Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PARK
SHP1-13
Environmental
Statement (Volume 1):
Main Text
V1
Public
Project no: 70009799
Date: May 2016
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ISSUE/REVISION
FIRST ISSUE
Remarks
V1
Date
May 2016
Prepared by
Michael Haydock
REVISION 1
REVISION 2
REVISION 3
Signature
Checked by
Tony Selwyn
Signature
Authorised by
Karen McAllister
Signature
Project number
70009799
Report number
V1
File reference
ii
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
This Environmental Statement (ES) comprises three volumes as follows:
Volume 1 contains the main text of the ES and the accompanying figures.
Volume 2 comprises the appendices and contains the supporting information to the ES.
Volume 3 comprises the Non-Technical Summary of the ES and is provided as a separate
document.
Copies of this document are available for viewing on the Thanet District Council website and at the
council offices.
CHAPTER LIST
1. Introduction
2. The Proposed Development
3. Alternatives Studied
4. Approach to the Assessment
5. Local Air Quality
6. Noise & Vibration
7. Ecology and Nature Conservation
8. Landscape and Visual
9. Traffic and Transportation
10. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
11. Water Resources and Flood Risk
12. Socio-economics and Population
13. Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and Contamination
14. Artificial Lighting
15. Cumulative Effects
16. Summary of Effects and Mitigation Measures
17. Summary of Residual Effects
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 MAIN TEXT AND FIGURES
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
1-1
1.2
1-1
1.3
1-1
1.4
1-2
1.5
1-4
1.6
1-5
1.7
Project Team
1-6
1.8
1-7
1.9
References
1-10
Introduction
2-1
2.2
2-1
2.3
2-2
2.4
2-8
2.5
Residential
2-10
2.6
Tenure Mix
2-11
2.7
2-11
2.8
Drainage
2-12
2.9
2-13
2-13
2-13
2.12 Materials
2-14
2.13 References
2-19
3. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
3.1
Legislative Framework
3-1
iv
3.2
Do Nothing Scenario
3-1
3.3
3-2
3.4
3-2
3.5
References
3-9
Introduction
4-1
4.2
4-2
4.3
Quantum of Development
4-4
4.4
4-4
4.5
Cumulative Effects
4-26
4.6
Consultation
4-27
4.7
4-28
4.8
References
4-30
5. AIR QUALITY
5.1
Introduction
5-1
5.2
5-1
5.3
5-2
5.4
5-3
5.5
Baseline Conditions
5-10
5.6
Sensitive Receptors
5-13
5.7
5-14
5.8
5-23
5.9
Summary
5-23
5.10 References
5-28
Introduction
6-1
6.2
6-1
6.3
6-4
6.4
6-4
6.5
Baseline Conditions
6-10
6.6
Sensitive Receptors
6-11
6.7
6-12
6.8
6-31
6.9
6-36
6.10 References
6-37
1.1
7.1
Introduction
7-1
7.2
7-2
7.3
7-3
7.4
Consultation
7-3
7.5
Baseline Conditions
7-10
7.6
7-26
7.7
7-30
7.8
7-40
7.9
Summary
7-41
7.10 References
7-50
Introduction
8-1
8.2
8-1
8-2
8-3
Baseline Conditions
8-14
Sensitive Receptors
8-20
8-21
8-27
Summary
8-27
References
8-29
8.3
8.4
8.5
1.2
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
9-1
9-1
vi
9-3
9-3
9-11
9-16
9-19
9-49
9.9 Summary
9-50
9.10 References
9-57
10-1
10-1
10-3
10-3
10-8
10-21
10-21
10-28
10.9 Summary
10-28
10.10 References
10-34
1.3
11.1 Introduction
11-1
11-1
11-3
11-4
11-5
11-16
11-18
11-25
11.9 Summary
11-25
11.10 References
11-30
vii
12. SOCIO-ECONOMICS
1.4
12.1 Introduction
12-1
12-1
12-2
12-2
12-6
12-14
12-14
12-24
12.9 Summary
12-25
12.10 References
12-30
1.5
13.1 Introduction
13-1
13-1
13-4
13-4
13-9
13-24
13-24
13-29
13.9 Summary
13-30
13.10 References
13-32
1.6
14.1 Introduction
14-1
14-1
14-2
14-3
14-8
14-13
14-16
viii
14-27
14.9 Summary
14-28
14.10 References
14-34
15-1
15-6
15.3 Summary
15-10
15.4 References
15-12
16-1
16-1
16-1
17-1
17-1
17. Conclusion
17-11
ix
LIST OF TABLES
1. INTRODUCTION
Table 1.1
1-5
Table 1.2
1-5
Table 1.3
Project Team
1-6
Table 1.4
1-7
Phase 1
2-3
Table 2.2
Parameter Plans
2-3
Table 2.3
Buildings to be Demolished
2-5
Table 2.4
2-7
Table 2.5
2-7
Table 2.6
2-8
Table 2.7
2-8
Table 2.8
2-9
Table 2.9
2-10
Table 2.10
Outline Element
2-10
Table 2.11
2-11
Table 2.12
2-14
Design Evolution
3-4
3. ALTERNATIVES
Table 3.1
4-6
Table 4.2
4-20
Table 4.3
4-24
Table 4.4
4-26
Table 5.1
Summary of Consultation
5-4
Table 5.2
5-10
5. AIR QUALITY
x
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 5.6
Table 5.7
Table 5.8
Table 5.9
Table 5.10
Table 5.11
Table 5.12
5-12
5-11
5-12
5-14
5-16
5-17
5-19
5-20
5-21
5-25
Summary of Consultation
6-6
Table 6.2
6-9
Table 6.3
6-9
Table 6.4
6-9
Table 6.5
6-10
Table 6.6
6-10
Table 6.7
6-14
Table 6.8
6-17
Table 6.9
Noise Limits for Phase 1 Employment Area and Change of Use Retained
Buildings , dB
6-20
Table 6.10
6-21
Table 6.11
6-23
Table 6.12
6-25
Table 6.13
6-27
Table 6.14
6-29
Table 6.15
6-34
Table 6.16
6-34
Table 6.17
6-41
7-1
xi
Table 7.2
Summary of Consultation
7-4
Table 7.3
7-5
Table 7.4
7-6
Table 7.5
7-9
Table 7.6
7-10
Table 7.7
7-15
Table 7.8
Summary of Habitats Present within the Site and their Conservation Value
7-17
Table 7.9
7-26
Table 7.10
7-45
Summary of Consultation
8-5
Table 8.2
Landscape Designations
8-7
Table 8.3
8-8
Table 8.4
8-9
Table 8.5
8-10
Table 8.6
8-10
Table 8.7
8-12
Table 8.8
8-25
Summary Of Consultation
9-3
Table 9.2
9-7
Table 9.3
9-9
Table 9.4
9-10
Table 9.5
9-14
Table 9.6
9-15
Table 9.7
9-17
Table 9.8
9-18
Table 9.9
9-20
Table 9.10
9-21
xii
Table 9.11
9-22
Table 9.12
9-23
Table 9.13
9-24
Table 9.14
9-26
Table 9.15
9-26
Table 9.16
9-28
Table 9.17
9-29
Table 9.18
9-30
Table 9.19
9-32
Table 9.20
9-33
Table 9.21
9-34
Table 9.22
9-36
Table 9.23
9-37
Table 9.24
9-39
Table 9.25
9-44
Table 9.26
9-44
Table 9.27
9-45
Table 9.28
9-46
Table 9.29
9-51
Summary of Consultation
10-4
Table 10.2
10-7
Table 10.3
10-7
Table 10.4
10-8
Table 10.5
10-15
Table 10.6
10-29
xiii
Table 11.1
Summary of Consultation
11-5
Table 11.2
Classification of Sensitivity
11-7
Table 11.3
Classification of Magnitude
11-8
Table 11.4
Geological Description
11-11
Table 11.5
11-17
Table 11.6
11-26
Table 12.1
Summary of Consultation
12-4
Table 12.2
Additionality Factors
12-5
Table 12.3
12-6
Table 12.4
12-7
Table 12.5
12-7
Table 12.6
12-8
Table 12.7
12-8
12-9
12-10
12-11
12-12
12-15
12-17
12-18
12-19
12-19
12-20
12-21
12-27
12. SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Table 12.8
Table 12.9
Table 12.10
Table 12.11
Table 12.12
Table 12.13
Table 12.14
Table 12.15
Table 12.16
Table 12.17
Table 12.18
Table 12.19
Summary of Consultation
13-5
Table 13.2
Classification of Sensitivity
13-8
Table 13.3
Risk Criteria
13-9
xiv
Table 13.4
Site Description
13-10
Table 13.5
13-11
Table 13.6
13-13
Table 13.7
13-13
Table 13.8
Geological Description
13-16
Table 13.9
13-20
13-23
13-31
Table 13.10
Table 13.11
Summary of Consultation
14-3
Table 14.2
14-6
Table 14,3
14-8
Table 14.4
14-12
Table 14.5
14-18
Table 14.6
Table 14.7
Table 14.8
Summary of Effects on Users of the Local Road and PRoW network during
the Construction Phase
Significance of Effects on Residential Receptors during the Operational
Phase
Summary of Effects on Users of the local road and PRoW network during the
Operational Phase
14-20
14-24
14-26
Table 14.9
14-28
Table 14.10
14-30
Cumulative Developments
15-2
Table 15.2
15-4
Table 15.3
15-9
Table 15.4
15-14
Table 15.5
15-15
Table 15.6
15-17
16-3
17-13
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
1. INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.3
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7
Figure 2.8
Figure 2.9
Figure 2.10
Figure 2.11
Figure 2.12
Figure 12.13
3. ALTERNATIVES
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Development Heart
Figure 3.3
Central Parkland
Figure 3.4
Parkland Edge
Figure 3.5
2016 Masterplan
4. APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT
No Figures
xvi
5. AIR QUALITY
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2a
Continuous Monitors, Diffusion Tubes Monitors, AQMA, Site Boundary and Modelled
Road
Figure 5.2b
Figure 5.2c
Continuous Monitors, Diffusion Tube Monitors, Site Boundary and Modelled Roads
Continuous Monitors, Diffusion Tube Monitors, Site Boundary and Modelled Roads
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.3a
Existing Receptors, New Receptors, Site Boundary and Modelled Roads and AQMA
Figure 5.3b
Existing Receptors, New Receptors, Site Boundary and Modelled Roads and AQMA
Figure 5.4
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4
Study Area
Figure 9.2
Figure 9.3
Highway Network
Figure 9.4
Pedestrian Isochrones
Figure 9.5
Cycle Isochrones
Figure 9.6
Figure 9.7
Local Amenities
Figure 9.8
Accident Data
xvii
Figure 11.1
Figure 11.2
12. SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Figure 12.1
Figure 14.2
xviii
VOLUME 2 TECHNICAL
APPENDICES
1. INTRODUCTION
Appendix 1.1
Development Specification
Appendix 2.2
3. ALTERNATIVES
No Appendices
4. APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT
Appendix 4.1
Appendix 4.2
Scoping Opinion
Appendix 4.3
Scoping Response
5. AIR QUALITY
Appendix 5.1
Appendix 5.2
Appendix 5.3
Appendix 5.4
Appendix 5.5
Appendix 5.6
Appendix 5.7
Appendix 5.8
Appendix 5.9
Glossary of Terminology
Appendix 6.2
Appendix 6.3
Summary of Consultation
Appendix 6.4
Appendix 6.5
Measured Daytime And Night-Time Noise Levels For The Unattended Monitoring
Locations
xix
Appendix 6.6
Plant Items And Their Associated Sound Power Levels, Along With The Expected OnTime (The Percentage Of The Time The Plant Operates Over The Working Day)
Planning Policy
Appendix 8.2
Appendix 8.3
Appendix 8.4
Baseline Scenarios
18 Hour Average Weekday Flow
24 Hour Average Day Flow
12. SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Appendix 12.1
xx
Appendix 12.2
Consultation
Record of Consultation
Appendix 13.2
Appendix 13.3
Appendix 14.2
Appendix 14.3
Appendix 14.4
Consultation
Appendix 14.5
xxi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAP
AOD
AQAP
AQIA
AQMA
AQS
BAP
BGS
BRE
BREEAM
BS
CEMP
CLP
CRTN
dB
Defra
DETR
DfT
DMRB
DoE
DPD
EA
EC
EIA
ES
EU
FRA
HGV
IEMA
IOA
KCC
LAQM
LBAP
LDF
LNR
LPA
NEC
NGR
NO2
NPPF
Ofcom
OS
PM10
PROW
QUARG
SAC
SAM
SINC
SLINC
SMINC
SMR
SNCI
SPA
SPD
SPG
SPZ
SSSI
SUDS
TA
TAR
TDC
TN
UDP
UK BAP
UXO
VDV
VR
WCA
WHO
1-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.1.1
This Environmental Statement (ES) is part of a suite of documents that supports the hybrid
planning application by Stone Hill Park Ltd (the Applicant), for the mixed use redevelopment (the
Proposed Development) of land comprising the former Manston Airport (the Site) as defined
and described in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development and the Development Specification
(SHP1-B) (Appendix 2.1).
