are based on the size of the
building(s), method of construction and the materials used. These example classifications have
been combined with details of the period of construction activities to provide a ranking for the
source magnitude, set out in Table 11.2.
Table 11.2 Source Magnitude Ranking Examples
Features of the Source of Dust Emissions
3
Demolition - building over 50,000 m .
2
Earthworks – total site area over 10,000 m .
3
Construction - total building volume over 100,000 m , activities include piling, on-site concrete
batching, sand blasting.
Period of activities more than two years.
3
Demolition - building between 20,000 to 50,000 m .
2
Earthworks – total site area between 2,500 to 10,000 m .
3
Construction - total building volume between 25,000 and 100,000 m , use of construction materials
with high potential for dust release (e.g. concrete), activities include piling, on-site concrete batching.
Period of construction activities between one and two years.
3
Demolition - building less than 20,000 m .
2
Earthworks – total site area less than 2,500 m .
3
Construction - total building volume below 25,000 m , use of construction materials with low
potential for dust release (e.g. metal cladding or timber).
Period of construction activities less than one year.
11.3.16
Dust
Magnitude
High
Medium
Low
The IAQM guidance also includes a category for trackout, defined as the transport of dust and
dirt from the construction / demolition site onto the public road network, where it may be
deposited and then re-suspended by vehicles using the network. The key measures for
controlling trackout dust are washing the wheels of vehicles leaving the site and the damping
down of haul routes. Even the most basic level of control and mitigation applied to the main work
phases should make provision for both measures; consequently, the dust impacts associated
with trackout are not considered as a separate issue within this assessment.
Pathway
11.3.17
The key aspects affecting the pathway are the distance between the receptor and the source,
and the orientation of the source and the receptors relative to the prevailing wind direction.
11.3.18
Within distances of 20 m of the site boundary, significant effects from nuisance dust may occur,
regardless of the prevailing wind direction. At greater distances, the wind direction has a greater
influence on the impact; consequently, the score allocated to the pathway takes the orientation
of the receptor relative to the source into account only for distances beyond 20 m.
11.3.19
For receptors more than 350 m from the site boundary, the risk is deemed negligible. The risk
ranking of pathway used in this assessment is set out in Table 11.3. Note that the site boundary
used in this assessment is the area within which the core development (i.e. residential, school,
209
etc.) is to take place and not the red-line boundary which includes the proposed country park to
the west of the development.
Table 11.3 Risk Allocation - Pathway
Distance between source* and
receptor
Orientation of receptor
Pathway Risk
relative to source
Less than 20 m
All directions
High
Between 20 and 100 m
Downwind
High
Between 20 and 100 m
Upwind
Medium
Between 100 and 350 m
Downwind
Medium
Between 100 and 350 m
Upwind
Low
*Where the distance from the specific dust emission sources is not known, the distance from the site
boundary is used.
11.3.20
In the case where there is a significant obstruction between the source of emissions and the
receptor, e.g. a large wooded area; the risk would be reduced by one classification.
11.3.21
Where there are a large number of receptors of a similar sensitivity grouped closely together, a
single receptor has been selected as being representative of the larger number.
Receptors
11.3.22
The focus of this assessment is the direct and indirect effects of particulate matter on human
receptors. However, it is recognised that dust emissions also have the potential to affect
ecological receptors.
11.3.23
The effects of particulate matter on ecological receptors have not been subject to extensive
research and therefore little published guidance is available. A majority of the research
undertaken has focused on the chemical effects of alkaline dusts. A summary of a review of
available research on behalf of the DETR [xxi] concluded that: “The issue of dust on ecological
receptors is largely confined to the associated chemical effect of dust, and particularly the effect
of acidic or alkaline dust influencing vegetation through soils.”
11.3.24
Annex F of Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges [xxii]
suggests that only dust deposition levels above 1000 mg.m-2day-1 are likely to affect sensitive
ecological receptors. This level of dust deposition is five times greater than the level of 200
mg.m-2day-1, at which dust deposition is generally considered likely to cause complaints of
nuisance to humans. It states that most species appear to be unaffected until dust deposition
rates are at levels considerably higher than this. It follows, therefore, that by ensuring dust
deposition levels are kept below levels likely to cause nuisance to humans, they will be
significantly below the level at which ecological receptors can be expected to be affected.
11.3.25
This is consistent with the IAQM guidance, where the risk category assigned to ecological
receptors is consistently lower than the risk category at identical distances for the human-health
receptors. This is also broadly consistent with earlier Environment Agency interim guidance
[xxiii] that concludes that most relatively insensitive vegetation species will not be significantly
affected by smothering at dust deposition levels below about 200 mg.m-2day-1; although in
habitats in which Sphagnum and possibly other mosses are important species within the
210
-2
-1
protected site, effects may be observed at levels above about 70 mg.m day . However the
report noted that the uncertainties were considerable and exceedence of these values should
not be assumed to demonstrate harm. The report concluded there were insufficient data to
derive thresholds for impacts of dust upon invertebrates.
11.3.26
The methodology used to assess the proposed development has categorised the sensitivity of
the identified human receptors based on the definitions set out in the IAQM guidance, examples
provided in LAQM.TG(09) of where the air quality objectives apply and the classifications set out
in the Technical Guidance to NPPF.
Table 11.4 Categorisation of Receptor Sensitivities
Receptor Type
Sensitivity
Very sensitive receptors (e.g. oncology units, designated sites with
Sphagnum mosses)
Very High
Building façades of residential properties, schools, hospitals, clinics,
care homes and retirement homes.
Painting and coatings operations.
High
Hi tech industries.
Food processing activities.
Commercially sensitive horticultural land
Other horticultural land, glasshouse, nurseries and gardens of
residential properties.
Medium
Food retailers and offices.
Outdoor storage areas.
Light and heavy industrial activities.
Low
Car parks, bus stations and railway stations.
Farms
11.3.27
Where there are multiple receptors in a single location, and a representative receptor location
has been selected, the highest risk applicable to those receptors has been allocated.
Significance Criteria
11.3.28
Each source, pathway and receptor has been allocated a score of 1, 3 or 5 depending on
whether they are deemed to be low, medium or high respectively. For each receptor, the scores
have been multiplied together to give a total dust risk score. A dust risk category of low, medium
or high has been allocated according to the score ranges set out in Table 11.5.
211
Table 11.5 Allocation of Dust Risk Category
Dust Risk Score
Dust Risk Category (Without Mitigation)
45 and above
High
5 – 44
Medium
1–4
Low
0*
Negligible
* Receptors more than 350 m from the site boundary, the risk is deemed negligible.
11.3.29
This assessment does not consider the air quality impacts of dust from any contaminated land or
buildings. If contamination is identified on the Application Site, the impacts will be assessed in
other technical discipline reports.
11.3.30
The dust assessment for this proposed development has taken the relevant measures in the
IAQM Dust and Air Emissions Mitigation Measures [xxiv] document as being the appropriate
solutions for mitigation and control. The particular levels of measures that have been
recommended in this assessment are informed by an evaluation of the dust risk category for the
development as a whole, which is based on the risk at each of the identified receptors.
11.3.31
The evaluation of the significance of the effects on the surrounding area a whole has been
based on the professional judgement of the person preparing the report, taking into account the
overall risk after the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures together with further
relevant information relating to characteristics of the Application Site. The basis for this
professional judgement is set out in Table 11.6.
Table 11.6 Evaluation of Significance
Overall Risk
Characteristics of the Application Site
Low
Medium
High
Slight Adverse
Slight Adverse
Moderate
Adverse
Negligible
Negligible
Slight Adverse
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Ambient background PM10 concentrations > 40
-3
μg.m
Surrounding area is generally urban
High population density (> 100 dwellings within 20
m of the site)
Ambient background PM10 concentrations between
-3
36 and 40 μg.m
Surrounding area is generally suburban
Medium population density (10- 20 dwellings within
20 m of the site)
Ambient background PM10 concentrations < 36
-3
μg.m
Surrounding area is generally rural
Low population density (less than 10 dwellings
within 20 m of the site)
212
Operational Phase - Methodology
Pollutant Concentrations
11.3.32
In urban areas, pollutant concentrations are primarily determined by the balance between
pollutant emissions that increase concentrations, and the ability of the atmosphere to reduce and
remove pollutants by dispersion, advection, reaction and deposition. An atmospheric dispersion
model is used as a practical way to simulate these complex processes; such a model requires a
range of input data, which can include emissions rates, meteorological data and local
topographical information. The model used and the input data relevant to this assessment are
described in the following sub-sections.
11.3.33
The atmospheric pollutant concentrations in an urban area depend not only on local sources at a
street scale, but also on the background pollutant level made up of the local urban-wide
background, together with regional pollution and pollution from more remote sources brought in
on the incoming air mass. This background contribution needs to be added to the fraction from
the modelled sources, and is usually obtained from measurements or estimates of urban
background concentrations for the area in locations that are not directly affected by local
emissions sources. Background pollution levels are described in detail in Section 4.
Model Selection
11.3.34
The air quality effects associated with the changes in traffic flow characteristics on the local road
network has been undertaken using ADMS-Roads, a version of the Atmospheric Dispersion
Modelling System (ADMS), which is a model representing dispersion of pollutants from industrial
and road traffic sources. This is a formally validated model, developed in the United Kingdom
(UK) by Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd (CERC) and widely used in the UK
and internationally for regulatory purposes.
11.3.35
Annual-mean NOx and PM10 concentrations have been predicted at selected sensitive receptors
using ADMS-Roads and added to relevant background concentrations. Annual-mean NO2
concentrations have been derived from the modelled road-related annual-mean NOx
concentration using the LAQM.TG(09) calculator.
Model Verification
11.3.36
LAQM.TG(09) requires that local authorities verify the results of any detailed modelling
undertaken for the purposes of fulfilling their R&A duties. Model verification refers to “checks that
are carried out on model performance at a local level”. Modelled concentrations are compared
with the results of monitoring and, where there is a disparity between modelled and monitored
concentrations, an adjustment may be established and applied.
11.3.37
For the verification and adjustment of NOx/NO2 concentrations, LAQM.TG(09) recommends that
the comparison involves a combination of automatic and diffusion monitoring, rather than a
single automatic monitor. This is to ensure any adjustment factor derived is representative of all
locations modelled and not unduly weighted towards the characteristics at a single site. Where
only diffusion tubes are used for the model verification, the study should consider a broad
spread of monitoring locations across the study area to provide sufficient information relating to
the spatial variation in pollutant concentrations. No adjustment factor is deemed necessary
where the modelled concentrations are within 25% of the monitored concentrations.
213
11.3.38
No baseline data has been supplied for the baseline year (2011) by the traffic consultants.
However suitable traffic data are available from the Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) website
[xxv]. There are no automatic monitoring data available in the study area, however there are
ample appropriate diffusion tube data. DCC’s diffusion tube data for 2010 and 2011 has yet to
be ratified, however it is still more useful that an absence of data. A factor of 0.9 has been used
to adjust the tube data prior to model verification, as this factor was used by DCC in previous
years.
11.3.39
The full model verification study is included in Technical Appendix 11.2.
Model Scenarios
11.3.40
Modelling has been undertaken for the following scenarios:
 Without Development (baseline) – without the development in 2011, for model verification
purposes;
 Without Development – without the proposed development in the first year that the
development is expected to be fully operational year, 2026; and
 With Development – with the proposed development in the first year that the development
is expected to be fully operational year, 2026.
11.3.41
Both of the 2026 models include anticipated traffic flows from the proposed Fellowlands Way
development, 300m to the west of the proposed development, which is also proposed by the
applicants.
Model Input Data
Traffic Data
11.3.42
Traffic data used in the assessment have been provided by the project’s transport consultants,
Travis Baker, for the future with and without scenarios. For the 2011 baseline, used in model
verification, data is derived from the DfT website. The traffic flow data provided for this
assessment are summarised in Appendix 11.3. The modelled road links are illustrated in Figure
11.1. Where possible, flows on roundabouts were calculated by adding up the 2-way flows on
each approach and halving them to give the total inflow to the junction. Otherwise the flows from
the two busiest arms were added together. This approach was recommended by Travis Baker.
11.3.43
In the absence of traffic speed data, the speeds used in the model are based on the speed limits
on each link. The average speed on each road has been reduced by 10 km.hr-1 to take into
account the possibility of slow moving traffic near junctions and at roundabouts in accordance
with LAQM.TG(09).
Emission Factors
11.3.44
The modelling has been undertaken using Defra’s 2012 emission factor toolkit (version 5.1.3)
which draws on emissions generated by the European Environment Agency (EEA) COPERT 4
(v8.1) emission calculation tool.
214
Meteorological Data
11.3.45
ADMS-Roads requires detailed meteorological data as an input. The most representative
observing station for the region of the study area is East Midlands Airport approximately 9 km
east of the Application Site. Meteorological data from this station for 2011 have been used within
the dispersion model. The East Midlands data has <1% missing wind and temperature data and
20% missing cloud data which has been substituted with Birmingham Airport meteorological
data from the same year.
11.3.46
Figure 11.2 presents the wind rose for the meteorological data recorded at East Midlands Airport
in 2011.
Receptors
11.3.47
The air quality assessment predicts the impacts at locations that could be sensitive to any
changes. Such sensitive receptors should be selected where the public is regularly present and
likely to be exposed over the averaging period of the objective. LAQM.TG(09) [xviii] provides
examples of exposure locations and these are summarised in Table 11.7.
Table 11.7 Example of Where Air Quality Objectives Apply
Averaging Period
Objectives should apply at:
Objectives should generally not apply at:
Building façades of offices or other places of
work where members of the public do not have
regular access.
Annual-mean
All locations where members of the
public might be regularly exposed.
Building façades of residential
properties, schools, hospitals, care
homes.
Hotels, unless people live there as their
permanent residence.
Gardens of residential properties.
Kerbside sites (as opposed to locations at the
buildings façades), or any other location where
public exposure is expected to be short-term.
Daily-mean
All locations where the annual-mean
objective would apply, together with
hotels.
Kerbside sites (as opposed to locations at the
buildings façade), or any other location where
public exposure is expect to be short-term.
Gardens of residential properties.
All locations where the annual and 24
hour mean would apply. Kerbside sites
(e.g. pavements of busy shopping
streets).
Hourly-mean
Those parts of car parks, bus stations
and railway stations etc which ware not
fully enclosed, where member so the
public might reasonably be expected to
spend one hour or more.
Kerbside sites where the public would not be
expected to have regular access
Any outdoor locations to which the
public might reasonably be expected to
spend 1-hour or longer.
11.3.48
Sensitive receptors have been selected at properties where pollutant concentrations and/or
changes in pollutant concentrations are anticipated to be greatest, these are summarised in
Table 11.8.
215
Table 11.8 Identified Sensitive Receptors
11.3.49
ID
Description
In AQMA?
x
y
1
Flat above COOP, Swarkestone Road
no
437920
330254
2
103 Swarkestone Road
no
437994
329974
3
Sevenlands Drive
no
439754
331804
4
Woods Meadow
no
439881
332078
5
The Greenway
no
439845
332232
6
10 Chariot Close
no
439660
332386
7
Medina Close
no
439492
332440
8
129 Shardlow Road
no
439037
332799
9
Thulston Fields Farm
no
439756
331191
10
Millbrook
no
438971
330962
11
Lows Court
no
438777
330795
12
7 Newgate Close
no
438628
330577
13
Bradmoor Grove
no
438556
330539
14
75 High Street
no
438168
330432
15
House on corner of Boulton Lane
yes
437216
332021
16
Fox Covert Farm
no
438759
330674
17
House east of Swarkestone Road
no
437959
329622
18
Grove Farm
no
440698
331755
19
House on A5111 Roundabout
yes
438638
333297
The annual, daily and hourly-mean AQS objectives apply at the front and rear façades of all
residential properties.
Long-Term Pollutant Predictions
11.3.50
Annual-mean road-related contributions of NOx and PM10 have been combined with urban
background concentrations. Annual-mean NO2 concentrations have been derived from the
modelled annual-mean NOx concentration using the LAQM.TG(09) calculator [xxvi].
Short-Term Pollutant Predictions
11.3.51
In order to predict the likelihood of exceedences of the hourly-mean AQS objectives for NO2 and
the daily-mean AQS objective for PM10, the following relationships between the short-term
objectives and the annual-mean values at each receptor have been considered.
Hourly-Mean AQS Objective for NO2
11.3.52
Research undertaken in support of LAQM.TG(09) has indicated that the hourly-mean limit value
and objective for NO2 is unlikely to be exceeded at a roadside location where the annual-mean
NO2 concentration is less than 60 µg.m-3. In May 2008, a re-analysis of the relationship between
216
annual and hourly-mean NO2 concentrations was undertaken using data collated between 2003
and 2007 [xxvii]. The conclusions and recommendations of that report are:
“Analysis shows that statistically, on the basis of the dataset available here, the chance of
measuring an hourly nitrogen dioxide objective exceedence whilst reporting an annual-mean
NO2 of less than 60 µg.m-3 is very low….
-3
It is therefore recommended that local authorities continue to use the threshold of 60 μg.m
NO2 as the guideline for considering a likely exceedence of the hourly-mean nitrogen dioxide
objective.”
11.3.53
The report recommends that this analysis is undertaken annually. However, following the current
recommendation, the hourly objective is not considered further within this assessment if the
annual-mean NO2 concentration is predicted to be less than 60 μg.m-3.
Daily-Mean AQS Objective for PM10
11.3.54
The number of exceedences of the daily-mean AQS objective for PM10 of 50 μg.m-3 may be
estimated using the relationship set out in LAQM.TG(09):
Number of Exceedences of Daily Mean of 50 μg.m-3 = -18.5 + 0.00145 * (Predicted Annualmean PM10)3 + 206 / (Predicted Annual-mean PM10 Concentration)
11.3.55
This relationship suggests that the daily-mean AQS objective for PM10 is likely to be met if the
predicted annual-mean PM10 concentration is 31.8 µg.m-3 or less. The Air Quality Strategy
Volume 2: Evidence Base states, throughout the document, that an annual-mean PM10
concentration of 31.5 µg.m-3 is approximately equivalent to the daily-mean objective.
11.3.56
The daily mean objective is not considered further within this assessment if the annual-mean
PM10 concentration is predicted to be less than 31.5 µg.m-3.
Fugitive PM10 Emissions
11.3.57
Studies suggest that brake dust and tyre wear may account for approximately one-third of the
total particulate emissions from road transport. Improvements in vehicle technologies are
reducing PM10 exhaust emissions. Therefore, the relative importance of fugitive PM10 emissions
is increasing. Current emission factors for particulate matter include brake dust and tyre wear.
No allowance is made for re-suspended road dust as this remains unquantified.
Significance Criteria
11.3.58
The Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) Development Control: Planning for Air Quality
document [xix] advises that:
“It is important to balance all aspects of development within an AQMA. For example a
new residential development in the central area of a town or City may increase the
number of people exposed to poor air quality. On the other hand, there may be social
and economic benefits arising from the regeneration of the area. Moreover, if the
development is close to a main shopping or employment area, there may be a
reduction in the need to travel by car, with a corresponding potential to reduce
217
emissions if people who previously travelled into the area by car no longer do so,
leading to an improvement in air quality”
11.3.59
It is generally considered good practice that, where possible, an assessment should
communicate effects both numerically and descriptively. In order to ensure that the descriptions
of effects are clear, consistent and in accordance with recent guidance, definitions have been
adopted from the EPUK’s Development Control: Planning for Air Quality document [xix]. Table
11.9 provides an extract of the criteria provided for describing the change in magnitude of
pollutant concentrations as a result of the operation of the proposed development.
Table 11.9 Descriptors for Changes in Magnitude of Predicted Pollutant Concentrations
Impact Magnitude –
Predicted Change in Annual Mean as a Percentage of the
Descriptor
Relevant Assessment Level
Large
> 10%
Medium
5 – 10%
Small
1 - 5%
Imperceptible
< 1%
Source: EPUK Development Control: Planning for Air Quality document (2010 Update) Table 4
11.3.60
When describing the air quality impact at a sensitive receptor, the change in magnitude of the
concentration should be considered in the context of the absolute concentration at the sensitive
receptor. Table 11.10 provides the EPUK approach for describing the air quality impacts at
sensitive receptors for increases in annual-mean NO2 concentrations. (Note: The AQS
objectives and limit values for NO2 and PM10 are identical in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland, therefore, the approach can also be adopted for annual-mean PM10 concentrations in
these countries).
Table 11.10 Impact Descriptors for Annual-Mean NO2 Concentrations at Individual Sensitive
Receptors
Change in Concentration
Absolute Concentrations in Relation Objective/Limit Value
Small
Medium
Large
Above Objective/Limit Value with Scheme
-3
(> 40 μg.m )
Slight
Moderate
Substantial
Just Below Objective/Limit Value with Scheme
-3
(36 – 40 μg.m )
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Negligible
Slight
Slight
Negligible
Negligible
Slight
Increase with Scheme
Below Objective/Limit Value with Scheme
-3
(30 – 36 μg.m )
Well Below Objective/Limit Value with Scheme
-3
(< 30 μg.m )
Source: EPUK Development Control: Planning for Air Quality document (2010 Update) Table 5
Note: An imperceptible change would be described as a negligible impact.
218
11.3.61
The descriptions of impacts obtained using the approach above are designed to apply at
individual receptors. The significance of those impacts for the development as a whole requires
a further step. The EPUK guidance advocates that the “conclusion as to the overall significance
of the air quality impacts should be based on the professional judgement of the person preparing
the report.” The EPUK guidance sets out the following factors which should be considered in
reaching this judgement:
 “Number of properties affected by slight, moderate or major air quality impacts and
a judgment on the overall balance;
 Where new exposure is being introduced into an existing area of poor air quality,
then the number of people exposed to levels above the objective or limit value will
be relevant;
 The magnitude of the changes and the descriptions of the impacts at the receptors,
i.e. Tables 4 and 5 findings;
 Whether or not an exceedence of an objective or limit value is predicted to arise in
the study area where none existed before or an exceedence area is substantially
increased;
 Whether or not the study area exceeds an objective or limit value and this
exceedence is removed or the exceedence area is reduced;
 Uncertainty, including the extent to which worst-case assumptions have been
made; and
 The extent to which an objective or limit value is exceeded, e.g. an annual mean
NO2 of 41 μg.m-3 should attract less significance than an annual mean of 51 μg.m3.”
11.3.62
The organisation engaged in assessing the significance of air quality impacts should hold
relevant qualifications and/or extensive experience in undertaking air quality assessments (see
paragraph 11.3.13). The Technical Director responsible for authorising all deliverables has over
15 years’ experience.
11.4
Existing Baseline Conditions
Overview
11.4.1
Information on background air quality in the UK is usually available from two public sources:
 Each local authority has published results of its Review and Assessment (R&A) of air
quality, with reference to local monitoring and modelling studies.
 The National Air Quality Information Archive (NAQIA) [xxviii], which includes pollutant
concentrations for each 1 km grid square in the UK.
219
11.4.2
This information can be supplemented by the results of any historical monitoring campaigns
undertaken in the study area or by any study-specific monitoring campaign that has been
undertaken. In the case of this assessment, sufficient data are available from public sources to
gain an indication of background air quality.
Review and Assessment Process
11.4.3
In May 2011, DCC published their 2009 Updating and Screening Assessment and 2011
Progress Report [xxix]. The current Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) designations in the
City of Derby are described as follows:
 An area encompassing the City’s inner and outer ring-roads, some sections of radial
roads and the entire length of Osmaston Road due to high levels of nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) concentrations attributed to road traffic emissions (designated in 2001, amended in
2006);
 54 dwellings at the southern end of Victory Road due to high levels of particulate matter
(PM10) attributable to activities at the adjacent QDF Components Ltd foundry site
(designated in 2001); and
 Sections of the A52, Derby Road and Nottingham Road in Spondon due to high levels of
NO2 concentrations attributed to road traffic emissions (designated in 2006).
11.4.4
The foundry operated by QDF Components Ltd closed in the autumn of 2005 and monitored
concentrations of PM10 have reduced since the time of the closure. In November 2011, a
detailed assessment of air quality [xxx] was undertaken in this location. The results of the
detailed assessment indicate that the relevant AQS objective for PM10 is now being met within
the AQMA and it would be appropriate to revoke the Victory Road AQMA.
11.4.5
The nearest AQMA is composed of areas encompassing parts of Derby’s ring-roads, located
approximately 1.5 km to the north and north-west of the Application Site.
Urban Background Monitoring
11.4.6
Monitors at urban background locations measure concentrations away from the local influence of
emission sources and are therefore broadly representative of residential areas within large
conurbations. Monitoring at urban background locations is considered an appropriate source of
data for the purposes of describing baseline air quality.
11.4.7
Automatic monitoring of air quality is not undertaken by DCC at any background locations. The
most recent monitored annual-mean concentrations at their only roadside site are presented in
Table 11.11.
220
Table 11.11 Automatically Monitored Annual-Mean Concentrations
-3
Concentration (μg.m )
Site Name
Pollutant
2010
2011
2012
NO2
-
41.0
52.9
PM10
-
18.7
15.1
Warwick Avenue (roadside)
11.4.8
The Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG) study of Particulate Matter in the UK [xxxi] provides a
comparison of NO2 and PM10 monitoring undertaken in the UK at roadside, urban background
and rural locations. A much larger variation in monitored NO2 concentrations is reported
compared to PM10 concentrations. The lower variation in monitored PM10 concentrations reflects
the more even distribution of particulate matter across the UK due to the wide range of sources
and the contribution of secondary particulate matter. On this basis, the results of continuous
automatic PM10 roadside monitoring at Warwick Avenue have been used to inform background
concentrations.
11.4.9
DCC does not passively monitor NO2 concentrations at any urban background locations using
diffusion tubes.
National Air Quality Information Archive (NAQIA) Background Data
11.4.10
The NAQIA provides estimates of pollution concentrations across the UK at a resolution of
1 km2.
11.4.11
Total annual-mean NO2 concentration has been extracted for the grid square of the application
site. The background pollutant concentrations estimated by the NAQIA are provided in Table
11.12.
Table 11.12 NAQIA Mapped Annual-Mean Background NO2 Concentrations
11.4.12
-3
Site Name
OS Grid Square
Estimated Concentration (μg.m )
Development Site
438500, 331500
18.9
Similarly, the total annual-mean PM10 concentration has been extracted for the grid square of the
application and Warwick Avenue monitoring sites. The estimated background NAQIA pollutant
concentrations are provided in Table 11.13.
221
Table 11.13 NAQIA Mapped Annual-Mean Background PM10 Concentrations
-3
Site Name
Development
Site
Warwick
Avenue
Concentration (μg.m )
Range of
NAQIA
Monitored
Estimated
Concentrations
Concentration
OS Grid Square
Distance
to Site
(km)
438500, 331500
-
-
17.5
433500, 334500
5.5
15.1 - 18.7
16.9
11.5
Discussion of Background Concentrations
11.5.1
The requirement for this assessment is to set the background concentration at a realistic and
conservative level.
11.5.2
For NO2 there is an absence of suitable urban background monitoring data; therefore the
background annual-mean NO2 concentration in the opening year (2026) of the development has
been estimated as18.9 μg.m-3, derived from the 2010 NAQIA data for the grid square of the
development site.
11.5.3
For PM10, again there are no monitoring data from urban background sites. The 2010 NAQIA
estimated concentration for Warwick Avenue is within the concentration range measured at the
roadside site; therefore the NAQIA estimate cannot be considered to be conservative. In order to
provide a conservative estimate of the baseline, the background annual-mean PM10 has been
derived from the highest monitored concentration of 18.7 μgm-3 measured at Warwick Avenue in
2011 has been used, rather than the NAQIA estimate for the application site of 17.5 μgm-3.
Using professional judgement, the Warwick Avenue roadside is considered conservative and
suitable for use in this instance with due regard given to the AQEG study discussed in paragraph
11.4.8.
11.5.4
In the absence of monitoring, the background annual-mean PM2.5 concentrations at the
Application Sites will be derived from the estimated background NAQIA concentration in the
opening year of the development.
11.5.5
Historically the view has been that background traffic-related NO2 concentrations in the UK
