landscape and exchange land - · pdf file6/5/2014 · landscape and exchange land....
Post on 20-Feb-2018
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
NSC/5/3June 2014
THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK CLASSIFIEDROAD)
SIDE ROADS ORDER 2013
THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2013
THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (No 2) 2014
EXCHANGE LAND CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF SPECIAL CATEGORYLAND
SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF
NICHOLAS JOHN ROWSONBSc(Hons)Hort, BLD, CMU, MloH
On behalf ofNorth Somerset Council
I n respect of
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND
NSC/5/3June 2014
1. PERSONAL DETAILS
1.1 My name is Nicholas John Rowson. I am employed by Atkins Limited as a
Principal Landscape Architect. I have practised as a landscape architect since
1983.
1.2 I am the Environmental Coordinator and lead appraisal Landscape Architect for
the South Bristol Link (lithe Scheme") and have worked on the Scheme in this
role since April 2011.
2 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS OVERVIEW
2.1 My evidence demonstrates that in making the Orders, due account has been
taken of all landscape, exchange land and heritage considerations and that the
Scheme would meet North Somerset Council's Scheme objectives.
Site Description
2.2 The Scheme (see Appendix 1) is within two distinct character areas, passing
from the rural hinterland within North Somerset, into the suburban areas in
south BristoL. The rural section of the route, from the A370 to Highridge
Common, lies within the Green Belt. In developing the Scheme and mitigation,
consideration was given to the designated landscape characters of the area.
Landscape Character
2.3 National Character Area and County and District wide assessments were taken
as a tool for design development, establishing if the Scheme is responding to
its context and informing development of appropriate mitigation.
2.4 Character areas considered were:
a) National Character Area 118: Bristol, Avon Valleys and Ridges (Appendix 2).
b) North Somerset Landscape Character Assessment SPD (adopted December
2005) (Appendix 3).
2.5 A full description of the character of the land along the proposed routealignment and surrounding area is provided within the Landscape and Visual
Impact chapter of the Environmental Statement (CD/4/2).
2.6 The route has been divided into 5 sections, illustrated on a scheme sections
plan (Appendix 4). The character of the route through these sections changes
1
NSC/5/3June 2014
from fields on flat flood plain north of the railway; through wooded valley and
steep fields from the railway to the A38; more rolling fields between the A38
and Highridge Common and to rising common land as the route enters the
urban fringe. The route becomes more suburban as it goes south.
3 PLANNING POLICY
3.1 In respect of planning policy, Mrs Janette Shaw provides evidence on planning
policy context.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
4.1 The final alignment of the Scheme and details of the engineering design are
provided in the evidence of Mr Philip Paterson (NSC/2/1).
4.2 A number of design principles have been considered in the design evaluation,
review and development. Design development following consultation and the
involvement of environmental disciplines in the Scheme, culminated with an
Environmental Statement and application which raised no objection from
statutory environmental bodies and which was approved by the two Local
Planning Authorities (CD/2/1, CD/2/2).
5 APPRAISAL OF THE SCHEME
5.1 Full details of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment are set out in the
Environmental Statement (CD/4/1 to CD/4n).
5.2 The Scheme layout and design features are provided in the Core Documents
(CD/2/19 to CD/2/23).
5.3 Landscaping proposals are shown on the Landscape Drawings (Appendix 1).
5.4 The Scheme provides appropriate and proportionate essential mitigation for
impacts on landscape character, visual amenity and biodiversity whilst
minimising the land take necessary to achieve those aims.
5.5 A number of trees will be affected by the Scheme. These have been assessed
and are considered to be of low value.
2
NSC/5/3June 2014
Relevant Planning Conditions
5.6 The conditions to the BCC and NSC Planning Approvals are contained in
CD2/1 and CD2/2 respectively. In terms of landscape, visual and heritage
considerations, the relevant conditions are tabulated in Appendix 5.
Landscape and Visual Considerations
5.7 See Section plan (Appendix 4) for location of each section.
Section 1: A370 to Railway Line
5.8 Proposals focus on screening views of the road and highway infrastructure
from the Ashton Court Estate; reinstating field boundaries whilst retaining the
landscape character.
