Environmental Statement

Transcription

Whittlesey Washes
South Barrier Bank Works
April 2013
We are the Environment Agency. We protect and improve the
environment and make it a better place for people and wildlife.
We operate at the place where environmental change has its
greatest impact on people’s lives. We reduce the risks to people
and properties from flooding; make sure there is enough water
for people and wildlife; protect and improve air, land and water
quality and apply the environmental standards within which
industry can operate.
Acting to reduce climate change and helping people and wildlife
adapt to its consequences are at the heart of all that we do.
We cannot do this alone. We work closely with a wide range of
partners including government, business, local authorities, other
agencies, civil society groups and the communities we serve.
Published by:
Environment Agency
Horizon house, Deanery Road
Bristol BS1 5AH
Email: [email protected]
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
© Environment Agency 2011
All rights reserved. This document may be
reproduced with prior permission of
the Environment Agency.
Further copies of this report are available
from our publications catalogue:
http://publications.environmentagency.gov.uk or our National Customer
Contact Centre: T: 03708 506506
Email: [email protected].
i
EIA Quality Mark
This Environmental Statement, and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried
out to identify the significant environmental effects of the proposed development, was
undertaken in line with the EIA Quality Mark Commitments.
The EIA Quality Mark is a voluntary scheme, operated by the Institute of Environmental
Management and Assessment (IEMA), through which EIA activity is independently
reviewed, on an annual basis, to ensure it delivers excellence in the following areas:
EIA Management
EIA Team Capabilities
EIA Regulatory Compliance
EIA Context & Influence
EIA Content
EIA Presentation
Improving EIA practice
To find out more about the EIA Quality Mark please visit:
www.iema.net/qmark
ii
CONTENTS
Page
1 BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Legislative Background
1.3 Objectives of the Environmental Statement
1.4 The Problem
1.5 Structure of the Report
2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Strategic Context
2.2 Assessment of Alternatives
2.3 Consultation
2.4 Detailed Design Consultation
2.5 Consultation on this Environmental Statement
6 6 6 14 21 21 3 THE PREFERED OPTION
3.1 Scheme Elements
3.2 Consideration of Water Framework Directive
3.3 Land Use Requirements
3.4 Site Access Routes
3.5 Construction Works
3.6 Timing and Duration
3.7 Transport of Materials
3.8 Working Practices
3.9 Reinstatement and Use of Land following Construction
3.10 Residues and Emissions
3.11 Post-construction Phase
22 22 25 25 26 28 29 30 30 30 31 31 4 METHODOLOGY
4.1 EIA Methodology
32 32 5 HUMAN BEINGS
5.1 Introduction and Methodology
5.2 Baseline Environment
5.3 Impacts during Construction
5.4 Impacts during Operation
5.5 Impact Summary
37 37 37 40 43 43 6 FLORA AND FAUNA
6.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance
6.4 Ecological Impact Assessment Methodology
45 45 46 47 49 51 59 66 iii Whittlesey Washes South Barrier Bank Works Environmental Statement
1 1 3 3 4 5 6.8 Impact Summary
67 7 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY
7.3 Policy and Designations
7.4 Visual Appraisal
7.5 Analysis and Landscape Strategy
7.6 Impact Summary
69 69 69 72 73 74 75 8 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
8.2 Policy and Designations
76 76 77 81 86 9 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT
9.5 Impact Summary
91 91 91 94 95 95 10 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
97 11 CONCLUSION
98 12 REFERENCES
100 13 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
102 Tables
2.1
2.2
2.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.1
5.2
6.1
6.2.
6.3
8.1
8.1
9.1
Whittlesey Washes FSR long list of options
Results of the scoping exercise
Comments received from internal and external stakeholders during the
scoping consultation
Guidance followed for development of assessment methodologies
Sensitivity of receptors
Magnitude of impacts
Significance of effects
Sensitivity criteria for human environment.
Summary of human environment impacts
Assessment of the value of ecological resource (table adapted from IEEM,
2006)
Internationally, nationally and locally designated sites within the vicinity of the
proposed works
Summary of flora and fauna impacts
Sensitivity criteria for the historic environment.
Summary of historic environment impacts
Sensitivity criteria for traffic and transport
iv Whittlesey Washes South Barrier Bank Works Environmental Statement
9.2
Summary of traffic and transport impacts
Figures
1.1
3.1
3.2
5.1
6.1
8.1
9.1
Location Plan
Scheme Details
Proposed Works and Access Routes
Current Land Use
Designated Sites
Historic Environment Records of Study Area
Local Road Network
Appendices
Appendix A Environmental Action Plan
Appendix B Scoping Report
Appendix C Water Framework Directive Water Bodies
Appendix D Reed Clearance Water Framework Directive Assessment
Appendix E Detailed Drawings
Appendix F Ecological Survey Reports
Appendix G Habitats Regulations Assessment
Appendix H Noise Assessment
Appendix I Precautionary Method of Working
Appendix J Final Landscape Masterplan
Appendix K Historical Environment Record
v Whittlesey Washes South Barrier Bank Works Environmental Statement
1
BACKGROUND
1.1
Introduction
This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared with reference to the proposed
works to stabilise and strengthen the South Barrier Bank (SBB) along the Whittlesey
Washes Flood Storage Reservoir (FSR).
The SBB as part of the FSR is considered to be a statutory reservoir1 and therefore
needs to be maintained to a standard which prevents flooding (further details of this can
be found in Section 1.4). The scheme therefore involves improving the SBB so that it
can safely withstand overtopping during flood events, without the need for bank raising.
The proposed works to the bank involve flattening the rear slope of the embankment to
a 1:5 slope with reinforced grass cover in locations which are at a higher risk of
overtopping. In addition bank stabilisation works are necessary in some locations.
The SBB is located along the River Nene just east of Peterborough and extends
between Stanground on the south east outskirts of Peterborough (National Grid
Reference (NGR) TL 201 979) and Ring’s End to the east (NGR TF 398 029). The
location of the SBB is shown on Figure 1.1. Details on the area of works can be found in
the engineering drawings in Appendix B.
The origins of the Whittlesey Washes FSR date back to the 1600s when Sir Cornelius
Vermuyden straightened and improved Morton’s Leam, constructed a new sluice at
Stanground as well as raising the SBB. This construction not only aided the recovery of
marsh areas for agriculture but also provided water transport and increased the flood
capacity.
The Whittlesey Washes FSR is approximately 20km long and in places up to 1.4km
wide. It covers an area of approximately 1,450 hectares (ha). The SBB forms the dam of
the reservoir. The SBB also forms the boundary between the Environment Agency’s
Northern and Central Areas.
Whittlesey Washes FSR protects Peterborough and nearby fenland areas from flooding
events. The tidal limit of the River Nene is the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice that is located
midway along the River Nene which is adjacent to the FSR. During periods of high tides,
water is diverted into Morton’s Leam and allows the FSR to flood. When the tidal levels
fall, the water is then discharged from the FSR through Ring’s End Sluice and back into
the tidal River Nene. The location of these sluices and watercourses is presented on
Figure 1.1.
A Non-technical Summary (NTS) of this ES is also provided as a separate document.
1
A statutory reservoir is one which holds at least 25,000 cu m of water above natural ground
level and therefore falls under The Reservoirs Act 1975 to ensure its safety.
Whittlesey Washes South Barrier Bank Works Environmental Statement 1
¯
Lincoln
¯
Sleaford, Lincs
Key:
South Barrier Bank - area of work
Extent of Tidal River Nene
Nene Washes FSR
King's Lynn
Peterborough
Ring's End
Sluice
© OpenStreetMap (and)
contributors, CC-BY-SA
PETERBOROUGH
Stanground
Stanground
Sluice
Dog-in-a-Doublet
Sluice
Tidal River Nene
River Nene
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey
Maps with the permission of the Controller
of HM Stationary Office. Crown copyright
reserved Licence AL.100026380
Eldernell
Morton's Leam
Whittlesey
Title:
Location Plan
Project:
Whittlesey Washes South Barrier
Bank Works, Environmental Statement
Client:
Environment Agency
Anglian Region
Date:
April 2013
Figure:
1.1
0
0.5
1
2
3
4
5 Kilometres
Scale @ A4:
1:100,000
Path: L:\Sites\UK-Peterborough\Project\9W3627\Technical_Data\T5_GIS\Projects\Figures\Environmental Statement\Fig 1_1 Location Plan .mxd
Cambridge, Cambs
Ring's End
1.2
Legislative Background
The basis for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation in England and
Wales is the European Union (EU) Directive 85/337/ECC, superseded by EU Directive
97/11/EC, which came into effect in 1999.
Internal screening by the Environment Agency determined that the proposed works to
improve the SBB, (hereinafter referred to as the scheme) fall under Schedule 2 Part 15
of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2010 and
this has subsequently been confirmed by Peterborough City Council and Fenland
District Council. Because these works are considered to be improvements rather than
maintenance activities, the works fall under the EIA (Land Drainage Improvement
Works) Regulations SI 1999 No 1783 (as amended by SI 2005/1399 and 2006/618).
Screening also determined that as the scheme exceeds 1ha, is immediately adjacent to
the Whittlesey Washes Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation
(SAC), Ramsar and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designated site and the
works have the potential to give rise to likely significant environmental effects, the
scheme requires a statutory EIA. The intention to undertake a statutory EIA has been
advertised in accordance with the requirements of the EIA (Land Drainage Improvement
Works) Regulations SI 1999 No 1783 (as amended by SI 2005/1399 and 2006/618).
This ES has been produced to record the EIA process.
The Environment Agency are undertaking the scheme and the main contact is:
Nicola Oldfield, Environment Agency Project Manager
Environment Agency
Kingfisher House
Goldhay Way
Orton Goldhay
Peterborough
PE2 5ZR
Telephone: 01733 464629
Email: [email protected]
1.3
Objectives of the Environmental Statement
The principle objective of the EIA process is to identify the likely significant effects of a
scheme that may arise through the implementation of the scheme and to identify
suitable mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significance. The EIA process also
seeks to identify opportunities arising from the scheme for improving the environmental
value of the area. Control measures intended to avoid, mitigate or monitor potential
impacts are documented in the Environmental Action Plan (EAP) (Appendix A) and will
be included in the works specification.
1.4
The Problem
Whittlesey Washes FSR is registered under the Reservoirs Act 1975 and is a statutory
reservoir. The Environment Agency is the Undertaker for the reservoir.
Following an inspection in September 2005 under Section 10(2) (b) of the Reservoirs
Act2, the Inspecting Engineer recommended works to address Matters in the Interest of
Safety (MIOS). A flood study was completed in December 2007 which concluded that if
the FSR was full and the SBB was subject to wave action there is an unacceptable risk
that the bank would breach. Along the entire length of the SBB there are low areas
which could potentially lead to the failure of the SBB in being able to withstand high
water levels. As such work is required to satisfy the Reservoirs Act and remove the risk
of the SBB failing during high water level events.
A project appraisal study, including a geotechnical stability assessment for the SBB, was
then commissioned. This study revealed that the SBB is at high risk of failure due to low
spots along the entire length and as such results in breach points during flood events.
This assessment is supported by the reports of seepage along various lengths during
the April 1998 floods and in more recent events.
The stability issues and other concerns led the Environment Agency to call for a new
Section 10 Inspection to enable all concerns to be addressed within any proposed
works. The Section 10 inspection by Professor Hughes on 16 January 2012 resulted in a
new set of MIOS which superseded those identified in 2005. These MIOS are detailed
below:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Whittlesey to Ball Bridge: All coarse vegetation, saplings and trees be removed
from the embankment faces and a good grass cover established – some trees at
the base of the slope might be left with the agreement of a Panel Engineer to
provide habitat and cover – by November 2012;
Poplar House Farm to Eldernell: The areas near Eldernell severely affected by
rabbits and burrowing animals should be repaired – by November 2012;
Rings End to Poplar House Farm: Works are put in place to prevent animals
burrowing into the embankment where this damage is particularly serious and
the bank repaired – by November 2012; and
General: Works are carried out to ensure the SBB can safely accommodate the
static flood level and wave surcharge and are commenced within 18 months of
the report date (i.e. January 2012 so works must commence by November 2013)
and completed in a reasonable period of time.
The works under parts i to iii have already been undertaken. This ES refers to works to
be undertaken for part iv.
2
This section states a reservoir should be inspected “as soon as practicable after the
carrying out of any alterations to the reservoir which do not increase its capacity but are such
as might affect its safety and which have not been designed and supervised by a qualified
civil engineer”
1.5
Structure of the Report
The following Chapters are presented in this ES:












Chapter1: Background;
Chapter 2: Project Development;
Chapter 3: The Preferred Option;
Chapter 4: EIA Methodology;
Chapter 5: Human Beings;
Chapter 6: Flora and Fauna;
Chapter 7: Water Framework Directive;
Chapter 8: Landscape and Visual Amenity;
Chapter 9: Historic Environment;
Chapter 10: Traffic and Transport;
Chapter 11: Cumulative Effects; and
Chapter 12: Conclusion.
A Non-Technical Summary (NTS) is available as a stand-alone document.
The following appendices accompany the ES:











Appendix A Environmental Action Plan;
Appendix B Scoping Report;
Appendix C Water Framework Directive Water Bodies;
Appendix D Reed Clearance Water Framework Directive Assessment;
Appendix E Detailed Drawings;
Appendix F Ecological Survey Reports;
o Whittlesey Washes Reservoir Works Ecological Walkover Report (Royal
HaskoningDHV 2011);
o Whittlesey Washes: Ecological Walkover Follow Up (Royal
HaskoningDHV 2012);
Appendix G Habitats Regulations Assessment;
o HR01 form - Whittlesey Washes Habitat Regulations Assessment;
o Natural England Letter of Support;
Appendix H Noise Assessment;
Appendix I Precautionary Method of Working;
Appendix J Final Landscape Masterplan;and
Appendix K Historical Environment Record.
2
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
2.1
Strategic Context
Whittlesey Washes FSR is a statutory reservoir as classified under the Reservoirs Act.
As the “Undertaker” for the FSR, the Environment Agency has a statutory obligation to
ensure regular inspections are carried out by an appropriate All Reservoirs Panel
Engineer and to carry out any recommendations arising from such inspections. Failure
to carry out these recommendations will leave the Environment Agency liable to criminal
prosecution.
Any design and/or construction works carried out on a reservoir must be supervised by a
Panel Engineer, who must be selected from the All Reservoirs Panel list and appointed
by the Undertaker.
The proposed scheme will be carried out under:





The Reservoirs Act Section 10(6);
Section 165 of the Water Resources Act 1991;
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM);
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2010;
and
The Environmental Impact Assessment (Land Drainage Improvement Works)
Regulations 1999.
The proposed works support the Environment Agency’s Corporate Strategy Creating a
Better Place 2012-2015. The Environment Agency is working with partners and the local
community to implement the proposed works which will comply with all relevant
environmental and flood risk management legislation.
2.2
Assessment of Alternatives
The potential options for the scheme can be classified into two categories. One is to
raise the embankments to retain water to the required standard or the other being to
release water in a controlled manner (i.e. via the use of spillways) which reduces or
removes the need for embankment raising but not entirely remove the requirement for
bank stability works.
As an alternative to earthworks, sheet piling was also considered where bank raising
was only required to protect against wave action and in areas of lower environmental
value, as defined by Natural England (NE) (i.e. between Stanground and Whittlesey).
The long list of options is provided in Table 2.1. These options were developed through
a series of discussions with the project team and engagement with internal and external
partners/stakeholders. The option numbering is based on how the options were
developed throughout the project.
Table 2.1 – Whittlesey Washes FSR long list of options
Option
Summary Description
Status of option
Do Nothing (Option 1)
This option assumes that no works or maintenance is undertaken to
the Whittlesey Washes FSR including SBB.
Discounted. This option is not feasible as the Environment Agency
needs to comply with the requirements of the Reservoirs Act and the
recommendations of the Inspecting Engineer. In addition, there is the
potential that this would affect the condition of the internationally
designated site which is to the north of the SBB and within the FSR.
Continue current operation
and maintenance regime
(Option 2)
This option means that the SBB would be maintained at its current
crest level and condition but no action would be taken to improve the
asset.
Discounted. This option is not feasible as the Environment Agency
need to comply with the requirements of the Reservoirs Act and the
recommendations of the Inspecting Engineer. In the long term,
significant works would be required to maintain its current condition
which could have disturbance issues for features of the internationally
designated site.
Raise embankments to the
design standard so no wave
overtopping occurs and bank
stabilisation (Option 3)3
This option involves raising the crest level of the SBB to be at or above
the reservoir design standard so that there is no overtopping,
equivalent to the 0.01% annual probability plus freeboard requirements
for no overtopping. In addition bank stabilisation works are necessary
in some locations.
Raise the level of the
embankment such that only
tolerable wave overtopping
occurs and bank stabilisation
(Option 4)4
This option involves raising the crest of the embankment to the general
reservoir design level so that the embankment does not fail due to
overtopping and that no overtopping occurs at the lower minimum
standard (standards taken from Table 1 of the Institute of Civil
Engineers (ICE) Floods and Reservoir Safety 1996). In addition bank
Discounted. This option would provide a standard in excess of that
required to meet the MIOS and would require excessive bank raising
and stabilisation with associated large costs and impacts (large
environmental and social impact from transport of significant volumes
of earth, larger than the 1.2 million cubic metres of earth required in
Option 4). In addition, significant works would be required which could
have disturbance issues for features of the internationally designated
site.
Discounted. Investigations revealed that the SBB crest level would
need to be raised by about one metre over approximately 14km.
Together with stabilisation works, it is estimated that 1.2 million cubic
metres of earth would be required. With a restricted construction
period, the works could take up to 8 years to construct. An outline
estimate of the construction cost was in excess of £30 million.
3
4
No wave overtopping is defined by Floods and Reservoir Safety 3rd Edition (ICE 1996)
Tolerable wave overtopping is defined by Floods and Reservoir Safety 3rd Edition (ICE 1996)
Option
Summary Description
Status of option
stabilisation works are necessary in some locations.
Therefore it was decided that it was not a feasible option due to time
constraints and the cost involved. In addition, significant works would
be required which could have disturbance issues for features of the
internationally designated site.
One spillway with bank
stabilisation and no bank
raising (Option 5)
This option involves constructing a single spillway of sufficient size/
level so as to manage water levels so there is no overtopping (still
water or wave) elsewhere. In addition bank stabilisation works are
necessary in some locations.
Discounted. This option was discounted because it is not feasible to
construct a spillway large enough to lower the water levels in the
reservoir to a level which would allow no bank raising. Also, allowing
water to leave the FSR could have impacts on numerous
environmental receptors including habitats, faunal species and areas
of archaeological interest.
One spillway with bank
stabilisation and some bank
raising (Option 6a)
This option involves constructing a single spillway to reduce peak
water levels in the Whittlesey Washes FSR so that only some bank
raising would be required. A balance would be struck between the
level and size of the spillway and amount of associated bank raising.
In addition bank stabilisation works are necessary in some locations.
Discounted. This option was discounted due to the disruption caused
by the operation of the spillway, which would affect the A605 east of
Whittlesey, the railway south of Eastrea and large areas of agricultural
land. Earth would be used instead of sheet piling to raise crest levels
upstream of Whittlesey, which results in larger amounts of imported
material and consequently higher construction costs. The option was
also unacceptable to the local partners as it lowers the current crest of
the SBB. In addition, the significant works required could have
disturbance issues for features of the internationally designated site in
particular as works would be required within the designated area.
One spillway (Fuse Plug or
tipping gate) with
stabilisation and some bank
raising (Option 6b)
This option involves constructing a single fuse plug (tipping gate)
spillway to reduce peak water levels in the Whittlesey Washes FSR so
that limited bank raising is necessary. A balance would be struck
between the spillway dimensions and amount of associated bank
raising. In addition bank stabilisation works are necessary in some
locations.
Discounted. This option was discounted due to being unacceptable
to the local partners as it lowers the current crest level of the SBB.
Other reasons include complexity of technology and construction and
the need to restore it after each use. Also lengths of the SBB
upstream and downstream of Whittlesey would still require raising,
which would require a large amount of imported material. In addition,
the significant works required could have disturbance issues for
features of the internationally designated site in particular as works
Option
Summary Description
Status of option
would be required within the designated area.
One spillway with sheet
piling to increase crest level
where necessary and bank
stabilisation (Option 7)
stabilisation (Option 7a)
stabilisation (Option 7b)
This option involves constructing a single spillway to reduce peak
water levels with the Whittlesey Washes FSR and installing sheet
piling to increase the crest level of the embankment where required. A
spillway at 4.0mAOD would be constructed to the east of Eldernell,
with 3.1km of sheet piled wave wall between Stanground and
Whittlesey. In addition bank stabilisation works are necessary in some
locations.
This option is the same as Option 7 but with a spillway at 4.2mAOD
and some bank raising downstream of Whittlesey.
Discounted. This option was discounted due to cost and being
unacceptable to the local partners as it lowers the current crest level
of the SBB. The option would also have landscape and visual amenity
impacts as sheet piling would be a new element in the area. There
would also be disturbance issues to the interest features of the
internationally designated site as works would be required on top of
the SBB and within the designated area itself.
of the SBB. Although the option provides a slightly higher standard of
protection than Option 7, the higher retained water level means that
about 1.2km of the SBB requires raising downstream of Whittlesey
and the spillway. This increases the cost of the construction. The
option would also have landscape and visual amenity impacts as
sheet piling would be a new element in the area. There would also be
disturbance issues to the interest features of the internationally
designated site as works would be required on top of the SBB and
within the designated area itself.
This option is the same as Option 7 but with a spillway at 4.6mAOD
and some bank raising downstream of Whittlesey.
of the SBB. Although the option provides a higher standard of
protection than Option 7, the higher retained water level means that
about 6.5km of the SBB requires raising downstream of Whittlesey.
This increases the amount of imported material by about 80,000m3 as
well as the construction costs. The option would also have landscape
and visual amenity impacts as sheet piling would be a new element in
the area. There would also be disturbance issues to the interest
features of the internationally designated site as works would be
required on top of the SBB and within the designated area itself.
Option
Summary Description
Status of option
Two spillways with
stabilisation and no bank
raising (Option 8)
This option involves constructing two spillways of sufficient size/ level
so as to manage water levels so there is no requirement for raising of
the SBB. In addition bank stabilisation works are necessary in some
locations.
Discounted. This option was discounted because the spillways would
need to be much lower and operate considerably more than Option 7
in order to have no bank raising. This would mean that flooding would
be more frequent, which is unacceptable to landowners, local
partners, drainage authorities and local government. In addition the
areas of flooding would be higher and over wider areas and more
likely to impact on a greater population than a single spillway with no
bank raising. Flood water would isolate Whittlesey since all the access
roads would be flooded. There would also be disruption to the trains
between Peterborough and Ely/Cambridge. There would also be
Two spillways with
stabilisation and limited bank
raising (Option 9)
This option involves constructing two spillways to reduce peak water
levels in the Whittlesey Washes FSR so that only limited bank raising
would be required. A balance would be struck between the level and
size of the spillway and amount of associated bank raising. In addition
bank stabilisation works are necessary in some locations.
Discounted. This option was discounted due to the damages and
disruption caused by the spillways, as well as being unacceptable to
the local partners. Flood water would isolate Whittlesey since all the
access roads would be flooded. There would be disruption to the
trains between Peterborough and Ely/Cambridge. There is a reliance
on the railway embankment upstream of Whittlesey to limit flooding in
the brick works; so there is a potential hazard if the railway
embankment fails. Also the flood water would affect the land allocated
for commercial development between Stanground and the railway.
There would also be disturbance issues to the interest features of the
internationally designated site as works would be required on top of
the SBB and within the designated area itself.
Option
Summary Description
Status of option
Two spillways with
stabilisation and sheet piling
to increase crest level where
necessary (Option 10)
This option involves constructing two spillways to reduce peak water
levels with the Whittlesey Washes FSR and sheet piling to increase
the crest level of the embankment where required. A balance would be
struck between the level and size of the spillway and amount of
associated bank raising. In addition bank stabilisation works are
Discounted. This option was discounted due to the damages and
disruption caused by the spillways, as well as being unacceptable to
the local partners. Flood water would isolate Whittlesey since all the
access roads would be flooded. There would be disruption to the
trains between Peterborough and Ely/Cambridge. There is a reliance
on the railway embankment upstream of Whittlesey to limit flooding in
the brick works; so there is a potential hazard if the railway
embankment fails. Also the flood water would affect the land allocated
for commercial development between Stanground and the railway.
The option would also have landscape and visual amenity impacts as
sheet piling would be a new element in the area. There would also be
Lower the level of the
Cradge Bank to form a
spillway with some raising on
the SBB and bank
stabilisation (Option 11)
This option involves reducing the level of the Cradge Bank
downstream of the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice so that the requirements of
raising of the SBB are reduced. This would enable water to be
released into the tidal River Nene and reduce the peak water level in
the reservoir. Therefore the required level of the SBB could be
reduced. In addition bank stabilisation works are necessary in some
locations.
Discounted. Following investigation of the water levels in the tidal
River Nene it was discovered that there is insufficient capacity to take
the required volume from the reservoir. In addition lowering the
Cradge Bank would increase the risk of tidal flooding of the Washes in
extreme tidal events from the River Nene. This would also impact on
the internationally designated site within the FSR.
Pumping Station (Option 12)
This option involves building a pumping station across the SBB
designed to discharge water from Whittlesey Washes FSR into the
surrounding drains/ rivers and so reduce water levels in the reservoir.
Discounted. This option was discounted due to the magnitude of the
required volume to discharge (>300 m3/s, three times the size of the
recently constructed St German’s Pumping Station). In order for the
surrounding area to receive this water, there would need to be
considerably more drainage infrastructure in place than currently
exists. It is also an active solution and so unacceptable for reservoir
safety. The pumping station would need to be provided with back-up
power to run the pumps during an electricity supply failure, which is
likely to happen during extreme weather events. There would also be
Option
Summary Description
Status of option
long term on-going maintenance and associated costs for the whole
life (100 years) of an asset with a very low probability of being used
(much less than 1%). This would have impacts on the interest
features of the internationally designated site.
Siphon under the SBB
(Option 13)
This option involves building a siphon under the SBB designed to
discharge water from Whittlesey Washes FSR and so reduce water
levels in the reservoir. This method is used on the Welland Washes
(Cowbit/Crowland) in Northern Area to get water into the Washes.
Discounted. This option was discounted due to the magnitude of the
required volume to discharge, whereby 300 m3/s would require a
siphon to be about 100m wide and 1m deep. Such a siphon would
produce high velocities which could endanger lives and would require
additional erosion protection to prevent excessive erosion. Also more
frequent flood events may result in more flooding outside the
reservoir. If this was undesirable then the siphon crest would need to
be higher, which would require bank raising and a significant amount
of additional material for bank stabilisation. There would also be
North Barrier Bank spillway
and bank stabilisation
(Option 14)
This option involves building a spillway in the northern embankment of
the River Nene, which is not deemed to be part of the Statutory
Reservoir but does hold water above the Cradge Bank level. In
addition bank stabilisation works are necessary on South Barrier Bank.
Discounted. This option was discounted due to costs and impacts.
The spillway would need to be located upstream of Whittlesey and
Dog-in–the-Doublet. A spillway downstream would allow saline
intrusion onto arable land from the Tidal Nene. Also upstream water
levels can be reduced better with an upstream spillway. Bank raising
would still be required. A spillway upstream of Whittlesey would
potentially have significant impacts on the commercial Fengate area
(south east Peterborough), Peterborough Power Station, Flag Fen
Waste Water Treatment Works and the heritage site of Flag Fen. This
would be unacceptable and therefore a substantial secondary defence
line would be required to protect these assets adding to the project
cost. There would also be disturbance issues to the internationally
designated site.
Option
Summary Description
Status of option
Decommission the
Whittlesey Washes FSR
(Option 15)
This option involves removing large lengths of the SBB such that the
Whittlesey Washes FSR is no longer considered a reservoir.
Discounted. This option is not feasible as the long lead in time does
not meet the requirements of the MIOS. Resulting flood damages
would be high requiring high cost mitigation measures to be
implemented. In addition, there is the potential that this would affect
the internationally designated sites which require certain water levels
to attract the large numbers of bird species for which they are
designated.
Reinforce the SBB (Option
16)
This option consists of improvements to the SBB so that it can safely
withstand overtopping during the design events without the need for
bank raising. It involves flattening the rear slope of the embankment to
a 1:5 slope with grass cover and grass reinforcement in locations at
higher risk of overtopping. In addition bank stabilisation works are
Preferred option being taken forward. This option has a lesser
impact on the internationally designated sites as the works
themselves are hidden by the SBB and would therefore not create a
visual disturbance to bird species. The works are also located outside
of the designated area. In addition, there are no significant changes in
the existing landscape.
Create a spillway to retain a
minimal level in the reservoir
(Option 18)
This option involves constructing a spillway at a level where the
retained water volume is still within the Reservoirs Act threshold but is
as low as possible. The spillway will provide flood defence up to the
5% (1:20) annual probability. In addition minimal bank stabilisation
works are necessary in some locations.
Discounted This option was discounted due to the damages and
disruption caused by the spillway both socially and environmentally.
Lower SBB to avoid need for
import of soil material
(Option 19)
This option involves lowering the SBB to provide material for
stabilisation and so avoid the need for importing soil. Protection of the
back slope would be limited to reinforced grass as hard concrete
protection would not be aesthetically pleasing and likely to be
unacceptable to local partners.
Discounted. This option was discounted as not enough material
could be won from the SBB for stabilisation to avoid importing soil.
Lowering of the crests by more than 0.6m would require hard concrete
slope protection, meaning that approximately 135,000m3 of material
would be required for back slope slackening and stabilisation. Also the
local partners would not accept lowering of the SBB. There would also
be disturbance issues to the internationally designated site as works
would be required on top of the SBB. The introduction of concrete
slopes would also reduce the use of the SBB by overwintering
wildfowl for foraging and be a new landscape element for the area.
2.3
Consultation
2.3.1
Pre-scoping consultation
Meetings with the flood risk management partners and wider stakeholders (as listed
below) were held on 9 January 2012 and 11 May 2012 to initially develop the long list
and then subsequently agree the short list of options and discuss issues associated with
each.
 Fenland District Council (FDC);
 Peterborough City Council (PCC);
 Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC);
 National Farmers Union (NFU);
 Natural England;
 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB);
 Middle Level Commissioners (MLC);
 Whittlesey Consortium of Internal Drainage Boards (WCIDB);
 North Level District Internal Drainage Board (NLIDB);
 Whittlesey Town Council; and
 Northern and Central Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCC).
The stakeholders who attended the 11 May 2012 meeting agreed that their preferred
option was Option 16 and that they would seek additional financial contributions from
their relevant bodies in order to assist in implementing this option over the more cost
effective Option 7.
On confirmation that Option 16 was the preferred option, a public drop-in session was
held in Whittlesey on 24 October 2012 and supported by the Whittlesey Town Council
and other partners. This event was attended by approximately 75 people and included
concerned residents, local landowners, local councillors and groups representing users
of the area (i.e. Whittlesey Wildfowlers and Conservationists). The key comments were
centred on the proposed access routes and avoidance of direct disturbance to local
residents. However, the overall general feedback was positive with many attendees
saying that it provided them with a greater understanding of the need and drivers for the
project.
2.3.2
Scoping Assessment
The purpose of the scoping process is to identify the potential likely significant
environmental effects of the project during construction and operation so that they can
be considered and assessed in more detail in the ES, and appropriate mitigation
measures identified for adverse impacts. Likewise the scoping process should identify
receptors upon which no significant effects are anticipated so that these can be scoped
out as not requiring any further assessment. The following topics have been considered
when establishing the baseline conditions for the scheme:
 Human beings;
 Flora and fauna;
 Landscape and visual amenity;
 Water;
 Soil, geology, hydrogeology and geomorphology;
 Archaeology and cultural heritage;
 Air and noise quality;
 Traffic and transport; and
 Climate change and use of natural resources.
Table 2.2 presents a summary of the potential likely significant effects we have
identified to date that we have scoped in as requiring further assessment. It highlights
whether the potential impact is likely to be beneficial or adverse, or is unknown pending
further investigation. It has been informed by:
 The surveys and data collection undertaken to date (refer to Section 4.1.1 for
further details);
 Knowledge of other similar projects; and
 The consultation undertaken to date (refer to Section 2.3.3 for further details).
Table 2.2 Results of the scoping exercise
Topic Category Potential likely significant effects requiring further
consideration
Human beings
 Positive impact in addressing the failure of the SBB and
ensuring its effectiveness during an extreme flood event, thus
potentially providing health benefits by providing assurance in
respect to flooding.
 Disruption to users of the Nene Way long distance path during
the construction works. Noise and visual disturbance to
recreational users and other visitors to the area from
construction activities (re-profiling slopes and installation of toe
stabilisation) and from additional traffic movements bringing fill
material to the area.
 Potential damage to existing access tracks for access or
damage to areas of farmland for siting of site compound and
welfare facilities (access and site compound areas currently
uncertain but wherever possible existing hard standing areas
will be used).
Scoped in or
out of the
assessment?
IN
Topic Category
Potential likely significant effects requiring further
consideration
Flora and fauna
 Potential likely significant effect on the interest features of the
adjacent Whittlesey Washes SPA, SAC, Ramsar and SSSI
site.
 Potential disturbance to breeding marsh harriers as well as to
bitterns present within the reedbeds in the Counter Drain due
to proximity of works.
 Potential disturbance to water voles within the Counter Drain
as a result of reed strimming/clearance works (no water voles
have been recorded along the bank proposed to be cleared).
 Potential disturbance to great crested newt terrestrial habitat (in
the western section of the SBB) during the construction works.
 Potential impacts on other legally protected species (various
reptiles and bird species and otters) during construction.
 Potentially likely significant impact on historic landscape result
of construction in local areas
 There are no significant impacts considered likely as a result of
the proposed works. Therefore the construction works will be
managed by general good practice.
 There are no significant impacts considered likely as a result of
the proposed works. Therefore the construction works will be
managed by general good practice.
 Potential significant impacts to buried archaeology within peat
layers as a result of construction works.
 Potential significant impacts to buried archaeology near
Guyhirn as a result of the construction works.
 Potential significant impacts to the setting of designated assets.
 Due to the rural nature of the area where works are proposed,
it is considered that there are no significant receptors on which
impacts from noise and air quality would be felt. Therefore the
construction works will be managed by general good practice.
 Temporary increases in traffic over the 3 or 4 year construction
period to existing public and private local roads during
construction resulting in significant disturbance and nuisance
impacts on local people.
 The use of quarried material (approximately 335,000 cubic
metres) will be required. The material suppliers are still to be
selected, but these will be local and within a 20 mile radius of
Whittlesey.
It is envisaged that minimal waste will be
generated during the construction works.
Landscape and
visual amenity
Water
Soil, geology
hydrogeology,
geomorphology
Archaeology
and
cultural
heritage
Air and
quality
noise
Traffic
transport
and
Climate change
and
use
of
natural
resources
2.3.3
Scoped in or
out of the
assessment?
IN
IN
OUT
OUT
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Scoping consultation
A Scoping Report was issued to internal and external stakeholders via email between
the 4th and 18th December 2012. A copy of the Scoping Report is presented in
Appendix B. Internal Environment Agency specialists who received the Scoping Report
included:



Fisheries and Biodiversity;
Archaeology;
Landscape;





Planning Liaison;
Environmental Management;
Flood Risk Management;
Groundwater and Contaminated Land; and
Waterways.
External stakeholders who received the Scoping Report included:









NE;
PCC;
FDC;
RSPB;
NLDIDB;
MLC;
Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Peterborough Wildlife
Trust (BCNP WT);
NFU; and
English Heritage (EH).
Table 2.3 provides a summary of the comments received from internal and external
stakeholders and the responding action which has been taken.
Table 2.3 Comments received from internal and external stakeholders during the scoping consultation
Organisation
Comment received
Response/Action taken
Middle Level
Commissioners
Environment Agency
(Environment and
Performance Team)
Environment Agency
(Northern Waterways
Operation Team)
Peterborough City Council
Bedfordshire,
Cambridgeshire,
Northamptonshire and
Peterborough Wildlife
Trust
Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds
Access for the works here will cross the navigation some way south east
of the lock off the Whittlesey Road (presumably using the existing
bridge). The haul road will run along the bank of the navigation for a
short length (presumably using an existing track) before veering off and
away from out direct interests. Therefore further details of the proposals
will be required that consideration of their impact on our statutory
undertaking can be made.
All potential impacts are covered in the scoping assessment. There is
opportunity to improve the diversity of the bank through the use of a
species rich seed mix.
Comments noted. Further detail as and when will be provided
throughout progression of the scheme. Liaison with MLC will be
undertaken when investigating location of access routes.
Further details in respect to access routes and proposed construction
methods are provided in Chapter 3.
Navigation on the River Nene (Environment Agency statutory navigation)
will not be affected by these works. Therefore no further considerations
are required.
The character and appearance of the site would not be materially
different post development and it is not considered that an EIA is
required on the basis of cumulative impact.
Concern is raised regarding the high number of lorry movements and the
disturbance these are likely to cause with the notified bird interest of the
Nene Washes.
Potential for significant impact on ecology and designated sites.
Archaeological desk based assessment is required.
Would like to be informed regarding mitigation measures
required/proposed for the County Wildlife Sites.
Comment noted.
The scoping information provides an adequate overview of the
environmental aspects, which can be used as a basis for identifying the
correct mitigation and/or avoidance techniques to minimize
Comments noted and will be incorporated into mitigation measures for
the scheme (see Chapter 6).
Counter Drain reed and scrub clearance was undertaken in February
Comments noted. Potential for use of a species rich seed mix will be
assessed. Further details are provided in Chapter 8.
Comment noted. Further information on the disturbance of the bird
species which use the Nene Washes designated site and the impacts
on ecology are presented within Chapter 6 of this document and also
Appendix G. A desk based assessment of the impacts of the scheme
on archaeology has been undertaken and further details are
presented in Chapter 9 of this document.
Mitigation measures (as detailed within Chapter 6 of this document)
will be discussed and further developed in consultation with The
Wildlife Trust.
Organisation
Natural England
Comment received
environmental impacts from the works.
The RSPB feel that the following points should be incorporated. That
best practice is observed and there is an element of flexibility allowed,
we consider that it would be feasible for the working window to be
extended to the end of November. We consider such flexibility could be
achieved through ensuring consultation occurs with Site Managers and
Natural England prior to November each year in order to establish that
conditions are typical and so there will not be high numbers of sensitive
species in this month (for example as may occur if the Washes are
flooded at this time).
Also there was no mention of the proposed counter drain mitigation and
enhancement works (or proposals for other biodiversity enhancements)
currently being scoped out and the RSPB has recommended that they
be incorporated.
Welcome confirmation of the next steps in the process for finalizing
details of the mitigation and avoidance techniques, including how these
will inform the program of works.
Supportive of the comments made and believes that an accurate
assessment of the main issues has been addressed.
Natural England notes that an EIA will be required regardless of whether
the proposals are granted permitted development status. Natural
England welcomes this approach and believes that the production of an
Environmental Statement “that describes how the work will avoid, reduce
and compensate for any ecological impacts (especially visual and noise
disturbance), as well as outlines opportunities for enhancements will be
essential for guiding a successful project”
Many of the potential impacts can be avoided by careful timing of the
works to avoid sensitive areas adjacent to the Nene Washes
SPA/SAC/SSSI during certain parts of the years.
Close collaboration with nature conservation partners in the area
2013 to minimise impacts to nesting birds and water voles. Further
vegetation clearance will also be undertaken along the access routes.
Consultation with RSPB is ongoing and we have been working closely
to scope mitigation and enhancement measures
Comments noted. Biological records for the area have been obtained
and have been used to inform the baseline of the Flora and Fauna
chapter of this ES (Chapter 6). Consultation with Natural England is
ongoing.
Specific working window (July to November) has been agreed through
consultation with Natural England and RSPB which will avoid impacts
to breeding and overwintering bird species.
Further information on ecological issues is presented in Chapter 6.
Organisation
English Heritage
Comment received
(notably the RSPB) could allow for the working window to cover the
period between July and November inclusive, if certain safeguards and
assurances are met. This will help to reduce the overall length of the
project and have an overall benefit to the project by reducing
disturbance, cost and disruption to local communities.
Royal HaskoningDHV should consult with the Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Biological Records Centre on top of consulting with the
RSPB for bird data in order to gain historic information regarding
protected and notable species along the route of the works.
Welcome to the opportunities for enhancement to be fully explored in the
scheme and that “this is a major infrastructure development, which
should make a contribution towards our (i.e. Environment Agency and
NE) shared aims of protecting and enhancing the adjacent SPA”.
Encourages the integration of measures along the Counter Drain to be
included within the scheme as a clear biodiversity enhancement
measure, as well as delivering flood management and water movement
benefits.
On the basis that the proposed works are either raising or reinforcing
banks, new ground works appear to be limited, although the provision of
a toe berm would require excavation? The location and works required
for site compounds needs to be assessed. I have not had access to
your archaeological assessment, but assume that your archaeological
adviser has had the appropriate pre-application discussions with the
local authority archaeological adviser.
Comments noted.
Archaeological specialists have provided input to the proposed works
as well as undertaken initial liaison with County Council archaeologist.
Further details are provided in Chapter 9.
2.4
Detailed Design Consultation
Consultation on the scheme has continued throughout the design phase. This
consultation has focused on resolving specific issues, primarily in relation to the timing
of the works. Numerous meetings have been held with NE and RSPB throughout all
stages of the scheme, regarding the proximity of the site to the Nene Washes SPA,
SAC, Ramsar and SSSI designated site and the potential for extending the working
window in less sensitive areas. It has been determined that works at the eastern and
western ends of the site (i.e. Ring’s End and Stanground respectively) can be
undertaken earlier than the rest of the works and can run for a longer duration. Other
more environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. Eldernell) could potentially be worked on
from July to October with the opportunity to extend into November but this is dependent
on suitable weather conditions which are to be confirmed through consultation with
RSPB and NE.
2.5
Consultation on this Environmental Statement
This ES documents the EIA process. Site notices will be erected at Stanground,
Eldernell and Ring’s End, an advertisement placed in two local newspapers (Fenland
Citizen and Peterborough Telegraph), and on the Environment Agency’s website. A
paper copy of the ES will be available at Fenland District Council and Peterborough City
Council offices and also the regional Environment Agency office (Kingfisher House).
Representations must be made within 28 days of the notice being published. Comments
received on the ES will be addressed prior to the start of construction works
commencing. If objections have been raised to the scheme and are not withdrawn
following provision of further information, then the scheme will be referred to Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) who will consider the ES and the
representations in making its decision.
3
THE PREFERED OPTION
The preferred option is Option 16: Reinforce the entire length of the SBB. This option will
involve works to stabilise and strengthen the SBB along the Whittlesey Washes FSR
and will include:



Flattening the rear slope of the embankment to a 1:5 slope with good grass
cover to resist overtopping;
Flattening the rear slope of the embankment to a 1:5 slope with reinforced grass
cover in locations at a higher risk of overtopping; and
Extending the back berm for stabilisation of the embankment.
This option will improve the overall condition and stability of the SBB so that it can
withstand high water levels during flood events without the need for bank raising. This
option has been chosen as the preferred option because it will achieve the legal
compliance under the Reservoirs Act 1975 and has minimal impact to the landscape
value of the fens. Furthermore this option attracts third party contributions to enable an
option to be delivered that is supported by the local community, stakeholders and
partners. It is also located on the side of the bank furthest from the Nene Washes
internationally designated site and therefore reduces direct impacts to habitats and
indirect impacts to interest features (such as bird species) caused by disturbance during
construction. The location of the works is shown on Figure 3.1.
The following sections provide further details on the construction methodology.
3.1
Scheme Elements
The entire scheme (i.e. Years 1, 2, 3 and 4 of construction) comprises of the following
elements of works:









Selective vvegetation clearance (reed removal) along the Counter Drain which is
adjacent to the proposed works. The aim of which is to prevent breeding birds
nesting close to the areas where works are proposed;
Construction of five new temporary access tracks at Drysides, Eldernell, St
Peter’s Farm, Goosetree Farm and Guyhirn Corner which will cross arable land
and the Counter Drain where applicable. Each of these new temporary access
tracks will be between 500 and 1500m in length and will fit within a 10m width;
Potential minor upgrading works to one pre-existing access track through
Hanson’s Brick Pits. This pre-existing access track is approximately 400m in
length and will fit within a 10m width;
The permanent works includes a toe berm which will act as a haulage road
during construction. This will become part of the SBB upon completion of the
works;
Removal and storage of topsoil (total quantity of which is unknown at this time)
and placement of new material on the SBB and toe (as illustrated on the typical
cross sections on Figure 3.1);
Replace the topsoil and, where required, add a geotextile underneath when the
work to extend the embankment has been completed;
Reinstatement of the entire working areas with grass seed;
Creation of two 1m long sections of banks suitable for kingfishers in the Counter
Drain;
Installation of information boards that help people better understand what they
might be seeing on the Washes at key access points (e.g. Stanground, Eldernell

and Ring’s End), and creation of wetland scrapes to increase habitat and
biodiversity, along with looking at opportunities to recreate wet fenland; and
finally upon leaving the site; and
Removal of the temporary access tracks and reinstatement of pre-existing
tracks.
Further details on the proposed works are shown on Figure 3.1. The landscaping
elements mentioned above are indicative at this stage and will be developed further
through discussions with landscape architects, the project team and other stakeholders
such as NE and RSPB to ensure that they are designed appropriately. Further details on
these proposed enhancements can be found within Chapter 7 Landscape and Visual
Amenity.
Key:
N
Ring's
End
Sluice
Access routes
River Nene
Morton's Leam
Cradge Bank
Proposed Works
1 in 5 slope with reinforcement geotextile
(no toe berm required)
Guyhirn
Corner
access
Raise by 200mm - 1 in 5 slope with
reinforcement geotextile (no toe berm
required)
Goostree
Farm
access
1 in 5 slope with reinforcement geotextile
(with toe berm)
1 in 5 slope with grass cover (with toe berm)
St Peter's
Farm access
Bank stabilisation only (toe berm)
Eldernell
access
Hanson's
existing
access
Drysides
access
Source:
Reproduced from OS Map by Permission of Ordnance
Survey on behalf of The Crown Controller of Her
Majesty's Stationary Office.
Crown Copyright. All
Rights Reserved. Licence Number AL. 100026380
1280
REINFORCEMENT GEOTEXTILE
ANCHOR SEE DETAIL 1
DWG 9W3627/16/1004
Title:
MINIMUM 100mm TOPSOIL WITH
REINFORCEMENT GEOTEXTILE LAID TO
MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS
Scheme Details
MINIMUM 100MM TOPSOIL WITH
REINFORCEMENT GEOTEXTILE LAID
TO MANUFACTURE SPECIFICATIONS
5
1
IMPORTED FILL WITH
SIMILAR PROPERTIES
TO EXISTING BANK
Grassland
Grass
Grass
Grass
Drops into Moreton's Leam
4.5
1
Project:
Whittlesey Washes South Barrier Bank
Works, Environmental Statement
FORM 600mm MAX BENCHES
TO EXISTING PROFILE
MINIMUM 300mm STRIPPED
REINFORCEMENT
GEOTEXTILE ANCHOR
SEE DETAIL 1
DWG 9W3627/16/1004
Client:
-0.16
-0.20
53.21
54.90
-0.20
60.00
-0.20
-0.14
47.88
2.20
44.50
1.17
42.43
2.20
2.15
37.51
2.51
27.87
2.35
4.16
35.47
4.34
24.24
35.35
4.73
5.15
20.07
23.81
4.20
16.30
22.89
3.21
13.51
5.02
2.22
10.47
5.02
2.16
8.41
21.95
1.82
Typical cross section through embankment east of Whittlesey
REINFORCEMENT
GEOTEXTILE ANCHOR
SEE DETAIL 1
Grass
5
1
3.1
IMPORTED FILL WITH
SIMILAR PROPERTIES
TO EXISTING BANK
Grass
Grass
Drops into Moreton's Leam
FORM 600mm MAX BENCHES
TO EXISTING PROFILE
Grass
REINFORCEMENT GEOTEXTILE
ANCHOR SEE DETAIL 1
AREA TO BE STRIPPED OF
TOPSOIL BEFORE NEW
MATERIAL PLACED, THEN
RE-TOPSOILED AND SEEDED
4.06
5.30
5.26
5.11
4.67
3.29
2.45
2.13
2.17
1.71
1.79
21.88
23.44
24.96
26.31
29.38
31.55
39.12
41.58
45.64
50.43
2.91
14.78
18.30
2.59
8.79
CHAINAGE
2.43
DATUM -01.00
GROUND LEVELS
Date:
Figure:
MINIMUM 100mm TOPSOIL WITH
REINFORCEMENT GEOTEXTILE LAID TO
MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS
Grass
Grassland
Environment Agency
Anglian Region
April 2013
2500
0.00
CHAINAGE
0.00
GROUND LEVELS
2.35
DATUM -03.00
DESIGN LEVELS
Typical cross section through embankment west of Whittlesey
Scale:
NTS
3.2
Consideration of Water Framework Directive
The EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC was transposed into law in England
and Wales by the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and
Wales) Regulations 2003. The Regulations mean that the requirements of the Water
Framework Directive (WFD) need to be considered at all stages of the river planning
and development process. The WFD requires that Environmental Objectives are set for
all surface waters and ground waters in each EU Member State.
The proposed scheme falls within the Nene management catchment of the Anglian
River Basin District. All of the water bodies relevant to the proposed scheme are
detailed in Appendix C. As part of enabling works, reed clearance has been undertaken
at key locations within the Counter Drain. This measure was taken on the advice of the
RSPB who identified that marsh harriers nest in the extensive reed beds present in the
drain and could potentially be disturbed by the works. A WFD compliance assessment
has been undertaken for these works and can be found in Appendix D.
The works for the scheme involve the creation of two temporary bridge crossings over
the Counter Drain in Year 1. The proposed design uses a proprietary prefabricated
bridge which sits on abutments created using piling and stone infill on one side with a
sleeper foundation on the other onto which the bridge is placed. Each bridge will span
up to 24m and is approximately 4m wide. In-channel works will be required to create the
piled abutment for the bridge; the piling area will be approximately 10m wide.
No changes to the channel depth can be expected as although in-channel piling will be
required to create the abutment of the bridge this activity will not change the depth of the
water body. River width will be reduced slightly by approximately 5m for each of the
bridges through the installation of the piling and the creation of the abutment. However,
this small loss in width is not anticipated to affect this biological quality element. Overall
the works represent a change to river width in approximately 20m of the 12km water
body (the Counter Drain), representing a temporary impact to 1.6% of the water body.
Given this small scale and the temporary nature of the impact, no overall decline in
condition is anticipated.
In addition, the proposed enhancement measures for the scheme include the creation of
two areas of bank on the Counter Drain which are suitable for kingfishers. These works
involve works to the bank of the drain to make it steeper. Given the nature of the
Counter Drain and its low flows, these works are considered unlikely to affect the overall
condition of this water body. Also, the works comprise approximately 20m of the drain
which represents 1.6% of the total length.
Therefore, based on professional judgement, it is considered that the proposed works
will be compliant with the WFD and will not prevent the achievement of the status
objectives identified within the Anglian RBMP. In addition, it would not compromise any
adjacent water bodies from achieving their good ecological potential.
3.3
Land Use Requirements
The location of the proposed main site compound is shown on Figure 3.2. The main
working area is restricted to the SBB itself, with access routes cutting across land to the
south. Details of the works east of Whittlesey (i.e. from Ring’s End to Eldernell) are
provided in Appendix E. The main site compound will be located away from the area of
works and used as the main site office. However, one self-contained welfare facilities
will be provided at the end of each of the six proposed access routes.
3.4
Site Access Routes
The material suppliers are still to be selected, but these will be local and within a 20 mile
radius of Whittlesey. The material will be locally won sand and gravel with no or minimal
processing. The route to proposed working areas varies depending on which local
quarry is selected but typically envisaged to use the A47 and A605 for the section to the
east of Whittlesey and the A1139 (Frank Perkins Parkway) and A605 for the section to
the west of Whittlesey. The B1040 through Whittlesey may also be used for transporting
materials to the east of Whittlesey. These proposed access routes are shown on Figure
3.2.
Access for the proposed works will be via the six proposed access routes, five of which
will cut across arable land to the south of the SBB (as shown on Figure 3.2) with the
remaining one using a pre-existing track through Hanson’s Brick Pits. The access routes
required for the Year 1 works have been agreed with the relevant landowners. However,
the routes for the remaining years are still in early development and are yet to be
formally agreed. All of the proposed access routes will not be in use at the same time
and will depend on the programme and progress of the works.
In order to access the site at St Peter’s Farm and Goosetree Farm, temporary single
track bridges will be required to cross the Counter Drain. The proposed design uses a
proprietary prefabricated bridge which sits on abutments created using piling and stone
infill on one side with a sleeper foundation on the other onto which the bridge is placed.
Each bridge will span up to 24m and is approximately 4m wide.
Key:
¯
Works Area
Proposed Material Transport Routes
Proposed Access Routes
Proposed Site Compound
Ring's End
Guyhirn Corner
Temporary Access
Goosetree Farm
Temporary Access
Poplar House Farm
Site Compound
St Peter's Farm
Temporary Access
Eldernell
Stanground
Hanson's
Existing Access
Proposed Works and Access Routes
Project:
Whittlesey
Drysides
Temporary Access
Client:
Environment Agency
Anglian Region
Date:
April 2013
Figure:
3.2
0
0.5
1
2
3
4
5 Kilometers
Scale @ A4:
1:100,000
Path: I:\9W3627\Technical_Data\T5_GIS\Projects\Figures\Environmental Statement\Fig 3_2 Proposed Works & Access Routes.mxd
Title:
Eldernell
Temporary Access
3.5
Construction Works
The construction works for the scheme will be split over three to four years. The section
to the east of Whittlesey will be commenced in the first year and will continue into Years
2 through to 4, with the section to the west of Whittlesey being undertaken in the second
year. It is anticipated that for each year of construction and within the four month
working window along the SBB in each of those years, the total volume of material to be
imported is in the region of 120,000m3, totalling about 335,000m3. The key stages and
construction activities will comprise the following tasks:
Year 1 (Ring’s End to Eldernell) – May 2013 to November 2013













