eia scoping report - aylesbury woodlandsaylesburywoodlands.co.uk/.../09/...scoping-report.pdf ·...

$: EIA Scoping Report - Aylesbury Woodlandsaylesburywoodlands.co.uk/.../09/...Scoping-Report.pdf · EIA Scoping Report Aylesbury Woodlands J:\32113 Aylesbury Woods\EIA\Scoping\Draft\150821$
On behalf of Buckinghamshire Advantage (on behalf of the Aylesbury Vale Advantage Legacy Board)

Project Ref: 32113 | V1.0 | Date: August 2015

Office Address: 11 Prospect Court, Courteenhall Road, Blisworth, Northampton NN7 3DG T: +44 (0)1604 878 300 F: +44 (0)1604 878 333 E: [email protected]

Aylesbury Woodlands Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Scoping Report

mailto:[email protected]

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands

J:\32113 Aylesbury Woods\EIA\Scoping\Draft\150821 32113 EIA Scoping Report.docx ii

Document Control Sheet

Project Name: Aylesbury Woodlands

Project Ref: 32113

Report Title: Environmental Impact Assessment - Scoping Report

Doc Ref: 3001

Date: August 2015

Name Position Signature Date

Prepared by: Various Various Various 07/07/2015

Reviewed by: Mark Elton Director M.E 07/07/2015

Approved by: Michael

Parkinson Partner M.P 07/07/2015

For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP

Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved

V1.0 07/07/2015 Draft Various ME MP

V2.0 21/08/2015 Final Various ME MP

Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with the appropriate ACE Agreement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.

© Peter Brett Associates LLP 2015

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands

J:\32113 Aylesbury Woods\EIA\Scoping\Draft\150821 32113 EIA Scoping Report.docx iii

Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 The purpose of this report ............................................................................................. 5

1.3 Report Structure ............................................................................................................ 5

2 The site and the proposed development .................................................................................. 6

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 The setting of the site .................................................................................................... 6

2.3 The proposed development ......................................................................................... 10

2.4 Description of the Proposed Development for the purposes of EIA ............................ 11

2.5 Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 12

3 Relevant planning policy and guidance.................................................................................. 13

3.1 The EIA Regulations.................................................................................................... 13

3.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ...................................................... 13

3.3 Local planning policies - Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (2004) ........................... 13

4 The EIA process ........................................................................................................................ 16

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 16

4.2 The scoping process ................................................................................................... 16

4.3 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................................... 17

4.4 Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 17

4.5 Impact assessment, mitigation and Iterative design ................................................... 17

4.6 Consultation ................................................................................................................. 18

4.7 Assessing Significance ................................................................................................ 18

4.8 Impact Interaction and Cumulative effects .................................................................. 20

5 Potential significant effects ..................................................................................................... 28

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 28

5.2 Socio-economics ......................................................................................................... 29

5.3 Traffic and Transport ................................................................................................... 31

5.4 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 36

5.5 Noise and Vibration ..................................................................................................... 39

5.6 Ground Conditions....................................................................................................... 51

5.7 Archaeology and Heritage ........................................................................................... 59

5.8 Landscape and Visual Assessment ............................................................................ 65

5.9 Water including Flood Risk .......................................................................................... 79

5.10 Ecology ........................................................................................................................ 83

5.11 Agriculture and Soil ..................................................................................................... 91

5.12 Other Supporting Documents ...................................................................................... 92

6 Summary and conclusions ...................................................................................................... 94

6.1 The scope of the EIA ................................................................................................... 94

6.2 The contents of the Environmental Statement ............................................................ 94

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands

J:\32113 Aylesbury Woods\EIA\Scoping\Draft\150821 32113 EIA Scoping Report.docx iv

6.3 Next Steps ................................................................................................................... 94

References ........................................................................................................................................... 96

Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (2004) ................................................................................ 98

Figures

Figure 2-1: The location of the application site ..................................................................................... 8 Figure 2-2: Schematic representation – Eastern Link Road (source: Bucks County Council – Transport and Roads, July 2015) .......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5-1: Draft Viewpoint Location Plan ........................................................................................... 69 Figure 5-2: Draft Location Plan (Distant Viewpoints) .......................................................................... 70

Tables

Table 2-1: Designated sites within 5 km of the site .............................................................................. 9 Table 4-1: Significance of Effect Categories ...................................................................................... 19 Table 4-2: Cumulative Developments (within 10 miles) ..................................................................... 21 Table 5-5-1: Noise and Vibration Significance Criteria ......................................................................... 41 Table 5-5-2: Demolition and Construction Noise Level Thresholds of Potential Significant Effect at Dwellings .......................................................................................................................................... 42 Table 5-5-3: Construction Noise Effect Levels for Residential Buildings (External Facade Levels) ..... 43 Table 5-5-4: Construction Noise Level Thresholds of Potential Significant Effect at Non Residential (External Façade Levels) ....................................................................................................................... 43 Table 5-5-5: Guidance on Effects of Vibration Levels ........................................................................... 44 Table 5-5-6: Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage ................................................. 45 Table 5-5-7: Magnitude of Impact for Building Vibration ....................................................................... 45 Table 5-5-8: Change in Noise Levels in the Short Term due to Construction Traffic ........................... 46 Table 5-5-9: BS-8233 Desirable Internal Ambient Noise Levels for Dwellings ..................................... 47 Table 5-5-10: Internal and External Noise Criteria for Habitable Rooms due to Transportation Noise ........................................................................................................................... 49 Table 5-6-1: Ground Conditions Significance Criteria and Resultant Consequence ............................ 55 Table 5-6-2: Guidelines for the Assessment of Magnitude ................................................................... 57 Table 5-6-3: Guidelines for the Receptor Sensitivity ............................................................................. 58 Table 5-7-1: Sensitivity of Receptor ...................................................................................................... 63 Table 5-7-2: Magnitude of Impact ......................................................................................................... 64 Table 5-8-1: Schedule of Suggested Assessment Viewpoints.............................................................. 71 Table 5-8-2: Landscape Receptor Sensitivity Criteria ........................................................................... 74 Table 5-8-3: Visual Receptor Sensitivity Criteria ................................................................................... 75 Table 5-8-4: Magnitude of Change Criteria ........................................................................................... 76 Table 5-8-5: Level of effect and Significance ........................................................................................ 78 Table 5-9-1: Significance of Effects ....................................................................................................... 81 Table 5-10-1: Biodiversity Planning Policy ............................................................................................ 83 Table 5-10-2: Ecological receptors scoped out of assessment............................................................. 84 Table 5-10-3: details methodologies of ecological surveys undertaken and proposed ........................ 87

Appendices

Appendix A Local Planning Policy

Appendix B The EIA Regulations – Schedule 4

Appendix C Proposed Contents of Environmental Statement

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands

J:\32113 Aylesbury Woods\EIA\Scoping\Draft\150821 32113 EIA Scoping Report.docx 5

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Buckinghamshire Advantage (the ‘applicant’) on behalf of the Aylesbury Vale Advantage Legacy Board (AVALB) are intending to submit an outline planning application to Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) to develop a site known as ‘Aylesbury Woodlands’ to the east of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.

1.1.2 The site was identified as a priority within the Regional Growth Deal Proposals 2015-21 and provides an opportunity to assist in delivering a key piece of highway infrastructure in Aylesbury known as the Eastern Link Road South [ELR(S)] between the A41 to the south and the A418 to the north.

1.1.3 Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA) has been employed by the applicant to prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report in relation to the proposed development and to co-ordinate and manage a team of specialist contributors undertaking the EIA.

1.1.4 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (No. 1824) (as amended 2015) for England & Wales, known as the ‘EIA Regulations’, implement EC Directive 2011/92/EU, into domestic legislation. The EIA Regulations require that an EIA is undertaken for certain projects to identify environmental impacts, to assess the significance of effects, and provide mitigation measures for adverse effects. It is considered that an EIA is required for the proposed development, under Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations, due to the scale of the proposals.

1.2 The purpose of this report

1.2.1 While EIA scoping is not mandatory for every planning application, the EIA Regulations provide a mechanism for developers to agree the scope of the EIA formally through the request of a ‘scoping opinion’ from the local planning authority which is AVDC. The principal objective for scoping is to tailor/streamline the Environmental Statement (ES) to the individual project including ‘scoping out’ issues where significant environmental effects are not expected.

1.2.2 With this objective in mind, the purpose of this report is to provide AVDC with relevant information about the proposed development in order for them to determine the scope of the subsequent EIA the findings of which will be documented in an ES.

1.3 Report Structure

1.3.1 This document is structured as follows:

Chapter 2: The Site, Setting and proposed development

Chapter 3: Planning Policy Context

Chapter 4: The EIA Process

Chapter 5: Assessment Topics

Chapter 6: Conclusion and Next Steps

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


2 The site and the proposed development

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 This section of the report presents a description of the site, its setting and the proposed development.

2.2 The setting of the site

2.2.1 The Aylesbury Woodlands site is approximately 218.8 hectares (540.7 acres) and is a largely flat green field site mostly in agricultural use. The location of the site is shown in Figure 2-1.

2.2.2 The site is gently sloping in nature; the site levels generally fall from south to north from approximately 88 m AOD in the south-east of the site abutting the A41 to approximately 82 m AOD adjacent to the Grand Union Canal in the north-west of the site. The north-west of the site and a small parcel of land north of the Grand Union Canal rise again at approximately 83 m AOD.

2.2.3 The site is reasonably well located for public transport being adjacent the A41 Aston Clinton Road/Tring Road, a primary public transport corridor which has high frequency bus services and providing connections to Aylesbury Bus Station and Rail Station.

2.2.4 The Aylesbury Woodlands site sits within the wider Aylesbury East strategic growth area. A key element of the delivery of growth within the Aylesbury Eastern area is the delivery of the Aylesbury Eastern Link Road (ELR).

2.2.5 The site is located adjacent to the A41, A41 Aston Clinton Road and College Road North. The intended route of the Aylesbury Eastern Link Road South (ELR(S)) runs through the site and would connect with the ELR(N) and A418 to the north and the residential Aylesbury East urban extension. The ELR(N) will connect with the Stocklake link to the town centre. The ELR(S) section connects the Eastern Link Road (North) with the A41 to the south via an upgraded Woodlands roundabout located on the A41 to the south.

2.2.6 A proportion of the site is at risk of flooding and within the functional floodplain. The relatively flat topography across the site, coupled with the obstruction presented by the Grand Union Canal to the north, gives rise to a ‘sprawling’ floodplain principally across a proportion of the western half of the site, but with a smaller extent on the eastern edge of the site.

2.2.7 A network of drains convey surface water run-off from the central area of the site to the north-west to the Burcott Brook. The principal watercourse in the area is the Bear Brook. The Burcott Brook also flows through the north-western part of the site and passes beneath the canal by means of a syphon. The Drayton Mead Brook is located to the east and drains the area in the vicinity of College Farm. The Brook passes beneath the canal via a syphon and forms a tributary of the Thistle Brook.

2.2.8 The application site comprises agricultural land under predominantly arable cultivation. Land currently in use as pasture lies in the north-western corner. Agricultural Land Classification Grade maps published by Natural England indicate that the majority of the site is graded as 'poor' with some pockets of 'good to moderate'.

2.2.9 In general geological terms the site is situated on the north-western flank of the London basin, as defined by the Chilterns Chalk escarpment. The published mapping indicating a general gentle dip to the south-east. The Gault and Upper Greensand is classified by the Environment Agency as a non-aquifer. The Portland Group, where mapped, is shown as a Secondary A aquifer.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


2.2.10 The ‘Old Sewage Works’ historic landfill is located adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the application site on what is now the A41/ College Road North Interchange. Arla Foods UK operate a large scale dairy towards the east of the proposed development.

2.2.11 The following utility infrastructure exist within the site:

An 11 kV overhead line crosses through the southern half of the site from just north of Weston Mead Farm towards Aston Clinton Road in the south-east;

A 315mm diameter polyethylene medium pressure (MP) pipeline runs along the northern verge of Aston Clinton Road towards the A41 Woodlands Roundabout. The pipeline crosses over to the northern verge of Aston Clinton Road and continues adjacent to the south-west boundary of the development.

A polyethylene potable water trunk main runs through the south of the site adjacent to the south-west boundary. It then turns in a north easterly direction skirting north of the existing woodland towards College Road.

An 825mm diameter foul sewer pipeline runs adjacent to the potable water trunk main through the south of the site adjacent to the south-west boundary. It then turns in a north easterly direction skirting north of the existing woodland towards College Road. The pipeline then connects into a rising main to the north-west of The Timber Yard and runs into College Road to the east of the site.

Sensitive Areas

2.2.12 The more environmentally sensitive the location, the more likely it is that the effects will be significant and will require an assessment. Certain designated sites are defined in regulation 2(1) of the EIA Regulations (2011) as sensitive areas.

Statutory Designated Sites

2.2.13 The Chiltern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is located approximately 2.8 km to the south-east of the site boundary.

2.2.14 There are no Scheduled Monuments within the site. Some 60m to the south of the site, beyond the A41, is the scheduled Moated Site and fishponds 200 m north-west of Vatches Farm (1017510). Some 170 m to the west of the Site, south of Broughton village, is a further scheduled moated site: Moated site 330 m south east of Manor Farm (1017518).

2.2.1 A number of bridges along the Grand Union Canal, immediately to the north of the site, are listed Grade II. There are also a number of listed buildings to the east of the site,

2.2.2 There are no Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Ramsar sites and National Nature Reserves within 5 km of the proposed development.

2.2.3 There are five Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within 5 km of the proposed development (Table 2-1). There are no statutory designated sites within 30 km of the proposed road alignment where bats are the qualifying feature for site selection.

Non-Statutory Designated Sites

2.2.4 There are two Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within 2 km of the proposed development including Moat Meadows, The Vatches LWS; and the Three Ponds Meadow LWS. There are eight Biological Notification Sites (BNS) within 2 km of the proposed development (Table 2-1).

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Figure 2-1: The location of the application site

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


2.2.5 There are no areas of ancient woodland within 2 km of the proposed development (BMERC, 2015) and the site does not fall within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area.

Table 2-1: Designated sites within 5 km of the site

Site name Distance to site and NGR

Brief Description

Bierton Clay Pit SSSI

1.9 km NW

SP 839 157

The site is designated for its geological value (Natural England, undated (a)).

Weston Turville Reservoir SSSI

3.0 km S

SP 862 096

This site consists of an unpolluted fresh water reservoir, fringed with extensive reed beds, tall fen and willow carr. These habitats, with the exception of the open water, are both rare and declining in Britain, and their rich flora includes species which are now locally and nationally rare. The reservoir is also important for overwintering wildfowl (Natural England, undated (b)).

Aston Clinton Ragpits SSSI

2.7 km SE

SP 888 108

Formerly worked for chalk freestone this small area of old pits and spoil heaps at the foot of the Chiltern escarpment has become colonised by an unusually rich assemblage of herbs, shrubs and invertebrates, including several which are rare in the county (Natural England, undated (c))

Tring Reservoirs SSSI

2.75 km E

SP 919 136,

SP 905 131

Four reservoirs situated on the Lower Chalk at the foot of the Chilterns escarpment and, although artificial, are fed by natural springs. The clear eutrophic waters support diverse communities of plants and animals and the reservoirs are located on sites of ancient marshes, still retaining elements of the original flora. The marginal vegetation is dominated by tall fen communities with some marshy grassland, both threatened and declining habitats in the county which support locally rare plant species. These habitats, together with the open water, represent an important area for breeding, passage and wintering birds, and for interesting invertebrate communities (Natural England, 1969).

Dancersend SSSI 4.0 km SE

SP 900 094

Unimproved chalk grassland, scrub, coppiced and regenerating woodland and plantations. The site is important for lepidoptera, for which it has been well recorded. The varied aspects and habitats of Dancersend sustain a diverse population of breeding birds (Natural England, undated (d)).

Three Ponds Meadow, LWS

1.0 km m E

SP 837 143

Three Ponds Meadow is a semi-improved grassland enclosed by a hedge. It has wet neutral grassland in the furrows, neutral grassland on the ridges, marshy grassland around the pond and the aquatic habitat of the pond itself.

Moat Meadows, The Vatches LWS

50 m S

SP 862 127

This is a wet grassland pasture on clay situated just outside of Aston Clinton. It incorporates a moat and various earthworks of archaeological and historical importance. The rest of the field is marked by ridge-and-furrow. This field is one of the very few

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Site name Distance to site and NGR

Brief Description

surviving unimproved, flower-rich pastures which were once typical of the fields around Aston Clinton.

Aylesbury Arm BNS (81M07)

Within/adjacent to site area

SP 152 842

High recreational value (car park by Broughton lock). Bankside, but no emergent, vegetation. Black Poplars on south side. Area good for bats and birds (1998 referenced in BMERC, 2015).

Aylesbury Arm BNS (81S06)

Within/adjacent to site area

SP 854 141

Towpath side dominated by common reed; opposite side by reed sweet-grass (1998 referenced in BMERC, 2015). Mature trees, ash, willow and black poplar in hedge on south bank with ditch alongside. Emergent vegetation on both banks. Bats and birds, including owls, are known to use area.

Pond behind Oak Farm, Broughton BNS (81L08)

150 m west

SP 337 149

Pond. Records of great crested newt Triturus cristatus BMERC 2015

Bear Brook BNS (81H13)

640 m west

SP 842 137

Stream.

Aylesbury Arm BNS (81G03)

650 m west west

SP 842 142

A stretch of canal and towpath. Dominated by Greater Tussocksedge with breaks cut into vegetation for fishing access (1988 referenced in BMERC, 2015). The banks provide nesting sites for waterfowl (1998 referenced in BMERC, 2015).

Aylesbury Arm BNS (81X01)

1.8 km east

SP 890 140

Canal.

Green Park,

Aston

Clinton (81V10)

1.4 km south-east

SP 883 116

C.70 ha of parkland with fine specimen trees. 30 species of lichen (Bowen, 1988 referenced in BMERC, 2015). Overgrown arboretum and two springs with miniature ravines.

Bierton Clay

Pits (81H01)

1.9 km NW

SP 839 157

Ponds used for fishing. Some scrub around the ponds but otherwise the land is manicured, with various garden species having been planted. Originally used for the extraction of clay to make bricks.

2.3 The proposed development

Development

2.3.1 The proposed development is for Employment, Residential (C3), Education establishment (C2), Leisure and Retail mixed use development on land to the East of Aylesbury, including up to 150,000 sq m of mixed employment (B1, B2 & B8), up to 1,100 dwellings, 5 ha of Community Leisure and Sports, 20,000 sq m of supporting leisure and retail (Use Classes A1-A5, C1, D1 and D2) with detailed access, reserved link road alignment and the provision of associated transport Infrastructure, landscape, open space and drainage

2.3.2 The planning application is anticipated to be an outline application with all matters reserved except for access.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Access

2.3.3 The Highway Authority is Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC). It is proposed that the Aylesbury Woodlands site is accessed from the Eastern Link Road (S). The ELR (S) is shown indicatively on Figure 2-2 below. The ELR (S) will cross the Grand Union Canal and connect the A41 with the northern section of the ELR provided by Barratt Development Plc as indicated on Figure 2-2. Vehicular access will also be provided from the east of the Aylesbury Woodlands site to College Road North.

Figure 2-2: Schematic representation – Eastern Link Road (source: Bucks County Council – Transport and Roads, July 2015)

2.4 Description of the Proposed Development for the purposes of EIA

2.4.1 In accordance with the EIA Regulations, the following information about the proposed development will be quantified during the design and assessment process and will be reported within the Environmental Statement;

a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;

b) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.

Construction

2.4.2 For the purposes of assessment it will be assumed that the construction of the development will commence in 2016.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


2.4.3 An assessment of the construction traffic will be undertaken assuming typical construction methodologies and practices, and a realistic phased delivery programme to achieve the proposed completion dates.

Operation

2.4.4 For the purposes of assessment the Opening Year of the proposed development will be 2031. The ES will include a description of the assumed delivery phasing for the purposes of the assessment of the likely operational flows.

2.5 Alternatives

2.5.1 The Environmental Statement will provide an outline of the main feasible alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.

2.5.2 The alternatives to be considered will include a do-nothing scenario.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


3 Relevant planning policy and guidance

3.1 The EIA Regulations

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015)

3.1.1 It is considered that an EIA is required for the proposed development (under Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations) due to the scale of the proposals.

3.1.2 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015) (No. 1824) for England & Wales, known as the ‘EIA Regulations’, implement EC Directive 2011/92/EU, into domestic legislation, require that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is undertaken for certain projects to identify environmental impacts, to assess the significance of effects, and provide mitigation measures for adverse effects.

3.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

3.2.1 A Core Planning Principle for the planning system is to: ‘proactively drive and support

sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units,

infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made

objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of

an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of

market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for

allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the

needs of the residential and business communities.’(Para 17, page 5)

3.2.2 This objective is not to be read in isolation to the other core planning principles, but provides

the foundation of the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth ‘in order to

create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the

twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future’ (para 18, page 6). In

consequence the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does

everything it can to support sustainable economic growth (para 19, page 6). ‘To help achieve

economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development

needs of business and support an economy it for the 21st century’ (para 20, page 6).

3.2.3 In drawing up local plans, local planning authorities should, inter alia:‘support existing

business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting and, where

possible identify and plan for new or emerging sectors likely to locate in their area’ (para 21,

page 6).

3.2.4 For the avoidance of doubt the proposal will be considered in the context of the other core

planning principles set out at paragraph 17 that underpin both plan-making and decision-

taking. These planning principles give rise to policy considerations as set out in the

Framework, and as further elaborated by the more recent guidance published as Planning

Policy Guidance 2014.

3.3 Local planning policies - Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (2004)

3.3.1 The Development Plan comprises the saved policies of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (2004) reviewed in 2007. The policies within the Development Plan therefore hold some weight until they are eventually replaced by the new Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan – adoption of the emerging timetabled August 2017.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


3.3.2 Relevant Development Plan saved policies include are listed below and summarised in Appendix A:

Housing

Policy GP.2: Affordable Housing (page 21)

Policy GP.3: Low Cost Market Housing (page 22)

Policy GP.4: Affordable Housing for Local Needs in Rural Areas (page 24)

Policy GP.8: Protection of the Amenity of Residents (page 26)

Tourism

Policy GP.69: Hotels and Motel Development (page 70)

Transport

Policy GP.24: Car Parking Guidelines (page 37)

Policy RA.36: Development causing Traffic Adversely Affecting Rural Roads (page 200)

Policy RA.37: New Accesses to Inter-Urban A-Class or Trunk Roads (page 200)

Conservation of the Natural Environment

Policy GP.35: Materials and Design Details (page 49)

Policy GP.39: Existing Vegetation (page 53)

Policy GP.40: Black Poplars (page 53)

Policy GP.66: Access Corridors and Buffers Adjacent to Watercourses (page 66)

Public Realm and Landscaping

Policy GP.38: Landscaping of New Development Proposals (page 52)

Policy GP.45: ‘Secured by Design’ Considerations (page 56)

Community Facilities and Services

Policy GP.94: Community Facilities and Services (page 87)

Recreation and Leisure

Policy GP.81: Development of Canal-Related Facilities (page 77)

Policy GP.84: Footpaths (page 78)

Policy GP.86: Outdoor Play Space (page 82)

Policy GP.87: Application of Open Space Policies (page 83)

Policy GP.88: Payment in Lieu of Providing Sports and Play Areas (page 84)

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Policy GP.90: Provision of Indoor Facilities (page 85)

Policy DP.91: Provision of Amenity Areas (page 86).