Section 2: Railway Line to Castle Farm and A38 (Bridgwater Road)
5.9 The Scheme mainly runs along the alignment of the landfill access road.
Engineered slopes and cut require some land take and loss of vegetation.
5.10 Proposals consist of a range of landscape and visual mitigation measures with
retained trees (Arboriculturallmpact Assessment (CD/4/3) protected.
Section 3: A38 to the edge of Highridge Common
5.11 Roundabout positioning enables remnant kilns to be retained at its centre. This
section the route is sinuous, discouraging high speeds and increasing usable
agricultural space either side.
Section 4: Highridge Common to King Georges Road
5.12 The strategy through the Common has been minimal soft land take by utilising
the existing Highridge Green where possible. The road should have minimal
visual impact in views from the larger part of the Common.
Section 5: King Georges Road and Queens Road junction to Hengrove Way
5.13 Along King Georges Road the Scheme requires removal of all 13 existing trees.
These will be replaced with 39 new trees, to form an avenue.
3
NSC/5/3June 2014
5.14 A shared footway/cycleway is proposed along the edge of the highway
boundary adjacent to the residential properties, maximising space available for
tree planting.
5.15 The proposed route through the reserved corridor requires the removal of a few
trees and ornamental species of low amenity value. Along this section a green
corridor is created using plants more familiar with an urban park. Trees and
shrubs will tend to be more ornamental and earth modelling more geometric in
form.
Conclusion
5.16 An iterative process of Landscape and visual impact assessment, supported by
consultation, has challenged and informed the design to ensure landscape
proposals are appropriate, proportionate and provide the requisite level of
impact mitigation. This has been confirmed by the lack of statutoryenvironmental body objection and by the granting of planning approval.
6 HIGHRIDGE COMMON EXCHANGE LAND
Details of Highridge Common, the commoners and their rights
6.1 The Common is registered under number B/CU3 with Bristol City CounciL. Plan
and Registration Act Record forms Appendix 6. It is approximately 8.9ha in
area and falls some 20m west to east. The higher part has views over the
southern suburbs of BristoL.
6.2 Highridge Common is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest. Mr Bowell
explains the ecological value of this land in his proof (NSC/6/1).
6.3 The road, Highridge Green, is included in the registered Common as isHighridge Road to the east of the King Georges Road junction. This represents
1.2ha of the registered Common.
Rights exercised over the Common
6.4 There are five Commoners' rights over the Common (Appendix 6). The land is
designated public access land used principally as an area of public recreation.
4
NSC/5/3June 2014
The Scheme's impact on the Common
6.5 During and following consultation in 2012, no alternative alignments were
suggested, however following consultation; a number of minor changes were
made to the alignment across the Common.
6.6 Land included in the CPO includes land required for the new highway and for
its construction. Appendix 10 shows the extent of this land.
6.7 On completion construction land, some 2,932m2, will be restored to grass. The
land will remain highway land; there being a need for unfettered access for
emergency and maintenance work.
Legal requirement for exchange land - Exchange land considerations
6.8 Land which is a part of common, to be acquired under CPO is subject to a
special parliamentary procedure unless a certificate in accordance with section
19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is provided (CD/6/2).
6.9 All registered common land has been included for the avoidance of doubt.
6.10 Registration is not conclusive in respect of the status as common land in the
case of highway however once registered i am advised that there is no scope
to deregister.
6.11 Circular 06/2004 (CDI6/5) states the requirements of suitable Exchange Land
as being:
(a) no less in area than the order; and
(b) equally advantageous to any persons entitled to rights of Common or to
other rights, and to the public
6.12 The Circular says that in determining whether the offer land meets the criteria
above the Secretary of State may have regard to the relative size and proximity
of the exchange land when compared with the land identified for compulsory
purchase.
6.13 The CPO provides for the Commoners' existing rights to apply to the exchange
land.
5
NSC/5/3June 2014
The part of the Common to be compulsorily acquired for SBL
6.14 The extent of common land required for the Scheme is as shown in Appendix
7 The area totals some 11,652m2 (plots referenced on the CPO plans
(CD1/1)).