Vegetation clearance in Counter Drain and grass cutting along entire length of
SBB;
Main site compound establishment and mobilisation of plant and equipment for
works. The site machinery is likely to include dumper trucks, excavators, dozers
and rollers;
Construction of the three new temporary access routes (Guyhirn Corner,
Goosetree Farm and St Peter’s Farm). Each of these new temporary access
tracks will be between 500 and 1500m in length and will fit within a 10m width;
Construction of the two Counter Drain crossing points using a proprietary
prefabricated bridge siting on abutments created using piling and stone infill on
one side with a sleeper foundation on the other. Each bridge will span up to 24m
and is approximately 4m wide. A Movax vibratory hammer will be used for the
piling works as a way of reducing noise levels and the bridge sections will be
lifted into place (from the south side of the Counter Drain) using a suitably sized
mobile crane;
Implementation of standard protection measures to avoid impacts to the gas
mains running along St Peter’s Farm and Ring’s End, in consultation with
National Grid;
Construction of a haul road, which will form part of the permanent works, that will
become part of the SBB and along the landward berm. Details of which are yet
to be finalised;
Transport of materials along this section of bank;
Removal of topsoil which will be temporarily stored in bunds adjacent to the new
works and no greater than 1m in height;
Placement, compaction and trimming of new material using excavator, dozer
and rollers to achieve the new design profiles along the SBB;
Where required, add a geotextile to the new SBB slope;
Replace topsoil and reseed the new areas of SBB;
Cessation of earth works to SBB at the end of October; and
Reinstatement of site in November.
Further detail on these elements can be found within Appendix E.
Year 2 (Eldernell to Bassenhally and Hanson’s Brick Pit to Stanground) – May
2014 to November 2014

Selective vegetation clearance in Counter Drain and grass cutting along entire
length of SBB (where required);










Remobilisation of plant, equipment, temporary Counter Drain bridges and staff.
The site machinery is likely to include dumper trucks, excavators, dozers and
rollers;
Construction of three additional temporary access routes (Eldernell, Hanson’s
Brick Pits and Dryside). Each of these new temporary access tracks will be
between 500 and 1500m in length and will fit within a 10m width;
The permanent works includes a toe berm which will act as a haulage road
during construction. This will become part of the SBB upon completion of the
works;
Cessation of works to SBB at the end of October; and
Years 3 and 4 (continuation of Year 2 works) – May 2015 to November 2015 and
May 2016 to November 2016









Selective vegetation clearance in Counter Drain and grass cutting along entire
length of SBB (where required);
Remobilisation of plant, equipment, temporary Counter Drain bridges and staff.
The site machinery is likely to include dumper trucks, excavators, dozers and
rollers;
Cessation of works to SBB at the end of October; and
When not in use, all of the site machinery will be stored within secure compounds (e.g.
within a fenced area with CCTV) that will be located along the SBB. The exact locations
of which are unknown at this time and are likely to change depending on the area being
worked on at any one time.
3.6
Timing and Duration
The proposed construction works to the SBB are anticipated to commence in July 2013
and be completed by November 2016, but will be dependent on weather conditions.
However, earth works will only be undertaken between July and October within each
year of construction. Mobilisation works including the creation of the five new access
routes will be undertaken before July and reinstatement works (including seeding of the
area) may extend into November. This four month annual working window has been
agreed in consultation with NE and RSPB to avoid impacts to the Nene Washes SPA,
SAC, Ramsar and SSSI designated site and the species and habitats it is known to
support, but with the following exceptions:


Ring’s End and Stanground works can start at the end of March and continue to
the end of November; and
In areas that are more sensitive (i.e. Bassenhally to just beyond Poplar House
Farm), construction can start in July if potential nesting areas are cleared
beforehand and could continue into November subject to weather conditions.
It is expected that the standard construction working hours will be adopted (i.e. 07.00 to
19.00 Monday to Saturday, no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays). The standard
working week is five days but the inclusion of Saturday as part of the standard working
week allows the contractor flexibility in undertaking the works. It is not envisaged that
works will be undertaken every Saturday during the July – October annual working
window of the three or four year construction period.
3.7
Transport of Materials
Construction plant, equipment and materials required for the construction works will be
brought to site by road as described in Section 3.3. It is anticipated that there will be a
maximum of 200 lorry movements in any one day to transport material to site. This
material will be taken to the working areas and placed without requiring storage.
Chapter 10 Traffic and Transport presents the impact assessment of these
movements on the local transport network.
3.8
Working Practices
The scheme will be built in accordance with industry standard techniques and best
practice. Furthermore the works will be undertaken in accordance with the appropriate
Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) including (but not restricted
to):




3.9
PPG 5 Works and maintenance in or near water;
PPG 6 Working at construction and demolition sites;
PPG 21 Pollution incident response planning; and
PPG 22 Incident response - dealing with spills.
Reinstatement and Use of Land following Construction
Upon completion of the works, all temporary works will be removed (including the site
compounds and temporary access tracks) and the entire area reinstated. Reinstatement
works will include reseeding and replacement tree and scrub planting where
appropriate. All areas will be returned to their former condition. The site will be
maintained by the contractor for one year after completion of the works, to ensure that
grass develops on the bank.
The Nene Washes form part of the North Level drainage district and as such, upon
completion of the works, the NLDIDB will take on responsibility for maintenance of the
SBB under agreement with the Environment Agency. This will ensure efficient
management of the site into the future.
3.10
Residues and Emissions
All construction vehicles for all years of construction, including the lorries used to
transport material to site, will use biodegradable oil, which is a standard Environment
Agency procedure as a way of reducing pollution if a leak occurs. Spill kits will also be
kept on site to ensure any leaks or accidents are dealt with appropriately.
There will be emissions from vehicles used during construction and the small number of
vehicles which will be required for maintenance activities. However, this number is likely
to be very limited.
3.11
Post-construction Phase
Operation and maintenance including grass cutting and clearance of vegetation (i.e. any
scrub which develops), of the site will be undertaken as part of the implementation of a
maintenance statement for the Nene Washes. This has been produced for the wider
Nene Washes area but will get updated to include activities specific to the SBB. Access
will be via pre-existing arrangements. It is the intention of the Environment Agency and
the NLDIDB to manage the SBB through sheep grazing. This will reduce maintenance
costs compared to mechanical clearance and also provide environmental benefits as
grazing by livestock is a less intensive management practice which helps to maintain
biodiversity.
4
METHODOLOGY
4.1
EIA Methodology
The following information sets out how the effects of the proposed scheme has been
assessed during the detailed design stage of the project. The general EIA study area is
defined as the SBB itself and the area immediately around it (as shown on the drawings
in Appendix B). This includes the location of the proposed main site compound and all
of the proposed access routes. For some receptors (e.g. protected species, landscape
and archaeology) considered within the EIA, the study area has been widened as
required to ensure that an appropriate baseline has been established.
In some circumstances such as for ecology, there are accepted assessment
methodologies for defining impacts and determining significance, as detailed in Table
4.1. Where specific impact assessment guidelines have been used these are detailed
within each technical chapter. Where specific impact assessment guidelines are not
available, and/or it is not possible to quantitatively define impacts, qualitative
assessments have been carried out based on available knowledge and professional
judgement. In these circumstances the general approach as outlined in the subsequent
section to predicting significant impacts has been used as a framework with reference to
other relevant guidance.
Any specific methodologies or assumptions used in the assessments are detailed at the
beginning of each chapter.
Table 4.1 Guidance followed for development of assessment methodologies
Technical chapter
Guidance followed to develop methodology
Flora and fauna (Chapter 6)
Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
(CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK,
2006.
Landscape and Visual
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment, Institute of
nd
Amenity (Chapter 8)
Environmental Management and Assessment, 2 Edition, 2002.
Traffic and Transport
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)
(Chapter 10)
‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’
(IEMA, 1993).
4.1.1
Establishment of baseline conditions
To identify the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the
proposed works to the SBB, it is necessary to define and describe the existing
environmental baseline conditions appropriately. This includes information on the
physical, biological and social attributes of the environment of the relevant study areas.
The environmental baseline conditions have been defined to date by a comprehensive
desktop study of data from the following sources:



Information provided by the Environment Agency’s internal specialist functions on
historic and ecological features;
Biological and protected species records sought from the Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Environmental Records Centres (CPERC);
Multi Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website, for
details of statutory environmental designations;












4.1.2
Ordnance survey maps and aerial photography;
Site visits;
Environmental constraints walkover in 2011 and follow-up in 2012;
Consultation with Philip Parker Associates regarding the Hanson’s Brick Pits
reserve,
A Habitats Regulations Assessment of potential impacts of proposed works upon
European designated sites of wildlife conservation;
Consultation with NE and RSPB regarding presence of protected and important
faunal species in the area of works;
Peterborough Landscape Character Assessment (Peterborough City Council, 2007);
Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal undertaken by landscape architects;
Water Framework Directive Appraisal undertaken by Royal HaskoningDHV in 2013;
Historic Environment Records from Peterborough City Council;
Previous watching brief undertaken by Oxford Archaeology East in 2011; and
Noise Impact Assessment investigation undertaken by Royal HaskoningDHV Noise
specialists in 2013.
Evaluation of receptors
The sensitivity of the receptors was defined based on a combination of quality and
relative importance to both the human and natural environment. Table 4.2 outlines the
criteria used to make this judgement and provides examples of receptors for each
sensitivity rating.
This is a general outline methodology and the definition of the sensitivity of each
receptor will need to be defined for each individual receptor.
Table 4.2 Sensitivity of receptors
Sensitivity
Description
Very High
Attribute with a high quality and rarity on an international scale with limited
potential for substitution.
High
Attribute with a high quality and rarity on a national scale with limited potential for
substitution, or attribute with a medium quality or rarity on a regional or national
scale with limited potential for substitution.
Medium
Attribute with a medium quality and rarity on a regional (including county or
borough/district) or local scale with limited potential for substitution, or attribute
with a low quality and rarity on a regional or national scale with limited potential
for substitution.
Low
Attribute with a low quality and rarity on a national or regional scale with limited
potential for substitution.
Very Low
Attribute with a low quality and rarity on a local scale with limited potential for
substitution.
4.1.3
Prediction of effects
The prediction of the magnitude of effects will primarily be carried out using professional
judgement. The assessors will have appropriate professional experience of assessing
impacts associated with water related projects and within sensitive sites. Assessments
have been carried out by landscape and archaeological specialists, a licensed ecologist,
hydromorphological experts and suitably experienced environmental consultants.
Predictions will be made using predetermined assessment criteria, as set out below.
The assessment will consider both adverse and beneficial effects and this will be stated
for each impact identified. The following factors, consistent with the requirements of the
EIA Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC, will also be
determined for each effect.






Temporal scale: short, medium and long term: Short term means during
construction and up to one year following completion, medium term extends from 15 years from the start of works, and long term extends beyond 5 years from the start
of works.
Direct or indirect effect: impact caused by a project and occurring at the same
time and place (direct) or impact is not immediately related to the project, but which
is caused indirectly by the project (indirect).
Temporary or permanent: impacts may occur over the life time of the scheme or
may occur for a limited period of time e.g. whilst a specific construction activity is
taking place.
Reversible/irreversible effect: impacts can be reversed by impact reduction /
mitigation measures or by natural environmental recovery within reasonable
timescales (5-10 years following cessation of operations).
Geographical scale: whether the impact will be felt locally or further afield (e.g. at
the regional/county level or nationally/internationally).
Cumulative issues: the combined effects of different development activities within
the vicinity of the proposed works or different aspects of the proposed scheme on a
particular receptor.
The magnitude of each effect will be assessed using the terminology and criteria
summarised in Table 4.3 below.
Table 4.3: Magnitude of impacts
Magnitude
Description
Large
Significant change in environmental conditions causing breaches of legislation.
Likely to impact on receptors of national or international importance. Likely to affect
a large scale area or a large population on frequent or permanent basis. May be an
irreversible decline.
Medium
Unlikely to cause a breach of legislation but likely to impact on a receptor of
regional or local environmental importance. Likely to affect a small number of
residents/visitors on a permanent basis.
Small
Likely to impact an area or feature of local interest or importance. Likely to have a
temporary impact on a small number of people, or be a recoverable impact.
Negligible
No material change predicted.
4.1.4
Defining significance
The severity or significance of an impact will be determined by considering the
magnitude of the effect against the sensitivity of the receptor. A matrix will be used to
combine magnitude and sensitivity to generate the overall significance of the impact, as
illustrated in Table 4.4 below.
Table 4.4 Significance of effects
Magnitude
of impact
Large
Sensitivity/Value of feature
Very High
High
Medium
Major
Major
Major
Medium
Major
Small
Major/
Moderate
Negligible
Negligible
Major/
Moderate
Moderate/
Minor
Negligible
Moderate
Low
Major/
Moderate
Minor
Very Low
Minor/
Moderate
Negligible
Minor
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Once the assessment of significance has been undertaken, mitigation measures will be
developed to reduce the level of any adverse impacts identified where feasible.
Mitigation can reduce the impact to an acceptable standard for that specific receptor, or
can eliminate the impact entirely. Once the application of mitigation measures has been
considered, any effect that the works are still expected to have on the receptor (the
residual effect) will be documented. However, depending on the type of impact and the
receptor, it may not be possible to implement appropriate mitigation measures to reduce
the impact.
4.1.5
Implementation of mitigation and enhancement
Specific mitigation measures identified by the assessment will be set out in the EAP.
Generic mitigation measures have not been included as these are considered best
practice. The EAP will be incorporated within the contract documents to ensure that all
issues identified by the EIA process are addressed and managed whilst on site. A copy
of the EAP is provided in Appendix A.
4.1.6
Cumulative effects
For the purpose of this EIA, the potential effects of the proposed scheme are initially
identified in isolation for each of the environmental topics. In reality, environmental
impacts cannot be considered in isolation as one effect may have secondary
implications for other topics. To ensure all effects are considered appropriately, there
may be some overlap between technical chapters; related effects are appropriately
cross referenced between technical chapters.
The proposed scheme may also result in cumulative effects when considered incombination with other ongoing or proposed developments in the study area.
Cumulative effects may arise from a number of different types of interaction, including:


Effects resulting from the combination of activities associated with the scheme,
together with other development projects, for example, construction activities arising
from the scheme under consideration may be exacerbated by other construction
activities from nearby developments that are occurring at the same time;
Effects arising from the accumulation of different effects at a specific location, for
example, construction noise and visual intrusion affecting a receptor – these may
not be significant individually but when acting in combination they may give rise to a
significant effect; and

The accumulation of effects of the same type at different locations, for example,
non-significant ecological effects at different sites collectively may give rise to an
overall significant ecological effect in a scheme-wide context, or when considered in
combination with similar effects from other schemes.
Cumulative effects for all receptors will also be considered throughout the EIA process.
5
HUMAN BEINGS
5.1
Introduction and Methodology
This chapter of the ES assesses the potential impacts of the scheme on human beings
within the area where works are proposed during both its construction and post
construction phases.
The methodology used to assess potential impacts involved the following stages:




Identification of potential receptors within the general EIA study area boundaries;
Determination of the scale of any impacts of the scheme on receptors, including
an assessment of any residual impacts;
Evaluation of the significance of these impacts relative to the sensitivity and
magnitude of the receptors; and
Identification of appropriate mitigation measures for all phases of the scheme (all
years of construction and operation) and an indication of how these measures
will affect the residual significance of any impacts.
Significance criteria for human beings has been based on the general approach
presented in Chapter 4 Methodology. However, the sensitivity of human environment
receptors has been defined using the criteria provided in Table 5.1 below.
Table 5.1-Sensitivity criteria for human environment.
Sensitivity Description
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
High density housing or large proportion of vulnerable people (e.g. elderly or infirm)
immediately adjacent to the proposals. Nationally designated recreation resources. Main
roads/transport links within the study area. High quality agricultural land (Grade 1, 2 or
3a).
Communities or residential areas close to proposals with clear views of, or reliant on
access through, the area affected by proposals. Regionally important recreational
resource or transport links. Regionally important commercial area of medium quality
agricultural land (Grade 3b).
Commercial areas/property close to proposals with clear views of, or reliant on access
through, affected area. Locally important recreational resources widely available to local
people or local transport links. Locally important commercial area or lower quality
agricultural land (Grade 4).
Communities or residential/commercial property located away from the proposals.
Privately owned or restricted access recreational resource. Local access roads. Noncommercial area or lowest quality agricultural land (Grade 5).
Small scale residential property located away from the proposals. Non-agricultural land.
Informal or private recreation.
5.2
Baseline Environment
5.2.1
Land use
The land surrounding the proposed scheme is mostly arable land with isolated
properties and farms located along minor roads. Under the Agricultural Land
Classification system, the arable land to the west of Whittlesey is classified as Grade 4,
whereas the land to the east is Grade 3 (Grade 1 is the best quality agricultural land and
Grade 5 is poorest quality). The SBB is currently used for cattle grazing by the current
land tenants.
Stanground and Ring’s End which are at the western and eastern ends of the scheme
respectively are residential areas. The Fenland market town of Whittlesey is the largest
residential area within the general EIA study area and is located approximately 4.5km to
the east of Peterborough (see Figure 5.1). The SBB runs to Whittlesey and then starts
again on the eastern edge. The town is served by the A605 which runs from
Peterborough to Ring’s End and the B1040 which runs north to south through
Whittlesey.
One of the proposed construction access routes runs past a number of businesses
including a McCain’s factory, carpet shop, potato merchants, estate agents, estate
management services, agricultural contractor and a medical equipment company. It then
runs through the Hanson’s Brick Pit site. This access route is anticipated to be required
for use during Years 2 and 3 of the construction period.
5.2.2
Recreation
A 25 mile length of The Nene Way long distance path follows the River Nene between
Peterborough and Wisbech. The entire route extends from the source of the Nene in
Northamptonshire to the sea at King’s Lynn in Norfolk. This route runs along the eastern
length of the SBB. The area is also used by local residents for dog walking. Routes 12,
21 and 63 of the Peterborough Green Wheel cycle route run along the Peterborough
end of the SBB (a distance of approximately 2km). The location of all these recreation
routes is shown on Figure 5.1.
Other activities undertaken in the area include fishing in the Counter Drain and Morton’s
Leam and shooting by the Whittlesey Wildfowlers and Conservationists in the Nene
Washes (the duck and goose shooting season runs from September 1st to January 31st).
The location of these areas is shown on Figure 5.1.There is no evidence of the Counter
Drain or Morton’s Leam being used for canoeing.
21
12
¯
Key:
Works Area
21
Cycle Routes 12, 21 & 63
Public Rights of Way
Footpaths
Nene Way LDFP
Proposed Access Routes
Proposed Material Transport Routes
21
Agricultural Land Use
Grade 1
Grade 2
21
63
12
Stanground
Nene
21
21
he
Was
s
rt
Mo
am unter
Le
s
'
Co
on
D ra
Urban
in
Eldernell
Title:
63
Current Land Use
63
Whittlesey
12
Non Agricultural
Project:
63
63
Client:
Environment Agency
Anglian Region
21
Date:
April 2013
Figure:
5.1
0 0.5
1
2
3
4
5 Kilometres
Scale @ A4:
1:100,000
Path: L:\Sites\UK-Peterborough\Project\9W3627\Technical_Data\T5_GIS\Projects\Figures\Environmental Statement\Fig 5_1 Land Use.mxd
21
63
Grade 4
63
21
12
Grade 3
Ring's End
5.3
Impacts during Construction
5.3.1
Temporary disturbance to land use
Access Routes
Access routes to the SBB will run through the arable land located to the south of the site
and represent a temporary loss of land. In addition, areas of land adjacent to each
proposed access route may be used for temporary stockpiling of material required for
the works. In total this stockpiled material is not expected to exceed 500m3 on any day
for each year of construction.
The proposed access routes have been selected to optimise the area of works possible
along the SBB. A 10m wide strip of land is required (which includes a 3m buffer for the
storage of topsoil) for each proposed access route (with each access route being
between 500m and 1500m in length). Topsoil for the stockpile areas will also be stripped
and stored for reinstatement. Although five access routes will be across arable land,
they will not all be required at the same time and will only be constructed prior to the
start of works at that particular location. The access routes and stockpile areas will then
be removed upon completion of works in that area.
Therefore and based on this understanding, a maximum of two or three growing
seasons could be affected through the implementation and usage of the access routes.
The area required to enable the construction of the access routes will be minimised
wherever possible to reduce the amount of land used. However, normal land practices
will be able to continue on land surrounding the access routes and stockpile areas. No
severance of land is anticipated.
The sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be very high for the Stanground,
Eldernell, St Peter’s Farm, Goosetree Farm and Ring’s End access routes as they are
within high quality agricultural land, and very low for the Hanson’s access route which
goes through a non-agricultural area. However, the scheme will provide compensation
for landowners for the land temporarily lost from production. Due to the temporary
nature of the impact the magnitude is considered to be small. Based on the criteria
defined in Table 5.1, the overall impact is anticipated to be of moderate adverse
significance for land use along five of the access routes and of negligible significance
for the land required for the Hanson’s route as this is a pre-existing access route.
Residual impact
Although works to the area are temporary, the temporary loss of land arising from the
construction of the proposed access routes and stockpile areas cannot be mitigated
against and therefore the residual impact is considered to be moderate adverse for five
access routes and negligible for the Hanson’s access route.
South Barrier Bank
The grazing of livestock will cease along the SBB during the works (i.e. within Years 1 to
3 or 4 of construction) for health and safety reasons. However, this restriction is limited
to the area under construction at any one time, rather than the entire footprint of the
works. Therefore grazing will be able to continue near Stanground until Year 2. In
addition, a requirement for no grazing will continue after a section has been completed,
for a growing season, to allow for grass to establish. As the area is not currently heavily
used for grazing, the sensitivity of the receptor to this short-term impact is considered to
be low. The impact will be short term and of a temporary local scale which is considered
to be of a small magnitude. Therefore the residual impact is considered to be
negligible.
5.3.2
Temporary disturbance to recreation
Access along the Nene Way long distance path and parts of Routes 21 and 63 will be
restricted during the construction works. Whilst exact usage of these paths/routes is
unknown, observations during site visits have recorded local residents using the SBB for
recreational purposes (i.e. walking and bird watching). Through discussions with
Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) it has been determined that the long distance
path and the cycle routes will be temporarily diverted during the works so that access is
still available along the northern side of the SBB. This diversion will be limited to the
extent of construction works in each year and whilst grass establishes post-construction.
Therefore access along the majority of the SBB will be maintained throughout all years
of construction. In addition and once works have finished in a particular section, the
diversion will be removed, thus allowing people to access the area from December until
June (considered to be a growing season to allow grass to establish). Fishing activities
along the Counter Drain will also be restricted during the construction periods of Years 1
and 2. Due to the timing of shooting seasons, it is anticipated this activity will be able to
continue as normal and will therefore not be affected by the proposed works.
The long distance footpath and cycle routes are considered to be important at a county
level and as such the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. Fishing is
considered to be of local importance with a low sensitivity. Without appropriate
mitigation, this temporary disruption could lead to a significant disruption over the
proposed 3 or 4 years of construction. The magnitude of disruption is considered small
and as such a minor adverse impact is anticipated for usage of the long distance path
and cycle routes and fishing.
Mitigation, Management and Monitoring
Mitigation
 All known interested parties (e.g. local residents and fishing groups) will be informed
in writing, at least 1 month prior to the works commencing. Letters will be sent to
local residents and notices will be placed on site to inform other users of the area.
The information will include a timetable of works, a schedule of working hours, the
location and extent of works, type of disturbances likely to be encountered and a
contact name, address and telephone number in case of complaint or problem.
Management
 Signs will be erected around site notifying users of the area of the works and the
expected impacts that will occur. Signs will be clearly visible and maintained
throughout each construction periods.
Residual impact
Although mitigation measures will be implemented to manage the anticipated impacts
associated with the long distance path and cycle routes and recreational users of the
area, it is anticipated that a temporary minor adverse residual impact will remain as it is
not possible to reduce the full extent of the potential disturbance to this receptor.
5.3.3
Temporary disturbance to residents and other users of the site.
The proposed works will include the movement of eight wheel lorries (refer to Chapter
10 for details), which has the potential to cause an increase in noise and vibration to
local residents and users of the site. In addition, the proposed works will be undertaken
close to five residential properties at Poplar House Farm and Ring’s End (approximately
50m from nearest receptor at Ring’s End), although the noise and visual disruption will
be short term.
Whilst the daily lorry numbers do not represent a significant change to existing traffic
conditions in the wider area (refer to Chapter 10 Traffic and Transport for details),
there is potential for their movements to cause disturbance to the local farms along the
proposed access routes and properties located adjacent to the SBB. It is envisaged that
the disruption arising from the proposed works will be short term and temporary, the
magnitude is considered to be small. Whilst there are a limited number of residents
(approximately six properties at Poplar House Farm and Ring’s End) adjacent to the
work area, the impact is anticipated to be minor adverse on a receptor with medium
sensitivity.
Mitigation
 Pre-construction structural condition surveys of two buildings at Poplar House Farm
and four properties at Ring’s End will be undertaken to provide a baseline should
any structural impacts from the proposed scheme arise.
 All local residents will be informed by letter, at least 1 month prior to the works
commencing. The information will include a timetable of works, a schedule of
working hours, the location and extent of works, type of disturbances likely to occur
and a contact name, address and telephone number in case of complaint or
problem.
Management
 The contractor will work with tenants and owners to ensure their continued access
during the works.
Residual impact
Although mitigation measures will be implemented to better manage the anticipated
impacts associated with the works, it is anticipated that a temporary minor adverse
residual impact will remain as it is not possible to fully reduce the potential disturbance
associated with the proposed scheme.
5.3.4
Temporary disturbance to local businesses
The likely movement of construction vehicles along Funtham’s Lane to the Hanson’s
Brick Pit access route represents a potential temporary increase in noise and visual
disturbance in that area. There will be approximately 200 lorry movements each day of
the works in this area. However, the area is already subjected to a high number of
vehicles due to Hanson’s Brick Pit, the McCain’s factory and other distribution related
businesses. As the area is considered locally important for businesses the sensitivity of
this receptor is considered to be medium. The impact is envisaged to be local in scale,
short term and temporary which would result in a negligible magnitude. Therefore it is
anticipated that there will be a negligible impact on businesses.
5.4
Impacts during Operation
5.4.1
Permanent disturbance to recreation
Upon completion of the works, the area will be reinstated and recreational activities will
be able to continue as before. Therefore a negligible impact is anticipated.
5.4.2
Permanent disturbance to residents.
Land use within the proposed scheme will not be significantly altered as a result of the
scheme with areas and roads being reinstated on completion of the works. Signs that
were erected to advise affected residents of the proposed works will be removed.
Addressing the failure of the SBB and ensuring its effectiveness during extreme flood
events results in a major beneficial impact for this proposed scope of works for local
residents given that they are considered to be of medium sensitivity and flooding would
be a high magnitude impact.
5.5
Impact Summary
Table 5.2 below summarises the anticipated impacts (above negligible) on the human
environment (and associated effects) before and after mitigation during both the
construction and operation phases of all three or four years of the construction
programme.
Table 5.2 Summary of human environment impacts
Description of
Impact before Key Mitigation, Management and
Impact
Mitigation
Monitoring
Construction
Temporary
disturbance to
land use from
access routes
Temporary
disturbance to
recreation
Residual
Impact
Minor adverse

None appropriate
Minor adverse
Minor adverse

All known interested parties (e.g. local
residents, users of the area) will be
informed in writing, well in advance of the
works commencing. The information will
include a timetable of works, a schedule of
working hours, the location and extent of
works, type of disturbances likely to be
occurred and a contact name, address and
telephone number in case of complaint or
problem; and
Signs will be erected around site notifying
users of the area of the works and the
expected impacts that will occur. Ensure
signs are clearly visible and maintained
Minor adverse

Description of
Impact
Impact before
Mitigation
Key Mitigation, Management and
Monitoring
Temporary
disturbance to
residents
Minor adverse



throughout construction period.
Pre-construction surveys of local houses
will be undertaken to provide a baseline
should any impacts from the works arise;
All local residents will be informed in
writing, well in advance of the works
commencing. The information will include
a timetable of works, a schedule of
working hours, the location and extent of
works, type of disturbances likely to be
occurred and a contact name, address and
telephone number in case of complaint or
problem; and
Farm owners along access routes will be
provided with programme of lorry
movements to ensure that daily routine
can be coordinated around peak delivery
times.
Residual
Impact
Minor adverse
Operation
Permanent
disturbance to
residents
Major
beneficial

None required
Major beneficial
6
FLORA AND FAUNA
6.1
This chapter of the ES presents the ecological information gathered from a desk study
and walkover surveys undertaken in 2011 and 2012. These studies have allowed an
understanding on the key terrestrial and freshwater habitats and the flora and fauna
found within the immediate and surrounding area of the scheme (as shown on Figure
6.1). This includes information on individual species and assemblages of flora and
fauna protected under European and UK wildlife legislation. In addition, relevant habitats
and species identified within other UK nature conservation strategies, such as the UK
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), are also considered.
The potential impacts on these ecological receptors arising from the construction and
operation of the scheme have been assessed based on site visits, a suite of ecological
surveys, consultation and an analysis of related literature. Mitigation measures are
outlined where appropriate.
Zone of influence or spatial scope
To define the total extent of the study area for ecological assessment, the proposed
activities were reviewed in order to identify the spatial scale at which ecological features
could be affected.
The zone of influence is the area encompassing all predicted positive and negative
ecological effects from the proposed scheme, both those which will occur by land–take
and habitat loss and those which will occur through disturbance such as noise.
Due to the scale of the scheme and the localised nature, it is not considered that the
impacts of the scheme will extend beyond the scheme’s footprint and its immediate
surroundings. Therefore a zone of 2km around the scheme is considered appropriate for
the gathering of information during the desk study. For the field survey, the scheme’s
footprint plus a 50m zone around the scheme boundary is considered an appropriate
area to survey, primarily due to the Nene Washes and the A605 separating the site from
the surrounding area.
Temporal scope
Impacts have been assessed in the context of the predicted baseline conditions within
the zone of influence during the lifetime of the project (i.e. the assessment takes into
account how the existing conditions might change between the surveys and the start of
construction and/or post construction).
For this scheme, construction is expected to start in July 2013 and finish in November
2016, with an annual working window of July until October in each of the three or four
years of construction. On this understanding, potential changes in existing conditions up
to 2016 have been considered.
6.2
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
The ecological assessment was undertaken with reference to the following legislation,
policy and guidance documents:
Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) [referred to
throughout this assessment as the ‘Habitats Regulations’]
The Habitats Directive (together with the Birds Directive) forms the cornerstone of
Europe's nature conservation policy. The directive protects over 1,000 animals and
plant species and over 200 habitat types, which are of European importance. The
directive is transposed into UK legislation by the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations (England and Wales) 2010 (as amended).
Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 30 November 2009 on the Conservation of Wild Birds (codified
version))
This Directive provides a framework for the conservation and management of, and
human interactions with, wild birds in Europe. In Great Britain this replaces Council
Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (Birds Directive).
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 consolidates and amends existing national
legislation to implement the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the
conservation of wild birds (Birds Directive) in Great Britain (NB Council Directive
79/409/EEC has now been replaced by Directive 2009/147/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds
(codified version)).
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act came into force in 2006.
The act created Natural England and placed a duty on the Secretary of State to publish
a list of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of
biodiversity in England (section 41). The list has been drawn up in consultation with
Natural England, as required by the Act. Local and regional authorities must have
regard to the list in implementing their duty to conserve biodiversity (section 40), when
carrying out their normal functions.
Countryside Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000
A list of habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biological
diversity in England has been produced by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, in compliance with Section 74(2) of the Countryside and Rights of
Way Act 2000. The need to avoid or mitigate impacts on the species and habitats
identified within these documents has been recognised in this assessment.
Protection of Badgers Act 1992
This Act consolidates the Badgers Act 1973, the Badgers Act 1991 and Badgers
(Further Protection) Act 1991. The act affords protection to badgers and their setts.
National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force in 2012. Section 11:
Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment is relevant to this chapter. The
policy objective of particular relevance in this section is that the planning system should
contribute to enhancing the natural and local environment by ‘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’. This policy replaces the Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9: Biodiversity
and Geological Conservation (16 August 2005),
UK and Local BAP
BAPs are strategies to conserve, protect and enhance biodiversity. The UK BAP sets
out a national strategy for the conservation of biodiversity, and local BAPs (LBAPs) have
also been produced to address biodiversity issues specific to particular areas in the UK.
The LBAP relevant to this project is the Cambridgeshire BAP.
Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (Chartered
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, formally IEEM),
2006)
The guidelines provide a recommended procedure for the ecological component of
Environmental Impact Assessment. The guidelines aim to:



6.3
Promote a scientifically rigorous and transparent approach to EcIA;
Provide a common framework to EcIA in order to promote better communication
and closer cooperation between ecologists involved in EcIA; and
Provide decision-makers with relevant information about the ecological impacts
associated with a project, positive and negative.
Data gathering
The MAGIC website was used to identify all statutory designated sites of importance for
nature conservation and ancient woodlands (a notable habitat) within, and up to 2km
from the scheme boundaries. Information was obtained from CPERC on all records of
legally protected, BAP and locally notable or rare species within, and up to 2km from,
the scheme boundary and on any locally designated non-statutory sites of importance
for nature conservation (protected by planning policies at a local level).
Ordnance Survey (OS) maps were used to identify the presence of water bodies within a
500m zone from the scheme boundaries in order to establish if the scheme contained
any potential breeding ponds and any potential terrestrial habitat for great crested
newts, a species protected by both British and European law. Great crested newts use
water bodies as breeding habitat and can use terrestrial habitat up to 500m from their
breeding ponds as a foraging area (English Nature, 2001).
OS maps were also used to identify any water bodies within or adjacent to the scheme
to identify the potential for impacts on them and on other protected species including
otter, water vole and white clawed crayfish which might use them.
Aerial photos were reviewed where available to assist in identifying other notable
habitats and species of conservation concern that may be present within the survey
area.
Discussions with the Environment Agency were also undertaken to obtain information
and an understanding of the scheme and its potential to support protected species, such
as otters and bats.
Field surveys
An ecological walkover survey of the entire length of the SBB and land within a 50m
zone around the SBB where access was allowed (the survey area) was initially
undertaken by two suitably qualified ecologists, during the optimum survey period in
September/October 2011 and updated to include the eastern section of the SBB in July
2012 (again within the optimum survey period). The purpose of these walkovers was to
assess the area for its potential to support protected species and they broadly followed
the ‘Extended Phase 1’ methodology as set out in the Guidelines for Baseline Ecological
Assessment (Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) 1995).
The full survey reports for the 2011 and 2012 walkovers are provided within Appendix
F.
Preliminary investigations were undertaken in respect of the presence of the following
legally protected species within the survey area:






A visual inspection from the ground of trees and structures within the scheme’s
footprint to assess their suitability for roosting bats;
An assessment of habitat potential for nesting birds (including Schedule 1
species which are afforded special protection such as barn owls, marsh harriers
and kingfishers) within the scheme’s footprint;
A search for signs of badger activity including setts, tracks, snuffles holes and
latrines within and up to 50m for the scheme boundaries;
An assessment of habitat potential for amphibians, in particular great crested
newts, and assessment of potential aquatic and terrestrial habitats including
ponds located within 500m of the scheme boundaries and where access
permission was available;
An assessment of potential habitat to support reptiles within the scheme’s
footprint;
A search for evidence of water vole activity such as the presence of burrows,
feeding stations, faeces and latrines along the Counter Drain (the nearest
watercourse to the works) adjacent to the SBB which historically fed into the Old
River Nene;




6.4
A search for evidence of otter activity such as the presence of spraints, lying up
places and holts along the Counter Drain which historically fed into the Old River
Nene;
An assessment of potential habitat to support white clawed crayfish within the
Counter Drain which historically fed into the Old River Nene;
An assessment of potential habitat to support dormice within the scheme
boundaries; and
Any evidence of the presence of any invasive species listed in Schedule 9 Part II
of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (including Japanese knotweed and giant
hogweed) within the survey area.
Ecological Impact Assessment Methodology
Nature conservation evaluation
The nature conservation value or potential value of an ecological feature is determined
within a defined geographic context as defined in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1. Assessment of the value of ecological resource (table adapted from CIEEM, 2006)
Value
Habitats
Species
International
Internationally designated or proposed
sites, such as Ramsar sites, Special
Protection Areas, Biosphere Reserves,
Special Areas of Conservation, or
otherwise meeting criteria for
international designation. A viable area
of a habitat listed in Annex 1 of the
Habitats’ Directive.
National
Nationally designated sites such as Sites
of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), or
non-designated sites meeting SSSI
selection criteria, National Nature
Reserves (NNRs), Marine Nature
Reserves, Nature Conservation Review
Grade 1 sites. A viable area of a priority
habitat identified in the UK BAP, or of
smaller areas of habitat which are
essential to maintain the viability of a
larger whole.
Sites containing viable areas of key
habitats listed in a regional BAP. Or
smaller areas of such habitat which are
essential to maintain the viability of the
larger whole. Sites should comfortably
exceed local designation criteria if those
exist, but not meet national level criteria.
Regional
County
County 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
criteria (e.g. County Wildlife Sites).
Sites supporting populations of
internationally or European important
species. Any regularly occurring
population of an internationally important
species which is rare or threatened in the
UK, i.e. a UK Red Data Book species, or
listed as occurring in 15 or fewer 10km
squares in the UK (categories 1 and 2 in
the UK BAP), or of uncertain conservation
status or of global conservation concern
in the UK BAP.
Any regularly occurring population of a
nationally important species which is
threatened or rare at a regional scale (see
LBAP). A regularly occurring, regionally
significant population of any nationally
important species. A regularly occurring,
regionally significant population of any
nationally important species during a
critical phase of its life cycle.
Sites supporting viable breeding
populations of Nationally Scarce species
(occurring in 16-100 10km squares in the
UK) or those included in a regional BAP
on account of their rarity, or supplying
critical elements of their habitat
requirements. A regularly occurring,
locally significant number of a regionally
important species during a critical phase
of its life cycle.
populations of species known to be
rarities on a county scale. A regularly
occurring, locally significant number of a
county important species during a critical
phase of its life-cycle.
Value
Habitats
Species
Local
(district,
parish
scales)
Locally designated or undesignated sites
of varied quality containing habitat types
of local interest, including amenity and
educational functions. Areas of habitat
considered to enrich appreciably the
habitat resource of a parish e.g., speciesrich hedgerows
Low grade and widespread habitats.
populations of species known to be
rarities on a local scale. A regularly
occurring, locally significant number of a
locally important species during a critical
phase of its life-cycle.
Negligible
No value beyond project site
Sites or areas which support few or no
communities or species populations of
nature conservation interest.
No value beyond project site.
It must be noted that it is usual to consider habitats and species together when ascribing
a value to a feature using this geographic context. However, there are circumstances
where an ecologist may feel it is necessary to assign a value to a particularly valuable
species. In assigning values to species it is necessary to consider the species’
distribution and status including a consideration of trends based on available historical
records and to make use of any relevant published evaluation criteria. For instance, the
presence of a significant population of European protected species such as bats and
great crested newts may be worth separate consideration.
Impact assessment
The assessments of the potential impacts of the proposed scheme takes into account
both on-site impacts and those that may occur to adjacent and more distant ecological
features. Impacts can be positive or negative. Negative impacts can include:





Direct loss of wildlife habitats.
Fragmentation and isolation of habitats.
Disturbance to species from noise, light or other visual stimuli.
Changes to key habitat features.
Changes to the local hydrology, water quality and/or air quality.
Negative and positive impacts on nature conservation features have been characterised
based on predicted changes as a result of the proposed scheme. In order to
characterise the impacts on each feature, the following parameters are taken account of:





The magnitude of the impact.
The spatial extent over which the impact will occur.
The temporal duration of the impact.
Whether the impact is reversible and over what timeframe.
The timing and frequency of the impact.
The assessment identifies those positive and negative impacts which will be significant,
based on the integrity and the conservation status of the ecological feature. Impacts are
unlikely to be significant where features of local value or sensitivity are subject to small
scale or short term impacts. However, where there are a number of small scale impacts
that are not significant alone, it may be that, cumulatively, these may result in an overall
significant impact.
The integrity of ‘defined’ sites is described as follows and has been used in this
assessment to determine whether the impacts of the proposals on a designated site are
likely to be significant:
“The integrity of a site is the coherence of the ecological structure and function across its
whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of
populations of the species for which is was classified” (IEEM. June 2006).
The conservation status of habitats and species within a defined geographical area is
described as follows and has been used in this assessment to determine whether the
impacts of the scheme on non-designated habitats and species are likely to be
significant:
For habitats, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the
habitat and its typical species that may affect its long term distribution, structure and
functions as well as the long term survival of its typical species within a given
geographical area; (CIEEM, formally IEEM, June 2006).
For species, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the
species concerned that may affect the long term distribution and abundance of its
population within a given geographical area (CIEEM, formally IEEM, June 2006).
The mitigation measures described have been agreed and are incorporated into the
design and programme as well as being taken into account in the assessment of
impacts. These measures include those required to achieve the minimum standard of
established practice plus additional measures to further reduce the negative impacts of
the scheme. In addition, measures to enhance the biodiversity value of the application
site are also identified and incorporated into the design.
In addition to determining the significance of an impact on any ecological features, this
ecological assessment also identifies any legal requirements in relation to wildlife.
6.5
6.5.1
Designated sites
Figure 6.1 and Table 6.2 shows the internationally, nationally and locally designated
sites which were identified within a 2km search area of the scheme (1km for county-level
sites).
Table 6.2. Internationally, nationally and locally designated sites within the vicinity of the proposed works
Site
Level of
Qualifying features / interest features / reasons for selection
designation
Nene Washes
Ramsar
International
Nene Washes
SPA
International
Nene Washes
SAC
Nene Washes
SSSI
International
Bassenhally Pit
SSSI
National
Eldernell Gravel
Pits County
Wildlife Site
(CWS)
Goosetree
Heronry CWS
Nene Washes
Counter Drain
(East) CWS
Nene Washes
Counter Drain
(West) CWS
County
5
6
National
County
County
County
Nene Washes is an extensive area of seasonally flooded wet grassland. The site is notable for several nationally
scarce plants and vulnerable, rare or relict fenland invertebrates. Bewick’s swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii
overwinters in internationally important numbers (1,300). The site is also important for various breeding and
overwintering waterbirds.
Under Article 4.1 (rare or vulnerable species) the site is supports Bewick’s swan over winter. Under Article 4.2
(regularly occurring migratory species) the site supports pintail Anas acuta, northern shoveler Anas clypeata, teal
Anas crecca, wigeon Anas penelope, and gadwall Anas strepera over winter; and northern shoveler, garganey
Anas querquedula, gadwall Anas strepera, black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa limosa during breeding season.
Under Annex II the site supports spined loach Cobitis taenia, the highest recorded density in the UK.
‘This site represents one of the country’s few remaining areas of washland habitat which is essential to the survival
nationally and internationally of populations of wildfowl and waders. The site is additionally notable for the diversity
of plant and associated animal life within its network of dykes.’5
‘Bassenhally Pit holds a wide range of habitat types which have developed over shallow gravel workings. Of
primary interest are the grassland and aquatic habitats and particularly a small marsh where many locally
uncommon vascular plants have been recorded. The latter area represents a habitat type rare in
6
Cambridgeshire and one which is nationally scarce.’
This site (23.49ha) supports at least 0.5ha of National Vegetation Classification (NVC) community S4 common
reed Phragimites australis swamp.
The site (0.93ha) qualifies as a County Wildlife Site (CWS) because it contains one of the five largest breeding
colonies of herons in the county.
This site (16.84ha) supports at least 0.5ha of NVC community S4 common reed swamp; at least 0.05ha S13 lesser
reedmace Typha angustifolia swamp; at least 5 species of submerged, floating and emergent vascular plant per 20
metre stretch; populations of nationally scarce vascular plant species
This site (6.13ha) supports at least 0.5ha of NVC community S4 common reed swamp; contains at least 5 species
of submerged, floating and emergent vascular plant per 20 metre stretch.
Distance and
direction from
proposed works
Adjacent to,
immediately north
Adjacent to,
immediately north
Adjacent to,
immediately north
Adjacent to,
immediately north
Adjacent to,
immediately
south
<50m south
<500m south
Immediately
adjacent
<100m south
Nene Washes SSSI Citation taken from: http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1002071.pdf. Accessed 26/02/2013
Bassenhally Pit SSSI Citation taken from: http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1000060.pdf. Accessed 26/02/2013
Site
Level of
designation
Qualifying features / interest features / reasons for selection
Pit Southeast of
Bassenhally Pit
CWS
Stanground Wash
Local Wildlife Site
(LWS)
County
This site (1.41ha) qualifies as CWS because it is a Grade C site in the Joint Nature Conservation Committee
(JNCC) Invertebrate Site Register.
Local
King’s Dyke
Nature Reserve
LWS
Local
A wetland reserve with its own distinctive habitat. The site is flooded in winter and grazed in summer. Supports
overwintering waterfowl, and breeding waders such as snipe Gallinago gallinago, redshank Tringa totanus and
sandpipers. Peregrine Falco peregrinus is also notable. Network of ditches support rare beetles and nationally
scarce plants including fringed water-lily Nymphoides peltata and grass-wrack pondweed Potamogeton
compressus are present within the Back River in the southern part of the reserve.
The site is a former quarry established in 1995 and extending 70 hectares. A large range of wildlife has been
recorded on the nature reserve. The bird list currently stands at 144 species (turtle dove Streptopelia turtur, marsh
harrier Circus aeruginosus, grasshopper warbler Locustella naevia, Cettis warbler Cettia cetti regularly breed plus
a host of others, bittern bred for the first time in 2011), 23 species of butterfly, 19 species of dragonfly, over 2000
species of other invertebrates. The site supports a healthy population of grass snake Natrix natrix, common lizard
Zootoca vivipara and slow worm Anguis fragilis and a very large population of great crested newts Triturus
cristatus . Mammals include otter Lutra lutra and water vole Arvicola amphibius whilst several deer species have
been recorded. The site also supports a wide and diverse range of plants, including 10 species of stonewort
(including bearded stonewort Chara canescens) making it one of the richest sites in the country for this group. It
also includes a number of unusual plant communities (including salt marsh and Breckland type heath) plus County
7
important plant populations. ‘
7
Distance and
direction from
proposed works
<500m south
Adjacent to,
immediately north
Approx. 500m
south
King’s Dyke Nature Reserve. Taken from: http://www.kingsdykenaturereserve.com/key-points/. Accessed 26/02/2013
Key:
¯
Works Area
Nene Washes - Special Protected Area,
Ramsar and Site of Special Scientific
Interest
Bassenhally Site of Special Scientific
Interest
County Wildlife Sites (CWS)
Local Wildlife Site (LWS)
Guyhirn
Ring's End
Goosetree
Heronry CWS
Stanground
Wash LWS
Bassenhally
Pit SSSI
Stanground
Bassenhally
Pit CWS
Whittlesey
Nene Washes Counter
Drain (East) CWS
Eldernell
Gravel Pits CWS
Eldernell
Title:
Designated Sites
Nene Washes Counter
Drain (West) CWS
Project:
Kings Dyke
LWS
Client:
Environment Agency
Anglian Region
Date:
April 2013
Figure:
6.1
0
0.5
1
2
3
4
5 Kilometres
Scale @ A4:
1:100,000
Path: L:\Sites\UK-Peterborough\Project\9W3627\Technical_Data\T5_GIS\Projects\Figures\Environmental Statement\Fig 6_1 Designated Sites.mxd
Bassenhally
6.5.2
Habitats
The main habitats present within the survey areas are shown on the figures in
Appendix F.
The key habitats (some of these are outside the scheme boundaries and the 50m zone
either side of its boundaries) noted during the 2012 walk-over survey include:







Grassland;
Running water;
Marginal vegetation;
Scrub;
Tall ruderal vegetation;
Hedgerow; and
Trees (both scattered and lines).
No UK BAP or Local BAP priority habitats were identified within the scheme boundaries,
with the exception of the Counter Drain and Morton’s Leam as all rivers and streams are
classed as BAP habitat.
The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of the main habitats found within the
scheme boundaries. Further details can be found within Appendix F.
The SBB is comprised of improved grassland which is maintained by grazing cattle and
horses. Herbaceous species present include common mallow Malva sylvestris, various
dock and thistle species, wild teasel Dipsacus follonum, greater burdock Arctium lappa,
fat hen Chenopodium album, common ragwort Senecio jacobaea, ground ivy Glechoma
hederacea, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens and catsear Hypochaeris glabra.
Some small stands of scrub including hawthorn and bramble are present on the tops of
the banks but these sections are limited in size and predominantly restricted to the
western sections of the SBB near the Hanson’s brick pits. A large sycamore Acer
pseudoplatanus is also present in this area in the grassland to the south of the site.
The SBB is bordered by two watercourses, Morton’s Leam and the Counter Drain. Both
watercourses are heavily poached by cattle and have shallow banks. Aquatic and
marginal plants present including pendulous sedge Carex pendula, branched bur-reed
Sparganium erectum, common reed Phragmites australis, bulrush Typha latifolia, water
forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides, water mint Mentha aquatica and lesser water
parsnip Berula erecta.
The Counter Drain is overgrown with reeds in a number of locations. Its banks are
typically open, with little scrub or tree growth. However, east of Eldernell the Counter
Drain is densely covered by hawthorn which heavily shades the channel and prevents
the growth of other bank vegetation. Pendulous sedge, water mint, common duckweed
Lemna minor and water crowfoot species are all present in the channel. Towards the
eastern section of the SBB the grass has grown up along the edge of the Counter Drain.
Adjacent to the railway bridge is a stand of hybrid black poplar Populus x canandensis
surrounded by dense bramble Rubus fruticosus scrub , elder Sambucus nigra and
midlands hawthorn Crataegus laevigata. This area forms a narrow strip of habitat
surrounded by arable fields.
6.5.3
Legally protected and notable species
The results of the protected species surveys are summarised in the appropriate sections
below together with the desk study results.
Water voles
Water vole Arvicola amphibious was recorded as present in Morton’s Leam
(approximately 30m from the SBB) during the 2011 ecological walkover survey and the
CPERC provided several of records for water vole in the study area including the
Counter Drain.
Records of water voles including latrines, feeding remains and pathways were found at
three locations within 2km of the works. Locations included in the Counter Drain at
Eldernell and Goosetree Farm, approximately 100m and 400m from the SBB,
respectively.
The habitats within the survey area were all assessed as having low potential to support
water voles due to the lack of suitable resting up places, lack of shelter opportunities to
hide from predators and the absence of suitable berm habitat for burrowing.
Bats
Records of bats including sightings, roosts and droppings, were found at two locations
(both within the village of Coates) within 2km of the works. The 2011 and 2012
ecological walkover surveys did not assess any trees as having potential to support
roosting bats. A small stand of willows on the edge of the Counter Drain were
considered to have limited bat roost potential but further assessment undertaken in 2012
determined that there was no potential due to the absence of suitable cracks and
crevices.
Potential foraging habitat for bat species was identified along the Counter Drain and
hedgerows and potential bat roosting habitat was identified in the crack willows in the
western extent. Trees in the Bassenhally area also have the potential to support bat
species due to the presence of suitable cracks and crevices.
Birds
Whilst the wider area to the north of the site is internationally designated for its bird
species, the SBB and Counter Drain are also known to support a range of bird species.
Consultation with RSPB has indicated that marsh harrier, bittern and crane use the
Counter Drain and adjacent land (RSPB, personal communication with RSPB site
manager). The biological records search provided 7,973 records of birds protected
internationally, nationally and locally by the:



Bonn Convention,
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (Schedule 1);
NERC Act section 41;


UK BAP; and
LBAP.
Potential nesting habitat for birds was identified within Morton’s Leam and the Counter
Drain as well as within areas of reeds, hedgerows, trees and scrub within the survey
area. The grassland was considered unsuitable for ground nesting birds due to the
grazing regime which maintains a short grass sward. Heron Ardea cinerea, and curlew
Numenius arquata were recorded in the Nene Washes during the 2011 walkover survey
with buzzard Buteo buteo being seen flying over the trees on the south of the Counter
Drain and meadow pipit Anthus pratensis flying along the SBB in the same walkover.
Reptiles
No records of reptiles have been recorded within 2km of the works. During the 2012
walkover, a snake skin was recorded on site. Also on further visits to site grass snakes
have been seen near St Peter’s Farm.
Suitable reptile habitat for foraging, basking, hibernacula and refugia were present within
the survey area and evidence of their presence has been recorded in the eastern
section of the SBB. It is therefore anticipated that common reptile species (e.g. grass
snake, common lizard and adder) will be present within the scheme boundaries.
Great crested newts
Great crested newts are known to breed in a number of ponds within the Hanson’s Brick
Pits site which is approximately 500m to the south of the SBB and in a pond
approximately 250m to the east of the SBB (Phil Parker Associates, personal
communication). They have also been recorded within the wider area (as identified in
the King’s Dyke Nature Reserve information). No records of great crested newts were
provided by CPERC. No signs of great crested newts were noted in the area of
proposed works during the 2011 and 2012 ecological walkover surveys.
The area of proposed works contains sub optimal terrestrial habitat for great crested
newts due to a lack of connectivity (i.e. hedgerows) between their ‘known’ aquatic
habitats (i.e. the ponds within the Hanson’s Brick Pits site) and where the proposed
works will be undertaken. On this basis, it is considered that their potential to be present
within the works area is low.
Otters
CPBRC returned two records of otters Lutra lutra (five spraints at two locations) within
2km of the works, one of which was at Eldernell Sluice on Morton’s Leam, the other at
Poplar House Farm.
No evidence of otters (i.e. holts, potential holts or resting places) were found within the
scheme boundaries during the 2011 or the 2012 surveys. However due to the transient
nature of this species and the presence of wider flowing water bodies, it is feasible that
they could on occasion use these as migrating routes.
Badgers
No records of badgers Meles meles have been recorded within 2km of the works.
During the 2011 and 2012 ecological walkover surveys, no signs of badgers were found
within the scheme boundaries and no setts were noted within a 50m zone of the scheme
boundary. However, there is potential for badgers to use the area for foraging given their
transient nature. The most optimal habitat within the area of works was identified along
the railway embankment due to the slopes and surrounding habitat (farmland and trees).
Invertebrates
A number of protected invertebrate species are associated with the surrounding
designated sites, including small heath and wall butterflies, and cinnabar moth,
according to CPBRC. One record of the protected beetle Bembidion genei was provided
for the Nene Washes SSSI. Given the existing management and grazing regime present
on the SBB it was decided that surveys for invertebrate species would not be required.
White clawed crayfish
No records of white-clawed crayfish within 2km of the proposed works were provided by
CPBRC. Whilst dedicated surveys for white clawed crayfish have not been undertaken,
it is considered that the Counter Drain is sub-optimal habitat for this species due to the
lack of suitable substrate.
Dormice
No records of dormice within 2km of the proposed works were provided by CPBRC. No
habitat suitable for dormice (i.e. hazel stands or hedgerows) is present within the study
area.
Other species and invasive species
Numerous rabbit burrows were seen along the entire survey area, many within the
embankment itself. Burrows were most abundant in the western section of the
embankment, from the Hanson’s Brick Pits to Stanground. Bank and/or field vole holes
(the holes were of a size to potentially be either species) were recorded within the
grassland to the south of the embankment along both sections.
A mink Mustela lutreola scat was found near Morton’s Leam in the eastern section of the
study area.
No evidence of invasive flora and fauna were noted during the 2011 or the 2012 walk
over surveys.
6.6
6.6.1
Disturbance to designated sites
Internationally designated sites
The proposed scheme will not directly affect any statutory sites of nature conservation
importance. However, there is a risk of potential disturbance to the adjacent Nene
Washes SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. The proposed works have been programmed so
that they avoid the main breeding bird and overwintering seasons which reduces the
potential impacts on the habitats and species for which this site is afforded its
designation. In addition, as the works are restricted to the southern side of the SSB,
there is no direct disturbance to the internationally designated sites. A Habitats
Regulations Assessment (HRA) in the form of the Environment Agency Appendix 11,
has been prepared for the works, which concluded that there would not be a likely
significant effect on the designated sites as a result of the proposed works. This HRA
has been submitted to Natural England. The HRA (in the form of an Appendix 11 which
is a proforma used by the Environment Agency to document the first stage of a HRA and
apply the test of likely significant effect) and letter of support can be found in Appendix
G.
Through discussions with Natural England, noise modelling was undertaken for the
study area. The aim of this modelling was to assess noise levels arising from the works
and if noise levels reduced significantly enough in the designated area to not pose a
disturbance issue to bird species. The results indicate that noise levels reduce away
from the SSB to levels in the range of 40 to 58 decibels (dB). Studies undertaken on
behalf of the Environment Agency (Construction and Waterfowl: Defining Sensitivity,
Response, Impacts and Guidance, February 2009) into noise disturbance on bird
species have shown that birds are tolerant of noise levels below 55dB in less disturbed
areas and 55 - 72dB in heavily disturbed locations. Further information on the noise
assessment is presented in Appendix H.
Therefore, a not significant effect is anticipated on the internationally designated site.
Nene Washes SSSI and Bassenhally Pits SSSI
There is a risk of potential disturbance from the proposed works to the adjacent SSSI
sites. However, the Nene Washes SSSI comprises the same area as the internationally
designated sites and as detailed above there will be no direct disturbance to this area.
Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, an assessment of the potential impacts
on these sites has been undertaken. It concluded that given the proposed working
window and that there were no direct impacts to the sites themselves, it was unlikely
that any significant effects would arise as a result of the works.
Therefore, a not significant effect is anticipated on the nationally designated sites.
Stanground Wash LNR and King’s Dyke Nature Reserve LNR
Whilst both of the sites are not within the actual works area (Stanground Wash lies
adjacent to the western end of the proposed works) there is the potential for the works to
indirectly disturb the interest features of these sites, in particular bird species. However,
no direct disturbance to these sites will arise due to the works.
As detailed before, the working window is being designed to specifically avoid impacts to
breeding and overwintering bird species. Therefore impacts to bird interest features for
these sites will be negligible.
As the King’s Dyke Nature Reserve is located 500m to the south of the area of works
and is located within the Hanson’s Brick Pits site, an area which currently experiences
high levels of disturbed due to the movement of lorries, no impact is anticipated on this
site.
Overall, it is considered that there will be a not significant effect on these LNRs as a
result of the proposed works.
County Wildlife Sites
Goosetree Heronry, Pit Southeast of Bassenhally Pit and Eldernell Gravel Pits are all
located approximately 500m away from the area of works. Due to this distance and the
interest features for which the sites are afforded protection, it is considered unlikely that
these sites will be affected by the proposed works.
The Nene Washes Counter Drain (East) and Nene Washes Counter Drain (West) are
located close to the area of works, and the two temporary bridge crossings are to be
constructed across the Counter Drain to provide access to the eastern section of the
SBB. However, these bridge crossings will be temporary and it is anticipated that they
will be required for the Year 1 and potentially Year 2 works. The proposed bridge design
involves works to the bank of the drain, creating an abutment on which the bridge will
rest. This abutment will extend approximately 5m into the Counter Drain. However,
these works are limited to approximately 20m of the drain. Although these sites are
designated for their aquatic vegetation it is considered that the piling work involved in
the creation of the abutments is unlikely to significantly affect plant communities. The
rest of the Counter Drain will be able to continue to support these rare species.
Therefore, it is considered that the features of the two Counter Drain CWSs will not be
affected by the proposed works.
Overall, it is anticipated that there will be a not significant effect on these CWSs as a
result of the two temporary Counter Drain bridge crossings.
6.6.2
Habitats
The proposed works will directly affect the areas of grassland, scrub and trees of nature
conservation value in the local context.
The proposed works are approximately 15-20m from the Counter Drain at their closest
point. All rivers and streams are identified as UK BAP Priority Habitat. Similarly
hedgerows are also a UKBAP habitat and a hawthorn dominated hedgerow is present
within the proposed works area, running along the cycle route in the western section
(see figures in Appendix E).
The proposed works will result in temporary, localised habitat loss of 0.03ha of improved
grassland throughout the works footprint for the duration of the works each year.
However, this habitat is common in the wider area and is considered to be of limited
ecological value.
In addition, there will be localised disturbance of arable land for the proposed access
routes. A topsoil strip will be undertaken and the topsoil stored adjacent to the access
route. Whilst arable land can support a range of faunal species, it is considered to be of
limited value for floral species. These works will also involve localised vegetation
clearance at the two crossing points across the Counter Drain, although no in-channel
clearance will be required as a result of this activity.
The loss of trees and scrub along the Counter Drain and SBB as a result of the
vegetation clearance is being undertaken to deter breeding birds from using these area
during the proposed works.
Given the limited ecological value of the works area, it is considered to be of local
importance and the magnitude of the impact is predicted to be minor adverse, therefore
the impact is considered to be not significant.
6.6.3
Disturbance to notable and legally protected species
Disturbance to water voles
A water vole was recorded in Morton’s Leam during the 2011 ecological walkover survey
and the CPERC provided several records for water vole in the study area including the
Counter Drain. However, the habitat within the area of works is considered to be suboptimal for this species. The main works to the SBB are located approximately 5m away
from both Morton’s Leam and the Counter Drain and therefore direct disturbance to
animals and their burrows is unlikely to occur. However, the scheme involves the
creation of two temporary bridge crossings across the Counter Drain to provide access
to the SBB in the eastern section for the Year 1 works.
Surveys of these sections of the Counter Drain indicate that the area is sub optimal for
water voles due to the lack of suitable bank substrate and the profile of the banks. No
signs of water voles were recorded in this area and therefore this species is not
considered to be impacted by the installation of these two temporary bridge crossings.
The impact is considered to be of minor magnitude due to the poor habitat and low
presence of water vole, and the temporary nature of the works. The water vole is of
national ecological value and therefore the impact is considered to be not significant.
Mitigation
 Should a water vole be discovered during the works, works should cease and
Natural England consulted prior to works commencing.
Management
 A toolbox talk on water voles will be given to all site personnel by an ecologist.
Disturbance to bats
Foraging habitat for bats in the area of works was identified during the 2011 and 2012
ecological walkover surveys, including wildlife corridors such as the Counter Drain CWS
and the hedgerow running adjacent to the cycle route. The railway bridge in the
eastern section of the works has been identified having potential to support roosting bats
due to the presence of suitable cracks and crevices. However, given that this bridge is
already subjected to disturbance from trains and that no evidence of bats was recorded
during the 2011 and 2012 ecological surveys the presence of bats is considered
unlikely.
The proposed works may lead to disturbance / displacement of commuting and foraging
bats as a result of general site presence, noise, and lighting. The works are proposed to
take place between the overwintering and breeding bird periods (i.e. from July-October)
and given long daylight hours in the summer, the potential for works to impact
commuting and foraging bats is considered to be minimal. Works carrying on into
autumn may be more likely to coincide with emerging bats. However, it is not anticipated
that lighting will be required for the works.
Whilst the works will result in a small loss of grassland habitat, the wider area including
Morton’s Leam and the Nene Washes, provide more suitable foraging and commuting
habitat. Therefore the loss of habitat as a result of the scheme is considered unlikely to
affect foraging and commuting bats.
Overall, the proposed works are considered to have an impact on bats of negligible
magnitude, given bats are of European ecological value, the impact is considered not
significant. However, as the works near the railway bridge are to commence in Year 2,
mitigation measures have been provided as a precaution to ensure that any bats which
move into the area are not affected by the works.
Mitigation
 Due to the presence of cracks and crevices within the railway bridge, a suitably
qualified ecologist to undertake a day time inspection of the railway bridge at
least one month prior to works commencing, followed by dusk/dawn surveys if
required. These surveys will be undertaken in accordance with the Bat
Conservation Trust (BCT) Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines (2012).
Management
 A toolbox talk on bats will be given to all site personnel.
Disturbance to breeding bird species
There is the potential for disturbance of marsh harrier, bittern and crane species
associated with the Counter Drain and adjacent land and other breeding birds to occur
from the works. Ground nesting birds were not considered to be likely within the study
area due to the maintained nature of the grassland.
The works are being timed to avoid disturbing breeding bird species in the Nene
Washes internationally designated site. This time frame will also mean that impacts to
other breeding bird species are also largely avoided. Through consultation with NE and
RSPB, reed clearance will be undertaken in the Counter Drain prior to works
commencing to avoid disturbing nesting marsh harrier and bittern. Surrounding ditches
and drains also contain habitat to support these species and it is therefore considered
that the short term reduction in reedbed habitat as a result of works in Years 1 and 2 are
unlikely to affect populations of these species. This clearance (if required in Year 2) is to
be carried out prior to the breeding bird season starting. Other vegetation clearance
required for the site involves the cutting of grass along the SBB. This will also be
undertaken outside of the breeding bird season.
As nesting birds are protected and therefore considered to be of national ecological
value. However and due to the management measures being put into place, the
magnitude of potential effects is considered to be negligible. Therefore the impact is
predicted to be not significant.
Disturbance to reptiles
The proposed works may result in temporary, localised disturbance, and displacement
of common reptile species from habitats present in the survey area. However, it is
considered that the wider area also provides suitable habitat and therefore any impacts
on reptiles species would be reduced. As vegetation clearance is proposed as part of
the scheme in order to avoid impacting nesting birds, this activity will also make the area
less suitable for reptile species.
A licence is not required to trap and translocate reptiles. However, a Precautionary
Method of Working (PMoW) document has been produced and will cover the initial site
works associated with the proposed scheme to avoid the killing or injury of individuals. A
copy of the PMoW is available in Appendix I.
The key points that the PMoW covers include:



That a tool box talk will be presented to all site personnel by an ecologist
outlining the legislation afforded to reptiles, their identification and how to
proceed should reptiles be found.
The requirement that the contractor will need to remove any surface debris
(such as branches) from the works area (if present) before works commence.
Areas within the scheme boundaries will be made inhospitable for reptiles by
undertaking a strimming exercise and will involve cutting the vegetation to
approximately 5cm in height with immediate removal of all arisings from site.
All advanced habitat manipulation works will be supervised by an ecologist and
clearance of potential reptile refuges and strimming exercises will be undertaken outside
the reptile hibernation season, which is generally between October and February when
temperatures are below 10oC.
Reptiles are protected species and are therefore considered to be of national ecological
value. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be minor and therefore this results
in an impact that is not significant. Following a precautionary approach, mitigation has
been recommended.
Mitigation
 All surface debris will be removed from the works area prior to works.
 To discourage reptiles from using the areas within the proposed works footprint
prior to and during construction, vegetation will be maintained at low levels (in
agreement with the landowners) to prevent vegetation establishing and offering
suitable habitat for reptiles.
 In agreement with landowners, hibernacula (in the form of log piles) will be
placed in the study area on completion of the works.
Management
 A toolbox talk on reptiles will be given to all site personnel which will inform them
of the reptile species which may be present in the area.
Disturbance to great crested newts
Operations that are reasonably likely to result in an offence under the Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 can be undertaken under a licence issued by
Natural England (formally issued by Defra). Natural England’s view is that “if the
consultant ecologist, on the basis of survey information and specialist knowledge of the
species concerned, considers that on balance the proposed activity is reasonably
unlikely to result in an offence under the Habitats Regulations then no licence is
required” (European Protected Species Guidance Note, Natural England 2007).
However, in these circumstances reasonable precautions need to be taken to minimise
the effect on European protected species and to avoid causing offences under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
The terrestrial habitat surrounding the ponds within the Hanson’s Brick Pits site
(approximately 500m to the south of the SBB) and in the pond approximately 250m to
the east of the SBB is considered to be optimal habitat for supporting the various life
stages of newts as well as during hibernation. Due to a lack of connectivity (i.e.
hedgerows) between their ‘known’ aquatic habitats (i.e. the ponds within the Hanson’s
Brick Pits site) and where the proposed works will be undertaken, the SBB is assessed
as being of sub optimal terrestrial habitat for great crested newts. As such it is
considered that the potential for great crested newts to be present within the works area
is low.
Consequently and on the basis of the survey information and specialist knowledge of the
species concerned, the proposed works are reasonably unlikely to result in an offence
under either the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010. As such it is considered that no licence will be required.
However, in these circumstances reasonable precautions need to be taken to minimise
the effect on European protected species and to avoid causing offences under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Such measures will be outlined in a PMoW. A
discussion with NE has been undertaken to confirm this conclusion and that a license
would not be required. It was agreed that a PMoW would be produced for the works and
a copy of the PMoW is provided in Appendix I.
The PMoW covers the following key points:



A toolbox talk will be presented to all site personnel by an ecologist outlining the
legislation afforded to great crested newts, their identification and how to
proceed should a great crested newt be found.
The requirement that the contractor will need to remove any surface debris
(such as branches) from the works area (if present) before works commence.
It will also include details of the procedure should a newt be found on-site to
ensure that no great crested newts are harmed and to reduce the risk of a legal
offence being committed.
The PMoW will be in place and agreed with the Contractor before works commence on
site. Whilst great crested newts are a protected species and therefore can be
considered to be of national ecological value, the implementation of the PMoW will
ensure that the magnitude of effect is negligible and therefore the effect on great crested
newts is not significant.
Disturbance to otters
The 2011 and 2012 ecological walkover surveys concluded that the habitat within the
Counter Drain and Morton’s Leam was suitable for foraging and commuting, but no otter
field signs were noted and no holts were identified. This assessment is supported by
the presence of biological records for otters in the wider area. There is the potential that
works could disturb otters using the surrounding watercourses given their proximity,
although the watercourses themselves will not be directly affected during the works.
As otters are typically more active during the night, disturbance as a result of the works
to the SBB is unlikely to occur. No trenches are proposed and therefore there is no risk
of animals becoming trapped overnight. In addition, the watercourses will not be fenced
off and therefore movement along Morton’s Leam or the Counter Drain will not be
restricted.
Otters are protected species and are therefore considered to be of national ecological
value. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be negligible and therefore this
results in an impact that is not significant.
Disturbance to badgers
No badger setts have been recorded during ecological surveys, although their presence
in the wider area has been identified through consultation (RSPB, personal
communication). Badgers given their protected status are considered to be of national
ecological value. Whilst they have not been identified within the working area, badgers
are mobile species and could potentially forage or move through the area. The
magnitude of any effects on badgers is considered to be limited and negligible, therefore
impacts to badgers are considered not significant. However, given the national value
of these species the following mitigation measures are recommended.
Mitigation
 A walkover survey will be undertaken prior to construction to confirm the
presence / absence of active badger setts, which may not have been previously
recorded. If works are to occur within 30m of an active sett, a Natural England
licence to disturb a badger sett may be required to allow the proposed works to
take place.
 In order to ensure that badgers are not impacted during the construction phase
simple construction house-keeping activities will minimise any disturbance. This
includes:
o Construction materials are safely stored away at the end of the day.
o Natural linear access features are left unobstructed; and
o A toolbox talk on badgers will be given to all site personnel.
Management
 A toolbox talk will be provided to construction staff on this species.
Disturbance to invertebrates
The species associated with surrounding SSSIs are not considered to be present within
the area of works given the lack of suitable habitat and are therefore not considered
likely to be significantly impacted by them.
Disturbance to white-clawed crayfish
It is considered unlikely that this species is present within the Counter Drain. Given the
nature of the works and that they are predominantly land based (with the exception of
the installation of the two proposed Counter Drain bridge crossings); it is considered that
there will not be a significant impact on this species.
Disturbance to dormice
No suitable habitat for this species has been identified within the area of works and
therefore it is not anticipated that there will be any significant impacts to this species.
6.7
6.7.1
Disturbance to designated site
The proposed scheme will not result in any permanent loss of any statutory sites of
nature conservation importance. Upon completion of the works, the area will be
reinstated and current maintenance regimes will continue. As such there will not be a
significant effect on designated sites.
6.7.2
Damage to habitats and flora
Upon completion of the works, the area will be reinstated and current maintenance
regimes including grazing will continue. As such there will not be a significant effect on
habitats and flora.
6.7.3
Disturbance to notable and legally protected species
The proposed landscape scheme and ecological mitigation work will result in increased
opportunities to support legally protected species within the scheme boundaries and
adjacent areas. Through the implementation of the mitigation measures, together with
the creation of reptile hibernacula etc, there will be an increase in the biodiversity value
of the scheme’s footprint.
6.8
Impact Summary
Although there are no significant impacts on ecological receptors, Table 6.3 below
outlines the identified precautionary mitigation which will be implemented during the
construction works associated with each of the three or four years of construction phase.
Table 6.3 Summary of flora and fauna impacts
Description of Impact before Key
Mitigation,
Impact
Mitigation
Monitoring
Construction
Disturbance
water voles
to
Not significant