1.1.2
The Site, which extends to approximately 303 hectares (ha), is identified in Figure 1.1: Site
Location Plan and Figure 1.2: Aerial View of the Site. The planning application boundary is
presented in Figure 1.3: Planning Application Boundary. The precise planning application
boundary is provided as part of the Planning Statement (SHP1-4) (Ref. 1.1).
1.1.3
WSP | Parsons Brinkerhoff (WSP | PB) has been commissioned by the Applicant to carry out an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the likely significant effects of the Proposed
Development.
1.1.4
This ES presents the findings of the EIA that has been undertaken for the Proposed
Development in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015) (the EIA Regulations) (Ref 1.2). The EIA is
based on the total extent of the Proposed Development, as defined on the detailed Application
Plans and Parameter Documents which comprise the Parameter Plans and Development
Specification (SHP1-B) (Appendix 2.1) submitted for approval with the application.
1.1.5
This Chapter outlines the legal framework and structure of the ES and other core documents.
Table 1.1 confirms the information required by the EIA Regulations and guidance and provides
the location of this information within the ES.
1.2
1.2.1
The term environmental impact assessment describes a procedure that must be followed for
certain types of projects before they can be given development consent. The procedure is a
means of drawing together, in a systematic way, an assessment of a projects likely significant
environmental effects. This helps to ensure that the importance of the predicted effects and the
scope for reducing them are properly understood by the public and the relevant competent
authority before it makes its decision.
1.2.2
EIA can be defined as the process for identifying the environmental effects (positive and
negative) of proposed developments before development consent is granted. The aim of the EIA
is to prevent, reduce or offset the significant adverse environmental effects of development
proposals, and enhance positive ones. It is a means to ensure that planning decisions are made
in the knowledge of the attendant environmental effects and with full engagement of statutory
bodies, local and national groups and members of the public (Ref. 1.3).
1.3
1.3.1
The EIA Regulations do not require an assessment of planning policy or guidance, however,
Appendix 1.1 sets out the national and local planning policies and guidance relevant to the
Proposed Development as set out below. The Planning Statement (SHP1-4) (Ref 1.1) which
accompanies the application examines the merits of the scheme against the relevant planning
1-2
policy. In addition, the technical chapters of this ES (Chapters 5 14) provide an overview of the
relevant national and local planning policy context that the development has been assessed
against, including:
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (adopted March 2012) (Ref 1.4);
Relevant guidance set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (6th March 2014) (Ref
1.5);
Kent County Council Development and Infrastructure Creating Quality Places (Ref 1.6);
Unlocking Kents Potential Kent County Councils Framework for Regeneration (Ref 1.7);
and
Thanet Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies (Ref 1.8).
1.3.2
TDC is currently in the process of preparing a new Local Plan (Ref 1.9), which will cover the
period up to 2031 and (upon adoption) will replace the 2006 Local Plan. Consultation on the
Preferred Options Local Plan ran from January to March 2015. The draft Local Plan therefore
constitutes emerging policy, but has been referred to as necessary in the technical chapters. For
the purposes of the assessment the evidence base (such as the TDC Strategic Flood Risk
Assessment (SFRA) (Ref. 1.10)) for the draft Local Plan has been reviewed.
1.4
1.4.1
The Site, which extends to approximately 303 ha, lies within the administrative area of Thanet
District Council (TDC) in Kent and is located to the west of Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs. It
is bound by the A299 Hengist Way to the south, B2190 Spitfire Way to the west, arable farmland,
business operations and residential properties to the north and Manston Court Road and further
farmland to the east. The northern part of the Site is bisected by the B2050 Manston Road
which connects Spitfire Way and Birchington in the west with the A256 and Ramsgate in the
east.
1.4.1
The Site was most recently been used as an airport (alongside ancillary employment type uses),
although the commercial aviation function ceased in 2014 following which the Applicant
purchased the Site. Some low level employment-type activities remain as a legacy of the former
airport and
the Site accommodates a number of existing buildings (See Figure 2.6)
(Approximately 24,000 sqm) and features associated with its previous aviation use, including a
concrete runway, taxiways, aprons, aircraft dispersals, car parks, grassland and a variety of
airfield buildings, including the passenger terminal, control towers and hangars. The extent of
existing hardstanding on Site is approximately 100 ha.
1.4.1
Flood mapping supplied by the Environment Agency (EA) shows the Site is wholly located in
Flood Zone 1, and therefore is considered to be at low risk of flooding. The TDC Strategic Flood
Risk Assessment (SFRA) (Ref 1.10) indicates that there are no recorded flooding events at the
Site.
1.4.2
The majority of the Site is directly underlain by the Margate Chalk Member which is a Principal
Aquifer. No superficial deposits have been mapped at the Site however there is a high likelihood
that Made Ground overlies the chalk across the majority of the Site.
1.4.3
Furthermore the Site is within a Source Protection Zone (SPZ) I, II and III relating to a
groundwater abstraction for potable water supply from the Margate Chalk Aquifer which is
licenced to abstract up to 2.5 million cubic metres of water a year and operated by Southern
Water. The SPZ I is mapped across the majority of the runway and is understood to relate to the
inferred route of an historical chalk mine adit.
1-3
1.4.4
There are no designated built heritage assets within the Site boundary. The Site does not lie
within or adjacent to any Conservation Area.
1.4.5
TDC is responsible for Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) in the vicinity of the Site and the
Thanet Urban Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) was declared by TDC in 2011, and an
Action Plan was developed with measures to effect improvements.
1.4.6
1.4.7
Previous aviation use at the Site was established in 1915, when biplanes from the British Royal
Flying Corps (renamed the RAF in 1918) began to use farmland at Manston as a site for
emergency landings.
1.4.8
By the end of 1916, a training school and the Operational War Flight Command had been set-up
on the site of the current passenger terminal building. At the outset of World War Two (WWII) the
Site was in full use, and during the Battle of Britain acted as a forward operating base for a
number of aircraft during the Battle of Britain.
1.4.9
Post-WWII, the Site was still under the control of the RAF and was used predominantly by the US
Air Force (USAF) during the 1950s and the Cold War. The USAF vacated the Site in the 1960s,
and it became a joint RAF and civilian airfield, later being renamed as the Kent International
Airport/ Manston Airport. In 2014 it was announced that the airport would be closed.
CURRENT LAND USE
1.4.1
There are a number of existing buildings / structures across the Site, almost all of them
associated in some way with the former airport. Some low level employment-type activities
remain on Site as a legacy of the former airport.
1.4.2
1.4.3
Chapter 2 Proposed Development confirms the buildings that are to be demolished and those
that are to be retained as part of the proposals.
1-4
OVERVIEW OF THE SURROUNDING AREA
1.4.4
Employment and residential properties are located to the north, east and south-east of the Site.
Immediately to the north of the Site (across the Manston Road) is the Ministry of Defence (MOD)
Fire Training and Development School (FTDS).
1.4.5
1.4.6
The following sites of national importance (within 2km of the Site) and European and international
importance (within 10km of the Site) are present:
Sandwich and Pegwell Bay National Nature Reserve (NNR);
Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);
Stodmarsh NNR and SSSI;
Thanet Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC);
Sandwich Bay SAC;
Stodmarsh SAC and Special Protection Area (SPA);
Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA;
Stodmarsh Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar site); and
Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar site).
1.4.7
Further relevant information on the Site and surrounding area is provided in the Technical
Chapters within this ES (Chapters 5 14 and Volume 2).
1.5
1.5.1
This ES has been prepared in accordance with the EIA Regulations and the Department for
Communities and Local Governments (DCLG) Planning Practice Guidance Environmental
Impact Assessment (Ref. 1.5) and best practice guidance issued by the Institute of
Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). An overview of the methodology adopted
for each technical assessment is provided in the respective technical ES chapters.
1.5.2
Volumes 1 and 2 contain the full text of a number of surveys and technical assessments
undertaken as part of the EIA, as well as relevant survey and modelling data, such as the
ecological surveys, results of modelling for noise and the preliminary risk assessment (PRA)
(Appendix 13.1). Pertinent information from the Planning Application Reports (see Table 1.2)
have informed the assessments such as the Transport Assessment (SHP1-7) (Ref. 1.11). See
Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport and others.
1.5.3
1-5
That includes such of the information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 [of the EIA
Regulations] as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the
development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge
and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile, but that includes at least
the information referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 4.
1.5.4
The EIA Regulations (Part 1 of Schedule 4) requires information that is reasonably required to
assess the environmental effects of the development and which the applicant can, having regard
in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to
compile to be provided in an ES.