The Council's considerations for suitable exchange land
6.15 In considering potential exchange land the Council has had regard to the
following:
a) Capable of direct connection to the existing Common and/or existing
highways or rights of way;
b) Capable of creating a comparable visual character;
c) Preferably pasture, to provide scope for creating comparable botanical
interest;
d) Not having existing general public access, whether by right or usage, other
than along public rights of way;
e) Providing sufficient area;
f) Capable of being used by the Commoners in a way which is consistent
with their rights; and
g) Capable of being used by the public in a way which is consistent with their
rights and current custom of using the land.
Quantum Of Exchange Land Required
6.16 Some 11,651 m2 of common land is required for the construction of the
Scheme. 5033m2 of designated SNCI, requires essential ecological mitigation
consideration. Preferred ecological mitigation, agreed with the relevantAuthorities is grassland translocation.
6.17 Exchange land should be not less than that lost and 'equally advantageous'.
Where this situation does not exist, if simply replaced on a 1: 1 basis, then the
ratio of exchange land to land lost can be increased to compensate.
6
NSC/5/3June 2014
6.18 Consideration must be given to the ecological attributes of the land which forms
an important component of its value. Mr Bowell will address this (NSC/6/1).
6.19 Consideration must be given to the direct loss of common land and the adverse
impact to public enjoyment and use arising from severance. The ratio of
exchange land being offered was increased to address this.
6.20 Consideration has been given to noise impact (see NSCn/1) on the enjoyment
of the Common and exchange land and of the relative narrowness of the
physical connection between the two.
6.21 Various options for exchange land were considered (Appendix 8) but many
were considered unsuitable. Two areas of potentially suitable replacement land
were identified. These are shown in Appendix 9 and on the public consultation
leaflet (CD/2/3).
6.22 At the time of the public consultation, whilst both options were considered
potentially suitable, neither had been confirmed as appropriate.
Option 1 -Area approx 23,531 m2 (2.02x area lost)
6.23 Option 1 land comprises CPO land parcels 04/08 and 04/19 to 04/22 inclusive.
6.24 The land is pasture with hedgerow and trees to field perimeters. It is flat and
contiguous with the common. Pasture is species rich un-improved grassland,
with areas of semi-improved grassland. Appendix 11 shows the area of SNCI
grassland lost. It was considered Option 1 met, or was capable of meeting, the
tests set out above.
6.25 It was recognised that benefits of passive security, maintaining the relationship
of road to common and connectivity would be offset by increased traffic noise
which would impact on the enjoyment of use of land closest to the road. In
addition, the area to be set aside for translocation of SNCI turfs (some 5046m2)
would need to be fenced and unavailable for public use whilst turfs establish.
6.26 Grassland to the south and west of plot 04/19 is suitable to translocate SNCI
grassland and, once established, offers the necessary essential mitigation and
ecological equivalence, thus justifying the additional area taken. It is sensible to
also designate the translocation area as common land.
7
NSC/5/3June 2014
6.27 In the context of the existing common land and the character, extension of the
exchange land to existing boundaries and the retention of existing boundary
hedgerows is justifiable.
Option 2 - Area approx 13,300m2 (1.14x area lost)
6.28 This area comprises pasture with hedgerows and hedgerow trees. A significant
row of trees and vegetation forms the central field boundary and to the east and
west boundaries of the area.
6.29 This option provides a narrow access from the existing Common. With only
some existing field boundaries, fence lines across the two fields would be
required to form new boundaries. The extent of this area and width of the link to
the existing Common were established following discussion with the Burnells,
who own part of the area.
6.30 For Option 2 it is recognised that noise impact is not of the same magnitude as
for Option1.
6.31 In terms of ecological equivalence, Option 2 land is less preferable for the
translocation of turfs from the SNCI; as explained by Mr Matthew Bowel!.
Public consultation
6.32 Prior to public consultation, a more detailed assessment of suitability of the two
options had not been undertaken. Formal public consultation was undertaken in
February 2013 (see CD/2/5).