Strategic Policies

RA.2: Loss of Open Gaps and Consolidation of Settlements (page 173)

AY.15: Aston Clinton Road Major Development Area (MDA) (page119)

Policy AY.1: Considerations for Traffic-Generating Proposals (page 98)

Policy AY.2: Additional Financial Contributions to the ALUT Strategy (page 101)

Policy AY.12: Requirement for Planning Briefs and Public Consultation Regarding MDAs (page 114)

Policy AY.17: Public Transport to Serve New Developments (page 123)

Policy AY.20: Development of the Cycle Network (page 126)

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


4 The EIA process

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The ‘EIA Regulations’ set out the procedures for undertaking an EIA and the information which is required in an Environmental Statement (ES). In accordance with the EIA Regulations, the purpose of undertaking an EIA is to identify the ‘likely significant effects’ on the environment.

4.1.2 The Planning Practice Guidance (EIA) (March 2014) replaces circular 02/99 setting out guidelines and recommendations on the contents and procedures of an EIA and ES. This document will be used as a reference throughout the EIA process.

4.2 The scoping process

4.2.1 This document sets out the intended scope of the EIA for the proposed development following a review of available data, collection of updated information, the team’s experience of other projects of a similar nature and consultation with the local planning authority and other statutory consultees.

4.2.2 The purpose of scoping is to identify the issues relating to the proposed development – policy, economic, social as well as environmental - and seek to ensure that they are subject to the appropriate level of assessment, thereby providing a focus for the EIA.

4.2.3 The EIA will assess the potential environmental effects of construction of the proposed development in addition to the operational effects.

Spatial Scope

4.2.4 The spatial scope of each of the specialist studies will vary according to the individual topic although, in general terms, the spatial scope will be restricted to an area within approximately 400 m of the proposed site boundary. Exceptions include:

Socio-economics – effects on local centres and local labour market; effects on sub-regional economy;

Traffic and related effects (severance, air quality, noise, historic and cultural) – scope will include effects on the network where significant changes are expected;

Air Quality (construction) – dust effects localised and unlikely to extend beyond 200 m from boundary of development;

Community facilities – effects on local facilities;

Landscape/visual effects – determined by the visual envelope;

Groundwater – includes effects on wider aquifer.

Temporal Scope

4.2.5 A preliminary construction programme will be defined and used in the EIA. It is currently assumed that construction will begin in 2016.

4.2.6 For the purposes of assessment the Opening Year of the proposed development will be 2031. The Opening Year of the ELR will be 2019. Other milestones used for assessment purposes

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


will vary according to the topic and the nature of the effect e.g. the Transport Model has a Forecast Year of 2034.

4.3 Baseline Conditions

4.3.1 The baseline conditions are used to identify receptors and to determine their sensitivity, vulnerability or importance.

Receptor

4.3.2 A receptor is the human being, ecological habitat, natural resource or other element of the environment which experiences or receives a change/impact as a result of the proposed development.

Sensitivity

4.3.3 Sensitivity refers to the sensitivity to change, or the relative importance of the identified receptor.

4.4 Impacts

4.4.1 The term ‘impact assessment’ is a consideration of the change that is predicted to take place to the existing condition of the environment (baseline) as a result of the proposed development.

Magnitude

4.4.2 The magnitude of an impact is a predicted measure of the level, intensity or amount of the change to the existing conditions caused by the proposed development.

Duration of Impact

4.4.3 The duration of the predicted impacts will be classified as either permanent or temporary, where appropriate.

4.4.4 Permanent changes are those which are irreversible (e.g. permanent land take) or will last for the foreseeable future (e.g. additional noise from development-generated road traffic).

4.4.5 The duration of temporary impacts is defined as follows:

Short-term - Less than one year;

Medium-term - One to five years; and

Long-term - Greater than five years.

4.5 Impact assessment, mitigation and Iterative design

4.5.1 The incorporation of mitigation measures, including the ‘embedded’ mitigation provided by the masterplanning process [including the ELR(S], will be reported as well as proposed mitigation during the construction phase where appropriate. A description and the significance of any potential residual effect, namely that which remains after mitigation has been incorporated, will be presented in the ES.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


4.6 Consultation

4.6.1 Consultation with statutory consultees and other stakeholders will take place throughout different stages of the EIA process, and their input is essential to determine the final scope of the ES.

4.6.2 A stakeholder workshop has already taken place in Saunderton on 24th June 2015 to generate

constructive discussion and input from a wide range of stakeholders. Those that attended included representatives from the following organisations:

Canals & Rivers Trust – Works Manager and Engineer;

Aylesbury Vale District Council - Planning Policy Officer, Green Spaces Officer and Business Relationship Officer;

Buckinghamshire County Council – Environment, Flooding & Drainage, Transport and Archaeology;

Environment Agency – Planning and Biodiversity;

Buckinghamshire Advantage;

RSPB; and

Charnwood Borough Council.

4.6.3 It is anticipated that the respective officers at the local planning authority, bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England and neighbouring authorities (where relevant) will be consulted at the scoping stage.

4.6.4 A separate liaison exercise has begun with the Highway Authorities (local and strategic). It is intended that these discussions will ensure that all transport matters arising be discussed and dealt with together in a mutually acceptable manner as the assessment work proceeds.

4.6.5 All consultation activity undertaken, the feedback submitted, and the developer’s response will be captured in the Statement of Community Engagement.

4.7 Assessing Significance

4.7.1 The term ‘effect’ refers to how the impact will affect different receptors (as a consequence of their sensitivity or importance).

4.7.2 Evaluating the significance of an ‘effect’ on receptors in the environment is carried out by consideration of the magnitude of an effect and the sensitivity of the receptor that is subject to that effect.

4.7.3 The sensitivity of the receptor is based on its importance and vulnerability to change. Indicators of importance include quality, scale, rarity and substitutability. Vulnerability can be dependent upon the present condition of a receptor, the range of environmental variables on which it is dependent and its reliance on human intervention or management. The sensitivity of the receptor is categorised as high, medium or low.

4.7.4 The description and magnitude of change is based on a range of information about the effect, including:

quantitative (e.g. the area or extent of the receptor affected) and qualitative information (e.g. landscape quality);

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


whether the change is beneficial, neutral or adverse?

whether the change is temporary or permanent;

is the change is expected to last in the short, medium or long-term (include range of years where possible);

whether the change is direct or indirect.

Is the change reversible/irreversible?

Does the change increase or decrease with time?

4.7.5 The magnitude of change is categorised as high, medium, low or very low. Where no effect is predicted for an option, this is recorded as no change.

4.7.6 These aspects are used to determine the significance of any identified effect.

4.7.7 The significance of the effect on the receptor is then assessed by considering the magnitude of the impact against the sensitivity of the receptor.

Magnitude of impact + Sensitivity of receptor = Significance of effect

4.7.8 The approach to assessing both the magnitude of an impact and the sensitivity of a receptor is based on expert judgement in consideration of factors such as regulations, guidelines, standards or codes of practice, and the advice and views of statutory consultees and other stakeholders. It should therefore be recognised that the sensitivity of a receptor and magnitude of change may be different for each technical chapter of the EIA.

4.7.9 The matrix in Table 4-1 shows the different significance of effects.

Table 4-1: Significance of Effect Categories

Significance Level Criteria

Severe

Only adverse effects are assigned this level of significance as they represent key factors in the decision-making process. These effects are generally, but not exclusively, associated with sites and features of international, national or regional importance. A change at a regional or borough scale site or feature may also enter this category.

Major These effects are likely to be important considerations at a local or borough scale but, if adverse, are potential concerns to the project and may become key factors in the decision-making process.

Moderate

These effects, if adverse, while important at a local scale, are not likely to be key decision-making issues. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall effects on a particular area or on a particular resource.

Minor These effects may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be of importance in the decision-making process.

Not Significant No effect or effect which is negligible or beneath the level of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


4.8 Impact Interaction and Cumulative effects

4.8.1 The EIA Regulations require consideration of the potential impact inter-relationships and cumulative effects of development. Examples might include effects on: residential amenity (noise, visual and air quality) or the capacity of transport infrastructure arising from the development and other extant consents in the locality.

4.8.2 The EIA will also take into account major extant planning permissions and committed development that are considered likely to come forward during the lifetime of the project. These are summarised in Table 4-2. Where appropriate, these will be factored into the definition of the baseline or identified as receptors at the relevant points in time.

4.8.3 Potential interactions and secondary effects will be considered through the course of the EIA, drawing upon the individual ‘topic’ based assessments. These will be consolidated and reported in a summary matrix in the Environmental Statement.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Table 4-2: Cumulative Developments (within 10 miles)

App Number Location Proposal Distance to site

Decision

CM/78/14

Proposed Anaerobic Digestion Plant And Materials Recycling Facility Samian Way Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire HP22 5WJ

Proposed Anaerobic Digestion Plant/Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) together with associated plan and landscaping.

Neighbouring site to the east

Approved

14/03724/AOP Land At Valley Farm Leighton Road Soulbury Buckinghamshire

Outline planning permission with means of access to be determined and all other matters reserved for mixed used development including residential use (C3) - some 300 dwellings, Employment use (B1), Commercial (A1 - A5 inclusive), Leisure and Community (D2) and Ambulance Waiting Facility (Sui Generis) Land uses and associated roads, drainage, car parking, servicing, footpaths, cycleways and public open space/ informal open space and landscaping.

8.5 miles north-east

Pending

14/03289/AOP Land At Haddenham Airfield Thame Road Haddenham Buckinghamshire

Outline application (with access to be considered and all other matters reserved for subsequent consideration) for the erection of up to 233 residential dwellings, provision of 4.85 hectares of employment land (B1, B2 and B8), relocation and extension of existing playing fields with new community pavilion and associated car parking, a retail convenience store, 64 bed care home, relocation of existing glider hanger, provision of open space and landscaping, creation of new pedestrian and cycle links and associates works of supporting infrastructure including new vehicular access points from Pegasus Way.

9 miles south-west

Pending

14/02666/AOP Land At Haddenham Glebe Stanbridge Road Haddenham Buckinghamshire

Outline planning application for the construction of 280 no. dwellings, including 35 no. age - restricted dwellings, with associated garages, parking, estate roads, footways, pedestrian linkages, public open space, burial ground, community sports facility, strategic landscaping, drainage and other associated works.

8.4 miles south-west

Secretary of State to Determine

14/02002/AOP Land At Station Road Outline application with access to be considered and all other 7.5 miles east Pending

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



Decision

Ivinghoe Buckinghamshire

matters reserved for the erection of up to 70 residential units and associated infrastructure.

14/01794/AOP Buckinghamshire County Council Old County Offices And Former Civic Centre Site Walton Street Aylesbury Buckinghamshire HP20 1UA

Outline application with access, layout and scale to be considered and all other matters reserved for the provision of 2 new public squares and adjoining public realm (4850sqm), residential floorspace up to 6750sqm, 97sqm of retail use (A1), 3115sqm food and beverage units (A3, A4 and A5), 192sqm commercial space, 700sqm of community use (D1) and car parking.

2.2 miles west Approved

13/00833/APP Gatehouse Quarter Gatehouse Road Aylesbury Buckinghamshire

Construction of 12484sq m floor space supermarket (Class A1) and associates uses, surface level car park below and to the south of the new supermarket; 25 affordable housing units with associated parking, creation of new access from Edge Street to serve residential use; new signalised junction at Gatehouse Road and Gatehouse Way, associated widening of Gatehouse Road; new access off Bicester Road; creation of new public realm, footways and cycleways, landscaping and other ancillary works.

3 miles west Pending Decision

11/00965/AOP North-West Land To East College Road North Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire

Proposed B2/B8 development of up to 41806 square metres to north-west of site with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Neighbouring site east

Approved

11/00964/AOP South Land To East College Road North Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire

Proposed B2/B8 industrial development and ancillary B1(c) light industrial development of up to 22297 square metres with ancillary offices and associated areas, parking and landscaping.


Approved

11/00962/APP Land To East College Road North Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire

Proposed dairy (1.3BN L) associated offices, pallet store, energy centre, cool corridor, 3 x gatehouse, vehicle maintenance unit (VMU), transport office, wash enclosure, drivers store, car & commercial parking spaces. Balancing pond, engineering works to create landscape bund & diversion of Drayton Mead brook, landscaping and new priority junction from College Road, external works to include vehicle wash, fuel island & weighbridges and associated access.


Approved

14/00247/ADP Berryfields Mda Bicester Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 4.5 miles west Approved

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



Decision

Road Quarrendon Buckinghamshire

03/02386/AOP relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for Land Parcel HT07 (HM05) comprising the construction of 122 dwellings, associated roads and sewers, parking, garaging and turning in accordance with condition 1 of the outline planning approval.

13/03578/ADP Berryfields Mda Bicester Road Quarrendon Buckinghamshire

Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 03/02386/AOP for access, layout, scale and appearance relating to parcel HM04 comprising the erection of 167 dwellings with associated road works, parking and ancillary works.



Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 03/02386/AOP for access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping relating to parcel HM03 comprising the erection of 29 dwellings with associated road works, landscaping and parking.



Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 03/02386/AOP relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for Parcel HT05 (part of HW18) comprising the construction of 66 dwellings, associated estate road, parking, garaging and turning.


14/02672/ADP Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 03/02386/AOP relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for Parcel HW17 comprising the construction of 124 residential dwellings.


13/01511/ADP Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 03/02386/AOP relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for Parcel HW08 comprising the erection of 114 dwellings including roads, parking and ancillary works.


10/02475/ADP Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permissions 03/02386/AOP relating to appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access for Parcels HB01 and HB02 comprising the construction of 148 residential dwellings.


10/01911/ADP Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 03/02386/AOP for the erection of 324 dwellings with associated public open space, highways and landscaping for sites HM01 and


EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



Decision

HM02.

10/01187/ADP Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 03/02386/AOP for 174 dwellings, associated estate roads, parking, garaging and turning in accordance with condition No.1.


08/02029/ADP Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 03/02386/AOP relating to Phases HW03/04/05/06/09 and 10A of Phase 1 comprising the erection of 384 dwellings with associated garages, parking, roads, landscaping and open space.


Aston Clinton

15/02134/AOP Land Off College Road South Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire

Outline application with access to be considered and all other matters reserved for the erection of up to 85 dwellings

400m south Pending

15/01395/AOP Land Rear Of 93 Aylesbury Road Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire

Outline application with access to be considered and all other matters reserved for the demolition of 95 Aylesbury Road and the erection of 50 dwellings with access, parking, amenity space, formal and informal open space, footpath links, landscaping and all enabling works.

550m south Pending

15/00300/AOP Land Off Chapel Drive And Rear Of Green End Street Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire

Outline application (with access to be considered and all other matters reserved) for a residential development of up to 95 dwellings with access, amenity space and associated works

800m south east

Pending

15/00263/AOP Land East Of New Road Weston Turville Buckinghamshire

Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of 27 dwellings and new crossover

N/A Refused

14/03662/APP Land At Stratford Close Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire

Construction of 30 dwellings with associated garages, roads and new access

750m south Pending

14/02463/AOP Land North Of Brook Farm Brook Street Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire

Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of up to 91 dwellings, one 70sqm retail unit, provision of open space, two vehicular access points, parking, access roads, footpaths and landscaping works.

650m south east

Approved subject to Section 106

14/00426/AOP Land Off Brook Street And Aylesbury Road

Outline application (with access to be considered and all other 700m east Approved

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



Decision

Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire

matters reserved) for the demolition of 7 & 9 Brook Street and redevelopment to provide up to 29 dwellings with new access, roads, parking, landscaping, drainage, on-site LEAP and open space.

14/02072/AOP Land East Of New Road Weston Turville Buckinghamshire

Outline planning application with all matters reserved for the erection of up to 64 dwellings, public open space, attenuation basin and associated infrastructure.

0.4km south Pending

13/02508/AOP Land Off Chapel Drive Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire

Outline application (with access to be considered and all other matters reserved) for proposed residential development of up to 47 dwellings with access, amenity space and associated works

1.2km south east

Appeal Allowed

15/00968/ADP Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline planning permission 13/02508/AOP relating to matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 47 dwellings with associated open space, landscaping and infrastructure works.

1.2km south east

Pending

13/01488/AOP Land Bounded By New Road And Aston Clinton Road Weston Turville Buckinghamshire

Outline application with all matters reserved. Site for 135 dwellings with associated public open space, new vehicular, pedestrian & cycle accesses, landscaping and drainage works

Neighbouring Site south

Pending

12/01490/AOP Land Adjacent To Stablebridge Road Aston Clinton Buckinghamshire

Residential development comprising up to 48 dwelling units and associated open space, landscaping and infrastructure works

2.3km south east

Refused Appeal Allowed

14/01813/ADP Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 12/01490/AOP (allowed on appeal) relating to matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 48 dwelling units with associated open space, landscaping and infrastructure works.

2.3km south east

Approved

12/00605/AOP Land Between Wendover Road And Aston Clinton Road Weston Turville Buckinghamshire

Outline application (with all matters reserved) for a mixed use sustainable urban extension comprising: up to 3,000 dwellings and a 60 bed extra care or care home facility (use class C2/C3); provision of land for a park and ride site, and a Waste Recycling Facility adjoining the A41 Aston Clinton Road; a total of 9.45ha of

N/A Refused Appeal Dismissed

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



Decision

employment land (comprising of up to 40,000 sqm B1/B2/B8/sui generis uses); link road between A413 Wendover Road and A41 Aston Clinton Road; provision of two primary schools (both 3 form entry); a mixed use local centre (4.09ha) comprising of a 1,200 square metres (GFA) food store, further retail (including a pharmacy), restaurants and cafe units, a doctor's surgery, gym, public house with letting rooms, professional services, multi - functional community space and day nursery; multi- functional green infrastructure (totalling 103.1ha) including parkland, sport pitches, sport pavilion, children's play areas, informal open space, allotments, community orchards, woodlands, landscaping and surface water attenuation, strategic flood defences to protect the town centre, vehicular access points from New Road Marroway, A413 Wendover Road and A41 Aston Clinton Road; and internal road, streets, lanes, squares footpaths and cycleways.

15/02271/AOP Land East Of Lower Road Stoke Mandeville Buckinghamshire

Outline planning permission with access to be considered and all other matters reserved for the erection of up to 117 residential dwellings and associated ancillary works.

3.25km south west

Pending

15/01619/AOP Land At Lower Road Stoke Mandeville Buckinghamshire

Outline permission with access to be considered and all other matters reserved for a residential development of up to 190 dwellings with associates access

3km south west

Pending

11/02088/AOP Mount Pleasant Tamarisk Way Weston Turville

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 27 residential units 2km south west

Approved

Elmhurst

11/02514/AOP Aylesbury Vale Community Healthcare N H S Trust Tindal Centre Bierton Road Aylesbury Buckinghamshire HP20 1HU

Demolition of the Cornerstone Day Hospital, Kimmerage/Portland and the SCAS bungalow and construction of up to 60 residential units including conversion of the Tindal building together with amenity space, parking and landscaping.

.7km west Approved

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



Decision

Oakfield and Bierton

10/02649/AOP Land East Of Aylesbury Broughton Crossing Bierton Buckinghamshire

New urban extension comprising 2450 homes, 10ha employment land, neighbourhood centre, two primary schools, construction of eastern link road (part) and the Stocklake link road (rural section), green infrastructure, associates community facilities and support infrastructure including expanded electricity substation and flood defences.

Immediately north west of site

Approved

14/03486/ADP Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 10/02649/AOP relating to appearance landscaping, layout and scale for village 2 (including all mitigation land) comprising the development of up to 495 residential units, community facilities, associated landscaping and public open space, internal access and infrastructure.

Approved

15/01767/ADP Approval of second reserved matters pursuant to planning permission 10/02649/AOP relating to Village 4 (including all mitigation land) comprising the residential development of 859 dwellings, community facilities, public open space, SuDS, mitigation land, electricity substation and associated infrastructure to serve.

Pending

14/01010/AOP Former Bpc Hazells Tring Road Aylesbury Buckinghamshire

Outline application with all matters reserved for the development of 168 residential dwellings.

1.8km west Pending

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5 Potential significant effects

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This section identifies the geographical and temporal scope of each of the technical assessments to be undertaken. It suggests the methodologies which will be used to assess baseline conditions and the criteria to be used to determine the significance of any potential effects.

5.1.2 The aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development have been considered, including, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.

5.1.3 This consideration has resulted in a list of topics which will form technical chapters of the ES.

5.1.4 In accordance with the Regulations each technical assessment will provide:

A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from:

(a) the existence of the development;

(b) the use of natural resources; and

(c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste, and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.

A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.2 Socio-economics

Introduction

5.2.1 The purpose of this chapter is to set out the technical details of the assessment of socio-economic effects of the proposed development that will be undertaken and the way in which it will be reported within the Environmental Statement.

Context

5.2.2 In November 2014 Aylesbury Vale Council planning officers indicated, in a report to Cabinet, that 1,026 additional dwellings per annum would be required over the Plan period, the bulk of which will likely be provided in and around Aylesbury itself. Alongside this, the Aylesbury Vale Housing and Economic Growth Assessment 2011 highlights that B space jobs will increase by 11,400 between 2011 and 2031, generating a requirement for around 110 ha of employment land (B Class Uses). In addition, the new Local Plan will need to plan for these requirements, along with other uses, including social infrastructure.

Scope of assessment

5.2.3 The socio-economic effects associated with the proposed development are likely to include increased population and potential demographic effects, improvements to local standards of living and meeting the area’s housing needs, increased demand for (and provision of) local services and community facilities, and the generation of employment both during the construction and operation phases.

Methodology for determining baseline conditions

5.2.4 Socio-economic profiling of the study area will be undertaken to establish a baseline against which any change due to the proposed development can be assessed. This will involve identifying the activities currently located in the area, in particular:

the demographic profile and how this is forecast to increase/change;

the number of households and identified housing need;

business activities and jobs (identifying which sectors are likely to benefit from increased resident spend); and

an audit of community infrastructure provision and capacity.

5.2.5 The baseline will be developed from the latest statistical data, such as the:

Office of National Statistics (ONS) Census for England and Wales (2011);

Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES);

the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD); and

Aylesbury Vale Housing & Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA).

5.2.6 The audit of social infrastructure will be informed by Geographical Information Systems (GIS) mapping of facilities. This will be backed up by consultation with service providers, including Aylesbury Vale District Council, to identify current capacity (quantitatively wherever possible) for the identified elements of social infrastructure (such as schools, healthcare and community facilities).

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Impact Assessment Methodology

5.2.7 The methodology used to estimate impacts will follow guidance set out in the Her Majesty’s (HM) Treasury’s Green Book and Homes & Communities Agency (HCA) Additionality Guide, as well as taking account of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills research on additionality.

5.2.8 A detailed assessment of the likely effects on the local and national economy and their significance (based on the criteria defined in Chapter 4) during the construction and the operation phases of the proposed development will be undertaken. This will include:

Direct economic impacts: jobs that are wholly or largely related to the proposed development;

Indirect economic impacts (positive and negative): jobs generated in the study area in the chain of suppliers of goods and services to the direct activities;

Induced economic impacts: jobs created by direct and indirect employees’ spending in the study area or in the wider economy; and

Wider economic, social and community (catalytic) impacts (positive and negative): employment and income generated in the economy, and impacts on social and community infrastructures relating to the wider role of the proposed development.

