H_04753_14_PC14&15_Former Peel

Transcription

Redevelopment
Redevelopmentof
ofthe
the
Former
FormerPeel
PeelCentre,
Centre,
Colindale
Colindale
Statement of Amendments to Application Forms
Environmental Statement and NTS – Statement
May 2015
of Conformity
May 2015
PC14
& 15
Josleen Chug
Major Developments Team
Development and regulatory services
London Borough of Barnet,
North London Business Park,
Oakleigh Road South,
London, N11 1NP.
th
5 May 2015
Re. PEEL CENTRE, COLINDALE (Application reference H/04753/14)
Letter Statement of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Conformity for Changes to the Submitted Design in
August 2014
1. Introduction
Redrow Homes Ltd (the Applicant) has commissioned AECOM (formerly URS) to provide a Statement of
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Conformity to support the proposed design changes following the
submission of the Hybrid Application for the Peel Centre on the former Metropolitan Police Service Site in
Colindale, Barnet in August 2014 (Application reference H/04753/14), hereafter referred to as the ‘August 2014
Proposed Development’.
The August 2014 Proposed Development comprises:
“Comprehensive redevelopment of the former Peel Centre site to include the demolition of existing buildings
and provision of residential-led mixed use development comprising use classes C3, A1/2/3/4 and D1/2, with
associated site preparation/enabling works, transport infrastructure works, landscaping works and provision of
car parking”
Key elements of the scheme (as set out in the submitted August 2014 Planning Application Specification
Document) include:
•
Up to 2,900 new dwellings across the Site (within Development Zones A – Z) with a mixture of houses,
duplexes and apartments;
•
A new neighbourhood centre around Colindale Avenue with shops, cafes and restaurants, a food store,
community and leisure uses, and car parking;
•
A new three-form entry primary school and nursery;
•
A minimum of four hectares (ha) of Public Open Space across the Site; and
•
A network of new streets, pedestrian and cycle routes, including a new pedestrian connection referred
to as the ‘Peel Link’.
2
For context, the Hybrid Application sought permission for approximately 276,604m Gross Internal Area (GIA)
2
for the residential units (use class C3) and up to 10,000m for town centre uses (use classes A1-A4, D1 and D2).
Since the Application was submitted in August 2014 the Applicant has been in discussion with the planning
authorities regarding the information submitted. The result of these discussions is the requirement for a
number of minor amendments to the Primary Control Documents and the Stage 1 detailed design proposals.
The revisions to the August 2014 Proposed Development have been considered in the context of the EIA and
the subsequent Environmental Statement (ES) submitted in August 2014. This review has ascertained whether
any likely significant environmental effects will arise as a result of the revisions to the scheme (which are
further outlined in the section below) and whether any further information needs to be provided in respect of
the revisions. This Letter Statement of EIA Conformity presents the results of this review and is intended to
clarify the scheme changes in the context of the submitted ES (August 2014).
1
Format of this Statement of EIA Conformity
This Statement of EIA Conformity, which should be read in conjunction with the August 2014 ES, contains a
summary of minor changes to the scheme as well as a statement for each topic outlining that the ES chapters
remain valid where there is no change in impact assessment.
Summary of Changes (May 2015 Revised Submission)
There have been no major changes to the bulk, height or massing of the majority of the Proposed
Development. The proposed revisions to the scheme are summarised below and further detail can be found in
the revised plans, selected revised statements and addendum reports.
Development Mix/Area Schedule
•
Minor increase to the overall allowable site-wide maximum residential floorspace – increase of 209
sqm, from 276,604 sqm to 276,813 sqm (as per Table 1 of the Revised Development Schedule, PC5, May
2015);
•
Addition of a site-wide minimum for 4-bed units (2%) – previously only included a combined 3 and 4 bed
target of 20% (see Table 2 of the Revised Development Schedule, PC5, May 2015);
•
Addition of a site-wide minimum for 2 bed 4 person units (50% of total 2 beds) (see Table 2 of the
Revised Development Schedule, PC5, May 2015);
•
Addition of a site-wide minimum for houses (99) (see Table 2 of the Revised Development Schedule,
PC5, May 2015).
•
Minor amendments to Stage 1 unit mix to reflect further post-application design development (see
Table 3 of the Revised Development Schedule, PC5, May 2015); and
•
Correction of an error in the allowable uses in Development Zone Y – previously included town centre
uses incorrectly and which has now been removed (see Table 4 of the development schedule).
Summary of Design Changes:
Detailed Component
•
Block H:
o
Lowering the massing of the ‘shoulder building’ which is now split into two slender masses by
omission of brick above recessed balcony - although note no amendment overall to the heights
of this block;
o
The west and east elevation of the tower have been revised to promote a more slender mass;
o
A 2m reduction in height of the chimney to 3.6m above the parapet (from an original 5.6m) and
a revised approach to the chimney design utilising glazed white bricks, articulated into vertical
bands to further reduce the mass.
•
Block M:
o
Amendments to the stair/lift core to include glazing to the stair core;
o
Minor amendments to the housing mix and which is included in the overall updated
development schedule.
•
Blocks R and S:
The finished floor levels for these buildings have been adjusted to ensure that the correct floor
to floor heights were achieved. The overall height has slightly increased as a result of this.
Block R was previously +68.650m and is now +68.975m (325mm higher) and Block S was
previously +69.840m and is now +69.420 (420mm lower).
o
An exit for plot S has been introduced, with a landscape buffer across the remaining frontage
as the on curtilage loading bay has been omitted. Loading will now be done by utilising on
street parking bays.
•
Block T:
o