would reduce over time, due to the progressive introduction of improved vehicle technologies
and increasingly stringent limits on emissions. However, the results of recent monitoring across
the UK suggest that background annual-mean NO2 concentrations have not decreased in line
with expectations. There is insufficient local background monitoring to indicate whether there is a
particular trend over time for concentrations of either NO2, PM10 or PM2.5 in the vicinity of the
Application Site.
11.5.6
To ensure that the assessment presents the worst-case results, the highest measured/mapped
annual-mean background NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations have been assumed and no
reduction has been applied for future years.
11.5.7
Table 11.14 summarises the annual-mean background concentrations for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5.
used in this assessment.
222
Table 11.14 Summary of Background Annual-Mean (Long-term) Concentrations used in
the Assessment
11.6
Pollutant
Data Source
Concentration (μg.m-3)
NO2
PM10
PM2.5
NAQIA
Warwick Avenue monitor (roadside)
NAQIA
18.9
18.7
11.6
Assessment of Impacts
Construction Effects
11.6.1
The major influence on air quality throughout the construction phase of the proposed
development is likely to be dust-generating activities such as movement of plant vehicles both
on and around the development site.
11.6.2
Whilst no detailed construction phase information is currently available, activities that may cause
fugitive dust emissions are as follows:
 earthworks;
 handling and disposal of spoil;
 wind-blown particulate material from stockpiles;
 movement of vehicles, both on and off site; and
 handling of loose construction materials.
11.6.3
It is normally possible, by proper control, to ensure that dust deposition does not give rise to
nuisance impacts. Routine dust control measures would normally ensure that the risk of longterm impacts is insignificant, although short-term events may occur (for example, due to
technical failure or exceptional weather conditions).
11.6.4
The level and distribution of construction dust emissions will vary according to factors such as
the type of dust, duration and location of dust-generating activity, weather conditions and the
effectiveness of suppression measures.
11.6.5
The main effect of any dust emissions, if not mitigated, would be nuisance due to soiling of
surfaces, particularly windows, cars and laundry. The effect of the construction phase, if unmitigated would be minor to moderate adverse in magnitude, temporary and local in scale.
Generally, site practices based on ‘good housekeeping’ will ensure that emissions of nuisance
dusts will be minimised.
223
Assessment of Dust Impacts of the Proposed Development
11.6.6
As noted in the Methodology, by ensuring dust deposition is kept below the rate likely to cause
perceptible nuisance to humans, the level of dust will be significantly below that at which
ecological receptors are expected to be affected.
11.6.7
All receptors within 350 m of the construction activities have been identified. With reference to
the south-westerly prevailing wind direction indicated by the East Midlands wind rose, receptors
to the north and the north-east are deemed to be downwind of the Application Site. Receptors
included in the dust impact risk assessment are shown graphically in Figure 11.3.
11.6.8
Using the criteria adopted for the assessment, the source risk is considered to be high due to
size of the site and the likely duration of construction activities. Calculated dust impact risk at
individual receptors is provided in Table 11.15.
Table 11.15 Calculation of Dust Impact Risk at Individual Receptors
Receptor Name
Receptor
Receptor
Distance to
Wind
Pathway
Dust Impact
Type
Sensitivity
Receptor
Direction*
Risk
Risk (Without
(m)
Mitigation)
Fellow Lands
Way south
Residential
High
290
Upwind
Low
Medium
Fellow Lands
Way north
Residential
High
310
Upwind
Low
Medium
38 Denstone
Drive
Residential
High
90
Upwind
Medium
High
9 Epworth Drive
Residential
High
80
Downwind
High
High
54 Edith Wood
Close
Residential
High
240
Downwind
Medium
High
44 Falmouth
Road
Residential
High
230
Downwind
Medium
High
68 Meadow Nook
Residential
High
170
Downwind
Medium
High
63 Mill Hill
Residential
High
30
Downwind
High
High
Stubble Close
Farm
Residential
High
210
Upwind
Low
Medium
108 Crayford
Road
Residential
High
240
Downwind
Medium
High
* The wind direction has only been considered for receptors more than 20 m from the site boundary. Within 20 m, the
pathway risk is considered to be high.
11.6.9
At individual receptors, the dust impact risk, without mitigation, ranges from medium to high.
Based on professional judgement, the dust impact risk for the overall development is high. With
the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the risk will reduce to medium, or even
224
low. The evaluation of significance takes into account the characteristics of the Application Site
as set out in Table 11.6. Although the residual risk after the implementation of mitigation
measures is medium/low, the surrounding area is generally suburban, the ambient PM10
-3
concentration is below 36 µg.m and the population density within 20 m of the site is low. On
that basis and, again using professional judgement, the significance of effects is deemed
negligible. Relevant mitigation measures set out in the IAQM Dust and Air Emissions Mitigation
Measures document applicable to a high risk site are listed in Section 7.
Operation/Permanent Effects
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
11.6.10
Table 11.16 presents the annual-mean NO2 concentrations predicted at façades.
Table 11.16 Predicted Annual-Mean NO2 Impacts at Existing Receptors
-3
Concentrations (μg.m )
Receptor ID
With - Without
Magnitude of
Impact
Without
With
Dev as % of the
Change
Development
Development
AQS Objective
Descriptor
20.8
21.2
1.1
Small
Negligible
Sevenlands Drive
Woods Meadow
The Greenway
10 Chariot Close
20.9
19.8
20.8
20.4
20.7
21.0
19.9
21.4
20.6
20.9
0.3
0.4
1.5
0.5
0.5
Imperceptible
Imperceptible
Small
Imperceptible
Imperceptible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Medina Close
129 Shardlow Road
19.5
21.1
20.3
21.2
2.0
0.4
Small
Imperceptible
Negligible
Negligible
19.4
19.5
0.3
Imperceptible
Negligible
19.9
20.1
20.8
20.5
20.8
20.1
20.5
21.3
21.2
21.5
0.5
0.9
1.3
1.6
1.8
Imperceptible
Imperceptible
Small
Small
Small
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
21.8
22.4
1.5
Small
Negligible
20.5
20.9
1.2
Small
Negligible
20.7
20.8
0.3
Imperceptible
Negligible
19.8
19.9
0.1
Imperceptible
Negligible
20.8
26.3
13.7
Large
Slight Adverse
21.8
19.4
26.3
19.5
13.7
0.1
-
-
Flat above COOP
Swarkestone Road
103 Swarkestone Rd
Thulston Fields
Farm
Millbrook
Lows Court
7 Newgate Close
Bradmoor Grove
75 High Street
House on corner of
Boulton Lane
Fox Covert Farm
House east of
Swarkestone Road
Grove Farm
House on A5111
roundabout
Maximum
Minimum
225
Descriptor
11.6.11
Predicted annual-mean NO2 concentrations in the opening year at the façades of the existing
receptors are well below the AQS objective for NO2. The magnitude of change at all receptors is
‘imperceptible’ to ‘small’, with the exception of the House on the A5111 roundabout (at the
junction of Harvey Road, Raynesway, Shardlow Road and Beech Avenue), where the magnitude
of change is ‘large’. When these changes are considered in the context of the absolute
concentrations, the impact descriptors range from ‘negligible’ to ‘slight adverse’.
11.6.12
Overall, the significance of the impacts associated with NO2 is considered to be ‘negligible’,
using the criteria adopted for this assessment and based on professional judgement. As all
predicted annual-mean NO2 concentrations are below 60 µg.m-3, the hourly-mean objective for
NO2 is unlikely to be exceeded and is not considered further within this assessment.
Particulate Matter (PM10)
11.6.13
Table 11.17 presents the annual-mean PM10 concentrations predicted at façades.
Table 11.17 Predicted Annual-Mean PM10 Impacts at Existing Receptors
-3
Concentrations (μg.m )
Receptor ID
With Without Dev
as % of the
AQS
Objective
Magnitude of
Change
Descriptor
Impact
Descriptor
Without
Development
With
Development
19.5
19.6
0.2
Imperceptible
Negligible
19.5
19.1
19.6
19.1
0.1
0.2
Imperceptible
Imperceptible
Negligible
Negligible
Woods Meadow
19.6
19.9
0.6
Imperceptible
Negligible
The Greenway
10 Chariot Close
Medina Close
129 Shardlow Road
19.4
19.6
18.9
19.6
19.5
19.7
19.3
19.7
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.2
Imperceptible
Imperceptible
Small
Imperceptible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Thulston Fields Farm
Millbrook
Lows Court
7 Newgate Close
18.8
19.1
19.2
19.5
18.9
19.2
19.4
19.7
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.5
Imperceptible
Imperceptible
Imperceptible
Imperceptible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Bradmoor Grove
75 High Street
19.4
19.5
19.5
19.7
0.4
0.5
Imperceptible
Imperceptible
Negligible
Negligible
20.0
20.0
0.2
Imperceptible
Negligible
19.3
19.5
0.4
Imperceptible
Negligible
19.4
19.5
0.1
Imperceptible
Negligible
19.1
19.1
0.1
Imperceptible
Negligible
19.9
21.8
4.5
Small
Negligible
20.0
18.8
21.8
18.9
4.5
0.1
-
-
Flat above COOP
Swarkestone Road
103 Swarkestone Road
Sevenlands Drive
House on corner of
Boulton Lane
Fox Covert Farm
House east of
Swarkestone Road
Grove Farm
House on A5111
roundabout
Maximum
Minimum
226
11.6.14
Predicted annual-mean PM10 concentrations in the opening year at the façades of the existing
receptors are well below the AQS objective for PM10. The magnitude of change at the receptors
are ‘imperceptible’ to ‘small’. When these changes are considered in the context of the absolute
concentrations, the impact descriptor at all receptors is ‘negligible’.
11.6.15
As all predicted annual mean PM10 concentrations are below 31.5 µg.m , the daily-mean PM10
objective is expected to be met and is not considered further within this assessment.
-3
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5 )
11.6.16
Table 11.18 presents the annual-mean PM2.5 concentrations predicted at existing façades.
Table 11.18 Predicted Annual-Mean PM2.5 Impacts at Existing Receptors
-3
Concentrations (μg.m )
Receptor ID
With Without Dev
as % of the
AQS
Objective
Magnitude of
Change
Descriptor
Impact
Descriptor
Without
Development
With
Development
Flat above COOP
Swarkestone Road
12.0
12.1
0.2
Imperceptible
Negligible
103 Swarkestone Road
12.0
12.1
0.1
Imperceptible
Negligible
Sevenlands Drive
11.8
11.8
0.2
Imperceptible
Negligible
Woods Meadow
12.1
12.2
0.5
Imperceptible
Negligible
The Greenway
12.0
12.0
0.2
Imperceptible
Negligible
10 Chariot Close
12.1
12.1
0.2
Imperceptible
Negligible
Medina Close
11.7
11.9
0.8
Imperceptible
Negligible
129 Shardlow Road
12.1
12.1
0.1
Imperceptible
Negligible
Thulston Fields Farm
11.7
11.7
0.1
Imperceptible
Negligible
Millbrook
11.8
11.9
0.2
Imperceptible
Negligible
Lows Court
11.9
12.0
0.3
Imperceptible
Negligible
7 Newgate Close
12.0
12.1
0.5
Imperceptible
Negligible
Bradmoor Grove
11.9
12.0
0.4
Imperceptible
Negligible
75 High Street
12.0
12.1
0.4
Imperceptible
Negligible
House on corner of
Boulton Lane
12.3
12.3
0.2
Imperceptible
Negligible
Fox Covert Farm
11.9
12.0
0.4
Imperceptible
Negligible
227
-3
Concentrations (μg.m )
Receptor ID
With Without Dev
as % of the
AQS
Objective
Magnitude of
Change
Descriptor
Impact
Descriptor
Without
Development
With
Development
House east of
Swarkestone Road
12.0
12.0
0.1
Imperceptible
Negligible
Grove Farm
11.8
11.8
0.1
Imperceptible
Negligible
12.3
13.3
3.9
Small
Negligible
12.3
11.7
13.3
11.7
3.9
0.1
-
-
House on A5111
roundabout
Maximum
Minimum
AQS objective = 25 μg.m
11.6.17
-3
Predicted annual-mean PM2.5 concentrations in the opening year at the façades of the existing
receptors are below the AQS objective for PM2.5 at all receptors. Using the EPUK criteria, the
magnitude of change is ‘imperceptible’ to ‘small’ at all receptors and the impacts are described
as ‘negligible’.
11.6.18
As the maximum predicted annual-mean PM2.5 concentration is below 25 μg.m-3 in the opening
year, and concentrations of PM2.5 are expected to decrease in future years, the AQS objective
for PM2.5 is expected to be met by a wide margin by its target date of 2020.
Assessment of Environmental Suitability of the Site
11.6.19
Table 11.19 presents the annual-mean NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations predicted at the
façades of proposed receptors. Only three proposed receptors were chosen as only the
southern section of the proposed development is located close to a significant road pollution
source.
Table 11.19 Predicted Annual-Mean NO2 and PM10 Concentrations (μg.m-3) at Proposed Receptors
Receptor Name
NO2
PM 10
PM 2.5
Proposed_1
20.9
19.6
12.1
Proposed_2
21.2
19.7
12.1
Proposed_3
19.5
18.9
11.7
Maximum
21.2
19.7
12.1
Minimum
19.5
18.9
11.7
11.6.20
The long-term and short-term air quality objectives apply at the proposed development.
11.6.21
Predicted annual-mean NO2 concentrations range between 19.5 and 21.2 µg.m-3. Predicted
-3
concentrations at all receptors are well below the annual-mean AQS objective of 40 µg.m . As
-3
the annual-mean NO2 concentration is predicted to be less than 60 µg.m , the hourly-mean AQS
228
objective is expected to be met.
-3
11.6.22
Predicted annual-mean PM10 concentrations range between 19.7 and 18.9 µg.m . Predicted
-3
concentrations at all receptors are well below the annual-mean AQS objective of 40 µg.m . As
-3
the annual-mean PM10 concentration is predicted to be less than 31.5 µg.m , the daily-mean
AQS objective for this pollutant is expected to be met.
11.6.23
Predicted annual-mean PM2.5 concentrations range between 11.7 and 12.1 µg.m-3. Predicted
concentrations at all receptors are well below the annual-mean AQS objective of 25 µg.m-3.
Sensitivity and Uncertainty
11.6.24
As set out in Sections 3 and 4, vehicle emissions do not appear to be decreasing with time at the
pace that was originally expected with the implementation of improved vehicle technologies
imposed by the European Commission (EC). Accordingly, the approach used in this assessment
has been deliberately conservative through the use of the 2010 NAQIA mapped background
annual-mean NO2 concentration and assuming that background concentrations will remain level
in future years.
11.6.25
The results of current research suggest that the introduction of Euro 6 vehicles in 2014 will start
to deliver air quality benefits and pollutant concentrations should decrease as Euro 6 vehicles
penetrate the fleet. The assumptions in relation to the background concentrations add to the
conservatism of the assessment.
11.6.26
Based on this conservative scenario, the impacts at existing receptors are not deemed
significant. Similarly, the predicted pollutant concentrations at proposed receptors are below the
relevant AQS objectives. Consequently, further sensitivity analysis has not been undertaken
and, in practice, the impacts at sensitive receptors are likely to be lower than those reported in
this assessment.
Significance of Effects
11.6.27
As set out in Section 3, it is generally considered good practice that, where possible, an
assessment should communicate effects both numerically and descriptively. The EPUK
guidance advocates that the “conclusion as to the overall significance of the air quality impacts
should be based on the professional judgement of the person preparing the report.”
11.6.28
The results of the modelling indicate that the predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at
existing receptors are below the relevant long and short-term AQS objectives. When the
magnitude of change in annual-mean NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations is considered in the
context of the absolute predictions, the air quality impacts of the development at existing
receptors is described as ‘negligible’ to ‘slight adverse’.
11.6.29
The AQS objectives for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are likely to be met at the facades of the proposed
development. On that basis, site is deemed suitable for its proposed future use in the context of
air quality.
11.6.30
Using professional judgement, the overall significance of air quality effects is considered to be
‘negligible’.
229
Cumulative Effects
11.6.31
The “future” air quality models in this assessment included anticipated traffic volumes for the
Fellowlands development. No other nearby proposals are developed to a level suitable for
inclusion in this study.
11.7
Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Construction Effects
11.7.1
The assessment of air pollution during the construction phase suggests that without mitigation
the impacts are likely to be in the high risk category. The IAQM Dust and Air Emissions
Mitigation Measures document lists mitigation measures for low, medium and high risks.
11.7.2
The measures described as ‘highly recommended’ for high risk sites are listed below:
Communications
Implement a stakeholder communications plan that includes community engagement before
and during work on site.
Display the name and contact details of person(s) accountable for air quality and dust issues
on the site boundary. This may be the environment manager/engineer or the site manager.
Display the head or regional office contact information
Dust Management Plan
Implement a Dust Management Plan (DMP) (which may include measures to control other
emissions), approved by the Local Authority. The level of detail will depend on the risk, and
should include as a minimum the highly recommended measures in this document. The
desirable measures should be included as appropriate for the site. The DMP may include
monitoring of dust.
Site Management
Record all dust and air quality complaints, identify cause(s), take appropriate measures to
reduce emissions in a timely manner, and record the measures taken. Make the complaints log
available to the local authority when asked.
Record any exceptional incidents that cause dust and/or air emissions, either on- or off- site,
and the action taken to resolve the situation in the log book.
Hold regular liaison meetings with other high risk construction sites within 500m of the site
boundary, to ensure plans are co-ordinated and dust and particulate matter emissions are
minimised. If the site is within a large AQMA (i.e. larger than 500m from the site), this should
be extended to include all other high risk construction sites within the AQMAs. It is important to
understand the interactions of the off-site transport/deliveries which might be using the same
strategic road network routes).
Monitoring
Undertake daily on-site and off-site inspection, where receptors (including roads) are nearby,
230
to monitor dust, record inspection results, and make the log available to the local authority
when asked.
When activities with a high potential to produce dust are being carried out and during
prolonged dry or windy conditions increase the frequency of inspections.
Carry out regular dust soiling checks of surfaces such as street furniture, cars and window sills
within 100m of site boundary.
Agree dust deposition, dust flux, or real-time PM10 continuous monitoring locations with the
Local Authority. Commence baseline monitoring at least three months before work
commences on site or, if it a large site, before work on a phase commences. A shorter
monitoring period or concurrent upwind and downwind monitoring may be agreed by the local
authority. Further guidance is provided by IAQM on monitoring during demolition, earthworks
and construction [xxxii].
Preparing and maintaining the site
Plan site layout so that machinery and dust causing activities are located away from receptors,
as far as is possible. Use intelligent screening where possible – e.g. locating site offices
between potentially dusty activities and the receptors.
Erect solid screens or barriers around the site boundary.
Avoid site runoff of water or mud.
Keep site fencing, barriers and scaffolding clean.
Remove materials that have a potential to produce dust from site as soon as possible, unless
being re-used on site. If they are being re-used on-site cover as described below.
Depending on the duration that stockpiles will be present and their size - cover, seed, fence or
water to prevent wind whipping.
Operating vehicle/machinery and sustainable travel
Ensure all vehicles switch off engines when stationary – no idling vehicles.
Avoid the use of diesel or petrol powered generators and use mains electricity or battery
powered equipment where practicable.
Impose and signpost a maximum-speed-limit of 15 mph on surfaced and 10 mph on unsurfaced haul roads and work areas (if long haul routes are required these speeds may be
increased with suitable additional control measures provided, subject to the approval of the
nominated undertaker and with the agreement of the local authority, where appropriate)
Produce a Construction Logistics Plan to manage the sustainable delivery of goods and
materials.
Implement a Travel Plan that supports and encourages sustainable staff travel (public
transport, cycling, walking, and car-sharing)
231
Operations
Only use cutting, grinding or sawing equipment fitted or in conjunction with suitable dust
suppression techniques such as water sprays or local extraction, e.g. suitable local exhaust
ventilation systems.
Ensure an adequate water supply on the site for effective dust/particulate matter
suppression/mitigation, using non-potable water where possible.
Use enclosed chutes, conveyors and covered skips, where practicable.
Ensure equipment is readily available on site to clean any dry spillages, and clean up spillages
as soon as reasonably practicable after the event using wet cleaning methods.
Waste management
Only use registered waste carriers to take waste off-site
Avoid bonfires and burning of waste materials.
Demolition
Ensure effective water suppression is used during demolition operations. Hand held sprays are
more effective than hoses attached to equipment as the water can be directed to where it is
needed. In addition high volume water suppression systems, manually controlled, can produce
fine water droplets that effectively bring the dust particles to the ground.
Avoid explosive blasting, using appropriate manual or mechanical alternatives.
Measures specific to earthworks
Re-vegetate earthworks and exposed areas/soil stockpiles to stabilise surfaces as soon as
practicable. Use Hessian, mulches or trackifiers where it is not possible to re-vegetate or cover
with topsoil, as soon as practicable. Only remove the cover in small areas during work and not
all at once.
Avoid scabbling if possible
Ensure sand and other aggregates are stored in bunded areas and are not allowed to dry out,
unless this is required for a particular process, in which case ensure that appropriate additional
control measures are in place.
Ensure bulk cement and other fine powder materials are delivered in enclosed tankers and
stored in silos with suitable emission control systems to prevent escape of material and
overfilling during delivery.
Use water-assisted dust sweeper(s) on the access and local roads, to remove, as soon as
practicable any material tracked out of the site. This may require the sweeper being
continuously in use.
Ensure vehicles entering and leaving sites are covered to prevent escape of materials during
232
transport.
Record all inspections of haul routes and any subsequent action in a site log book.
Install hard surfaced haul routes, which are regularly damped down with fixed or mobile
sprinkler systems, or mobile water bowsers and regularly cleaned.
Inspect on-site haul routes for integrity and instigate necessary repairs to the surface as soon
as practicable;
Implement a wheel washing system (with rumble grids to dislodge accumulated dust and mud
prior to leaving the site).
Ensure there is an adequate area of hard surfaced road between the wheel wash facility and
the site exit, wherever site size and layout permits. This can be in the form or a static drive
through facility or a manually operated power jet.
11.7.3
With the implementation of the ‘highly recommended’ measures, the risk should be reduced to
medium, or even low.
11.7.4
The IAQM document also provides measures described as ‘desirable’ for high risk sites. These
are also listed below:
Minimise drop heights from conveyors, loading shovels, hoppers and other loading or handling
equipment and use fine water sprays on such equipment wherever appropriate.
Soft strip inside buildings before demolition (retaining walls and windows in the rest of the
building where possible, to provide a screen against dust).
Bag and remove any biological debris or damp down such material before demolition
For smaller supplies of fine power materials ensure bags are sealed after use and stored
appropriately to prevent dust.
Avoid dry sweeping of large areas.
Access gates to be located at least 10m from receptors where possible.
11.7.5
The IAQM has also published Guidance on Air Quality Monitoring in the Vicinity of Demolition
and Construction Sites [xxxii]. Monitoring is recommended for any site where the risk before
mitigation is higher than negligible.
11.7.6
For high-risk sites, the guidance recommends daily visual inspections to check for dust
emissions across the site perimeter, monitoring dustfall (as mass deposition rate and/or soiling
rate) at nearby receptors, together with monitoring of dust flux across the site boundary (if there
is a need to distinguish the contributions of the site from other sites or the general background).
Continuous PM10 monitoring is also recommended if there are people nearby (e.g. houses,
offices, schools, etc within 350 m) who would be exposed.
233
11.8
Residual Effects
11.8.1
No significant residual effects are anticipated.
11.9
Summary and Conclusion
11.9.1
The proposed development is located within the administrative area of DCC. DCC has
designated several Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), all due to high levels of nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) concentration attributed to road traffic emissions. The nearest AQMA to the
proposed development are areas encompassing the ring-roads, located approximately 1.5 km to
the north and north-west.
11.9.2
The assessment has considered nuisance dust effects during the construction phase and the air
quality effects due to the operation of the proposed development. In addition, the suitability of
the proposed development site for its intended use in the context of air quality has also been
considered.
11.9.3
A risk assessment of construction-related effects has been undertaken using the IAQM
guidance. The assessment of air pollution during the construction phase suggests that the
impacts are likely to be in the high risk category. Impacts during the construction of the
proposed development, such as dust generation and plant vehicle emissions, are predicted to be
of short duration and only relevant during the construction phase. Implementation of the highly
recommended mitigation measures set out in the IAQM Dust and Air Emissions Mitigation
Measures document for high risk sites should reduce the impact of construction activities to
medium, or even low.
11.9.4
Detailed atmospheric dispersion modelling has been undertaken for the first year in which the
development is expected to be fully operational, 2026. Pollutant concentrations are expected to
be below the relevant objectives at the façades of existing and proposed receptors. Changes in
pollutant concentrations associated with the operation of the Proposed Development at existing
receptors are not expected to be significant. Using professional judgement, the overall
significance of effects is considered to be ‘negligible’.
11.9.5
The ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development. For determining planning applications, this means approving development
proposals if they accord with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. If the development plan is absent, silent or the policies are out of date, then planning
permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly outweigh the
benefits, or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
11.9.6
The Proposed Development does not conflict with measures set out in DCC’s Air Quality Action
Plan. There are no constraints to the development in the context of air quality.
234
x
Council Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.
xi
Defra, 2010, The Air Quality Standards (England) Regulations.
xii
Defra, 2000, The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: Working
Together for Clean Air.
xiii
Defra, 2003A, The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland:
Addendum.
xiv
Defra, 2007, The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Volume 2.
xv
Defra, 2012, Air Pollution in the UK 2011 – Compliance Assessment Summary
xvi
Policy Guidance: Local Air Quality Management LAQM.PG(09).
xvii
Defra, 2010, Low Emissions Strategies using the planning system to reduce transport emissions.
Good Practice Guidance.
xviii
Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance, 2009 (LAQM.TG(09))
xix
EPUK (2010) Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (2010 Update)
xx
British Standard Institute (1983) BS 6069:Part 2:1983, ISO 4225-1980 Characterization of air quality.
Glossary
xxi
DETR 1995, The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings – Volume Two.
xxii
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, HA207/07, Annex F.
xxiii
Environment Agency (2003) Assessment of noise disturbance on birds and dust on vegetation and
invertebrate species, report prepared by WS Atkins
xxiv
IAQM (April 2012) Dust and Air Emissions Mitigation Measures
xxv
Department for Transport Traffic Counts http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/cp.php
235
xxvi
LAQM.TG(09) Tools http://www.airquality.co.uk/laqm/tools.php
xxvii
AEAT, 2008, Analysis of the relationship between annual-mean nitrogen dioxide concentration and
exceedences of the 1-hour mean AQS Objective.
xxviii
http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/maps/maps2010.html#About2010
xxix
URS (May 2011), 2009 Updating and Screening Assessment & Progress Report
xxx
URS (November 2011) Detailed Air Quality Assessment: Victory Road Update
xxxi
AQEG(2005). Particulate Matter in the UK: Defra, London
xxxii
IAQM, 2012, Air Quality Monitoring in the Vicinity of Demolition and Construction Sites
236
12. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
12.1
Introduction
12.1.1
A desk-based assessment and geophysical survey have been undertaken to assess the likely
impact of the proposed residential development and country park at Snelsmoor Grange, Boulton
Moor Derby. The desk-based assessment was an initial stage in characterising the
archaeological and cultural heritage resource of the study area in order to assess the impact of
the proposed work on known and potential archaeological deposits and historic structures within
the area (Appendix 12.1; Hunt 2013). This provided baseline data on known and unknown
archaeological resources in order to assess the likely effects of the work and enable a robust
mitigation strategy to be formulated. The geophysical survey, comprising detailed
magnetometry, located a few anomalies which may be of archaeological origin, (Appendix 12.2;
Haddrell 2013). On the basis of this, a mitigation strategy will be agreed with Derbyshire County
Council as advisors to the relevant planning authorities.
12.2
Assessment Objective
12.2.1
The specific objective of this Chapter is to assess the nature and significance of the potential
heritage assets and define the likely areas of survival in order to assess the likely impact of the
development upon the historic and archaeological resource and to present a mitigation strategy,
where necessary.
12.3
Assumptions
12.3.1
All work has been carried out based on an initial study area incorporating the application redline plan(s) supplied by the applicant.
12.3.2
The archaeological resource is, by its nature, an incomplete record. Where there are significant
alluvial/colluvial deposits, made ground or lack of archaeological fieldwork, archaeological
remains can remain undetected. Local knowledge has been utilised to assess the resources
within the study area and to identify and assess areas of potential archaeology (e.g. alluvial
deposits close to known archaeological remains).
12.4
Key Guidance and Legislation
12.4.1
The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, provides statutory protection for
monuments of national importance (Scheduled Monuments or SMs).
12.4.2
NPPF Section 12 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment sets out the Secretary of
State’s policy on the conservation of the historic environment. The NPPF, Section 12, identifies
how parts of the historic environment have significance because of their historic, archaeological,
architectural or artistic interest as heritage assets.
12.4.3
The principal legislation affecting the built heritage is the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which provides statutory protection for buildings on a list
compiled by the Secretary of State. Conservation Areas are identified by the Local Planning
Authority as areas of special architectural or historic interest, where it is important to preserve or
enhance their character or appearance. Designating a Conservation Area provides a focus for
Council and private efforts to improve the environment with the following main objectives:
237