1.5.5
This ES contains the information specified in Part 1 (where relevant) and Part 2 of Schedule 4 of
the EIA Regulations (see Table 1.1) and comprises two volumes incorporating Volume 1: Text
and Figures, Volume 2: Technical Appendices. The Non-Technical Summary (NTS), which
provides a summary of the Proposed Development and the findings of the ES in non-technical
language, is presented as a separate document.
1.5.6
The Applicant has chosen to address each of the more exacting requirements for inclusion and
has also complied with the mandatory requirements in EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 2. Table
1.1 lists each of the elements required by the EIA Regulations on this approach, and where in this
ES each of those matters is located within this ES.
Table 1.1:
SCHEDULE 4, PART 1
1-6
DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE 4, PART 1
4. Description of the likely significant effects on the development Assessment section of Technical
Chapters 5 - 14 and Volume 2 and
on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and
Chapter 15 Cumulative Effects.
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 emissions of pollutants, the creation of nuisance and the
elimination of waste; and
(d) The description by the applicant or appellant of the
forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the
environment.
SCHEDULE 4, PART 2
Non-Technical Summary
1-7
DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE 4, PART 1
1.6
1.6.1
Table 1.2 lists the other application documents submitted as part of the application.
Table 1.2:
PLANNING APPLICATION
DOCUMENTS
SHP1-4
Planning Statement
SHP1-11
SHP1-6
SHP1-8
Appendix 11.1
Appendix 10.1
SHP1-9
Appendix 2.2
SHP1-5
SH1-12
Development Specification
Drawings for Approval
SHP1-17
SHP1-16
Utilities Strategy
Parameter Plans
SHP1-10
SHP1-A
Appendix 2.1
SHP1-B
SHP1-C
SHP1-1
SHP1-2
1.7
PROJECT TEAM
1.7.1
WSP | PB prepared this ES in conjunction with a full project team, the details of which are
identified in Table 1.3 and which also includes the authors of the Application Reports submitted in
support of the planning application.
1-8
Table 1.3:
Project Team
TEAM MEMBERS
ROLE
Applicant
Planit ie
GVA Bilfinger
Planning Consultant
Aecom
Transport Consultant
Pillory Barn
Communications Consultant
1-9
1.8
1.8.1
1.8.2
Table 1.4 outlines the structure and content of Volume 1: Main Text and Figures
Table 1.4:
Chapter
Number
Introduction
Alternatives Studied
Content
Project Team
Introduction
Residential
Tenure Mix
Drainage
Waste Management
Material
Legislative Framework
Do Nothing Scenario
Introduction
Quantum of Development
Cumulative Effects
1-10
Chapter
Number
Chapter Title
Content
Consultation
Introduction;
Noise
Baseline Conditions;
10
Sensitive Receptors;
11
12
Socio-economics
Summary; and
Ground Conditions,
Hydrogeology and
Contamination
13
14
Artificial Lighting
Introduction
Summary
Introduction
Construction Phase
Operational Phase
Introduction
Residual Effects
Conclusions
15
16
17
Cumulative Effects
1.8.3
Volume 2: Technical Appendices encompasses a range of technical reports upon which have
informed the technical assessments presented in Volume 1: Main Text and Figures.
1.8.4
1-11
1.9
REFERENCES
Ref. 1.1
Ref. 1.2
Ref. 1.3
Ref. 1.4
Ref. 1.5
Ref. 1.6
Ref. 1.7
Kent County Council (2009), Unlocking Kents Potential: Kent County Councils
Framework for Regeneration
Ref. 1.8
Thanet District Council (2009), 2006 Thanet Local Plan Saved Policies
Ref. 1.9
Thanet District Council, Draft New Thanet Local Plan, (Emerging Policy)
Ref. 1.10
Ref. 1.11
2-1
2.1
INTRODUCTION
2.1.1
The Proposed Development, which is the subject of the hybrid planning application, is described
below and shown on the Parameter Documents (Parameter Plans (Figures 2.1 2.6) and
Development Specification (Appendix 2.1)) and the detailed Application Plans (Figure 2.8
2.13) submitted for approval.
2.1.2
A description of the development and the activities that can be expected during the demolition /
construction phase and the operational phase (once the development is completed and in use or
occupied) are described based on the above. This forms the basis of the assessment of the likely
significant effects associated with the Proposed Development as reported in the technical
chapters (Chapters 5 14).
2.1.3
Information relating to the demolition / construction and operational stage of the Proposed
Development is not applicable to the assessment process for all technical disciplines. For
example, the Transport Assessment (SHP1-7) (Ref. 2.1) and, therefore, the noise and air quality
assessments are based on baseline year, opening years and years subsequent to this in
accordance with relevant standards and assessment guidelines and as agreed through the
scoping exercise with the relevant statutory consultees.
2.2
2.2.1
The planning application is submitted as a hybrid application. The detailed elements for
determination are the Means of Access to the Site, the Change of Use of Retained Existing
Buildings and the development of Phase 1 comprising four industrial units (Use Class B1c/B2/B8,
with ancillary car parking and associated infrastructure, All other matters are reserved for future
determination compliant with the Parameter Documents (Parameter Plans and Development
Specification).
2.2.2
The Proposed Development (including both outline and detailed elements) for which planning
permission is being sought and as set out in the Planning Application Form (comprises:
Comprehensive redevelopment of the Site involving the demolition of existing buildings
and structures and removal of hardstanding and associated infrastructure, and provision of mixed
use development.
2.2.3
2-2
Car parking;
Development of Phase 1 comprising four industrial units (Use Class B1c/B2/B8) with
ancillary car parking and associated infrastructure; and
Means of Access.
2.2.4
A series of detailed Application Plans (Means of Access Plans (Ref. 2.1) and Phase 1 Plans
(Figures 2.8 2.13)) form the basis of the planning application for the detailed element and
define the form and content of the Proposed Development, and provide a basis of the
assessment.
2.2.5
For the outline element, the two Parameter Documents which set clearly defined limits on the
development are the Parameters Plans and the Development Specification.
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.3
2.3.1
The detailed element of the Application includes, Phase 1, Means of Access and the Change of
Use of Retained Existing Buildings.
2.3.1
The detailed Application Plans define and describe the Proposed Development and comprise
Figures 2.8 2.13 (SHP1-C) as listed below:
Figure 2.8: Phase 1 Site Plan;
Figure 2.9: Unit 1;
Figure 2.10: Unit 2;
2-3
Figure 2.11: Unit 3;
Figure 2.12: Unit 4; and
Figure 2.13: Soft Works Plan.
2.3.1
The building layout of Phase 1 comprises four units, two units within the northern section and two
located to the south. The location of Phase 1 is shown on all Parameter Plans. The units are
numbered and sized as follows:
Table 2.1:
2.3.2
Phase 1
UNIT
2,788
1,860
3,716
1,860
Each unit has provision for associated car (300 spaces), cycle and motorcycle parking. The
areas surrounding the units will be landscaped with planting and fencing. Access to Phase 1 is
provided off Spitfire Way, as shown on the Means of Access Plans (Ref. 2.1).
PARAMETER PLANS
2.3.3
The Parameter Plans are submitted for approval and will be secured by condition (Table 2.2 and
Figures 2.1 2.6).
2.3.4
All Parameter Plans should be read with the descriptions in Table 2.2 below and in conjunction
with the Development Specification (Appendix 2.1). All subsequent reserved matters
submissions will be in accordance with the principles of these plans which show how the quantum
of development and uses set out in the tables within the following sections, are distributed around
the Site. All Parameter Plans show the application boundary.
2.3.5
Together, the Parameter Plans provide clear parameters for all the zones and sufficient detail to
meet the EIA statutory requirements and enable the application to be determined and to enable
the detailed design to be progressed at reserved matters stage.
Table 2.2:
Parameter Plans
DRAWING TITLE
PL1436-VW-011
Parameter Plan 1:
Development Zones (Figure
2.1)
PLAN CONTENT
2-4
2.3.6
DRAWING TITLE
PL1436-VW-012
PL1436-VW-013
PL1436-VW-014
PL1436-VW-015
PL1436-VW-016
PLAN CONTENT
The application submission also includes an Illustrative Masterplan (Figure 2.7) to assist
statutory consultees and other bodies and local people in both understanding and evaluating the
proposals for determination. The Illustrative Masterplan is a representation of the Proposed
Development which reflects the application of the controls imposed by the Parameter Plans, the
Development Specification, the Means of Access Plans (Ref. 2.1) and the Phase 1 Plans.
SITE BOUNDARY (FIGURE 1.1 1.3)
2.3.7
The Site boundary shows the extent of the red line boundary of the approximately 303 ha Site
which is transposed on all the Parameter Plans. The application site boundary includes the extent
of all access works associated with the Site. The application site falls entirely within TDC.
DEVELOPMENT ZONES (PARAMETER PLAN 1 FIGURE 2.1)
2.3.8
The Parameter Plan identifies the land where new built form (buildings / structures) and
associated infrastructure and open space is permitted across the Site. There are 10 development
zones across the site.
2.3.9
The Parameter Plan also identifies the land where surface and sub-surface fixed infrastructure,
green infrastructure and outdoor sport / recreation facilities are permitted.
ACCESS AND MOVEMENT (PARAMETER PLAN 2 FIGURE 2.2)
2.3.10
The Parameter Plan fixes the strategic access and circulation routes that are proposed. Each of
the routes and features shown would be retained and/or developed in the form and location
identified on the plan, within the limits of deviation specified.
LAND USE (PARAMETER PLAN 3 FIGURE 2.3)
2.3.1
The Parameter Plan identifies the mix of land use across the Site, including the location of the
proposed High Street within the Village Centre.
2-5
DENSITY AND HEIGHT (PARAMETER PLAN 4 FIGURE 2.4)
2.3.2
No new buildings, or other built development can exceed the identified maximum height limits and
density identified on the Parameter Plan.
2.3.3
Whilst maximum heights are indicated, in practise they will never be matched across the entire
development due to the need to comply with the quantum of development applied for and set out
in this ES Chapter and the Development Specification.
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (PARAMETER PLAN 5 FIGURE 2.5)
2.3.1
The Parameter Plan identifies the land where surface and sub-surface fixed infrastructure
(including roads and sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS)), green infrastructure (Including
structural landscape, planting and parks) and outdoor sport / recreation facilities is permitted.
2.3.2
In addition, the Parameter Plan identifies the areas of the Site where the following is permitted:
Structure Planting comprising a linear belt of native woodland;
Heritage Park Open Space and Infrastructure Zone area of open parkland managed as
informal grassland which allows occasional use as a heritage grass runway when required;
Field Open Space Zone Area of existing fields where agricultural uses will be maintained.
Habitat Open Space Zone Area of land to be managed to promote a range of new habitats
and ecological areas;
An area of no development to the north of Site, where the land will be retained in its existing
use; and
Special Outdoor Water-Based Recreational Zone As per structural Open Space and
Infrastructure Zone but also where recreational surface water body and associated built
facilities allowed (Wave Garden).