Massing broken down into three vertical proportions to break the skyline and associated
surface amendments – although note no amendment overall to the heights of this block;
o
East elevation articulation amended to fall in line with other elements of the block;
o
Revised plans reflect increased landscape space for Block T in place of the previous paved
service yard, plus a ramped access from the Primary Route was omitted.
•
Block U:
o
Correction to original plan to account for ground datum level error by 750mm on the
parameter plans. The ground datum of +47m is correct along the east elevation whilst the
2
o
west elevation should state +46.25m. Block U parapet height therefore increases up from
+92.875m to +93.625m.
Revised plans incorporate a revised ramp and steps arrangement to north elevation of Block U
to accommodate the level change.
Outline Component
Minor amendments to Parameter Plans (PC6) as summarised below.
•
Development Zone A: Maximum parameter in the south-west corner has been reduced in height by
3.2m.
•
Development Zone B:
o
Maximum parameter of the western frontage reduced by 5m to align the frontage of the two
storey element with Zone A; and
o
Illustrative layout amended to remove the residential units fronting Station Plaza.
•
Development Zone C: reduction in height of the north-east corner of Zone C by approximately 4m.
•
Development Zone Z: Additional public space added to the east of Zone Z referred to as Rowan Gardens.
•
Adjustments to the degree of flexibility in the allowable horizontal frontage deviations – Zones A and C
northern frontages reduced to +2 metres to avoid conflict with existing trees, Zone Y eastern frontage
reduced to +2 metres to retain access, Zone X southern frontage reduced to +3 metres to retain access
and on-street parking potential, Zones D and F southern frontage reduced to +2 metres to avoid pinch
point. Overall there will not be a reduction in the amount of open/play space.
•
Addition of small length of tertiary route to north east of Zone Z to allow vehicle access in accordance
with the illustrative masterplan.
•
Minor alteration to the basement zone shape to extend the area in the west and reduce area in the east
(no net change to the overall basement area).
•
Minor amendment to Additional Note no.2 to clarify that the Development Zones include balconies.
•
Minor amendment to Additional Note no.4 to state that courtyards are subject to a minimum width of
18 metres between facing windows.
•
Other very minor text and presentational amendments.
Revisions to the Design Principles Document to address feedback from LBB and GLA regarding the structure of
the document, the level of detail, the addition of new principles to address comments regarding massing,
appearance and landscaping.
There have been a number of other minor design changes to the detailed component which are
amendments/clarification to external finishes, amendments to the glazing whereby window sizes have been
increased/amended, the incorporation of detail on private screens between balconies, and reviews on the
selection of materials as presented in the Design Principles Document. However none of these revisions will
affect the assessments contained within the EIA as so have not been listed herein.
Landscape Design
There have been minor reductions of between 2m and 5m to the landscaping areas outside Zones A, C, D, E, F,
G, V, W, X and Y to allow the retention of existing trees during construction as outlined above. This will not
alter the open/play space provision across the Site as outlined in the August 2014 parameter plans.
The landscape design for the outline components is indicative, the detail of which is for future reserved matters
and therefore amendments within the zones as presented within the August 2014 parameter plans will not
affect the August 2014 ES conclusions.
There have also been amendments to tertiary Routes (green streets) to incorporate greater planting areas
associated with the groupings of ornamental street trees, seating, cycle parking etc. in response to LBB
comment requesting ‘further greening’. Block frontages, podium layouts have also been revised where
necessary to reflect architectural revisions.
Parking and Public Open Space
Minor amendments have been made to the parking provision with the revised figures set out in the table
below.
Category
Site Wide (outline and detailed components)
Detailed Components
Car Parking
0.71 ratio of residential spaces to unit (target of 2,053 spaces for 2,900
642 spaces (reduced
3
Category
Site Wide (outline and detailed components)
Detailed Components
homes). Reduced from 0.73 ratio (2,118 spaces).
from 672).
70 spaces for school use (shared with residential). No change.
Approximately 150 food and non-food retail spaces. No change.
Cycle Parking
1 space per 1 bed unit, 2 spaces for 2-3 bed units and 4 spaces per 4+
bed unit, 1 space per 175 sqm for A2 – A5 uses above 100 sqm (long stay)
and 1 space per 40sqm for A2-5 uses above 100sqm (short stay).
1,568 spaces provided
(CfSH target of 1,568).
Reduced from 1,917.
CfSH target of 4,875 spaces (all uses) for 2,900 homes.
Public Open Space
(including publicly
accessible play)
4 hectares (minimum target). No change.
3.3 hectares provided.
No change.
Energy Strategy
An addendum to the energy statement will be provided outlining the amendments to energy strategy and
information submitted following discussions with GLA. This will include details that townhouses will be
committed to connecting to the heat network, as per the Whole Life Costing modelling. This is consistent with
the submitted application but mitigates the flexibility written in for individual boilers and PV Panels. The
addendum will also include exemption tests and DER/TER worksheets already sent to the GLA.
The addendum will also outline that the Applicant is supportive in principle to helping facilitate and catalyse a
Colindale wide network. The loads for the initial phase could be supplied from the plant area planned for within
the application. The final area wide network would still need to be supplied from the Graham Park energy
centre proposed in the Ramboll Energy Masterplan. The applicant is also open to connecting to surrounding
existing and future loads subject to their interest and agreement of commercial terms. These include but not