to control demolition of any building, whether it is listed or not;

to protect trees; and

to strengthen control over new development, so that it must positively preserve or
enhance the character or appearance of the area.
12.4.4
The Derby City Local Plan includes the following policies relevant to the historic environment.
12.5
E21 Archaeology
12.5.1
This states that planning permission will not be granted for development which is likely to
adversely affect nationally important archaeological remains, or their settings. Physical
preservation in situ is also the preferred option, for locally important sites and their settings and
applications may be refused.
12.5.2
Archaeological evaluations before the planning application is determined may be required
including a strategy to show how the impact of the proposed development on archaeological
remains will be alleviated.
12.5.3
Following an archaeological assessment, if the Council considers that the need for development
outweighs the need for preservation in situ of the archaeological remains, conditions may be
attached to planning permissions, or developers required to enter into legally binding
agreements with the City Council, to secure an appropriate programme for the investigation and
recording of archaeological remains prior to and during development, and for the subsequent
analysis and publication of results.
12.6
E19 Listed Buildings and Buildings of Local Importance
12.6.1
This states that development will not be approved where it would result in the demolition of, or a
detrimental effect on, the special architectural or historic interest of a statutory listed building, its
character or setting. Exceptions will only be made where there is a convincing case for
demolition or alteration.
12.6.2
The retention, maintenance, appropriate use and restoration of locally important buildings and
structures, including those on its Local List, is encouraged. The Council will therefore not
normally approve development proposals that would have a detrimental effect on locally
important buildings or their setting unless all reasonable alternatives to demolition have been
considered and found to be unrealistic.
12.6.3
Where proposals for alteration, extension or demolition would affect a listed building, or a locally
important building or structure, they will be required to undertake an impact assessment before
the application is determined. Where development proposals are approved that would involve
the demolition or alteration of a listed building, or locally important building or structure, which
would result in the loss of historic fabric, the Council will ensure that provision is made for an
appropriate level of building recording to take place prior to the commencement of works.
12.7
Regulations and Guidance
12.7.1
Other regulations and guidance relevant to Cultural Heritage assessment include:

Treasure Act (1996);

Coroners Act (1988);
238

Burial Act (1857);

Disused Burial Grounds Act (1884) and Amendment (1981);

Environment Act (1995);

Codes of Conduct (Institute for Archaeologists 2010, Reading);

Standard and guidance for archaeological desk-based assessments (Institute for
Archaeologists 2008, Reading);

Standard and guidance for archaeological field evaluations (Institute for Archaeologists
2008, Reading);

Standard and guidance for archaeological watching briefs (Institute for Archaeologists 2008,
Reading);

Standard and guidance for archaeological excavation (Institute for Archaeologists 2008,
Reading);

Standard and guidance for the archaeological investigation and recording of standing
buildings or structures (Institute for Archaeologists 2008, Reading);

Standard and guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of
archaeological materials (Institute for Archaeologists 2008, Reading);

Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP2 English Heritage 1991); and

Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MoRPHE, English Heritage
2006).
12.8
Consultations
12.8.1
Derbyshire County Council, Environmental Services as Historic Environment advisors to the
planning authority has been consulted on the scope of the assessment. English Heritage has
also been contacted to assess their views of the impact on the settings of the scheduled
monuments and listed buildings.
12.9
Methodology
12.9.1
In this chapter the guidelines and methodology on environmental assessment outlined in the
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB 2007) Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 2 (HA 208/07) has
been followed (Tables 12.1-12.4). While these guidelines were formulated for Environmental
Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Environmental Statements (ES) of highway projects; they are
deemed as best practice guidelines for other development requiring EIA and ES. The guidelines
conform to the Planarch2 best practice models for cultural heritage coverage.
239
Table 12.1 - Environmental Value (Sensitivity) and Typical Descriptors (from HA208/07, Annexes 5 – 7, based on Tables 5.1, 6.1, 7.1).
Value
Typical descriptors
(sensitivity)
Archaeological Remains
Historic Buildings
Historic Landscapes
Very High
 World Heritage Sites
 Structures inscribed as of universal importance
 World Heritage Sites inscribed for their historic
 Assets
of
acknowledged
international importance
 Assets
that
can
as World Heritage Sites
landscape qualities
 Other buildings of recognised international
contribute
importance
designated or not
Significantly to acknowledged
international
 Extremely well preserved historic landscapes with
research
exceptional coherence, time-depth or other
objectives
High
 Historic landscapes of international value, whether
critical factor(s)
 Scheduled Monuments
 Scheduled
Monuments
with
standing
 Designated historic landscapes of outstanding
remains
interest
 Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings
 Undesignated
importance
 Other Listed Buildings that can be shown
interest
 Assets that can contribute
to have exceptional qualities in their fabric
 Undesignated landscapes of high quality and
Significantly to acknowledged
or
importance, and of
national research objectives
reflected in the listed grade
 Undesignated
schedulable
assets
quality
of
and
historic
association
 Conservation
Areas
not
adequately
containing
landscapes
of
outstanding
demonstrable national
sensitivity.
very
 Well
preserved
historic landscapes
with
important buildings
considerable coherence, time-depth or other
 Undesignated structures of clear national
critical factor(s)
importance
Medium
 Designated
undesignated
contribute
or
 Grade II Listed Buildings
 Designated special historic landscapes
that
 Historic (unlisted) buildings that can be
 Undesignated historic landscapes that would
regional
shown to have exceptional qualities in their
justify special historic landscape designation,
assets
to
240
Value
Typical descriptors
(sensitivity)
Archaeological Remains
Historic Buildings
research objectives
Historic L
fabric or historic association.
 Conservation
Areas
lan
containing
very
A
important buildings
with
 Historic Townscape or built-up areas with
crit
historic integrity in their buildings, or built
settings (e.g. including street furniture and
other structures)

Low
 Designated
 ‘Locally listed’ buildings
R
undesignated assets of local
 Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest
H
importance
quality in their fabric or historic association
inte
by
 Historic Townscape or built-up areas of
H
poor preservation and/or poor
limited historic integrity in their buildings, or
poo
survival
built settings (e.g. including street furniture
con
 Assets
and
compromised
of
contextual
associations
and other structures
 Assets of limited value but
with potential to contribute to
local research objectives
Negligible
 Assets with very little or no
 Buildings of no archaeological or historic
L
surviving
note; buildings of an intrusive character
inte
archaeological
interest
Unknown
 The
importance
of
the
 Buildings
with
241
some
hidden
(i.e.
Value
Typical descriptors
(sensitivity)
Archaeological Remains
resource
has
Historic Buildings
not
been
ascertained
Historic L
inaccessible)
potential
for
historic
significance
Table 12.2 - Magnitude of Impact and Typical Descriptors (HA208/07, Annexes 5 – 7, based on Tables 5.3, 6.3,
Value
Typical descriptors
(sensitivity)
Archaeological Remains
Historic Buildings
Historic L
Major
 Change to most or all key
 Change to key historic building
 Change
archaeological
elements, such that the resource is
elements,
such that the resource is
totally altered
effects; g
totally altered
 Comprehensive change to the
quality; f
 Comprehensive changes to
setting.
resulting
materials,
character
setting
Moderate
 Changes
to
many
key
 Change to many key historic
 Change
materials,
building elements, such that the
parcels o
such that the resource is
resource is Significantly modified
aspects
clearly modified
 Changes to the setting of an
difference
 Considerable changes to
historic building, such that it is
changes
setting
the
Significantly modified
change to
key
 Change to key historic building
 Change
materials,
elements, such that the asset is
parcels o
such that the asset is slightly
slightly different
key aspec
altered
 Change to the setting of an
noise leve
archaeological
that
affect
character of the asset
Minor
 Change
archaeological
to
242
 Slight change to setting
Negligible
 Very minor
changes
to
historic building, such that it is
access;
noticeably changed
landscape
 Slight
changes
to
historic
 Very m
archaeological materials or
building elements or setting that
elements,
setting
hardly affect it
visual eff
sound qu
resulting
character
No change
 No change
 No change to fabric or setting
 No chan
visual or
amenity o
243
Table 12.3 - Descriptors of Significance of Effects (from DMRB 2007)
Significance
Typical descriptors of effect
category
Very Large
Only adverse effects are normally assigned this level of significance.
They represent key factors in the decision-making process. These
effects are generally, but not exclusively, associated with sites or
features of international, national or regional importance that are likely
to suffer a most damaging impact and loss of resource integrity.
However, a serious change in a site or feature of district importance
may also enter this category.
Large
These beneficial or adverse effects are considered to be very
important considerations and are likely to be material in the decisionmaking process.
Moderate
These beneficial or adverse effects may be important, but are not likely
to be key decision-making factors. The cumulative effects of such
issues may become a decision-making issue if leading to an increase
in the overall adverse effect on a particular resource or receptor.
Slight
These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local issues.
They are unlikely to be critical in the decision-making process, but are
important in enhancing the subsequent design of the project
Neutral
No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal
bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
244
Very
or Large
Slight
Large
Slight or
Moderate
Moderate
or Large
Medium
Neutral
Slight
Neutral or Slight
Slight
Moderate
Low
High
Neutral
Large or
Moderate
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral or Slight
Neutral or slight
Slight
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral or
Neutral or
Slight
Slight
No change
Negligible
Minor
Moderate
Negligible
ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE (SENSITIVITY)
High
Very
Table 12.4 - Arriving at Significance (from DMRB 2007, HA208/07)
MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT (DEGREE OF CHANGE)
245
Very
Large
Large or
Very
Large
Moderate or
Large
Slight or
Moderate
Slight
Major
12.9.2
This Chapter considers three types of Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resource:

Archaeological Remains: these can include artefacts, field monuments, structures,
landscape features and can be visible or buried.

Historic Buildings: these are architectural or designed structures with a significant
historical value and can be of any date.

Historical Landscapes: these can include countryside, townscapes, industrial
landscapes and designed landscapes such as parks and gardens Chapter 10 of this
ES also considers landscape and the effects of the development in detail.
12.9.3
The methodology to assess the effect of the scheme on the Archaeology and Cultural
Heritage involves:

Assessment of the significance/value of the identified and potential Cultural Heritage
Assets as identified by the desk-based assessment and subsequent fieldwork.

Assessment on the impact of the scheme on the Cultural Heritage Assets.

Consultation with relevant local and national authorities.

Consultation with other relevant authors of Chapters in this ES (e.g. noise and
vibration, landscape/townscape).

Significance of Effects (using professional judgement and checked using the formula
that the significance is a function of the Value of the resource and the residual impact
after mitigation).

12.9.4
Mitigation Strategies for known and potential cultural heritage assets.
Following Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB 2007) Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 2
(HA 208/07) three stages to assessment have been followed:
1. Evaluating the Cultural Heritage Resource
This involves assigning values to the sites identified in each of the subtopics. The value
of an archaeological or historic resource can be assessed using a scale of criteria from
Negligible to Very High. As historic and archaeological remains can be difficult to
determine and assess without intrusive fieldwork there is also the option for them to be
categorised as Unknown. Table 12.1 can be used to help identify this, but it is mainly
based on local knowledge and can change as more work is done.
2. Assessing the Magnitude of Impact
The impact is defined as a change resulting from the scheme that affects the cultural
heritage. Impacts can be either adverse (e.g. removal of a resource) or beneficial (e.g.
improvement of public access or setting). Most of the impact will be physical as a direct
consequence of the construction works and mainly confined to the area of land take. This
may also include pre-construction works such as boreholes, trial pits, auguring and the
setting up of compounds, haul roads and borrow pits as well as construction works such
as demolition, piling and excavation. Impacts may also be indirect such as those caused
by changes in drainage and from long term effects such as compaction of remains
beneath embankments. In some cases work at a distance from the site may also have an
impact on the context (the perception and understanding of the site in relation to its
landscape) or setting (the surroundings in which a place is experienced).
The magnitude of impact is first assessed without taking into account any agreed
246
mitigation and enhancement measures. The magnitude of impact does not take into
account the value of the resource (e.g. the destruction of a Low Value site is the same
magnitude of impact as that of a High Value site). Impacts on the cultural heritage can be
positive (Beneficial) or negative (Adverse) and can be assessed on a scale from Major
Beneficial to Major Adverse (Table 12.2).
3. Evaluation of the Significance of Environmental Effects
Significance is considered to be the product of the value of the environmental resource
likely to be affected and the magnitude of the impact, whether positive or negative upon it.
The significance is assessed using judgements regarding value, magnitude of impact and
significance of effect that are reasonable and balanced. However, the matrix set out in
Table 12.4 is used as a check to ensure that these judgements are reasonable and
balanced. Descriptions of the results obtained are listed in Table 12.3.
12.10
Baseline Conditions
Sources of Information
12.10.1
The following sources have been consulted to assess previous land use and
archaeological potential:

Archaeological records (Derbyshire County Council; Historic Environment Record;
Derbyshire Archaeological Journal);

Previous Ordnance Survey maps of the area (Derbyshire Record Office and Local
Studies Library, County Hall, Matlock);

Geological maps (University of Leicester Geology Dept - Map Library;

Historical background material (ULAS Reference Library and University of
Leicester Library); and