Disturbance
bats
to
Not significant


Disturbance
reptiles
to
Not significant


Management
and
A toolbox talk on water vole will be
given to all site personnel.
Should water vole be discovered
during the works, works should cease
and Natural England consulted prior
to works commencing.
Due to the presence of cracks and
crevices within the railway bridge, a
suitably
qualified
ecologist
to
undertake a day time inspection of
the railway bridge at least one month
prior to works commencing, followed
by dusk/dawn surveys if required.
These surveys will be undertaken in
accordance with the Bat Conservation
Trust (BCT) Bat Surveys Good
Practice Guidelines (2012).
A toolbox talk on bats will be given to
all site personnel.
Vegetation
clearance
will
be
supervised by a suitably qualified
ecologist and ideally undertaken
outside of the hibernating period
(November to February, dependent
on weather conditions).
To discourage reptiles from using the
areas within the proposed works
footprint prior to and during
construction, vegetation will be
maintained at low levels (in
agreement with the landowners) to
prevent vegetation establishing and
offering suitable habitat for reptiles.
Residual
Impact
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Description of
Impact
Impact before
Mitigation
Key
Mitigation,
Monitoring


Disturbance
badgers
to
Not significant



Management
and
In agreement with landowners,
hibernacula (in the form of log piles)
will be placed in the study area on
completion of the works.
A toolbox talk on reptiles will be given
to all site personnel which will inform
them of the reptile species which may
be present in the area.
A walkover survey will be undertaken
prior to construction to confirm the
presence / absence of active badger
setts, which may not have been
previously recorded. If works are to
occur within 30m of an active sett, a
Natural England licence to disturb a
badger sett may be required to allow
the proposed works to take place.
In order to ensure that badgers are
not impacted during the construction
phase simple construction housekeeping activities will minimise any
disturbance. This includes:
•
Construction materials are
safely stored away at
the end of the day.
•
Natural
linear
access
features
are
left
unobstructed; and
•
A toolbox talk on badgers
will be given to all site
personnel.
A toolbox talk will be provided to
construction staff on this species.
Residual
Impact
Not significant
7
LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY
7.1
This chapter of the ES assesses the potential impacts of the scheme on the landscape and
visual amenity within the area where works are proposed during both its construction and
post construction phases.
A Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) for the proposed scheme has been undertaken by
LDA Design. The purpose of this LVA is to identify the visual and landscape issues
associated with the site and, where necessary, inform the design proposals for the scheme.
The LVA has been prepared, as most appropriate to an appraisal of this nature, in
accordance with the methodology recommended in Guidelines of Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment, 2002, published jointly by the Landscape Institute and Institute of
Environmental Management and Assessment. The LVA includes findings of a desk based
review of baseline information together with a field assessment undertaken in February
2013.
7.2
7.2.1
Location
The site is located along the flood plain of the River Nene, known as the Whittlesey
Washes. In times when the river is in spate, the low-lying ground adjacent to the
watercourse floods and provides a valuable wetland habitat, as well as important flood
alleviation. To ensure that settlements and infrastructure are not affected by inundation,
earth flood embankments to the north and south of the river have been constructed
between Peterborough to Ring’s End.
The site itself is limited to the embankments found to the south of the River Nene, which
protect a number of settlements, including Stanground, Whittlesey, Eastrea, Coates and
infrastructure such as the A605 which links Peterborough with Guyhirn, via Whittlesey.
Generally, the embankment passes through flat arable landscape, although with fields of
grassland found north adjacent to the River Nene.
7.2.2
Topography
The site is located within the valley floor of the River Nene at approximately 1-3m AOD. As
the site sits within the Fens landscape, which is a drained marshland, the surrounding
landscape shares the same landform characteristics being flat, low-lying ground drained by
field drains in a generally rectilinear formation.
The SBB is approximately 3.5-4m higher than the surrounding flat landscape, and is
therefore a relatively significant landform within the general topography of the area.
7.2.3
Vegetation
The majority of the vegetation across the scheme area consists of grassland managed by
livestock. To the east of the site, relatively new plantations of woodland and hedgerows are
found at the base of the embankment, whereas generally, the rest of the site is open and
lacking in tree and shrub cover. To the west of the site, a line of mature trees is found south
of the embankment between Goosetree Farm and Guyhirn, which forms an important
vertical feature in the otherwise low-lying landscape.
South of the embankment lies the Counter Drain where areas of reed and wetland are
found.
7.2.4
Landscape character
The site and its immediate setting (within a 1km radius) is covered by a hierarchy of
landscape character assessments at a national, regional and local scale. For the purposes
of a preliminary stage appraisal of this nature, the local landscape character assessment is
usually deemed to be the most appropriate scale in terms of defining the baseline context
and informing the landscape strategy.
The local scale landscape character assessments that cover the scheme are the
Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines (Cambridgeshire County Council, 1991) and the
Peterborough Landscape Character Assessment (Peterborough City Council, 2007). The
following high level appraisal of landscape character is based on information in these
documents together with observations made during the site visit .
Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines states that:
The site lies within Character 8 – Fenlands, the characteristics of which include:




Large open landscape and although appearing monotonous, it is in fact
characterised by continuous change as the visual characteristics of one fen merge
into the next;
Open landscape provides distant views where the scattering of clumps and
individual trees merge together to produce a feeling of a more densely tree-covered
horizon;
Many ‘islands’ which rise above the flat ocean of the fens, usually occupied by
settlements or farmsteads which, with their associated tree cover, give them special
prominence; and
Expansive open landscape against a vast background of a constantly changing sky.
In addition to the general characteristics given above, the Guidelines also refer to areas of
Fenland with strong individual character, which includes ‘land adjacent to the Ouse and
Nene Washes, and other large drainage channels where huge linear grassy banks
dominate the landscape.’
Under Principles for Landscape Improvement and Management in the Fenland Area, it
states that ‘the essential character is the open view of land, sky and the field drains. Any
landscape proposal must suit the massive scale of the landscape and be in keeping with
the local character of the particular area’. With regard to tree and hedge planting, the
Guidelines indicate that planting should be retained and encouraged in locations
associated with settlements and farmsteads to enhance the ‘island’ character of the fen.
However, planting in the open fen is generally not recommended. Therefore, no tree or
hedgerow planting should be proposed alongside the works at Whittlesey Washes to
maintain the open fen character.
Under the Management of Dykes and Drains, the Guidelines state that opportunities to
enhance the landscape and conservation value of these features should be taken ‘by reprofiling banks, creating dyke deltas or by encouraging more diverse grass and flora’. As
the site runs along the Counter Drain in sections, there would be scope to include the
above enhancements within the proposals for the scheme.
The Guidelines also recommend that ‘all practical opportunities for recreating wet fenland
should be exploited’. As seepage through the flood embankments cannot be ruled out,
there may be scope to encourage wet fenland in certain areas of the site between the
embankment and adjacent drains where various grasses and sedges with occasional
pockets of reed can establish.
Peterborough Landscape Character Assessment states that:
The site lies within Character Area 4 – Peterborough Fens, the key characteristics of which
include:









Flat extensive and open landscape with panoramic views and large skies;
Rectilinear field patter reflecting the artificial drainage pattern;
Predominantly arable farmland;
Isolated farmsteads mainly of Victorian to modern origin;
Sparse tree cover generally limited to shelter belts/copses around farmsteads and
avenues along drove roads;
Road pattern typically rectilinear and raised above the surrounding peat fen;
Scattered active and former mineral extraction sites;
Settlement on the drained fen mainly of recent origin; and
Organic pattern of fields and stronger hedgerows around Thorney.
The assessment splits the character area into sub-areas, of which the site is within 4C –
Nene Washes, which is an area of grassland that provides seasonal flood storage. Under
the evaluation section of the character area, it states that the strength of character is strong
and its condition is good, which results in a landscape strategy of ‘safeguard and manage’.
Under the guidelines section, the assessment provides a list of countryside management
recommendation, the following being the most relevant in relation to what could be
achieved within the site:







Ensure right of way signage is clear but appropriate to the location using local
materials where possible;
Encourage appropriate management of all drainage ditches to improve wildlife
value, but improving water quality and establishing grass headlands;
Discourage the planting of inappropriate woodland blocks throughout the Fens;
Encourage seasonal grazing on the Washes;
Improve public access where not adversely affecting the ecology of the area;
Protect from development that would alter its visual or environmental character; and
Improve links out into the area from Peterborough City centre.
Summary
The landscape character of the site and its setting is typical of that for the Fenlands with its
open, flat landscape, large skies and grass embankments running along drainage channels
and watercourses. However, both local character assessments recognise that the fen
landscape is deteriorating from decades of intensive agriculture and is therefore
encouraging enhancement of positive fen features such as diversifying dykes and drains
and recreating wet fenland. As the site already has strong characteristics of the Fen
landscape, opportunities to enhance dykes and drains and the possibility of recreating wet
fenland would enhance the already notable Whittlesey Washes. There are also
opportunities to enhance recreation value of the embankments through improved signage
and interpretation boards.
7.2.5
Other designations
Public Rights of Way
There is a network of public rights of way that extend through the site and across the wider
landscape. In particular, the long distance walks of the Nene Way and Hereward Way at
various points either cross or follow the flood embankments south of the River Nene, using
local public footpaths. These comprise the closest public rights of way to the proposed
works.
In addition, two regional SUSTRANS routes (Route 21 and Route 63) follow and/or pass
over the flood embankments to the Whittlesey Washes, primarily to the west of the site.
Further information and assessment of these features can be found In Chapter 5 Human
Beings.
7.3
Policy and Designations
This section provides an overview of the relevant landscape planning policies and
designations which are applicable to the scheme, and which will inform the landscape
strategy.
7.3.1
Local Planning Policies
Generally, the scheme is located within Fenland District Council (the local planning
authority), with the far western parts of the site within the authority of Peterborough City
Council. Fenland’s Core Strategy is still emerging, therefore until it is adopted, the planning
framework for the site is established at local level through saved policies contained within
the Fenland Local Plan (adopted 1993). Peterborough has its Development Planning
Policies and Core Strategy adopted (December 2012 and February 2011 respectively)
which therefore provide the local level planning framework for the site within this authority.
Fenland Local Plan
There are no landscape designations within the scheme or surrounding area. However,
Policies E1 (Conservation of the Rural Environment) and E3 (Important landscape and
townscape features) indicate that any proposed development within the rural landscapes
should not detract from the unique, open character of the fenland landscape and that
existing trees and hedgerows should be retained.
Peterborough Development Plan Document
Under Policy PP15 – Nene Valley, it states that:
‘Within the area of the Nene Valley…the city council will support development that would
safeguard and enhance recreation or bring landscape, nature conservation, heritage,
cultural or amenity benefits. The proposal would need to be appropriate in terms of use,
scale and character with its urban or countryside location and the townscape or landscape
character of the areas in which it would be situated. Development would be particularly
supported if:
‘(b) it would create a more natural water’s edge and contribute to enhancing
biodiversity’
Therefore, the proposed scheme should ‘further the conservation and enhancement of the
features’ currently found within the SSSI (para 2.15.3). Refer to Section 1.5 for landscape
strategy.
Peterborough Core Strategy
Under Core Strategy CS20 – Landscape Character, it states that:
‘New development in and adjoining the countryside should be located and designed in a
way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining and enhancing the distinctive
qualities of the landscape character area and sub area in which it would be situated. There
are six landscape character areas (with associated sub-areas), which have been identified
in the Peterborough Landscape Character Assessment...
…For each Landscape Character Area and sub area, specific details of which are provided
in the LCA, criteria will need to be satisfied in order for development to be approved.
Planning permission will only be granted if the proposed development would:
(a) recognise and, where possible, enhance the character and qualities of the local
landscape through appropriate design and management;
(b) reflect and enhance local distinctiveness and diversity;
(c) make adequate provision as far as is reasonably practicable for the retention of
features and habitats of significant landscape, historic, wildlife and geological
importance;
(d) safeguard and enhance important views within the development layout;
(e) protect the landscape settings and separate identities of settlements; and
(f) provide appropriate landscape mitigation proportionate in scale and design,
and/or
suitable off-site enhancements.’
Therefore, the guidelines provided for Area 4 (Peterborough Fens) of the Peterborough
Landscape Character Assessment listed under Section 9.2.6, should be followed and taken
forward within the proposed scheme wherever possible.
Summary
As there are no landscape designations across the site or local area, there are no
significant constraints on the proposed scheme with regards to landscape matters.
However, there is policy regarding the landscape character of the Fens to ensure that the
area is protected and enhanced through guidance provided within the Cambridgeshire
Landscape Guidelines and Peterborough Landscape Character Assessment.
7.4
Visual Appraisal
The extent to which the site is visible within the surrounding landscape has been
established using field based observations.
As the proposed works are relatively small in scale and limited to the south facing slope of
the SBB, most views towards the site will be from the south of the site or from public rights
of way/roads that follow or cross the site.
The main visual changes to the SBB will be during construction where the grass and
associated topsoil will be removed from the south face. Subsequently, additional material
will be delivered and located along the southern slope of the SBB to provide strengthening
to the structure. Therefore views to the site will be of construction activity including vehicle
movement, material storage and earth movement.
On completion, the SBB will be sown with grass seed which will eventually recreate the
green bund as it was perceived before, although with a different profile when viewed on
site.
Views from the footpaths and cycleways that cross or follow the site will be the visual
receptors that will be the most affected by the works, either by visual changes at close
proximity or by diversions that takes the receptors away from the site. These views will be
as described above where a usually isolated and tranquil part of the Fens will be
temporarily affected by construction activity. On completion, any signage and interpretation
boards that will be installed will improve the experience of rights of way users, as well as
informing users as to the importance of the Whittlesey Washes and the performance of the
SBB. Installation of such signage will be conditional upon obtaining consent from
landowners and the Local Authorities. Where re-profiling of the drains is proposed, the
resulting increase in habitat will provide a more diverse landscape for users of the rights of
way/cycleways to pass through.
Views from the northern edges of settlements (i.e. Stanground, Whittlesey, Eastrea and
Coates), and farmsteads, that are found along the southern edge of the site will be at
distances of approximately between 50-100m, and will generally only be available from
locations where vegetation and buildings do not screen available views towards the SBB.
Where views to the SBB are available, the construction of the proposed works will provide
the most visual effects to receptors, although this will only be temporary. Once completed,
grass will quickly green the embankments and views will largely be perceived as
unchanged.
As with settlements and farmsteads above, the A605 (shown on Figure 3.2) which largely
runs parallel to the SBB will occasionally have views towards the proposed works where
vegetation and buildings do not intervene. Views will generally be perpendicular to the
direction of travel and be of distances approximately between 50-200m from the proposed
works. During construction, views of the works will be visible at occasions while passing
through the landscape towards construction activity along the SBB. On completion, the
greening of the structure will recreate views towards a grassed bank as before.
7.5
Analysis and Landscape Strategy
The main issues that need to be addressed from a landscape perspective within the
proposed scheme are to maintain the existing open Fenland character and where possible
as an integral part of the scheme, benefit any biodiversity/environmental value of the area
either within or near to the Nene Washes nature conservation designated sites.
As tree and hedgerow planting is generally not a characteristic of the Fenland landscape, it
is not recommended that any additional vegetation is proposed as part of the scheme.
There are, however, opportunities to re-profile short sections (for example 2 x 10 metre
lengths) of the Counter Drain to provide nesting sites for kingfishers in suitable locations
such as near Guyhirn, as well as longer stretches of scrapes (100 linear m) to create
wetland areas further west along the north of the Counter Drain (see Appendix J). Further
information on the wider ecological value of this drain is presented in Chapter 6 Flora and
Fauna.
In addition, the recreational value of the Whittlesey Washes can be enhanced by providing
improved signage that utilise a consistent local material and design where SUSTRANS
routes and long distance paths cross the site. In addition, interpretation boards will be
provided at key locations of the site (i.e. Eldernell car park, Millennium bridge cross road,
Stanground and Ring’s End) to allow users to understand the value of the internationally
and nationally designated area and the work that the Environment Agency do in order to
alleviate flood water along the Nene and protect local residents. This will be discussed with
the relevant authorities.
7.6
Impact Summary
Analysis of the site, its setting and local planning policy has identified that the site has good
potential to absorb the proposed landscape and visual effects of the strengthening works to
the SBB with minimal impacts. This chapter has identified the main landscape and visual
receptors of the proposed scheme and that the main effects to these receptors will be
during construction. However, these effects will quickly reverse as the SBB returns to a
grassed structure, although with a subtle change to its southern profile.
Proposals to increase habitat and biodiversity including the creation of wetland scrapes
and two areas of kingfisher nesting habitat will be taken forward following agreement from
landowners. Opportunities to recreate wet fenland between the Counter Drain and the SBB
to the east of Peterborough would help to meet the landscape and ecology aspirations
identified by the local planning authorities. Therefore the landscape character of the Fens
will benefit from the proposed scheme from the creation of a variety of wetland habitat.
These features are shown on the Final Landscape Masterplan in Appendix J.
Users of the rights of way network that cross or follow the site will look to benefit by
improved signage and interpretation boards (if approved), as well as passing through an
improved diversity of the Fenland landscape proposed through re-profiling of drains and the
possible recreation of wet fenland.
8
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
8.1
This chapter of the ES assesses the potential impacts of the scheme on the historic
environment within the area where works are proposed during both its construction and
post construction phases.
The methodology used to identify the baseline conditions within the site involved the
following stages:




Identification of potential heritage receptors within the scheme boundaries.
Determination of the short term, medium term and long term impacts of the
scheme on receptors, including an assessment of any residual impacts.
Evaluation of the significance of these impacts relative to the sensitivity and
quantity of the receptors.
Identification of appropriate mitigation measures for all phases of the scheme (all
years of construction, post construction and any maintenance requirements) and
an indication of how these measures will affect the residual significance of any
impacts.
Significance criteria for the historic environment have been based on the general
approach presented in Chapter 4 Methodology. However, the sensitivity of heritage
receptors has been defined using the criteria provided in Table 8.1 below.
Table 8.1-Sensitivity criteria for the historic environment
Sensitivity Description
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Remains of inscribed international importance, such as World Heritage Sites.
Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings.
Grade I and Grade II* Registered Parks and Gardens.
Scheduled Monuments.
Registered battlefields
Undesignated archaeological assets of schedulable quality and importance.
Undesignated buildings, monuments, sites or landscapes that can be shown to have
particularly important qualities in their fabric or historical association.
Grade II listed Buildings.
Conservation Areas.
Grade II Registered Parks.
Sites of high archaeological resource value as identified through consultation.
Locally listed buildings as recorded on a local authority list
Undesignated buildings, monuments, sites or landscapes that can be shown to have
important qualities in their fabric or historical association.
Historic Townscapes with historic integrity in that the assets that constitute their make-up
are clearly legible.
Undesignated buildings, monuments, sites or landscapes of local importance and of
modest quality
Locally important historic or archaeological sites, sites with a local value for education or
cultural appreciation and of medium archaeological resource rating,
Assets that are so badly damaged that too little remains to justify inclusion into a higher
grade,
Parks and gardens of local interest.
8.2
Policy and Designations
This section provides a summary of the relevant cultural heritage policies and
designations which are applicable to the scheme, and which will inform the historic
environment assessment.
8.2.1
Legislative framework (heritage)
The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) is the central piece of
legislation that protects the archaeological resource. The first section of the Act requires
the Secretary of State responsible for National Heritage (now DCMS) to maintain a
schedule of nationally important sites. For the purposes of the Act, a monument is
defined in Section 61 (7) as:
a) “any building, structure or work, whether above or below the surface of the land,
and any cave or excavation;
b) any site comprising the remains of any such building, structure or work or of any
cave or excavation;
c) any site comprising, or comprising the remains of, any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or
other moveable structure or part thereof which neither constitutes nor forms part
of any work which is a monument as defined within paragraph a) above; and
d) any machinery attached to a monument shall be regarded as part of the
monument if it could not be detached without being dismantled.”
A set of criteria, defined as survival / condition, period, rarity, fragility / vulnerability,
diversity, documentation, group value and potential, assist in the decision making
process as to whether a site is deemed of national importance and best managed by
scheduling.
English Heritage is enabled by section 8C of the Historic Buildings and Ancient
Monuments Act (1953), introduced by paragraph 10 of Schedule 4, of the National
Heritage Act (1983), to compile a Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic
Interest in England. Though designated as being of national interest, a park or garden
on the register is not otherwise statutorily protected, although local planning authorities
are required to include policies for their protection in their development plan.
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990)
establishes a desirability to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a
Conservation Area. A Conservation Area is an area of local interest designated
principally by the local planning authority.
8.2.2
The NPPF (Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2012) was
published on 27th March 2012. It took immediate effect and represents a significant
change to the national planning policy landscape. The NPPF is a material consideration
in planning decisions and forms a single overarching planning policy for England,
replacing all other Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidelines. It is also
the basis for the preparation of local development plans.
The conservation and enhancement of the historic environment is granted an entire
section (section 12) within the NPPF which, in summary, highlights the following issues:




The Local Plan should set a positive strategy for conservation and enjoyment of
the historic environment, recognising that heritage assets are an irreplaceable
resource (paragraph 126);
Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest
significance, should be wholly exceptional. Where a development will lead to
substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset,
local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless there are substantial
public benefits (paragraph 132 and paragraph 133);
In the case of non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgment will be
required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of
the heritage asset; and
Similarly to Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment
(PPS5) (Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), 2010), local planning
authorities should make gathered information about the significance of the
historic environment publicly accessible. They should also require developers to
record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to
be lost, proportionate to the value of the asset.
Applications that may impact upon undesignated assets should be balanced,
considering the presumption in favour of sustainable development, scale of harm or loss
and the significance of the heritage asset. In the case of all heritage assets, those
applications that will make a positive contribution to the significance or setting of the
asset should be treated favourably.
8.2.3
Setting
The NPPF (DCLG, 2012) replaces previous guidance relating to the setting of heritage
assets, whether designated or not, that was detailed in Planning Policy Statement 5
(DCMS, 2010) and the accompanying Historic Environment Practice Guide (DCLG,
2010).
Within the NPPF (DCLG, 2012), the setting of a heritage asset is defined as the
“...surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may
change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a
positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to
appreciate that significance or may be neutral.”
In section 7 ‘Requiring good design’ of the NPPF (DCLG, 2012), paragraph 65 states
that local planning authorities can refuse planning permission for buildings or
infrastructure if it impacts a designated heritage asset and the impact “…would cause
material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s
economic, social and environmental benefits.”
In section 12 ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’ of the NPPF (DCLG,
2012), paragraph 128 and paragraph 129 state that the significance of heritage asset
needs to be taken into account any contribution made by their setting. “Local planning
authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset
that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a
heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise.
They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a
proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s
conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”
Paragraph 132 states that “When considering the impact of a proposed development on
the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the
asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset
or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss
should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade
II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of
designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments,
protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II*
registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.”
English Heritage (2011) has also produced ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets: English
Heritage Guidance’, which notes that an assessment of the impact of a proposed
development should identify whether the development would be acceptable in terms of
the degree of harm to an asset’s setting. This can be identified by using a broad five
step approach that:
1) Identifies which assets and settings are affected;
2) Identifies how and what degree these settings make a contribution to the
significance of the heritage asset;
3) Assesses the effects of the proposed development;
4) Explores ways to minimise harm and maximise enhancement; and
5) Identifies how to document the decision and monitor outcomes.
Setting is understood to embrace all of the surroundings from which the heritage asset
can be experienced, and does not have a fixed boundary. Views to and from an asset
will play an important part in the way that the asset is experienced. Other factors such
as the ‘character’ of the view, screening and cumulative impacts of existing structures
within the view need to be taken into consideration. This separates the concept of
‘setting’ from that of the ‘view’; the perception or understanding of an asset or its context
can still be appreciated despite changes within its view.
For many development proposals, visual effects may be the primary or sole issue
requiring assessment for setting (English Heritage, 2011a) and may merit a formal views
analysis such as that proposed in ‘Seeing History in the View: A Method for Assessing
Heritage Significance within Views‘(English Heritage, 2011b).
8.2.4
English Heritage policy and guidance
English Heritage has produced a number of guidance papers in respect of a variety of
heritage conservation issues, which are intended to establish broad frameworks and
guidance to assist in the making of decisions about England’s historic environment. The
guidance documents address specific aspects of the historic environment, and consider
them within the context of current English Heritage frameworks and guidelines for best
practice and decision making.
In 2008, English Heritage published ‘Conservation principles, policies and guidance for
the sustainable management of the Historic Environment’ (English Heritage, 2008). The
aim of this document is to ensure consistency of approach in English Heritage’s role as
the Government’s statutory advisor on the historic environment in England. It aims to
set out a logical approach to decision making and offers guidance about all aspects of
the historic environment and reconciling its protection with the economic and social
needs and aspirations of the people who live in it.
Whilst the policy guidance is intended to inform English Heritage’s approach to the
management of the historic environment as a whole, it also aims to provide a set of
principles and policies that may be used by other relevant bodies, such as local planning
authorities, property owners, developers and advisers.
The document sets out the qualities that contribute to the significance of a heritage
asset. It expands upon how these qualities can be appreciated and how a development
could impact upon these concepts. These qualities are aesthetic, evidential, communal
and historical.
The document states that the designation of an asset does not necessarily increase its
significance, for example, there may be a Scheduled Monument of a boundary cross
dating from the medieval period in a town which may hold evidential and historical value
but is of little aesthetic or communal value. In the same town, there may be an
undesignated structure which is of great importance to the town’s people. It may be the
focus of a local annual celebration or be linked with a famous former resident.
Therefore, whilst this structure may be undesignated, its significance is likely to be of
equal importance to the Scheduled Monument.
8.2.5
Local planning policies
Generally, the scheme is located within Fenland District Council (the local planning
authority), with the far western parts of the site within the authority of Peterborough City
Council. Fenland’s Core Strategy is still emerging, therefore until it is adopted, the
planning framework for the site is established at local level through saved policies
contained within the Fenland Local Plan (adopted 1993). Peterborough has its
Development Planning Policies and Core Strategy adopted (December 2012 and
February 2011 respectively) which therefore provide the local level planning framework
for the site within this authority.
Fenland Local Plan (adopted 1993)
There is one scheduled archaeological site within the scheme boundary, that of a
Roman field system comprising a trackway on the line of the Fen Causeway. Policy E6
(Impact on Ancient Monuments and Archaeology) states that:
“Planning permission will not normally be granted for development which would
adversely affect the preservation or setting of an ancient monument or other important
archaeological site. The local planning authority will normally require all planning
applications for development on sites of recognised or suspected archaeological
importance to be accompanied by an archaeological evaluation.”
Peterborough Development Plan Document (December 2012)
Under Policy PP17 – Heritage Assets, it states that:
“All development proposals that would affect any heritage asset will be required to:
(a) describe and assess the significance of the asset and/or its setting to determine its
architectural, historic, artistic or archaeological interest; and
(b) identify the impact of works on the special character of the asset; and
(c) provide a clear justification for the works, especially if these would harm the asset or
its setting, so that the harm can be weighed against public benefits.
The level of detail required should be proportionate to the asset’s importance and
sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on its significance and/or
setting.
Designated heritage assets in Peterborough comprise Scheduled Monuments, Listed
Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens. Non-designated
(Local) heritage assets are those included in the Peterborough Historic Environment
Record; Buildings of Local Importance identified in Appendix C; and, in villages, those
green spaces, open spaces and gaps in frontages, treed and hedged frontages, and
substantial walls and railings, all as identified on the Policies Map.
The work required under (a) to (c) should reference the Historic Environment Record
(HER) and other information such as historic maps; the Peterborough Landscape
Character Assessment (2007); Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans;
Peterborough’s List of Buildings of Local Importance; the Design and Development in
Selected Villages SPD; and the Peterborough Special Character Areas.
All development proposals that would affect a heritage asset will be determined in
accordance with national policy in the National Planning Policy Framework.”
Peterborough Core Strategy (February 2011)
Under Core Strategy CS20 – The Historic Environment, it states that:
“The Council will protect, conserve and enhance the historic environment throughout
Peterborough, through the special protection afforded to listed buildings, conservation
areas and scheduled ancient monuments and through careful control of development
that might adversely affect non-scheduled, nationally important archaeological remains;
other areas of archaeological potential or importance; historic features and their settings;
buildings of local importance; and areas of historic landscape or parkland (including, but
not limited to, those on the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special
Historic Interest).
All new development must respect and enhance the local character and distinctiveness
of the area in which it would be situated, particularly in areas of high heritage value.”
8.3
8.3.1
Topography
The site is located within the valley floor of the River Nene and is flat and low-lying at
approximately 1-3m AOD. As the site sits within the Fens landscape, which is a drained
marshland, the surrounding landscape shares the same landform characteristics being
flat, low-lying ground drained by field drains in a generally rectilinear formation.
The SBB is approximately 3.5-4m higher than the surrounding flat landscape, and is
therefore a relatively significant landform within the general topography of the area.
Historically, the topography has been characterised by a series of fossilized silt and
sand-filled tidal creek systems dating to the mid to late Holocene period, incised into
contemporaneous clay deposits. However, anthropogenic change (drainage and
agriculture) resulting in a dessication of the peat and it’s loss through “wind blow” has
caused the former channels to become positive topographical features known as
roddons. The importance of roddons to the regional historic record and local historical
landscape character is discussed in more detail in Section 9.3.2 below.
8.3.2
Background history and archaeological potential
The majority of the known archaeological records along the scheme relate to the
prehistoric (16 records) and Roman (14 records) periods. The impact of people on the
natural landscape can be traced back to these periods. Roddons in the English
Fenlands are fossilized tidal creek systems commonly infilled during the mid to late
Holocene age (6000 to 2000 years Before Present- BP) with many already present in
the early Holocene and Devensian, incised into contemporaneous clay deposits. The
sedimentary deposits are up to 30m (typically averaging 20m) in thickness. Roddons are
of value to the historical record as they show evidence of a complex
palaeoenvironmental past including the development of drainage systems. Roddons are
seen in the landscape as subtle ridges, up to 1 m high with many examples visible at
Whittlesey (Smith et al, 2010).
Roddons are evidence to a vanished, natural landscape, that have become exposed as
a result of human activity causing peat wastage by harnessing the land for agriculture,
domestic and commercial needs. Despite this, they represent an important repository of
information regarding post- glacial environmental change. The Fenlands were locally
drained during Roman and medieval times, but the roddons became positive features
after the phase of 17th century drainage due to the differential compaction of the silts,
clays and peats, together with oxidisation and ablation of the peat. Thus, the modern
landscape is dominated by evidence of anthropogenic activities associated with
drainage and agriculture.
The following information is taken from ‘A History of the County of Huntingdon’ (1936).
There is little documentary evidence of land reclamation in the medieval period until the
work of Bishop Morton shortly before the end of the 15th century. He was head of the
commissioners of the district and the streams of the Nene were under his management;
and it was clear that effective drainage management was required. At considerable
expense, a cut was made from Stanground near Peterborough to Guyhirn, on the
assumption that the upland waters would seek the greater gradient of the direct route, in
preference to their original course; this cut still bears the name of “Morton's Leam”. It
was 12 miles long and by means of it and its associated dams; the Nene was conveyed
in a direct line to Wisbech. At Guyhirn, the bishop built Tower House so that he could
observe his workmen. Though no longer standing, the brick tower was often referred to
in later Inquisitions and Drainage Acts, and was still standing in 1810 when the Barrier
Banks Act was passed. The significance of Bishop Morton's work lay in the fact that he
confirmed the practice of straight cuts and artificial rivers; and this practice developed
into a system which became the basis for all subsequent drainage work in the fenland.
The wetland nature of the study area is an important consideration for the potential
survival of archaeological deposits. Archaeological organic artefacts can be preserved in
damp peat, which in the study area is generally dessicated and eroded as a result of
long term agricultural practises, but may have remains in these wetter areas at depth as
evidence by recent discoveries in quarries close by. Settlement ddeposits are more
likely to lie on/in localised sand and gravel lenses and on the slightly higher land
associated with roddons and islands within the fen landscape where there was more
likelihood of past human habitation. The wet areas near are most likely to contain
deposits of an archaeological nature.
8.3.3
Work to date
An archaeological watching brief (Oxford Archaeology East, 2011) was conducted on
geotechnical site works and the results used to appraise the archaeological potential of
subsurface deposits. Based on the stratigraphy recorded the likelihood of encountering
preserved archaeology within the first 0.6m is exceedingly small. With the exception of
one test pit, the peat horizons where archaeological deposits would be well preserved,
occur below 1m of depth (1.15m being the shallowest) and averaging out at around 1.61.7m. Above this level lies a stratigraphy containing the topsoil followed by a layer(s) of
redeposited made-ground comprising sands and clayey silts. The analysis comprised 17
test pits at regular intervals along the length of the south face of the southern
embankment where the proposed works are planned. However, at the location of one
test pit at the far west of the scheme, peat was revealed at 0.5m. This is likely a shallow
peat cap but has the potential to preserve archaeological remains. The lack of a peat
horizon in other test pits is unclear, though it may be that the peat has been degraded or
may be present at a lower depth.
8.3.4
Historic Environment Records (HER)
Designated assets
The HER were searched for archaeological finds within the scheme boundaries. The
HER are listed by period and grid reference in the attached gazetteer (see Appendix K)
and their locations shown on Figure 8.1 and overlaid on the modern OS map. Morton's
Leam was used as a centre line with a 250m zone either side of it between
Peterborough and Guyhirn Bridge and two designated assets were identified.
The first is a scheduled monument (07730) - a Roman field system and trackway with
later field ditches and droveways located immediately north of Whittlesey Washes, 60m
south of Bedford House between Stanground and Whittlesey.
The second is a grade II listed building (11750) at the eastern end of the scheme. The
building was a Toll-house and is approximately dated to 1860. It is single storey and
octagonal in plan and comprises carstone walls and a hipped roof of slate with central
octagonal stack. Once the building was historically used for collecting tolls from drovers
on the banks of Morton’s Leam.
Non-designated assets
The known prehistoric records are mostly thought to be Bronze Age in date, several of
which are round barrows or ring-ditches and may have had a funerary or monumental
function. The majority of the prehistoric remains are recorded in the area between
Peterborough and Whittlesey. Prehistoric finds elsewhere along Morton's Leam are
limited to stray finds such as a Neolithic flint axe (CHER 01728a) found at Chapel Farm.
Important early prehistoric and Bronze Age finds and sites are known from the area
around Whittlesey with particular concentrations around the fen edge. Barrow mounds
have been identified at Eldernell and Suet Hill, to the south of Whittlesey. In Whittlesey
itself a possible bronze age skeleton was discovered in a gravel pit in 1944 (CHER
01482). At the Brickworks Clay Pit, to the south a number of excavations were carried
out between 1995 and 2004 which revealed evidence of settlement within this area
during the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age periods, including round houses, storage
pits and beam slot structures (CHERs 03151a, 01496, CBN14614 and MCB15862). In
addition monuments including henges, ring ditches, barrows, an urned cremation and
inhumations were also noted within the surrounding area. Ongoing excavations at Must
Farm (ECB2096, ECB2093) to the south of Morton's Leam between Peterborough and
Whittlesey are revealing an important and rich prehistoric landscape and have included
several log boats dating to different periods of prehistory, settlement and burial
evidence. To the north of Morton's Leam lies the internationally important prehistoric site
of Flag Fen.
Roman finds and monuments are almost as prolific as prehistoric with the majority again
being located in the area around Whittlesey. Elsewhere along the route Roman remains
include a cropmark complex at Elm (CHER 09425) possibly representing a series of field
systems and trackways. Whilst Earthworks (MCB17827) including Banks, ditches,
enclosures, mounds, turbarys and waterways may be the remains of a Roman harbour
at the Nene Washes to the east. A similar ancient fens waterway, Car Dyke, is an
eighty mile artificial water channel, thought to have been constructed by the Romans
from the first century AD. The Dyke runs along the western edge of the fens and many
stretches are protected as a scheduled ancient monument. Several reasons have been
postulated as to why the Romans constructed Car Dyke. It may have been a way of
providing drainage or a defensible boundary, or a canal to transport goods.
A site walkover was undertaken on 5th February 2013 by archaeologists from
Environment Agency and from Royal HaskoningDHV. A series of raised ridges and
impressions were observed in a field at Guyhirn comprising linear features and
trackways maintained in to the modern period where they are being use for pasture.
The remains of a bridge (undated, but modern) were also observed on the banks of the
counter-drain at the southern boundary of the field. The records state that the
earthworks are potentially droveways with integral enclosures (possibly paddocks) lying
in the curve of a roddon- the continuation of which can be seen on the other side of the
Washes.
The gravel island on which Whittlesey is built formed a secure crossing point for a 2nd
century Roman road, known as The Fen Causeway, that crossed the fenland between
Peterborough and Denver, Norfolk (CHER No. 11048/9 and MCB15033). The
significance of the road is undisputed and has been much discussed but seldom
investigated. While information about its construction is reasonably well known,
evidence of roadside activities is less well understood. Settlements along the southern
edge of the fen have been investigated to some extent, where internal roads that may
have linked up to the major fen route were in evidence. Consideration of how frequently
the road was a focus of roadside activities, at least on the former island crests, is a high
priority on the regional research agenda. The projected course of the Fen Causeway,
from Peterborough to Grandford, near March crosses close to Morton's Leam at its
western end. It enters the island of Whittlesey from Flag Fen and Northey, where
portions of gravel road have been recorded (Hall, 1987). Excavations at Stonald Field in
Whittlesey, have confirmed the route of the Roman road in the eastern portion of the
parish (Knight, 2000). A short 200m length of the causeway has also been identified in
the parish through aerial photography. Excavations at the brickworks revealed
extensive field systems and possible settlement structures dating from the Roman
period (CHERs 029141, 09962 and MCB15855). Roman occupation debris has also
been recorded, east of Whittlesey.
A Saxon cemetery was discovered in the 19th century in the north west part of
Whittlesey and contained seven east to west aligned inhumations with associated grave
goods (CHER 10594). In the northern part of the town further Anglo Saxon remains
were discovered ahead of the building of a new housing estate, these consisted of a
number of ring ditches, nine sunken featured buildings representing a small settlement
and a square enclosure (CHER No. 04281).
The majority of the medieval records (CHER 07827, MCB4673, MCB17919, CHER
03827, MCB4673) relate to Morton's Leam. Morton's Leam is an artificial course of the
River Nene, first dug in the medieval period (1478-90) under the direction of Bishop
Morton of Ely from Back River to Wisbech. It was largely replaced in the first half of the
17th century and the bank on the south side of Morton's Leam is thought to date to this
period.
Evidence for Medieval occupation in Whittlesey itself comes from sites producing an
abundance of finds. Archaeological evaluation of a school site in the town discovered a
series of medieval furrows representing a field system (Fletcher 2004, Bailey and
Macaulay 2005, MCB17606).
In summary, Morton’s Leam is a significant medieval and post-medieval landscape
feature and the field pattern hanging off it are a significant medieval designed landscape
the character of which survives in good condition in some areas. Current knowledge
suggests that the west end of Morton's Leam (between Peterborough and Whittlesey
passes through a highly sensitive archaeological landscape, particularly for the
prehistoric period, although there are also cropmarks of probable Roman date that lie
both within and just outside the search area. The Roman Fen Causeway to the south of
Morton's Leam certainly attracted settlement along its route.
The eastern end of the route, although less densely populated in terms of known
archaeological remains, is the location for significant Roman remains (possible Roman
harbour and related features). The remainder of the route is more sparsely populated,
but this may be more a result of the limited development and investigation that has
taken place here rather than a true reflection of its archaeological potential.
Key:
Evaluation of Guyhirn Bridge
Earthwork Survey
of Morton's Leam
MCB17827
Morton's Leam
ECB2065
old course MCB17919
MCB16889
^
_
^
_
12246
^
_
¯
^
_
51654
51655
02971
50404
_
^^
_
_
_
^
_^
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
^
_
_
^
_
^
_
_^
^
_
^
_
^
Historic Environment Records
search area
_
^
_
^
_
^
^ _
_
^_
^
_
^
^ _
_
^
^
_
MCB16890
^
_ _
^
^
_
MCB15862
02941
03496
CB14614
CB14615
CB15033
Title:
Historic Environment Records of
02292
Study Area
Project:
^
_
Client:
Environment Agency
Anglian Region
^
_
^
_
MCB15855
51652
52283
09806
52301
Must Farm
02813
AP assessment
excavation
MCB16889
MCB15856
MCB15859
CB15190
(
!
Listed Building
Monument (line)
Listed Building 480901
Toll House
CB15225
CB15221
Stonald Field
evaluation
10161
Scheduled Monument
(
Monument (area)
Morton's Leam
03827
CB14606
08195
Bradley Fen
excavations
Monument (point)
s e wa y
Fen C au 3
03
5
1
B
C
King's Dyke
excavations
51650
51649
^
_
07729
03827
52302
51653
51261
03708
01728a
^
__
^
07730
Scheduled
Monument
51651
10647
03820
02292
^
_
_
^
(
!
^
_
^
_
_
^
09425
^
_
MCB16744
MCB16617
^
_
Morton's Leam
modern course 03827
Morton's Leam
03827
Archaeological Study
CB15217
11750
Date:
MCB16748
MCB17514
11047
CB15033
(Fen Causeway)
April 2013
Figure:
8.1
Scale @ A4:
1:60,000
Path: I:\9W3627\Technical_Data\T5_GIS\Projects\Figures\Environmental Statement\Fig 8_1 Historic Environment Records.mxd
¯
8.4
8.4.1
Pre-application mitigation
A series of design criteria were considered during the project design process in order to
minimise the potential effects to heritage assets. These design criteria sought to avoid
direct impacts upon heritage assets and their setting. In addition, the layout of the
proposed access routes and temporary construction areas have been developed to
avoid impacts to known non-designated heritage assets where possible.
The avoidance of significant archaeological remains (including the scheduled monument
and listed building) has also been informed by a programme of archaeological fieldwork
comprising a walkover survey and a watching brief during geotechnical survey works,
the results of which have informed the proposed development design.
8.4.2
Post-application mitigation
Potential direct impacts to non-designated archaeological deposits have been identified
in the area of access roads- notably at Guyhirn and the crossing of the Fen Causeway
near St Peter’s Farm; and during the re-shaping of the SBB. The construction of these
components of the proposed development has the potential to impact buried remains
relating to prehistoric and Roman settlement features.
An archaeological mitigation strategy is proposed below, which sets out the
methodology for conserving the archaeological resource. The mitigation strategy will be
developed in consultation with the Environment Agency archaeologist and any
subsequent detailed written schemes of investigation will be agreed with PCC
archaeologist as the local planning authority in consultation with CCC and EH where
necessary.
8.4.3
Direct impacts on buried archaeology
Access Routes
The proposed access routes to the SBB will run through the arable land located to the
south of the site and could potentially truncate unknown shallow archaeological
deposits. Access for the works will be via five new proposed access routes, cutting
across arable land to the south of the SBB (as shown on Figure 3.2), with an existing
track through Hanson’s Brick Pits also being used. The location of the access routes for
Year 2-4 works has yet to be formally agreed/confirmed with the appropriate landowner.
Each of these new temporary access tracks will be between 500 and 1500m in length
and will fit within a 10m width. These routes will not all be in use, but will be staged
according to the location of the works. A haul road will be constructed parallel to the
SBB which will allow access to the whole site. The construction of the access routes will
require the widening of some existing trackways as well as areas of topsoil strip and a
laydown area to deposit soil prior to reinstatement. The impact of access routes would
be created through the topsoil strip and compaction from site vehicles and topsoil
storage. However, a substantial amount of the access is planned along the existing
banks and so no archaeological works are proposed in these areas.
The sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low to medium. One access route is
proposed to run across the Fen Causeway at the location of a pre-existing farm track
which would require widening to the above specifications. Due to the permanent nature
of the impact the magnitude is considered to be large. Without mitigation, the impact is
anticipated to be major/moderate adverse.
Mitigation
 All works will be subject to a specification of archaeological works in consultation
with the Environment Agency archaeologist and agreed with the PCC archaeologist
as the local planning authority in consultation with CCC.
Management
 Avoidance of areas identified as archaeologically sensitive e.g. Guyhirn, where
possible.
 Where appropriate a watching brief will be conducted during topsoil strip to identify
and record any significant archaeological deposits disturbed as a result of the works.
Residual impact
Pre-construction mitigation comprising a watching brief following an agreed programme
of archaeological works during topsoil strip is proposed to identify the potential for
subsurface archaeological deposits. Following mitigation the impact will be
negligible/minor adverse.
South Barrier Bank
There is a potential to impact buried archaeological deposits on the SBB in the area
near Stanground. An archaeological watching brief and appraisal (Oxford Archaeology
East 2011) of geotechnical boreholes revealed that this area comprised shallow peat
deposits which have the potential to preserve archaeological remains. These peat layers
lie at a sufficiently shallow depth that they would be truncated by the proposed reshaping of the flood bank. The sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low to
medium and due to the permanent nature of the impact the magnitude is considered to
be large. Without mitigation, the impact is anticipated to be major/moderate adverse.
Mitigation
 Pre-construction field surveys comprising trial trenching and a watching brief on
geotechnical works will be conducted to help identify the existence of areas of
archaeological potential which can be used to aid in the project design and avoid
where possible; and
 All works will be subject to a specification of archaeological works in consultation
with the Environment Agency archaeologist and agreed with the PCC archaeologist
as the local planning authority in consultation with CCC.
Residual impact
Pre-construction mitigation comprising a watching brief following an agreed programme
of archaeological works during topsoil strip is proposed to identify the potential for
subsurface archaeological deposits. Following mitigation the impact will be
negligible/minor adverse.
8.4.4
Impacts on the setting of designated assets
There are two designated assets within the scheme boundary- a scheduled monument
comprising a Roman field system (07730); and one listed building identified within the
scheme boundary, a post-medieval toll house (11750) at Ring’s End on the eastern end
of the proposed works. There will be temporary visual and noise impacts from the
movement of lorries along access routes. A key element of the setting of these assets is
the quiet of the surrounding area and therefore noise from the construction works and
vehicles will detract from that setting. The assets are of high sensitivity, though as the
disruption will be short term and temporary, the magnitude is considered to be small.
The impact is anticipated to be moderate/minor adverse.
Residual impact
No mitigation is proposed due to the temporary nature of the impact, so a temporary
moderate/minor adverse impact will remain as it is not possible to reduce the potential
disturbance.
8.5
8.5.1
Direct impacts on buried archaeology
Any direct impacts to buried archaeological deposits will occur during the construction
phase. No direct impacts are anticipated during the operation of the scheme.
8.5.2
Setting impacts
Land character within the area will not be significantly altered as a result of the proposed
works and there will be a negligible operational impact on the setting of the scheduled
monument and the listed toll house at Ring’s End. Addressing the failure of the SBB
and ensuring its effectiveness during extreme flood events results in a major beneficial
impact for building.
No mitigation is required during the operational stage.
8.6
Impact Summary
Table 8.2 below outlines the impacts to the historic environment which are considered to
be above negligible, before and after mitigation during both the construction and
operation phases for all years of construction.
Table 8.2 Summary of historic environment impacts
Description of
Impact before
Impact
Mitigation
Monitoring
Construction
Direct impact to
archaeological
deposits from
access routes
Major/moderate
adverse


Setting impacts
on designated
assets
Moderate/Minor
adverse

A programme of archaeological works
comprising of a targeted watching brief
will be conducted during topsoil strip to
identify and record any archaeological
deposits; and
All works will be subject to a Written
Scheme of Investigation agreed with the
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough council
archaeologists.
No mitigation proposed due to the
temporary nature of impact.
Residual
Impact
Negligible/Minor
adverse
Moderate/Minor
adverse
Description of
Impact
Operation
Impact before
Mitigation
Monitoring
Residual
Impact
Operational
setting impacts
Major beneficial