exhaustively, Barnet College, The RAF museum, and future Middlesex University student halls of residence.
These commitments will not change the energy centre detailed information as presented in the Energy
Statement until such commitments are formalised and as such the August 2014 ES has considered the worst
case scenario. Additionally, minor changes to the floor areas will not have a significant impact on total energy
demand and peak loads.
The indicative engines and energy centre were designed, in the first instance, to serve the maximum quantum
of development; therefore there have been no changes to the specifications.
Construction Programme
There are no material changes to the indicative phasing submitted in the August 2014 ES. The sequence of
development and indicative phases (1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A and 3B) has not changed. The start dates have
however been pushed back in order to account for delays in the planning application determination to start in
Q4 of 2015 rather than Q2 as shown in Figure 1. All other timeframes remain the same other than
commencing six months after their original anticipated start date. The orange indicates the August 2014
indicative programme whilst the blue indicates the proposed May 2015 programme.
Figure 1: May 2015 Revised Construction Programme
As a result of this, the traffic consultants WSP have undertaken a sensitivity test on the traffic flows for one
year after the original start date as shown in Appendix A as in practice, transport analysis tends to be
undertaken in for year-long blocks. The construction traffic flows have been re-run based on shifting the
4
construction programme by one year as a worst case scenario. The construction traffic has however remained
the same volume (with the updated residential floorspace figures) although as the time slices have shifted,
there is additional background committed development traffic in each time slice. This therefore reduces the
proportional impact of development while the absolute impact of development is the same.
Cumulative Schemes
Since the Application was submitted, an additional planning permission has been granted within 1km of the
Site. This scheme was previously considered (in the August 2014 ES) as a cumulative development as part of
the original Beaufort Park application.
The Beaufort Park (14/07064/FUL) application consists of construction of a building of six cores of up to 10
storeys to comprise 237 residential homes and 357 sq.m GIA of commercial floorspace (A1 to A4, B1, B2, D1
and D2), including associated car and cycle parking and landscaping).
This scheme is part of the overall Beaufort Park Application (ref W/00198/AA/04) which has already been
considered as part of the August 2014 ES. However a full application has since been submitted for Buildings D3
to D8 as the construction of the other buildings within the Beaufort Park development exceeded the 2,990
homes approved under the Extant Permission and therefore all of the reserved matters approvals could not
lawfully be built out without the submission and approval by LBB of a new planning application for additional
homes beyond those consented via the Extant Permission. Therefore, a new full planning application was
submitted for Buildings D3 - D8.
Other than the increase in the number of housing units associated with the development, there have been
relatively few changes to the massing of Buildings D3-D8. As noted in the Beaufort Park D3-D8 ES 2014 “The
Proposed Development will stand at a maximum of 10 storeys and up to 81.720 metres (m) Above Ordnance
Datum (AOD) in height, which is no taller than the height of the building previously agreed by LBB in the
reserved matters permission for Building D (Planning Ref. H/02713/09).” Therefore our August 2014
assessments will have considered this development sufficiently by considering the original plans available for
this scheme.
EIA Topics for Consideration
Waste Management
Demolition and Construction
Demolition and construction activities will be carried out in accordance with industry best practice / relevant
legislation and appropriate mitigation measures will be incorporated in a CEMP that will be agreed with LBB
prior to commencement of works. The proposed changes in residential floor area within the detailed
component result in a less than 0.5% increase in the estimated volume of construction waste arising per year
during construction. This very minor increase is within the bounds of the estimates submitted in the August
2014 ES. There are no proposed changes to the residential floor areas associated with the outline component
and therefore there no changes to the construction waste arisings from the outline component. Additionally,
the basement zone shape (Revised Parameter Plan 0109) has been altered to extend the area in west and
reduce the area in east. This will not result in a net change to the overall basement area and therefore does not
affect the volume of materials excavated.
Therefore, it is considered that the conclusions of the submitted August 2014 ES in relation to the effects
arising from the construction waste and recycling associated with the Proposed Development will remain
valid. No further assessment needs to be carried out or mitigation measures recommended.
Completed and Occupied Development
The basement zone shape (Revised Parameter Plan 0109) has been altered to extend the area in west and
reduce the area in east. This will not result in a net change to the overall basement area. Consideration of this
and of the revisions to the detailed component blocks have been reviewed and show that there is still
adequate space for bin storage and servicing in line with the August 2014 Operational Waste Strategy.
arising from waste management associated with the May 2015 Revised Submission will remain valid. No
further assessment needs to be carried out or mitigation measures recommended.
5
Socio-Economics
The net demolition and construction employment is generated from the estimated demolition and
construction cost. This is not anticipated to change significantly from the proposed amendments and therefore
the anticipated employment figures will remain the same and so the conclusions remain unchanged.
Local Economy