Criteria for determining the significance of an effect

5.2.9 Identified likely significant effects will include ‘embedded mitigation’.

5.2.10 Receptors will be identified (e.g. for a particular local population, employment sector, etc.) and their sensitivity described according to the baseline conditions with reference to relevant standards/methodologies (e.g. whether the receptor is important at a local, district or national level).

5.2.11 An assessment of cumulative effects of the development will also be considered, along with recommended mitigation measures. The residual effects following the implementation of the mitigation measures will then be identified.

Risks and Limitations

5.2.12 The baseline analysis is limited by the level of detail of statistical information and publications available at the time of writing for the study area. For instance, some statistics may be available at district level and to a lesser extent at Ward or Lower Super Output level.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.3 Traffic and Transport

Introduction

5.3.1 The traffic and transport ES chapter will set out the existing baseline conditions on the local transport network surrounding the site, the future baseline, and then set out the likely significant effects of the development on the transport network, and in the context of other developments within the area.

5.3.2 This assessment will refer to the detailed Transport Assessment to be prepared in support of the proposed development and build upon its findings. This Transport Assessment will be a separate document to the Environmental Assessment, but will be incorporated as an Appendix to the ES.

5.3.3 The Transport Assessment will be undertaken to ascertain the likely effects on the existing highway network as a result of the development, evaluate the public transport provision, identify opportunities and constraints for pedestrian and non-car use associated with the proposed development and provide consideration of the access requirements of the development. It will also include details of the measures proposed within a Travel Plan designed to mitigate any transportation effects of the development. This work will inform the traffic and transport ES chapter.

5.3.4 Discussions and negotiations have commenced with key transport stakeholders such as Buckinghamshire County Council. A Transport Scoping Report will be submitted by Peter Brett Associates to Buckinghamshire County Council for approval which sets out the broad principles of the assessment approach to the Transport Assessment.

Context

5.3.5 The site is located to the north of the A41 and is bounded to the west by the ‘Aston Clinton Major Development Area’ (MDA), to the east by College Road North and to the north by the Grand Union Canal which provides a connection for pedestrians and cyclists into central Aylesbury. The A41 Aston Clinton Road/Tring Road to the south of the site is a Primary Public Transport Corridor (PPTC) providing high frequency bus services into Aylesbury including the bus and rail stations.

5.3.6 The Aylesbury Woodlands site sits within the wider Aylesbury East strategic growth area. A key element of the delivery of growth within the Aylesbury Eastern area is the delivery of the Aylesbury Eastern Link Road (ELR). The completed ELR will connect the A418 Bierton Road to the north with the A41 Aston Clinton Road to the south. A radial link will be provided which connects the ELR with the A4157 Oakfield Road/Douglas Road. The existing Stocklake link between Broughton Lane and the A4157 will be upgraded, and a new rural section of road will be provided by Barratt Developments Plc to link the existing Stocklake Link with the ELR as part of the Kingsbrook Development. The Aylesbury Eastern growth arc therefore contains four sections of key infrastructure:

Eastern Link Road (North); [ELR(N)]

Stocklake Link Road (Rural);

Urban Stocklake Link Road; and

Eastern Link Road (South). [ELR)S)]

5.3.7 A schematic plan showing the location of these is reproduced in Figure 2-2 for information. The alignment of these links shown on the plans is not up to date but provides an overall context for the scheme.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.3.8 The Stocklake Link Road and the Eastern Link Road (North) shown on Figure 2-2 are being delivered by Barratt Development Plc as part of their planning obligations for the consented Kingsbrook Development located to the north of Aylesbury Woodlands and to the north of the Grand Union Canal. The Eastern Link Road (North) is due for completion in 2019.

5.3.9 Construction of the Urban Stocklake Link Road shown on Figure 2-2 is anticipated to commence in August 2015. It will eventually connect with the rural section of the Stocklake Link Road within the Kingsbrook Development. The Urban Stocklake Link Road is being delivered by Buckinghamshire County Council and is subject to a joint business case with the ELR (S) currently being undertaken by Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) and Ringway Jacobs.

5.3.10 It is proposed that the Aylesbury Woodlands site will be accessed from the Eastern Link Road (S) which will provided as part of the Aylesbury Woodlands site and will connect the A41 with the northern section of the ELR provided by Barratt Development Plc in the Kingsbrook Development. The site will also be accessed from the east via College Road North near the Arla Dairy. This section is shown on Figure 2-2.

Proposed Scope

5.3.11 The traffic and transport chapter of the ES will be informed by the Transport Assessment (TA) work.

5.3.12 The TA will be carried out in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF and with reference to the Department for Transport’s (DfT) now-archived “Guidance on Transport Assessment”. The aim of the Transport Assessment will be to identify, as far as reasonably possible, the nature of the transport changes within the area of the proposed development, to assess the significance of the changes and to make appropriate recommendations. The assessment will include consideration of traffic changes during construction as well as changes during the operation of the proposed development.

5.3.13 It will also examine the opportunities for sustainable transport modes, identify safe and suitable access for all road users, and consider improvements within the transport network to cost-effectively limit any emerging significant impacts.

5.3.14 The TA’s scope, including baseline data and methodology, will be agreed with Buckinghamshire County Council as the Highway Authority.

Baseline and Future Year Assessment Methodology

5.3.15 The methodology to be used in the traffic and transport chapter of the ES and the determination of the significance criteria are in accordance with the standard guidance for undertaking Environment Impact Assessments contained within:

i. the Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic published by The Institute of Environmental Assessment in 1993 (now the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA));

ii. Volume 11 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways Agency et al) – Environmental Assessment;

iii. DfT’s “Guidance on Transport Assessment” (published in March 2007 archived in October 2014) is assumed to remain in force until it is replaced with another document;

iv. the Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic makes reference to the Manual of Environment Appraisal (MEA) published by the (then) Department of Transport

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


in 1983. This has been superseded and reference has therefore been made to the relevant sections of the abovementioned Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways Agency et al) – specifically Volume 11 entitled “Environmental Assessment”.

5.3.16 The Baseline and Future Year Assessment of the ES will be informed by the TA assessment work undertaken in support of the Outline Planning Application. This assessment reviews the existing situation surrounding the site as a baseline, and then assesses the impact of the proposed development. Potential changes likely as a result of the development will be examined.

5.3.17 The TA will include transport modelling - it is proposed that this will be based on the existing Combined Stocklake / Eastern Link Road (S) Transport Model and will be undertaken by Jacobs on behalf of PBA and reviewed by BCC. This model will be used to extract traffic flow data for key links and junction for the baseline and future year assessments for the TA and the traffic and transport chapter of the ES. Traffic count data has also been collected in June 2015 for a number of links and junctions across Aylesbury to provide baseline traffic data to support and supplement the model data.

5.3.18 A Transport Scoping Note has been issued to BCC for approval which sets out the assumptions to be included within the baseline and future year model runs to inform the TA and Traffic and Transport chapter of the ES. This includes local committed development and infrastructure assumption.

5.3.19 The modelling will be further supported with a site-specific Person Trip Spreadsheet Model prepared by PBA (see paragraph 5.3.24). The likely environmental effects arising from the proposed development will be assessed in the corresponding transport chapter of the ES.

Impact Assessment Methodology and Significance criteria

5.3.20 The assessment will identify the likely significant environmental effects arising from the proposed development in respect of all modes of transport. The assessment of individual environmental elements will be carried out drawing upon with the ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (1993) published by the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) and, where appropriate, Volume 11 of the DMRB ‘Environmental Assessment’ (2008) published by the former Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), now DfT.

5.3.21 The assessment will consider the potential effects of both the construction and operational stages using a comparative prediction of local vehicle movements with and without the development, based upon the predicted number of trips generated and the likely modal share.

5.3.22 Reflecting the subject matter and order of topics as stated in the Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, the ES transport chapter will also consider the potential for significant effects relating to :

i. Severance;

ii. Driver Delay;

iii. Pedestrian and Cyclist Delay;

iv. Pedestrian and Cyclist Amenity;

v. Fear and Intimidation;

vi. Road Safety; and

vii. Hazardous Loads.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Determination of Significance of Effects

5.3.23 The generic significance criteria will be applied throughout this EIA as stated in Table 4-1.

5.3.24 Transport data and information will be obtained from a variety of sources, including:

i. traffic count survey data – including automatic turning counts, turning movement and queue survey data;

ii. the Combined Stocklake/Eastern Link Road (S) Transport Model – to evaluate the peak hour movements generated by the development on the external highway network in the future year.

iii. a spreadsheet model (prepared by PBA) – this will be used to independently generate residential and employment trips from the proposed development to estimate the likely internalisation between the land-uses on-site. An adjustment will then be applied to the forecast trip end matrices produced by the Combined Stocklake /Eastern Link Road (S) Transport Model to reflect this internalisation

iv. ‘readily’ available national and local data.

5.3.25 The Study Area of the Environmental Statement will be determined in accordance with the recommendation of the ‘Guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’, that ‘a 30% change in traffic flows represents a reasonable threshold for including a highway link within the assessment’. As such, the assessment will:

i. include highway links where traffic flows will increase by more than 30% (or the number of heavy goods vehicles will increase by more than 30%); and

ii. include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows have increased by 10%, or more.

5.3.26 The 30% threshold relates to the level at which humans may perceive change and there may therefore be an effect. Impacts above this level therefore do not suggest that there is a significant impact, only that further consideration is required to assess the significance.

5.3.27 The Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) guidelines indicate that increases in traffic flows of less than 10% are generally accepted as having no discernible environmental impact as daily variance in traffic flows can be of equal magnitude.

5.3.28 Once the assessment of potential effects has been made, appropriate measures to off-set the effects will be identified. These mitigation measures necessary to ensure that the potential transport effects of the proposed development remain within acceptable parameters will be determined with respect to the assessment of the predicted operation of the transport network - including travel demand management measures, as well as potential improvements to the pedestrian and cycle network, public transport services and facilities, as well as highway junctions and links.

5.3.29 The ES transport chapter will reflect the findings of the Transport Assessment, whilst assigning levels of significance to the perceived effects. The chapter will set out the requisite mitigation measures and the residual effects once these are incorporated into the proposals.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



5.3.30 The transport-related technical work used to support the proposed development is to be based upon traffic flows from the Combined Stocklake/Eastern Link Road (S) Transport Model.

5.3.31 Whilst the Local Model Validation Report prepared by Jacobs (May 2015) suggests the model validates well around the proposed development, additional traffic count data was collected in June 2015 to provide an additional source of data for calibration of queue lengths at local junctions, as requested by BCC.

5.3.32 In addition, although a number of committed developments will be modelled within the Combined Stocklake/Eastern Link Road (S) Transport Model, due to the scale of the proposed development and the time over which it will be completed and occupied, there is some inevitable uncertainty regarding when these sites may actually come forward over this period. The assumptions included within the model are set out in the Transport Assessment Scoping Note which will be submitted to Buckinghamshire County Council for approval and represent the best available information at the present time.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.4 Air Quality

Introduction

5.4.1 The air quality chapter of the ES will assess the likely significant effects of the proposed development upon air quality within the site and surrounding area; and the likely significant effects of existing traffic and other developments on the air quality of the site itself.

Context

5.4.2 Air quality effects can occur during both construction and operation. Construction phase effects are generally associated with dust soiling and increases in fine particulate matter concentrations. Operational phase effects are associated with increases in oxides of nitrogen, nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter concentrations, as well as nitrogen and acid deposition at sensitive habitats.

5.4.3 Three Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) have been declared by Aylesbury Vale District Council for exceedances of the annual mean nitrogen dioxide objective and they are located in the town of Aylesbury. The Tring Road AQMA is located approximately 2 km west of the site, along the A41. Traffic from the proposed development could impact on existing residential receptors within the AQMA. Friarage Road and Stoke Road AQMA areas are not likely to be effected by traffic from the proposed development.

5.4.4 There are five SSSI’s within 5 km of the proposed development and two LWS’s within 2 km of the proposed development. Road traffic from the proposed development could adversely impact on oxide of nitrogen concentrations, and nitrogen and acid deposition within the habitats.

5.4.5 Road traffic through the development site could impact the air quality of proposed residential and ecological receptors within the site itself and residential receptor locations close to the A41 (Aston Clinton Road).

Scope of assessment

5.4.6 The following potential environmental effects of the development will be considered:

The effects of construction phase dust and particulate matter (PM10) emissions on public amenity and human health, as well as emissions from construction equipment and construction traffic. The main air pollutants of concern related to construction equipment and traffic are nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Construction dust can affect receptors up to 350 m from the point of generation which generally defines the geographical scope of the construction phase assessment.

Post-construction phase effects associated with emissions from road traffic. The main air pollutants of concern related to traffic are nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Traffic affects can occur up to 200 m from the road where there is a significant change in traffic. To this end, a change of 500 vehicles per day outside of an air quality management area and 100 vehicles per day inside is generally deemed to be significant.

Post-construction phase effects associated with odour from existing or proposed sources of odour in close proximity to the development site.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



5.4.7 Consultation will be undertaken with the Air Quality Officer at Aylesbury Vale District Council to determine the detailed scope of the assessment and assist with the identification of sensitive receptors to be considered in the assessment.

5.4.8 Information on existing air quality in the area proposed for development will be obtained from the United Kingdom (UK) Air Quality Archive, Defra website, Aylesbury Vale District Council Review and Assessment documents, the Environment Agency and previous assessments for the site and surrounding area.

5.4.9 Information on existing acid and nitrogen deposition and critical loads for sensitive ecological habitats will be obtained from the Air Pollution Information System (APIS) website.

Methodology for assessment of potential impacts

5.4.10 A desktop study would be undertaken to identify the location of any receptors that could be affected by the proposed development and an initial review of the existing or baseline air quality in the area.

5.4.11 A qualitative assessment of construction dust impacts will be undertaken in accordance with Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance on construction dust (Holman, 2014). Cumulative construction phase impacts will be considered in relation to sites that are within 350 m of the development site and which could be constructed at the same time. Similar construction phase impacts are likely, as well as similar construction phase mitigation and therefore effects.

5.4.12 An assessment will be made as to the likely level of significance of construction phase traffic by reference to the thresholds within the IAQM guidance on planning (Moorcraft et al., 2015). Where construction traffic is considered significant, then it will be modelled in the same manner as operational phase traffic.

5.4.13 During the operational phase traffic related effects will be assessed using the Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System (ADMS) Roads Dispersion Model. The assessment will establish the impact of the proposals on local air quality by modelling concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 both with and without the proposed development at identified receptor locations. Receptors will be identified at locations where they will be most likely affected by changes in emissions i.e. at junctions and where they are closest to the modelled road network. Modelling will be undertaken for 2014 and the proposed year of opening with and without development in place. The results of the dispersion modelling will be verified in accordance with Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance (2009) (LAQMTG(09)) using locally monitored nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube data. For the road traffic modelling there is a dependence on the traffic data for the development.

5.4.14 The effect of road traffic emissions on ecological habitats will be undertaken by predicting the change in oxides of nitrogen concentrations and nitrogen and acid deposition within the habitats up to 200 m from the affected road.

5.4.15 Cumulative operational phase traffic will be contained within the future baseline traffic data, and therefore the operational assessment will be a cumulative assessment.

5.4.16 The effects of existing or proposed developments in the vicinity of the site (i.e. the Arla Dairy) will be undertaken by a review of published assessments as to their impacts.


5.4.17 For construction phase dust impacts, the IAQM guidance is aimed at identifying the required level of mitigation for a particular site. No assessment of significance is undertaken with

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


mitigation as it is assumed to be secured by condition. With appropriate mitigation in place, construction phase dust effects are assessed as being not significant.

5.4.18 Changes in pollutant concentrations will be assessed against National Air Quality Strategy Objectives. The significance of the impacts and effects of road traffic emissions on human health receptors will be based on the criteria within the IAQM guidance on Planning for Air Quality.

5.4.19 For ecological receptors, where a critical level or load is exceeded with the development in place, an increase in concentration or deposition of greater than 1% of the critical level or load respectively will be considered to be potentially significant. The potential for air quality impacts to affect the integrity of the habitats will be considered within the ecological chapter.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.5 Noise and Vibration

Introduction

5.5.1 Previous policy and technical advice on planning and noise matters which was contained in Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise has been revoked.

5.5.2 New concepts such as ‘Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level’ (LOAEL) and ‘Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level’ (SOAEL) have been introduced to the assessment, management and control of noise via the planning system. However whilst new policy objectives have been introduced, supporting technical advice and guidance is largely missing and the Government has advised that it does not intend to provide such technical guidance.

5.5.3 This section details the proposed methodology and suitable design considerations in order to promote an acceptable standard of living with the absence of any likely significant effects on health and quality of life.

Context

5.5.4 Potential sources of noise include the A41 and the proposed Aylesbury Eastern Link Road South [ELR(S)] that will cross the site generally running north to south and connect to the A41 Woodlands Roundabout. To the east of the site lies an Arla dairy factory along with several other small scale industrial and commercial units. The Arla site operates continuously over a given 24-hour period however the smaller units operate during the daytime period only.

5.5.5 The closest noise sensitive receptors that could potentially be impacted upon by development of the site are residential premises adjacent to the south, west, and north-west. Neighbouring commercial premises are also located to the east of the site, however, these are considered to be less sensitive when compared to residential receptors.

5.5.6 Increase in road traffic is not predicted to be significant in noise terms on premises overlooking the A41 as the incident ambient noise levels are already high.

5.5.7 Proposed residential receptors within the development are likely to be affected by noise associated with vehicular movements on the surrounding road network, particularly the A41 and the proposed ELR(S).

5.5.8 Depending upon their location, proposed residential receptors may also be subject to noise associated with the operation of the Arla dairy, the other smaller industrial/commercial units and various commercial and retail/leisure uses.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Scope of assessment

5.5.9 The key issues for consideration include:

noise and vibration due to construction operations;

noise and vibration due to construction traffic;

the change in ambient noise levels due to the increase in road traffic noise;

cumulative industrial and commercial noise emissions;

internal and external ambient noise levels in proposed residential units;

noise generated by Class A3, A4 and D2 retail/entertainment units.


5.5.10 An environmental noise survey will be undertaken in order to establish the incident noise levels around the proposed residential development. The results of the survey will be used, to calibrate a computer generated 3D noise model of the proposed development (and relevant adjacent buildings) in order to review the incident environmental noise levels across the development site.

5.5.11 The noise survey will record incident sound pressure levels over a weekday 24-hour period. The noise survey could be undertaken during the school holidays, though this would be avoided where practicable. Ideally, road surfaces should be dry throughout the duration of the noise survey. However, the noise survey results would still be acceptable if minimal rainfall or intermittent breezes occurred during the survey.

5.5.12 BS 7445:2003 Description and Measurement of Environment Noise – Part 1: Guide to Quantities and Procedures describes methods and procedures for measuring noise from all sources which contribute to the total noise climate of a community environment, individually and in combination. The results are expressed as equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure levels, LAeq,T.

5.5.13 BS 7445-1 states that sound level meters that are used should conform to Class 1 (or Class 2 as a minimum) as described in BS EN 61672:2013 Electroacoustics. Sound Level Meters should be calibrated according to the instructions of the manufacturer and field calibration should be undertaken at least before and after each series of measurements.


5.5.14 In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) guidance for noise, Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and Significant Observable Adverse Effect Levels (SOAEL) are proposed for each noise and vibration source under assessment.

5.5.15 In respect of the EIA Regulations, the beneficial and adverse effect levels of noise and vibration effects have been related to the generic significance levels presented Table 4-1 and are presented in Table 5-5-1. Based on the descriptions of the adverse effect levels in the PPG for noise (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2014), recommended actions for each significance level have been provided.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Table 5-5-1: Noise and Vibration Significance Criteria

Significance Level

Noise and Vibration Adverse Effect Level

Impact and Action

(to be applied to potential effects)

Severe

Noise causes extensive and regular changes in behaviour and could lead to psychological stress or

physiological effects. This level is unacceptable and should be

prevented.

Major SOAEL Noise causes a material change in behaviour

and/or attitude. This level should be avoided.

Moderate

Noise can be heard and causes small changes in behaviour or attitude.

Noise should be mitigated and reduced to a minimum.

Minor LOAEL Noise can be heard but does not cause a change

in behaviour or attitude. No specific mitigation measures are required.

Not Significant NOEL Noise has no effect.

No specific measures required

5.5.16 A beneficial effect may be considered to occur where noise levels fall below the NOEL, where specified (e.g. for the operational road traffic noise assessment, where there is no change or a decrease in noise levels).


Construction Noise

5.5.17 The noise levels generated by construction activities and experienced by any nearby noise sensitive receptors, depend upon a number of variables, the most significant of which are:

the noise generated by plant or equipment used on-site, or on-site activities (i.e. the physical demolition), generally expressed as sound power levels (LW);

the periods of operation of the plant on the site, known as its ‘on-time’;

the distance between the noise source and the receptor; and

the attenuation provided by ground absorption and any intervening barriers.

5.5.18 The assessment of construction noise effects at residential properties will be undertaken according to the ‘example method 1 – the ABC method’ as defined in BS 5228-1: 2009+A1:2014, Annex E as shown in Table 5-5-2.

5.5.19 For residential properties where construction noise levels are predicted to exceed the ABC thresholds, the assessment of the significance of the effect is based on professional judgement, taking into account a range of other factors including:

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Table 5-5-2: Demolition and Construction Noise Level Thresholds of Potential Significant Effect at Dwellings

Assessment Category and

Threshold Value Period

Threshold Value LAeq,T (dB) façade

Category A (a) Category B (b) Category C (c)

Night-time (23:00 – 07:00)

45 50 55

Evenings and Weekends (d)

55 60 65

Daytime (07:00 – 19:00) and

Saturdays (07:00 – 13:00)

65 70 75

NOTE 1: A potential significant effect is indicated if the LAeq,T noise level arising from the site exceeds the threshold level for the category appropriate to the ambient noise level.

NOTE 2: If the ambient noise level exceeds the Category C threshold values given in the table (i.e. the ambient noise level is higher than the above values), then a potential significant effect is indicated if the total LAeq,T noise level for the period increases by more than 3dB due to site noise.

NOTE 3: Applied to residential receptors only.

(a) Category A: Threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are less than these values.

(b) Category B: Threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are the same as Category A values.

(c) Category C: Threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are higher than Category A values.

(d) 19:00 – 23:00 weekdays, 13:00 – 23:00 Saturdays, 07:00 – 23:00 Sundays.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


the layout and orientation of the property relative to the works;

the number of receptors affected and the character of the impact; and

the timing, duration, frequency or likelihood of the effect.

5.5.20 In accordance with the NPPF and NPSE it is also necessary to identify receptors that exceed the LOAEL and SOAEL, and ensure adverse effects are mitigated and minimised

5.5.21 Table 5-5-3 defines the suggested LOAELs and SOAELs for the noise effect levels of construction on residential properties.

Table 5-5-3: Construction Noise Effect Levels for Residential Buildings (External Facade Levels)

Day LOAEL LAeq, T (dB) SOAEL LAeq, T (dB)

Daytime 07:00 – 19:00 Weekdays 07:00 – 13:00 Saturday

60 75

Evenings and Sundays 19:00 – 23:00 Weekdays 13:00 – 23:00 Saturdays 07:00 – 23:00 Sundays

55 65

Night-time

23:00 – 07:00 45 55

5.5.22 Should the existing ambient noise level already exceed the SOAEL, then on the basis that construction noise should not increase the ambient noise level by more than 3 dB, the SOAEL is re-defined as equivalent to the ambient.