Geotechnical data.
12.10.2
A Site visit was undertaken on 27 February 2013 to examine the area. Particular attention
was paid to the current land use of all parts of the site and the likely impact on the
condition of any buried archaeological remains.
12.11
The Baseline Prior to Construction
12.11.1
The land at Boulton Moor lies within the City of Derby. Historically the land falls over two
parishes. The northern part lay within the parish of Alvaston and Boulton and the
southern part within Chellaston. Boulton as a place-name is derived from the AngloSaxon for ‘the farm of Bola’ (Craven 1996). Boulton is mentioned in the Domesday
Survey as belonging to Norman nobleman Ralph Fitzhubert of Crich, who had replaced
the former Saxon owner Leofnoth after the Norman Conquest. Ralph installed Colle as a
tenant and the subsequent tenants took their surname from the area. After 1180 the land
passed through marriage from the Boulton family to the Sacheverells, a prominent
Derbyshire family, who also had land in Alvaston.
12.11.2
The parish was enclosed in 1802 and was governed by a local board, which was
replaced by the Urban District Council in 1894. The parish had been merged with
Alvaston, which it had shared an ill-defined border with, in 1884.The joint parish was
absorbed into Derby in 1928 and the old UDC was wound up a few years later. The
absorption into the city meant that the Derby ring road could be built through the area and
247
Boulton Moor soon became the focus for new housing, which still continues (Craven
1996).
12.11.3
The Historic Environment Record (HER) for Derbyshire records no known heritage assets
within the site area itself.
12.11.4
There are a number of known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the application site
and study area. A 2.5km radius search, from the edges of the study area was undertaken
of the Historic Environment Record for Derbyshire. All measurements shown are from the
edge of the study area. The more relevant sites are summarised below and the full
listings are detailed in the desk-based assessment (Appendix 12.1) and identified at
Figure 12.1.
Prehistoric
12.11.5
A field immediately to the west of the application area is a registered Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI). This is due to a rare geological sequence, which includes the
remains of early mammalian fauna, including hippopotamus, from the last inter-glacial
period.
12.11.6
The study area lies 2.5km north-east of the nationally important Swarkestone Lowes
barrow cemetery (HER Ref No. MDR4378), which is a Scheduled Monument (SM29971).
The site consists of several bell barrows, with surrounding ditches. Excavation has
revealed that some contain cremations and inhumations dating to the Bronze Age
(MDR7300 & MDR7304). Two have been ploughed flat (MDR7305 & MDR7306) and one
contains a later Anglo-Saxon burial (MDR7300). Number 4 barrow (MDR7304) overlies a
Neolithic Beaker settlement (MDR7303). There is evidence of prehistoric settlement of
uncertain date, nearby (MDR7361) along with further prehistoric features, not closely
dated, in the vicinity (MDR7359 & MDR7361).
12.11.7
Around 2km to the south of the study area, is a system of cropmarks, which appear to be
associated with a possible settlement site and may be multi-phased (MDR4404). This site
is also a Scheduled Monument (SM241).Further to the west of the barrow cemetery lie a
number of partially excavated cropmarks that have revealed evidence for an Iron Age and
Romano-British settlement in this area (MDR4371). More recent excavations in the area
have revealed archaeological artefacts from the Palaeolithic through to the medieval
period (Elliott & Knight 1999; Guilbert & Elliott 1999).
12.11.8
The HER indicates that are a number of cropmarks, possibly prehistoric or Roman in the
field at Chellaston Hill, 2km south of the study area (MDR4392). This appears to be an
erroneous entry and is actually connected to cropmarks further to the east at grid
reference SK 388 296. However, recent excavations carried out by ULAS in 2012 have
revealed evidence for enclosure ditches, which yielded Romano-British pottery and also
prehistoric pottery of uncertain date, possibly Bronze Age (Harvey 2012).
12.11.9
A barbed and tanged arrowhead, dating from the Bronze Age was found in Chellaston in
1938, around 1km south of the study area (MDR10577). Close by is the findspot for a
Mesolithic macehead (MDR4613). A complete Iron Age Hunsbury quern was found
around 2km to the south south-east of the study area (MDR4419).
12.11.10
A number of prehistoric features, including a Bronze Age/ Iron Age pit alignment and
rectilinear enclosure were discovered at Aston Hill, 2km south-east of the study area
(MDR7774). Further to the east are a group of prehistoric enclosures and a ring ditch
(MDR5571).
248
12.11.11
Around 400m to the north of the study area is the findspot for a Mesolithic flint
(MDR8462). Further to the east are a set of cropmarks, most likely associated with an
Iron Age farmstead (MDR5570). A Bronze Age arrowhead was found on a site 1.1m north
of the study area (MDR10527), with a further one nearby (MDR10575) and another
around 600m further north (MDR10576). A tanged macehead was found at a sports
ground, 1.7km north-west of the study area (MDR4627). A flint blade, dating from the
Early Bronze Age lies around 1.8km to the north of the study area (MDR4625). An Iron
Age coin was found at Osmaston Park Road Estate, 2.5m north-west of the study area
(MDR4608).
12.11.12
A recent archaeological evaluation carried out by Headland Archaeology on land at Noel
Baker School, to the direct north-west of the study area identified small pits, which is
indicative of low level Bronze Age human activity in the area (Dingwall 2011).
Roman
12.11.13
A 4th century Roman bracelet was found during work in Whitehurst Street, 1.4km southwest of the study area (MDR10549). A Romano-British jar was found by a workman near
the old canal bridge, 1.3km to the north-west of the study area (MDR4624). A Roman
coin was found close by (MDR4626).
Early medieval/ Anglo-Saxon
12.11.14
A Saxon grave slab was found under a church tower, 1.4km north of the study area at St.
Michael’s Church (MDR4612). It still resides in the porch. A Viking iron axehead was
found in Allenton, 1.6km north-west of the study area (MDR4614).
12.11.15
There is evidence for Anglo-Saxon activity on some of the sites mentioned above,
including the Anglo-Saxon burial in Swarkestone Barrow No. 2 (MDR7300) and at the
Iron Age site to the west (MDR4371).
Medieval
12.11.16
The 12th-13th century church of St. Mary, Boulton, lies around 1.1km north of the study
area (MDR4611). There are a number of other medieval buildings in the vicinity of the
study area. None are close enough to be affected by any new development.
12.11.17
The only other medieval evidence in the area is extant ridge and furrow located
throughout the area around the study area. However, there are none recorded at Boulton
Moor or on the application site.
Post-medieval-modern
12.11.18
The former Swarkestone branch of the Derby Canal runs to the direct west of the study
area (MDR10003). There are several gypsum mines close to the study area, dating from
the 19th century (MDR13191 etc). The anti-aircraft gun site, which lies 2.4km east of the
study area is a Scheduled Monument (MDR7849: SM29992).
Registered Parks and Gardens
12.11.19
Elvaston Castle, which lies around 2km to the north-east of the study area, is the only
Registered Park and Garden within a 2.5km radius of the site.
249
Historic Landscape Characterisation
12.11.20
The data collection phase of the Historic Landscape Characterisation, one of English
Heritage’s historic landscape characterisation projects, is in progress. The aim of the
Derbyshire Historic Landscape Character Assessment has been to map the historic
landscape character of that part of Derbyshire lying outside of the Peak District National
Park. It complements a similar project already undertaken for the National Park.
However, the study area, which lies within the Boulton Moor area of the city, lies outside
the areas that have been characterised so far.
12.11.21
Much of the land around the assessment area that contains similar fields to those on
Boulton Moor are characterised as ‘small irregular fields’ or ‘small regular fields’. Some
are known to have retained their basic shape from at least the post-medieval period and
are characterised as ‘remnant fossilized strip fields’. The fields within the study area have
remained unchanged since when the land was enclosed in 1802 and therefore some of
the field systems are over 200 years old.
Cartographic Evidence
12.11.22
The earliest map available for the study area is the Alvaston, Boulton and Sin Fin Moor
map of 1805 (Figure 12.2).
12.11.23
The site falls historically within two parishes: Alvaston and Boulton for the northern part of
the area and Chellaston in the south. The 1805 map only shows the northern part of the
site.
12.11.24
The map originally was oriented with south to the top of the map (this has been corrected
in the illustration). Many of the individual closes are named, on the map and some are
named in the accompanying award. Many have the same name, such as ‘Nether Moor’
(closes 62, 64, 65 and 69) or ‘Bradmoor’ (63 and the small close to the south-east).
12.11.25
Most of the land at this time belonged to the Reverend Joseph Smith for tithes in Boulton.
Enclosure 64 was controlled by Will Briggs.
12.11.26
The map shows that the general layout of the individual enclosures had been established
by this time and remains largely the same as the present day.
12.11.27
The next available map is the 1833 map of Alvaston and Boulton (Figure 12.3). Once
again this only shows part of the area and is very similar in layout to the 1805 map,
although there is some change in the system of roads and paths that run through the site
and there are some additional boundaries, particularly in the north-east of the site, where
the land has been further partitioned. The field numbers have also been updated,
although there are no ownership details.
12.11.28
The next available maps of the area are the undated 19th century maps of Alvaston and
Boulton and Chellaston (Figures 12.4). Although undated, they must be of a similar date
to the 1833 map, as the fields still have the same numbering system.
12.11.29
The maps also show the southern part of the site within Chellaston and so all the
assessment area is represented, with some overlap of the Chellaston map into Boulton
parish (Figure 12.5). The Chellaston map shows that much of the central part of the land
was arable, as it is today.
12.11.30
The next available map is the first edition Ordnance Survey map, dated 1887. The
assessment area falls over two sheets and these have been joined together on the
illustrations (Figure 12.6).
250
12.11.31
The maps show how undeveloped the area was at this time, before the area was brought
into Derby City. The land is a patchwork of small, fairly regular field enclosures, mostly
rectangular, with few, more irregular fields mainly following the edge of the drain to the
north that forms the northern boundary. The second edition OS map of 1901 shows a
very similar situation to the previous edition, with the parish boundary still shown crossing
the centre of the map.
12.11.32
There are three more maps available for this area; the 1919 and 1938 editions of the
northern part of the site and the 1923 edition of the southern part of the site. Both show
little change and are therefore not illustrated.
12.11.33
There are maps available on line from the 1970s and 1980s and they show some loss of
boundaries throughout the site from the 1930s. However, the study area has changed
little since the 19th century, except for the gradual encroachment of housing from
Chellaston and Shelton Lock from the south and south-west and from Boulton itself from
the north.
Site Visit
12.11.34
The study area was visited on 27 February 2013. It can be accessed from a variety of
areas. The south-eastern part of the site can be accessed via a metal field gate along the
northern edge of Snelsmoor Lane. From here most of the eastern part of the site can be
seen, as the land falls from a high point close to the buildings at the southern edge of the
site, towards the north, where the land is largely flat. The eastern part of the site is arable
in nature and much of it is only partially enclosed by hedgerows, and many have been
removed or broken up into sections.
12.11.35
The central part of the site can be accessed on foot from Chellaston Park or the section
of rough ground to the west of the park. From the rough ground a series of large
inspection manholes can be seen set out northwards across the land. These continue to
the east. There are also several sets of power lines crossing the site, mainly from east to
west. Most of the central southern part of the site is arable land and throughout the
southern and eastern parts of the site, at the time of writing, the land was ploughed and
covered in a young crop.
12.11.36
The western and northern parts of the site can be accessed via a footpath that runs north
and then east from Back Lane on the northern outskirts of Chellaston. The road leads
onto a farm track, affording views across the central and western fields. The western
fields are mainly under pasture and many still contained animals at the time of the visit.
The footpath continues over stiles to the north and from here the western fields can be
accessed. Most are covered in grass and had a series of footpaths running through them,
which were well used by walkers. These included the field containing the SSSI to the
north-west. The south-western part of the site, which is also covered in rough pasture,
can be seen through the metal fence off of Woodminton Drive in Chellaston.
12.11.37
None of the fields appear to contain earth-works or any other archaeological features and
none appeared to contain ridge and furrow earth-works. Survey by detailed
magnetometry has located a few anomalies of potential archaeological origin (Haddrell
2013).
12.11.38
The online catalogue of the Cambridge University Collection of Aerial Photographs was
searched, and found to contain no oblique photographs of the development area. There
is no Lidar survey information available for the area.
251
Archaeologically significant hedgerows
12.11.39
Protection for ancient hedgerows is provided under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.
Ancient hedgerows are defined as those that were in existence before the Enclosure
Acts, passed mainly between 1720 and 1840 in Britain and from the mid-17th century in
Ireland. Species-rich hedgerows may be taken as those that contain five or more native
woody species on average in a 30-metre length, or four or more in northern England,
upland Wales and Scotland. The area was enclosed in 1802 and some of the hedgerow
boundaries date from this time.
Historic Landscape Characterisation
12.11.40
The site lies outside the Derbyshire Historic Landscape Characterisation area as Derby
City was excluded. The layout of the fields is almost identical to that of the late 19th
century, with some degree of boundary loss during the 20th century having resulted in the
long narrow fields visible today. The overall layout dates from the beginning of the 19th
century, as the Parliamentary Enclosure of Boulton Moor took place in 1802. Chapter 5
provides a detailed assessment of the landscape character of the site and surrounding
area.
Historic Buildings
12.11.41
There are no Listed buildings or locally listed buildings within the study area or its vicinity.
Other sites
12.11.42
No cropmarks, scheduled monuments, world heritage sites, historic battlefields, historic
parks or gardens, conservation areas or national /ancient woodlands are recorded within
the study area.
12.12
Value (sensitivity) of the Heritage Assets
Archaeological deposits
12.12.1
There are no known archaeological remains recorded on the HER within the
development area.
12.12.2
Two phases of geophysical survey were undertaken (Appendix 12.2; Haddrell 2013). The
detailed magnetic gradiometer survey undertaken over 72 hectares has identified a
number of anomalies likely to be related to the medieval/post-medieval agricultural use of
the survey area. Long linear anomalies indicated the presence of former field boundaries
and widely spaced, curving parallel anomalies have been interpreted as evidence of
ploughed out ridge and furrow.
12.12.3
Curvilinear and sub-circular ditched features have been identified in the western half of
the survey area (Haddrell 2013 Figure 08, 3-8). These anomalies have been interpreted
as being of a probable archaeological origin and may be related to prehistoric settlement
activity. Linear anomalies possibly related to ancient field systems were located in the
southern region of the survey area (Haddrell 2013 Figure 18, 9-15). Discrete anomalies
indicative of pit-like features of a possible archaeological origin have been identified
throughout the survey area. It is important to note however that these features may also
be of a natural origin and caused by localised changes in geology or pedology.
252
12.12.4
There will be no impact on the setting of any scheduled monuments in the area. The
nearest scheduled monument, Swarkestone Lowes Barrow Cemetery and field system is
located 2.5km to the south and is masked from the development area by the
embankment carrying the A50.
12.12.5
Following DMRB the Environmental Value (Sensitivity) of the archaeological deposits is
medium.
Historic Buildings
12.12.6
There are no Listed or locally listed historic buildings directly affected by the
development. There will be no aural or visual impact on the setting of any Listed Buildings
from the development. Following DMRB the Environmental Value (Sensitivity) of the
historic buildings is low.
Historic Landscapes
12.12.7
The landscape reflects a typical post-Enclosure 19th century arrangement, with some
boundary loss during the 20th century. Some field boundaries fall within the definition of
ancient hedgerows, some of which will be retained within the proposed country park.
12.12.8
Following DMRB the Environmental Value (Sensitivity) of the historic landscapes is low.
12.13
Assessment of Impacts
Potential Impacts (before mitigation)
Construction Phase
12.13.1
Most construction impacts are likely to be permanent in nature such as the removal of
archaeological features during ground breaking works.
12.13.2
The red-line plan for the development shows the likely extent of disturbance that will
occur during construction and the impact on potential archaeological deposits can
assessed from these sources.
12.13.3
There are no Listed or historic buildings directly affected by the development. All of the
Listed Buildings lie outside the area of impact.
Operational Phase
12.13.4
There will be no additional direct impact on the archaeology and cultural heritage after
the development has been undertaken and becomes occupied.
Design and Mitigation Measures
Design Development
12.13.5
During the detailed design phase of the project, consideration will be given to the need to
modify the design in order to mitigate the potential effect on the cultural heritage.
Archaeological Remains
12.13.6
The specific objective of the scheme is to reduce the impact of the development upon the
potential archaeological resource by providing a robust and suitable mitigation strategy. It
is intended that the mitigation measures proposed for the scheme, will contribute to the
value, understanding and dissemination of the cultural heritage. The mitigation strategy
provides a comprehensive programme which will provide an appropriate record of
archaeological features impacted on by the development.
253
Research Aims
12.13.7
All mitigation work will be considered in the light of the East Midlands Research
Framework (Cooper ed. 2006) and Strategy (Knight et la 2013).
Pre-Construction Mitigation
12.13.8
Archaeological and cultural heritage resources are non-renewable and the primary goal
of cultural resource management is physical preservation. Where this is not possible
mitigation strategies may including recording the heritage assets before their loss.
Mitigation is proposed for the potential archaeological deposits located during the
geophysical survey (Appendix 12.2; Haddrell 2013).
12.13.9
Although all known design details have been included, there are likely to be areas of
groundworks not yet assessed by this report (e.g. compounds, haul roads, storage areas,
etc.). Mitigation for these areas should be considered once the final details are available.
12.13.10
Mitigation strategies will be discussed with the planning archaeologists for Derbyshire
County Council as advisors to DCC on the historical environment.
Operational Phase Mitigation
12.13.11
No further mitigation measures are considered necessary during the operational phase.
Archaeological Methodology and Monitoring
12.13.12
All work will be undertaken in accordance with the Institute for Archaeologists’ Code of
Conduct, Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Field evaluations, Excavations and
Archaeological Watching Briefs.
12.13.13
Written Schemes of Investigation (WSI) will be produced in advance for each phase of
work and sent to the Planning Archaeologist for approval. The archaeological objectives
and strategy will be continuously reviewed in the light of the archaeological remains
uncovered. All work will be monitored internally by the archaeological contractor and by
the Derbyshire County Council, Development Control Archaeologist as advisor to DCC.
Historic Buildings
12.13.14
There will be no direct impact or impact on the setting of any Listed or locally listed
buildings from the proposed development.
Historic Landscapes
12.13.15
There will be an impact on the historic landscape from the removal of some of the
hedgerows which can be defined as Ancient Hedgerows following the 1997 Hedgerows
Regulations.
Positive Effects
12.13.16
Where there is a direct impact on archaeological remains, the increase in knowledge and
understanding that occurs through excavation, although not a benefit, can be offset
against the loss of information that would occur if a site was to be destroyed unrecorded.
The choice of an area for development with a low potential for the presence of
archaeological deposits and a neutral effect on Listed Buildings can also be seen as a
positive effect.
254
Negative Effects
12.13.17
Heritage Assets are a finite resource which once altered or removed cannot be replaced.
The scheme would have negative effects wherever there are direct impacts on
archaeological remains.
12.14
Significance of Effects
12.14.1
The significance of the effects of the scheme combines the value of the resource and the
magnitude of the impact (incorporating the mitigation strategy) for each cultural heritage
asset. The significance is assessed using judgements regarding value, magnitude of
impact and significance of effect that are reasonable and balanced. A matrix is used as a
check to ensure that these judgements are reasonable and balanced (Tables 12.5-6).
Archaeological Remains
12.14.2
After mitigation there will be Moderate Adverse effects on the potential archaeological
remains if present. There will be a neutral effect on the setting of the scheduled
monument of Swarkstone Lowes
Historic Buildings
12.14.3
There will be a Neutral effect on the Listed and locally listed buildings in Boulton Moor
and Chellaston.
Historic landscapes
12.14.4
The removal of some hedgerows that can be defined as Ancient Hedgerows following the
1997 Hedgerow regulations will cause a Moderate Adverse impact on the historic
landscape.
12.14.5
The overall assessment of the significance of effects on cultural heritage assets is that
after mitigation there will be a Moderate Adverse effect.
12.15
Summary and Conclusion
12.15.1
Historically the land falls over two parishes. The northern part lay within the parish of
Alvaston and Boulton and the southern part within Chellaston. Boulton as a place-name
is derived from the Anglo-Saxon for ‘the farm of Bola’
12.15.2
The parish was enclosed in 1802 and was governed by a local board, which was
replaced by the Urban District Council in 1894. The parish had been merged with
Alvaston, which it had shared an ill-defined border with, in 1884.The joint parish was
absorbed into Derby in 1928 and the old UDC was wound up a few years later. The
absorption into the city meant that the Derby ring road could be built through the area and
Boulton Moor soon became the focus for new housing, which still continues (Craven
1996).
12.15.3
The Historic Environment Record (HER) for Derbyshire records no known heritage assets
within the site area itself.
12.15.4
There are a number of known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the application site
and study area. A 2.5km radius search, from the edges of the study area was undertaken
of the Historic Environment Record for Derbyshire.
12.15.5
A field immediately to the west of the application area is a registered Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI). This is due to a rare geological sequence, which includes the
remains of early mammalian fauna, including hippopotamus, from the last inter-glacial
255
period.
12.15.6
Around 2km to the south of the study area, is a system of cropmarks, which appear to be
associated with a possible settlement site and may be multi-phased (MDR4404). This site
is also a Scheduled Monument (SM241)
12.15.7
Much of the land around the assessment area that contains similar fields to those on
Boulton Moor are characterised as ‘small irregular fields’ or ‘small regular fields’. Some
are known to have retained their basic shape from at least the post-medieval period and
are characterised as ‘remnant fossilized strip fields’. The fields within the study area have
remained unchanged since when the land was enclosed in 1802 and therefore some of
the field systems are over 200 years old.
12.15.8
The site lies outside the Derbyshire Historic Landscape Characterisation area as Derby
City was excluded. The layout of the fields is almost identical to that of the late 19th
century, with some degree of boundary loss during the 20th century having resulted in the
long narrow fields visible today.
12.15.9
There are no Listed Buildings or locally listed buildings within the study area or its vicinity.
12.15.10
No cropmarks, scheduled monuments, world heritage sites, historic battlefields, historic
parks or gardens, conservation areas or national /ancient woodlands are recorded within
the study area.
12.15.11
There will be an impact on the historic landscape from the removal of some of the
hedgerows which can be defined as Ancient Hedgerows following the 1997 Hedgerows
Regulations.
12.15.12
The removal of some hedgerows that can be defined as Ancient Hedgerows following the
1997 Hedgerow regulations will cause a Moderate Adverse impact on the historic
landscape.
12.15.13
The overall assessment of the significance of effects on cultural heritage assets is that
after mitigation there will be a Moderate Adverse effect.
256
Table 12.5 Summary of Potential Heritage Assets
1
Not
on
HER
Geophysical
survey Areas 3-8
Geophysical survey anomalies: potential prehistoric
settlement
Mitigation Strategy - no impact as within
Country Park Green Space
Unknown
2
Not
on
HER
Geophysical
survey anomalies
Geophysical survey anomalies: potential pits
1. Trial trenching
2. Mitigation Strategy as appropriate
Low
3
Not
on
HER
Geophysical
survey anomalies
Geophysical survey anomalies: Ploughed out ridge
and furrow field systems
Mitigation Strategy - no impact on western
area as within Country Park Green Space.
Eastern Area: no further action / watching
brief
Low
Table 12.6 - Summary of Impacts and Significance of Effects on Heritage Assets
Significance
Impact
from
Development
Suggested mitigation strategy
Residual Impact
Significance
Effects
1: Geophysical survey
anomalies:
potential
prehistoric settlement
Unknown
Neutral
Preserve within Country park
Neutral
Neutral
2: Geophysical survey
anomalies: pits.
Low
Moderate
Adverse
Prior Evaluation (trial trenching),
appropriate mitigation
Minor Adverse
Slight Adverse
3. Geophysical survey
anomalies: Ploughed
out ridge and furrow
field systems
Low/Local
Moderate
Adverse
Landscaping and Planting
Minor Adverse
Slight Adverse
Asset
257
of
Environmental
Bibliography
Cooper, N.J., (ed) 2006 The Archaeology of the East Midlands An Archaeological Resource Assessment
and Research Agenda. Leicester Archaeology Monograph 13.
Craven, M 1996 The Illustrated History of Derby’s Suburbs. Breedon Books. Derby.
DMRB 2007 Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 HA208/07 Cultural Heritage.
Dingwall, K., 2011 Noel Baker School Derby: Archaeological Evaluation. Headland Archaeology Grey
Literature Report.
Elliot, L., and Knight, D.,1999. An early Mesolithic site and First Millenium BC settlement and pit alignments
at Swarkestone Lows, Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 119, 79-153.
Guilbert, G., and Elliot, L., 1999 Post-ring round house at Swarkestone Lows. The Derbyshire Archaeological
Journal 119, 154-175.
Harvey, J., 2012 An Archaeological Evaluation at Chellaston Fields, Swarkestone, Derbyshire (SK 382 295)
ULAS Report 2012-189.
Haddrell, S., 2013 Geophysical Survey report. Boulton Moor, Derby Stratascan Report J3295.
Hunt, L., 2013 An archaeological desk-based assessment for land at Snelmoor Grange, Boulton Moor,
Derby (SK 386 315). ULAS Report 2013-028.
Knight, D., Vyner, B.; Allen, C., 2012, East Midlands Heritage. An Updated Research Agenda and Strategy
for the Historic Environment of the East Midlands. Nottingham Archaeological Monographs 6, University of
Nottingham and York Archaeological Trust.
Sources
Historic Environment Record, Environmental Services, Derbyshire County Council
Derbyshire County Council: Local Studies library
OS MAPS: 6 inch to 1 mile: Sheet LV.NW: 1887 edition; 1919 edition; 1938 edition.
Sheet LV.SW: 1887 edition; 1901 edition; 1923 edition; 1938 edition
British Geological Survey Website: http://www.bgs.ac.uk
Digimap: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/digimap/home
258
13. SITE WASTE
13.1
Introduction and Study Area
13.1.1
This chapter assesses the likely significant effects of the wastes expected to arise during the
construction and operational phases of the development.
13.1.2
For the purposes of this assessment, the study area has been defined as the administrative area
of DCC as it will be responsible for the collection of municipal waste resulting from the
development.
13.1.3
Minimising the amount of waste that communities produce and ensuring natural materials are
used prudently are key national planning objectives, consistent with principles of sustainable
development. Where waste is produced there is a requirement to ensure that it is managed as
far up the waste hierarchy as possible, reducing the amount disposed of to landfill.
13.1.4
The proposed development provides an opportunity to contribute to these objectives at all
stages of development, including during the:

Design concept – for example by utilising materials potentially available within the site,
sourcing materials which will minimise reliance on primary minerals, and prudently using
materials;

Construction – including recovering materials for use on site, minimising waste of
construction materials, allocating areas on site for separation and storage of waste materials;
and

Use of development – through the provision of facilities which will assist sustainable
management of waste generated through the life of the development.
13.1.5
This study describes the waste assessment methodology; outlining the baseline conditions
currently exiting at the application site and surroundings; the likely significant environmental
effects of waste arising at all phases of the proposed development; the mitigation measures
required to prevent, reduce or off set any significant adverse effects and the likely residual
effects after these measures have been employed.
13.2
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
13.2.1
The planning policy that is considered relevant to the management of waste arising from the
proposed development is reviewed in Appendix 13.1 to this Chapter. A summary of the relevant
legislation, policy and guidance documents is provided below:
National

Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, amended in 2004 & 2005;

Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011;

Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS);
259
13.2.2

Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008;

Waste Strategy for England 2007 May 2007;

The Government Waste Policy Review 2011;

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012;

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10): Planning for Sustainable Waste Management
amended March 2011; and

Guidance for local planning authorities on implementing planning requirements of the
European Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), DECC December 2012.
The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies, as national waste planning policy is
published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for England. However, local
authorities preparing waste plans and taking decisions on waste applications should have regard
to policies of the NPPF so far as relevant.
Development Plan
13.2.3
The adopted Development Plan comprises:

East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS8), March 2009;

City of Derby Local Plan Review, 2006; and

Derby & Derbyshire Waste Local Plan, March 2005.
Emerging Policy
13.2.4
Relevant emerging policy includes:

Big Choices Report for the Derby and Derbyshire Waste Core Strategy Development Plan
Document, prepared jointly by Derbyshire County Council and DCC, January 2010; and

Big Choices Background Paper 1, Assessment of need for waste treatment and disposal
capacity in Derbyshire, 2009/10 – 2029/30 concerning the Derby and Derbyshire Waste
Core Strategy Development Plan Document Prepared jointly by Derbyshire County Council
and DCC, January 2010.
Other strategies
13.2.5
Other strategies considered to be material include:

Derbyshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy, July 2006.
Discussion
13.2.6
Minimising the amount of waste that communities produce and ensuring that natural materials
are used prudently are key national planning objectives, consistent with the principles of
sustainable development.
260
13.2.7
All of the documents identified above advocate the importance of the waste hierarchy, whereby
landfill is treated as the option of last resort, with an emphasis upon reduction in waste
generation followed by reuse and recycling and recovery of value.
13.2.8
With this in mind, Waste Strategy 2007 sets out the following recycling, composting and
recovery targets:

recycling and composting of household waste – at least 40% by 2010, 45% by 2015 and
50% by 2020; and

recovering value from municipal waste – 53% by 2010, 67% by 2015 and 75% by 2020.
13.2.9
It is the responsibility of regional planning bodies, local authorities and Waste Disposal
Authorities (WDAs) in developing strategies and development plans to assess regional and local
needs for waste management facilities for all waste streams, taking account of the need to
achieve the landfill diversion targets when planning for any waste management capacity
shortfall.
13.2.10
The East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy and the adopted Derby & Derbyshire Waste Local
Plan have taken account of planned growth, including future housing development when
forecasting future waste management capacity needs over the plan period.
13.2.11
Further assessment of future local waste capacity requirements is being considered in the
preparation of the emerging Joint Waste Core Strategy, prepared jointly by Derbyshire County
Council and DCC. The Big Choices Background Paper 1, (January 2010) estimates the
additional annual capacities that will be needed at new or expanded waste management
facilities across the county in order to manage increased municipal solid waste arisings and to
ensure Derbyshire meets the targets in the Waste Strategy for England 2007. These additional
annual capacities are:

an additional 92,239 tonnes by 2014/15, and

an additional 137,814 tonnes by 2029/30.
13.2.12
This paper explains that the municipal capacity shortfall will need to be met through new sites
(through an additional 1 to 7 facilities (depending on their size) across the county). The
Derbyshire Joint Municipal Waste Strategy 2006 states that 11 transfer stations and household
waste recycling centres (HWRC) will be required across the county by 2020. More recently a
new municipal waste contract is in the process of negotiation, to manage waste to 2026, which
will result in the operation of 10 HWRCs and 4 transfer stations.
13.3
Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria
Impact Assessment Methodology
13.3.1
The assessment methodology has been derived from the national, regional and local waste
planning policy guidance set out in the Planning Policy review (provided at Appendix 13.1).
13.3.2
Firstly the baseline position is established; taking account of any waste generated by the existing
land use and existing and forecasted waste generation figures and targets for the area and
associated waste management capacity requirements.
261
13.3.3
The types and volumes of waste likely to be generated during both the construction phase and
the operational life of the facility are then estimated.
13.3.4
The potential effects of these additional waste streams on composting, recycling or treatment
targets, as set out in relevant strategies and policy documents indicated above and more
generally on existing and planned waste management capacity is then assessed.
13.3.5
The assessment also takes account of the scope of planning policy requirements in terms of
minimising and recycling waste as part of the proposed development.
Baseline Data Collection
13.3.6
13.3.7
A desk-based assessment has been undertaken to gather information relating to:

existing waste generation from the site;

existing and forecasted waste generation figures and targets for the study area; and

existing and proposed waste management capacity within the study area.
The baseline for the assessment has been drawn from a variety of sources including:

DEFRA Waste Data Overview and Reporting 2011;

Big Choices Report for the Derby and Derbyshire Waste Core Strategy Development Plan
Document, Prepared jointly by Derbyshire County Council and DCC, January 2010;

Big Choices Background Paper 1, Assessment of need for waste treatment and disposal
capacity in Derbyshire, 2009/10 – 2029/30 concerning the Derby and Derbyshire Waste
Core Strategy Development Plan Document Prepared jointly by Derbyshire County Council
and DCC, January 2010; and

The Regional Strategy (RS) for the East Midlands, March 2005 – It should ne noted that
whilst the RS will be revoked under the Localism Act, the waste forecasting data contained
within the document remains the most relevant data in the region at the current time.
Prediction of Waste Arisings
13.3.8
In order to assess the potential effects of the proposed development on waste management
infrastructure and targets, it is necessary to estimate the amount of waste that will be generated.
13.3.9
The development will be constructed in the following phases:
13.3.10

Phase 1 – 145 dwellings;

Phase 2 – the primary school and approx 50 dwellings; and

Phase 3 – the remaining homes (circa 600 dwellings).
As this chapter assesses both construction and operational waste impact, to make the
assessment more straightforward, this particular chapter of the assessment provides an
estimate of the types and quantity of waste arising from the following phases of the proposed
development:
262

Construction for the Whole Development;

Construction of Phase 1 (approximately 145 dwellings, local area of play (LEAP), open
space and balancing pond/s);

Operation of Phase 1 & Construction of remainder of the Proposed Development (Phase 2 –
approximately 650 dwellings, demolition of Moor Farm to accommodate a new primary
school, neighbourhood area of play (NEAP), open space and balancing pond/s); and

Operation of the Whole Development.
13.3.11
The potential cumulative effects of the proposed development are also assessed.
13.3.12
The proposed development includes the construction of residential property and the demolition
of an existing unoccupied farmhouse and associated buildings in order to accommodate a new
primary school, play areas, balancing ponds and open space. Therefore the principal waste
streams are considered to be Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D) during the construction
phase and Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) during the operation phase comprising waste
associated with the residential properties and from the school. An assessment of the likely C&D
waste generated and appropriate management measures is presented within the outline Site
Waste Management Plan (SWMP) presented within Appendix 13.2.
13.3.13
The proposed areas of open space and play areas will generate a negligible amount of waste
and are therefore not assessed further within this chapter.
13.3.14
The text below summarises the assumptions that have been adopted to predict likely waste
generation (type and quality) arising from the proposed development for the purpose of this
assessment.
13.3.15
The quantities of C&D waste likely to be generated during the construction phase are not known
at the current stage but informed assumptions have been made regarding this waste stream and
its treatment using the BRE Benchmarking Data tool. Additionally the quantity of arisings from
specific aspects of the development (foundations, surface water storage ponds etc) have been
calculated. These calculations are presented within the outline SWMP presented within
Appendix 13.2.
13.3.16
Defra collates and reports on Local Authority Waste Management Statistics for England. The
figures include information regarding the average annual residual waste generated per
household in Derby City. The most recent results are for 2011/12. In order to estimate the
amount of waste likely to be generated annually by the proposed development, the ‘per
household figure’ is simply multiplied by the number of houses proposed.
13.3.17
The MSW produced by a school is more complex as there are no agreed methods for its
calculation or national or local records kept of waste arisings from this type of development. The
Waste Recourse Action programme (WRAP) report, ‘The nature and scale of waste produced by
schools in England’, June 2008 is however a useful reference. It states that 45kg of waste is
produced per pupil per year. This assumption has been used to calculate the approximate waste
that will be generated by the proposed school.
13.3.18
In addition, the current recycling targets and actual recycling levels being achieved are
examined.
263
Assessment of Impact
13.3.19
The potential effects of the waste generated by the development on composting, recycling or
treatment targets, as set out in relevant strategies and policy documents and more generally on
existing and planned waste management capacity, is assessed. The significance of the impacts
identified is then concluded using the significance criteria detailed below.
13.3.20
Should any mitigation be required, appropriate methods will be identified through the production
of a construction and operational waste strategy. The strategy will seek to ensure that
sustainable waste management is integral to the proposed development, throughout its design,
construction and operational phases thereby according with government best practice and
policy.
Significance Criteria
13.3.21
The tests of significance are based on the following criteria;

Negligible – No significant effects on waste management capacity in the area.