The revised Proposed Development will not result in any changes to the retail and commercial floorspace and
as such there will be no change to the operational employment generated on site. With respect to the
Proposed Development’s contribution to employment and the local economy, the proposed amendments do
not affect the conclusions previously presented in the August 2014 ES.
Housing Provision
Although the proposed maximum area of residential use has increased, the overall housing unit maximum
allowance has not changed from 2,900 units and the same proportion of affordable units is still envisaged, the
conclusions previously presented in the August 2014 ES subsequently remain valid.
Education Demand
The assessment relating to child yield calculations was undertaken on a ‘worst case scenario’ whereby the
maximum development scenario has been used which calculates the highest number of children likely to be
living within the development site. There will be no change to the child yields presented in the August 2014 ES
as a consequence of the proposed amendments and as such the conclusions previously presented in the
August 2014 ES subsequently remain valid.
A number of sensitivity tests have also been conducted to robustly test the likely age profile from the Proposed
Development. Whilst these sensitivity tests indicate likely uplift in the child yields at the Proposed
Development, it is assessed that these changes would have no material effect to the conclusions presented
within the August 2014 ES.
Healthcare Demand
At present, without the Proposed Development, there is a ratio of residents to GP’s which is above the national
guidelines. The Proposed Development includes the potential provision of a health centre in the outline
component (through the reservation of an appropriate amount of space for a specified time period) which
would be agreed through further discussions with the Local Authority through a Reserved Matters Application.
The revisions to the scheme do not change the maximum number of residents significantly and therefore the
conclusions of the August 2014 ES remain valid.
Open Space and Playspace
The August 2014 assessment relating to child play space calculations was undertaken on a ‘worst case scenario’
whereby the maximum development scenario has been used which calculates the highest number of children
likely to be living within the development site. There will be no change to the child play space requirements
presented in the August 2014 ES as a consequence of the proposed amendments.
A number of sensitivity tests have also been conducted to robustly test the likely age profile from the Proposed
Development. Whilst these sensitivity tests indicate a likely uplift in the child play space requirements for the
Proposed Development, it is assessed that these changes would have no material effect to the conclusions
presented within the August 2014 ES.
The revised Scheme makes minor amendments to the existing open/play space areas as shown on the
parameter plans although taking into account a new area of open space around Zone Z, there will be no change
in the overall total minimum provision for these spaces. Therefore the conclusions of the August 2014 ES
remain valid.
Therefore, overall, the proposed May 2015 revisions to the scheme will not significantly alter the conclusions
of the submitted August 2014 ES in relation to the effects upon socio-economics arising from the Proposed
Development; all conclusions remain valid. No further assessment needs to be carried out or mitigation
measures recommended.
6
Traffic and Transportation
The indicative construction programme presented in the ES is now expected to be delayed by some six
months. In practice, transport analysis tends to be undertaken in for year-long blocks and therefore a review
of the implications of a one year change to programme has therefore been undertaken. The effect of this is to
delay the construction stage assessment time slices and the operational assessment date of completion by 12
months.
The data used in the assessment of effects during demolition and construction would change slightly, but not
materially (less than 5% change in the base in each time slice). In the Futures Baseline Construction Timeslice
scenarios, the level of traffic included in the baseline in each time slice would change slightly, but not
materially or perceptibly. The absolute impact of the development would remain the same and the relative
(percentage) impact would change slightly, but not materially/significantly. Therefore the level of change
would have no effect on the assessment, mitigation, residual effects and conclusions set out in the August 2014
ES.
The August 2014 indicative construction programme anticipated completion in 2025. However, the
assessment of effects once the Proposed Development is completed and occupied presented in the ES was
undertaken for 2026 to reflect the Local Plan and available traffic model horizon year (as agreed with LBB and
TfL). The August 2014 assessment (including the cumulative development scenario presented in the ES
therefore remains valid and the conclusions and assessment of significance would not change.
For the assessment of cumulative effects, the ES stated “given the scale of cumulative change between the
current operation (2012 to 2014) and the future baseline 2026 (as considered in the effects once the Proposed
Development is completed and occupied section), the effects arising during construction are in all instances less
significant. No further assessment has therefore been undertaken.” This statement remains valid in the
context of the revised indicative construction programme and the conclusions and assessment of significance
would not change.
Additionally, a number of minor changes to the proposals for the local transport networks have been
incorporated into the scheme through ongoing discussion with TfL and LBB, such as slight junction widening at
Aerodrome Road/Site access close to Chancellor Place. These modifications do not affect the traffic data
presented within the August 2014 ES or its conclusions.
Through ongoing discussion with TfL and LBB, a number of sensitivity tests have been considered relative to
data considered in the original TA and ES. As confirmed by the WSP Transport Statement Addendum these
sensitivity tests do not affect the conclusions of the ES.