5.5.23 As the ABC assessment method is only applicable to residential receptors, a different approach to defining the SOAEL is required for non-residential receptors.

5.5.24 Table 5-5-4 defines the LOAEL and SOAEL for other non-residential uses for this assessment.

Table 5-5-4: Construction Noise Level Thresholds of Potential Significant Effect at Non Residential (External Façade Levels)

Use Time LOAEL LAeq, T (dB) SOAEL LAeq, T (dB)

Retail / Offices All time periods

when in normal use 80

1 90

2

1 Based on the guidance from the Wilson Committee on acceptable daytime noise levels during construction in urban

areas near main roads, taking account of improvements in glazing since the guidance was issued in the 1960s.

2 Based on a +10dB increase corresponding to a doubling in subjective loudness and a conservative estimate of the

sound reduction provided by closed windows of 25dB.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Construction Vibration

5.5.25 The effects of human response to whole body vibration in buildings are defined in BS 6472-1: 2008 (BSI, 2008). This presents effects in terms of Vibration Dose Value (VDV). However, for human response to construction related vibration, it is considered more appropriate to measure Peak Particle Velocity (PPV mm/s), as suggested in BS 5228-2:2009+ A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites (BSI, 2014). Part 2: Vibration.

5.5.26 The limit of human perception to vibration is between about 0.15 mms-1 and 0.3 mms-1 PPV. The sensitivity of the human body also varies according to different frequencies of vibration, with perception generally possible between 1Hz to 80Hz

5.5.27 Table 5-5-5 adapts the guidance on the annoyance effects of vibration as provided in BS 5228-2:2009+ A1:2014 Annex B.

5.5.28 The onset of significant effects (the LOAEL) is classified as 1 mms-1 PPV, the level at which construction vibration can be tolerated with prior warning.

Table 5-5-5: Guidance on Effects of Vibration Levels

Vibration Level PPV

mm/s Description of Effects Effect

Adverse effect Level

<0.3

Vibration is unlikely to be perceptible in even the most sensitive situations for most vibration frequencies associated with

construction.

Negligible

1 Increasing likelihood of perceptible vibration

in residential environments. Minor LOAEL

10

Increasing likelihood of complaint in residential environments, but can be

tolerated at the lower end of the scale if prior warning and explanation has been given to

residents.

Moderate SOAEL

>10

Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a very brief exposure to a level of

10 mms-1

.

Major

5.5.29 Residents and office/retail workers are deemed equally sensitive to annoyance effects from construction vibration. Further consideration of whether an effect is significant will be undertaken using professional judgement, taking account of the duration and frequency of the effect, as well as the time of day.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Building Damage

5.5.30 BS 7385-2: 1993 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings – Part 2: Guide to damage levels from re-radiated vibration provides guidance on vibration levels likely to result in cosmetic damage, and is referenced in BS 5228-2: 2009 + A1:2014. Guide values for transient vibration, above which cosmetic damage could occur, are suggested in Table 5-5-6.

Table 5-5-6: Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage

Type of Building

Peak Component Particle Velocity in Frequency Range of Predominant Pulse

4Hz to 15Hz 15Hz and above

Reinforced or framed structures

50 mms-1 at 4Hz and above

Industrial and heavy commercial buildings

15 mms-1 at 4Hz increasing to 20 mms-1 at 15Hz

20 mms-1 at 15Hz increasing to 50 mms-1 at 40Hz and above

NOTE 1: Values referred to are at the base of the building.

NOTE 2: For un-reinforced or light framed structures and residential or light commercial buildings, a maximum displacement of 0.6 mm (zero to peak) is not to be exceeded.

5.5.31 BS7385-2:1993 states that the probability of building damage tends to zero for transient vibration levels less than 12.5 mms-1 PPV. For continuous vibration the threshold is considerably less at around half this value.

5.5.32 It is also noted that these values refer to the likelihood of cosmetic damage. ISO 4866:2010 (ISO, 2010) defines three different categories of building damage:

cosmetic – formation of hairline cracks in plaster or drywall surfaces and in mortar joints of brick/concrete block constructions;

minor – formation of large cracks or loosening and falling of plaster or drywall surfaces or cracks through brick/block; and

major – damage to structural elements, cracks in support columns, loosening of joints, splaying of masonry cracks.

5.5.33 BS 7385-2:1993 defines that minor damage occurs at a vibration level twice that of cosmetic damage and major damage occurs at a vibration level twice that of minor damage. Therefore, this guidance can be used to define the magnitude of impact identified in Table 5-5-7.

Table 5-5-7: Magnitude of Impact for Building Vibration

Continuous Vibration Level PPV mms

-1

Damage Risk Magnitude of Impact

6 Negligible Very Low

7.5 Cosmetic Low

15 Minor Medium

30 Major High

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.5.34 To determine what effects are caused by these vibration impacts, the sensitivity of the receptor will also be considered.

Construction Traffic Noise

5.5.35 Construction traffic noise will be assessed by considering the short-term increase in traffic flows during construction works following the principles of ‘The Calculation of Road Traffic Noise’ (CRTN) and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7.

5.5.36 Table 5-5-8 provides the criteria for the assessment of the magnitude of impact due to road traffic noise changes arising from construction works that has been taken from Table 3.1 of DMRB.

Table 5-5-8: Change in Noise Levels in the Short Term due to Construction Traffic

Adverse Effect Levels Change in Short Term

Ambient Noise Level due to Construction Traffic (dB)

Effect

SOAEL 3.0 Major

LOAEL 1.0 Minor

NOEL 0.9 Negligible

Operational Road Traffic Noise

5.5.37 The assessments of road traffic noise implements the noise prediction procedures as detailed in the Department of Transport and Welsh Office’s ‘The Calculation of Road Traffic Noise’ (CRTN). The assessment uses criteria to compare changes between the existing traffic noise levels and the potential future traffic noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors.

5.5.38 As Stated by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB):

‘A change in noise level of 1 dB LA10,18h is equivalent to a 25% increase or a 20% decrease in traffic flow, assuming other factors remain unchanged and a change in noise level of 3 dB LA10,18h is equivalent to a 100% increase or a 50% decrease in traffic flow;’

5.5.39 The additional road traffic associated with the operational development should ideally not increase the ambient noise levels at nearby existing noise sensitive premises by more than 3 dB during the daytime or night-time.

Industrial and Commercial Noise Including Fixed Plant Noise/Building Services and Service Yard Noise Associated With the Development

5.5.40 Considering that the noise from operational plant will be mitigated at detailed design stage so as to meet the requirements of the Local Authority, negligible effects would be anticipated and it is considered unnecessary to define absolute LOAEL and SOAEL values as a result.

Internal and External Ambient Noise Levels in Proposed Residential Units

5.5.41 British Standard 8233: 2014 ‘Guidance on Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings’, in relation to this planning application, sets out desirable guideline values in habitable rooms, such as living rooms and bedrooms.

5.5.42 The guideline values relate to steady external noise without a specific character, previously termed ‘anonymous noise’. According to the standard, noise has a specific character if it contains features such as a distinguishable, discrete and continuous tone, is irregular enough

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


to attract attention, or has strong low-frequency content, in which case lower noise limits might be appropriate. Examples of noise with a character may include tonal/intermittent plant noise emissions, music playback, and workshop noise. Examples of external steady noise sources may include environmental noise sources such as busy road traffic. Table 5-5-9 presents the desirable internal ambient noise levels for dwellings.

Table 5-5-9: BS-8233 Desirable Internal Ambient Noise Levels for Dwellings

Activity Location

Daytime

(07:00 hours to 23:00 hours)

Night-time


Resting Living Room 35 dB LAeq, 16 h -

Dining Dining Room/Area 40 dB LAeq, 16 h -

Sleeping (daytime resting)

Bedroom 35 dB LAeq, 16 h 30 dB LAeq, 8 h

*Note 4 Regular individual noise events (for example, scheduled aircraft or passing trains) can cause sleep disturbance. A guideline value may be set in terms of SEL or LAmax, F, depending on the character and number of events per night. Sporadic noise events could require separate values.

*Note 5 If relying on closed windows to meet the guide values, there needs to be an appropriate alternative source of ventilation that does not compromise the façade insulation or the resulting noise levels.

*Note 7 Where development is considered necessary or desirable, despite external noise levels above World Health Organisation guidelines, the internal target levels may be relaxed by up to 5dB and reasonable internal conditions still achieved.

*Selected relevant notes from BS-8233: 2014.

5.5.43 BS 8233 also provides advice in relation to design criteria for external noise. It states that:

‘For traditional external areas that are used for amenity space, such as gardens and patios, it is desirable that the external noise level does not exceed 50 dB LAeq,T, with an upper guideline value of 55 dB LAeq,T which would be acceptable in noisier environments. However, it is also recognized that these guideline values are not achievable in all circumstances where development might be desirable.

In higher noise areas, such as city centres or urban areas adjoining the strategic transport network, a compromise between elevated noise levels and other factors, such as the convenience of living in these locations or making efficient use of land resources to ensure development needs can be met, might be warranted. In such a situation, development should be designed to achieve the lowest practicable levels in these external amenity spaces, but should not be prohibited.

In high-noise areas, consideration should be given to protecting these areas by screening or building design to achieve the lowest practicable levels. Achieving levels of 55 dB LAeq,T or less might not be possible at the outer edge of these areas, but should be achievable in some areas of the space.’

LOAELs for Transportation Airborne Noise Affecting Outdoor Amenity Areas

5.5.44 Outdoor sound levels of 50 dB LAeq, 16 h and 40 dB LAeq, 8 h are considered the LOAELs for airborne noise associated with transportation sources.

5.5.45 In the World Health Organisation (WHO) Night Noise Guidelines for Europe a level of 40 dB LAeq, 8 h outdoors is said to be ‘equivalent to the LOAEL for night noise’.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.5.46 For the daytime level, the information used to support the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise indicate that daytime sound levels of less than 50 dB LAeq, 16 h cause little or no serious annoyance in the community.

SOAELs for Transportation Airborne Noise Affecting Outdoor Amenity Areas

5.5.47 Sound levels of 64 dB LAeq, 16 h and 55 dB LAeq, 8 h are considered the SOAELs for airborne noise from increases in road traffic noise.

5.5.48 The daytime SOAEL is consistent with the daytime trigger level in the UK's Noise Insulation Regulations. The WHO Night Noise Guidelines for Europe sets the Interim Target at 55 dB LAeq,8 hr outside dwellings. This noise threshold has been taken to be the night-time SOAEL.

LOAEL and SOAEL for Transportation Airborne Noise Affecting Indoor Residential Levels

5.5.49 Incident façade levels should not be considered in isolation of the sound reduction provided by the external building fabric. The guidance within Planning Policy Guidance states that ‘consideration should also be given to whether adverse internal effects can be completely removed by closing windows and, in the case of new residential development, if the proposed mitigation relies on windows being kept closed most of the time. In both cases a suitable alternative means of ventilation is likely to be necessary. Further information on ventilation can be found in the Building Regulations.’

5.5.50 Based on the advice within BS:8233-2014 an indoor noise level of 35 dB LAeq,16 h during the daytime and 30 dB LAeq,8 h during the night-time may be considered as the LOAEL for transportation noise.

5.5.51 Similarly an indoor noise level 50 dB LAeq,16 h and 45 dB LAeq,8 h during the night-time may be considered as the SOAEL for transportation noise.

5.5.52 The WHO Guidelines for Community Noise also identify 60 dB LAFMax outside as the guideline value for sleep disturbance with windows open. For this reason, a sound level of 60 dB LAFMax at the façade is considered the LOAEL.

5.5.53 With considered research findings on adverse effects on nonrestorative sleep which indicate that adverse effects on sleep can be avoided if the maximum noise level inside the bedroom do not exceed 65 dB when more than 20 discreet events occur. For this reason, a sound level of 80 dB LAFMax at the façade are considered the SOAELs for noise levels at night.

5.5.54 Table 5-5-10 summarises LOAEL and SOAEL inside the different areas of residential buildings.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Table 5-5-10: Internal and External Noise Criteria for Habitable Rooms due to Transportation Noise

Level

Proposed LOAEL and SOAEL levels for Transportation Noise Affecting New Residential Premises

Daytime


Night-time


Internal Noise Levels

LOAEL 35 LAeq,16h (dB) 30 LAeq,8h (dB)

SOAEL 50 LAeq,16h (dB) 45 LAeq,8h (dB)

LOAEL

Not applicable 45 dB LAmax if more than 20

events

Not applicable 50 dB LAmax if less than 20

events

SOAEL

Not applicable 65 dB LAmax if more than 20

events

Not applicable 70 dB LAmax if less than 20

events

External Amenity Areas (free field levels)

LOAEL 50 LAeq,16h (dB) 40 LAeq,8h (dB)

SOAEL 64 LAeq,16h (dB) 55 LAeq,8h (dB)

5.5.55 Alternative means of ventilation (to opening windows) should only be provided in order to ensure suitable background ventilation rates are achieved. Purge ventilation rates should be achieved via means of opening windows.

5.5.56 Incident noise levels (other than transportation noise) from existing sources should not exceed an internal noise level in habitable rooms of 15 dB LAeq, T under background ventilation conditions.

5.5.57 The above applies to noise emanating indoors from non-residential uses i.e. a restaurant located below an apartment.

5.5.58 A set-back distance with residential dwellings of around 30 m will be put in place in order to reduce the noise impact associated with activities in outdoor sport pitches. A similar set back distance of 10 m will be used when outdoor playgrounds are involved.

5.5.59 Due to the temporary use, noise associated with activities in a stadium (including noise from patrons, Public Address (PA) system, additional traffic, building services, etc.) will not be assessed or be subject to any restrictions.


5.5.60 Environmental sound surveys will be undertaken when typical road traffic flows for the area are expected.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.5.61 It should be noted that sound levels across the site can vary due to changes in the meteorological conditions and the environment of the site and surrounding area at differing times.

5.5.62 The environmental sound surveys undertaken are therefore considered representative of the environmental sound conditions at the time the measurements tool place and in the absence of adverse weather conditions.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.6 Ground Conditions

Introduction

5.6.1 The purpose of this chapter is to set out the technical details of the assessment of ground conditions to be undertaken and the way in which it will be reported within the Environmental Statement.

Context

Current and Historical Land Use

5.6.2 The site comprises agricultural land under predominantly arable cultivation. Land currently in use as pasture lies in the north-west corner of the site.

5.6.3 Review of the Environment Agency’s web-hosted ‘Waste’ database of historic and current landfills has identified that the ‘Old Sewage Works’ historic landfill is located adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the application site on what is now the A41/ College Road North Interchange. The landfill is recorded as having received ‘Inert’ and ‘Industrial’ waste from 16/10/1978 to 16/3/1993.

General Geology

5.6.4 The following geological information is available for the site and its immediate environs:

BGS mapping for the district [BGS DigiMap 50 and reprinted BGS 1:50,000 series sheet 238] Note however that this base mapping has not been revised since 1902;

The BGS Onshore borehole records database which includes ‘borehole’ from the A41 Aston Clinton Bypass ground investigations carried out in 1989/1990; and

The Highways England HAGDMS database includes various reports relating to the A41 Aston Clinton Bypass undertaken in the early 2000’s.

5.6.5 In general geological terms the site is situated on the north-western flank of the London basin, as defined by the Chilterns Chalk escarpment. The published mapping indicating a general gentle dip to the south-east. No geological faults are shown on or in the vicinity of the site.

5.6.6 The BGS geological mapping for the site shows it to be wholly underlain by bedrock of the Cretaceous aged Gault and Greensand Formation (GUGS); these Cretaceous aged bedrock deposits unconformably overlie the Upper Jurassic aged Portland Group and Kimmeridge Clay. Of note is the apparent absence in this district of the Woburn Sands beneath the Gault.

5.6.7 The Gault in the district comprises up to 75 m of pale to medium grey variably calcareous mudstone with a number of persistent layers of in-situ or reworked phosphatic nodules and several glauconitic layers. The Upper Greensand is essentially a sandy-silty facies of the highest Gault and the two formations are treated together in local memoirs.

5.6.8 The Portland Group typically comprises two members, the lower Portland Sand and upper Portland Stone which includes the Aylesbury (or Rubbly) Limestone. The extent and nature of the Portland Group however is poorly understood in the district, due to its limited thickness and limited discontinuous outcrop and presence. A small outcrop is mapped to the north-west of the site capping the slightly higher ground; the strata having been eroded on the lower areas to expose the underlying Kimmeridge Clay.

5.6.9 The Kimmeridge Clay is stiff bluish-black clay with thin cementstones, siltstones and sandstones which occur as tabular beds or ‘doggers’. The Upper Kimmeridge Clay can contain beds of sand and silt.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.6.10 Along the southern edge of the site the GUGS is overlain and masked by superficial deposits comprising Head. [HEAD1 - This is a solifluction deposit that probably dates from peri-glacial times].

5.6.11 There are no mapped alluvial deposits along the course of the Bear Brook or Burcote Brook.

Previous Ground Investigation Findings

5.6.12 There are no known records of any previous boreholes within the application site boundaries.

5.6.13 Ground investigation works carried out for the A41 Aston Clinton Bypass have proven the Gault Clay to 20 m depth adjacent the south-eastern corner of the site. The strata is described typically as ‘dark grey calcareous fissured clay with occasional lenses of silt becoming very silty in places’.

5.6.14 Ground investigation works carried out for the residential development area to the north of the canal noted no discernible difference near-surface between the lower part of the Gault and the underlying Kimmeridge Clay. The presence of ‘limestone’ requiring chiselling of the boreholes to advance was noted in some locations. It is unclear if the boreholes penetrated the base of the Gault Clay and thus if the recorded limestone represented part of the Portland Group or whether this too is absent.

5.6.15 Ground investigation for the recently constructed Arla Dairy site (available through the AVDC Planning Portal – Application 11/00962/APP) has identified the local presence of glacial till deposits (possibly misidentified Head deposits) overlying the Gault Clay bedrock which was proven to 5.5 m depth. Groundwater monitoring wells were also constructed in a number of boreholes across the ‘Arla’ site; review of the reported monitoring data (JPG (Leeds) Limited report RM/GI/4290v1, dated March 2011); of note is the gradual inflow of groundwater into the monitoring wells (over a 3 month period) revealing a shallow groundwater table in some parts

Hydrogeology

5.6.16 The Gault and Upper Greensand is classified by the Environment Agency as a non-aquifer.

5.6.17 The Portland Group, where mapped, is shown as a Secondary A aquifer.

Scope of assessment

Policy, Technical Guidance, Standards

5.6.18 The impact assessment will take account of both national and local planning policy and relevant standards and guidance. These will include the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular:

Section 11, Paragraph 109 of the NPPF that requires that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural local environment by protecting geological conservation interests and preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability.

Paragraph 117 describing policy considerations to minimise impact on geodiversity and geological conservation interests.

Paragraphs 120 and 121 describing policy considerations that the Government expects local planning authorities (LPAs) to take account of in regard to land affected by land contamination and land instability when preparing policies for development plans and in taking decisions on applications.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.6.19 The ES will consider the potential environmental impacts from the development relating to the geology and ground conditions. This will be assessed in accordance with the guidelines and methodology set out in:

The Department for Communities and Local Government Consultation Paper ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: a guide to good practice and procedures’ (published 2006);

Contaminated land risk assessment – a guide to good practice, CIRIA Report C552 (published 2001); and

Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Environmental Impact Assessment in the UK (published 2001).

5.6.20 The scope of the required assessment is informed by the Environment Agency publication:

EIA scoping guidance on the Environmental impact assessment of projects. E3: Scoping the Environmental Impacts of Residential Developments. (Goodall, S – April 2011).


5.6.21 Consideration will be given to the geological setting of the site and potential ground stability and land contamination related impacts. The assessment will be based on a Phase 1 Contaminated Land and Ground Stability desk study that will take account of the Buckinghamshire Land Quality Forum publication ‘Development on Potentially Contaminated Land and/or for a Sensitive End Use’ (Second Edition December 2014). Additional desk study works will also be undertaken with regard to the potential presence of local or regionally important geological and geomorphological sites.

5.6.22 Aylesbury Vale District Council’s Land and Air Quality Team, the Animal and Plant Health Agency (an executive department of Defra) and the Bucks Earth Heritage Group will be consulted as part of the baseline study. Available Environment Agency web-hosted public registers will also be reviewed. The desk study will form a technical appendix to the ES.

5.6.23 The study will also be informed by a baseline surface water quality assessment of the Bear Brook and Burcote Brook and other on-site and boundary ditch/watercourses as appropriate. [Review of current Ordnance Survey mapping has identified a groundwater issue/ possible spring within the central part of the application site]. This second study will form a separate technical appendix to the ES and will also be used in the assessment of effects on water resources (ES Water Chapter).

5.6.24 The approach and methodologies to be used in the assessment will be based upon:

With regard to protection of geodiversity and ground instability, the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework;

With regard to land contamination:

The phasing and guidance contained within CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination [CLR 11 details the UK’s technical framework for structured decision making about land contamination];

BS:10175:2011 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – Code of practice; and

The National House Building Council’s (NHBC) Technical Standards (2014), Part 4 – Chapter 4.1 Land quality – managing ground conditions.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.6.25 There is a large amount of other UK best practice guidance documentation that is relevant to ground conditions (geology and geo-hazards, including land contamination and ground instability). Some of these are listed below (the list is indicative only, i.e. not exhaustive):

BS5930:1990+A2:2010. Code of practice for site investigation;

Department of the Environment (1995). Contaminated Land Report 6. Prioritisation and categorisation procedure for sites that may be contaminated; and

Environment Agency (2008). An ecological risk assessment framework for contaminants in soil. Science Report SC070009/SC1.

Ground Stability

5.6.26 As outlined in the NPPF, there are three broad categories of potential land instability, namely:

The effects of underground cavities (both natural and anthropogenic),

Unstable slopes, and

Ground compression (subsidence).

5.6.27 The object of the study will be to recognise the risk of occurrence and potential for instability or subsidence at the earliest possible stage in the development process, so that:

Appropriate action can be taken in accordance with good practice to assess the risks of instability and/or subsidence and, where practicable, to deal with them by ground treatment or by designing new buildings and structures to withstand the movements expected;

Due account can be taken of the constraints imposed by instability/subsidence at all stages of the development process; and

That it can be ensured that new development is suitable for the ground conditions at its location and will not be threatened by instability or subsidence in the future.

Development on Potentially Contaminated Land

5.6.28 The Environment Agency provides guidance on how to conduct an environmental impact assessment with regard to contamination issues (Scoping the Environmental Impacts of Redevelopment and Clean-up of Contaminated Land). There is also a considerable body of guidance that has been prepared in order to assist both local authorities and practitioners in assessing the degree to which land is contaminated and deciding whether such land is contaminated, within the meaning of Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended).

5.6.29 The assessment will follow the hazard-pathway-receptor methodology, with the assessment identifying pollutant linkages in order to evaluate whether the presence of a source of contamination could potentially lead to harmful consequences.

5.6.30 A pollutant linkage consists of the following three elements:

A source/hazard (a substance or situation that has the potential to cause harm or pollution);

A pathway (a means by which the hazard moves along / generates exposure); and

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


A receptor/target (an entity which is vulnerable to the potential adverse effects of the hazard).

