eia scoping report -

School of Environment & Technology

Masters Level Assessment Submission & Feedback Form

Please complete this form and use it as the first page of your assignment, BUT *DO NOT* edit THIS page!

Student name: Roberta Nanci Assignment tutor: Click here to enter text.

Course: Environmental and assessment management

Module title: Environmental Impact Assessment Module code: IAM27

Coursework title: Business Report

Date Handed in: 4\12\2014 Submission deadline: 05\12\2014 Semester: 1

Declaration: By submitting this coursework I declare that it is entirely my own work

Criteria Abilities being assessed N/A D+ D M P MF F

Knowledge/ understanding

level of knowledge/understanding; evidence of independent study/originality; ability to reach independent decisions; integration of course material; accuracy of calculations

Structure/ evaluation

level of organisation and judgement; ability to analyse, critically evaluate, challenge established knowledge and suggest alternative approaches; undertake further research

Transferrable skills

communication skills; development of clear/concise arguments; problem-solving skills; awareness of self as researcher/professional; independent learning for CPD

General

accuracy of citation and referencing; frequency of typographical and/or grammatical errors; adherence to specifications of assessment task

Other

Explanation of grades: D+ = distinction (>80%); D = distinction (70-80%); M = merit (60-69%); P = pass (50-59%); MF = marginal/ referred fail (40-49%); F = fail (<40%)

Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Suggested areas for improvement

Assessor's signature: …………………………………………………………………

% Grade

Notes: (1) The above marking profile is for guidance only and is not indicative of your final mark. (2) The minimum aggregate mark for a pass on an MSc module is 50%, subject to passing each assessed component with a mark above a threshold of 40%. (3) Coursework submitted after the deadline is deemed late and is subject to a ZERO mark unless an extension to deadline has been approved by your Course Leader. If an extension has been granted, the yellow copy of the completed and approved ARGEAR1 form should be passed via the School Office to the Assignment tutor when the work is submitted. If no extension has been granted, the tutor assessing the work will insert a % figure that indicates the actual merit of the assignment, but a Grade of L (Late), which signals that ZERO marks will be awarded for credit-scoring purposes. (4) If appropriate, mitigating circumstances should be submitted in writing on the ARGEAR3 form with documented evidence from an independent, professional third party (via the Course Leader) to the School Office for subsequent consideration at the MSc/MEng Examination Board

ROBERTA NANCI- 13830465 IAM27

2

INTRODUCTION

The company Seascape has planned to develop a new access road and a residential design in the

southern-east area of Winchester, between St Cross road, M3 and A3090 (Map 2). According to

Schedule 2 of TCPA (1999) the ‘construction of roads’ that exceed 1ha requires an EIA under

Section 10 (f); then, an ‘urban development project’ which is likely to have significant

environmental effects, must be subject to full EIA, as stated by Section 10 (b) of the same

Regulation. The following report aims to:

1) Establishing the environmental receptors and predicting potential impacts, through maps and

assessment reviews;

2) Evaluating the significance of impacts in accordance to criteria and guidelines;

3) Suggesting possible mitigation measures to manage the significant effects of the proposed

designs and, when possible, identifying enhancements.

Therefore an EIA must be conducted, under TCPA (Sched. 2, Sect. 10 (b) and (f)) for the

following significant effects:

Loss of visual character;

Risk of damage on historical building;

Higly preassure on International designated sites;

Disturbance on ecological receptors;

Loss of floodplain and risk of flooding;

Risk of land contamination.

1. LANDSCAPE AND HERITAGE

According to Lambrick and Bramhill (1999), the proposed designs are located in a rural area.

The predominant landscape characters are farmland, river valley (Itchen), woodland, chalk and

clay. As reported in Map 1, 2 and 3 the landscape receptors are the ancient woodland (National

Park), the river Itchen (SSSI and SAC), the open farmland (ROW) and the wetland (BAP habitat).

In relation to the historic environment, there are no listed buildings that can be directly affected

by both developments. However, according to AMAAA (1979) a small Scheduled Monument was

identified in the south- west area of residential development (Map 1).