Therefore, it is considered that the conclusions of the submitted August 2014 ES in relation to the effects upon
traffic and transportation arising from the Proposed Development will remain valid. No further assessment
needs to be carried out or mitigation measures recommended.
Noise and Vibration
Demolition and construction will be carried out in accordance with industry best practice / relevant legislation
and appropriate mitigation measures will be incorporated within a CEMP that will be agreed with LBB prior to
commencement of works. The revisions to the scheme will not alter the demolition/construction practices and
therefore will not affect the noise and vibration assessment. The delay to the construction programme in
relation to the traffic data above has been considered.
The August 2014 ES utilises a 2014 baseline year for assessing the noise effects of construction activities. It is
considered that, in the intervening period between 2014 and 2015, there have not been significant changes to
the soundscape of the area and 2014 baseline data can be considered equivalent to 2015 baseline data. This is
assumption is supported by sensitivity testing of road traffic (the dominant source of noise) data undertaken by
WSP. Consequently, the findings of the August 2014 ES can be considered applicable to a construction
programme commencing in 2015 and the impacts of the ‘shifted’ timeslices remain the same as reported in the
August 2014 ES.
7
Consequently, there is unlikely to be any change to effects from construction or effects from demolition and
construction traffic generation that were outlined in the previous assessments and therefore the conclusions
remain valid.
The August 2014 road traffic noise impact assessment utilised a future baseline scenario of 2026.
Consequently, the revised scheme completion year from 2025 to 2026 will not result in a requirement to
reassess changes in road traffic noise and therefore the assessment in the August 2014 ES does not change.
noise and vibration arising from the Proposed Development will remain valid. No further assessment needs to
be carried out or mitigation measures recommended, other than detailed design work carried out in relation to
the interpretation and discharge of planning conditions and building regulations.
Air Quality
commencement of works. The revisions to the scheme will not affect the air quality assessment and the delay
to the construction programme in relation to the traffic data above has been considered. In relation to the
updated traffic data (as shown in Appendix A) with the baseline year and time slices shown as one year after
that which was presented in the August 2014 ES, it is considered that the air quality baseline will not have
altered significantly to the May 2015 proposed construction programme to change the conclusions of the
August 2014 ES in terms of the predicted impacts on air quality from construction vehicle emissions.
Consequently, there is unlikely to be any significant change to effects from construction phasing or effects from
demolition and construction traffic generation that were outlined in the August 2014 ES and therefore the
conclusions remain valid.
The opening year of 2026 was already considered in the air quality assessment presented in the August 2014
ES. In terms of emissions to the air at operation of the proposed development, a minor decrease in car parking
spaces is likely to be accompanied by a slight change in traffic attributable to the proposed development. If
any, the change in terms of predicted air pollutant concentrations would represent a negligible decrease. As
such, it is considered that the conclusions presented in the assessment in the August 2014 ES do not change in
regards with road traffic emissions.
Additionally, there have been no changes to the energy centre or boiler specifications. However, a stack height
of 3 meters above the parapet level of Block H was considered in the assessment in the August 2014 ES, when a
stack height of 3.6m above the parapet is now proposed. As the stack height considered in the August 2014 air
quality assessment is lower than proposed in the May 2015 design, the previous August 2014 impact
assessment presented a worst case scenario as a new increased stack height would represent better dispersion
of pollutants in the air. The assessment presented in the August 2014 ES concluded on negligible impacts from
the energy centre emissions. These conclusions would remain similar when considering a slight increase in
stack height, and therefore the assessment in the August 2014 ES does not change in regards with emissions
from the energy centre.
air quality arising from the Proposed Development will remain valid. No further assessment needs to be
carried out or mitigation measures recommended, other than detailed design work carried out in relation to
the interpretation and discharge of planning conditions and building regulations.
Ground Conditions
commencement of works. The overall area/volume of the proposed basement will not change which will
therefore not alter the level of excavation required. However, there will be an increased basement area to the
8
in west and a reduced area in east although this will not affect the conclusions as presented in the August 2014
ES because the ground conditions are expected to be the same across the site.
Additionally, the revisions to the construction programme will not have any bearing on the conclusions as
presented in the August 2014 ES.
There is no effect to the assessment on ground conditions from the completed and occupied development as a
result of the revised scheme. Additionally, there is no change to the source-pathway-receptor assessment
following alterations to the indicative open/play space provision.
arising from ground conditions associated with the Proposed Development will remain valid. No further
assessment needs to be carried out or mitigation measures recommended.
Water Resources and Flood Risk
commencement of works. The revisions to the construction programme will not have any bearing on the
conclusions as presented in the August 2014 ES. The revisions proposed in relation to the basement areas will
not alter the depth of piling, the extent of excavation required or the extent of basement floorspace.