DEMOLITION AND RETENTION (PARAMETER PLAN 6 FIGURE 2.6)
2.3.3
The buildings that are to be demolished and those to be retained are detailed on Parameter Plan
6: Demolition and Retention (Figure 2.6) and Tables 2.3 2.6. Parameter Plan 6: Demolition
and Retention also identifies the areas of existing hardstanding to be retained and removed.
Table 2.3:
BUILDING REFERENCE
(PARAMETER PLAN 6:
DEMOLITION AND
RETENTION FIGURE
2.6)
STATUS
B1 (Hanger)
Removed
4,776
B4 (Building 4)
Removed
366
2,800
B10
Removed
321
B11
Removed
318
B12 (Workshop)
Removed
316
2-6
BUILDING REFERENCE
(PARAMETER PLAN 6:
DEMOLITION AND
RETENTION FIGURE
2.6)
STATUS
B13
Removed
35
B16
Removed
290
B17
Removed
242
B19
Removed
175
B20
Removed
195
B22
Removed
67
300
B26 (Portacabin)
111
B30
(Hanger
Avia.)
Removed
TG Removed
1,427
B31 (Portacabin)
Removed
185
B32
Removed
35
B37
Removed
15
B38
Removed
Removed
B41
Removed
18
B45
Removed
60
Removed
350
B47
Removed
19
B49
Removed
50
B50
Removed
B51
Removed
15
B52
Removed
30
B53
Removed
B54
Removed
16
B55
Removed
28
B56
Removed
97
B57
Removed
27
B59
Removed
30
Removed
30
2-7
BUILDING REFERENCE
(PARAMETER PLAN 6:
DEMOLITION AND
RETENTION FIGURE
2.6)
STATUS
B62
Removed
B63
Removed
16
TOTAL
12,859
Table 2.4:
BUILDING REFERENCE
(PARAMETER PLAN 6:
DEMOLITION AND
RETENTION FIGURE
2.6)
B14 & B14a
Control Tower)
B18 (Hanger
Helicopters))
EXISTING USE
846
551
B34 (Workshop)
50
B21 (Workshop)
417
B23(Workshop)
175
B2 (Hanger Building
2)
3,530
B3 (Manston Airport
Cargo
Centre
&
Responding Vehicle
Point)
1,765
B8 (Fire Station)
750
B9 (Modern Control
Tower)
233
TOTAL
8,317
2-8
Table 2.5:
1,452
608
33
B36
14
125
50
150
B64
Table 2.6:
EXISTING BUILDINGS (PARAMETER PLAN 6: DEMOLITION AND RETENTION FLOOR SPACE (SQM GIA)
FIGURE 2.6)
To be retained and permission sought for change of use (as detailed 8,317
in Table 2.4 above)
To be retained with existing use but planning permission not sought 2,441
for change of use (as detailed in Table 2.5 above)
To be demolished (as detailed in Table 2.3 above)
13,010
2.5
2.5.1
The total land use and quantum that is being applied for across the Site is detailed in Tables 2.7 2.10 below.
Table 2.7:
USE CLASS
MAXIMUM QUANTUM
A1 A5
B1 (a-c) / B2/B8
2-9
USE CLASS
MAXIMUM QUANTUM
[See notes]
C1
120 bedrooms
C3/C2
D1/D2
[See notes]
Notes
Combined total B1(a-c)/B2/B8/D1/D2 floorspace to not exceed 85,000 sqm (GIA) (excluding primary
schools) Class D2 uses restricted to sport and recreation only.
Table 2.8:
B18 (Hangar)
B34 (Workshop)
B21 (Workshop)
B23 (Workshop)
B2 (Hangar)
B3 (Airport Cargo
PROPOSED USE
Sui Generis
D1/D2
846
Sui Generis
B1 (c)/B2/B8
551
Sui Generis
B1 (c)/B2/B8
50
Sui Generis
B1 (c)/B2/B8
417
Sui Generis
B1 (c)/B2/B8
175
Sui Generis
B1 (c)/B2/B8
3,530
Sui Generis
B1 (c)/B2/B8
1,765
2-10
BUILDING REFERENCE EXISTING USE
(PARAMETER PLAN 6:
DEMOLITION AND
RETENTION FIGURE
2.6)
PROPOSED USE
Centre)
B9 (Modern Control
Tower)
B8 (Fire Station)
Sui Generis
D1/D2
233
Sui Generis
D1/D2
750
Subtotal B1 (c)/B2/B8
6,488
D1/D2
1,829
8,317
Total
Notes
Class D2 uses restricted to sport and recreation only. See Parameter Plan 6: Demolition and Retention.
Table 2.8 above only includes retained existing buildings/structures for which planning
permission for change of use is sought. Additional buildings that are being retained, but where no
change of use is sought are included in Table 2.5.
Table 2.9:
USE CLASS
B1 (c)/B2/B8
10,224
Table 2.10:
Outline Element
USE CLASS
A1 A5
B1 (a-c) / B2/B8
C1
120 bedrooms
2-11
USE CLASS
C3/C2
D1/D2*
Notes
Combined total B1(a-c)/B2/B8/D1/D2 floorspace to not exceed 66,459 sqm (GIA) (excluding primary
schools). Class D2 uses restricted to sport and recreation only.
2.6
RESIDENTIAL
2.6.1
The outline element of the application seeks planning permission to construct up to 2,500
dwellings which will comprise a mix of sizes and types, ranging from 1 5 bedrooms and
including apartments and houses. These dwellings will sit within development zones 3 8
(Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones - Figure 2.1).
2.6.2
The indicative housing mix for the purposes of this assessment is as follows in Table 2.11 below.
Table 2.11:
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
One Bed
Two Bed
Three Bed
Four + Bed
2.6.3
PROPOSED
10 -20%
30 40%
30 40%
15 20%
Note that the application proposes that up to 250 of the residential units can be provided as agerestricted C3 or C2 units. These could comprise a number of products including retirement
housing, extra-care/assisted living, residential care, residential nursing).
2-12
2.7
TENURE MIX
2.7.1
The residential tenure will include the maximum viable proportion of affordable housing having
regard to the districts policy target of 30%. The actual affordable proportion will be subject to
negotiation with TDC during the determination of the planning application. For the purposes of
this ES we have assumed an affordable proportion of 0-30% of total units comprising 60%
Affordable Rent and 40% Intermediate (which could potentially include: shared ownership,
discount market sale, and starter homes.
2.8
2.8.1
Vehicular access to the Proposed Development will be achieved from the six main points of
access as shown on the Access and Movement Parameter Plan (Parameter Plan 2: Access and
Movement - Figure 2.2) and Means of Access Plans (Ref. 2.1) as submitted for approval as
follows:
A fourth arm on the existing roundabout at the A299 Hengist Way/Canterbury Road West
(Cliffsend roundabout) junction to provide the principal point of access to the development;
A new roundabout on Spitfire Way at the existing junction of Alland Grange Lane and Spitfire
Way as the secondary point of access to the development;
A new priority junction on Spitfire Way to serve the Phase 1 employment land;
A new priority junction with ghost island right turn facility on Spitfire Way to serve the
employment development zones in the west of the site;
A new roundabout to replace the existing Spitfire Corner junction with access provided to the
development via one of the arms; and
A new priority junction on Manston Road to access the development from the north.
2.8.2
As shown on the Access and Movement Parameter Plan (Figure 2.2) the development will
include the provision of a new north-south link between the A299 Hengist Way in the south and
Manston Road in the north to facilitate the first phase of a potential link towards Westwood Cross
as identified in the Thanet Transport Strategy (2005-2011) (Ref. 2.2).
2.8.3
In order to control access to Manston Road to the north of the Site, bus gates will be introduced
within the development to restrict access. The placement of these bus gates will be agreed with
KCC as part of reserved matters applications for the relevant phase of the development.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
2.8.4
Bus access to the Site will be phased and secured through a comprehensive Public Transport
Strategy that has been agreed in principle with the operator Stagecoach East Kent and KCC.
Initially it is proposed to provide additional bus stops on the roads surrounding the Site (Spitfire
Way and Canterbury Road West) to facilitate access to existing services. In the longer term
implementation of a new service to link the strategic sites on the Haine Road corridor with
Westwood Cross, the proposed Parkway Station and Discovery Park has been allowed for in the
strategy.
As shown on the Means of Access Plans (Ref. 2.1), pedestrian and cycle access to the Site will
be enhanced through the introduction of a series of new permissive rights of ways that will cross
the development connecting with existing routes off-site. New crossing points will be introduced
on the surrounding highway network to facilitate onward connections including:
2-13
Minster Road to the west of the site to link with existing pedestrian/cycle facilities at the
Minster Roundabout.
Manston Road to facilitate a crossing to link the public rights of way in the area
2.9
DRAINAGE
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE
2.9.1
Discussions in relation to the drainage strategy have been ongoing with a number of statutory
consultees, including KCC, Southern Water and the Environment Agency. As shown on the
Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan (Figure 2.5), the proposed strategy is to attenuate flows via
the use of SuDS features to be located within the existing low spot levels of the Site, and
discharge to the existing surface water outfall that eventually discharges to the Pegwell Bay.
2.9.2
The outline strategy (for both the detailed and outline elements of the application) will detail the
principles of the strategy, and it is expected that a condition will be set by KCC/TDC to ensure
that this strategy is further developed.
2.9.1
For further details refer to Chapter 11 Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage and
Appendix 11.1.
FOUL DRAINAGE
2.9.1
Following meetings and discussions with Southern Water it has been made clear that the existing
foul water drainage network surrounding the Site will not have capacity to accommodate the
development and confirmed that it is likely that off-site reinforcement works will need to be
undertaken to resolve this.
2.9.2
Given the size of the Site, the location existing public foul sewers and the topography of the site it
is unlikely that gravity connections will be achievable. It is therefore proposed that foul water
pumping stations will be provided to discharge to the existing public foul water network, the
location of these pumping stations will be largely dependent on the construction phasing of the
development and therefore cannot be confirmed at this stage but will be complaint with the
parameter plans.
2.9.3
For further details refer to Chapter 11 Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage and
Appendix 11.1.
2.10
2.10.1
An Energy and Sustainability Strategy (Ref. 2.3) is submitted with the planning application.
2.10.2
The proposals for the Site outlined within the Energy and Sustainability Strategy are considered
to maximise the potential carbon savings which can be achieved on Site through the provision of:
A highly efficient building fabric and building services plant;
100% low energy lighting to dwellings and maximised use of LED and low energy fixtures
elsewhere;
A Solar PV system to offset carbon on the new build element of the scheme.
2.10.3
Overall, the Proposed Development is expected to achieve a 10% reduction in carbon emissions
compared to the Part L 2013 targets. This is to be used as indicative for the entire Site, although
the ways in which each phase will reach this requirement may change and the combination of
building fabric improvements and energy efficiency measures will vary as designs are developed.
These are matters which are expected to be controlled through planning conditions.