1.1 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

Landscape impacts were predicted mainly through mapping. According to WCC (1998) the river

Itchen represents an exceptional ecological and high scenic quality, because of the presence of

BAP habitats (Map 3) and high nature conservation value sites (Map 2).


3

In line with Figure 1 and Table 1 the landscape and visual impacts were evaluated, by taking

into account:

Magnitude (IEEM, 2006);

Sensitivity of receptors (LVIA, 2002 and Dft, 2011), which is determined by the conservation

status of receptors (Figure 2).

Table 1. Landscape and visual impact assessment

Impacts Receptors Conservati

on Status

Sensitivity Magnitud

e

Significan

ce

(1) Loss of

landscape

Woodland,

farmland,

river Itchen,

chalk and

clay (HCC)

Internation

al, National,

Local

High Small Moderate

to Major

(2) Production

of waste,

loss of

landscape,

disturbanc

e of

contamina

tion land

Open

farmland

(HCC)

Local Medium Medium Moderate

(3) Disturbanc

e and loss

of

designated

site

SSSI and

SAC

Internation

al

High Medium Major

(4) Damage

and

destructio

n of

historical

building

Scheduled

Monument

National High Large Major to

substanti

al

1.2 MITIGATION

In general the significance of impacts was ‘moderate’. In fact Part III of CRWA (2000) has

increased protection for SSSI.


4

Therefore we suggest to:

Modify the eastern border of the residential development;

Develop the new access road as far as possible from the SINC (WC0071), to

reduce the loss of view, as shown in Map 2 (1);

Carry out pre-development investigations (2);

Create ‘ green border’ (e.g. tunnels, bridges, hills and tree fences)(3);

Avoid the historical area, during demolition operations (4); if a scheduled

monument is ‘destroyed or damaged’ the developer can be accused of criminal offence

(AMAAA, 1979).

The mitigation of landscape impacts can improve the habitat quality and the residents’

wellbeing.

2. BIODIVERSITY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

The ecological receptors were identified, by consulting HBC (2013), on Phase I Habitat

survey (Map 2) and an Ecological survey (Table 2), within a 500 m. area.

Firstly Map 2 shows designated sites of SSSI (River Itchen), SAC, SINC (WC0071, Bushfield

Camp – C), and RVEI (RV271, Hockley Link Road); then, Map 3 illustrates BAP Habitats of

Grassland, saltmarsh and coastal floodplain grazing marsh.

Lastly Table 2 shows key taxa in association with their habitat and conservation status.

Mammals, such as European Water Vole and West Hedgehog, were dominant between river

Itchen and St Cross Road; Badger, Otter and eight species of terrestrial bats were defined as

‘Sensitive’ because of lack of precise location. Other key taxa are birds, invertebrates,

flowering plants and fishes (e.g. Trout, Eel and Grayling) were typical in the wetland.

Table 2. Ecological receptors (HBC, 2013) (* SINC criteria provided by HCC, 1996)


5

Desi

gnat

ed

site

Habitat

types

Name of

the site

Distribution

Site

Conserv

ation

Value

Key Protected protected species

(see abbreviations for level of

protection)

SAC Freshwate

r

River

Itchen

East side of

the

development

area (River

Itchen, Itchen

navigation, St

Catherine

Hill)

Very

high

Water vole [HBAP], NERC_s41,WCA

CI] (mammals); Fine line pea

mussel [HBAP]; Sky lark [HBAP,

BOCC RED], Redwing [BOCC RED],

Greater Butterfly-orchid [IUCN GB

2001], Sainfoin [IUCN GB 2001]

SSSI Freshwate

r

River

Itchen South and

east border of

development

area and Five

Bridges

High

Water vole [HBAP, NERC_s41,WCA

CI] (mammals); Southern

Damselfly [HBAP, IUCN GB 2001],

European Eel [NERC_s41],

Grayling [HABP], Brown\Sea Trout

[NERC_s41]

SINC Grassland

(*2D) and

wetland

(*5A)

Bushfile

d camp

B

(WC007

1)