Additionally, the revisions will not significantly alter the operational water demand and pressure on foul
drainage will not alter significantly as result of these amendments. It is considered that the surface water
drainage strategy will remain unaltered and that there will be sufficient surface water attenuation and storage
for any minor change in surface water run-off.
water resources and flood risk arising from the Proposed Development will remain valid. No further
Cultural Heritage
The changes in the May 2015 indicative programme do not alter the assessment of effects in the August 2014
ES.
There are no fundamental changes to the bulk, height and massing of the majority of the Proposed
Development. There are very minor amendments made to the maximum height parameter of Zone B and a
reduction in height by 3.2m and 4m at the corner of Zones A and C respectively which could alter the zone of
theoretical visibility only marginally and not enough to significantly change the conclusions as presented in the
August 2014 ES.
built heritage arising from the Proposed Development will remain valid. No further assessment needs to be
carried out or mitigation measures recommended.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
There have been a number of minor amendments to the landscaping strategy in order to pull back the
maximum parameter lines in order to avoid and retain existing mature trees during construction. These
amendments result in potential minor increases in the extent of landscape planted areas in the vicinity of
Zones A, C, D, E, F, G, V, W, X and Y. There is also an additional open space provision surrounding Zone Z and an
overall net gain in the extent of potential planted areas. The retention of existing mature trees is also a positive
measure. Overall the design changes are unlikely to result in any significant change to the effects on ecological
receptors reported in the August 2014 ES.
9
The revisions to the scheme listed above, including the amendments to the open/play space will not impact the
assessment of effects from the occupied development on ecological resources. As the overall extent of
open/play space areas will remain the same there will be no change to the effects on ecological receptors
reported in the August 2014 ES.
ecology and nature conservation arising from the Proposed Development will remain valid (I.e. the
amendments will not change the significance level of the effects previously reported). No further assessment
needs to be carried out or mitigation measures recommended.
Wind Microclimate
ES.
There are no fundamental changes to the bulk, height and massing to the majority of the Proposed
Development (or to cumulative off-site developments) although slight amendments relate to the reduction in
height by 3.2m and 4m to the corner of Zones A and C respectively and the maximum parameter for Zone B at
the side of Colindale Avenue has been reduced by 5m to align with Zone A. Additionally there has been the
provision of screening between balconies in the detailed component and some very minor amendments to the
facades which are unlikely to significantly affect the wind modelling which was undertaken for the August 2014
ES.
Minor revisions to the landscaping have been included. In the summer season, minor adverse effects are
expected to occur in the public space to the north of block T, when Development Stage 1 is built and prior to
the construction of Development Stage 2. This could be mitigated by the inclusion of appropriate soft
landscaping. Additionally, minor adverse effects would be expected in the proposed public space close to the
south-east corner of Zone Z, for the case of existing surroundings only (the conditions are expected to be
suitable for the required use once cumulative surrounding schemes are built out). This will be mitigated at the
detailed design stage for Zone Z trough design or appropriate soft landscaping.
Therefore, it is considered that the conclusions of the submitted August 2014 ES in relation to wind
microclimate effects arising from the Proposed Development will remain valid, noting the additional
requirements for mitigation above. No further pre-planning assessment needs to be carried out.
Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing
The minor changes to the May 2015 indicative construction programme dates do not alter the assessment of
effects in the August 2014 ES.
There are no material changes to the bulk, height and massing of the Proposed Development and therefore no
material changes to the results of the August 2014 daylight and sunlight impact assessment. The few isolated
minor amendments of note relate to reductions in height to the maximum parameter blocks along Colindale
Avenue (a reduction of approximately 3.2m and 4m in height to the corner of Zones A and C respectively and
the setting back of Zone B by approx. 5m, in order to align with Zone A. Therefore, such revisions will only
result in a slight improvement on the proposed daylight and sunlight levels retained by the neighbouring
properties. However, these are not deemed material and will not change the overall conclusions as presented
in the August 2014 ES.
Therefore, it is considered that the conclusions of the submitted August 2014 ES in relation to daylight, sunlight
and overshadowing from the Proposed Development will remain valid. No further assessment needs to be
carried out or mitigation measures recommended.
Electronic Interference
10
ES.
There are no fundamental changes to the bulk, height or massing of the majority of the Proposed
Development. The revisions to the scheme as listed above will have no bearing on the electronic interference
effects outlined in the August 2014 ES. The reduction in the corner of Zone C by 4m is not significant enough to
alter the effects outlined in the August 2014 ES.
Therefore, it is considered that the conclusions of the submitted August 2014 ES in relation to electronic
interference effects arising from the Proposed Development will remain valid. No further pre-planning
Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment
ES.
There are no fundamental changes to the bulk, height and massing of the majority of the Proposed
Development. There are very minor amendments to the maximum parameter of Zone B and a reduction in