5.6.31 Without a significant pollutant linkage the contamination may be a hazard but does not constitute a risk to human health or the environment. Therefore, in assessing the potential for contamination to cause a significant effect, the extent and nature of the potential source or sources of contamination must be assessed, pathways identified, and sensitive receptors or resources identified and appraised, to determine their value and sensitivity to contamination related impacts.


5.6.32 Environmental impacts relating to the ground conditions will be assessed in accordance with the guidance and methodology set out in:

Department for Communities and Local Government Consultation Paper ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: a guide to good practice and procedures’,

Contaminated land risk assessment – a guide to good practice, CIRIA Report C552, and

Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, 2000. Environmental Impact Assessment in the UK.

5.6.33 Consideration will be given to potential ground stability and land contamination related impacts.


5.6.34 There is no nationally agreed scheme for classifying the impacts of development on ‘ground conditions’, and the approach that will be used with respect to geodiversity, ground instability and land contamination impacts has been developed over a number of years and by reference to EIAs undertaken for other development schemes. More generally, possible impacts and mitigation measures will be identified on the basis of information acquired from data collection, professional understanding of the impacts and appropriate mitigation measures from similar development sites.

5.6.35 The significance of the impacts of these processes has been assessed by comparing the likely interactions between these processes and the existing ground conditions using the impact scale given in Table 5-6-1.

Table 5-6-1: Ground Conditions Significance Criteria and Resultant Consequence

Significance Consequence

Severe Adverse

Geodiversity: Development will completely destroy a nationally important geological site or geological SSSI.

Ground Stability: Development will render the site so unstable as to become unfit for purpose.

Land Contamination: Very significant regional environmental hazard to water resources, aquatic fauna and flora, and/ or humans (construction workers and/ or end users) requiring long term monitoring and significant site wide remedial work.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Significance Consequence

Major Adverse

Geodiversity: Development will completely destroy a regionally important geological site or geological SSSI. Very significant local permanent change to the site geology or geomorphology over the whole site so that it is unrecognisable when compared to baseline conditions. Ground Stability: Structural damage to buildings requiring services of builder, including local underpinning. Weather-tightness of buildings impaired. Loss of functionality of floor slabs. Widespread damage to service pipes. Significant loss of serviceability of roads/ footways requiring replacement. Land Contamination: Significant local environmental hazard to water resources, aquatic fauna and flora, and/ or humans (construction workers and/ or end users) requiring monitoring and more extensive local or site wide remedial work.

Moderate Adverse

Geodiversity: Significant local permanent change to the site geology or geomorphology over the much of the site so these areas are unrecognisable when compared to baseline conditions. Ground Stability: Non-structural damage to buildings but repair requiring services of builder. Weather-tightness of buildings impaired. Loss of functionality of floor slabs. Local damage to service pipes. Some loss of serviceability of roads/ footways requiring repair/ local replacement. Land Contamination: Local environmental hazard to water resources, aquatic fauna and flora, and/ or humans (construction workers and/ or end users) requiring monitoring and local remedial work.

Minor Adverse

Geodiversity: Minor local permanent change to the geology or geomorphology over parts of the site. Ground Stability: Minor (non-structural) damage to building fabric (brickwork / building finishes). Some continued maintenance required to all hardstanding areas. Land Contamination: Temporary and minor environmental risk to surface water resources, aquatic fauna, flora or air quality. No appreciable risk to humans (construction workers or end users).

Negligible Geodiversity: No permanent change to the site geology or geomorphology. Ground Stability: No effects on ground instability. Land Contamination: No appreciable environmental risk to water resources, aquatic flora and fauna and humans. Any very low negative effects are reversible.

Minor Beneficial

Geodiversity: Slight improvement in geodiversity. Ground Stability: Minor reduction in ground instability. Land Contamination: Minor reduction in environmental risk to humans or aquatic flora and fauna. Minor improvement in water resources (surface water and groundwater).

Moderate Beneficial

Geodiversity: Moderate improvement in geodiversity. Ground Stability: Moderate reduction in ground instability. Land Contamination: Moderate reduction in environmental risk to humans or aquatic flora and fauna. Minor improvement in water resources (surface water and groundwater).

Major Beneficial

Geodiversity: Significant improvement in geodiversity. Ground Stability: Major reduction in ground instability. Land Contamination: Significant reduction in environmental risk to humans or aquatic flora and fauna. Significant improvement in water resources (surface water and groundwater).

5.6.36 The criteria that will be used to make judgements on the magnitude of impact and the

sensitivity/importance of the receptor(s) are outlined below in Table 5-6-2.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Table 5-6-2: Guidelines for the Assessment of Magnitude

Assessment Process

Scope

Large Geodiversity: Significant permanent change to the site geology over the whole site so that it is unrecognisable when compared to baseline conditions. Ground Instability: Slope stability problems almost certainly present or have occurred in the past. Significant constraint on land use. Ground conditions due to the presence of clay soils and/ or adverse foundation conditions require special foundation schemes to be adopted for all building structures. Land Contamination: Soil contamination is considered to pose a very high risk to potential receptors with numerous pollutant linkages certain to be present. Site certain to be or is currently deemed as Part 2A contaminated land and/or considered unsuitable for proposed end use.

Medium

Geodiversity: Moderate permanent change to the site geology over the majority of the site. Ground Instability: Moderate risk of slope stability problems being present or anticipated. Land use should consider specifically the suitability of the site. Mitigation measures likely to be required to make site suitable for development. Ground conditions due to the presence of clay soils and/ or adverse foundation conditions require special or engineer designed foundation schemes to be adopted locally for low-rise housing and in general for more heavily loaded structures. Land Contamination: Soil contamination is considered to pose a moderate risk to potential receptors with one or more pollutant linkages present. General remedial works required to make site suitable for proposed end use.

Slight

Geodiversity: Noticeable but not significant change to the site geology covering a small part of the site or a small number of isolated locations. Ground Instability: Slope stability problems are not likely to occur but potential problems of adjacent areas impacting on the site should be considered. Ground conditions are suitable for the general adoption of conventional foundation schemes for low rise development but may require engineer designed foundation schemes for more heavily loaded structures. Land Contamination: Soil contamination is considered to pose a very low risk to potential receptors with one or more pollutant linkages possibly present. Very localised and small scale remedial works may be required on small areas of the site to make site suitable for proposed end use.

Negligible Geodiversity: No noticeable changes to the near surface geology. Ground Instability: Slope stability problems are not thought to occur on or within influencing distance of the site. Ground conditions are suitable for the general adoption of conventional high level foundation schemes for the entire development. Land Contamination: Soil contamination is not present or if slightly elevated levels are recorded no remedial works likely to be required to make site suitable for proposed end use.

5.6.37 The criteria that will be used to make judgements on the value/ sensitivity of the receptor(s) are outlined below in Table 5-6-3.


5.6.38 The baseline study for the land contamination and ground stability elements is to be informed by desk-based studies and a site walkover survey only. No intrusive ground investigation is proposed to confirm geological and ground conditions in general or to monitor long-term groundwater levels within the bedrock geology.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Table 5-6-3: Guidelines for the Receptor Sensitivity

Classification Definition

High Geodiversity: The geology and/or geomorphology of the site has an international or national designation (e.g. a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest – SSSI) and/or has very low capacity to accommodate any change. Ground stability: Existing or proposed new residential buildings in private ownership that have potential for and/or very low to low tolerance to ground movements, structural and non-structural damage (e.g. significant damage). Nationally important utilities or infrastructure cross the site Land Contamination: Receptor of high sensitivity and high intrinsic value (e.g. Proposed residential development with private garden areas, habitats with area designated national or regional importance with limited potential for replacement/ recovery or site lies in hydraulic continuity with a controlled surface water course classified as having an overall high surface water status, or the site overlies and is within a groundwater source protection zone or principal aquifer.

Medium Geodiversity: The geology and/or geomorphology of the site has a regional or local designation (e.g. Local Geological Site) and/ or has low capacity to accommodate any change. Ground stability: Existing or proposed new non-residential buildings (e.g. community buildings/ retail units). Areas of public hardstanding. Land Contamination: Receptor of medium sensitivity and value i.e. possesses key distinctive characteristics (e.g. site bounded by a moderately populated residential area; site lies within or immediately adjacent to a site of national importance for wildlife (SSSI); site in hydraulic continuity with a surface watercourse classified as having an overall moderate surface water status; site overlies and is in potential hydraulic continuity with a Secondary A aquifer).

Low Geodiversity: The geology or geomorphology is not designated or distinctive. Ground stability: Existing or proposed new industrial units or site with large areas that will not easily be affected by ground movements. Land Contamination: Receptor of very low sensitivity and value i.e. possesses few key distinctive characteristics (e.g. site is bounded by industrial areas and/ or isolated residential properties; site is not designated and is within 500 m of a local wildlife site; site is within 200 m of a non-designated watercourse; site partly overlies a Secondary B or Non aquifer.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.7 Archaeology and Heritage

Introduction

5.7.1 This chapter addresses the proposed scope of the assessment of potential significant effects on the archaeology and heritage resource –the ‘historic environment’ in terms of the NPPF –as a result of the proposed development. The NPPF defines the historic environment as:

‘All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora’

Context

5.7.2 Research has been undertaken to support this scoping study, as part of ongoing desk-based assessment of the site.

5.7.3 The site does not contain any World Heritage Sites, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields or listed buildings, where there would be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ and against development. A number of designated heritage assets lie in close proximity to the site, including two scheduled monuments and a number of listed buildings.

5.7.4 Some 60 m to the south of the site, beyond the A41, is the scheduled Moated Site and fishponds 200 m north-west of Vatche’s Farm (1017510). This is thought to be the site of the 13

th century Vatche’s Manor and survives as upstanding earthworks. The schedule description

records this as ‘one of the best preserved monuments of its kind in Buckinghamshire’. Some 170 m to the west of the site, south of Broughton village, is a further scheduled moated site: Moated site 330 m south east of Manor Farm (1017518), which includes the earthwork and buried remains of a large moated site comprising two adjacent islands, with extensive associated remains of the medieval open field system extending to the south and west of the monument.

5.7.5 A number of bridges along the Grand Union Canal, immediately to the north of the site, are listed Grade II, including (from west to east) bridge numbers 14 (1232758); 12 (1276948); 11 (1332876); 10 (1232726) adjoining the site to the north; and 8 (1332877). There are also a number of listed buildings to the east of the site, including the Grade II* listed Barn at New Manor Farm (1310584), the adjacent Grade II listed Old Manor (1124202), and Thatched Cottage and Old Seven Stars Cottage, also listed Grade II (1332816). To the south of the site is the Grade II listed Barn at Broughton Farm (1204580), and a little further south the Grade II listed Threshers Barn, No 2 Turners Meadow (1332785), both on the Aston Clinton Road. There are also listed buildings in Aston Clinton, some 750 m to the south-east of the site.

5.7.6 There are relatively few heritage assets recorded within the site, although evidence from past investigations at its margins, as well as evidence of potential archaeological sites identified as cropmarks on aerial photographs, suggests further below-ground archaeological remains may be present.

5.7.7 An area of Iron Age settlement, extending within the southern edge of the site, was identified through archaeological investigation during the construction of the A41 Aston Clinton Bypass. This is recorded as an Archaeological Notification Area on the Historic Environment Record (HER). The site of a Roman mortuary enclosure was recently excavated within the eastern part of the site as part of works associated with the development of the Arla Dairy facility located further east

1, although this is not yet recorded on the HER and as yet unpublished.

The excavation also identified some evidence of associated features, the full extent of which was not excavated. Cropmarks of other potential archaeological sites have also been

1 Yates, A pers comm 30 April 15: MOLA Northamptonshire 2015, report forthcoming.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


identified within the site. These include a cropmark enclosure recorded in the site by Historic England, which is not yet on the HER.

Scope of assessment

5.7.8 The archaeology and heritage assessment will cover all likely significant effects arising from the proposed development on the historic environment, based on the findings of a desk-based archaeology and heritage assessment, and heritage setting assessment. Effects can broadly be divided into direct effects, where landtake arising from the proposed development of the site has the potential to affect known and as yet unrecorded remains; and indirect effects, where changes to the setting of heritage assets may have a bearing on their significance. Indirect effects can also arise as a result of potential changes to the baseline through processes such as changes in landuse, groundwater regime, etc. The assessment will also consider the potential for cumulative effects, arising as a result of other planned developments, as set out in Table 4-2.

5.7.9 A nominal study area of 1 km from the site boundary will be used in order to establish baseline information relevant to the potential for direct effects, although background information outside this study area will also be considered where this may have a bearing on the assessment of the site.

5.7.10 The following receptors are scoped in to the assessment of direct effects, as having the potential for significant effects:

The area of Iron Age settlement within the southern edge of the site, recorded as an Archaeological Notification Area on the HER;

remains associated with the excavated Roman mortuary enclosure in the east of the site;

potential remains associated with cropmarks identified within the site;

historic landscape, namely hedgerows and boundaries within the site; and

potential effects on currently unrecorded below-ground archaeological remains.

5.7.11 The following receptors are scoped out of the assessment of direct effects, as having the potential for significant effects:

All designated heritage assets.

5.7.12 The study area for indirect effects on heritage assets, through changes to their setting, will be a more iterative process, established in relation to factors such as the predicted viewshed of the proposed development (in light of the draft Concept Masterplan), and the elements of setting of heritage assets which contribute to their setting, with reference to the baseline assessment and site visits.

5.7.13 Effects on heritage assets outside 2 km from the site are only considered likely to occur where there are specific relevant factors, such as designed views or vistas, in which the proposed development will be seen and therefore the potential for adverse effects on aspects which contribute to the heritage significance of the asset are identified. Listed buildings in the surrounding area particularly tend to occupy relatively screened urban and suburban locations where outward views contribute little to their heritage significance. Therefore effects on the setting of heritage assets more than 2 km from the site (or which lie outside the viewshed of the proposed development) will only be considered where there is prima facie evidence for the potential for an effect, for example as a result of changes to a key view. Any assets outside this scope which are raised through consultation will also be considered.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.7.14 The following receptors are scoped in to the assessment of indirect effects (i.e. on setting), as having the potential for significant effects:

Scheduled monuments within 2 km of the site;

listed buildings within 2 km of the site; and

the Grade II registered park and garden of Halton House (1000601), which provides the designed setting to the Grade II* listed Halton House (1332843), although this is over 2.1 km to the south, given its topographical situation and the potential for views towards the site.

5.7.15 The following receptors are scoped out of the assessment of indirect effects (i.e. on setting), as having the potential for significant effects:

World Heritage Sites;

historic battlefields; and

conservation areas (discussed further below).

5.7.16 Conservation areas are scoped out of the assessment, owing to the lack of any views or vistas which are likely to be affected. Buckland conservation area lies some 1.2 km to the east south-east of the site, where important views are generally those within the conservation area, mostly along the main road, which are truncated by a series of bends, as well as flanking hedges, trees and buildings. An important view is identified in the Buckland conservation area document (AVDC, 2012) to the north-west from the public footpath that past Moat Farm, although this is cited for the connection it gives between the village and the surrounding rural landscape, where this view is curtailed by the embanked A41 Aston Clinton Bypass, with the Arla Dairy Facility beyond. Development within the site will be at too much of an oblique angle to have an effect on this view. All Saints Church is an important local landmark, although the most important views are those where the church is seen against the backdrop of the Chiltern Hills, rather than towards the site.

5.7.17 Weston Turville conservation areas (three separate areas are designated) lie some 1.5 km respectively from the site at their nearest point, although similarly these areas will not be affected by development within the site, owing to a lack of any important outward views in the direction of the site. The Weston Turville conservation area document (AVDC, 2007) identifies key views into the village from higher ground to the south-east, although at this distance the potential for development within the site to affect such views, especially given the backdrop of extensive settlement including Aylesbury, is such that no harmful effects will occur.

5.7.18 Other registered parks and gardens lie in excess of 4.5 km from the site and no potential effect is likely; these are therefore scoped out.


5.7.19 A desk-based archaeology and heritage assessment is being undertaken to inform the EIA. This will include a review of sources including:

The National Heritage List for England curated by Historic England;

Data held by Buckinghamshire Historic Environment Record (HER) on known archaeological sites, monuments, findspots, events and historic landscape character;

Aerial photographs held by Buckinghamshire HER;

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Secondary sources (grey literature) pertaining to the archaeology and history of the area where relevant, including grey literature referenced by Buckinghamshire HER;

Historic maps and documentary sources held by the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies;

A full search of historic Ordnance Survey (OS) maps commissioned from Landmark Information Group;

Historic England Archives, including a full search of vertical and specialist oblique photographs; and

LiDAR data.

5.7.20 A site visit and walkover was also undertaken in April 2015. This considered the baseline as identified from the above registers and historic sources, against current ground conditions and visible evidence of historic land use. Visits were also undertaken to off-site heritage assets in the vicinity of the site.


5.7.21 The nature of the proposed development is such that direct impacts on any archaeological and wider historic environment remains will be assumed, where these are not specifically preserved through design, such as their incorporation into open space within the masterplan.

5.7.22 The assessment of potential indirect impacts will mostly involve issues of setting. Setting is defined in the NPPF as ‘…the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced…’. Key to the Historic England setting guidance (2015) advises that the following aspects of setting should be considered in addition to any identified key attributes:

the physical surroundings of the asset, including its relationship with other assets;

the way the asset is appreciated; and

the asset’s associations and patterns of use.

5.7.23 The setting guidance recommends that assessment of the impact of a proposed development should address the following considerations:

the location and siting of the development;

the form and appearance of the development;

any additional effects (e.g. noise, vibration, hydrological) of the development; and

the permanence of the development.

5.7.24 It goes on to identify factors to be taken into account in considering the above, such as the magnitude of the change (including considerations of proximity, prominence and scale), the duration of change, the sensitivity of the assets to change, and the implications of noise movement, light and other factors.

5.7.25 An important pathway by which changes to the setting of a heritage asset may occur is as a result of changes to views, whether direct views between the asset and the proposed development, or views where both the asset and the development may be seen. Potential views may be numerous and therefore it is important to identify which are relevant, such as those between monuments which were intended to be intervisible or from points where the vista or sight line is relevant to the setting of a particular asset.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



5.7.26 The evaluation of potential EIA significant effects on a heritage asset depends on a combination of its designation, the heritage significance of the asset in question and the magnitude of change that is predicted to result from the development.

5.7.27 Heritage significance is defined in the NPPF (Annex 2) as ‘‘...the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting’ (DCLG 2012). Guidance stresses the conservation of the significance of heritage assets, recognising that heritage assets and significant places that are actively used are more sustainable than those that are artificially fossilised, that change is an inevitable process that should be actively managed, that significance is not necessarily dependent on the preservation of a feature as is and can be enhanced through sensitive management. Rather than just characterising the potential physical effects of development, any assessment needs to understand the effects on the significance of heritage assets.

5.7.28 The assessment of potential indirect impacts on heritage assets through changes to their setting will take account of and be proportionate to the heritage significance of assets and the degree to which they may be affected. The assessment will therefore add appropriate weight to potential effects on the setting of heritage assets of greater importance, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings and registered parks and gardens.

5.7.29 The sensitivity of heritage receptors is defined using the criteria in Table 5-7-1, which are based on criteria established by the Highways Agency in its Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

i. This is an industry standard assessment methodology, and the only one adopted by

a Government agency.

5.7.30 The classification of the magnitude of impact on heritage assets will be rigorous and based on consistent criteria. This takes account of such factors as the physical scale and type of disturbance to them and whether features or evidence would be lost that are fundamental to their historic character, integrity and therefore significance. Both direct and indirect effects are considered. The magnitude of impact is assessed using the criteria in Table 5-7-2.

Table 5-7-1: Sensitivity of Receptor

Receptor

Sensitivity of Receptor

Ve

ry H

igh

Hig

h

Me

diu

m

Lo

w

Neg

lig

ible

World Heritage Site

Scheduled Monument

Grade I or II* Listed Building

Grade I or II* Registered Park or Garden

Registered Battlefield

Other Nationally important archaeological asset

Grade II Listed Building

Grade II Registered Park or Garden

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Receptor

Sensitivity of Receptor

Ve

ry H

igh

Hig

h

Me

diu

m

Lo

w

Ne

gli

gib

le

Conservation Area

Other asset of Regional or County importance

Locally important asset with cultural or educational value

Heritage site or feature with no significant heritage value or

interest

Table 5-7-2: Magnitude of Impact

Scale of

Change

Magnitude of Impact

Substantial Moderate Slight Negligible No Impact

Change to a

heritage asset

so that it is

completely

altered (positive

or negative) or

destroyed

(negative)

Change to a

heritage asset

so that it is

heavily modified

(positive or

negative)

Change to a

heritage asset

so that it is

noticeably

different

(positive or

negative)

Change to a

heritage asset

that hardly

affects it

(positive or

negative)

No change to

an asset

5.7.31 The sensitivity of specific heritage assets will be examined against the magnitude of impact, with the level of effect expressed as set out in Table 4-1. Severe and Major effects will equate to EIA significant effects.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.8 Landscape and Visual Assessment

Introduction

5.8.1 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) will evaluate the potential effects of the proposed development on the landscape and visual resource within a defined study area. The assessment will consider the effects on the landscape resource (both direct and secondary/indirect effects) and the effect on visual amenity (views) from a range of receptors. Cumulative effects, arising from the effect of the proposal in conjunction with other developments, will also be considered.

5.8.2 Landscape and visual assessments are separate, though linked procedures. Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape fabric which may give rise to changes in its character and how this is experienced. Visual effects relate to changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity.

Context

Landscape Character

5.8.3 The site comprises an area of flat agricultural land which lies in the broader landscape context of an extensive low lying valley enclosed a short distance to the south by the Chiltern Hills AONB, which is prominent in views to the south from the site. The site is located to the east of Aylesbury, which is surrounded by a number of smaller rural settlements situated close to the larger urban area, including Broughton, which is located immediately west of the site. There is dispersed commercial development in the surrounding countryside to the east and north-east of the site, which is also bounded by the linear infrastructure corridors of the Grand Union Canal Aylesbury Arm to the north, and the A41 Aston Clinton Bypass to the south. To the west of the site lies a moated Scheduled Monument.

5.8.4 The landscape character of the site is defined within two landscape character assessments produced on behalf of Aylesbury Vale District Council and Buckinghamshire County Council; the Aylesbury Vale Environmental Character Assessment (AVECA) and the Aylesbury Vale Landscape Character Assessment (AVLCA), produced in 2008 to build upon the previous assessment for the purpose of informing the preparation of the Aylesbury Vale Development Framework. The assessments identified a total of 13 Landscape Character Types (LCT) and 79 Landscape Character Areas (LCA). The site lies within ‘Vale’ LCT, and ‘Southern Vale’ LCA (AVECA LCA 5 and AVLCA LCA 8.10) which is bounded by the eastern edge of Aylesbury settlement to the west, Grand Union Canal to the north, Chiltern foothills to the south, and stretches eastwards as far as the Wilstone Reservoir. In the AVECA the landscape is further subdivided into Landscape Character Sub Areas (LCSA); the larger part of the site lies within LCSA 5B Aston Clinton Fields sub-area, with a small area of the western part of the site falling within LCSA 5A Broughton Fields.

5.8.5 The proposed Eastern Link Road [ELR(S)] which is included within the proposed development, will extend across the Grand Union Canal to the north of the canal, and will therefore will result in direct effects on the southern edge of the Hulcott Vale LCA (AVECA LCA4 and AVLCA LCA 8.6) and the LCSA 4B Hulcott Fields.