Major beneficial
None applicable
9
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT
9.1
This chapter of the ES assesses the potential impacts of the scheme on traffic and
transport within the area where works are proposed during both its construction and post
construction phases for the entire three or four year construction period.
The assessment focuses on the main construction access routes (see Figure 3.1),
therefore the EIA criteria relates to whether the mitigation works required to facilitate
access have a detrimental impact on the identified receptors.
The potential impacts of construction related traffic associated with the construction of
the scheme over the three or four construction period have been assessed using the
qualitative significance criteria presented in Table 9.1 below.
Table 9.1-Sensitivity criteria for traffic and transport
Sensitivity
Description
High
beneficial
Low
beneficial
Negligible
Low
adverse
High
adverse
The scheme will not impact on congestion on the local highway network.
The scheme will not impact on sustainable access to the site and surrounding areas.
The scheme will not impact on congestion on the local highway network.
No change to existing travel patterns or highway congestion will arise from the scheme
The scheme will provide some measures which discourage sustainable access to the
site and surrounding areas and/or will slightly detrimentally impact on conditions on the
local highway network.
The scheme will greatly discourage sustainable access to the site and surrounding
areas and/or will have major detrimental impacts on conditions on the local highway
network and cause substantial traffic congestion.
The methodology used to identify the baseline conditions within the scheme is detailed
within Chapter 4 Methodology.
9.2
Details of the construction equipment, routes, working locations and timeframes are
provided within Chapter 3 Preferred Option.
9.2.1
Local road network
The scheme is adjacent to Whittlesey a small country town which connects to the A1139
in Peterborough to the east and the A141 and the A47 leading to Wisbech to the north
west, via the A605. The B1040 runs to the south and through Whittlesey connecting it to
Thorney in the north and Ramsey in the south (see Figure 9.1). These roads already
receive large numbers of lorry movements due to the location of the quarries and other
businesses such as Hanson’s Brick Pits and the McCain’s factory. The A605 and part of
the A47 are classed as Strategic Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) routes by CCCl (as
shown on Figure 9.1).
Local roads which are currently used by local businesses and residents include Eldernell
Lane, Funtham’s Lane, Drybread Road and Long Drove (see Figure 9.1). The majority
of these roads lead to residential areas and have an imposed 30mph speed limit.
Eldernell Lane also has a 30mph speed limit but is a narrow single lane road with space
for only one car for the majority of its length. There are car passing points along this
road. Funtham’s Lane leads to the Hanson’s Brick Pits and is currently used by heavy
goods vehicles (HGVs) and site vehicles. This lane also provides access for a number of
other businesses including the McCain’s factory.
Key:
¯
Works Area
Local Road
Main Road
CC Strategic HCV Route
A47
A47
A47
A47
A141
B1040
A1139
A605
Long Drove
Drybread Road
A1139
A605
Title:
Local Road Network
Project:
A605
A141
A605
Client:
Environment Agency
Anglian Region
Date:
April 2013
Figure:
9.1
0
0.5
1
2
3
4
5 Kilometers
Scale @ A4:
1:100,000
Path: I:\9W3627\Technical_Data\T5_GIS\Projects\Figures\Environmental Statement\Fig 9_1 Local Road Network.mxd
Hanson's
Existing
Access
Edernell
Lane
9.2.2
Other forms of transport
Route 31 of the Stagecoach bus network connects Peterborough to Ramsey via
Whittlesey. It runs eight times each day with no service on a Sunday or bank holiday.
Route 33 also runs from Peterborough via Whittlesey and goes to March. It is a regular
service, running to Whittlesey every hour with a reduced service on Sundays. Route 701
run by Judds Coaches runs on an hourly basis from Coates to Peterborough via
Whittlesey.
There are a number of PRoW’s and cycle paths that serve the Whittlesey area. The
locations of these routes and the potential impacts on these receptors are provided in
Chapter 5 Human Beings.
9.3
9.3.1
Disruption to local road network from construction traffic
There is the potential that the traffic movements associated with the supply of materials
and the general construction works of the proposed scheme could cause a disruption to
users of the local road network. Through the development of the proposed scheme, it is
envisaged that there will be approximately 200 lorry movements each day of
construction in order to supply the material needed for the proposed scheme. This
represents a total of 28,000 lorry movements each year of construction based on a four
month construction period each year with a six day working week (with the potential for
this to be reduced in the final months of Year 3 and Year 4 as the works are likely to be
nearly completed). It is estimated that there will be approximately 70 lorry movements
per access route which equates to a lorry on each access road every ten minutes.
In addition, it is estimated that there will be approximately 50 movements every day for
staff travelling to site and also for travel between the area of works (the SBB) and the
site compound.
Access to the site will be via a number of existing public and private roads (see Figure
3.1). The routes from the quarries (i.e. the source of materials) to the site will primarily
be via the A47, A605 and the B1040. In order to access the SBB, access routes on to
the site and specific working areas will be created using existing roads and newly
constructed ones. Due to the staging of the works over three or four years, lorries will
not being using all of the proposed access routes (see Figure 3.1) at any one time.
The proposed access routes to the site have been selected to minimise disruption to
local residents. Furthermore, daily access for residents within these areas will be
maintained throughout the works. The potential impacts from the construction traffic are
therefore associated with the wider movement of lorries from the quarries to the site.
In order to reduce the carbon footprint of the scheme, local sources of material will be
used and quarries within a 20 mile radius of Whittlesey will be used. There is already a
high number of lorry movements from the quarries which will be used for the sourcing of
the required material. This lorry movement meets a specific quota set on the company. It
is proposed that this quota will be ‘transferred’ to the scheme. Therefore the lorry
movements required for the transfer of materials to site will not represent a significant
change from the current conditions. However, the increase in vehicles on the local roads
and the need to turn into the smaller access routes could cause delays to local road
users and also poses a health and safety issue. Right turns will be required to access
the smaller routes on to the SBB and these are likely to result in traffic backing up.
The sensitivity of the local road network is considered to be medium due to the local
importance of the road network. Whilst the impact is temporary it will exist for the
duration of the works (approximately four months of each year of construction), although
there will not be any transportation of materials outside of the July to November working
window. Best practice measures such as road cleaning will be put in place to ensure
that the conditions of the roads are not affected during the construction phase of the
scheme. However, as the existing road network is of local usage and the movement of
material does not represent a significant change to the existing conditions the magnitude
of the impact is considered to be medium. As a result a moderate adverse impact is
anticipated.
Mitigation
 Liaise with CCC’s Highways team regarding the proposed lorry movements.
 Implementation of traffic control measures (e.g. traffic lights or reduction in
speed limit along haulage routes).
 Produce a Traffic Management Plan which details the proposed lorry
movements to site each day and the management of this activity on the B1040,
A47 and A605 for each year of construction. Consult with (at least 1 month in
advance of works starting) landowners, adjacent businesses and residents along
the 4 proposed access routes so that they are fully aware of the proposed works
to the routes, the duration of the works and the impact that lorry movements will
have. The plan will seek to avoid heavy use of existing minor roads by using
separate haul roads if possible or less used roads.
Management
 Assign banksmen in combination with access warning signs to ensure safe
access and egress of construction vehicles from all proposed entrances and
exits.
 Notices to be placed along the main transport routes informing local residents of
the proposed works.
Residual impact
Whilst implementation of the mitigation measures will help to manage the impacts on the
local road network, it is not considered significant enough to fully reduce the impact and
therefore a minor adverse residual impact on the local transport network will be anticipated.
9.4
9.4.1
Permanent disturbance to local road network
Once the scheme is complete, it is considered that there will be no discernible changes
to the traffic flows compared to baseline conditions. As a result operational impacts on
traffic will be negligible.
9.5
Impact Summary
Table 9.2 below outlines the identified traffic and transport impacts (those above
negligible) before and after mitigation during construction for all three or four years of the
construction programme.
Table 9.2 Summary of traffic and transport impacts
Description of Impact before Key
Mitigation,
Impact
Mitigation
Monitoring
Management
and
Residual
Impact
Construction
Disturbance to
local road
network from
construction
traffic
Moderate
adverse





Liaise with Cambridgeshire County
Council’s Highways team regarding
the proposed lorry movements.
Implementation of traffic control
measures (e.g. traffic lights or
reduction in speed limit along haulage
routes).
Produce a Traffic Management Plan
which details the proposed lorry
movements to site each day and the
management of this activity on the
B1040, A47 and A605 for each year
of construction. Consult with (at least
1 month in advance of works starting)
landowners, adjacent businesses and
residents along the 4 proposed
access routes so that they are fully
aware of the proposed works to the
routes, the duration of the works and
the impact that lorry movements will
have. The plan will seek to avoid
heavy use of existing minor roads by
using separate haul roads if possible
or less used roads.
Assign banksmen in combination with
access warning signs to ensure safe
access and egress of construction
vehicles from all proposed entrances
and exits.
Notices to be placed along the main
transport routes informing local
residents of the proposed works.
Minor adverse
10
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
This section details the potential interactions and in-combination effects which could
arise from this scheme with other projects in the area, and also between the different
elements of the scheme on the receptors which have been identified in Chapter 5 - 9 of
this ES.
Maintenance activities are proposed for the wider Nene Wash area in order to maintain
the condition of the River Nene and Morton’s Leam watercourses. These annual
activities include desilting, vegetation clearance and localised bank repairs. These works
have been designed and programmed to minimise impacts to the Nene Washes
designated site and its interest features, including the breeding and overwintering bird
species. Therefore cumulative effects on flora and fauna receptors are unlikely to arise
as a result of these maintenance activities and the works to the SBB. Given the localised
nature of the maintenance works, no other receptors are likely to be affected by
cumulative effects from the two schemes.
A search of planning applications from Peterborough City Council and Fenland District
Council websites has not identified any other significant developments in the vicinity of
the SBB that have been granted consent.
There is the potential for the scheme to have cumulative effects on local residents who
use the road network for travel and also the SBB for recreation. Disruption to recreation
will be limited to the area of works and is therefore unlikely to cause a cumulative effect
on local residents each year of the three or four year of construction. For any given year
there is the potential that both transport and recreation will be disturbed for
approximately four months (July to October). However, it is considered that these two
impacts are also exclusive of each other, in that a person using the SBB for recreation
purposes will not be using the local road network at the same time. Therefore the
impact as a result of these impacts remains at minor adverse.
No further significant cumulative effects are anticipated during the construction of the
SBB. During its operation, regular management and maintenance activities will be
undertaken similar to those which are already undertaken and therefore no operational
cumulative effects are predicted.
11
CONCLUSION
Whilst leading to some temporary negative impacts during construction the scheme will
provide benefits in the medium to long term. The proposed works will maintain the
condition of the SBB providing flood protection to Whittlesey, Stanground and other
small settlements to the south of the bank. The key significant impacts predicted through
the EIA, and presented in the ES (Chapters 5 to 9), are set out below.
During construction, impacts (upon implementation of mitigation measures) are
expected to be:
 Temporary disturbance to land use in the surrounding arable land from access





routes during all years of construction;
Temporary disturbance to recreation during all years of construction;
Temporary disturbance to residents in proximity to the area of works and the
access routes through a combination of increased noise levels and the visual
impacts of the works;
Potential impacts on buried archaeology during Year 2 works; and
Temporary impacts to the setting of a scheduled monument and listed building
during Year 1 works; and
Temporary disruption to local road network during all years of construction.
During operation, the scheme is expected to have the following impacts:
 Improvements for reptile species from the creation of hibernacula on surrounding
land;
 Improvements for great crested newts from the creation of hibernacula in the
Hanson’s Brick Pits site; and
 Improvements to the biodiversity in the Counter Drain as a result of enhancement
measures.
Measures which have been identified through the EIA process, and which will be
delivered as mitigation for the impacts above include:
 Timely and effective on-going information to the local residents and users of the
area, ahead, during and post construction works.
 Pre-construction condition surveys of local houses to provide a baseline;
 The contractor will work with tenants and owners to ensure their continued access






during the works;
Liaison with Cambridgeshire County Councils Highways team regarding the
proposed lorry movements;
Production of a Traffic Management Plan in order to manage impacts to the local
road network;
Best practice ecological guidance will be adhered to in relation to animal species
protected by legislation, including the avoidance of site clearance works during the
bird breeding season (March to August inclusive);
Presentation of a toolbox talk on the key environmental issues including information
on protected species to construction staff;
A suitably qualified ecologist to undertake a day time inspection of the railway
bridge prior to works commencing;
A watching brief will be conducted during topsoil strip along the Fen Causeway to
identify and record any archaeological deposits;
 Pre-construction field surveys comprising trial trenching and a watching brief on
geotechnical works will be conducted near Stanground to help identify the existence
of areas of archaeological potential which can be used to aid in the project design;
and
 Production of a Written Scheme of Investigation in consultation with the
Environment Agency archaeologist and agreed with the archaeological advisors
from Cambridgeshire County Council and from Peterborough Council.
Once mitigation measures have been implemented, the scheme is expected to result in
temporary construction impacts of negligible to minor adverse significance. The only
exception is the temporary impacts on designated assets (a scheduled monument and
listed building). These impacts arise from noise and visual impacts and are only related
to the construction phase of the works. However, mitigation measures are not possible
and therefore a moderate/minor adverse significance remains. Once the works are
complete the impact on these assets will be removed.
There are also enhancement measures proposed for the Counter Drain to improve its
ecological and visual value. These enhancement measures include reprofiling of the
Counter Drain to create shallow areas along its edge and the creation of a bank for
kingfishers. An area of fenland in the western section of the works, near the Hanson’s
Brick Pits, is also proposed. These enhancement measures will be developed through
consultation with Natural England and RSPB. In addition, interpretation boards will be
erected at key access sites on to the SBB, informing users of the area of the ecological,
historical and landscape features in the area as well as the importance of the SBB.
Overall, the scheme will provide flood protection to the community and assets of
Whittlesey and Peterborough, which will be felt across a much wider area. The scheme
has been designed to minimise or avoid adverse impacts, such that the benefits
considerably outweigh the adverse aspects of the scheme. Over and above the
provision of flood protection, there will be local enhancements to the biodiversity value
and landscape of the area.
12
REFERENCES
Atkins (2010) Whittlesey Washes Probable Maximum Flood Stage 1 Reservoir Strategy
A History of the County of Huntingdon (1936) Volume 3: 'The Middle Level of the Fens
and its reclamation', pp. 249-290. URL: http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66187&strquery=leam Date accessed: 26
February 2013
Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) (2012) Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines
Bailey.G and Macaulay.S (2005) Medieval Field Systems at Sir Harry Smith Community
College, Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire
Cambridgeshire County Council (1991). Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines
Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy
Framework
Department for Culture Media and Sport (2010) Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning
for the Historic Environment
English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the
Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment
English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines
Environment Agency (2009) Anglian River Basin Management Plan
Environment Agency (2010) Assessing New Modifications: NEAS Guidance
Fletcher. T (2004) Medieval features at Manor View, Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire: An
Archaeological Evaluation. Fulbourn: CAM ARC, AFU Report No. 718
Halcrow (2007) Whittlesey Washes Flood Study
Hall.D (1987) The Fenland Project No. 2: Cambridgeshire Survey, Peterborough to
March. East Anglian Archaeology No. 35
Institution of Civil Engineers (1996) Floods and Reservoir Safety 3rd Edition
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological
Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom
Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological
Assessment
Knight. M (2000) Whittlesey Pits - The Bradley Fen Site. An archaeological evaluation.
Phase I. Unpublished Report
Natural England (2007) European Protected Species Guidance Note
Oxford Archaeology East (2011) Archaeological monitoring and recording of
geotechnical test pits in Whittlesey Washes
Peterborough City Council (2007) Peterborough Landscape Character Assessment
Smith, D.M. et al. (2010) Holocene drainage systems of the English Fenland: roddons
and their environmental significance. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association
121,256-269
13
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Glossary
A
Acidification
The term is used to describe the loss of nutrient bases (calcium,
magnesium and potassium) through the process of leaching and their
replacement by acidic elements (hydrogen and aluminium).
Anthropogenic
Are causes or effects produced by human activity.
Aquifer
A body of permeable material (e.g. rock, gravel or sand) containing
significant amounts of groundwater.
Arisings
Waste generated within a defined locality over a given period of time.
B
Baseline Studies or
Survey
Collection of information about the environment which is likely to be
affected by the project.
Berm
A level space, shelf, or raised barrier separating two areas and can
also be used to control erosion and sedimentation by reducing the rate
of surface run-off.
Biodiversity Action
Plan (BAP)
Strategies to conserve, protect and enhance biodiversity. The UKBAP
sets out a national strategy for the conservation of biodiversity, and
local BAPS (LBAPS) have also been produced to address biodiversity
issues specific to particular areas in the UK.
Buffer strip
An area of land maintained in permanent vegetation that helps to
control air, soil and water quality.
Bypass Channels
A channel built to divert water from a primary channel (main river).
C
Catchment Flood
Management Plan
These documents give an overview of the flood risk across each river
catchment. They recommend ways of managing those risks now and
over the next 50-100 years.
Conservation Area
A tract of land that has been awarded protected status because of its
special architectural or historic interest, "the character or appearance
of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance," as required by the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (Section
69 and 70).
Culvert
A device used to channel water, typically beneath a road, railway or
embankment.
D
Dredging
Process of gathering bottom sediments and disposing them at different
locations. Usually done partly underwater, in shallow seas or in
freshwater areas.
E
Environmental
Action Plan (EAP)
A subsection of the ES / ER which defines the environmental activities,
targets and objectives that are required to be followed through
subsequent stages of the design and implementation. This may also
be used as a stand-alone document during implementation stages.
Environmental
Impact
Assessment (EIA)
EIA applied at the project level is a process intended to ensure that
environmental impacts of schemes are identified prior to the work
being carried out so that proposals can be modified or managed in
Glossary
such a way that adverse impacts are avoided or minimised and the
positive impacts maximised. The extent of the likely significance of
environmental impacts is assessed, as far as it can be determined
from an early stage, using three categories of significance (1) major,
(2) moderate and (3) minor.
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
Regulations
This is used in the Guidance to refer to the Regulations by which EIA
has been adopted in the UK. For Agency projects this is principally the
Environmental Impact Assessment (Land Drainage Improvement)
Regulations SI 1999/1783 and the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations SI 1999/293.
Environmental
Statement (ES)
The document produced to assess and describe the environmental
impacts of a project subject to EIA under the EIA Regulations (q.v.).
The ES is a consultation document and sets out mitigation and
enhancement measures for the project.
F
Fauna
Animal life.
Flora
Plant life.
Fluvial
The processes associated with rivers and streams and the deposits
and landforms created by them.
Flood Storage
Reservoir (FSR)
Area where water is temporarily stored within the river channel.
G
Geomorphology
Pertaining to landforms, their structure, origin and development.
Geotechnical
The application of the science of soil mechanics, rock mechanics,
engineering geology and other related disciplines to engineering and
environmental projects.
Groundwater
Water occurring below ground, occupying openings, cavities and
spaces in rocks.
Groundwater
Source Protection
Zones
Mapped zones around groundwater sources (wells, boreholes, and
springs used for public drinking water supplies) which show the risk of
contamination from any activities that might cause pollution in the area.
The closer the activity, the greater the risk. The maps show three main
zones (inner, outer and total catchment) and a fourth zone of special
interest, which we occasionally apply, to a groundwater source.
H
Holt
Resting or breeding site of an otter, usually located underground in the
roots of bankside trees, piles of logs, caves in rock falls or drains.
Hydraulic
The analysis of water movement, for example calculating flood water
levels.
Hydrogeology
The science of water within the ground.
Hydrology
The calculation of flow rate and volume within the catchment.
I
Impoundment
Process by which water is held back by a structure or barrier. Flow is
held up or prevented.
Indirect effects
Effects on the environment, which are nor a direct result of the
Glossary
development but are often produced away from it or as a result of a
complex pathway. Sometimes referred to as secondary impacts.
Invasive species
Non-native plants or animals that adversely affect the habitats or
bioregions they invade.
L
Landscape
character
Means the distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occur
consistently in a particular type of landscape, and how these are
perceived by people. It reflects particular combinations of geology,
landform, soils, vegetation, land use and human settlement. It creates
the particular sense of place of different areas of the landscape.
Landscape
character type
A landscape type will have broadly similar patterns of geology,
landform, soils, vegetation, land use, settlement and field pattern
discernible in maps and field survey records.
Local Development
Framework (LDF)
This is the spatial planning strategy introduced in England
by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
replaces the previous system of county level Structure
district level Local Plans, and Unitary Development Plans
authorities.
and Wales
The LDF
Plans and
for Unitary
M
Macrophyte
An aquatic plant that grows in or near water and is either emergent,
submergent, or floating.
Made ground
Solid ground made from artificial sources such as brick, rubble,
concrete or aggregates.
Magnitude
A combination of the scale, extent and duration of an effect.
Mitigation
Steps that may be taken to minimise, eliminate or compensate the
adverse effects of a development.
N
National Planning
Policy Framework
Contains all UK government planning policy and guidance to be
considered during all planning applications.
O
Overtopping
To extend or rise over or beyond the top of.
P
Penstocks
A sluice or gate that controls the water flow, or an enclosed pipe that
delivers water to hydraulic turbines and sewerage systems.
Piling
A type of foundation that is driven into the ground.
Planning Policy
Statements
Are UK government statements of national policy and principles
towards certain aspects of the town planning framework.
R
Receptor
Physical landscape resource, special interest or viewer group that will
experience an effect.
Residual impact
The level of significance assigned to an impact following the
successful implementation of the stated mitigation measures, good
construction or operational practice, is referred to as the residual
impact.
Glossary
Riparian vegetation
Relating to or situated on the bank of a river or stream.
River Basin
Management Plan
(RBMP)
RBMPS are a requirement of the Water Framework Directive and a
means of achieving the protection, improvement and sustainable use
of the water environment across Europe.
S
Scoping
The process of explaining the nature and likely impacts of a project,
identifying stakeholders and defining how the EIA process will be
carried out.
Screening
The process of deciding which developments require an EIA to be
carried out and at what level of detail.
Sedimentation
The act or process of depositing or forming a sediment.
Sluice
A water channel controlled at its head by a gate.
Strategic
Environmental
Assessment (SEA)
EIA applied at the programme, plan or policy level (i.e. earlier in the
decision making process than project level EIA).
Strategic Flood
Risk Assessment
(SFRA)
The SFRA process is essentially an assessment of flood risk issues at
a strategic scale undertaken to inform the spatial planning process at a
local scale and forms part of the LDF evidence base.
T
Topography
The topography of an area means the surface shape and features.
Topsoil
Is the fertile upper layer of soil, usually 2 to 8 inches in depth.
Tributary
A stream or river which feeds into a larger one.
V
Visual amenity
The value of a particular area or view in terms of what is seen.
Visual effect
Change in the appearance of the landscape as a result of
development. This can be positive (i.e. beneficial or an improvement)
or negative (i.e. adverse or a detraction).
Abbreviation
A
AOD
Above Ordnance Datum
B
BAP
Biodiversity Action Plan
BCNP WT
Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Peterborough Wildlife Trust
BCT
Bat Conservation Trust
C
CCC
Cambridgeshire County Council
CDM
Construction Design and Management
CFMP
Catchment Flood Management Plan
CIEEM
Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
CPERC
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Environmental Records Centre
CRoW
Countryside Rights of Way
CWS
County Wildlife Site
D
DCLG
Department for Communities and Local Government
Defra
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
E
EAP
Environmental Action Plan
EcIA
Ecological Impact Assessment
EEC
European Economic Community
EH
English Heritage
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
ES
EU
European Union
F
FDC
Fenland District Council
FSR
Flood Storage Reservoir
H
Ha
Hectare
HER
Historic Environment Record
HGV
Heavy Goods Vehicle
Abbreviation
HRA
Habitats Regulations Assessment
I
ICE
Institute of Civil Engineers
IDB
Internal Drainage Board
IEEM
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
IEMA
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
J
JNCC
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
L
LBAP
Local Biodiversity Action Plan
LCA
Landscape Character Assessment
LNR
Local Nature Reserve
LVA
Landscape and Visual Appraisal
M
MAGIC
Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside
MIOS
Matters in the Interest Of Safety
MLC
Middle Level Commissioners
N
NE
Natural England
NEAS
National Environmental Assessment Service
NERC
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act
NFU
National Farmers’ Union
NGR
National Grid Reference
NLDIDB
North Level District Internal Drainage Board
NNR
National Nature Reserves
NPPF
NTS
Non-Technical Summary
NVC
National Vegetation Classification
O
OS
Ordnance Survey
P
PCC
Peterborough City Council
PMoW
Precautionary Method of Working
Abbreviation
PPG
Planning Policy Guidance
PPG
Pollution Prevention Guidelines
PPS
Planning Policy Statement
PRoW
Public Right of Way
R
RBMP
River Basin Management Plan
RFCC
Regional Flood and Coastal Committee
RSPB
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
S
SAC
Special Area of Conservation
SBB
South Barrier Bank
SPA
Special Protection Area
SSSI
Site of Special Scientific Interest
W
WFD
Water Framework Directive
WSI
Written Scheme of Investigation

Environmental Statement

Transcription

Similar documents

Pantallas Acusticas Pared Verde (EN)

our Auto Dealer Reference List.

Proposed Betula jacquemontii Semi-mature 5.5

Dark Knight Caryopteris

RXE rockfall protection barriers

the HS Roads Brochure

landscape archaeology - Open Research Exeter (ORE)

Emerald Isle Leyland Cypress

Land scape maintenance combinations

Mineral Resource Technical Report Galloway Gold Project, Quebec