height by 3.2m and 4m at the corner of Zones A and C respectively which could alter the zone of theoretical
visibility, but only marginally and not enough to change the conclusions as presented in the August 2014 ES.
The amendments would not result in any significant alterations to the appearance of the Proposed
Development, and the levels of effect of the Proposed Development on views and townscape character areas
would not change as a result of the amendments.
There are minor changes to the appearance and external façades of the Proposed Development, which are
outlined in the updated Design Principles Document. However, these amendments have been made following
consultation with LBB and would result in minor improvements if anything but not enough to significantly alter
previous August 2014 effects and conclusions.
There is also an instance where the school has been misrepresented within the photomontage for viewpoint 8
whereby the maximum parameter zone is not shown fully at the western extent. The TVIA has been based on
the maximum parameters, however, there is unlikely to be a situation where the whole school site would be
built on and as such there will always be open space remaining around the school building. In viewpoint 8 an
indicative school building (at the maximum parameter height) is shown at the eastern end of the whole school
site with outdoor space (playground etc) represented on the remainder of the site. However, should the school
be sited further west within the whole school site, overall the findings of the TVIA would not be affected and
the assessment conclusions would remain the same and therefore a worst case has been considered.
Therefore, it is considered that the conclusions of the submitted August 2014 ES in relation to Townscape and
Visual effects arising from the Proposed Development remain valid. No further assessment needs to be carried
out or mitigation measures recommended.
Effect Interactions and Cumulative Effect Assessment
The type 1 and type 2 cumulative effects of proposed changes have been considered. For the type 1 effect
interactions assessment, as there have been no changes to the residual effects as presented within the July
2014 ES, there will be no changes to the effects interactions assessment as presented in Chapter 18 in the July
2014 ES.
For the type 2 Cumulative effects assessment, the additional Beaufort Park Buildings D3-D8 application has
been considered and as outlined above, this application has been considered in relation to the original
application and as the massing of the development has not significantly changed, the cumulative effect as
presented in the July 2014 ES remains unchanged.
11
Subsequently, it is considered that the conclusions of the submitted July 2014 ES in relation to the type 1 and
type 2 cumulative effects arising from the Proposed Development will remain valid. Consequently, no further
Residual Effects
It is considered that the residual effects, conclusions and summary of the submitted July 2014 ES will remain
valid. Consequently, no further assessment needs to be carried out or mitigation measures recommended.
ES Non-Technical Summary
In line with the conclusions above, there will be no changes to the residual effects or assessments undertaken
as part of the EIA and therefore the NTS will remain unchanged.
Conclusion
Due to the nature of the revised proposals, we consider the EIA undertaken and the subsequent July 2014 ES
that accompanied the Hybrid Planning Application (ref. H/04753/14) remains valid and that further assessment
will not be necessary for the changes to the Proposed Development.
We trust that this is sufficient, however if you require any further information or have any further queries
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Sheenagh Mann
Senior Consultant
AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited
6-8 Greencoat Place, London, SW1P 1PL, UK
Direct: +44 (0) 202 7821 4230
Email: [email protected]
cc: Chloe Logan (AECOM), Becky Cocker (GVA), Giles Martin (Redrow), Morgan Scott (Redrow)
12
APPENDIX A: May 2015 Revised Submission Traffic Flows Sensitivity Test
13
AADT AND AAWT TRAFFIC FLOWS
TIMESLICE WITH CONSTRUCTION
Surveyed
1. Edgware Road (north of Colindale Avenue)*
2. Colindale Av (south)
3. Colindale Av (north)
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
8. Edgware Road (south of Colindale Avenue)*
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
2014 24hr AADT
Total Veh
HGV
%HGV
31304
2111
7%
11483
394
3%
16602
337
2%
17671
612
3%
15812
286
2%
8085
115
1%
42299
3396
8%
19112
1338
7%
14099
182
1%
46870
3558
8%
2014 18hr AAWT
Total Veh
HGV
%HGV
29846
1875
6%
11412
400
4%
16557
299
2%
18192
506
3%
16125
205
1%
8167
161
2%
40328
3017
7%
18222
1189
7%
13442
162
1%
44687
3161
7%
Average
Speed
27 (est)
19
17
21
30
23
41
25 (est)
27 (est)
60 (est)
TIME SLICE 1
Quarters
16
2018 Committed Only Do Minimum: Time Slice 1
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
31524
13452
18446
18758
18095
7725
42307
19552
14048
47557
24hr AADT
HGV
2126
461
374
649
327
110
3397
1369
181
3610
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
30055
13369
18396
19311
18453
7803
40337
18641
13393
45342
18hr AAWT
HGV
1889
468
332
538
234
154
3018
1216
161
3207
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
7%
7%
1%
7%
Quarters
3
2018 Committed Only Do Something: Time Slice 1
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
31512
13462
18571
18804
18371
7747
42430
19555
14052
47558
24hr AADT
HGV
2124
461
376
649
472
110
3470
1368
181
3610
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
3%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
30048
13384
18532
19369
18791
7830
40487
18648
13397
45343
18hr AAWT
HGV
1887
468
333
538
419
154
3111
1216
161
3207
%HGV
6%
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
8%
7%
1%
7%
Quarters
16
2018 AAP Do Minimum: Time Slice 1
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
31113
13491
18749
18855
18167
7707
42539
19595
14045
47560
24hr AADT
HGV
2098
463
380
653
328
109
3415
1372
181
3610
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
29664
13407
18699
19411
18525
7786
40557
18682
13391
45345
18hr AAWT
HGV
1864
470
337
540
235
153
3034
1219
161
3207
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
7%
7%
1%
7%
2018 AAP Do Something: Time Slice 1