Slight – No noteworthy or material impact on waste management capacity in the area.

Moderate – Noteworthy, material – effects are of moderate magnitude and frequency. The
capacity of current waste management facilities in the area will be materially affected.

Major – Effects are likely to be of a high magnitude and frequency and will impact on the
existing capacity to deal with waste.

Substantial – Effects will be of a consistently high magnitude and frequency which will utilise
all available waste capacity in the area.
Limitations of Work
13.3.22
The assessment is subject to the following assumptions and limitations:
nd
rd

Details for the 2 and 3 phase of the development (650 dwellings) and the proposed
primary school are outline only and therefore may change subject to market demands; and

Waste data may vary depending on the data source, year and means of collecting data
within the study area.
13.4
Existing Baseline Conditions
13.4.1
The following section seeks to establish the existing conditions at the assessment site. This is
followed by a review of the waste management recovery rates and existing and future waste
management arrangements within the study area.
Current Site Baseline
13.4.2
A detailed description of the assessment site is provided in Chapter 1 of this ES. The majority of
the site is made up of agricultural land and an unoccupied farmstead, Moor Farm. The farmstead
comprises of a farm house with a limited number of small to medium sized agricultural buildings.
264
The agricultural land is currently being used solely for grazing. As such existing waste
generation and associated management measures in operation are negligible.
Current Waste Arisings, Recovery Rates and Management in Derby
13.4.3
The current municipal waste arisings generated in Derby are set out in Table 13.1 below:
Table 13.1: Local Authority Municipal and Household Waste Statistics 2011/12
Authority
Total MSW (tonnes)
Household waste
total (tonnes)
Derby City Council
117,341
103,632
Household waste
sent for recycling/
reuse (tonnes)
48,278
Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/wrfg23-wrmsannual/
13.4.4
Table 13.2 below sets out how this municipal waste was managed in 2011/12.
Table 13.2: Management of Derby City Municipal Waste 2011/12
Type of Facility
Landfill
Incineration with Energy from Waste (EfW)
Incineration without EfW
Recycled/Composted
Other
Total
WBC (tonnes)
58,419
6,511
0
51,201
1,218
117,348
Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/wrfg23-wrmsannual/
13.4.5
The total municipal waste set out in Table 13.1 is slightly different from that in Table 13.2, this is
due to the stockpiling of waste between reporting periods.
13.4.6
The Local Authority level data includes key performance indicators which identify the level of
recycling achieved by each Local Authority against targets set by government policy. Table 13.3
below sets out the statistics for the study area.
Table 13.3: Key Performance Indicators 2011/2012
Authority
Derby City Council
Residual household waste per household (kg/household)*
Percentage of household waste sent for reuse/recycling or
composting
Percentage of municipal waste sent to landfill
Collected household waste per person (kg)
517.81
46.4%
49.8%
417
Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/wrfg23-wrmsannual/
* This represents waste sent to landfill not the total amount of household waste collected per
property.
13.4.7
Based on the figures above, the total waste generated per household per year equates to 1.04
kg (i.e. (100 ÷ 49.8 x 0.52).
National and Regional Recovery Targets
13.4.8
With reference to Table 13.3 above, Derby achieved an average of 46.4% of MSW
recycled/composted in 2011/12. This represents a slight shortfall compared to the RSS’s
regional target of 50% by 2015 and the national targets as set out in The Waste Strategy for
265
England, 2007 which for the years 2015 and 2020 sets targets for the recovery of value (i.e.
composting, recycling or treatment with energy recovery) from municipal waste of 67% and 75%
respectively.
Current and Future Waste Management Arrangements
13.4.9
DCC’s Policy and Strategy Manager, Malcolm Price was consulted on 26th February 2013 about
the Authority’s current and future waste management arrangements. Mr Price confirmed that the
existing three wheeled bin and multi-material kerbside recycling system in operation by the City
Council is the most appropriate for the proposed development.
13.4.10
Under this system the City Council collects fortnightly through the following receptacles:

240 litre black wheeled bins - for any household waste;

240 litre blue wheeled bin - for mixed recyclables (glass, cans, plastic, drinks cartons,
aerosols);

240 litre brown wheeled bin - for garden and food waste;

blue bag - for papers, magazines and junk mail;

red bag - for textiles; and

orange bag - for cardboard.
13.4.11
The Policy and Strategy Manager advised that the Authority’s favoured location for bin storage
was backyard storage to avoid complaints about the unsightly appearance of bins and that the
required storage capacity arrangement for any aspect of the development which includes
communal areas (e.g. apartments, sheltered housing) would be 60 litres per person per week.
13.4.12
The Policy and Strategy Manager also advised that given the adoption of multi kerbside
collection, the City Council is not seeking to increase the provision of HWRCs across Derby and
will simply maintain the existing household waste and recycling site at Raynesway Park Drive,
Derby DE21 7BH.
13.4.13
He recommended further early consultation with Richard Brown, the Refuse Collection
Operations Manager, regarding the layout of the development to ensure that suitable vehicular
access for refuse collection vehicles is provided.
13.5
Assessment of Impacts
13.5.1
The following section estimates the quantity of waste that will be produced during the
construction and operation of the proposed development and assesses the potential impacts of
this in the context of the established baseline position.
266
Construction Effects
Site Preparation
13.5.2
The assessment site is primarily agricultural land and includes an unoccupied farmstead, Moor
Farm. In order to prepare the assessment site for development it will be necessary to clear
topsoil, vegetation and any materials arising from the demolition of the agricultural buildings.
13.5.3
A materials balance sheet will be provided prior to construction, which will quantify the volumes
of materials expected during the cut and fill operations.
13.5.4
This phase of the proposed development will be temporary in nature. The topsoil generated can
easily be utilised on site as part of the proposed development, with any remaining material being
capable of re-use off site. The small volumes of vegetation waste and demolition material will be
recycled off site.
Assessment of Impact
13.5.5
It can therefore be concluded that there will be very limited amounts of C&D waste that will
require off site processing and/or disposal from this phase of the works and as such, this
operation will have a negligible effect on waste management capacity.
Construction Material
13.5.6
13.5.7
Waste construction materials that are likely to arise during construction include:

Concrete;

Wood;

Metals;

Hard and soft plastics;

Cardboard;

Pallets;

Packaging;

Soil/sub soils;

Concrete and rubble;

Residual general site waste; and

Residual glass waste.
The waste that is produced as a result of construction will be minimised by efficient building
design and construction techniques, bespoke ordering of materials, correct storage and re-use
of waste on site. Small amounts of waste may require recycling, re-using or disposal off site.
Assessment of Impact
13.5.8
As a result of waste reduction from construction and re-use of waste on site, it is anticipated that
minimal quantities of waste will be recycled, re-used, or disposed of off site. This will have a
negligible effect on waste management capacity.
267
Construction of Phase 1 – 145 dwellings
13.5.9
The effects of site clearance and construction remain the same during all phases of the
development. The above assessment has indicated that the effects of the construction and site
clearance stage for the whole development are anticipated to be negligible. It is therefore
anticipated that the effects of the site clearance and construction during Phase 1 are also
considered to have a negligible effect on waste management capacity.
Operation Phase 1 & Construction of Remainder of the Proposed Development
13.5.10
Table 13.3 above indicates that the total amount of residual waste sent to landfill currently
produced per household in Derby is 517.81kg per annum (0.52 tpa) (based on the current
recycling rate of 46.4%) and that the percentage of municipal waste sent to landfill is 49.8%.
Thus the total quantity of waste produced per household is approximately 1.04 tpa (100 ÷ 49.8 x
0.52).
13.5.11
On the basis of up to 145 homes being built in the first phase, this equates to approximately
150.8 tonnes of new municipal waste being generated by the proposed development per annum
(145 x 1.04). Based on the current landfilling rate of 49.8%, approximately 75.1 tonnes of which
will be residual waste.
Assessment of Impact
13.5.12
The above assessment has indicated that the effects of the construction and site clearance
stage for the whole development are anticipated to be negligible. It is therefore anticipated that
the effects of the site clearance and construction during Phase 2 are also considered to have a
negligible effect on waste management capacity.
13.5.13
Table 13.1 identifies that in 2011/12 Derby generated 117,341 tonnes of municipal waste per
annum. The total waste that will result from the operation of the phase 1 of the development is
calculated as 150.8 tpa. This represents an increase of 0.13% above current levels. Bearing in
mind that future recovery targets will act to reduce total waste arisings (through zero waste and
waste minimisation initiatives) and total residual waste arisings, it is considered that the
operational phase of the proposed development will have a negligible effect on existing and
future waste management capacity.
Operation/Permanent Effects
13.5.14
The remaining residential development equates to 650 dwellings and a school. The total number
of pupils at the primary school is estimated to be in the region of 300. On the assumption that
English primary schools produce 45kg of waste per pupil per year (0.045 tpa) (Ref: WRAP
report, ‘The nature and scale of waste produced by schools in England’, June 2008) it is
estimated that the school will produce up to 13.5 tonnes of waste per year.
13.5.15
When the later housing phase is added to the initial housing phase (145 dwellings + 650
dwellings) and accounting for waste generated by the school, this equates to approximately
840.3 tonnes of new municipal waste being generated by the proposed development per annum
((145+ 650) x 1.04) + 13.5), based upon the current landfill rate of 49.8%, approximately 418.5
tonnes of which will be residual waste.
268
Assessment of Impact
13.5.16
Table 13.1 identifies that in 2011/12 Derby generated 117,341 tonnes of municipal waste per
annum. The additional waste that will result from the operation of the entire proposed
development is calculated as 840.3tpa. This represents an increase of 0.72% from current
levels. Bearing in mind that future recovery targets will act to reduce total waste arisings
(through zero waste and waste minimisation initiatives) and total residual waste arisings, it is
considered that the operational phase of the proposed development will have a negligible effect
on existing and future waste management capacity.
13.6
Cumulative Effects
13.6.1
The proposed development site falls within a larger area extending eastwards which is identified
in the emerging Derby City Development Plan Document as the Boulton Moor housing
allocation. A number of different residential planning applications are being progressed
independently in this area, which are currently at different stages of determination. A further
smaller housing development (for 190 dwellings) is currently under consideration to the south
west of the site at Fellowlands Way. The aforementioned developments will potentially give rise
to cumulative impacts.
13.6.2
In relation to the Fellowlands Way development, based upon is relatively small scale and the
assessment findings, i.e. that the effects to waste management capacity from the assessed
development will be negligible for all phases, it is considered that any cumulative impacts will
also be negligible and therefore further detailed evaluation of cumulative effects is unnecessary.
13.6.3
With regard to the emerging Boulton Moor housing allocations/development of the adjacent
sites, the cumulative impact has not been evaluated further in this chapter as waste impacts
from these future development areas form part of the future baseline position (forecasted waste
generation figures and waste management capacity requirements), which has been reported in
this chapter and which is planned for in the emerging Joint Derby and Derbyshire Waste Core
Strategy Development Plan Document.
13.7
Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
13.7.1
Whilst the effects of the proposed development on waste management capacity within the study
area have been assessed as negligible for all stages, there remains a policy imperative to
manage waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy, minimise the consumption and use of
resources and provide for recycling. In light of this, the following section sets out mitigation
measures that will be employed to ensure that these policy objectives are met.
13.7.2
The mitigation measures set out below are integral to the construction phase and should be
implemented during both the construction of Phase 1 and the remainder of the proposed
development.
Construction Effects
13.7.3
The impacts of waste generation during the construction phase will be minimised through the
production and implementation of a Waste Minimisation Plan. Key measures to be incorporated
within the Plan are described below.
269
Waste Minimisation Plan
13.7.4
This section outlines the proposed strategy to successfully manage the wastes arising from the
construction phases of the proposed development.
13.7.5
In order to reduce the amount of material sent to landfill, a Waste Minimisation Plan will be
produced to encourage re-use and recycling in line with Government policy.
13.7.6
A sustainable materials selection strategy will form part of the Waste Minimisation Plan and will
be used during construction, which will ensure that the materials ordered will be of the correct
quantity and size to avoid the generation of large quantities of waste.
13.7.7
Contractors used on the site will be required to demonstrate that they adhere to sustainable
waste management practices as required by the Site Waste Management Plan under the Site
Waste Management Plan Regulations 2008. An outline SWMP is presented within Appendix
13.2.
Targets and Objectives
13.7.8
Appropriate targets and objectives will be set in relation to the minimisation and recycling of
waste materials during each stage of the construction phase.
13.7.9
An action plan will be developed for the management of specified types and quantities of
materials identified.
13.7.10
A key objective will be to minimise waste where possible. However, where it does arise, scope
for using the waste as a resource elsewhere on site will be reviewed. In instances where waste
can not be utilised on site it will be transported to the nearest available facility to be managed as
high as possible up the waste hierarchy.
Construction Effects
13.7.11
The Waste Minimisation Plan will include a waste strategy for the construction phase based on
the principles of the waste hierarchy where, as outlined above, the main emphasis from the
outset will be placed on the minimisation of waste at source, followed by re-use and recycling
throughout each phase of the construction process. The detailed delivery of the strategy will be
set out within the SWMP.
13.7.12
The following waste arisings have the potential to be segregated for potential re-use elsewhere
on site or for off-site recycling:
13.7.13

Concrete;

Wood;

Iron and steel;

Brickwork; and

Top-soil.
Where practicable these waste streams will be segregated into colour-coded skips within a
designated waste storage compound on site. In addition, the waste storage compound will have
270
a separate area for waste receptacles for the disposal of residual general site waste that cannot
be recycled or re-used.
13.7.14
All suppliers will be encouraged to reduce packaging on any materials used on the site. Where
possible an agreement for suppliers to take back packaging will be made.
13.7.15
Table 13.4 below summarises the measures that will be taken to reduce waste during the
construction period.
Table 13.4: Waste Reduction Measures
Ordering
Avoid:
 Over-ordering
 Ordering standard lengths rather than
lengths required
 Ordering for delivery at the wrong time
(update programme regularly)
Storage
Avoid:
 Loss, theft or vandalism through secure
storage and on-site security.
 Damage to material from incorrect storage.
13.7.16
13.7.17
13.7.18
Delivery
Avoid:
 Damage during unloading
 Delivery to inappropriate areas of the
assessment site.
 Accepting incorrect deliveries, specification
or quantity.
Handling
Avoid:
 Damage or spillage through incorrect or
repetitive handling.
Examples of good on-site working practices for minimising potential wastage include:

The provision of on-site batching facilities for cement works to allow materials to be
generated when necessary, minimising the generation of waste material (however, this is
highly dependant upon size of development);

Efficient planning of material deliveries to the site by contractors and sub-contractors to
avoid damage to the materials and the unnecessary generation of waste;

Effective co-ordination between contractors and suppliers to avoid the excessive purchase of
raw materials and to prevent the risk of materials being lost, stolen or damaged; and

Effective handling and storage of delivered materials to prevent loss or damage through
exposure to the weather, mud and on-site vehicles.
In addition, the provision of effective and secure storage areas for construction materials is
important to ensure that potential loss of material from damage, vandalism or theft is avoided.
These measures can be supported by:

Ensuring well-timed deliveries to the site;

Providing on-site security; and

Installing temporary site security fencing.
Implementation of good practice measures in terms of on-site storage and security practices will
assist in reducing unnecessary wastage of materials and ensure that high standards are
maintained throughout the development process in accordance with the on-site code of practice.
271
13.7.19
Material that cannot be reused on site will require export off site for recycling or disposal.
13.7.20
The following measures will be put in place to ensure that waste is managed sustainably during
the construction phase.
Waste Storage Capacity
13.7.21
As presented previously, waste material is likely to be generated from the cut and fill works
during construction.
13.7.22
Although every effort will be made to retain all suitable materials on site for re-use on site, it is
possible that some of these materials cannot be re-used or recycled during the construction
process. In this situation, the material will be stockpiled and transferred to a local transfer station
in order for material to be redistributed as fill to other suitable sites, or for highway maintenance
works. This represents a more sustainable environmental alternative to off site landfill disposal.
13.7.23
It is possible that, for some uncontaminated material, on-site re-use/recycling or transfer to a
local transfer station for reuse/recycling will not be feasible due to the materials lack of suitability
for further use. In the first instance, excavated material/rubble will be stockpiled on-site (under
an appropriate exemption from waste management licensing) and its suitability for use as fill will
be assessed. It may then be necessary to dispose of such material to an appropriately licensed
landfill site.
13.7.24
Any contaminated material (although not anticipated) will have to be pre-treated and the Landfill
Directive requires that it is separated and disposed of as hazardous and non-hazardous waste.
Waste Storage Points and Location
13.7.25
Emphasis will be placed on the provision of appropriate storage conditions for raw materials and
key waste streams. This will include the segregation of material for re-use on site. Where this is
not practicable, materials will be segregated for off-site recycling. The location of the waste
storage facilities will be clearly labelled, identifying the materials that can be received in these
areas. Provision that may be made includes:

Temporary offices and work compounds on-site will retain all details relating to the waste
strategy for the site, health and safety and monitoring and reporting details;

Storage areas for raw materials and assembly areas for construction components will be
located away from sensitive receptors;

Any fuels, oils and chemicals that are used on-site will be stored in appropriate containers
within a secure bunded compound in accordance with good site practice and regulatory
guidelines (e.g. Pollution Prevention Guidance Note 6 'Working at Construction and
Demolition Sites') and located away from sensitive receptors;

Colour-coded skips will be provided for segregated waste streams for re-use and recycling;
and

Dedicated skips will be provided for any residual construction waste that requires off-site
disposal.
272
Waste Storage Infrastructure
13.7.26
Due to the temporary nature of the construction works, permanent waste storage infrastructure
will not be required. However, an appropriate area will be designated for waste storage with
suitable health and safety and environmental protection measures.
13.7.27
The location of this area will change throughout the construction phase, depending on the part of
the proposed development in progress.
Waste Collection
13.7.28
A minimum working area of 3.5m width and 4m in length will be provided to allow sufficient
space for collecting material.
13.7.29
Arrangements for the movement and collection of waste will be made by the on-site contractors.
Waste Disposal Centres
13.7.30
As described above, during construction waste material will be re-used and source separated as
much as possible on site. Those materials that cannot be reused will be removed to a local
waste transfer station or an appropriate local landfill for disposal.
13.7.31
The impact of traffic associated with the movement of construction/waste materials on
surrounding neighbourhoods and the local road network will be minimised by a combination of
factors. These include careful on-site management; reducing the need to import/export
materials; and limiting off-site disposal of recyclables and disposal of residual waste to landfill.
Dedicated haulage routes will be agreed with the local authorities for the off-site disposal of
residual waste materials and the delivery of materials to the site, to avoid peak traffic periods
and minimise disturbance to local communities.
13.7.32
The emphasis on re-use and sustainable material management will reduce the need for imports
and exports to the site via road.
Education Scheme at Construction
13.7.33
Responsibility for the management of waste during the development process will be allocated to
the ‘principal contractor’ on behalf of the applicant to ensure that the team involved in the
proposed development 'buy in' to the overall site waste strategy within the Site Waste
Management Plan. A number of different parties will play a role during various elements of the
process.
13.7.34
Table 13.5 below outlines some of the roles and responsibilities to be adopted by different team
members.
273
Table 13.5: Waste Management Roles and Responsibilities
Team Member
Applicant
Promote waste minimisation.
Main
Responsibilities
Duty of Care
Insist on good practice from all other
team members
Insistence on good
practice
Ensure that any hazardous wastes
have been identified prior to
construction
Exploration of
innovative
technologies
Key Roles
Other Roles
Identification of
waste reduction
opportunities
Review strategy over time
Designer
Consider design options
Duty of Care
Promote use of reclaimed elements
Reducing waste
production by design
Reduce raw materials. Bespoking
Develop site specific waste strategy,
implement and communicate to all
parties. Monitor implementation.
Health and Safety
Work with design team
Management of
onsite processes and
programme
Drive segregation of waste arisings
Facilitate onsite storage compounds/
treatment of segregated materials
Development of the
waste strategy
Identification of
waste reduction
opportunities
Hazardous waste
identification and
management
Assist in design to
reduce waste
Designation of working area for waste
activities
Main Contractor –
Site Manager
Reduce waste being brought onto site
as packaging etc.
Record keeping and
Duty of Care
Ensure appropriate storage of waste
and containers on site
Keep proper records of all wastes
produced/reused/ sent off site
Ensure appropriate off site transport in
line with local regulatory requirements
Identify and confirm all destinations for
waste leaving the site
Sub-Contractor
Develop method statements for
activities on site
Liaise with Main Contractor and agree
way forward
Conform to Waste Minimisation Plan
and Site Waste Management Plan
Site Operatives
Question unsatisfactory practices on
site
Follow instructions as provided
274
Duty of Care
Production of Method
Statements
Ensure all activities
under their direct
control are managed
appropriately
Duty of Care
Ensure all activities
under their direct
control are managed
appropriately
Assist in ensuring
on-practices are safe
and not impact the
environment
Ensure that wastes
are properly
segregated
Assist in ensuring
on-practices are safe
and not impact the
environment
Ensure that wastes
are segregated
13.8
Summary
13.8.1
On-site segregation and reuse of materials provides a sustainable alternative to landfilling and
will significantly reduce vehicle movements associated with the construction phase of the
proposed development.
13.8.2
The site manager/main contractor, in close liaison with the development team, will be
responsible for the setting, monitoring and reviewing of waste targets from the outset of the
development process to ensure that high standards are maintained, with the emphasis being on
continual improvement.
13.8.3
To ensure that such a system of waste minimisation, re-use and recycling is effective,
consideration will be given to the setting of on-site waste targets and the development of a
suitable programme of monitoring at regular intervals to focus upon:

Quantifying raw material wastage;

Quantifying the generation of each waste stream;

Any improvements in current working practices;

Methods by which the waste streams are being handled and stored; and

The available waste disposal routes used e.g. landfill, waste transfer stations.
Operation/Permanent Effects
13.8.4
The mitigation measures proposed during operation of the development are specific to the uses
proposed and should be integrated into the design and operation of the development. They are
therefore are relevant to all operational phases of the proposed development.
Residential Development
13.8.5
Waste materials that arise from the operation of the proposed development have the potential to
be reduced at source or otherwise be re-used or recycled, thereby reducing the amount of waste
to be sent to landfill. Waste minimisation will be actively encouraged through a number of
measures, including design and education.
Waste Storage Capacity
13.8.6
The amount of waste storage required for any given development type is determined by a
number of factors including:

Volume and composition of waste;

Segregation;

Any on-site treatment; and

Collection frequency.
275
13.8.7
It is essential that adequate provision is made for waste segregation (examples of which are
provided in the following paragraphs), storage and collection to encourage participation in
effective waste management.
Internal Storage
13.8.8
During detailed design of the dwellings, the applicants will ensure that each unit has sufficient
internal capacity for the collection and segregation of waste streams in line with the
requirements for solid waste storage, as set out in the Building Regulations (Amendments) 2001
Approved Documentation H (2002 Edition) (Part H6).
13.8.9
In accordance with DCC’s current municipal waste collection scheme, each dwelling will have a
fortnightly three bin collection and fortnightly recyclates collection.
13.8.10
The likely required internal waste storage capacity for each dwelling will be agreed with DCC
and will be based on the following internal bin capacities:

570mm x 650mm x 140mm litre blue recycling bag - for papers, magazines and junk mail;

570mm x 650mm x 140mm litre red recycling bag - for textiles (clean clothes, handbags,
paired shoes, curtains and nets, belts, blankets and sheets); and

400mm x 600mm x 800mm litre orange recycling bag - for cardboard.
External Storage
13.8.11
13.8.12
Each residential unit will be provided with the following:

240 litre black wheeled bins - for any household waste;

240 litre blue wheeled bin - for mixed recyclables (glass, cans, plastic, drinks cartons,
aerosols); and

240 litre brown wheeled bin - for garden and food waste (including vegetable peelings, plate
scrapings, meat, fish and bone leftovers).
Details of external storage arrangements will be agreed with DCC prior to operation of the
proposed development.
Waste Storage Points and Location
13.8.13
In order to promote recycling during the operation of the proposed development, it is important to
ensure that the design of the development allows residents every opportunity to recycle their
waste materials.
13.8.14
The following requirements for waste storage will be considered should the proposed
development include residential units with communal facilities (apartments and sheltered
dwellings):

Provision of 60 litres external waste storage capacity per person per week;

Housing bins within a designated area or structure as appropriate;

Ensuring bins are easily accessible to the occupier;
276
13.8.15
13.8.16

Ensuring that bins do not have to be moved through a building to the collection point; and