5.8.6 When carrying out the assessment of potential landscape character effects the key characteristics defined within these documents will form the baseline against which change will be considered i.e. the extent to which these key characteristics may be altered. To understand potential secondary effects upon the landscape resource of the study area, a comparable assessment will be undertaken on the key characteristics in neighbouring LCAs.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.8.7 The key characteristics of the Vale LCT are defined below:

Network of streams and ditches often forming field boundaries;

Extensive linear settlement pattern along main roads;

Mature black poplar trees are a feature of ditches and watercourses;

Aylesbury Arm of the Grand Union Canal;

Sense of remoteness at fringes of the area; and

New major roads.

5.8.8 The key characteristics of the Southern Vale LCA are defined below:

Flat landscape in the north rising gently to a rolling land form on the southern edge;

Streams and ditches draining off the chalk scarp to the south marked by belts of mature black poplar;

Landscape continuity interrupted by development and communication corridors;

Predominance of large open arable fields; and

Pockets of grazing land and smaller field parcels associated with settlements.

5.8.9 In terms of its baseline character, the site and its local context possess many of the key characteristics of the broader landscape areas as described above. The landscape character of the smaller scale LCSAs are described in further detail which is of particular relevance to the character of the site. Although the wider Southern Vale LCA is described as being of moderate sensitivity, at the more local scale of the site and its context, the Aston Clinton Fields, Broughton Fields and Hulcott Fields LCSAs are all described in the AVECA as being landscapes of low sensitivity.

5.8.10 The Chiltern Hills AONB lies a minimum 2.2 km distance from the site to the south-east, and 3.6 km to the south. The Chilterns AONB Management Plan 2014 – 2019 states that ‘the potential impact of development in the area surrounding the AONB needs to be given greater weight as inappropriate and poorly designed development can significantly affect the AONB and its enjoyment.’

5.8.11 The assessment of landscape character will focus on those attributes of the landscape likely to be affected by the proposed development. This not only includes effects upon the physical fabric of the landscape, such as trees, hedgerows, field enclosures or built fabric, but also perceptual characteristics such as remoteness, sense of place, wildness or other cultural or historic influences which help define landscape character.

5.8.12 The landscape receptors will include, but may not be limited to, the following resources:

The LCAs both underlying and adjacent to the site;

The physical landscape of the site;

The Aylesbury Arm of the Grand Union Canal; and

Setting of the Chiltern Hills AONB.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.8.13 Close liaison will be maintained during the assessment process with those assessing the potential effects upon designated heritage assets, thereby enabling a robust assessment of features where a clear crossover exists between cultural and landscape and/or visual effects.

Visual Amenity

5.8.14 As described above, the site lies in a flat landscape which is characterised by an overlying pattern of field boundary hedgerows and tree lined watercourses which limit and filter views across the site and its lowland landscape context, as recognised in the AVLCA which assessed the LCSAs underlying the site to be of low sensitivity, in part as a result of low visibility.

5.8.15 However, in terms of the wider landscape setting, the valley is bounded by higher landform, most notably to the south. The Chiltern Hills AONB is described in the AVLCA as being a strong visual feature on the southern boundary of the Southern Vale LCA. The intervisibility between the higher landform of the foothills and scarp of the Chiltern Hills AONB and the LCA allows elevated views towards the site from the high sensitivity designated Chiltern Hills AONB landscape. There is also intervisibility between the site and more distant hills to the north and north-east.

5.8.16 In the localised context of the site, visibility of the site is limited by human influences, including the urban area of Aylesbury to the west, A41 Aston Clinton Bypass embankment to the south, commercial development off College Road North to the east, and the vegetated southern boundary of the Grand Union Canal Aylesbury Arm corridor.

5.8.17 The degree of visual change experienced by identified receptor groups will be assessed to understand the likely distribution of (significant) effects. Key visual receptors for the proposed development will include, but may not be restricted to:

Residents in properties along the Aston Clinton Road which adjoin the southern boundary of the site;

Residents in close proximity to the site including College Farm, Broughton settlement and the eastern urban edge of Aylesbury;

Residential clusters within 5 km, such as at Bierton, and on the northern slopes of the Chiltern Hills;

Users of the local rights of way within the site: Footpath BWB/11/1 crossing the north-west field of the site and PRoW Footpath ACL/1/1 inside the east boundary of the site;

Users of local rights of way and promoted routes outside the site;

Users of the Grand Union Canal Aylesbury Arm canal and towpath which bounds the site to the north;

Recreational users of the Chiltern Hills AONB; and

People travelling along the local road network, including College Road North, A41 Aston Clinton Bypass, Aston Clinton Road, and Broughton Lane.

5.8.18 The receptors identified above have been selected on the basis that they fall within the visual envelope of the proposed development, as identified on the site visual survey. At this stage the concept masterplan is emerging and therefore a fixed outline layout for the proposed built development with vertical heights is not currently available to produce a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) plan for this EIA Scoping Report.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.8.19 The assessment of effects on landscape character and visual amenity will be aided through consideration of a representative selection of viewpoints, from where clear views of the proposed development are predicted. Figures 5-1 and Figure 5-2 and Table 5-8-1 detail the suggested viewpoint locations to be considered in the assessment. Consultation was undertaken between April and June 2015 with the AVDC Landscape Officer who verbally agreed to the viewpoints below, subject to viewpoints having clear views of the proposed development.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Figure 5-1: Viewpoint Location Plan

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Figure 5-2: Location Plan (Distant Viewpoints)

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Table 5-8-1: Schedule of Suggested Assessment Viewpoints

No. Viewpoint Name and Location Grid Reference Distance to site boundary

1 College Road North 487327 213379 10 m

2 PRoW Footpath ACL/1/1 within site 487132 213219 0 m

3 A41 junction (at southern end of PRoW Footpath ACL/1/1)

487212 213006 95 m

4 PRoW Footpath ACL/1/4 to south of A41 bypass

487089 212848 90 m

5 A41 bypass parking layby 486791 212890 10 m

6 Aston Clinton Road at junction with A41 and Aylesbury Road

485888 212765 16 m

7 Aston Clinton Road 485585 212897 65 m

8 New Road 484907 213067 420 m

9 Aston Clinton Road junction with Broughton Lane

484629 213202 550 m

10 Richmond Road bus stop 484521 213354 575 m

11 PRoW Footpath WTU/33/1 Promoted route)

484841 213279 345 m

12 Broughton Lane at end of PRoW Footpath BWB/11A/1

484553 213854 380 m

13 PRoW Footpath BWB/11/1 (on west boundary of site)

484935 213842 0 m

14 PRoW Footpath BWB/8/2 (promoted route)

484595 214178 270 m

15 PRoW Footpath BWB/9/2 484430 214513 640 m

16 PRoW Bridleways BWB/10/2 & BWB/10/3 over Grand Union Canal Bridge

485115 214245 15 m

17 Grand Union Canal Aylesbury Arm towpath PRoW BWB/13/4

485806 214090 5 m

18 PRoW Bridleway BWB/10/3 485789 214310 190 m

19 PRoW Bridleway ACL/2/1 486853 214482 500 m

20 College Road North crossing Grand Union Canal Aylesbury Arm Bridge 9

487200 213972 145 m

21 Wingrave PRoW Footpath WIG/12/1 (Village Walk)

486937 218823 4.8 km

22 Cheddington PRoW Footpath CHD/3/2 491771 216867 5.5 km

23 Upper Icknield Way 488560 210664 2.7 km

24 Coombe Hill Viewpoint 484885 206781 6.1 km

Landscape Planning

5.8.20 The adopted statutory development plans which apply to the Study Area are the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan 2001-2011 (Adopted 2004) saved policies and Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991-2011 Adopted (March 1996) saved policies.

5.8.21 In addition to reviewing the relevant landscape related saved policies contained within the above documents, the assessment will take heed of the guidance provided within the following documents:

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – Third Edition (LI/IEMA, 2013);

Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland (Swanick & LUC 2002) produced on behalf of the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage; and

BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction (BSI, 2012).

5.8.22 Other reference documents used to understand the baseline position in landscape terms will include the following:

Aylesbury Vale Environmental Character Assessment (AVDC and BCC); and

Aylesbury Vale Landscape Character Assessment (AVDC and BCC, 2008).

5.8.23 The assessment of landscape and visual effects will be informed by the relevant development plan policies and other supplementary planning guidance or evidence base contained within, or supporting, the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan and Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan.

5.8.24 The assessment of landscape and visual effects on the setting of the Chiltern Hills AONB will be informed by the relevant policies and guidance of the ‘Chilterns AONB Management Plan 2014-2019: A Framework for Action was produced by the Chilterns Conservation Board’.

Scope of assessment

5.8.25 The assessment will constitute a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) of the proposed development.

Study Area

5.8.26 A broad study area of up to 5 km from the site will be adopted as the initial search area. This enables the geographical scope of the assessment to be defined and provides the wider geographical context of the study. Within this area, the search has focused on identifying the local planning policy context; identifying national and local landscape designations and other relevant designations, for example, historic parks and gardens; and, providing a general geographical understanding of the site and its broader context, for example, in relation to landform, transport routes and the distribution and nature of settlement.

5.8.27 Following this initial analysis and subsequent field work, and having an appreciation of the development proposed, a refinement of the study area has been developed, which focuses on those areas and features that are likely to be affected by the proposals. The extent of this study area is 2 km from the site boundary, although occasional reference may be made to features beyond this area where appropriate, including the Chiltern Hills AONB. This approach is in accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Third Edition LI/IEMA, 2013) which seeks a proportional approach to the assessment (paragraph 5.2 and 6.2).


5.8.28 A factual description of the landscape and visual amenity resource of the study area. This study will review landscape character documentation (with on-site corroboration), anticipated changes within the landscape, a review of planning polices and designations, and a review of the visual amenity of the study area and general visibility of the site. This comprises both a desk-based analysis and on-site survey work, and will include ZTV analysis to aid the understanding of the potential visibility of the proposals

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.8.29 The process describes, classifies and evaluates the baseline landscape and is instrumental in the identification of the receptors and viewpoints to be included within the assessment.

5.8.30 In addition, the baseline will also consider those schemes that are operational, consented or subject to a live planning application, in order to evaluate the potential cumulative effects resulting from the introduction of the proposals to a baseline that currently exists or is likely to exist.


5.8.31 The assessment methodology for assessing landscape and visual effects is based on the following best practice guidance:

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – Third Edition (LI/IEMA, 2013);

Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland (Swanick & LUC 2002) produced on behalf of the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage; and

Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment (Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11).

5.8.32 Other reference documents used to understand the baseline position in landscape terms will include the following:

Aylesbury Vale Environmental Character Assessment (AVDC and BCC); and

Aylesbury Vale Landscape Character Assessment (AVDC and BCC, 2008).

5.8.33 The assessment of effects on landscape character will include consideration of a number of different key elements and components (each of which is termed a landscape receptor), whilst assessment of visual amenity requires the identification of potential visual receptors that may be affected by the proposed development. Following the identification of each of these various landscape and visual receptors, the effect of the proposed development on each of them is assessed through consideration of a combination of:

Their sensitivity to the proposed form of development; and

The magnitude of change that will occur through the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed development.

Defining Receptor Sensitivity

5.8.34 The sensitivity of a landscape or visual receptor stems from the ability to ‘accommodate’ the proposed development in terms of the pre-existing landscape and the nature of the receptor. There are a wide number of attributes of the landscape and visual resource that combine together to determine its sensitivity to the proposed development. These may include:

Landscape designations supported by planning policy;

Popularity;

Physical state and condition;

Distinctiveness and/or rarity;

Remoteness;

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Historic or cultural associations;

Accessibility;

Existing detractors; and

Tranquillity.

5.8.35 Table 5-8-2 below provides an indication of the criteria by which the overall sensitivity of a landscape receptor will be judged within this assessment, and considers both value and susceptibility independently.

Table 5-8-2: Landscape Receptor Sensitivity Criteria

Category Landscape Receptor Value

Criteria

Landscape Susceptibility to Change

Criteria

Very

High

Nationally/internationally

designated/valued countryside

and landscape features;

strong/distinctive landscape

characteristics; absence of

landscape detractors.

Strong/distinctive landscape

elements/aesthetic/perceptual aspects;

absence of landscape detractors;

landscape receptors in excellent condition.

Landscapes with clear and widely

recognised cultural value. Landscapes with

a high level of tranquillity.

High

Locally designated/valued

countryside (e.g. Areas of High

Landscape Value, Regional

Scenic Areas) and landscape

features; many distinctive

landscape characteristics; very

few landscape detractors.

Many distinctive landscape


very few landscape detractors; landscape

receptors in good condition. The landscape

has a low capacity for change as a result of

potential changes to defining character.

Medium

Undesignated countryside and

landscape features; some

distinctive landscape

characteristics; few landscape

detractors.

Some distinctive landscape

elements/aesthetic/perceptual aspects; few

landscape detractors; landscape receptors

in fair condition. Landscape is able to

accommodate some change as a result.

Low


landscape features; few


characteristics; presence of

landscape detractors.

Few distinctive landscape


presence of landscape detractors;

landscape receptors in poor condition.

Landscape is able to accommodate large

amounts of change without changing these

characteristics fundamentally.

Very Low


landscape features; absence of


characteristics;

despoiled/degraded by the

presence of many landscape

detractors.

Absence of distinctive landscape


presence of many landscape detractors;

landscape receptors in very poor condition.

As such landscape is able to accommodate

considerable change.

5.8.36 For visual receptors, judgements of susceptibility and value are closely interlinked considerations. For example, the most valued views are those which people go and visit

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


because of the available view – and it is at those viewpoints that their expectations will be highest and thus most susceptible to change.

5.8.37 For this reason the sensitivity of visual receptors will be rated in a single step process which combines both susceptibility and value as indicated by the criteria in Table 5-8-3 below.

Table 5-8-3: Visual Receptor Sensitivity Criteria

Category Visual Receptor Criteria

Very High

Designed view (which may be to or from a recognised heritage asset or other

important viewpoint), or where views of the surroundings are an important

contributor to the experience. Key promoted viewpoint e.g. interpretative

signs. References in literature and art and/or guidebooks tourist maps.

Protected view recognised in planning policy designation.

Examples may include views from residential properties, especially from

rooms normally occupied in waking or daylight hours; national public rights of

way e.g. National Trails and nationally designated countryside/landscape

features with public access which people might visit purely to experience the

view; and visitors to heritage assets of national importance.

High

View of clear value but may not be formally recognised e.g. framed view of

high scenic value, or destination hill summits. It may also be inferred that the

view is likely to have value e.g. to local residents.

Examples may include views of recreational receptors where there is some

appreciation of the landscape e.g. golf and fishing; local public rights of way,

access land and National Trust land, also panoramic viewpoints marked on

maps; road routes promoted in tourist guides for their scenic value, plus main

roads within nationally important landscapes (e.g. AONBs or National Parks).

Medium

View is not promoted or recorded in any published sources and may be

typical of the views experienced from a given receptor.

Examples may include, people engaged in outdoor sport other than

appreciation of the landscape e.g. football and rugby or road users on minor

routes passing through rural or scenic areas.

Low

View of clearly lesser value than similar views experienced from nearby

visual receptors that may be more accessible.

Examples may include road users on main road routes (motorways/A roads)

and users of rail routes or people at their place of work (where the place of

work may be in a sensitive location). Also views from commercial buildings

where views of the surrounding landscape may have some limited

importance.

Very Low

View affected by many landscape detractors and unlikely to be valued.

Examples may include people at their place of work, indoor recreational or

leisure facilities or other locations where views of the wider landscape have

little or no importance.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.8.38 The exact levels of sensitivity for the assessment will be identified for each receptor in the context of that specific receptor in the light of the criteria above, however these may be moderated through the use of reasoned professional judgement.

Defining Magnitude of Change

5.8.39 The magnitude of change is assessed for receptor locations from where visibility of the proposed development is predicted to occur with reference to the ZTV and site survey. The magnitude of change experienced will differ between landscape and visual receptors, with no published standard methodology for the quantification of this change, which is determined by professional judgement.

5.8.40 The magnitude of any visual change is determined through a range of considerations particular to each receptor, with the combined consideration of these factors determining the magnitude of change of the proposed development upon each visual receptor. The three attributes considered in defining the magnitude are:

Scale of change;

Geographical extent; and

Duration and reversibility/proportion.

5.8.41 In determining the magnitude of change for landscape effects, the ability of the baseline landscape resource receptor to accommodate the proposed development, with reference to the key characteristics

2, is the key factor for consideration. The level of change will be

determined based upon the extent to which the ‘distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another’ is affected or influenced by the presence of the proposed turbines and ancillary elements.

5.8.42 The significance of landscape resource effects will be judged on the basis of the extent to which it is considered the proposed development gives rise to newly defined landscape character types or sub-types.

5.8.43 Table 5-8-4 below provides an indication of the criteria by which the magnitude of change on a landscape or visual receptor will be considered within the assessment.

Table 5-8-4: Magnitude of Change Criteria

Category Landscape Receptor Criteria Visual Receptor Criteria

Very High

Total loss of or major alteration to key

elements/features/characteristics of the

baseline condition. Addition of elements

which strongly conflict with the key

characteristics of the existing

landscape.

There would be a substantial

change to the baseline, with the

proposed development creating

a new focus and having a

defining influence on the view.

High

Notable loss or alteration to one or

more key

elements/features/characteristics of the

baseline condition. Addition of elements

that are prominent and may conflict with

the key characteristics of the existing

landscape.

The proposed development will

be clearly noticeable and the

view would be fundamentally

altered by its presence.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Category Landscape Receptor Criteria Visual Receptor Criteria

Medium

Partial loss or alteration to one or more

key elements/features/characteristics of

the baseline condition. Addition of

elements that may be evident but do

not necessarily conflict with the key

characteristics of the existing

landscape.


form a new and recognisable

element within the view which is

likely to be recognised by the

receptor.

Low

Minor loss or alteration to one or more


the baseline landscape. Addition of

elements that may not be

uncharacteristic within the existing

landscape.


form a minor constituent of the

view being partially visible or at

sufficient distance to be a small

component.

Very Low

Barely discernible loss or alteration to


the baseline landscape. Addition of

elements not uncharacteristic within the

existing landscape.


form a barely noticeable

component of the view, and the

view whilst slightly altered would

be similar to the baseline

situation.

5.8.44 The exact levels of magnitude for the assessment will be identified for each effect in the context of that specific effect in the light of the criteria above. However, these may be moderated through the use of reasoned professional judgement.


5.8.45 In order to consider the likely significance of any effect, the sensitivity of each receptor is combined with the predicted magnitude of change to determine the significance of effect, with reference also made to the geographical extent, duration and reversibility of the effect within the assessment. Having taken such a wide range of factors into account when assessing sensitivity and magnitude at each receptor, the significance of effect will be derived by combining the sensitivity and magnitude in accordance with the matrix in Table 5-8-5 below.

5.8.46 Each effect will be described and evaluated individually through the integration of all of the relevant factors and assessed as either significant or not significant (as required by the EIA Regulations). For landscape and visual effects, those effects identified at a substantial, major or major/moderate level are generally considered to be significant and those effects assessed at a moderate/minor, minor, minor/negligible or negligible level are considered to be not significant. Those effects at a moderate level may be either significant or not significant dependent on the particular effect and/or receptor.

5.8.47 Effects will be described and evaluated during construction, at Year 1 (completion of construction activities) and Year 15 (following maturation of the landscape proposals).

5.8.48 In certain cases, where additional factors may arise, a further degree of professional judgement may be applied when determining whether the overall change in the view will be significant or not and, where this occurs, this is explained in the assessment.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Table 5-8-5: Level of effect and Significance

Magnitude

Sensitivity Very High High Medium Low Very Low

Very High Substantial Major Major/Mod Moderate Mod/Minor

High Major Major/Mod Moderate Mod/Minor Minor

Medium Major/Mod Moderate Mod/Minor Minor Minor/Neg

Low Moderate Mod/Minor Minor Minor/Neg Negligible

Very Low Mod/Minor Minor Minor/Neg Negligible Neg/None

Nature of Effect & Duration

5.8.49 In accordance with best practice guidance, the activities likely to cause significant effects will be identified, the resultant changes to the landscape and visual baseline described and the effect on valued landscape and visual resources assessed. Effects will be described and evaluated during construction, at Year 1 (completion of construction activities) and Year 15 (following maturation of the landscape proposals).

5.8.50 Effects will be assessed in the context of the baseline conditions within the zone of influence during the lifetime of the project. The assessment will consider the likelihood that a change/activity will occur as predicted, and also the degree of confidence in the assessment of the effect on the identified resource. The likely significant effects, based upon experience of assessing schemes of a similar size and scale, are as follows:

Potential effects upon people living local to the sites, where a change in view form a predominantly agricultural hinterland, to one of an urban character, is likely;

Potential effects upon the landscape character of the immediate locality, where a change from an agricultural landscape to one of an urban character will occur; and

Potential effects upon people using local roads, rights of way and recreational facilities, where the change in general character will change the experience of receptors.


5.8.51 The actual visibility of a site will vary due to seasonal changes and the varying degree of screening and/or filtering of views by vegetation, with minimum visibility and maximum screening during summer months and maximum visibility during the winter months when there is minimum screening. The photographic survey was carried at the end of the winter/beginning of spring over two visits, on 31 March 2015 and 7 April 2015. During the latter site visit leaves had begun to open on some south facing hedgerows, and a few early flowering tree species were in blossom. These minimal seasonal changes are considered to have had no notable effect in reducing visibility in the viewpoint photographs as the majority of hedgerow vegetation and trees were still in winter condition with no leaves.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.9 Water including Flood Risk

Introduction

5.9.1 This chapter of the EIA scoping report provides an overview of the baseline conditions in respect of hydrology, drainage and flood risk and outlines the policy, legislation and guidance to be used as the basis for preparation of the ES chapter and supporting technical studies/assessments (including a site specific Flood Risk Assessment following the Sequential Test and if required the Exception Test).

Context

5.9.2 The northern boundary of the site is defined by the Aylesbury arm of the Grand Union Canal, although a small parcel of land is located immediately to the north of the canal. The A41 is located at the southern boundary of the site, College Road North and College Farm to the east and the hamlet of Broughton to the west.

5.9.3 The principal watercourse in the area is the Bear Brook, which rises to the south of Aston Clinton, approximately 2 km to the south-east of the site. The Brook flows in a broadly east to west direction immediately to the south of the A41 and through part of the south-western area of the site. The Burcott Brook flows through the north-western part of the site and passes beneath the canal by means of a syphon. The ‘head’ of the Brook is located at the western boundary of the site and is ‘perched’ above the Bear Brook.

5.9.4 The Drayton Mead Brook is located to the east and drains the area in the vicinity of College Farm. The Brook passes beneath the canal via a syphon and forms a tributary of the Thistle Brook, located approximately 2 km to the north of the canal.

5.9.5 A network of drains convey surface water run-off from the central area of the site to the north-west to the Burcott Brook.

Scope of assessment

5.9.6 The relevant policy, legislation and guidance to be used as the basis for preparation of the ES chapter and supporting technical studies/assessments (Flood Risk Assessment) is summarised below:

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and associated Planning Practice Guidance (2014);

Flood and Water Management Act (2010);

Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations (Defra, 2003);

Water Resources Act (1991);

Flood Risk Regulations (2009);

The SuDS Manual (C697) (CIRIA);

Preliminary rainfall runoff management for developments (R&D Technical Report W5-074/A/TR/1 Rev E) (January 2012);

Sewer for Adoption 7th Edition;

Aylesbury Vale Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (August 2012);

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Aylesbury Town Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (August 2012); and

Buckinghamshire County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (2013).