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
3
24hr AADT
Total Veh
HGV
31040
2093
13495
462
18968
384
18893
653
18492
474
7725
109
42702
3492
19620
1373
14063
182
47565
3611
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
3%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
18hr AAWT
Total Veh
HGV
29597
1859
13417
469
18928
340
19460
540
18914
420
7808
153
40747
3130
18710
1220
13408
161
45349
3208
%HGV
6%
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
8%
7%
1%
7%
Workbook: \\Ln-wip-001\ln_ped\Environment\Projects\2013\Colindale Redrow Homes\10 Post submission\Statement of Conformity\150421 Construction Traffic (Issue) Rev 4.xlsx Worksheet: AADT & AAWT Flows Date: 05/05/2015
TIME SLICE 2
Quarters
26
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
31661
14683
19599
19437
19522
7499
42313
19826
14016
47987
24hr AADT
HGV
2135
503
398
673
353
106
3397
1388
181
3643
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
30187
14592
19546
20011
19908
7576
40342
18903
13363
45751
18hr AAWT
HGV
1897
511
353
557
253
149
3018
1233
161
3236
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
7%
7%
1%
7%
Quarters
13
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
31572
14646
19983
19479
19813
7534
42422
19800
14033
47990
24hr AADT
HGV
2129
502
405
674
393
107
3422
1386
181
3643
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
30103
14558
19934
20058
20222
7612
40456
18879
13379
45755
18hr AAWT
HGV
1891
510
359
558
303
150
3047
1231
161
3236
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
8%
7%
1%
7%
Quarters
26
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
30994
14746
20092
19595
19638
7471
42689
19897
14011
47992
24hr AADT
HGV
2090
506
408
678
355
106
3427
1393
181
3643
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
29550
14654
20038
20173
20026
7547
40700
18970
13359
45756
18hr AAWT
HGV
1857
513
361
562
254
149
3045
1238
161
3237
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
7%
7%
1%
7%
Quarters
13
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
30636
14683
20879
19600
20143
7485
42977
19966
14088
48012
24hr AADT
HGV
2066
503
423
678
399
106
3466
1397
182
3645
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
29211
14595
20827
20183
20559
7563
40986
19037
13432
45776
18hr AAWT
HGV
1835
511
375
561
307
149
3087
1242
162
3238
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
8%
7%
1%
7%
TIME SLICE 3
Quarters
32
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
31744
15422
20290
19844
20378
7364
42316
19991
13997
48244
24hr AADT
HGV
2141
529
412
687
368
105
3397
1400
181
3662
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
30265
15326
20236
20430
20781
7439
40345
19060
13345
45997
18hr AAWT
HGV
1902
537
365
569
264
147
3018
1243
161
3254
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
7%
7%
1%
7%
Quarters
19
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
31613
15368
20852
19907
20855
7415
42502
19953
14022
48249
24hr AADT
HGV
2131
527
423
688
478
105
3459
1396
181
3663
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
30143
15276
20803
20500
21305
7493
40545
19026
13369
46002
18hr AAWT
HGV
1894
535
375
570
401
147
3093
1241
161
3254
%HGV
6%
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
8%
7%
1%
7%
Quarters
32
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
30922
15499
20897
20039
20521
7330
42779
20078
13991
48251
24hr AADT
HGV
2085
531
424
694
371
104
3435
1406
181
3663
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
29482
15403
20841
20630
20926
7404
40786
19143
13340
46003
18hr AAWT
HGV
1853
540
376
574
266
146
3051
1249
160
3254
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
7%
7%
1%
7%
Quarters
19
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
30400
15408
22048
20047
21311
7350
43226
20179
14103
48281
24hr AADT
HGV
2050
528
447
693
487
104
3517
1412
182
3665
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
28986
15316
21995
20645
21770
7427
41236
19241
13447
46032
18hr AAWT
HGV
1821
536
396
574
407
146
3145
1255
162
3256
%HGV
6%
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
8%
7%
1%
7%
TIME SLICE 4
Quarters
42
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
31881
16652
21443
20524
21805
7139
42322
20266
13964
48674
24hr AADT
HGV
2150
571
435
710
394
101
3398
1419
180
3695
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
30396
16549
21385
21129
22236
7212
40350
19322
13314
46407
18hr AAWT
HGV
1910
580
386
588
282
142
3019
1260
160
3283
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
7%
7%
1%
7%
Quarters
29
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
31674
16554
22268
20586
22319
7204
42505
20199
14003
48681
24hr AADT
HGV
2136
568
452
712
414
102
3417
1414
181
3696
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
30199
16452
22209
21195
22765
7278
40528
19259
13351
46414
18hr AAWT
HGV
1897
576
400
590
303
143
3038
1256
161
3283
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
7%
7%
1%
7%
Quarters
42
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
30803
16754
22240
20779
21993
7094
42929
20380
13958
48682
24hr AADT
HGV
2077
574
451
719
397
101
3447
1427
180
3696
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
29368
16650
22180
21392
22427
7166
40929
19431
13307
46415
18hr AAWT
HGV
1845
583
400
596
285
141
3062
1268
160
3283
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
7%
7%
1%
7%
Quarters
29
4. Grahame Park Way
5. Aerodrome Road
6. Greyhound Hill
7. Watford Way
9. Colindeep Lane*
10. M1 Spur*
Total Veh
29998
16598
23963
20759
22984
7111
43511
20525
14129
48728
24hr AADT
HGV
2023
569
486
718
426
101
3498
1437
182
3699
%HGV
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
8%
7%
1%
8%
Total Veh
28601
16496
23900
21373
23443
7184
41488
19569
13471
46458
18hr AAWT
HGV
1797
578
431
595
312
141
3110
1276
162
3286
%HGV
6%
4%
2%
3%
1%
2%
7%
7%
1%
7%

H_04753_14_PC14&15_Former Peel

Transcription

Similar documents

this version - Colindale Foodbank

Take a look at the full job description

HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE DRIVING RIGID (HGV) COURSE

Subway Directions to Medgar Evers College Mathematics Department

The GRUBB Co.

animalcare course

Iluminate Your Style

Haddon Hall - Plymouth Housing Group

Brownfields Assessment Project â Update

Corhart Refractories Plant Demolition