North side of

the access

road

development

(St Cross

Road)

Medium West European Hedgehog

[NERC_s41] (mammals); Blue

Carpenter Bee [NR], Long-Winged

Cone-Head [NR]; Common linnet

[HBAP, BOCC RED], Eurasian siskin

[CI], Merlin [HBAP], Common

starling [BOCC RED], Fragrant

Orchid [CR], River Water-dropwort

[HBAP, CS]

RVEI Chalk

flora and

grassland

Hockley

Link

Road

(RV 271)

320 m on the

south border

to

development

area

Medium Common spotted-orchid, Pyrimidal

orchid and Bee orchid [CITES II]

Not

speci

fied

locat

ion

Woodland

, farmland

\ ‘Sensitive’ Local Eurasian Badger [PBA], European

Otter [HBAP, NERC_S41, [Hab

Reg_2], Terrestrial Bats [HBAP,

NERC_S41, HabREG_S2,

WCA](mammals)


6


As stated by DETR (2013) and IEEM (2006), the ecological impacts were predicted by taking

into account the conservation status of receptors (Table 1) and the integrity of ecosystem

factors, as defined by Annex 8 of EIA 1999 and Figure 4. In accordance to the matrix shown in

Figure 5, the significant impacts were then evaluated on the basis of:

Magnitude of impact (Temple, 2013);

Confidence of prediction (Figure 3);

Importance of feature: ecological and conservation value of receptors (Figure 2);

Other factors: duration, extent, frequency, reversibility (IEEM 2006).

Table 3. Ecological impact assessment

Ecological

impacts

Magnitu

de

Eco.

Value

Conserv

ation

value

Confidence

of

prediction

Other

factors

Significanc

e

(1)Loss of

wildlife and

habitat

Moderat

e

adverse

Biodiver

sity and

potential

High and

medium

Probable Medium

extent,

permanent

Slight

(2)Disturbance

of aquatic

habitat and

wildlife

Minor

adverse

Potential

,biodiver

sity

High Certain Low extent,

Temporary,

Frequent

Slight\mod

erate

(3)Loss of BAP

vegetation

communities

Minor Social,

economi

cal

Medium Probable Temporary,

positive,

frequent

Slight

(4)Pressure on

SSSI and SAC

Substant

ial

adverse

Biodiver

sity,

social

and

potential

High Certain Medium

extent,

irreversible,

permanent

Highly

(5)Pressure on

SINC and RVEI

Substant

ial

adverse

Biodiver

sity,

economi

cal

High and

medium

Certain Low extent,

Irreversible

permanent

Moderate\

Large

(6)Erosion and

sedimentation

bank habitat

Moderat

e

Biodiver

sity,

social,

economi

cal, pot.

High Probable Irreversible,

permanent,

negative, high

extent

Moderate


7

2.2 MITIGATION

In accordance to IEEM (2006) and EPR (2013) the ‘highly and moderate’ significant impacts are

subject to measures of:

Promotion of green infrastructures; control and maintenance of buffer zones and ‘green

networks’ (e.g. ‘tree corridors’, hills, ponds, gardens or parks) (4);

Avoidance of sensitive areas or breeding sites for birds and mammals (Water vole); restoration

of river banks and protection from nutrient enrichment; clearance of trees outside breeding

season (September- February) (5);

Control of bank vegetation and minimisation of the exposed time; collection of surface run off in

sediment ponds, re-vegetation of disturbed soils with key taxa (Orchid sp.) (6).

The benefits arising from such measures can be the creation of:

New habitats and routes for key taxa affected;

New recreational points for residents;

An environmental office to monitor the disturbance on ecological receptors.

3. THE WATER QUALITY

The river Itchen is the finest chalk-stream of the area, and it is designated as SAC and SSSI (Map

1) for the presence of key protected species. Then, according to EA (2014), the eastern side of

residential area is located in a floodplain Zone 3 (Map 4); key receptors (Map 4) are residents

living near the risk area, the nearest farmland and the river. The river is less subject to flooding

for most of the year due to absorbing chalk aquifers; however the risk becomes medium-high

during the winter period, with 1 per cent (1 in 100) or greater chance of happening each year

(EA, 2014). Lastly Map 5 shows a moderate\poor ecological quality but no baseline levels of

chemical pollution were found within the area (DWI, 2013). Although the waste system can

affect the water quality; according to Section 78 A(5) of EPA (1990) if significant pollution of

controlled water occurs, LA must decide whether implementing or not a project.