5.9.7 The Water Resources ES chapter will be supported and informed by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (following the Sequential Test and if required the Exception Test) and a programme of baseline water quality sampling.

5.9.8 Five principal activities will be undertaken as part of the FRA process:

Desk-study review;

Stakeholder consultation;

Site walkover survey;

Hydraulic calculations/modelling; and

Assessment of surface water drainage regime.

5.9.9 Existing studies/documents, including evidence base studies undertaken in support of the preparation of the emerging Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, will be reviewed to assist with characterising the baseline water environment and to identify the best available data to be taken forward to inform the EIA/FRA.

5.9.10 Consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees will be undertaken to identify and collate data in respect of the baseline water environment, define the scope of investigation/technical work required to inform the FRA and ES chapter, agree assessment methodologies and the design principles to be applied to ensure compliance with the policy, legislation and guidance summarised above. The Environment Agency and The Canal and River Trust will be consulted. In addition, Buckinghamshire County Council, as the Lead Local Flood Authority (as defined by the Flood and Water Management Act) with responsibility for managing flood risk associated with surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses, will also be consulted.

5.9.11 A site walkover survey will be undertaken to facilitate an understanding of the surface water drainage network and the general landform of the site and surrounding area and to define the scope/specifications of technical assessments/surveys.

5.9.12 The nature of flood risk associated with the Bear Brook, Burcott Brook and Drayton Mead Brook will be assessed by undertaking hydraulic modelling analysis, based upon topographical survey of the watercourse corridors. A hydraulic model is used to estimate water levels associated with flood events of different magnitudes or frequency (i.e. rarity) which, in turn, enables the site to be categorised in accordance with the flood zones set out in the NPPF.

5.9.13 In 2008 the Environment Agency commissioned Peter Brett Associates LLP to develop a hydraulic model of the Upper Thame and Bear Brook catchment for the purposes of floodplain mapping. This model was taken forward and used to inform the flood risk evidence base (Strategic Flood Risk Assessments) prepared in support of the Vale of Aylesbury Plan. It is understood that this model provides the principal and ‘best available’ data in respect of flood risk associated with the Bear Brook. However, having been developed for strategic planning purposes, the model is known to be a little ‘coarse’ in some respects. The model will therefore be reviewed/audited and subsequently revised and updated to facilitate analysis at the site-scale.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.9.14 It is therefore proposed that the revised and updated hydraulic model will be used to:

Define floodplain extents and categorise the site in accordance with the flood zones set out in the NPPF;

Assess flood risk impacts; and

Inform the design of flood mitigation/flood risk management measures.

5.9.15 The scope of both the proposed improvements to the model and the scope of analysis required to inform the FRA will be set out in a method statement to be submitted to the Environment Agency for review/approval.

5.9.16 The FRA will include an assessment of the existing surface water drainage regime and identification of the current points of outfall for surface water run-off arising from the site. The FRA will set out outline details of measures to be incorporated within the proposals to control, store and dispose of surface water run-off such that run-off post-development is limited to pre-development (greenfield) rates.

5.9.17 In addition to the FRA, the ES chapter will be informed by a programme of baseline water quality sampling comprising two rounds of sampling at up to six locations. Sampling will be undertaken at locations where watercourses/drains enter and leave the site to assist with understanding whether site conditions exert an influence upon water quality parameters.


5.9.18 There are no ‘industry standard’ significance criteria for the consideration of water, hydrology and flood risk impacts and a qualitative approach, based upon available knowledge, experience and professional judgement, will therefore be employed to determine impact significance.

5.9.19 The significance of effects will be assessed through consideration of their magnitude, duration and nature (i.e. reversible or irreversible) and also the geographic context (i.e. highly localised or widespread). The proposed significance criteria are outlined in Table 5-9-1 below.

Table 5-9-1: Significance of Effects

Significance Criteria Definition

Major Beneficial Major reduction in risk to receptors. Significant local

scale/widespread reduction in flood risk.

Moderate Beneficial Moderate reduction in risk to receptors. Moderate reduction in

localised flood risk.

Minor Beneficial

Minor reduction in risk to receptors. Minor reduction in localised flood risk.

Negligible No appreciable impact - any minor adverse effects are short-lived

and reversible.

Minor Adverse Temporary and reversible detrimental effect on watercourses.

Minor increase in localised flood risk.

Moderate Adverse Moderate detrimental effect on watercourses. Severe temporary flooding or severe temporary change to flow characteristics of

watercourses.

Major Adverse

Severe detrimental effect on watercourses. Permanent changes to flooding regime or flow characteristics of watercourses. Increase in the potential for flooding upstream, downstream or within the development site.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



5.9.20 The principal consideration in respect of the hydraulic modelling undertaken to assess floodplain extents relates to the fact that, although the model is calibrated, it is based upon a number of assumed/estimated parameters, derived from comparable project experience elsewhere. As a result, there is potentially a degree of uncertainty associated with the design flood levels.

5.9.21 However, the modelling analysis will be undertaken in accordance with guidance set out by the Environment Agency and using industry-standard methods. In addition, model sensitivity testing will be undertaken to understand the potential impact upon design flood levels caused by variation of model input parameters. On this basis, the model is considered to be a suitably robust tool for development planning and informing the preparation of a FRA.

5.9.22 The scope of the assessment of significance of effects is potentially limited due to the fact that there are no ‘industry standard’ significance criteria for the consideration of water, hydrology and flood risk impacts, such that a qualitative approach, based upon available knowledge, experience and professional judgement, is used.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.10 Ecology

Introduction

5.10.1 The proposed development has the potential to result in significant effects on ecology due to the size of the proposed development footprint and the nature of the construction and operational impacts of both the proposed development and associated road infrastructure. Ecology includes species, habitats (and the relationship between them) and designated sites which would be potentially impacted by the proposed development.

5.10.2 Impacts from built development and road construction projects on ecological receptors can arise from direct loss of habitat; severance or fragmentation of habitats; mortality of species during construction and operation; changes in hydrology; pollution of air, water and land resources; and visual (including artificial lighting) and noise disturbance. The ecological assessment chapter will therefore be supported by information from the landscape and visual, noise, air quality and the proposed development drainage and water environment assessments.

5.10.3 The methodology used in this assessment follows the Guidelines for Ecological Assessment in the United Kingdom (Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM), 2006) and from DMRB, Volume 11, Section 2, Part 4 (Highways Agency, 2008). Revisions to the IEEM Guidelines for Ecological Assessment in the United Kingdom (2006) are due to be published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) later in 2015. The updated guidelines will be followed if published prior to the writing of the EcIA chapter.

Context

5.10.4 Particular species of flora and fauna and their habitats are subject to legal protection, normally because of their vulnerable conservation status. The principal pieces of legislation protecting wild species and habitats in England are:

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (also referred to as the Habitats Regulations);

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW); and,

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC).

5.10.5 Furthermore, some animals are also protected under their own legislation, such as the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Other species and habitats are afforded protection through policies including those outlined in Table 5-10-1.

Table 5-10-1: Biodiversity Planning Policy

Policy Description

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Dft, 2012) on minimising impacts, conserving, and enhancing biodiversity

Requires administrations to minimise impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by encouraging opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments and refusing development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats unless the need for the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.

UK Post-2010 Biodiversity

The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework has succeeded the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and the current strategy for England is

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Policy Description

Framework (Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Defra, 2012)

‘Biodiversity 2020’ (JNCC and Defra, 2012). The lists of priority species agreed under the UK BAP still forms the basis of much biodiversity work in the UK and Species Action Plans developed under the UK BAP still remain important and valuable reference sources for background information on priority species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.

Local Biodiversity Action Plans (Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Biodiversity Action Plan)

The Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes Biodiversity Action Plan was originally produced in 2000 by the Bucks Nature Conservation Forum and revised in 2009. It describes how wildlife and habitats are going to be enhanced and protected in the area. Habitats listed in this BAP include: Arable field margins, Chalk rivers, Earth heritage, Eutrophic standing water, Fens, Hedgerows, Lowland calcareous grassland, Lowland dry acid grassland, Lowland heathland, Ponds, Reedbeds, Rivers and streams, Traditional orchards, Urban habitats and Woodlands.

5.10.6 There are no current Aylesbury Vale Local Planning policies specifically in relation to nature conservation. The previous policies were withdrawn in 2007 following a direction by the Secretary of State. This was because the policies duplicated the information provided in Planning Policy Guidance 9 and PPS9 (now covered within the NPPF).

5.10.7 Saved ‘General policies’ within the AVDLP of relevance to ecology and nature conservation are:

GP39: Existing trees and hedgerows;

GP40: Retention of existing trees and hedgerows; and

GP66: Access corridors and buffers adjacent to watercourses.

Scope of assessment

5.10.8 Ecology will be included within the scope of the EIA due to the potential for impacts to valuable or sensitive receptors. Only receptors valued as being of District value or greater are likely to have a significant effect and have been scoped into the assessment, unless professional opinion suggests otherwise.

5.10.9 The scope will include the potential significance of effect of increased visitor pressure and air quality changes as a result of the proposed development on the Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

5.10.10 The scope will include the potential impacts to Moat Meadows; The Vatches LWS and parts of the Aylesbury Arm (Grand Union Canal) BNS. It will also include protected species including great crested newts, badgers, bats, breeding and wintering birds, invertebrates, otter and black poplars.

5.10.11 Some receptors have been excluded from the scope of the EIA. Table 5-10-2 summarises the receptors which have been scoped out of the assessment.

Table 5-10-2: Ecological receptors scoped out of assessment

Receptor Justification for Scoping out

Aston Clinton Ragpits SSSI

Being located 2.7 km to the south-east of the proposed development, there are no likely impact pathways between the SSSI and the scheme.

Bierton Clay Pit Being located 1.9 km north-west of the proposed development, there are

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Receptor Justification for Scoping out

SSSI no likely impact pathways between the SSSI and the scheme.

Dancersend SSSI

Being located 4 km south-east of the proposed development, there are no likely impact pathways between the SSSI and the scheme.

Weston Turville Reservoir SSSI

Being located 3 km south of the proposed development, there are no likely impact pathways between the SSSI and the scheme.

Three Ponds Meadow LWS (81H08)

Being located approximately 1 km north-west of the proposed development, most adverse impacts would be insignificant at this distance.

Aylesbury Arm BNS (81G03)

Being located more than 500 m away, most adverse impacts would be insignificant at this distance. The risk of water pollution would be addressed through mitigation outlined in a CEMP.

Bear Brook BNS (81H13)

Being located 240 m away, most adverse impacts would be insignificant at this distance. The risk of water pollution would be addressed through mitigation outlined in a CEMP.

Pond behind Oak Farm, Broughton BNS (81L08)

Being located 90 m away, most adverse impacts would be insignificant at this distance. The risk of water pollution would be addressed through mitigation outlined in a CEMP. Great crested newts will be included in the scope.

Dormice Historic data indicates dormice are absent from the area.

Reptiles Swift Ecology surveys (2015) indicate reptiles are likely absent from the area.

Water vole Swift Ecology surveys (2014-5) indicate water voles are likely absent from the area.

Species of conservation concern

Impacts to NERC Act Section 74 species such as toads, brown hare, harvest mouse farmland birds and hedgehog would be addressed via standard mitigation techniques and habitat creation proposals and managed through a CEMP.

Habitats With the exception of the aquatic habitats and unimproved grassland at the Moat Meadows, The Vatches LWS which is considered separately, all other habitats have been scoped out as they are assessed as being of site value only. A hedgerow survey has been undertaken and will be submitted with the planning application for statutory compliance.

5.10.12 The geographical scope of the ecological assessment will include the footprint of all above ground works including temporary works such as haul roads, site compounds and storage areas, as well as proposed improvement works at A41 Aston Clinton Roundabout and the crossing of the Grand Union Canal. The geographical scope will vary for different ecological receptors and the detailed assessment will consider the same area as described in Section 2.3.

Disturbance or deposition impacts from air and noise effects on ecological receptors will use the geographical scope of these topics as defined in Section 5.4 and Section 5.5.

5.10.13 The temporal scope of the ecological assessment will be:-

Construction of proposed development: 2016-2031;

Opening year of proposed development: 2031; and

Operation of ELR (South): Year of opening: 2019.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.10.14 The baseline ecological conditions will be assessed from existing desk-based data and field surveys conducted in 2014/2015.


5.10.15 Baseline data has been compiled from the following sources:

The location and extent of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protections Areas (SPA), and Ramsar Sites within 5 km of the study area (30 km for bat sites), and Ancient Woodland within 2 km of the study area (data source: Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC));

Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Environmental Record Centre (BMERC) for non-statutory designated wildlife sites and protected and notable species records;

Hertfordshire Environmental Records Centre (HERC) for non-statutory designated wildlife sites and protected and notable species records;

The Buckinghamshire Bird Club for ornithological records within approximately 2 km of the proposed development;

The North Bucks Bat Group (NBBG) for bat records within 5 km of the proposed development;

Ordnance Survey (OS) maps were examined to locate ponds and wet ditches within 500 m of the proposed development;

Jacobs Babtie (2006) Aylesbury Vale Environmental Character Assessment: Ecological Studies – Aylesbury

Barratt Strategic and Ashfield Land Limited (2011). Land East of Aylesbury – Environmental Statement.

Aylesbury Woodlands: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (2014/15) Swift Ecology Ltd;

Aylesbury Woodlands: Hedgerow survey report (2014) Swift Ecology Ltd;

Aylesbury Woodlands: Botanical survey report (2014) Swift Ecology Ltd;

Aylesbury Woodlands: Water vole and otter survey report (2014) Swift Ecology Ltd (2015 update in progress);

Aylesbury Woodlands: Invertebrate site appraisal (2014) Swift Ecology Ltd

Aylesbury Woodlands: Interim bat activity survey report (2015) Swift Ecology Ltd;

Aylesbury Woodlands: Wintering bird survey report (2015) Swift Ecology Ltd

Aylesbury Woodlands: Bat tree roost assessment (2015) Swift Ecology Ltd

5.10.16 The following survey work has been completed and reporting is in progress:

Aylesbury Woodlands: Great crested newt survey report (2015) Swift Ecology Ltd

Aylesbury Woodlands: reptile survey report (2015) Swift Ecology Ltd

Aylesbury Woodlands: breeding bird survey report (2015) Swift Ecology Ltd

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Aylesbury Woodlands: updated otter and water vole survey report (2015) Swift Ecology Ltd

5.10.17 Details of methodologies of ecological surveys undertaken and proposed are shown in Table

5-10-3.

5.10.18 Ecological surveys are ongoing through 2015 and may include the following additional surveys to inform baseline conditions:

Bat activity surveys (completion of surveys commenced in 2014);

Bat roost surveys (buildings/structures/trees); and

Invertebrate surveys (phase 2) – aquatic and terrestrial.

Table 5-10-3: details methodologies of ecological surveys undertaken and proposed

Receptor Survey methodology Survey area

Chiltern Beechwoods SAC

Assessment of potential air quality impacts Assessment of potential increased visitor pressure

Air quality modelling Visitor pressure assessment.

All habitats within zone of influence of potential air pollution and increased visitor pressure impacts.

Tring Reservoirs SSSI

Assessment of potential impacts on wintering bird populations associated with SSSI

Desk-based review of bird survey data for Woodlands site and Tring Reservoirs bird data

All habitats and potential impact pathways within zone of influence of impacts between Woodlands and Tring Reservoirs

Moat Meadows; The Vatches LWS

Assessment of potential air and water pollution impacts by assessing air quality modelling data and drainage designs.

Air quality modelling. Hydrological modelling.

Junction between A41 and proposed development footprint. Construction area within vicinity of LWS.

Aylesbury Arm BNS (81M07 and 81S06)

Assessment of potential water pollution impacts, habitat loss and severance impacts, especially in relation to legally protected species e.g. bats, otters.

See relevant protected species sections for survey methodology.

See relevant protected species sections for survey area. All habitats within zone of influence of potential air and water pollution impacts.

Great Crested Newts

Habitat Suitability Index ARG UK (2008) Oldham et al (2000)

Ponds within 500 m of the proposed development area.

Presence/absence (and population surveys where required).

English Nature (2001). Pond survey - minimum three methods (bottle trapping, torching, netting, egg searching). Four visits for presence/absence, plus additional two visits if GCN present. Mid-March to mid-June with at least half of surveys between mid-April to mid-May

Suitable ponds and terrestrial habitat within 500 m of the proposed development area.

Breeding and Wintering birds

Breeding birds Survey methodology based on the ‘Common Bird Census’ territory mapping technique devised by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and involved three visits,

All habitats within site boundary

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



appropriately spaced, to obtain spatial data on bird breeding activity within the site. Visits were undertaken during the breeding season, April to June, in suitable weather conditions, between the hours of 6.00 am and 10.00 am, when birds are most active. Surveys followed a pre-determined transect routes

Wintering birds Survey methodology adapted from generic wintering bird monitoring methods and from the wetland bird survey (WeBS) core counts methodology outlined in Gilbert et al., (1998) and involved six appropriately spaced visits, from October to March inclusive, to identify all bird species using the site during the winter, determine the maximum population size for each species and to determine the distribution of wintering species across the site. Visits were undertaken between the hours of 7.00 am and 4.00 pm, in suitable weather conditions, when birds were either foraging or resting during daylight hours. Surveys followed a pre-determined transect.


Bats

Roost assessment of mature trees, buildings and structures (e.g. bridges over Grand Union Canal).

Hundt et al. (2012). Visual inspection from ground level of trees, buildings and structures to assess roost potential.

All potential roost features within the site boundary.

Transects. Hundt et al. (2012) Five transects covering land within the site boundary. One visit per transect each season (spring, summer and autumn)


Static monitoring surveys. Hundt et al. (2012) - 1 location per transect. Data collected on 5 consecutive nights each season (spring, summer and autumn)

Habitats within site boundary

Badgers

Sett survey Badger surveys were undertaken in February 2015. Survey methods were undertaken in accordance with standard methodology and good practice guidance (Harris et al., 1989; Scottish Natural Heritage, 2003)

Habitats within site boundary and within 50 m buffer where access permitted

Territory assessment (bait-marking survey)

Survey methods were undertaken in accordance with standard methodology (Delahay et al 2000)

of main setts and ‘possible main setts’ to establish foraging territories within the site

Habitats within site boundary and within 50 m buffer where access permitted

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands



Otter and water vole

Otter Surveys were undertaken in September and October 2014, and June 2015 and methods were in accordance with standard methodology and good practice guidance (National Rivers Authority, 1993).

Riparian habitats within site boundary and Grand Union Canal adjacent to northern boundary of site within 100 m

Water vole presence/absence survey

Surveys were undertaken in September and October 2014, and June 2015 and methods were undertaken in accordance with standard methodology and good practice guidance (Strachan, Moorhouse and Gelling, 2011).

Riparian habitats within site boundary and Grand Union Canal adjacent to northern boundary of site within 100 m

Reptile

Reptile presence/absence survey

Surveys to be undertaken of suitable reptile habitat I accordance with standard methods (Froglife 1999; Gent & Gibson 1998). Seven survey visits to be undertaken between April and June in suitable conditions

Suitable reptile habitats within site boundary

Terrestrial invertebrates

Terrestrial invertebrates At least two and optimally three site visits to be undertaken by an experienced entomologist in accordance with the methodologies and timings given in Drake et al. (2007)

Specific areas within site identified for further survey in Invertebrate Scoping Assessment (Swift Ecology 2014).

Aquatic habitats and species

Aquatic invertebrates At least two and optimally three site visits to be undertaken by an experienced entomologist in accordance with the methodologies and timings given in Drake et al. (2007)

Bear Brook and Grand Union Canal habitats identified for further survey in Invertebrate Scoping Assessment (Swift Ecology 2014).

Black poplar

Arboricultural surveys to confirm the position in relation to the proposed road and likely impacts

BS5837 (2012). Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations.

All black poplar within site boundary

5.10.19 Anticipated sensitive ecological receptors include (but are not limited to):

The Aylesbury Arm Union Canal BNS

Breeding birds

Wintering birds

Great Crested Newts

Badger

Bats

Black poplar

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


5.10.20 Ecological receptors will be evaluated in accordance with current good practice guidance (IEEM, 2006). This method requires the allocation of a geographical level of value to each receptor based on that receptor’s status in wildlife legislation, government policy, and/or local policy, and in most cases qualified by an understanding of how the potentially affected population or habitat contributes to the receptor’s conservation status or distribution at that geographical scale. For instance, a species may be listed as being of national conservation concern (e.g. NERC Act), but a very limited presence within the study area (and therefore potential loss) may be inconsequential to its national conservation status or distribution. In such cases, the receptor may be assigned a lower, more local level of value.

5.10.21 The levels of value to be assigned to receptors are:

International;

National;

Regional;

County (and unitary authority);

District;

Local (of approximate parish scale); and

Site-only (immediate vicinity of Scheme).

5.10.22 This method is subject to some limitations and uses informed professional judgement. Also, the values presented in the ES will only reflect the currently known or assumed presence/distribution within the study area based on the surveys conducted, and may be subject to amendment through consultation with the relevant statutory authorities (e.g. Natural England).


5.10.23 The ecological assessment will be undertaken using the approach detailed in Guidance for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (IEEM, 2006). Revised guidance for Ecological Impact Assessment is likely to be published by CIEEM in autumn 2015. If published prior to preparation of the EIA, the most up to date guidance will be used.

5.10.24 Impacts or changes will be assessed in terms of:

Whether they are positive/negative;

Magnitude;

Extent;

Duration;

Reversibility; and,

Timing and frequency.

5.10.25 The likelihood of an impact or change occurring will be assessed so as to inform the need for, and scope of, any mitigation. The likelihood of an impact or change occurring will be defined as follows:

Certain/Near-Certain: probability estimated at 95% chance or higher.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Probable: probability estimated above 50% but below 95%.

Unlikely: probability estimated above 5% but less than 50%.

Extremely Unlikely: probability estimated at less than 5%.

5.10.26 To enable an assessment of cumulative impacts, all available ecological survey information for those developments listed in Table 4-2, will be collated and reviewed. The resulting impacts associated with each development will be tabulated and fed into a cumulative assessment. Where baseline information on which to assess potential impacts is not available, an assessment will be made based on professional judgement. Where it is not possible to make an assessment the impact will be left as unknown.


5.10.27 The impact assessment will identify ecological significant impacts in accordance with the definition detailed in IEEM (2006): ‘an impact (negative or positive) on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem and/or the conservation status of habitats or species within a given geographical area’. In accordance with the guidelines, ‘the value of any feature that will be significantly affected is then used to identify the geographical scale at which the impact is significant’. This value relates directly to the consequences, in terms of legislation, policy and/or development control at the appropriate level (IEEM, 2006).

5.10.28 Revised guidance for Ecological Impact Assessment is likely to be published by CIEEM in autumn 2015. If published prior to preparation of the EIA, the most up to date guidance on determining significance of effects will be used.


5.10.29 An absence of a species record within an area does not necessarily reflect an absence of that species from the same area. Similarly, the distribution of species records may reflect survey effort rather than an accurate distribution of that species.