6.33 A total of 77 people responded to the consultation with a clear preference for
Option 1. A number of environmental bodies' also submitted formal comment;
the majority expressing a preference for Option 1.
6.34 Option 1 land was confirmed as the preferred option for a number of reasons:
a) Opening up the land to public use will have less potentially adverse impact on
residential properties than would Option 2;
b) The land has a similar relationship between road and common land as does
the existing Common;
c) Option 2 is more remote and disconnected visually and physically from the
existing Common than is Option 1. Option 2 would have needed to be larger
8
NSC/5/3June 2014
to provide for turf translocation, but this does not overcome the remoteness of
the land from the rest of the Common, rather compounding it;
d) Option 1, in meeting the tests, provides a greater exchange area than does
Option 2. This recognises the limited degree of contiguity with the existing
Common, some adverse noise impacts on land closest to the Scheme and
that part of the area will not be immediately available for public use. Mr Adam
Lawrence addresses noise effects in his proof (NSC/9/1);
e) Option 1 has greater inherent openness than Option 2. It is flatter and has
greater equivalence in terms of the visual quality and the views out from the
common;
f) The character of Option 2 is very different. Hedgerows are mature with mature
trees. Some would of necessity be lost. It was considered that to open up
Option 2 would have significant environmental implications such that planning
approval might reasonably have been withheld.
g) Access for maintenance and management will be easier for Option 1;
h) Option 1 provides continuity and a much greater level of passive security
compared to Option 2;
i) Part of the Option 1 is suitable to take translocated turfs from the area of the
SNCI affected by the Scheme;
6.35 I do not consider that Option 2, even if enlarged in size, would meet the tests of
being equally advantageous to the public.
6.36 Appendix 12 provides a photographic record of the two options from public
rights of way and of the access points from the common;
6.37 Appendix 7 shows the extent of common land subject to CPO and the extent
of Exchange Land comprising Option 1 .
Conclusion
6.38 I consider the location and extent of Option 1 is appropriate and justified, being
equally advantageous to the public and those entitled to rights of common and
other rights.
9
NSC/5/3June 2014
7 OPEN SPACE AND EXCHANGE LAND
Open Space North of the Railway Line
7.1 Some land identified by The Ashton Vale Temple Meads scheme as open
space (Appendix 13) will be required for the Scheme.
7.2 The extent of that open space land required for the Scheme north of the railway
line is 36,534m2 and comprises CPO plots 01/15 to 01/18 inclusive.
7.3 The proposed exchange land is of a similar physical nature to that lost, could
be used for similar recreational purposes and has public access (Appendix
13).
7.4 The 38,182m2, of exchange land proposed is over 1: 1 to ensure the statutory
minimum requirement. The actual amount of land available to the public,
comprising exchange land and flood compensation land, will be some63,245m2. As such I consider the proposal meets the statutory tests.
Open Space within the Reserved Corridor
7.5 183m2 of land within the reserved corridor is not owned by BCC and thus
potentially open space to be acquired under the scheme (Appendix 14). This is
below the 209m2 threshold set under Section 19(1 )(b). I consider the proposal
meets the statutory tests.
Conclusion
7.6 i consider that the location and extent of the proposed areas of exchange land
for Highridge Common and for other open space is appropriate and justified
and that the three certificates should be issued.
8 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
8.1 From baseline studies (Appendix 15) and archaeological investigations,
potential for further archaeological remains within the scheme footprint is
considered low.
10
NSC/5/3June 2014
Consultations
8.2 Consultations have been held with a number of local authority and statutory
heritage consulte8s who raised a number of heritage issues. The potential to
mitigate these impacts was considered and, where appropriate, included in the
design.
Conclusion
8.1 No heritage objections were made to the application or CPO based on the
implementation of mitigation measures set out in the ES.
9 CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS
9.1 I address in my proof those individual objections that pertain to exchange land,
landscape or heritage matters.
10 CONCLUSIONS
10.1 I consider that the land take for landscape, for exchange land and other
mitigation measures is appropriate and essential to deliver the necessary
Scheme mitigation, consistent with planning policy.
11
top related