8


Most of water impacts were predicted throughout mapping (Map 4) and a network diagram

(Diagram 1).

Diagram 1. Network diagram for water impact prediction

In reference to IEEM (2006) and Temple (2011) Table 4 shows the significant impacts on water

quality, by evaluating:

The conservation value of the water body;

The magnitude of impact.

Table 4. Water quality assessment (adapted from Valli, 2011)

Activity Receptor Potential

impacts

Magnitude Conservati

on Value

Significanc

e

Residential

design (east

border)

River Itchen

(SSSI, SAC),

farmland and

groundwater

(1)Flood risk Intermediate High Large

Residential

design

Residential

area and

roads

(2) Loss of

floodplain

Intermediate Very High Large

Residential

design

(east

border)

Wetland

habitat and

surface water

(3) Pollution

from

construction

operations

Minor Medium Slight

Internal

roads

Surface water (4) Change in

drainage

system

Intermediate Low Slight


9

3.2 MITIGATION

According to Table 4 and Dft (2011) the ‘large’ significant impact of loss of floodplain (2) and

consequent risk of flooding (1) can be minimised with:

Avoidance of underground operations;

Alternative ‘floodwater routes’ between the design area and river Itchen.

Management of flood defences and flood storage provisions, grey water recycling,

buffer zones, pools, sediment traps or vegetated areas;

Control of pollution levels through waste discharge system and RBMPs.

The positive effects of flood management could be:

A reduced risk of flooding downstream and contamination of water;

The creation of new water habitats (floodwater routes, ponds) which can have recreational

and ecological importance, for protected species (birds, water vole and bats) and residents.

4. LAND QUALITY

Mapping and assessment reviews were used to identify land receptors and potential impacts.

Firstly as stated by WCC (2002), Winchester District contains landscapes of chalk downlands,

uplands and river valleys; the design area is characterised by ‘lighter soils’, with a medium

thickness of 0.4 m (UKSO, 2014). As shown in Map 6, the typical geological deposit (‘alluvium’)

typical of river floodplains, is defined by ‘mixture of sand and gravel, locally with lenses of silt,

clay or peat’. Secondly, according to WCC (1997) and Map 7, the agricultural value of the land

affected is poor, as represented by ALC grades 3b (western border) and 4. Finally WCC does not

hold detailed information on contaminated land; however, Map 8 shows that landfill site

‘Bushfield Farm’ is the closest source of contamination; developers must take into account this

site before developing the new access road.


According to Morris (2009), river floodplains usually contain a valuable agricultural land, which

can impact directly on the river itself. Then, as stated before, the waste system can also affect

the river quality. Thus, the sources of impacts are the risk of flooding, agricultural land use,

waste system and contamination.

The predicted impacts, shown in Table 5 and 6, were evaluated on the basis of:

Carrying capacity criteria (Figure 8);

Importance of Land (Map 7);

Magnitude of impact (Temple, 2011) and;

Sensitivity criteria (Figure 6 and 7).


10

Table 5. Land use assessment

Impacts Magnitude Carrying capacity

(Thresholds)

Importance

of land

Significance

(1)Disturbance

or loss of

agricultural

land

Adverse low <50ha of ALC Grade 3b or

below temporarily lost.