Locating bins in a shaded position and away from windows in a well ventilated area.
In terms of distances and gradients, the following will be observed:

The public should not have to move waste more than 30m to a temporary storage area;

Temporary storage areas should not be more than 30m distance from the collection point;

Collection crews should not have to carry individual waste containers or move wheeled
containers more than 15m;

Passage of a wheeled container from temporary store to collection point and from collection
point to collection vehicle should avoid steps, but where not possible should avoid transfer
over more than three steps; and

In all cases, footpath gradients should not exceed 1:20m.
Single dwellings will store waste within their boundaries, to the rear of the property where
possible, and waste will be collected from the highway boundary.
Waste Storage Infrastructure
13.8.17
The applicants will ensure that all dwellings have an area, to the rear of the property where
possible, within which external bins may be stored.
Collection of Waste
13.8.18
Collection of bins and recycling bags by DCC is proposed to take the form of an agreed
collection point and waste collection crews will be allowed unhindered access to this on the
agreed collection day. Highway design will allow for connectivity of routes and ensure that waste
collection can be achieved safely and effectively. The finalisation of bin requirements will be
specified following liaison and commissioning of contracts.
Summary – Operation
13.8.19
Waste materials that arise from the operation of the proposed development have the potential to
be reduced at source or otherwise be re-used or recycled, thereby reducing the amount of waste
to be sent to landfill. Measures to encourage waste minimisation will be incorporated into the
detailed development design and therefore reduce the impact of the proposed development on
the waste management capacity within the study area.
13.9
Residual Effects
13.9.1
The proposed development will generate waste during its construction and operation and
although every effort will be made to reuse and recycle the waste, there will inevitably be some
residual waste that will require final disposal.
13.9.2
The following section reviews the likely residual effects of the proposed development following
the implementation of the mitigation measures identified.
277
Construction of Whole Development & Construction of Phase 1
Site Clearance
13.9.3
The significance of this effect is considered to be negligible and therefore there are negligible
residual effects.
Construction Material
13.9.4
The significance of this effect is considered to be negligible and therefore there are negligible
residual effects. With appropriate on site management, the amount of waste generated can be
further reduced in line with policy requirements.
Operation Phase 1 & Construction of the remainder of the Proposed Development
13.9.5
The significance of this effect is considered to be negligible and therefore there are negligible
residual effects.
13.9.6
As with the phase 1, with appropriate on site management, the amount of waste generated can
be further reduced in line with policy requirements.
Operation of Whole Development
13.9.7
The significance of this effect is considered to be negligible and therefore there are negligible
residual effects.
13.9.8
The mitigation measures proposed seek to ensure that the greatest proportion of wastes is
recycled, thereby minimising the proposed development’s impact on waste management
capacity in accordance with policy requirements.
13.10
Summary and Conclusion
13.10.1
The effects to waste management capacity have been assessed as negligible for all phases of
the proposed development without the incorporation of additional mitigation measures. There
remains, however, a policy imperative to manage waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy,
minimise the consumption and use of resources and provide for recycling. In light of this,
mitigation measures that will be employed to ensure that these policy objectives are met have
been identified.
13.10.2
An outline SWMP is presented within Appendix 13.2. It predicts that approximately 2,455 m3 of
reusable and recyclable construction waste will be generated in Phase I and 11,205 m3 in the
remaining construction phase equating to a total of 13,660 m3 of reusable and recyclable
construction waste for the development as a whole. Regarding waste arising from
excavation/foundations, at this stage it is estimated that approximately 39890 m3 of material will
be generated in Phase I, with more than 14,765 m3 in the remaining construction phase. As a
whole development may produce more than 415,555 m3 of arising from earthworks. A number of
measures have been proposed to reduce the effects of the proposed development during the
construction phase i.e. efficient building design and construction techniques, bespoke ordering
of materials, correct storage and re-use of waste on site. These will be further detailed within a
Waste Minimisation Plan and SWMP, which will be prepared at the detailed design stage of the
proposed development.
278
13.10.3
It is anticipated that operation of the proposed development will generate approximately 840
tonnes of total MSW per annum. Measures will be incorporated into the development design to
minimise and manage waste during the operational stage including providing sufficient internal
and external capacity for the collection and segregation of waste in accordance with DCC’s
current municipal waste collection scheme and ensuring the highway/street layout is suitable
and accessible for refuse collection.
13.10.4
Table 13.6 contains a summary of the likely significant effects of the proposed development in
relation to waste.
279
Table 13.6: Table of Significance – Waste
Potential Effect
Nature of Effect
(Permanent/
T emporary)
Significance
Mitigation /
Enhancement Measures
(Major/ Moderate/ Mi nor)
(Beneficial/Adverse/
Negligible)
Geographical
Importance*
I
UK E
R
C
Residual Effects
B
L
(Major/ Moderate/ Mi nor)
(Beneficial/Adverse/
Negligible)
Construction Whole Development
Site Clearance
Temporary
Negligible
On site management of material
*
Negligible
Construction Material
Temporary
Negligible
Sustainable waste management
practices
*
Negligible
Site Clearance
Temporary
Negligible
On site management of material
*
Negligible
Construction Material
Temporary
Negligible
Sustainable waste management
practices
Operation Phase 1 – 145 dwellings & Construction of the Remainder of the Proposed Development – 650 dwellings and school
*
Negligible
Operation Phase 1
Permanent
Negligible
Incorporation of appropriate waste
storage and management and
promotion of recycling and reuse
*
Negligible
Site Clearance
Temporary
Negligible
On site management of material
*
Negligible
Construction Material
Temporary
Negligible
Sustainable waste management
practices
*
Negligible
Construction Phase 1 – 145 dwellings
Operation Whole Development – approximately 800 dwellings and school
Operation Whole Development
Permanent
Negligible
Incorporation of appropriate waste
storage and management and
promotion of recycling and reuse
*
Negligible
Construction
Temporary
Negligible
N/A
*
Negligible
Operation Whole Development
Permanent
Negligible
N/A
*
Negligible
Cumulative Effects
* Geographical Level of Importance
I = International; UK = United Kingdom; E = England; R = Regional; C = County; B = Borough; L = Local
280
14. AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND SOILS
14.1
Introduction and Study Area
14.1.1
This chapter provides an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development at
Snelsmoor Grange on agricultural land use and soils. The study area for this assessment
comprises the land directly affected by the proposal. The agricultural and soil receptors that
have been considered in the assessment include:

The nature and characteristics of the soil types present within the Site;

The agricultural land quality of the Site and surrounding area assessed according to the
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) Agricultural Land Classification (ALC)
system 1998; and

The farming characteristics and agricultural productivity of the Site and on the wider local
and regional area.
14.1.2
The assessment of effects on agricultural land use and soils has been undertaken taking into
account relevant national and local policy as identified in Section 14.2 below, and adopting the
methodologies described Section 14.3.
14.1.3
The existing baseline conditions, against which the likely environmental effects of the proposal
are assessed, have been determined through a review of desk based information and detailed
site surveys, and are described in Section 14.4.
14.1.4
Section 14.5 contains the assessment of the potential effects on agricultural land use and soils
arising from the development of the Site.
14.2
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
National Policy
14.2.1
With regard to agriculture and soils the NPPF states at Section 11, “Conserving and enhancing
the natural environment contains the following policy guidance (para. 109):
“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment
by:
-
14.2.2
Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils.”
And (para. 112):
“Local Planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the
best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land
is necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in
preference to that of a higher quality.”
14.2.3
The best and most versatile land is defined as land graded 1, 2 or 3a according to the MAFF
ALC guidelines 1988.
281
Local Policy Framework
14.2.4
The CDLPR contains no specific policies relating to the protection of the “best and most
versatile” land as Policy E3 has not been saved.
14.3
Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria
14.3.1
The identification of the existing baseline conditions in relation to agriculture and soils has been
undertaken in two stages, comprising a desk top review of available published information and
site survey. Both stages have focused on soil types/patterns, agricultural land quality,
agricultural productivity, and the farming framework.
Desk Study
Soils and Agricultural Land Quality
14.3.2
The information reviewed during the desk study has included the following information in relation
to soil types and the quality of the agricultural land:

Published soil survey and British Geological Survey information;

MAFF published 1 inch to 1 mile Provisional ALC Sheet;

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Detailed ALC and Soil
Survey work carried out on and surrounding the Application Site;

Site specific climatic information taken from the Agroclimatic Datasets produced by the
Meteorological Office for the MAFF ALC Guidelines (October 1988); and

Ordnance Survey maps at 1:25,000 scale to identify topographic characteristics of the
survey area.
14.3.3
The methodology employed for determining the quality of agricultural land is known as ALC,
which is a system originally devised by MAFF, which is now part of Natural England). The ALC
system was introduced in 1966 but was comprehensively revised with the current guidelines
‘Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales: Revised Guidelines and Criteria for
Grading the Quality of Agricultural Land’ introduced in October 1988.
14.3.4
The ALC system provides a framework for classifying land according to the extent to which
physical characteristics impose long term limitations on agricultural use. The system is based
on the assessment of the following limiting factors:
14.3.5

Climate; accumulated temperature and annual average rainfall;

Site; gradient, micro-relief and flood risk;

Soil; texture, structure, depth and stone content; and

Interaction of the above; soil wetness, the susceptibility of the land to drought and liability
to erosion.
These factors impose limitations on the performance of land in terms of the typical cropping
range and expected level and consistency of yield. The ALC grade, which ranges from grade 1
(highest quality land) to grade 5 (lowest quality land), is determined according to the severity of
the limitations. Grade 3 is further subdivided into subgrades 3a and 3b.
282
Farming Framework
14.3.6
The desk study review of information on the local farming framework has included information
from the following sources:

DEFRA district farming statistical data;

Natural England’s interactive MAGIC website for Rural Land Designations including Less
Favoured Areas and land within the Environmental Stewardship Scheme;
Site Survey
Soils and Agricultural Land Quality
14.3.7
A site survey was carried out, in February 2013 to identify the soil types present within the site
and to assess the agricultural land quality of the Application Site. The survey included the
examination of 60 soil auger borings to a depth of 1.2m together with the examination of three
soil pits. The auger boring descriptions are provided in Appendix 14.1.
14.3.8
For each of the auger borings the following standard soils data have been collected:

Soil horizon depths;

Soil texture of all horizons;

Soil colour;

Stone content, estimated from augering, confirmed by soil pit excavation/ and or sample
analysis;

Presence and characteristics of mottling, a soil wetness indicator;

Presence of manganese concretions, a soil wetness indicator;

Identification of gleyed horizons;

Identification of slowly permeable layers; and

Identification of impenetrable rock layers.
Farming Framework
14.3.9
The structure of land ownership and farming has been further considered through:

Site visits to look at patterns of agricultural land use;

Site visits to look at locations of farm houses and associated buildings; and

Discussions with the landowner regarding farming practices on the site
Assessment of Effects
14.3.10
There are no standard criteria for assessing environmental effects on land use, agriculture and
recreation. Therefore account has been taken of the guidance that is provided on these topics in
the DMRB Volume 11 (Highways Agency 2008). Although developed for highways projects, the
DMRB has developed methodologies that are also useful for other linear developments such as
cable routes.
14.3.11
In addition, the assessment has taken into account the following:

The requirements of EIA as set out by the Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations 2009
which give effect to EC Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended.
283
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Guidelines for Environmental
Impact Assessment (IEMA, 2004)

14.3.12
The assessment of effects on agricultural land use and soils has been based on the value or
sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the predicted impact.
Sensitivity of the Receptor
14.3.13
With respect to value or sensitivity, a level has been assigned to the key receptors in the
agricultural assessment, i.e. agricultural land quality and the farming framework. The guidelines
that have been used to assess this are described in Table 14.1 below. Where a receptor could
be placed within more than one category of value, conservative professional judgement has
been applied to determine which category is appropriate.
Table 14.1: Guidelines for Value/Sensitivity
Value and Sensitivity
High
Medium
Low
Negligible
Guidelines
Grade 1 agricultural activity
Specialised horticultural/intensive agricultural unit.
Grades 2 and 3a agricultural land
Annual horticultural cropping and dairying units
High Level Stewardship Schemes
Grades 3b and lower quality land
Arable and grassland areas
Environmental Stewardship Schemes
Grade 4 or 5 agricultural land
Grassland/ limited arable areas
Magnitude of Impact
14.3.14
The magnitude of the impact on agricultural land use has also been considered with regard to
the key factors in the agricultural assessment, i.e. agricultural land quality and the farming
framework. There is no statutory guidance on the thresholds that should be applied for this topic
area. However, land loss area thresholds historically adopted by MAFF in their consideration of
proposals involving the loss of 20 ha or more of the 'best and most versatile' land, a criterion that
is still applied by the Welsh Government in their consideration of development proposals, have
been taken into account in the development of the criteria used in this assessment.
14.3.15
The magnitude of an impact has been categorised as high, medium, low or negligible as
described in Table 14.2 below. Where an impact could be placed within more than one category
of magnitude, conservative professional judgement has been applied to determine which
category is appropriate.
Table 14.2: Guidelines for Assessment of Magnitude
Magnitude
High
Guidelines
Loss of more than 50 ha of the best and most versatile land.
Agricultural production affected at a regional level with full time farming
enterprises rendered unworkable.
Medium
Loss of more than 20 ha of best and most versatile land.
Agricultural production affected at a local level. Full-time farming enterprise/s
rendered unworkable.
Loss of 5 – 20 ha best and most versatile land. Affects the workability of
individual farming enterprises, but farm holdings not rendered unworkable.
Loss of less than 5 ha best and most versatile land.
No adverse effects on farming enterprises or production.
Low
Negligible
284
Significance of Effect
14.3.16
For the purposes of assessment, a scale of significance has been adopted. The evaluation of
significance has been based on professional judgement and takes into account the matrix
presented at Table 14.3 below. This approach uses the terms beneficial (for an advantageous
or positive effect on an environmental resource or receptor) or adverse (for a detrimental or
negative effect on an environmental resource or receptor). An assessment of Moderate adverse
significance or worse is considered to be significant in EIA terms.
Table 14.3: Significance of Effects
Sensitivity
Medium
Magnitude of Impact
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible or minor
Negligible or minor Negligible or
minor
Negligible or minor Minor
High
Minor
Negligible
Low
14.1
Minor or moderate
Medium
Negligible or minor
Minor
Moderate
Moderate or major
High
Minor
Minor or
moderate
Moderate or
major
Major
Existing Baseline Conditions
Location
14.3.17
The site consists of about 64 hectares of agricultural land on the eastern side of Derby, between
the suburbs of Boulton to the north and Shelton Lock to the south.
14.3.18
The south and western half of the site is in arable production. When surveyed this was being redrilled following the failure of the Winter Wheat to establish. Over the north and western edges
of the site, fields are under pasture, grazed predominantly by horses and ponies.
Topography
14.3.19
The land has an overall gentle slope from the highest ground at just over 50m a.o.d. in the south
to just over 40m a.o.d. on the northern boundary. None of the slopes pose any agricultural
limitation.
Climate
14.3.20
Climatic data has been obtained from the Meteorological Office's standard 5km grid point data
set for a representative point near the centre of the site and is set out in Table 14.4.
Table 14.4: Site Specific Climatic Data
Reference Point:-
SK 378309
Altitude (m):-
45
Average Annual Rainfall AAR (mm):-
623
Accumulated
degrees):-
Temperature
ATO
(day
1410
Moisture Deficit for wheat (mm):-
108
Moisture Deficit for potatoes (mm):-
99
Field Capacity Duration (days):-
139
285
14.3.21
In itself the climate, which is typical of lowland areas of central England, does not impose any
agricultural limitations. The period of winter wetness (the Field Capacity Duration) is of only
moderate length, while the moisture deficits which build up in the summer, a measure of climatic
droughtiness, are not very severe.
Relevant Published Information - Geology
14.3.22
The British Geological Survey mapping at 1:50,000 shown on the BGS Internet Portal identifies
the underlying bedrock is the Mercia Mudstone (formerly Keuper Marl), specifically the
Branscombe Mudstone. It occurs as a band across the southern part of the site with two
separate areas to the north-west and north-east of the main outcrop. The Mercia Mudstone has
a characteristic reddish brown colour and is clayey in texture which impedes drainage so that
soils formed in it, or with it relatively close to the surface, show signs of having been formed
under waterlogged conditions.
14.3.23
The mudstone bedrock is covered by various superficial deposits with those immediately
adjacent to the bedrock outcrops being referred to as “Head”. This consists of locally derived
material, usually of a somewhat lighter i.e. more loamy texture than the underlying mudstone.
14.3.24
The main superficial drift, however, is river terrace sands and gravels, here identified as the
Allenton Terrace (formerly Beeston Terrace) Deposits. These consist mainly of sand and gravel
but often with a thin, more loamy material at the surface.
14.3.25
Glacial Till (Boulder Clay), which is mainly derived from the Mercia Mudstone, is extensive south
of the site but occurs within the site only as a relatively small strip on the southern boundary.
Soils
14.3.26
There is no detailed soil map for the area and so the only published source of information is
Sheet 3 (Midland and Western England) of the 1:250,000 scale National Soil Map. This shows
geographic groupings of soils called Soil Associations, usually related to specific parent
materials. Within each Association there are likely to be a number of more tightly defined soil
types known as Soil Series. The commonest one gives its name to the Association, as in the
examples below.
14.3.27
The National Soil Map shows a close correlation with the geological mapping for the Site, though
with considerable simplification for reasons of scale. In essence the outcrop of the Mercia
Mudstone and associated Head is shown as Association 572f WHIMPLE 3, the Terrace deposits
as Association 572m SALWICK and the Glacial Till as Association 711m SALOP.
14.3.28
The WHIMPLE 3 Association, found in the areas of Mercia Mudstone and associated Head is
described as a collection of “reddish fine loamy or fine silty over clayey soils with slowly
permeable subsoils and slight seasonal waterlogging. Some similar clayey soils on brows.
Slowly permeable seasonally waterlogged fine loamy and fine silty over clayey soils on lower
slopes”. In this description, the term “fine loamy” indicates sandy clay loam and clay loam
textures and “fine silty” indicates silty clay loam textures.
14.3.29
The Whimple series per se is the “reddish fine loamy or fine silty over clayey soils with slowly
permeable subsoils and slight seasonal waterlogging”. These are the dominant soils where there
is a superficial loamy material i.e. the areas shown as Head on the geological map. A typical
profile has a dark brown clay loam or silty clay loam topsoil over a reddish brown, slightly
286
mottled clay loam or silty clay loam subsoil with a medium subangular blocky structure and
which is reasonably permeable. Below this, and at about 40cm or more from the surface there is
a similar but less well structured horizon which is slowly permeable and, at depth, a stiff silty clay
or clay, also slowly permeable.
14.3.30
Similar loamy over clayey soils but in footslope positions which receive seepage from upslope
and are corresponding wetter, more mottled and probably more difficult to drain are the
Brockhurst series. These are the “slowly permeable seasonally waterlogged fine loamy and fine
silty over clayey soils on lower slopes”.
14.3.31
The heaviest textured soils are those developed entirely in Mercia Mudstone and so are almost
certainly the dominant soils where the geological map shows essentially drift-free Mercia
Mudstone. These are the “clayey soils on brows” and belong to the Worcester series. A typical
profile has a heavy clay loam or clay topsoil over a reddish brown silty clay or clay with
mudstone at depth. The reddish colours of the parent material tend to mask any colour mottling
indicative of waterlogged conditions, but such soils are commonly regarded as being in Wetness
Class III or possibly IV even after drainage.
14.3.32
The SALWICK Association on the Terrace deposits is described as a collection of “deep reddish
fine loamy soils with slowly permeable subsoils. Some deep, well drained, coarse loamy soils.
Some fine loamy soils affected by groundwater”. In this description, the term “fine loamy”
indicates sandy clay loam and clay loam textures and “coarse loamy” indicates sandy loam or
loamy sand textures.
14.3.33
The strip of glacial till on the southern edge of the site comprises soils of the SALOP Association
((711m) described as a collection of “slowly permeable seasonally waterlogged reddish fine
loamy over clayey, fine loamy and clayey soils associated with fine loamy over clayey soils with
slowly permeable subsoils and slight seasonal waterlogging.” In this description, the term “fine
loamy” indicates sandy clay loam and clay loam textures.
Agricultural Land Classification (ALC)
14.3.34
The site is on the overlap of two of the Provisional 1:63,360 scale ALC maps, Sheets 120
(Burton-upon-Trent) and 121 (Derby and Leicester) published in 1972 and 1971 respectively.
These show the site as entirely undifferentiated Grade 3.
14.3.35
Land associated with the Mercia Mudstone (Keuper Marl) is spoken of as typically giving land in
the “middle and lower part” of Grade 3 i.e. Subgrades 3b and 3c in the tripartite division of Grade
3 then in use.
14.3.36
Similarly the soil on glacial till are also mentioned as giving land in the “middle and lower part” of
Grade 3.
14.3.37
Since the published Provisional ALC maps were produced there has been a comprehensive
revision to the criteria and guidelines for allocating land to particular grades and the former
Subgrades 3b and 3c have been amalgamated into a single Subgrade 3b.
Published DEFRA Farming Statistical Data
14.3.38
The DEFRA internet portal contains annual farming statistical data at a local authority level and
assists in identifying the nature of the farming framework in the vicinity of the site.
287
14.3.39
The 2010 datasets identify the following areas of farming land uses in Derby compared to the
figures for England as a whole.
Table 14.5: DEFRA County Statistical Data 2010 – Cropping Areas
2010
Total Area
%
Statistics
Arable
Cropping
Cropping
Arable
Total Area
%
Total Fruit
%
Permanent
Permanent
and
Cropping
Grass (ha)
grass
Vegetables
(ha)
Horticultural
(ha)
Derby
2,289
44%
2965
56%
0
0%
East
704,852
64%
368,398
33%
31,785
3%
3,772,751
45%
4,368,104
53%
133,236
2%
Midlands
Region
England
14.3.40
The statistics for Derby indicate that the area comprises a mixture of arable and grassland
(livestock based) land use, a very similar pattern to England as a whole, but with a lower
proportion of arable land than the East Midlands region.
Site Survey – Soils and Agricultural Land Quality
14.3.41
The agricultural land that has been surveyed within the Site has been graded as lower quality
ALC Grade 3b land described as moderate quality agricultural land within the 1988 MAFF ALC
guidelines. The land is commonly wet, (Wetness Class IV) with a slowly permeable heavy
textured upper subsoil, directly below the topsoil.
14.3.42
To the south of the site, soil profiles comprise a heavy clay loam topsoil overlying a slowly
permeable reddish clay subsoil commensurate with the Mercia Mudstone parent material. On
the level land to the north, heavy to medium clay loam topsoils overlie a slowly permeable heavy
clay loam upper subsoil. In places this is underlain by a lighter textured or gravelly lower subsoil
that was saturated at the time of survey.
14.3.43
The slowly permeable subsoils impede the drainage of water down through the soil profile,
leaving the soil commonly wet. The medium to heavy textured topsoils are then vulnerable to
structural degradation if cultivated or trafficked (by vehicles or livestock hooves) while wet,
limiting options for arable production and carrying livestock.
14.3.44
The southern half of the site is gently sloping with a northern aspect. To the north the site is
level. Agricultural drainage ditches on this level land appear to have a limited fall with sluggish
to no flow. Significant areas of the level ground under arable cropping showed signs of
sustained ponding over the winter. However any areas of grade limitation due to Flood Risk are
within an extensive area of equivalent or greater limitation due to soil wetness.
14.3.45
Two small areas of Non Agricultural land are mapped within the site. In the south, the mapped
area comprises an area of disturbed land. To the north, the non-agricultural land comprises a
disused barn at Moor Farm.
288
14.3.46
The areas and percentages of ALC grades on the Site are therefore as shown in Table 14.6
below:
Table 14.6: Agricultural Land Classification Grades on the Site
ALC Grade
Area
%
Grade 3b
65.3
99.0
Non-Agricultural
0.50
1.0
Total
65.8
100
Site Survey – Farming Framework
14.3.47
The Site to the north of Snelsmoor Lane currently forms part of two holdings. The arable land
immediately to the north of the Lane forms part of a larger arable holding based at Field House
Farm, to the south of Snelsmoor Lane. The holding in total comprises approximately 202
hectares, of which approximately half is owned and half is rented. Approximately 37ha of land,
rented on the basis of a one year farm business tenancy (FBT), falls within the Site. The arable
rotation used across the holding is based on wheat/barley and oilseed rape. The enterprise is
run as a family business by father and son, together with one other full time employee. The land
within the Site is not entered into the government Environmental Stewardship Scheme.
14.3.48
The land on the furthest northern part of the Site is being used as part of the Second Chance
Animal Rescue centre which is based at Boulton Edge Farm directly to the west of the Site. The
holding comprises 35ha acres in total, of which approximately 24 ha is affected by the proposal.
The land is used primarily to support rescue animals on the basis of a two year tenancy
agreement with the landowner. The rescue animals currently include Shetland ponies, pygmy
goats and rescue dogs. In addition, the holding currently has 60 ewes and the income derived
from this enterprise is used to support the running of the rescue centre,
14.3.49
The Site also includes a small area of land (2.2Ha) to the south of Snelsmoor Lane that affects a
fringe of two large arable fields. These fields form part of a large arable enterprise based at
Thulston Fields Farm.
14.4
Assessment of Impacts, mitigation and Residual Effects
Construction Effects
14.4.1
The development of the Site would lead to the permanent loss of agricultural land quality during
the construction period. The draft proposals for the Site include significant areas of land
(approximately 29ha) that are likely to be retained as amenity areas and open space, where
soils would be retained and, if ever required, this land could be returned to a productive use at
some future time. However, for the purposes of the assessment, it has been assumed that all of
the land within the Application site and that the agricultural land quality of this area is lost
permanently. The development of the Site, not taking into account the potential areas of amenity
land and public open space where the soils may not be permanently affected, would therefore
affect a total of approximately 66 ha of agricultural land which has been assessed to comprise
lower quality grade 3b land.
289
14.4.2
With regards to farming effects, the Site would affect two main farming enterprises based at
Field House Farm and Thulston Fields Farm. The loss of approximately 37ha of land from Field
House Farm would represent approximately 20% of the current farming area, although this land
is only used on the basis of a short term one year agreement. The loss of the land from the
holding would affect the day to day management of the holding, including the full-time
employment of a member of staff in addition to the family members who farm the land. However,
the remaining holding would still continue to be farmed from the base at Field House. The loss of
the small area of approximately 2.2ha land at Thulston Fields Farm, associated with highways
works to the south of Snelsmoor Lane would have a limited effect on the operation of this larger
arable based holding.
14.4.3
The remaining land forms within the Site forms part of the Second Chance Animal Rescue
centre, which is held on the basis of a short term two year tenancy agreement. Whilst there are
approximately 60 ewes currently being kept on the land within the site, the main function that the
land is being used for is not agricultural production, but as land to support the Animal Rescue
Centre. Two full time staff are employed in the running of the Rescue Centre. The development
of the Site would lead to the loss of approximately 70% of the land used by the Rescue Centre.
14.4.4
The magnitude of the effects on soils and agricultural land quality is therefore assessed to be
negligible, based on the loss of low quality grade 3b land from the proposal. The land is
considered to be of low sensitivity in terms of its land quality and overall therefore the effect of
the Application Site on agricultural land quality is assessed to be of negligible significance.
14.4.5
With regard to the effect on farming activity the magnitude of effect on farming is assessed as
medium, based mainly on the loss of land from the Field House Farm and the effect that this
would have on the future management of the holding. The small loss of land from Thulston
Fields farm along the fringe of two arable fields would have a negligible magnitude of impact on
the operation of this holding. The Animal Rescue centre could not continue in its current form,
but this is not run as a farming enterprise, with any income generated from the holding used to
facilitate the objectives of the Animal Rescue centre. The sensitivity of the farm holdings at Field
House and Thulston Fields Farm is assessed to be low, based on the nature of the operations,
the quality of the land and the location of the farm buildings outside the boundary of the site.
Based on a medium magnitude of impact and a low sensitivity of the farm holdings, the overall
effect on the framework of farm holdings is assessed to be of minor adverse significance.
Operation/Permanent Effects
14.4.6
There would be no additional effects on agricultural land use and soils arising during the
operational period.
14.5
Cumulative Effects
14.5.1
There are a number of schemes being brought forward by DCC as part of the Derby growth
strategy as shown on Figure 1.4 that would involve the loss of areas of agricultural land. The
loss of the agricultural land at Snelsmoor Grange would not affect higher quality 1, 2 or 3a land
and would not, therefore, have a cumulative effect on any loss of the of “best and most
versatile” land that may result from the development of other schemes. In terms of the farming
framework, the development of the other schemes (Figure 1.4) would not further affect the
workability of the farming operations at Field House Farm or Thulston Fields Farm and would
290
not therefore cumulatively affect the productive farming framework within the vicinity. Summary
and Conclusion
14.5.2
The development of the Site would lead to the loss of approximately 66ha of agricultural land,
with the land surveyed in detail to the north of Snelsmoor Lane identified to comprise entirely
grade 3b, lower quality agricultural land according to the MAFF 1988 Agricultural Land
Classification System. The loss of land quality arising from the proposal is therefore assessed to
be of Negligible Significance as no areas of the “best and most versatile” grade 1, 2 or 3a land
have been identified.
14.5.3
The proposal would affect the operation of the Second Chance Animal Rescue Centre, based at
Boulton Edge Farm. However, this operation is not run as a productive farm holding, with any
income derived from the sheep kept on the land used to support the objectives of the rescue
center. Furthermore the land affected would form part of the second phase of the development,
providing ample time and opportunity for the charity to find alternative grazing around Derby.
14.5.4
There are two farming enterprises affected by the proposal, based at Field House Farm, and
Thulston Fields Farm based to the south of the Site. Field House Farm would lose
approximately 37ha of land to the scheme, held on a short term tenancy agreement and
Thulston Fields would lose approximately 2.2ha of land along the fringe of two large fields to the
south of Snelsmoor Lane. The effect of the loss of the land from these two productive farm
holdings is assessed to be of minor adverse significance based on the loss of land from Field
House Farm and the effect that this would have on the day to day management of that holding.
291
15. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
15.1
Introduction and Cumulative Assessment Projects
15.1.1
As explained in Chapter 1 of the ES, Figures 1.4 and 1.5 provide plans which have formed a
basis for considering potential commitments to be considered through the cumulative
assessment process. The housing sites identified in these figures correspond with the
identification of forthcoming and committed sites at Chapter 3. However due to the geographic
distribution of such sites the consideration of cumulative development impacts has been
concentrated upon sites in and around Boulton Moor/Chellaston.
15.1.2
Such assessment has taken into account applications permitted but not yet implemented and
submitted applications that are not yet determined. There are considered to be no other major
developments that need to be considered as part of the cumulative assessment process.
15.1.3
This Chapter therefore provides a summary assessment of the combined effect of the proposed
development at Snelsmoor Lane alongside specified sites utilising assessment information from
the individual cumulative assessments undertaken within the topic chapters of the ES and a
summary of the assessment is contained in Table 15.1 below.
Transport Assessment
15.1.4
In relation to cumulative transport impacts these are specifically not provided in the table below
as they are fully detailed in Chapter 10 and the related assessments regarding noise and
vibration (Chapter 7) as well as Air Quality (Chapter 11). The results of the TA have indicated
that the potential environmental effects resulting from the increase in traffic generated by the
proposed development, and accounting for cumulative impact of committed schemes that are
local to the site (Figure 1.6), will not be significant.