2-14
2.10.4
For further details refer to the Energy and Sustainability Strategy (Ref. 2.3).
2.11
WASTE MANAGEMENT
2.11.1
The Waste Management Strategy submitted with the planning application has taken into account
the need to lessen the overall effect of waste from the demolition / construction and operational
phase of the Proposed Development.
2.11.2
The proposals set out in the Strategy meet the requirements of relevant waste policy and follow
applicable guidance.
2.11.3
Means by which to further reduce the waste arisings and increase recycling rates from the
Proposed Development have been identified, to ensure that the Proposed Development can
contribute to improved waste management performance.
2.11.1
For further details refer to the Waste Management Strategy (Ref. 2.4).
2.12
2.12.1
Subject to the granting of planning permission, demolition and construction is due to commence
in 2017 and is likely to be completed in around 2032. Demolition and construction will be
undertaken in a number of phases. An Outline Phasing and Delivery Strategy (SHP1-6) (Ref. 2.5)
is submitted with the planning application. It is expected also that the planning permission will
impose conditions which require the preparation and submission of a Construction Method
Statement to the Council for approval.
The site preparation, demolition and construction works will be designed and programmed to
minimise as far as practicable any disruption to local residents and the general public. The
Applicant is currently considering the applicability of both modular and traditional construction
methods. On the basis that the actual construction method is not currently known traditional
methods of construction have formed the basis of the assessment as a conservative approach.
2.12.3
It is currently assumed that all construction vehicle routing will be east-west along the A299
Hengist Way. However, final construction traffic routing will be agreed with the highway authority
through the discharge of planning conditions in order to achieve the most appropriate use of the
local road network and reduce the impact of the construction trips.
2.13
MATERIALS
2.13.1
The predominant materials expected for the Proposed Development are concrete, steel, brick and
glass. Further details on the types of materials expected to be used are presented in the Design
and Access Statement (Ref. 2.6). Such details would be agreed with the Council as part of the
reserved matters applications and discharge of relevant planning conditions. .
At this stage, the precise equipment which may be used in the construction of the Proposed
Development cannot be fully determined, because demolition and construction contractors have
not yet been selected and new machinery may be available during the construction period. For
the purposes of the assessment of the likely significant effects of the demolition and construction
of the proposed development, it has been assumed that the machinery and equipment identified
in Table 2.12 would be used.
2-15
Table 2.12:
PLANT
STAGE
DEMOLITION
Excavator with
muncher
Mini Breaker
Compressor /
Generator
Excavator loading
wagon
Percussive Breaker
SUB-STRUCTURE
BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION
EXTERNAL WORKS
Crawler Mounted
CFA Rig
Concrete Mixer
Truck and Pump
Poker Vibrator
Tracked Excavator
Dump Truck
Mobile Crane
Telescopic Handler
Delivery Lorry
Dumper
Scaffold Access
Platforms
Angle Grinder
Diesel Generator
Vibratory Roller
2-16
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC TIMINGS AND FREQUENCY
2.13.3
The selection of construction vehicles and the numbers of vehicular trips which are required will
depend on the size and number of vehicles operated by the contractor. Appropriate controls will
be implemented to ensure the safety of other road users and to protect the environment.
2.13.4
The daily construction traffic movements for the Site are outlined in detail in Chapter 9 Traffic
and Transport the TA (SHP1-7) (Ref. 2.1). The daily construction traffic movements are
estimated to be approximately 254 vehicle movements per day.
2.13.5
When considering possible size restrictions for vehicles which would be in daily use, the key
vehicles would be the tipper trucks used for disposing of materials arising from preparation of the
Site and, in the later stages of construction, the delivery of bulky items by articulated lorry.
Specialised items such as low-loaders to deliver construction plant and other machinery would
need to be considered on an individual basis and would be dependent on both the form of
construction to be adopted and the programme.
2.13.6
It is has been assumed that for the majority of construction deliveries and collections to the Site
will occur outside of the prevailing traffic peak periods on a weekday and weekend.
Careful consideration has been given to the likely number and size of construction vehicles; the
programme requirements and the routes to from the Site. It is therefore considered that
implementation of the following measures:
Appropriate signing of the delivery route to ensure vehicles use the approved route to and
from the Site;
Warning signs where appropriate in the vicinity of the Site entrance/s, both for vehicles and
pedestrians;
Co-ordination of delivery times to ensure that vehicles are not required to wait on the public
highway before entering the Site;
Layout of Site to allow adequate space for goods vehicle manoeuvring within the Site;
Temporary traffic management for short periods when delivery of oversized loads may cause
obstruction to the public highway;
Design of the Site access to ensure that vehicles have appropriate visibility upon leaving the
Site; and
2.13.8
During construction, restrictions may be required for pedestrians in the vicinity of the Site in order
to ensure their safety. When such restrictions are in place alternatives will be offered and current
walkways together with the improvements associated with the Proposed Development will be
opened as soon as possible.
2.13.9
The contractor will also sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme. The mission of this
scheme is as follows: The Considerate Constructors Scheme aims to achieve better site
management and presentation of sites, with the emphasis on improving relationships with the
local community. Its objective is to minimise any disturbance or negative impact (in terms of
noise, dirt and inconvenience) sometimes caused by construction sites to the immediate
neighbourhood.
2-17
CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND LOCATION
2.13.10
There will be a construction compound for each of the development phases and the exact
location is unknown at this stage. Therefore for the purposes of the ES, it has been assumed that
the Construction Compound will be a secure compound and lit during all hours to ensure the
secure storage of vehicles, machinery, equipment and materials. In terms of the location, for
each phase and sub phase it has been assumed that it will be located at the closest point to the
external red line boundary, although not within or adjacent to retained features as outlined above.
All site compounds and contractor parking will be provided for on-site for all construction phases.
Surface water management during the site preparation, earthworks and construction phase will
include measures to remove silt, sediment and debris and to attenuate surface water runoff prior
to controlled discharge to the drainage network. These measures will include temporary
settlement and storage ponds or where appropriate may utilise the permanent drainage
components (e.g. attenuation areas) constructed as part of the permanent works. Where
permanent drainage components are used during the construction phase, all silt and debris buildup must be removed and the permanent components fully reinstated on completion of
construction activities.
FOUNDATION SOLUTIONS
2.13.12
For the purposes of the ES it has been assumed that surcharge may be required across the Site.
This is the temporary process by which additional material is added to the Site and the existing
moisture levels are reduced. A piling foundation solution has been assumed across the Site
within the area of built development. The piles will be driven to the required depth using
conventional pile driving equipment.
It has been assumed for the purposes of this ES that working hours for site preparation,
earthworks and construction activities will be as follows:
A Construction Logistics Plan will be put in place, which will detail the maximum size of vehicles,
appropriate routes, and appropriate delivery timings and line with the text above. Appropriate
controls will be implemented to ensure the safety of other road users and to protect the
environment.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION
2.13.15
The likely significant environmental effects that could arise during construction of the Proposed
Development are assessed in each of the technical chapters within this ES (Chapters 5 - 14).
2.13.16
As above, the Proposed Development will be registered with the Considerate Constructors
Scheme. The project will therefore be monitored by an experienced industry professional to
assess performance against the eight point Code of Considerate Practice which includes the
categories Considerate, Environment, Cleanliness, Good Neighbour, Respectful, Safe,
Responsible and Accountable.
2-18
2.13.17
A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared in line with best
practice construction management approaches, such as those set out in the Considerate
Constructors Scheme. The aims of the CEMP will be to reduce the risk of likely significant
adverse effects on sensitive environmental resources and other receptors as a result of
construction activities, and to minimise disturbance to local residents.
2.13.18
The CEMP will be finalised prior to commencement of construction activities, taking into account
the recommendations in this ES and any relevant planning conditions or Section 106 obligations.
The CEMP will be implemented during the construction works and will demonstrate the
Applicants commitment to undertaking the construction activities in such a way as to avoid or
minimise likely significant environmental effects. The CEMP will provide a mechanism for the
implementation of recommended mitigation and monitoring measures throughout the construction
phase.
2.13.19
The content of the CEMP will be agreed with TDC and other authorities as appropriate prior to the
commencement of construction. The appointed contractor and appointed sub-contractors will be
required to comply with the requirements of the CEMP. An Outline CEMP is provided as
Appendix 2.2.
2-19
2.14
REFERENCES
Ref. 2.1
Ref. 2.2
Ref. 2.3
Ref. 2.4
Ref. 2.5
GVA (2016), Stone Hill Park Outline Phasing and Delivery Strategy
Ref. 2.6
3-1
ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
3.1
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2
Set out below is the Applicants position on the main alternatives in the context of the EIA
Regulations. This reflects the position which was set out in the EIA Scoping Report as issued to
TDC. The Councils Scoping Opinion confirmed that the submitted scoping report correctly
identifies the need to consider and outline alternatives to the Proposed Development on the
former Manston Airfield Site. The Council agreed with this in principle, but recommended that the
ES includes discussion on the measures and alternatives considered during the design evolution
that have sought to avoid likely significant effects from the proposed development occurring. This
is covered in the considerations below.
DO NOTHING SCENARIO
3.2.1
The Site which lies within defined countryside has most recently been used as an airport
(alongside ancillary employment type uses). Over the last few years it became clear there was no
credible prospect of the airport becoming profitable and as a result the commercial aviation
function ceased in May 2014. Since 2014 all airport operations at the Site have ceased and the
Applicant has pursued with a vision to transform the Site it into a mixed use development driven
by employment plus significant residential and community/commercial type use.
3.2.2
Policy CC1 (as saved) of the Thanet Local 2006 (Ref. 3.1) states that new development will not
be permitted unless there is a need for the development that outweighs the need to protect the
countryside. The Thanet Local Plan 2006 Saved Policies EC2 and EC4 (Ref. 3.1) allow proposals
that would support the development, expansion and diversification of the former Airport site. Such
proposals however would have to be the subject of a planning application supported by the
relevant documentation and assessments to demonstrate compliance with the relevant saved
policies of the local plan. Such proposals however would effectively create a new settlement on
land protected for airport uses.
3.2.3
Subsequent to the closure of the airport, the new draft Local Plan has been published and is at an
early stage with limited weight in decisions on planning applications. The Preferred Options draft
has been through public consultation in 2015. Draft Policy SP05 Manston Airport takes into
account the closure of the Airport, stating that, in advance of an Airport Area Action Plan to
explore the future development options for the site, proposals at the airport that would support the
development, expansion and diversification of Manston Airport will be permitted subject to a
number of factors. Both the saved and emerging plans recognise the former Airport as having the
potential to be a significant catalyst for economic growth, and seek to safeguard the airport from
development that might prejudice the future operation and expansion of it, or be adversely
affected by airport operations
3.2.4
In addition, to the need for TDC to progress a Local Plan for the district, means that the Council
anticipates a need to prepare a separate planning policy framework for the former Airport
th
site. Recent Cabinet meetings (10 September 2015), proposed the intention to prepare a
Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), in parallel with the draft Local Plan to
support development of the Site. The SPD is intended to set out the planning policy position for
3-2
different areas of the Site, defining the mix of uses that might be acceptable, and establishing
design and other planning principles.