Very Low

(Grade 4)

Not

(2)Damage to

soil resources

Adverse moderate Moderate, temporary and

reversible damage to soil

and resource quality

through handling

Very Low

(Grade 4)

Not

(3)Loss of

resources

(land take)

Adverse high 25-50%% of soil

resources removed from

site

Low and

Very Low

(Grade 3b

and 4)

Low

(4)Change to

agricultural

dreinage

Adverse moderate Short term and reversible

disruption to on-site and

off- site agricultural

drains

Very Low

(Grade 4)

Not

Table 6. Contamination risk assessment (adapted from Temple, 2011)

Receptors Significant harm Magnitude Sensitivity

of receptor

Significance

Human beings Death, disease, injury Medium Low Minor

Ecological

systems (RVEI

and farmland)

Irreversible\adverse

change due to

vegetation die-off and

pollution to water

course

Medium Medium Intermediate

Properties: a)

building as

defined in

TCPA 1990 in

Sect. 336 (1);

b) crops,

allotments,

wild animals

a) Structural failure,

damage; b) Loss of

value (crops) and

death or injury

(animals)

Slight

magnitude

Medium Minor


11

4.2 MITIGATION

As the quality of land is poor, the agricultural land quality is not significantly affected (Table 5);

however it is suggested to minimising at least the loss of land (3) by re using the soil in situ and

consulting owners and occupiers to seek their view to minimise the disturbance.

In order to mitigate the ‘intermediate’ risk of contamination for human and ecological receptors

we suggest to:

Avoid the contamination area of scheduled landfill to minimise the risks described and;

Conduct investigation on the level of contamination of soil before developing the new

access road.

5. TRAFFIC

Lastly, according to Defra (2014), the residential design is subject to emissions on air, dust and

noise, from road transport and construction work; however, no AQMA have been declared for

the developing area. According to Map 9 the existing sources of pollution are the rail line,

A3090, St Cross Road and M3. Then, the traffic noise, occurring from new access road, can affect

the residents living in the western area. In accordance to Map 10 instead, air pollution and noise

can have potential impact, respectively on Scheduled Monument and river Itchen. However,

according to EA (2014) and Map 10, there is already a moderate level of air pollution, with a

medium level of dioxide from A3090 and carbon dioxins from M3. Finally, in line with Defra

database (2014), no specific data on noise level have been found within the studied area.


Because of lack of data no predicting models have been used. Then, as shown in Table 9, in

order to evaluate significance of traffic impacts, thresholds criteria have been consulted (Figure

10) in accordance with:

The magnitude of impact (Dft, 2011);

Duration of impact;

Sensitivity of receptor (Figure 2).


12

Table 9. Traffic Assessment

5.2 MITIGATION

As shown in Map 9, we can assume that air pollution and construction noise will ‘not’ be

significant impact because of moderate conditions of traffic in the area; however, the noise

produced near the wetland will cause a temporary ‘low’ disturbance on the river

environment (SSSI), related species (bats, birds and mammals) and human health. As traffic

changes can increase over a long period of time, some measures of control are suggested,

also in accordance to DMRB (2011):

Restrictions in night- time traffic, adequate distance building-source, use of electrical

machineries, insulated buildings and tree fencing for social houses near the river and new

access road (2)(3);

‘Green borders’ near SAC, historical monument and western residential area (6);

Consequently, the listed enhancements can occur.

Source Impacts Receptor Magnitud

e

(severity)

Duratio

n

Sensitivit

y of

receptor

Significan

ce

New access

road\Reside

ntial area

(1)Air

pollution and

dust

Farmland and

Residents

Low Minor Low Not

New access

road

(2)Light and

traffic noise

Farmland and

wetland

Moderate Minor Low Low

Residential

area

(3)Constructi

on noise

Human health,

SSSI, wetland,

protected

species

Low Low

(short-

term)

High Low

New access

Road

(junction 11)

(4)Traffic

delays and

congestion

Human health Moderate Low

(short-

term )

Minor Not

Traffic (5)Temporar

y safety

impacts

Human health Low Low Minor Not

Traffic (6)Visual

Impact and

heritage

damage

SAC and

scheduled

monument

Moderate Moderat

e

Medium Low


13

Improved air quality and reduction of transportation requirements;

Reduced congestion of traffic around junction 11;

Creation of new habitats to preserve river Itchen ecosystem.