5.10.30 Identification of the nature and location of sensitive receptors will allow an assessment of potential ecological impact. This will inform design and the requirement for the inclusion of mitigation measures that will be effective in avoiding or minimising significant adverse effects on valued receptors.

5.11 Agriculture and Soil

Intro

5.11.1 The agriculture and soil chapter of the ES will consider two key agricultural circumstances: effects of the proposed development on agricultural land and effects of the proposed development on farm businesses.

5.11.2 An Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) assessment will be undertaken to support the Chapter of the Environmental Statement.

Context

5.11.3 The site is situated on the eastern fringe of Aylesbury and is currently in agricultural use. National planning policy governing the non-agricultural development of agricultural land is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and states that local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, which is Grades 1, 2 and a of the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC).

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Scope of Assessment

5.11.4 The study area of the assessment will comprise all agricultural land within the site and includes the study of those agricultural businesses which operate within it. For the purposes of this assessment, the study area will be defined to the nearest 0.1 ha as per best practice in ALC. The calculation of ALC grades at a more detailed scale can be misleading.


5.11.5 A desk study will be undertaken to gather published climate, geology and soils information to inform the assessment.

5.11.6 To establish the agricultural land quality across the site and farm businesses that operate within the site, a detailed Agricultural Land Classification survey will be undertaken on a 100 m by 100 m grid basis, in accordance with the current guidelines and criteria for ALC in England and Wales (MAFF, 1988).

5.11.7 If topsoil texture is crucial for the determination of ALC grading, samples will be sent to a laboratory for analysis. The results of the analysis will be related to published climate, geology and soils data by a soil scientist in accordance with the latest guidelines.

5.11.8 To establish the farming circumstances at the site, a site visit will be undertaken and the occupying farmer will be interviewed to establish how the land is farmed; how it fits in with a farming unit; and how the proposed development would affect the continuation of farming on the holding.


5.11.9 There are no defined thresholds for assessing the potential impact of non-agricultural development on agricultural assets. The NPPF states that “local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land”. Identification and consideration of BMV agricultural land is therefore necessary and the loss of BMV is a measure of the effect of proposed development.

5.11.10 Therefore thresholds for potential impacts will be set in consultation with other consultants and various agricultural departmental offices from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),


5.11.11 There is no definition of significance in EIA in terms of the loss of agricultural land. However, the loss of 20 ha or more of BMV agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, and which is not in accordance with the provisions of a development plan, requires consultation with Natural England. Based on this threshold and on professional experience, the loss of 20 Ha or more of BMV agricultural land is likely to be identified as a significant effect

5.11.12 With regards the effects of development on farm businesses, the definitions are based on professional judgement. The rendering of a full-time farm business unviable would, based on professional experience, be identified as a significant effect, i.e. a Moderate/Minor Adverse effect.

5.12 Other Supporting Documents

Artificial Lighting

5.12.1 The site is currently undeveloped and unlit, but it sits on the south-east edge of Aylesbury and its wider context is set by external lighting installations along the A41. Key policy in relation to

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


lighting is set-out in The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states “By encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.”

5.12.2 A qualitative assessment of the existing lighting conditions and potential effects on light sensitive receptors will be undertaken in accordance with the Institute of Lighting Professional’s Lighting Guide 04 on undertaking Environmental Lighting Impact Assessments (2013). Potential effects resulting from artificial light associated with the development include sky glow, glare and light spill.

5.12.3 Based on the currently available information and available mitigation measures, it is considered unlikely that the proposed development will lead to significant effects in terms of lighting. Potential effects such as glare, light spill and sky glow will be assessed and mitigation measures incorporated through a technical report describing the Lighting Assessment process. The technical report will be provided as an appendix to the ES and will inform the Visual Impacts Assessment Environmental Statement Chapter.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


6 Summary and conclusions

6.1 The scope of the EIA

6.1.1 The following table presents a summary of the technical topics that have been considered in this scoping exercise, as well as the reasons that have led to the proposed structure of the ES and scope of the EIA. The information contained in this table is based on the review of the issues presented in this document and upon data available at this stage.

EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Paragraph 3

Proposed Level of Assessment Response in ES

Population Desk study based on existing

data

Socio-economic chapter

Transport chapter

Fauna, flora Desk study based on existing data and on-site ecological

surveys. Ecology chapter

Soil Phase 1 geo-environmental

desk study

Ground conditions chapter Agricultural Land Classification

Chapter

Water Flood risk assessment

Desk study based on existing data

Water resources chapter

Air Desk study based on existing

data and mathematical modelling of future scenarios

Air quality chapter

Climatic factors Desk study based on existing

data and mathematical modelling of future scenarios

Water resources chapter (will include flood risk)

It is considered unlikely that the proposed development will

lead to significant effects on daylight/sunlight or micro-

climate wind conditions

Material assets including the architectural and

archaeological heritage

Desk study based on existing data

Archaeology and Heritage chapter

Landscape Desk study based on existing

data and on site survey Landscape and Visual impact

chapter

6.2 The contents of the Environmental Statement

6.2.1 Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations sets out a standard framework of information for inclusion in an environmental statement (see Appendix B). An indicative contents list for the Environmental Statement for this application is presented at Appendix C. The intention is that where possible, the format should be logical and consistent to allow consultees to focus on their particular interests, and compare and contrast these with other topics.

6.3 Next Steps

6.3.1 This report is submitted to the local planning authority as part of a formal request for a Scoping Opinion. The Authority will issue a Scoping Opinion following consultation with

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


statutory consultees. The Scoping Opinion may lead to amendments to the proposed structure of the ES as well as the scope of the proposed assessments, if required.

6.3.2 The next steps in the EIA are as follows:

Completion of site surveys and baseline modelling;

Assessment of proposal plans;

Discussion of mitigation measures and design iteration;

Design-freeze and draft Environmental Statement;

Submission of outline planning application & final ES.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


References

ARG UK Advice Note 5, Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. (2008)

Barratt Strategic and Ashfield Land Limited (2011). Land East of Aylesbury – Environmental Statement.

Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Environmental Records Centre (BMERC) (2015). Data search results: 14-377 Land North of Aston Clinton Road February 2015.

British Standards Institute (2012). BS5837 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction: Recommendations.

Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Biodiversity Partnership (2009). Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Biodiversity Action Plan Delahay, R. J., Brown, J. A., Mallinson, P. J., Spyvee, P. D., Handoll, D., Rogers, L. M. & Cheeseman, C. L. (2000). The use of marked bait in studies of the territorial organisation of the European badger (Meles meles). Mammal Review 30(2), 73-87. Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2015c) Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) Available at: www.magic.defra.gov.uk Accessed January 2015.

Drake, C.M., Lott, D.A., Alexander, K.N.A. & Webb, J. (2007) Surveying Terrestrial and Freshwater Invertebrates for Conservation Evaluation. Natural England, Peterborough. English Nature (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature: Peterborough. Froglife (1999). Reptile Survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife: Halesworth.

Foster,J., Gent, T. (1996) Reptile survey methods : proceedings of a seminar held on 7th November 1995 at the Zoological Society of London’s meeting rooms, Regent’s Park, London: Validation of reptile survey methodologies (Chris Reading) (English Nature Science No. 27.). Peterborough: English Nature.

Gilbert G, Gibbons DW and Evans J (1998) Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB Sandy.

Harris, S., Cresswell, P. & Lance, D. (1989) Surveying Badgers: Occasional Publication No.9 The Mammal Society. Highways Agency (2008) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11, Section 2, Part 4 Scoping of Environmental Impact Assessments HA 204/08.

Holman et al (2014). IAQM Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction Hundt, L. (2012). Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, Second Edition. Bat Conservation Trust.

http://www.magic.defra.gov.uk/

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


IEEM (2006) Colebourn, K., Box, J., Byron, H., French, N., Hall, M., Knightbridge, R., Oxford, M.,Treweek, J., Wells, M., Ader, K., Moon, S., Archer, J. and Byrne, D. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment 2006. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Jacobs Babtie (2006) Aylesbury Vale Environmental Character Assessment: Ecological Studies - Aylesbury, Jacobs Babtie, Glasgow.

Moorcroft and Barrowcliffe. et al. (2015) Land-use Planning & Development Control: Planning for Air Quality.

National Rivers Authority (1993). Otters and River Habitat Management. Conservation Technical Handbook Number 3. Natural England (undated (a)). Bierton Claypits SSSI Citation. http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1000451.pdf. Accessed April 2015.

Natural England (undated (b)). Weston Turville Reservoirs SSSI Citation. http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1002408.pdf. Accessed April 2015.

Natural England (undated (c)). Aston Clinton Ragpits Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Citation. http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1000385.pdf Accessed April 2015. Natural England (undated (d)). Dancersend SSSI Citation. http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1003668.pdf. Accessed April 2015.

Natural England (1969). Tring Reservoirs SSSI Citation. http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1004159.pdf. Accessed April 2015.

Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S. & Jeffcote M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the great crested newt. Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155. Scottish Natural Heritage (2003). Best Practice Guidance - Badger Surveys. Inverness Badger Survey 2003. Commissioned Report No. 096. Strachan, R., Moorhouse, T. & Gelling, M. (2011). Water Vole Conservation Handbook, 3rd Edition. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), Oxford University

http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1000451.pdf

http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1002408.pdf.%20Accessed%20January%202015

http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1002408.pdf.%20Accessed%20January%202015



http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1004159.pdf

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1004159.pdf

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Appendix A Local Planning Policy

Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (2004)

The Development Plan comprises the saved policies of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (2004) reviewed in 2007. The policies within the Development Plan therefore hold some weight until they are eventually replaced by the new Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan – adoption of the emerging timetabled August 2017. Relevant Development Plan saved policies include:

Housing

Policy GP.2: Affordable Housing

The Council will negotiate for the provision as affordable dwellings of a minimum of 20% and up to 30% of the total number of dwellings on developments of 25 or more dwellings, or sites of 1 hectare or more (or which form part of a site of such a size which is capable of development), regardless of the number of dwellings. The Council will assess the circumstances of each proposed development individually.

It will take into account in particular the need locally for affordable dwellings (including evidence from the Council’s Housing Needs Survey), the economics of the development (including the cost of any contributions towards the achievement of any other planning objectives also being sought from the development of the site), and Government guidance and sustainability considerations. The Council will wish to ensure that the affordable dwellings are occupied initially by ‘qualifying persons’ and are retained for successive ‘qualifying persons’.

Policy GP.3: Low Cost Market Housing

The Council will negotiate for the provision as low cost market units of a minimum of 10% of the total number of dwellings on developments of 25 or more dwellings, or sites of 1 hectare or more (or which form part of a site of such size which is capable of development), regardless of the number of dwellings. The Council will assess the circumstances of each proposed development individually. It will take into account in particular the need locally for low cost market dwellings (including evidence from the Council’s Housing Needs Study), Government guidance and sustainability considerations.

Policy GP.4: Affordable Housing for Local Needs in Rural Areas

The Council will grant permission for affordable housing on small sites adjacent to the built-up areas of settlements to meet local needs that would not otherwise be met under the policies of the plan.

Such sites will only be released as an exception to normal housing restraint policies in the Rural Areas. Applicants will be expected to demonstrate a local need for the number and style of affordable dwellings by reference to an up-to-date survey and assessment of the relevant area.

Proposals for these rural exception sites must accord with the Plan’s design policies and reinforce the distinctive character of the villages in which they are located. Dwellings permitted in accordance with this policy will be reserved in perpetuity for affordable local needs by planning conditions or obligations.

Policy GP.8: Protection of the Amenity of Residents

Planning permission will not be granted where the proposed development would unreasonably harm any aspect of the amenity of nearby residents when considered against the benefits arising from the proposal. Where planning permission is granted, the Council will use conditions or planning obligations to ensure that any potential adverse impacts on neighbours are eliminated or appropriately controlled.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Tourism

Policy GP.69: Hotels and Motel Development

Within the built-up areas of settlements, the Council will permit proposals for the construction of new hotels and motels and the conversion of buildings to such uses, subject to the other policies in this plan.

Proposals for new hotels and motels outside or on the edge of the built-up areas of settlements will only be permitted on previously-developed land, including the re-use of existing buildings, where the redevelopment would be consistent with the aims of protecting the character and appearance of the countryside and reducing car-borne travel.

Transport

Policy GP.24: Car Parking Guidelines

New development will be required to provide vehicular parking in accordance with the Council’s operative guidelines published as Supplementary Planning Guidance. These guidelines are intended to promote more sustainable transport options and will establish maximum levels of parking appropriate to the scale, type and location of development. In applying the guidelines the Council will have regard to the requirements of disabled people and those occupying specialised accommodation, and the need to maintain the vitality and viability of town centres. During the period of the Plan the Council will review and may revise the parking guidelines in order to enhance the objectives of reducing car usage and traffic growth, and easing congestion.

Policy RA.36: Development causing Traffic Adversely Affecting Rural Roads

In considering proposals for development in the Rural Areas the Council will have regard to the desirability of protecting the characteristics of the countryside from excessive traffic generation, including the need to avoid traffic increases and routing unsuited to rural roads.

Policy RA.37: New Accesses to Inter-Urban A-Class or Trunk Roads

New accesses to inter-urban A-class or Trunk Roads will not be permitted, unless they are required as part of any other proposal in this Plan or for specific agricultural or forestry operations. Any new access will be considered with respect to safety and to the strategic status of the road.

Conservation of the Natural Environment

Policy GP.35: Materials and Design Details

The design of new development proposals should respect and complement:

a) the physical characteristics of the site and the surroundings;

b) the building tradition, ordering, form and materials of the locality;

c) the historic scale and context of the setting;

d) the natural qualities and features of the area; and

e) the effect on important public views and skylines.

Policy GP.39: Existing Vegetation

In considering applications for development affecting trees or hedges the Council will:

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


a) require a survey of the site and the trees and hedges concerned;

b) serve tree preservation orders to protect trees with public amenity value; and

c) impose conditions on planning permissions to ensure the retention or replacement of trees and hedgerows of amenity, landscape or wildlife importance, and their protection during construction.

Policy GP.40: Black Poplars

In dealing with planning proposals the Council will oppose the loss of trees, particularly native Black Poplars, and hedgerows of amenity, landscape or wildlife value.

Policy GP.66: Access Corridors and Buffers Adjacent to Watercourses

In riverside or canalside development proposals, the Council will require access corridors and buffers adjacent to the watercourse to:

a) conserve and enhance existing areas of landscape or wildlife value;

b) promote public access and provide recreational opportunity; and

c) protect or enhance the environment and habitat of those watercourses.

Public Realm and Landscaping

Policy GP.38: Landscaping of New Development Proposals

Applications for new development schemes should include landscaping proposals designed to help buildings fit in with and complement their surroundings, and conserve existing natural and other features of value as far as possible. Hard landscaping should incorporate materials appropriate to the character of the locality. New planting should be with predominantly native species. Conditions will be attached to relevant planning permissions to require the submission of landscaping schemes and implementation of the approved arrangements.

Policy GP.45: ‘Secured by Design’ Considerations

The design and layout of all planning proposals should incorporate measures to assist crime prevention and help reduce risks to personal safety. In considering applications for planning permission the Council will have regard to the security aspects of development including personal visibility, the arrangement of buildings, landscaping and walls, and lighting and closed circuit television surveillance. In granting permission for buildings in town centres with public access, the Council will use planning conditions or legal agreements, which may include financial contributions, to secure reasonably-related measures that would improve community safety.

Community Facilities and Services

Policy GP.94: Community Facilities and Services

In considering applications for residential development the Council will have regard to the need for the provision of community facilities arising from the proposal. Conditions will be imposed on permissions, or planning obligations sought in order to secure appropriate community facilities, or financial contributions thereto, reasonably related to the scale and kind of housing proposed.

Recreation and Leisure

Policy GP.81: Development of Canal-Related Facilities

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Proposals for the development of canal-related facilities should respect the character and appearance of the canal, its setting and the surroundings. In dealing with applications for such development the Council will seek to avoid adverse impacts on:

a) landscape, ecological interests and the countryside;

b) townscape and the historic environment; and;

c) residential amenities

Policy GP.84: Footpaths

In considering applications for development affecting a public right of way the Council will have regard to the convenience, amenity and public enjoyment of the route and the desirability of its retention or improvement for users, including people with disabilities. Planning conditions will be imposed on planning permissions, or planning obligations sought, to enhance public rights of way retained within development schemes.

Where it is proposed to stop up or divert a public right of way to enable development to take place, permission will only be granted where there is an existing suitable alternative route, or provision is so made.

Policy GP.86: Outdoor Play Space

New housing proposals should include sufficient outdoor play space to meet requirements associated with the development. In considering applications the Council will seek provision for the needs of occupiers of the dwellings, based ordinarily on a standard of 2.43 hectares outdoor play space per 1000 population, and the provision of and accessibility to existing open space in the locality. In granting permission the Council will use conditions or planning obligations to regulate the scale, distribution and management of outdoor play space and related facilities and equipment.

Policy GP.87: Application of Open Space Policies

Housing schemes designed for family occupation should make suitable provision for equipped play areas for children’s’ use, located safely and with due regard for residential amenity. Sports fields for organised play and games should be not less than 0.9 hectares in area and planned to enable full use to be made of the playing surfaces. In dealing with applications for residential development the Council will have regard to these considerations and its published standards for the size, layout and equipping of outdoor play spaces.

Policy GP.88: Payment in Lieu of Providing Sports and Play Areas

Where planning agreements or undertakings are sealed in order to secure outdoor play spaces or facilities associated with residential development, but such provision either is not practicable on site or is better made elsewhere, the Council will accept monetary payments in lieu of their provision by parties to the obligation. The recreational benefits to be obtained or provided by the Council by virtue of the obligation will be directly relevant to the development permitted and the needs of its occupiers, and fairly and reasonably related to its scale and kind.

Policy GP.90: Provision of Indoor Facilities

In considering applications for residential development the Council will have regard to the need for the provision of indoor sports facilities arising from the proposal. Conditions will be imposed on permissions, or planning obligations sought in order to secure appropriate indoor recreation amenities, or financial contributions thereto, reasonably related to the scale and kind of housing proposed.

Policy DP.91: Provision of Amenity Areas

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


The design of new housing and other building proposals should include suitable informal amenity open spaces appropriate to the character of occupation of the development, especially in the case of sites adjoining open water or watercourses, or where protection may be given to or advantage taken of nature conservation interests. In granting permission for proposals including informal open space the Council will impose conditions, or seek obligations, to secure the provision and management of the amenity.

Strategic Policies

RA.2: Loss of Open Gaps and Consolidation of Settlements

Other than for specific proposals and land allocations in the Local Plan, new development in the countryside should avoid reducing open land that contributes to the form and character of rural settlements. In considering applications for building in Rural Areas the Council will have regard to maintaining the individual identity of villages and avoiding extensions to built-up areas that might lead to coalescence between settlements.

AY.15: Aston Clinton Road Major Development Area (MDA)

Proposals for development at Aston Clinton Road (as defined on the Proposals Map) will only be permitted where it conforms with a comprehensive scheme for the site as required in AY.12. No development should extend beyond the MDA boundary. The Council proposes that the development of the site shall include:

a) any development being against the background of a comprehensive plan for the whole of the site;

b) a proportional contribution (see paragraphs 5.13-5.17, 5.22- 5.23 and proposal AY.3) towards the Tring Road Primary Public Transport Corridor and the revenue costs, during the first three years after occupation of the first employment user, of public transport bus improvements along those corridors;

c) the establishment and safeguarding of a suitable network of segregated cycleways, footpaths and bridleways within the site and with crossings of the A41 Aston Clinton Road and Broughton Lane to the existing and proposed network and town centre;

d) provision of land, buildings and car parking for a business park;

e) provision of land (1.7 ha) for a Park-and-Ride facility adjacent the A41 Aston Clinton Road;

f) the provision and safeguarding of open amenity land within the comprehensive development site, the location of which will be determined in the planning brief;

g) the provision of all necessary infrastructure; any surface water balancing shall be fully integrated into the landscaping scheme;

h) the protection of and addition to existing trees and hedgerows, particularly where they screen the site, (save where the retention of existing trees and hedgerows would prevent the most satisfactory comprehensive scheme being achieved); and

i) an archaeological evaluation shall be made of the entire site prior to the submission of any proposals which should secure mitigation of the impact of development on archaeological remains.

Policy AY.1: Considerations for Traffic-Generating Proposals

All traffic-generating proposals will be considered against the principles of the ALUT Strategy as set out in paragraph 5.9 A primary consideration will be the effectiveness of development proposals in

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


minimising the need to travel and facilitating or encouraging journeys by means other than the private car.

Policy AY.2: Additional Financial Contributions to the ALUT Strategy

All non-MDA developments that could be expected to add more than 50 vehicle movements to the network per day will be required to make a financial contribution towards the implementation of the ALUT Strategy. The methodology for calculating this contribution, relevant thresholds and exemptions, and the arrangements for collecting and administering it is published in Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Policy AY.12: Requirement for Planning Briefs and Public Consultation Regarding MDAs

Planning briefs are to be prepared for each of the MDAs. These will be the subject of public consultation and adopted by the Council as Supplementary Planning Guidance. Applications for planning permission for the development of all or part of any MDA will be determined having regard to the provisions of relevant policies in this plan and adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance. Adherence to their principles shall be secured by means of planning conditions and/or planning obligation agreements made pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.

Policy AY.17: Public Transport to Serve New Developments

Proposals for residential and employment development on sites in Aylesbury should make appropriate provision for integration of the uses with the public transport system. In deciding applications the Council will have regard to the need for development layouts to incorporate routes and accesses suitable for buses

Policy AY.20: Development of the Cycle Network

The Aylesbury Cycle Network is defined in Supplementary Planning Guidance. The Council will resist development that compromises the convenience or safety of cyclists on this network. When considering development proposals the Council will seek, in conjunction with the proposed scheme, to extend the Cycle Network with dedicated cycle lanes or shared cycle/pedestrian routes, and to provide secure cycle parking for its users.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Appendix B The EIA Regulations – Schedule 4

SCHEDULE 4 Regulation 2(1)

Information for inclusion in environmental statements PART 1 1. Description of the development, including in particular— (a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases; (b) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used; (c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development. 2. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects. 3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors. 4. A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from— (a) the existence of the development; (b) the use of natural resources; (c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste, and the description by the applicant or appellant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment. 5. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. 6. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part. 7. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant or appellant in compiling the required information.

PART 2 1. A description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development. 2. A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects. 3. The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment. 4. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects. 5. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Part.

EIA Scoping Report

Aylesbury Woodlands


Appendix C Proposed Contents of Environmental Statement

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY VOLUME 1: PART A – THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. INTRODUCTION 2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Description of proposed development (including utilities and waste) Construction and Site Management Consideration of Alternatives 3. PLANNING AND POLICY CONTEXT 4. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY PART B – ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS (Note: each assessment will consider effects of development at key milestones) 5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS 6. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT 7. AIR QUALITY 8. NOISE & VIBRATION 9. GROUND CONDITIONS 10. ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE 11. LANDSCAPE & VISUAL EFFECTS 12. WATER including FLOOD RISK 13. ECOLOGY 14. AGRICULTURE AND SOIL PART C – INTERACTIONS & ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE 14. INTERACTION AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 15. CONCLUSION: POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION GLOSSARY OF TERMS\ABBREVIATIONS REFERENCES

VOLUME 2: FIGURES VOLUME 3: TECHNCIAL APPENDICES