3.2.5
3.2.6
The consequences of not developing the site for the proposed use would be a need to identify
another site or sites to accommodate residential properties identified by the TDC as being
required in the local area
3.3
3.3.1
No alternative sites have been considered or studied. As confirmed above, and in the EIA
Scoping Report the Applicant owns the Site and therefore redevelopment of the Site for the
Proposed Development as opposed to another site or sites within the area is self-evident. This is
already a significant developed site in the countryside and identified for expansion in the Local
Plan Saved Policies.
3.3.2
A number of tests have been carried out (Sequential Test (SHP1-4.4) (Ref. 3.2) and Housing
Appropriateness Test (SHP1-4.3) (Ref. 3.3), in response to planning requirements and provide a
robust evidence based for the appropriateness of both housing and the retail/hotel uses on the
Site.
3.4
3.4.1
At the outset of the design process a Constraints and Opportunities study was undertaken by the
environmental team and reported to aid the design team. A copy of the Report (dated September
2015) was issued to TDC as part of a package of pre-application information related to the
proposed development. There were also various meetings with the Council and consultees and a
series of Public Consultation Events, the details of which are reported in the submitted Statement
of Community Involvement (SHP1-11) (Ref. 3.4).
3.4.2
Throughout the design process, consideration has been given to the existing environmental
constraints and opportunities within and surrounding the Site and the adjoining areas, to inform
the land uses, nature, scale and massing and proposed layout of the built form and the areas of
open space and green infrastructure as now reflected on the Application Plans submitted for
approval. Such considerations have occurred over a period of time in the context of relevant
national and local planning policies, best practice guidance and development standards as
operated by KCC, TDC and other decision making bodies.
3.4.3
The over-arching objective has been to ensure the creation of a deliverable, sustainable
development, as defined by the NPPF (Ref. 3.5), which responds to local needs, environmental
conditions and the Site context.
3.4.4
This has been an iterative process that has been informed by the baseline studies for the EIA and
where practicable, measures to mitigate likely significant effects are now inherent in the
Application Plans submitted for approval and the basis of the assessment.
3.4.5
The fundamental environmental considerations which were studied in relation to each discipline
and which are now inherent in the Parameter Plans for the Proposed Development include the
following and informed the design evolution as set out in Table 3.1.
3-3
ECOLOGY
Informed by the Phase 1 Habitat Report and the ongoing ecological surveys, a significant
amount of green infrastructure has been retained and will be provided across the Site, to
encourage a wide range of habitat types (including woodland and grassland areas), providing
enhanced habitats and ecological mitigation across the Site.
Retention of areas of existing habitat, such as the grasslands to the north-east of the Site.
Green infrastructure taking the form of a number of different parks (Heritage, pocket and
ecological) for use by walkers and dog walkers.
VISUAL
Informed by the desk based assessments and zone of visual influence, a Zone of No
Development is now included to the south of the runway, to locate significant development
away from the most sensitive ridge line / runway locations to the south of the Site.
Domestic scale development that respects the character of the site and surrounds.
Boundary edges of the Site treated to respect the character of the surrounding landscape.
MOVEMENT AND ACCESS
Transport modelling and consideration of existing and expected future movement provided
opportunities to open up this site for public access given its restricted operations over many
years as an airfield site during the war and subsequent commercial activity.
Retention of the existing means of access to the Site, with the creation of new access points
to the north, south and west.
Inclusion of primary, secondary and tertiary link roads for all modes throughout the Site, along
with new key pedestrian cross links.
HERITAGE
Informed by the desk based assessments, geo-physical surveys and study of existing
buildings on site informed the overall design evolution.
Conversion of the existing runway for use as part of a large public parkland to connect the
development from east to west.
Retention of a number of existing buildings across the Site to form part of a new Heritage
Hub.
Delivery of a new museum hub to take advantage of the enhancement and opportunity for the
two existing on site museums to expand and offer a continued cultural heritage feature and
benefit for the local area and region as a whole.
LAND USES
Consideration of the juxtaposition of the various land uses across the site to provide a sense
of place and suitable environment for future residents, commercial occupiers and visitors
across the site. This includes the provision of education, health, leisure and retail facilities to
provide a commercial hub and centre for the new settlement and wider area in a location that
optimises its future use;
Employment, commercial and residential mix to provide a balanced and sustainable
community which respects the character of the site location in the defined countryside.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Wavegarden to be positioned outside Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 1 of the Thanet Aquifer.
Incorporation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) / wetland areas across the Site to
manage the surface water runoff.
3-4
Retention of the sub-station to the north-east of the Site.
Sustainable approach to energy and waste
3.4.6
The evolution of the layout, scale and appearance of the built form, together the environmental
considerations is outlined below and in the Design and Access Statement (Ref. 3.6) submitted
with the hybrid application.
The sequence of the design evolution is set out in Table 3.1 below sets out the stages
considered. Table 3.1: Design Evolution
DESIGN EVOLUTION
Employment (the principal use): to include a range of accommodation types focussed on the
requirements of the advanced manufacturing and technology sectors.
Housing: to support the viability of the development and to complement the employment uses.
Sport / recreation: large scale indoor facilities of national significance to complement the employment
uses.
Retention of existing runway, access points, existing museums and creation of a heritage hub to the
north of the Site.
Inclusion of a significant amount of green infrastructure across the Site and retention of certain habitats
for ecological mitigation.
3-5
DESIGN EVOLUTION
Consideration of existing site levels and height considerations, particularly to the south of the runway
which is the highest point of the site. A Zone of No Development was therefore included to the south of
the runway, to locate significant development away from the most sensitive ridge line / runway locations
to the south of the Site.
The linear park runs through the middle of development and connects to the countryside north and
south of the site.
The Site can connect to the adjacent commercial uses at Manston Business Park and potential
redevelopment of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) site.
Figure 3-2: Development Heart
Large linear parkland through the middle of the Site creates a more meaningful green connection.
The Site connects to adjacent commercial uses at Manston Business Park and potential redevelopment
of the MOD site.
3-6
DESIGN EVOLUTION
Figure 3-3: Central Parkland
Eastern linear parkland creates a large buffer to Manston Village and helps to the Site as a separate
community.
The Site connects to adjacent commercial uses at Manston Business Park and potential redevelopment
of the MOD site.
3-7
DESIGN EVOLUTION
Inclusion of primary, secondary and tertiary link roads throughout the Site, along with new key
pedestrian cross links.
Boundary edges of the Site treated to match the character of the surrounding landscape.
Incorporation of SuDS / wetland areas across the Site to manage the surface water runoff.
Green infrastructure taking the form of a number of different parks (Heritage, pocket and ecological) for
use by walkers and dog walkers.
March 2016
Key Components
Employment: 150,000 sqm of traditional employment floorspace, focused on high value manufacturing,
with some storage/distribution and office uses. Detailed permission for the first Phase of employment four high quality industrial units to kick start redevelopment of the Site.
Housing: 2,500 homes (over 10-15 years). These will be provided across a wide range of different
housing types, sizes and tenures from starter homes and family homes to specialist homes for seniors.
Heritage: Integration and retention of a number of existing buildings on site, including the Old Control
Tower and Fire Station. Retaining and reusing most of the southern runway. Incorporating a new
museum hub, providing space and opportunity for the museums to expand. Proposing Spitfire Park,
next to museums and capable of being used to land spitfires on occasion during the year.
3-8
DESIGN EVOLUTION
Retention of some areas of existing habitat, such as the grasslands to the north-east of the Site.
Retention of a number of existing buildings across the Site to form part of a new Heritage Hub.
3-9
3.5
REFERENCES
Ref. 3.1
Thanet District Council (2009), 2006 Thanet Local Plan Saved Policies
Ref. 3.2
GVA (2016), Stone Hill Park (SHP1-4.4) Planning Statement Addendum: Retail
Assessment
Ref. 3.3
Ref. 3.4
Ref. 3.5
Ref. 3.6
4-1
4.1
INTRODUCTION
4.1.1
This Chapter sets out the approach and methodology for the assessment of the likely significant
effects of the Proposed Development, compliant with the legal requirements for the preparation of
this ES which are governed by the EIA Regulations.
4.1.2
This reflects the requirements set out in the Councils Scoping Opinion (Appendix 4.2) and the
EIA Regulations and contains the information specified in Part 1 (where relevant) and Part 2 of
Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations as confirmed in Chapter 1 Introduction and informed by the
following Scoping exercise outcomes and agreement of assessment methodologies and
approaches:
Establishment of the existing / baseline environment conditions at the Site;
Identification of the planning policy context and applicable guidance;
Consultation with statutory consultees, other organisations and the public;
An outline of the alternative layouts considered;
Identification, prediction and assessment of the likely significance of the environment effects,
both positive and negative, of the Proposed Development (during construction and operation)
including effects on ecology and nature conservation; landscape and visual effects; noise;
ground conditions and contamination; transport and access; local air quality; water resources
and flood risk assessment; socio-economics and population; and archaeology and cultural
heritage;
Identification of suitable mitigation, enhancement and monitoring measures to prevent,
reduce or remedy any likely significant negative environmental effects of the Proposed
Development; and
Assessment of the significance of any residual effects remaining following implementation of
mitigation measures.
4.1.3
The ES has the status of a material consideration in the determination the Council must make
(Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Ref 4.1), and Section 38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Ref 4.2)).
4.1.4
The above therefore provides a common governing framework and methodology for the entire
environmental assessment as reported in this ES. Where exceptions have been made to the
adoption of the approach to assessment, for example where guidance specific to a particular
technical discipline has been applied, including assumptions and / or limitations, this is described
and explained in the relevant chapter.
4-2
4.1.5
An overview of the guidance and methodology adopted for each technical study is provided within
the respective technical chapters within this ES (Chapters 5 14). The Proposed Development
has been assessed using available information and knowledge of the Site and surrounding area
to determine the potential for likely significant environmental effects. Where such effects are
identified, mitigation measures to prevent, reduce or remedy these effects are recommended. In
addition, enhancement opportunities have been identified to optimise the benefits and positive
aspects of the Proposed Development.
4.2
4.2.1
This is a hybrid planning application (Part detailed and part outline), with the means of access to
the Site, Phase 1 (Comprising four industrial units with ancillary car parking and associated
infrastructure) and the change of use of the retained buildings all to form part of the detailed
elements for determination and all other matters reserved for future determination compliant with
the Parameter Plans (Figure 2.1 2.6). The Development Specification (Appendix 2.1) and
Chapter 2 The Proposed Development provide details of the detailed and outline elements of
the application.