Appendix A_ Environmental receptors and impacts

Map 1. Landscape and heritage overview of the development area (Sketchmap, 2014)

Map 2. Legal status of protected sites within 500 m. of the development area (HBC, 2014)


14

Map 3. The BAP habitats (Magicmap, 2014)

Map 4. Flood Zones Map (above) and flood risk (below) (EA, 2014)


15

Map 5. Ecological Quality map (EA, 2014)

Map 6. Soil and Hydrogeology map (BFS, 2014)


16

Map 7. Agricultural land quality (Sketchmap)

Map 8. Source of contamination map (EA,2014)


17

Map 9. Traffic Map (WTAP, 2011)

Map 10. Air quality and designated sites boundaries of SSSI and Scheduled Monument (EA, 2014)


18

Appendix B_ Evaluating criteria (matrices)

Figure 1. Two-way Landscape significance matrix (LVIA, 2011)

Figure 2. Criteria for evaluating Biodiversity and Landscape ‘sensitivity’ (Dft, 2011)

Figure 3. The four- level scale confidence matrix for ecological impact prediction (IEEM , 2006)


19

Figure 4. Evaluating factors for ecological significance (EIA, 1999)

Figure 5. The overall assessment for evaluating biodiversity and Earth Heritage values (Dft, 2011)

Figure 6. Criteria for determining importance and sensitivity of property and land receptors (EDF, 2009

Figure 7 . Criteria for determining Sensitivity to Human Health receptor (Temple, 2011)


20

Figure 8. Criteria for assessing significance of impact on land use, quality and resources (Temple, 2011)

Figure 9. Magnitudo criteria for contamination impact (Temple, 2011)

Figure 10. Criteria for evaluating the construction and traffic noise (Dft, 2011)


21

Abbreviations

Protected taxa: HBAP (Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan); BOCCRED Birds of Conservation Concern Red

list; IUCN GB 2001 (guidelines); NI (national interest); CI (county interest); NR (national rare, 15 or fewer

10Km squares in G.B.); CR (county rare); NERC _S41 Priority Species listed under Section 41 of the Natural

Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; WCA (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981); PBA (Protection

of Badgers Act 1992); HabReg_s2 (Schedule 2 of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

(European Protected Species animal), CITES II (Convention of International Trade and Endangered).

SINC criteria (BAP habitat): 5A (Wetland of open freshwater outstanding assemblages of

floating/submerged/ emergent plant species, invertebrates, birds or amphibians; 2D (Grassland

impoverished by inappropriate management).

Designated sites: SINC (Site of Importance for Natural Conservation); SAC (Special Area of Conservation);

RVEI (Road Verges of Ecological Importance); SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest).

HCC (Hampshire County Council); WCC (Winchester City Council), RBMP (River Basin Management Plans),

Detr (Department of Environmental Transport and regions), AMAA (Ancient Monuments and Archeological

Areas Act , 1979), LVIA (Landscape and visual Impact Assessment), CRWA (Countryside Right of Way Act,

2000), HBC (Hampshire Biodiversity Centre), LA (Local Auhtority), IEEM (Institute of ecology and

Environmental Assessment), Dft (Department for transport), EPR (Ecological Planning and Research Ltd),

DWI (Drinking Water Inspectorate), ALC (Agricultural Land Classification), AQMA (Air Quality Management

Areas), DMRB (Digital Manual for Roads and Bridges), BGS (British Geological Survey), UKSO (UK Soil

Observatory).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AMAA (1979) Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act (Scheduled Monument, Chapter 46), available

online from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/46

BGS (2014) British Geological Survey Maps, available online from http://www.bgs.ac.uk/

Bramhill, P. & Lambrick G. (1999)- Hampshire Historic Landscape Assessment Final Report (Volume 1: Main

Report, Chapters 1 – 3)

CRWA (2000) Countryside Right of Way Act of England and Wales available online from

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/part/III/crossheading/sites-of-special-scientific-

interest

Detr (2000) Contaminated Land: Implementation of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act

1990 (Circular 02)

Detr (2013)- Departement of Environment, Transport and Region- Environmental Impact Assessment: a

Guide to procedure- Tonbridge, Thelford

DfT (2011) Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG)- The Water Environment Sub-Objective (Unit 3.3.11)