Land off Fellow Lands Way (Bellway/Clowes) – 190 units

Boulton Moor Phase 1 (DUAPP1 in South Derby)– 1058 units

Chellaston Business Park and T12 link road
15.1.5
This assessment has taken into account prescribed mitigation, particularly off-site highway
improvement works at Junction D – ‘A514 Derby Road / High Street / Station Road traffic signal
junction’. The environmental assessment has considered the effects of the off site highway
works, which are considered to be of limited impact due to their urban location and containment
within the existing adopted highway boundary.
15.2
Cumulative Impact
15.2.1
The NPPF states clearly that development should only be refused or prevented where the
residual cumulative impacts of a scheme are severe. Through each chapter of the ES the
cumulative impacts of the scheme alongside development proposals that are considered to be
committed or of relevance, have been taken into account in relation to impact. Below is a
combined assessment of cumulative impacts,
292
Landscape Cumulative Effects
Approach:
15.2.2
Cumulative landscape and visual effects arise as a result of a number of different factors and
combined changes. These generally fall into two categories;

Cumulative effects arising from a range of developments, occurring at different
locations. Separately, such individual projects may not create an unacceptable degree
of adverse impact but collectively the results may potentially be significant simultaneous effects

Cumulative effects caused by the proposed development in conjunction with other
developments that occurred in the past, present or are likely to occur in the foreseeable
future – successive effects
15.2.3
As identified in the first point above, cumulative or combined effects are principally those that are
likely to arise when the development is considered in relation to other foreseeable developments
either located in the immediate vicinity or that have a relationship with a similar environmental
resource. Individually the impact of a development may be of minor magnitude but when
combined with the impact from other developments could increase the overall significance of an
effect on an environmental resource.
15.2.4
Cumulative effects require an understanding of the capacity of the receiving environment and
whether critical thresholds would be exceeded by the combination of projects. Geographical
limits and time implications are more important in assessing the cumulative effects than in
assessing the specific environmental effects of the proposed development. Administrative
boundaries are less important than those relating to the natural environment e.g. watersheds.
15.2.5
The results of this process would enable the local planning authority to ensure that this and
future developments are mutually compatible and remain within the environmental capacity of
the area considered.
Simultaneous Effects
15.2.6
Derby City Council (DCC), along with neighbouring South Derbyshire District Council (SDDC)
and Amber Valley District Council, have recently consulted on their Planning Growth Strategy
documents. Boulton Moor has been identified by the Councils as an area for future growth, and
the site is included as a proposed development site, along with three adjoining sites to the east
which cross the border into South Derbyshire. This is estimated to provide a total of 2,748 new
homes. An application has also been submitted for a 190 new homes adjoining the western
edge of the site. One of these sites has outline planning permission but has not been started.
15.2.7
Currently all of the allocated sites identified by Figure 1.6 are proposed upon agricultural land.
However, there are a number of urban influences evident to all of the sites, adjoining the existing
settlement edge, with sites to the east also influenced by the highways infrastructure of the A6.
15.2.8
Some of these potentially simultaneous development projects lie within the same Zone of Visual
Influence (ZVI) as the proposed development. Consequently the proposed development may be
seen against the adjoining sites, but equally, some of the adjoining sites (especially those to the
293
east and west) may conceal the development from viewpoints identified within this assessment.
Due to the scale of the combined developments, this would suggest that there would be a
resulting increase in visual effects, but this is likely to be contained to the local area
5.8.11
Overall, any cumulative (simultaneous) landscape and visual effects arising from the proposed
development are considered to be predominantly localised and contained.
Successive Effects
15.2.9
Both the surrounding Boulton and Chellaston areas of Derby have seen progressive
development over recent years. Indeed, the proposed site lies alongside and in close proximity
to these areas, which do lessen the impact on the landscape character of the area. Also, within
the wider context, significant highways infrastructure has also contributed to this area’s
increased urban influences. In successive terms, the cumulative effects of the proposed
development are not considered to be significant and will lessen further over time with the
maturing of the landscape proposals.
Flood Risk and Drainage Cumulative Effects
15.2.10
Flood risk has been assessed in the flood risk assessment and has been established as
negligible. The site is well outside the extreme flood predicted outline shown by the Environment
Agency flood mapping at Figure 8.1 and firmly within Zone 1.
15.2.11
The changes made to the catchment are primarily the creation of hard surfaced areas where
previously greenfield areas existed. This essentially changes the response to rainfall of the
catchment, with the reaction to rainfall more instantaneous than for the former greenfield
surface.
15.2.12
In response to this, to prevent potential flooding, flow balancing would be undertaken to restrict
flows to former peak levels. The restriction of surface water flows from the site is proposed to be
achieved through attenuation ponds with controlled flow outlets. These replicate the slow
response of the current greenfield site to rainfall.
15.2.13
It is considered that with the various treatment trains to be implemented, that follow the guidance
in CIRIA C697, water quality effects will also be negligible.
15.2.14
It is considered that all developments within the local area will be subject to restrictions to
manage the rapid response runoff and as such resultant catchment hydrology will be unaffected.
15.2.15
With regard to foul water flows, consultation with Severn Trent Water (STW) has been
undertaken to ensure that the downstream network has sufficient capacity to cater for the
additional flows. STW have given assurances that the capacity in the existing network is
sufficient to cater for the anticipated additional flows. As the sewerage undertaker, STW will
have the opportunity to approve or object to any discharge to their network and additionally to
make the developer of any proposal fund any necessary improvement works. It is therefore
considered that the cumulative effect of the proposed development and other local proposals is
within the capacity of the system at present and therefore the effect is negligible.
15.2.16
This development has also been considered in conjunction with other proposed developments in
the immediate vicinity. The scheme off Fellow Lands Way has been developed to have a
standalone drainage network which will discharge by way of sustainable drainage systems to
294
local watercourses. The Boulton Moor development to the east of the site also has a standalone
drainage system discharging to the east. Therefore there is no impact from the proposed
development onto adjacent proposed developments.
Air Quality Cumulative Effects
15.2.17
The “future” air quality models in this assessment included anticipated traffic volumes for the
Fellowlands development. No other nearby proposals are developed to a level of detail suitable
for inclusion in this study of air quality impact.
Waste Cumulative Effects
15.2.18
The proposed development site falls within a larger area extending eastwards which is identified
in the PGS as the Boulton Moor housing allocation. A number of different residential planning
applications are being progressed independently in this area, which are currently at different
stages of determination. A further smaller housing development (for 190 dwellings) is currently
under consideration to the south west of the site at Fellow Lands Way. The aforementioned
developments will potentially give rise to cumulative impacts.
15.2.19
In relation to the Fellow Lands Way development, based upon its relatively small scale and the
assessment findings, i.e. that the effects to waste management capacity from the assessed
development will be negligible for all phases, it is considered that any cumulative impacts will
also be negligible and therefore further detailed evaluation of cumulative effects is unnecessary.
15.2.20
With regard to the emerging Boulton Moor housing allocations/development of the adjacent
sites, the cumulative impact has not been evaluated further in this chapter as waste impacts
from these future development areas form part of the future baseline position (forecasted waste
generation figures and waste management capacity requirements), which has been reported in
the relevant chapter and which is planned for in the emerging Joint Derby and Derbyshire Waste
Core Strategy Development Plan Document.
Transport Cumulative Effects
15.2.21
The cumulative impacts of the proposed development in combination with other committed
schemes in the locality have been fully assessed as part of the overall modelling work
undertaken within the TA. The results show that cumulative impacts can be substantially
accommodated by the existing highway network, or by the provision of mitigation works as
identified below.
Ecological Cumulative Effects
15.2.22
Two schemes exist locally; the Boulton Moor and Fellows Land Way development, that occur to
the east and southwest respectively.
15.2.23
Both schemes have the potential to affect species of interest within the site including badgers
and barn owl through the loss of foraging habitat. The Boulton Moor development considered
the effects on badgers, with none expected, and being mainly arable farmland is not likely to
affect the availability of foraging for barn owl and as a result is not considered further.
15.2.24
The Fellow Lands Way site currently supports rough grassland and is therefore likely to provide
a potentially significant foraging resource for barn owl, the loss of which was not commented
upon. However, the enhancement proposals associated with this, current, scheme is such that
295
any unforeseen effects are likely to be compensated such that no cumulative effects are likely to
occur.
15.2.25
The mitigation and compensation strategy relies on the retention of biodiversity corridors through
the development, in the form of the hedgerow and ditch network that is present, and in the
enhancement of a significant proportion of the site, which will form a country park. Biodiversity
enhancement in this area will focus on recreating a range of habitats both of intrinsic nature
conservation value and of potential use by species known to occur locally.
Noise Cumulative Effects
Construction Phase
15.2.26
Construction of the development is unlikely to coincide with the construction phasing of other
proposed developments within the area including Boulton Moor Phase 2 and Fellow Lands Way.
Therefore there are unlikely to be any significant cumulative effects during the construction
phase of the development. and with cumulative effects considered the noise impact during the
construction of the development is still considered to be moderate adverse and the vibration
impact is still considered as negligible.
Operational Phase
Road Traffic Noise
15.2.27
There is potential for cumulative effects from road traffic from Boulton Moor Phases 1 and 2 and
the Land off Fellow Lands Way. The noise and vibration chapter for Boulton Moor Phases 1 and
2 in May 2005 indicates that there is an estimated noise change of up to 5 dB LAeq at residential
properties on Snelsmoor Lane. On the basis of the traffic data assessed in this report, a further
increase of between 1 and 2 dB LAeq is expected from this scheme on Snelsmoor Lane.
15.2.28
Information provided for the development of Fellow Lands Way indicates that there was no
assessment of traffic noise for the scheme. The scale of the development and transport
statement for the site indicate that traffic figures are below those for the development site.
Therefore this site is likely to have a negligible contribution to traffic noise on Snelsmoor Lane.
15.2.29
On this basis, the overall cumulative effect of traffic noise from the development site, and other
committed and proposed development within the area, will be moderate adverse.
Mechanical Plant
15.2.30
Mechanical plant associated with the development will be designed in such a way as to achieve
suitable environments on the site itself. On this basis there is not likely to be any cumulative
effects with mechanical plant from other proposed and consented sites within the area and the
impact remains as negligible.
Flooding Cumulative Effects
15.2.31
Flood risk has been assessed in the FRA and has been established as negligible. The site is
well outside the extreme flood predicted outline shown by the Environment Agency flood
mapping and firmly within Zone 1.
296
15.2.32
The changes made to the catchment are primarily the creation of hard surfaced areas where
previously greenfield areas existed. This essentially changes the response to rainfall of the
catchment, with the reaction to rainfall more instantaneous than for the former greenfield
surface.
15.2.33
In response to this, to prevent potential flooding, flow balancing would be undertaken to restrict
flows to former peak levels. The restriction of surface water flows from the site is proposed to be
achieved through attenuation ponds with controlled flow outlets. These replicate the slow
response of the current Greenfield site to rainfall.
15.2.34
It is considered that with the various treatment trains to be implemented, that follow the guidance
in CIRIA C697, water quality effects will also be negligible.
15.2.35
It is considered that all developments within the local area will be subject to restrictions to
manage the rapid response runoff and as such resultant catchment hydrology will be unaffected.
15.2.36
With regard to foul water flows, consultation with Severn Trent Water (STW) has been
undertaken to ensure that the downstream network has sufficient capacity to cater for the
additional flows. STW have given assurances that the capacity in the existing network is
sufficient to cater for the anticipated additional flows. As the sewerage undertaker, STW will
have the opportunity to approve or object to any discharge to their network and additionally to
make the developer of any proposal fund any necessary improvement works. It is therefore
considered that the cumulative effect of the proposed development and other local proposals is
within the capacity of the system at present and therefore the effect is negligible.
Ground Condition Cumulative Effects
15.2.37
Only negligible to minor impacts have been identified in relation to ground conditions and
contamination associated with the proposed development.
15.2.38
The proposed development is not considered to represent a significant risk in terms of future
contamination of soils, groundwater or surface waters as the sources of future contamination are
limited. Therefore, the proposed development is not considered to make a significant
contribution to any cumulative adverse effect on these features in relation to ground conditions
and contamination.
15.2
Inter-relationship of Effects
15.2.1
The inter-relationship of affecting factors must also be assessed in respect of cumulative impact.
In terms of such interactions there are two identifiable groupings of, landscape – ecology effects,
and noise - air quality - transportation. Although socio economic and agricultural land can also
have an inter-relationship, the limited agricultural land within Derby City and restricted
commercial use of the site’s agricultural land nullifies this interaction.
297
Table 15.1 Cumulative Assessment Summary
Sites
Planning
Socio-economic
considered in app no. / Factors
the ES
Allocation
Ref
A:
Boulton 9/2005/0611
Affordable Housing
Moor Phase 1
Allocation
DUA PP1
Landscape and Visual
Amenity
Flora,
Fauna
and
Nature Conservation
Environmental Statement
Phase 1 Habitat Survey &
ES
Proposes
G.P
facility,
Primary
school
and
Affordable Homes.
The delivery of the
development
will
also
create
construction
jobs
and
deliver
affordable homes.
The
site
is
of
low
landscape
value,
comprising flat, open lowlying arable farmland.
The site contains arable
land with very little potential
nature
conservation
interest. 2 species rich
hedgerows & badger sets
on site which will be
retained with in buffer
zones.
Planning Statement
LVIA
Extended Phase 1 Habitat
Survey
Affordable
Homes
and housing land
supply will contribute
toward the local
economy.
The
delivery
of
the
scheme will also
create construction
jobs.
The gap between Derby City
and Chellaston will appear
reduced by structural planting
will improve the landscape
Site of limited value to
wildlife. Landscape and
SUDs scheme will provide
benefit to local habitats.
Drainage &
Hydrology
Geology,
Soils
and
Ground
Conditions
Archaeology
and Cultural
Heritage
Climatic
Factors and
Sustainability
Flood
Risk
Assessment &
Drainage
Scheme
Geotechnical
Assessment
Environmental
Statement
Environmental
Statement
Permanent loss
of some grade
3a
agricultural
land to the west
of Snelsmoor
Lane Diversion.
No impact
on
Elvaston
Castle
and
gardens.
No
archaeological
sites have been
identified.
Future baseline
air
quality
within the area
is
generally
good and will
remain
good
for
the
development.
No
relevant
reports
No
relevant
reports
No
relevant
reports
Permanent loss
of some grade
3b
agricultural
land. However,
the majority is
used for grazing
and a suitable
supply
of
agricultural land
exists
in
the
locality.
No impact on
heritage sites in
area.
-
Reports
/
Environmental
Statement
Relevant information
B:
Fellow
Lands Way
The combined visual impact
of Phases 1, 2 and proposal
will alter local landscape
character significantly. The
impact will however be
mitigated well be open
space, improvements to the
wedge
area
and
only
effectively moves the urban
boundary south.
The resulting loss of
foraging
and
habitat
potential is not of a level
that
would
contribute
toward cumulative harm in
the locality.
01/13/00082
‘Additional
Site’
Allocation
Identified
On
site
mitigation
proposed
through
attenuation and
SUDs.
Will not lead to
accumulated
surface water
discharges.
Reports
Flood
Risk
Assessment
Relevant Information
setting.
298
No significant
watercourses
nearby
and
surface waters
will
be
mitigated
on
site to prevent
increase
of
flooding
elsewhere.
Table 15.1 Cumulative Assessment Summary
Sites
Planning
Socio-economic
considered in app no. / Factors
the ES
Allocation
Ref
C:
Boulton
Moor Phase 2
Allocation
DUA2
Landscape and Visual
Amenity
Flora,
Fauna
and
Nature Conservation
Planning Statement
Landscape
Constraints
Survey
Extended Phase 1
Include
primary
school
and
affordable
dw.
Delivery will also
create construction
jobs.
Site is visible from the main
highways but does not have
an overly detriment visual
impact. The combined visual
impact of Phases 1, 2 and
proposal will alter local
landscape
character
significantly. But the impact
will be mitigated well be
open space, improvements
to the wedge area and only
effectively moves the urban
boundary south.
Drainage &
Hydrology
Ge
Soi
Gro
Co
Flood
Risk
Assessment
Geo
env
Rep
Reports
and
Report,
Tree
Tree
Relevant Information
No
detrimental
cumulative effects.
Habitats of ecological value
identified on the site.
Existing habitats will be
compensated
through
improved
nature
conservation area of the
Country Park and related
green
infrastructure
providing wildlife corridors
through the schemes.
299
Negligible risk
from
flooding
and
No
detrimental
cumulative
effects.
Perm
of g
agri
How
maj
for g
suita
agri
exis
loca
D:
Chellaston
Business Park /
T12 link road
Applications
01385/PRI,
01386/PRI,
01387/PRI Erection
of
business
park,
POS
and
road
proposal T12
(extension of
time of outline
code
no
DER/10/91/0
1345/PRI by
a further ten
years)
Table 15.1 Cumulative Assessment Summary
Reports
Transport
LVIA & ES
Environmental
Drainage
Assessment
Statement
Strategy
FRA
Relevant Information
The proposals deliver
a priority site to the
benefit
of
the
catchment
City /
Region as a whole.
Potential for 3,600
jobs to be created.
No
detrimental
cumulative effects.
The land is generally low
lying
and
flat
though
steepening to the south
approaching the A50
Robust landscape planting
including conservation and
extension of Moor Plantation,
large Wetlands, conserve
grassland areas, extension to
hedges, landscape corridors
and water features.
Site has been surveyed
to be of low ecological
use due to existing
intensive arable use. A
hedgerow
network
within the layout will
provide wildlife linkages
and green corridors are
proposed through the
layout.
300
and
The site lies within
Flood Zone 3a and
adequate
mitigation
is
proposed on site
through
SUDs.
This will prevent
increased flood risk
through
surface
water flooding.
Geoenviro
repor
No
contam
17 hec
2 & 3
lane w
the
Howev
is su
suitabl
land
farmed
and th
area d
wider i
15.3
Combined Effects
15.7.1
A beneficial economic impact will be caused as a result of the residential and business park
proposals should they all be delivered, as a result of the increase in job opportunities during the
construction phases and the resulting business premises, as well as the resultant spending
power and employment of the resident population.
15.7.2
The ES Scheme and the identified cumulative sites will also generate new areas of publicly
accessible open space. This will result in the overall cumulative social economic impacts to be
beneficial.
15.7.3
Although the ES scheme and cumulative sites will be visible from Snelsmoor Lane and the urban
edge of Derby/Chellaston, the resultant landscape impact will not be significant when taking into
account the mitigation proposed through each development.
15.7.4
The effect of the ES Scheme when considered in the context of the wider sites proposed would
be beneficial both in landscape and visual terms. The main benefit would be to enable a
cohesive publicly accessible open space network. Overall therefore the development of the
identified sites alongside the ES scheme will result in a positive impact.
15.7.5
There is no identified cumulative adverse impact on the SSSI site.
15.4
Summary and Conclusion
15.7.6
The key receptors will be predominately impacted by localised noise, air quality and
transportation issues which cumulatively do not lead to significant environmental impact at the
site’s location or at off-site junctions. It is concluded that the interactions between the various
potential impacts arising will in general be negligible on most key receptors and where any
impacts occur they can be suitably mitigated to ensure a suitable development ensues.
15.7.7
The cumulative assessment has considered the effects of the development with other projects in
order to assess the cumulative effects on the environment and the interrelationship of the effects
on the environment. Where relevant each chapter of the ES has assessed the cumulative effects
with other committed developments considered of relevance, which has concentrated on those
reasonably foreseeable projects at Derby. This assessment process demonstrates there are no
significant cumulative adverse effects from these developments.
301
16. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
16.1
Site Context & Proposed Development
16.1.1
The proposed development is the culmination of a long plan making process intended to deliver
the level of housing required by Derby and neighbouring authorities in sustainable locations.
Alternatives in terms of the level of overall provision, different strategies for delivery and different
locations to have been considered. The proposed location best meets the agreed strategy in
meeting housing land targets.
16.1.2
The scheme comprises a sustainable urban extension to Derby City for which outline planning
consent is sought with access from Snelsmoor Lane fixed, seeking to identify residential and
open space facilities through a Masterplan layout. The proposed development will be set within
a significant green infrastructure framework enhancing the existing network of hedgerows, water
features, trees and PRoW through a publicly accessible country park that will serve as a Green
Wedge between the proposed development and Chellaston.
16.1.3
The application site measures 65.84hectares (163acres) to the north of Snelsmoor Lane and
extending up to Field Lane. The site lies outside of, but adjacent to, the built up area of Boulton,
which is a suburb of Derby City, and is located 5.3 kilometres (3.3 miles) south east of the City
Centre. The site is comprised of a series of agricultural fields used for arable crops and grazing
land, alongside associated farm buildings and farmhouse which are now unused. The existing
used of the site corresponds with existing areas of farmland to the east and land south of
Sneslmoor Lane, which is located within South Derbyshire.
16.1.4
The Ministerial Forward to the NPPF makes it clear that “the purpose of planning is to help
achieve sustainable development”. Paragraph 6 also explains that the NPPF provides the
Government’s view of “what sustainable development in England means in practice for the
planning system”. It sees three integrated dimensions based on economic, social and
environmental roles and warns that, “These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because
they are mutually dependent … Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic,
social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning
system” (paragraph 8). These roles are thus key to achieving sustainable communities.
16.1.5
The NPPF also offers specific guidance on the consideration of residential proposals, namely
paragraph 49 which advises that such applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development. Specifically those relevant local policies for
the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot
demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
16.1.6
Paragraph 52 goes on to advises that the supply of new homes can sometimes be best
achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or urban
extensions that follow the principles of Garden Cities.
16.1.7
DCC is currently consulting on a PGS that identifies the amount and location of new housing
sites and employment land required up to 2028. A key theme of the emerging strategy is to
“maintain and, where opportunities arise, enhance and restore the City’s network of Green Belt,
Green Wedges, open spaces, wildlife corridors and wildlife sites” as part of an enhanced Green
302
Infrastructure network. Despite this protection, the growth strategy accepts that some
development of allocated Green Wedges will be required in order to provide the level of housing
growth proposed
The Proposal
16.1.8
The development is proposed through a hybrid application that provides outline planning details
for the whole site including indicative location of buildings, their height and mass, seeks to agree
the main highway access points and routes within the site. This is set out by a Masterplan that
includes the design principles for the new homes, streets and public spaces.
16.1.9
The first phase of the development is then provided in detail as a full planning application,
including the appearance of the buildings, the materials it will be constructed from, and the
design of any landscaping. The scheme Masterplan will demonstrate how this first phase of
dwellings will relate to the larger development by identifying linkages, densities proposed and
landscaping requirements.
16.2
Socio Economic Consideration
16.2.1
Derby City Council’s Preferred Growth Strategy identifies that Derby’s population is growing as a
result of both natural increases and due to more people being attracted to the City than are
leaving it. Government projections suggest that this trend is set to continue, although the
recently completed Housing Requirements Study suggests that these increases will not be as
high as the national projections suggest. Using this evidence, the strategy identifies 33,700 new
homes to be provided across the Housing Market Area over the plan period 2008- 2028. Of the
33,700 homes, about 19,230 will be directed into and around the Derby Urban Area.
16.2.2
Economic activity rate for the application proposal’s context area (Derby City) and benchmarks
has been assessed through the ES. It has been measured as a proportion of the resident
working age population. Derby City has been found to have a much higher economic activity rate
compared to the national average.
16.2.3
A continued aspect of maintaining Derby City’s economic success is ensuring that it supplies an
adequate base of employees. As such, the provision of new housing will assist in delivering
homes to accommodate a supply of employees for the City’s growing industries, particularly
manufacturing.
16.2.4
To understand how the manufacturing industry influences the job opportunities within Derby City,
job density data has been assessed. The data suggests that the largest sectors of industry in
Derby City are manufacturing and retail, hotels and restaurants. There is an above average
concentration of employment in these sectors compared to regional and national averages.
Private sector led sustainable job creation is a key priority measure outlined and advocated by
the Government in order to tackle the economic downturn, which the high levels of
manufacturing and business could help to satisfy. However, the high proportion of employees in
retail, hotels and restaurants implies that the retail and leisure sector in the immediate context
area is buoyant at present.
16.2.5
As detailed in the Agricultural Land Chapter 14, the majority of the site is in arable or pasture
use, with residential homes, public open space and a dog boarding kennels located immediately
adjacent to the site. In terms of the agricultural use of the site, two agricultural tenancies exist
303
across the site at present which are short term arrangements. It is not considered that the
removal of the tenancy for the farming of the arable area will have any direct impact upon the
viability of that related land holding and therefore will not cause the related farm and businesses
to close.
16.2.6
Relocation of the animal charity, ‘Second Chance Animal Rescue’, is not considered to be
insurmountable over the time frame and given the extent of pasture land available around Derby.
Therefore the identification of alternative sites for agricultural tenants such as the animal shelter
is not considered to be insurmountable.
16.2.7
One of the core impacts during the construction phase of the proposed development of the
application site is likely to be the creation of the development related employment. Given the
scope of the proposals, the proposed development will support significant full-time and part-time
construction jobs.
16.2.8
The effect of construction related employment is a factor of the scheme’s expenditure for site
works and development works. The development cost estimate provided for the application
proposals is £100 million. It is accepted the vast majority of investment in construction is
retained locally in the UK.
16.2.9
The development will deliver the draft housing allocation site DER/0105 and contribute toward
the planned supply of housing for Derby City. The cumulative effect of which will help to reduce
over-occupancy within Derby City and contribute toward reduced travel times for local
employees as more homes close to the City’s employment sources are provided.
16.2.10
The proposed development of the application site is likely to deliver direct and indirect positive
socio-economic impacts which do not require any mitigation, other than those improving
accessibility to it and accelerating the benefits to the existing urban area of the country park as a
local resource.
Providing the country park through this development will be a significant
residual effect and contribute positively toward the health and wellbeing of the existing local
population as well as that of future residents of the scheme. This in turn delivers social benefits
as access to an area of countryside and improved recreational facilities are provided.
16.2.11
There are not considered to be any negative effects on socio-economic receptors arising from
this development. The development is the implementation of detailed consideration of housing
need based on population growth from births and deaths, in migration and economic growth.
However, there would be negative consequences of not making the housing provision proposed,
leading to overcrowding, rising property prices, and an uncompetitive labour market.
16.3
Landscape and Visual Impact
16.3.1
The proposed development has been carefully considered and assessed in the context of the
published and more detailed site based landscape assessments. It would include the creation of
a significant Landscape plan comprising the conservation of the vast majority of existing trees
and hedgerow planting throughout the site, significant new woodland and other planting and
habitats throughout the site, through the creation of a significant new country park along the
western half of the site. These proposals would assist in mitigating many of the adverse
landscape and visual effects of the built development, provide adequate landscaping to ensure
that the visual amenities and special character of the Green Wedge and Green Belt is not
304
adversely affected and offer many valuable longer term biodiversity and access/recreational
benefits.
16.3.2
The resultant landscape character effects arising from the proposed development would vary
between negligible (for the effects upon the very broad landscape character area) to minor
adverse (for the initial effects upon the site based and local landscape character). The specific
effects of the proposed development upon landscape features within the site would vary
between moderate beneficial for the effects upon woodland and trees, to negligible for the
effects upon landform.
16.3.3
In visual terms, the site is well contained by the existing settlement edge, hedgerows and trees
and tall perimeter hedgerows east. Views towards the proposed development largely fall into
three categories:

Properties and road users along Snelsmoor Lane, Chellaston and End Cottage, Boulton
would be afforded views of the development due to their elevated position and close
proximity to the site. The significance of the visual effects upon the properties at this location
would be minor to moderate adverse, subject to the extent of the available view.

Properties along the settlement edges of Chellaston and Boulton are likely to be afforded
views from first floor windows at the rear of the property and / or back gardens. Views are
likely to be a restricted due the topography of the site, distance, and screening effects of the
intervening vegetation. The significance of the visual effects upon the properties at this
location would be negligible to minor adverse, subject to the extent of the available view.

Users of the PRoW through the western and northern edge of the site. Although the nature
of the views from this route is likely to change with the proposed primary school, the
proposed built development would be seen in context to the existing settlement edge. The
change however would encompass some benefits arising from the creation of the country
park along the western half of the site, with the existing planting reinforced with new
woodland planting and meadow creation. The significance of the visual effects upon the
properties at this location would be negligible to minor adverse, subject to the extent of the
available view.
16.3.4
Overall, the landscape and visual effects are considered to be predominantly localised and
contained. The most notable landscape effects arise from the changes to the landscape
character of the site and for the visual effects upon the properties and road users along
Snelsmoor Lane, Chellaston and End Cottage, Boulton. The scheme includes an extensive and
robust Landscape plan that has been carefully devised to provide a suitable Green Infrastructure
to the site and to conserve and extend those existing features and habitats of value. The
resultant landscape and visual effects will lessen further over time with the maturing of the
proposals and the application of a Landscape Management Plan.
16.4
Ecological impact Assessment
16.4.1
The ecological assessment undertaken assesses the likely significant effects of the proposed
development in terms of ecology and nature conservation and is based upon both existing
information regarding the site ascertained through desk study information and through
undertaking a site habitat and species surveys.
305
16.4.2
A range of habitats were found to be present on the site. All are heavily influenced by the
current agricultural practices, which have generally limited the development of areas of high
nature conservation interest or colonisation by species of restricted occurrence. Nevertheless
some habitats of interest were present, albeit only locally, including the hedgerows, associated
ditches and mature trees some of which are likely to be of veteran status.
16.4.3
The site also supports a range of wildlife including two protected species, badger, barn owl and
at least two species of bat, recorded previously along the eastern boundary.
16.4.4
From the outset and following review of the ecological baseline the potential effects arising as a
result of site design have been reviewed in order that, where possible, potential impacts can be
avoided through an alteration in design, layout or working methods. However, potential impacts
were identified and will inevitably arise through the loss of habitats and effects on wildlife.
16.4.5
The mitigation and compensation strategy relies on the retention of biodiversity corridors through
the development, in the form of the hedgerow and ditch network that is present, and in the
enhancement of a significant proportion of the site, which will form a country park. Biodiversity
enhancement in this area will focus on recreating a range of habitats both of intrinsic nature
conservation value and of potential use by species known to occur locally.
16.4.6
Residual effects are unlikely to be significant with all species identified at this stage appropriately
retained either within the site or compensated for through the development of a comprehensive
Green Infrastructure network and country park.
16.5
Geology & Ground Conditions
16.5.1
The Phase I Environmental Review concluded that agricultural land use is unlikely to have
resulted in significant soil contamination. The risk to human health receptors and controlled
waters associated with current and historical land use is considered to be low.
16.5.2
The Phase I Environmental Review identified a limited potential for diffuse pesticide
contamination in soils, localised contamination in close proximity to farm buildings and a limited
risk associated with ground gas. The Phase II Site Investigation and associated gas monitoring
programme that covered the initial development area did not identified any significant soil
contamination or ground gas concentrations.
16.5.3
Boulton Moor SSSI is located immediately to the west of the site, however the area of the site
close to the SSSI will remain as undeveloped open land and will form part of a country park.
The potential impact to the SSSI is therefore considered to be negligible.
16.5.4
Prior to development of later phases of the site these areas will be subject to Site Investigation
to assess the risk to human health and controlled waster receptors associated with soil
contamination and ground gas. Any potential source-pathway –receptor linkages will be further
assessed or mitigated prior to development of that area of the site.
16.5.5
The CEMP will prescribe wide range environmental management procedures for implementation
during the construction phase, including issues in relation to ground conditions and
contamination.
16.5.6
Through the implementation of the above mitigation measures, including those specified in the
CEMP, it is considered that the effect of the project on Geology, Soils and Ground Conditions
306
including the associated risk to human health and controlled waters receptors is considered to
be Negligible to Minor during both the construction phase and operational phase.
16.6
Noise & vibration Impacts
16.6.1
The Table below provides a summary of the likely significant effects associated with the
construction and operation of the Proposed Development on existing Noise and Vibration
Source Receptors.
Likely
Potential
Effect
Nature of Effect
Geographical
Importance
Likely
Significance of
Effect (before
mitigation)
Mitigation
Measures
Residual
Effect (after
mitigation)
Construction
Negligible to
Noise
Temporary
Local
Negligible to
BPM & CEMP
Moderate Adverse
Vibration
Minor Adverse
Temporary
Local
Negligible
BPM & CEMP
Negligible
Traffic
Permanent
Local
Negligible
None
Negligible
Mechanical
Plant
Permanent
Local
Negligible
BPM
Negligible
Operation
16.6.2
The summary provided above indicates that only the construction phase will, potentially, result in
significant noise effects. However, the assessment was based upon worst case assumptions
and significant effects should not generally arise for the construction of a residential
development. Any effects would, in any case be temporary and hence the overall assessment of
this element is that it should not be significant given the duration and control measures that can
be applied.
16.7
Flood Risk
16.7.1
The aim of a FRA is to assess the risks of all forms of flooding to and from a development. The
Environment Agency emphasises the need for a risk-based approach to be adopted by Local
Planning Authorities through the application of the Source-Pathway-Receptor model. The
approach to FRA is based on the Source-Pathway-Receptor model.
16.7.2
The Source-Pathway-Receptor model firstly identifies the causes or ‘sources’ of flooding to and
from a development. The identification is based on a review of local conditions and consideration
307
of the effects of climate change. The nature and likely extent of flooding arising from any one
source is considered, e.g. whether such flooding is likely to be localised or widespread.
16.7.3
The presence of a flood source does not always imply a risk. The exposure pathway or ‘flooding
mechanism’ determines the risk to the receptor and the effective consequence of exposure. For
example, the presence of a sewer does not necessarily increase the risk of flooding unless the
sewer is local to the site and ground levels encourage surcharged water to accumulate.
16.7.4
The varying effect of flooding on the ‘receptors’ depends largely on the sensitivity of the target.
Receptors include any people or buildings within the range of the flood source, which are
connected to the source by a pathway.
16.7.5
In order for there to be a flood risk all the elements of the model must be present. Furthermore,
effective mitigation can be provided by removing one element of the model, for example by
removing the pathway or receptor.
16.7.6
A desk based review of available information has been undertaken to establish the likely flooding
sources and mechanisms for the site. Once the flood risk has been established, mitigation
measures are proposed (where necessary) and residual risks explained.
16.8
Drainage Strategy
16.8.1
The site generally falls from a level of 51m AOD in the south west to 42m AOD in the north east.
Ground levels will slope away from the buildings (where possible) to promote drainage of surface
water away from buildings. It is proposed that Finished Floor Levels (FFL) will be set at least 150
mm above surrounding ground levels.
16.8.2
The site has numerous small ditches which all generally flow in a north easterly direction.
16.8.3
As part of the FRA the ditches have been surveyed to establish their connectivity and direction
of flow. A drawing showing the results of this survey is included in the Appendices.
16.8.4
As part of this development it is proposed that the ditches are reprofiled to improve their
hydraulic performance and to ensure that the flow is safely conveyed through the development.
16.8.5
It is also proposed to create a flood attenuation area in the north east part of the site. This will
be constructed by reducing the level of a field to approximately half the depth of the
watercourses each side of the field. Therefore, during periods of low rainfall the watercourses
will flow as normal, however, during heavy rainfall the depression would be encouraged to flood
with a downstream check dam to control the flow.
16.8.6
In summary, the above strategy will ensure that overland flow is safely conveyed through the
development and would provide some betterment to flows released from the site. In addition, as
part of the creation of the country park to the east of the site it is proposed to introduce 3no.
wetland ponds with check dams controlling the downstream flow. These would provide on line
flow attenuation and reduce the risk of surface water flooding within the development.
308
16.8.7
A review of the levels for the Phase 1 parcel shows that the existing land generally falls in a
south easterly direction and overland surface water run off discharges to a watercourse in the
south easterly corner of the site.
16.8.8
The drainage strategy for Phase 1 proposes to replicate the existing flows and will discharge
flow into an attenuation pond in the south eastern corner of the site. Flows would be attenuated
in the pond to the 100 year plus climate change event and would discharge to the watercourse
at greenfield run off rates.
16.9
Transportation & Highways
16.9.1
The assessment of environmental effects on the highway and transport network was based upon
a detailed TA, the scope of which was discussed and agreed in advance with officers of DCC,
the local highway authority responsible for various parts of the adjoining road network. The TA
was been prepared in accordance with the pre-application consultations with DCC and with
regard to the national, regional and local planning policy.
16.9.2
This environmental assessment has considered the impacts both of the construction of the
development and of the completed scheme. The proposed development will deliver positive
effects at the A514/ High Street /Station Street junction, a known congestion hot-spot, and
mitigate the accident risk of the Snelsmoor Lane bends.
16.9.3
Construction traffic is not expected to be volumetrically greater than the traffic associated with
the completed development, and such traffic will be scheduled to avoid peak hours wherever
possible.
Construction traffic would not, therefore, result in detrimental effects to network
capacity or increase accident risk beyond the extent predicted for development traffic.
16.9.4
The completed scheme is predicted to have Minor or Negligible impacts at the majority of
locations. Moderate impacts are predicted at A514 Derby Road/High Street/Station Road traffic
signal junction and these are to be mitigated by a proposed minor improvement scheme which is
presented in the TA for consideration by DCC. This scheme is expected to provide a net benefit
in terms of congestion and delay.
16.9.5
In terms of road safety, the scheme could have adverse impacts at the Snelsmoor Lane bends,
to the south-east of the site. It is therefore proposed that these bends will be realigned, and this
is expected to reduce accidents in the area to the overall benefit of road safety being positive.
Elsewhere, overall safety effects are not considered sufficient to warrant major intervention,
other than minor traffic management measures.
16.9.6
With regard to journey times for non-motorised users, it is expected that the development will
have No Effect on any existing non-motorised trips made within Chellaston and Boulton. The
proposed development will further extend the network of non-motorised routes within the local
area, to the benefit of both development users and the wider community.
16.9.7
Other impacts in the vicinity of Snelsmoor lane, (driver stress, severance, view from the road,
etc.) would range from Slight/Moderate positive impact to No Effect or Negligible Effect.
16.9.8
The cumulative impacts of the proposed development in combination with other committed
schemes (i.e. those with planning consent) in the locality have been fully assessed as part of the
overall modelling work undertaken. The results show that cumulative impacts identified can be
309
substantially accommodated by the existing highway network, or through the provision of
mitigation works.
16.9.9
The proposed development may result in some negative residual effects on network capacity
and accident risk following implementation of the identified mitigation strategy. However, the
vast majority of these would be rated at Slight /Moderate negative or below, and as such should
not prevent delivery of the above positive benefits at two key locations on the transport network,
nor of the wider positive benefits detailed within this ES and the wider planning application.
16.10
Air Quality
16.10.1
DCC has designated several Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), all due to high levels of
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentration attributed to road traffic emissions. The nearest AQMA to
the proposed development are areas encompassing the ring-roads, located approximately 1.5
km to the north and north-west.
16.10.2
The assessment undertaken has considered nuisance dust effects during the construction phase
and the air quality effects due to the operation of the proposed development. In addition, the
suitability of the proposed development site for its intended use in the context of air quality has
also been considered.
16.10.3
A risk assessment of construction-related effects has been undertaken using the IAQM
guidance. The assessment of air pollution during the construction phase suggests that the
impacts are likely to be in the high risk category. Impacts during the construction of the
proposed development, such as dust generation and plant vehicle emissions, are predicted to be
of short duration and only relevant during the construction phase. Implementation of the highly
recommended mitigation measures set out in the IAQM Dust and Air Emissions Mitigation
Measures document for high risk sites should reduce the impact of construction activities to
medium, or even low.
16.10.4
The proposed development does not conflict with measures set out in DCC’s Air Quality Action
Plan. There are no constraints to the development in the context of air quality.
16.11
Waste Management
16.11.1
The effects to waste management capacity have been assessed as negligible for all phases of
the proposed development without the incorporation of additional mitigation measures. There
remains, however, a policy imperative to manage waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy,
minimise the consumption and use of resources and provide for recycling. In light of this,
mitigation measures that will be employed to ensure that these policy objectives are met have
been identified.
16.11.2
An outline SWMP is proposed through this development and delivered through the conditions of
any consent. It predicts that approximately 2,455 m3 of reusable and recyclable construction
waste will be generated in Phase I and 11,205 m3 in the remaining construction phase equating
to a total of 13,660 m3 of reusable and recyclable construction waste for the development as a
whole. Regarding waste arising from excavation/foundations, at this stage it is estimated that
approximately 39890 m3 of material will be generated in Phase I, with more than 14,765 m3 in
the remaining construction phase. As a whole development may produce more than 415,555 m3
of arising from earthworks. A number of measures have been proposed to reduce the effects of
310
the proposed development during the construction phase i.e. efficient building design and
construction techniques, bespoke ordering of materials, correct storage and re-use of waste on
site. These will be further detailed within a Waste Minimisation Plan and SWMP, which will be
prepared at the detailed design stage of the proposed development.
16.11.3
It is anticipated that operation of the proposed development will generate approximately 840
tonnes of total MSW per annum. Measures will be incorporated into the development design to
minimise and manage waste during the operational stage including providing sufficient internal
and external capacity for the collection and segregation of waste in accordance with DCC’s
current municipal waste collection scheme and ensuring the highway/street layout is suitable
and accessible for refuse collection.
16.12
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
16.12.1
Historically the land falls over two parishes. The northern part lay within the parish of Alvaston
and Boulton and the southern part within Chellaston. Boulton as a place-name is derived from
the Anglo-Saxon for ‘the farm of Bola’
16.12.2
The parish was enclosed in 1802 and was governed by a local board, which was replaced by the
Urban District Council in 1894. The parish had been merged with Alvaston, which it had shared
an ill-defined border with, in 1884.The joint parish was absorbed into Derby in 1928 and the old
UDC was wound up a few years later. The absorption into the city meant that the Derby ring
road could be built through the area and Boulton Moor soon became the focus for new housing,
which still continues (Craven 1996).
16.12.3
The Historic Environment Record for Derbyshire records no known heritage assets within the
site area itself. There are a number of known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the application
site and study area. A 2.5km radius search, from the edges of the study area was undertaken of
the Historic Environment Record for Derbyshire. There are no Listed Buildings or locally listed
buildings within the study area or its vicinity.
16.12.4
A field immediately to the west of the application area is a registered Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI). This is due to a rare geological sequence, which includes the remains of early
mammalian fauna, including hippopotamus, from the last inter-glacial period.
16.12.5
Around 2km to the south of the study area, is a system of cropmarks, which appear to be
associated with a possible settlement site and may be multi-phased (MDR4404). This site is also
a Scheduled Monument (SM241)
16.12.6
Much of the land around the assessment area that contains similar fields to those on Boulton
Moor are characterised as ‘small irregular fields’ or ‘small regular fields’. Some are known to
have retained their basic shape from at least the post-medieval period and are characterised as
‘remnant fossilized strip fields’. The fields within the study area have remained unchanged since
when the land was enclosed in 1802 and therefore some of the field systems are over 200 years
old.
16.12.7
The site lies outside the Derbyshire Historic Landscape Characterisation area as Derby City was
excluded. The layout of the fields is almost identical to that of the late 19th century, with some
degree of boundary loss during the 20th century having resulted in the long narrow fields visible
today.
311
16.12.8
No cropmarks, scheduled monuments, world heritage sites, historic battlefields, historic parks or
gardens, conservation areas or national /ancient woodlands are recorded within the study area.
There will be an impact on the historic landscape from the removal of some of the hedgerows
which can be defined as Ancient Hedgerows following the 1997 Hedgerows Regulations. The
removal of some hedgerows that can be defined as Ancient Hedgerows following the 1997
Hedgerow regulations will cause a Moderate Adverse impact on the historic landscape.
16.12.9
The overall assessment of the significance of effects on cultural heritage assets is that after
mitigation there will be a Moderate Adverse effect.
16.13
Agricultural Land
16.13.1
The development of the Site would lead to the loss of approximately 66ha of agricultural land,
with the land surveyed in detail to the north of Snelsmoor Lane identified to comprise entirely
grade 3b, lower quality agricultural land according to the MAFF 1988 Agricultural Land
Classification System. The loss of land quality arising from the proposal is therefore assessed to
be of Negligible Significance as no areas of the “best and most versatile” grade 1, 2 or 3a land
have been identified.
16.13.2
Field House Farm would lose approximately 37ha of land to the scheme, held on a short term
tenancy agreement and Thulston Fields would lose approximately 2.2ha of land along the fringe
of two large fields to the south of Snelsmoor Lane. The effect of the loss of the land from these
two productive farm holdings is assessed to be of minor adverse significance based on the loss
of land from Field House Farm and the effect that this would have on the day to day
management of that holding.
16.14
Cumulative Impact
16.14.1
The key receptors in the surrounding locality will be predominately impacted by localised noise,
air quality and transportation issues which cumulatively do not lead to significant environmental
impact at the site’s location or at off-site junctions.
16.14.2
In terms of the cumulative impact of the proposal coming forward alongside other identified
proposed or committed sites, the chief area of impact relate to landscape, loss of agricultural
land and the predicted increase in traffic that has a knock on effect on surrounding air quality
and noise levels. Despite the sites being identified as contributing toward such cumulative
affects being preferred allocation sites identified by the relevant planning authorities, the
implication of these site coming forward concurrently and having a cumulative impact must be
taken into account.
16.14.3
Taking into consideration the on-site and off-site mitigation proposed through the development
schemes, alongside the mitigation identified through this ES, it can be identified that the most
remarkable cumulative impact will be in terms of landscape during the early to middle stages of
construction, before landscape mitigation has semi-matured. However, the maturing of
mitigation planting will assist the built form to blend into the landscape, with the country park,
green infrastructure and drainage attenuation areas providing improved landscape areas that will
provide significant ecological enhancement in comparison to the intensively farmed use of the
sites at present.
312
16.14.4
It is concluded that the interactions between the various potential impacts arising will in general
be negligible on most key receptors and where any impacts occur they can be suitably mitigated
to ensure a suitable development ensues.
16.15
Conclusion
16.15.1
Where the EIA procedure reveals that a project will have an adverse impact on the environment,
it does not follow that planning permission must be refused. It remains the task of the local
planning authority to judge each planning application on its merits within the context of the
Development Plan, taking account of all material considerations, including the environmental
impacts.
16.15.2
The cumulative assessment undertaken has considered the effects of the development with
other projects in order to assess the cumulative effects on the environment and the
interrelationship of the effects on the environment. Where relevant each chapter of the ES has
assessed the cumulative effects with other committed developments considered of relevance,
which has concentrated on those reasonably foreseeable projects at Derby. This assessment
process demonstrates there are no significant cumulative adverse effects from these
developments.
16.15.3
The key receptors will be predominately impacted by localised noise, air quality and
transportation issues which cumulatively do not lead to significant environmental impact at the
site’s location or at off-site junctions. It is concluded that the interactions between the various
potential impacts arising will in general be negligible on most key receptors and where any
impacts occur they can be suitably mitigated to ensure a suitable development ensues.
313