APPROACH COMMON TO ALL ELEMENTS OF THE APPLICATION
4.2.2
For both the detailed and outline elements, the effects of the development at each relevant stage
have been assessed as follows based on the details provided in Chapter 2 The Proposed
Development:
Site Preparation, Demolition and Construction: The development is expected to be built out
over approximately 15 years. The assessment of the likely significant effects of the demolition
and construction stage is reported in each relevant technical chapter; and
Operational stage: Assumes the completion (opening year) of the entire proposed
development in use or occupied.
4.2.3
For purposes of the assessment, it is assumed that the demolition and construction stage would
commence in 2017 with all works associated with the proposed development completed in 2032.
Each technical assessment has adopted a baseline year of 2017 and where applicable or
relevant, then confirms subsequent assessment years For example, the Transport Assessment
and, therefore, the noise and air quality assessments will be based on baseline year, opening
years and years subsequent to this in accordance with relevant standards and assessment
guidelines. Effects arising at the time of construction will for the most part be temporary, but
others may result in lasting changes, for example in relation to positive effects from remediation of
any contamination.
4.2.4
This has been the basis of the assessment for the purposes of the EIA for the detailed and outline
elements using available information and knowledge of the Site and surrounding area to
determine likely significant environmental effects.
DETAILED ELEMENT OF THE APPLICATION
4.2.5
A series of Application Plans (Figures 2.8 2.13) are submitted for approval which include:
Phase 1 Plans; and
Means of Access Plans.
4-3
4.2.6
These Plans form the basis of the detailed element of the application which is described and
defined in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development in terms of quantum, land use and mix and
provides the basis of the assessment.
OUTLINE ELEMENT OF THE APPLICATION
4.2.7
In layman's terms, the effect of the grant of planning permission for the outline element will be to
set principles for the future development of this area of the Site. The development would then be
the subject of future applications by way of reserved matters applications and discharge
conditions, which will establish more detailed matters such as the scale and appearance of every
building within the Proposed Development.
4.2.8
The outline element of the application and in particular its description therefore should provide
enough information about the Site, design, size or scale of the development such that the Council
can reasonably be satisfied that it has sufficient information to decide that it has full knowledge of
the proposal's likely significant effects on the environment:.
a) within clearly defined parameters;
b) should take full account of the need for the development to evolve within those
parameters;
c) reflect the likely significant effects where there is flexibility in the project; and
d)
4.2.9
The outline element of the application, reserves all matters (except for means of access) for
further determination compliant with the documents submitted for approval, which set clearly
defined limits on the development, namely the Parameters Plans (Figure 2.1 2.6) and the
Development Specification.
4.2.10
4.2.11
4.2.12
Whilst reserved matters applications and applications to discharge conditions attached to the
outline element of the planning permission must keep within the parameters set by the hybrid
permission, those subsequent applications can themselves be the subject of further
4-4
environmental statements, if likely significant effects on the environment not previously assessed
have emerged.
4.2.13
4.3
QUANTUM OF DEVELOPMENT
4.3.1
To comply with the legal framework, for the detailed and outline elements of the application each
technical chapter has assessed the likely significant environmental effects based on the
documentation submitted for approval as set out above. Certain technical assessments are
dependent on the quantum of development as set out in in Chapter 2 The Proposed
Development. This is the case for the following chapters:
a) Socio-economics and Population; and
b) Traffic and Transportation.
4.3.2
The scale and proposed location of development, are the basis of the assessments:
a) Local Air Quality;
b) Noise and Vibration ;
c) Ecology;
d) Landscape and Visual
e) Archaeology and Cultural Heritage;
f)
Ground Conditions;
4.4
4.4.1
The following stages have been followed during the preparation of this ES:
Design and Environmental Interface;
Scoping study and provision of a Scoping Opinion by TDC;
Baseline assessment of existing environmental conditions within the Site and surrounding
area;
Identification of planning policy context and applicable guidance;
Consultation with statutory consultees, other organisations and the public;
Consideration of main alternatives;
Identification of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the
Proposed Development as identified at the Scoping Stage;
4-5
Determination of significance criteria to assess the level of any identified environmental
effects of the Proposed Development;
Identification, prediction and assessment of the likely significance of the environmental
effects, both positive and negative, of the Proposed Development (during demolition,
construction and operation) including effects on socio-economics and population; transport &
access; noise; local air quality; ecology and nature conservation; water quality and flood risk;
ground conditions; archaeology and cultural heritage; and landscape and visual and effects
from the Proposed Development in relation to climate change; and limitation and assumptions
related to these assessment, including the management of uncertainty in the assessment
process;
Identification of suitable mitigation, enhancement and monitoring measures to prevent,
reduce or remedy any likely significant negative environmental effects of the Proposed
Development; and
Assessment of the significance of any residual effects remaining following the implementation
of the identified mitigation measures.
Throughout the design process for the detailed and outline elements, the design and layout of the
development has been informed by the on-going environmental consideration relating to transport
and access, flood risk, ecology and nature conservation; and archaeology and cultural heritage.
The environmental specialists have worked with the design team to ensure that where possible,
negative environmental effects are avoided through revision to the scheme design before the
Application Plans as submitted for approval were finalised. The main alternative scheme layouts
that have been considered are discussed in Chapter 3 Alternatives Studied.
4.4.3
Where significant effects have been identified, the design of the Proposed Development has,
where possible, reduced these effects. These elements are discussed further in each of the
technical chapters within this ES (Chapters 5 14), and Chapter 16 Summary of Effects and
Mitigation Measures and Chapter 17 Summary of Residual Effects.
SCOPING STUDY
4.4.4
A Scoping Report was prepared by WSP | PB in January 2016 and was submitted to TDC with a
request for a Scoping Opinion, in accordance with Regulation 13 of the EIA Regulations.
4.4.5
A formal Scoping Opinion was received from TDC on 8 March 2016, which indicated that the
Scoping Report prepared by WSP | PB (Appendix 4.1) covers the broad issues that the Council
would require to be included within an Environmental Statement. However, the Council has
additional information which it wishes to see included within the ES and comments to make on
specific issues identified in the Scoping Report incorporating consultee responses (detailed in
Table 4.1). This information and comments have been addressed through the technical studies
(Chapters 5 14 and Volume 2) as presented within the ES. The full TDC response is provided
in Appendix 4.2.
4.4.6
A response to TDCs Scoping Opinion was issued by WSP | PB on 31 March 2016 (Appendix
4.3), to provide further clarification to the scope of the EIA and methodology.
th
st
4-6
Table 4.1:
CONSULTEE
Alternatives
TDC
4-7
CONSULTEE
The Council broadly accepts the proposed scope and methodology of the
air quality assessment. However, although the development site sits
outside Thanets urban wide AQMA it is of such significant size as to
require consideration of its impact on local air quality across the urban
AQMA as well as receptors within the development itself.
For clarity the Councils Environmental Health Officer states that there are
only three exceedance areas in Thanet, and none in Cliffsend, Margate or
Broadstairs. Local passive monitoring and continuous monitoring (ZH3)
confirms local baseline conditions near the site are at around 16u/m3 but
baseline conditions should also include years 2014 and 2015 monitoring
data.
In terms of key issues and scope, the EHO has asked that the ES should
also consider:
Please note that the air quality assessment may need to provide
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment
Chapter 5 Local Air Quality reports the likely significant effects of the
Proposed Development in terms of air quality.
It is noted that the Council broadly accepts the proposed scope and
methodology of the air quality assessment, which is informed by the
traffic modelling and access strategy. Given the scale of the
development, the assessment has considered the effects on local air
quality across the urban AQMA as well as receptors within the proposed
development itself, even though the site sits outside Thanets urban wide
AQMA.
We have noted that the Councils Environmental Health Officer states
that there are only three exceedance areas in Thanet, and none in
Cliffsend, Margate or Broadstairs. Local passive monitoring and
continuous monitoring (ZH3) confirms local baseline conditions near the
site are at around 16u/m3 but baseline conditions should also include
years 2014 and 2015 monitoring data.
The two key items below, as requested by the EHO have been included
in Chapter 5 Local Air Quality:
4-8
CONSULTEE
In relation to the assessment of the Fire Training Facility, this has been
discussed in further detail with the EHO. Additional data to undertake
this assessment has been requested directly from the EHO and limited
information has been provided.
Chapter 6 Noise and Vibration reports the likely significant effects of
the Proposed Development in terms of noise and vibration.
It is noted that the EHO has requested that any development which
impacts noise levels of the designated Important Areas (defined under
Environmental Noise Regulations), will be mitigated. This has been
discussed in further detail with the EHO and any increases in the
Important Areas reported in the Chapter are linked to perceptibility and
significance.
Chapter 7 Ecology and Nature Conservation reports the likely
significant effects of the Proposed Development in terms of ecology and
nature conservation.
We are aware that the site lies close to both Internationally and
Nationally Designated Sites as listed.
Chapter 7 Ecology and Nature Conservation reports the assessment
of the potential for the proposed development to affect designated sites,
including European Natura 2000 sites (e.g. Special Areas of
Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)) which fall
within the scope of the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010.
Appendix 7.1 includes the necessary information under Information for
Habitats Regulations Assessment to enable the Council to assess the
impact on European and internationally designated Ramsar sites from
the proposed development and will include an assessment of the site
alone, and in combination with other development, consistent with the
issues as raised by Natural England listed as follows which we have also
commented upon:
4-9
CONSULTEE
to be added pressure and the site is not and will not be directly
linked to these designated sites;
The ES should thoroughly assess the potential for the proposal to affect
designated sites. European sites (e.g. designated Special Areas or
Conservation and Special Protection Areas) fall within the scope of the
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
Under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010 an appropriate assessment needs to be undertaken in
respect of any plan or project which is (a) likely to have a significant effect
on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or
projects) and (b) not directly connected with or necessary to the
management of the site.
The Council, in accordance with Natural England advice, request that the
Environmental Statement includes the necessary information entitled
Information for Habitats Regulations Assessment to enable the Council as
the determining authority under guidance from Natural England to assess
the impact on European and Ramsar sites from the proposed development.
Natural England has requested the inclusion of the following issues within
this:
4-10
CONSULTEE
Natural England has advised that the applicant seek detailed advice on
these through use of their Discretionary Advice Services. Please note that
both the ES and information for the HRA should include an assessment of
the site alone and in combination with other development.
As detailed in article 6.3 of the EC Habitats Directive, Thanet DC must only
agree to the development after having ascertained that it will not adversely
affect the integrity of the site concerned.
Landscape and Visual Effects
4-11
CONSULTEE
outlined in the Scoping Report. The LVIA for the hybrid application is
based on the Parameter Plans (for the outline element) and the Phase 1
and change of use plans for the detailed elements for the application
which define the disposition, scale and massing of the proposed
development across the site.
The viewpoints were issued and agreed with TDC. The viewpoints
include the Ordnance Survey grid reference and other details aligned
with the methodology.
Due to the timing of the submission of the
application, only winter photographs have been used.
4-12
CONSULTEE
To date the County Council has been involved in discussions with Stone
Hill Park Ltd regarding advice on the scope of a strategic transport model
and would welcome further liaison on this matter.