DWI (Drinking Water Inspectorate, 2013) available online from http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/about/annual-

report/2013/index.htm

EIA (1999) Ordinance (Schedule 2, Annex 8) available online from

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/english/legis/memorandum/annex8.html


22

EA (2014) - Environment Agency, available online from http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk and

http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37837.aspx

EPA (1990) Part IIA (Section 78 (A) 5) available online from

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/78A

EPR (2013) Ecological appraisal North Walls Winchester, available online from http://Winchster.gov.uk

EDF (2009) HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – VOLUME 3 (Chapter 5.6 ‘ Soil and Land

use’) available online from

http://hinkleypoint.edfenergyconsultation.info/Preferred_Proposal_Documents/Environmental%20

Appraisal/Volume_3/Chapter%205/V3_C5.6_Soils%20and%20Land%20Use.pdf

DEFRA (2014) - Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) Winchester available from http://uk-

air.defra.gov.uk/aqma/details?aqma_id=144

DMRB (2011) Design Manual for Road and Bridges – Environmental assessment techniques- Vol 11, Section 3

(Noise and vibration, Part 7) and (Air quality , Part 1)

IEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment(EcIA) in the United Kingdom available online at

http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Technical_Guidance_Series/EcIA_Guidelines/TGSE

cIA-EcIA_Guidelines-Terestrial_Freshwater_Coastal.pdf

HCC (1996) SINC criteria in Hampshire, available online at http://www3.hants.gov.uk/hbic-sinccriteria.pdf

LVIA (2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - The Landscape Institute and Institute

of Environmental Assessment, 1st Edition, 1995 & 2ndEdition

MagicMap (2014) available from http://www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/MagicMap.aspx

Morris, P. & Therivel, R. (2009), Methods of environmental impact assessment (3rd Edition)- Chapter 10

Sketchmap (2014) available online from http://goo.gl/xVaF38

Temple (2011) Stafford Area Improvements Norton Bridge – EIA scoping Report

UKSO (2014) available online from http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/ukso/home.html

Valli (2011) Environmental Impact assessment methodologies ( 2nd Edition)

WCFA (2008) Winchester Flood Risk Assessment, available online from

http://www.winchestercollege.org/UserFiles/pdfs/Campus-flood%20risk.pdf

WCC (1997) Bushfield Camp Study (Chapter 1.2.2 ) available online from

http://www.winchester.gov.uk/planning-policy/evidence-base/environment/bushfield-camp-study-

1997/

WCC (1998) Landscape and Townscape Assessment of the city and its setting, available online from

http://www.winchester.gov.uk/assets/files/2861/Winchester-Setting- chapter6.pdf)

WCC (2002) Winchester Council Contamination Land Strategy Report available online from

www.winchester.gov.uk

WTAP (2011)- Traffic map Winchester Town Access Plan available online from

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/tap-winchester-full-document.pdf

http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/

http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37837.aspx

http://hinkleypoint.edfenergyconsultation.info/Preferred_Proposal_Documents/Environmental%20Appraisal/Volume_3/Chapter%205/V3_C5.6_Soils%20and%20Land%20Use.pdf

http://hinkleypoint.edfenergyconsultation.info/Preferred_Proposal_Documents/Environmental%20Appraisal/Volume_3/Chapter%205/V3_C5.6_Soils%20and%20Land%20Use.pdf

http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Technical_Guidance_Series/EcIA_Guidelines/TGSEcIA-EcIA_Guidelines-Terestrial_Freshwater_Coastal.pdf

http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Technical_Guidance_Series/EcIA_Guidelines/TGSEcIA-EcIA_Guidelines-Terestrial_Freshwater_Coastal.pdf

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/hbic-sinccriteria.pdf

http://goo.gl/xVaF38

http://www.winchester.gov.uk/assets/files/2861/Winchester-Setting-chapter6.pdf

eia scoping report -

Documents

environmental receptors

assessment reviews

na d d

landscape receptors

following significant

iam27 coursework title

proposed designs

following report