Additionally, a strategy for serving and connecting the site to public
transport should be prepared together with a Travel Plan to minimise the
impact on the surrounding highway network and encourage sustainable
travel behaviour.
The County Council have stated that they will expect to see appropriate
connectivity between Stone Hill Park and the proposed Thanet Parkway
Railway Station. This will include the provision of safe and attractive
pedestrian and cycle links to the Parkway Station and integrated bus
connectivity.
As a result of the two stage approach above, the traffic data used for the
basis of the Air Quality and Noise assessments reported in this ES are
based on the spreadsheet based transport model.
Aecom have begun discussions with the local bus operator, Stagecoach
East Kent (SEK) and held a meeting between the bus operator and KCC
in February 2016. A Travel Plan will be prepared to accompany the
Transport Assessment and this will be informed by ongoing discussions
with KCC regarding sustainable travel and links to public transport,
walking and cycling facilities.
Aecom have also held discussions with the project team at KCC
responsible for the Parkway Station as well as with the Public Rights of
Way officer and SEK to discuss how the proposed development will
connect to the station if this facility is implemented. Proposals showing
how the proposed development would connect to the Station will be
included within the submission for implementation if the Parkway Station
is progressed by KCC and Network Rail in due course. These proposals
will be included within the Transport Assessment and not the application
plans to be submitted for approval.
4-13
CONSULTEE
4-14
CONSULTEE
KCC have stated they welcome the recognition of the relationship between
water resources and ground conditions within the Scoping Opinion Report.
However, the information needed to inform this chapter is not referenced
throughout the chapter on Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and
Contamination. It is therefore requested that the pathways assessed in the
Phase 1 contamination assessment is incorporated into the Drainage
Strategy as it may be key to determining the feasibility of infiltration.
To this regard the Environment Agency has identified that due to the
vulnerability of the groundwater in the underlying aquifer, there will be
restrictions on any proposed infiltration of surface water to ground. Surface
water drainage options will need to be agreed at an early stage in the
planning process to ensure that there is an acceptable solution. There
should be no direct discharge to groundwater.
The Environment Agency consultation response provides further advice
where soakaways are proposed on site.
The EA requires the ES to assess the impact of the proposal on water
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment
4-15
CONSULTEE
Primary Education
KCC as the local Education Authority have confirmed that education
provision within the development will be required.
KCC request that the development comprises two primary schools, each to
provide a total eventual capacity of 420 places on sites of 2.05 hectares.
Secondary Education
KCC calculate that the proposed development is likely to give rise to 600
secondary pupils. Surplus capacity to accommodate this additional demand
within the area has not been forecasted. The County Council will therefore
be required to provide additional secondary places through the expansion
of an existing school.
Community Learning
The County Council notes that a community facility is included within the
wider development proposal. In order for KCC to fulfil its statutory
obligations and provide the new community with access to County services,
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment
4-16
CONSULTEE
the County Council requests that provision within the proposed community
building is made for the on-site delivery of community learning, adult social
care, youth services and library services.
To meet demand and deliver the range of services required, it is
recommended that the proposed community facility includes the following: a
50m classroom, small hall, kitchen, storage space for class equipment,
sufficient toilet facilities for classes of 30, a changing place facility,
automatic doors and full Disability Discrimination Act 1995 compliance for
access by service users in wheelchairs. In addition, KCC will also request
35 hours use of the facility per week with no rent charged.
Libraries
The proposed development is likely to generate an additional 1,385 library
borrowers, a demand which cannot be accommodated within the existing
capacity of the library service. KCC considers that additional book stock to
accommodate this demand will be required at a cost of 48.00 per dwelling.
Adult Social Care
It is requested that 60 wheelchair accessible homes are provided as part of
the affordable housing element within the development with nomination
rights given in consultation with KCC Social Care.
Subject to the above the Council is satisfied with the proposed scope and
methodology of the assessment. The Council does however encourage the
applicant to seek school place data from KCC rather than Edubase which
typically is not as accurate.
Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and Contamination
4-17
CONSULTEE
KCC specify that given the former land use(s), sensitivity of Thanets
groundwater resource and the need to ensure no derogation to supply, this
must be comprehensive and carried out in sufficient detail to be able to
advise you whether the site can safely be developed based on the risk
assessment findings. The risk assessment should include adequate site
investigation, information to fully understand the site wide status and
potential for deeper contamination and potential impacts on groundwater
quality locally. TDCs Environmental Protection Managers view is that
further phased intrusive investigations are likely to be required in due
course.
4-18
CONSULTEE
CEMP
4-19
CONSULTEE
Points covered above under the under the respective headings above.
Points covered above under the heading Archaeology and Cultural Heritage above.
HISTORIC
ENGLAND
ENVIRONMENT
AGENCY
Points covered above under the headings Local Air Quality and Noise and Vibration above.
4-20
4.4.7
The agreed scope of the assessment for individual technical topics is set out in the respective
technical chapters (Chapter 5 14 and Volume 2) of this ES.
BASELINE CONDITIONS
4.4.8
In order to identify the scale of potential effects of the Proposed Development, it is necessary to
establish the existing baseline environmental conditions.
4.4.9
The baseline conditions used in this assessment were established by the following means:
Site visits and surveys;
Desk-based studies;
Review of existing site specific information;
Modelling;
Review of relevant national, regional and local planning policies; and
Consultation with the relevant statutory consultees, through the scoping exercise and various
meetings held.
4.4.10
For the purposes of this EIA, it has been assumed that all buildings on Site are vacant and the
site is non-operational.
Consistent with the EIA Regulations (Part 1 of Schedule 4) the identification of the aspects of the
environment likely to be significantly affected by the Proposed Development, have been identified
and include in particular; population, fauna, flora, soil, water, climate factors, material assets
including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and inter-relationship between
the above factors.
4.4.13
Table 4.2 below confirms the sensitive receptors identified within the Site and surrounding area.
Table 4.2:
CATEGORY
General
RELATIONSHIP TO PART 1 OF
THE SCHEDULE 4 OF EIA
REGULATIONS
Population.
4-21
CATEGORY
Commercial
Leisure
Residential
Ecology
Infrastructure
Water Resources
RELATIONSHIP TO PART 1 OF
THE SCHEDULE 4 OF EIA
REGULATIONS
4-22
CATEGORY
Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage
4.4.14
RELATIONSHIP TO PART 1 OF
THE SCHEDULE 4 OF EIA
REGULATIONS
Material Assets
Further details of the likely significant effects on the above sensitive receptors are included within
the technical chapters of this ES (Chapters 5 14 and Volume 2).
4-23
IDENTIFICATION OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS EVALUATION OF
SIGNIFICANCE
4.4.15
Various methodologies were applied in order to determine the potential for significant
environment effects as a result of the demolition / construction works and operation of the
Proposed Development. The topic specific methodologies are provided in each of the technical
chapters within this ES (Chapters 5 14 and Volume 2).
4.4.16
The assessment of the likely significance of potential environmental effects arising from the
demolition, construction works and operational phases of the Proposed Development has
assumed it would be built over a 15 year period with construction beginning 2017 (assuming
permission is granted) and being completed in approximately 2032 It has included consideration
of the following, in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations:
Positive and negative effects;
Short (0-2 years), medium (2-10 years) and long (> 10 years) terms effects;
Direct and indirect secondary effects;
Permanent and temporary effects; and
Cumulative effects.
4.4.17
Several criteria have been used to determine whether or not the likely environment effects of the
Proposed Development will be deemed significant. The effects have been assessed
quantitatively, where possible.
4.4.18
Generally, the significance of effects has been assessed using one or more of the following
criteria:
International, national and local standards;
Extent and magnitude of the effect;
Reversibility and duration of the effect;
Inter-relationship between effects; and
Nature and extent of cumulative effects.
4.4.19
Where no published standards exist, the assessments presented in the technical chapters
describe the professional judgements (assumptions and value systems) that underpin the
attribution of significance. For certain technical topics, such as ecology and air quality, widely
recognised published significance criteria and associated terminology have been applied and
these are presented in the technical chapters and associated appendices, where relevant.
4.4.20
The assessment of significance considers the magnitude of change (from the baseline
conditions), the sensitivity of the affected environment / receptors and (in terms of determining
residual effects) the extent to which mitigation and enhancement measures will reduce or reverse
negative effects.
4.4.21
In addition, further influences such as those listed have been factored into the assessment using
professional judgement:
Likelihood of occurrence;
Geographical extent;
The value of the affect resource;
Adherence of the proposal to legislation and planning policy;
4-24
Reversibility and duration of the effect.
4.4.22
The magnitude (scale) of change for each effect has been identified and predicted as a deviation
from established baseline conditions, for the construction and operational phases of the Proposed
Development. The scale used (high, medium, low and negligible) is shown in Table 4.3.
4.4.23
The sensitivity of the receptors / receiving environment to change has been determined using
professional judgement, consideration of existing designations (such as Conservation Areas and
Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)), and
quantifiable data, where possible. The scale used (high, medium, low, and negligible) is also
shown in Table 4.3.
4.4.24
Each effect has been assessed against the change of magnitude and the sensitivity of the
receptor as shown in Table 4.3. Where best practice and guidance requires that certain technical
disciplines are required to follow topic specific criteria for determining significance the criteria to
be used will be presented clearly in the methodology section of the technical chapters within the
ES.
Table 4.3:
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
NEGLIGIBLE
HIGH
Major
Moderate to
Major
Minor to
Moderate
Negligible
MEDIUM
Moderate to
Major
Moderate
Minor
Negligible
LOW
Minor to
Moderate
Minor
Negligible to
Minor
Negligible
NEGLIGIBLE
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
4.4.25
The likely significance of effects reflects judgements as to the importance or sensitivity of the
affected receptor(s) and the nature and magnitude of the predicted changes. For example, a
moderate negative effect on a feature or site of low importance will be of lesser significance than
the same effect on a feature or site of high importance.
4.4.26
The following terms are used to describe the significance of effects, where they are predicted to
occur:
These terms have been developed with reference to published best practice guidance as well as WSP EIA experience.
4-25
Major positive or negative effect: where the Proposed Development would cause a
significant improvement (or deterioration) to the existing environment;
Moderate positive or negative effect: where the Proposed Development would cause a
noticeable improvement (or deterioration) to the existing environment;
Minor positive or negative effect: where the Proposed Development would cause a barely
perceptible improvement (or deterioration) to the existing environment; and
Negligible: where the Proposed Development would result in no discernible improvement or
deterioration to the existing environment.
4.4.27
Effects that are deemed to be significant for the purposes of this assessment are those that are
described as being moderate or major positive / negative.
4.4.28
Specific criteria have been developed for certain technical studies and are provided in the
respective technical chapters of this ES. The inter-relationship between likely significant
environment effects and residual effects following implementation of mitigation measures has also
been discussed.
4.4.29
Tables summarising the likely significant effects associated with an environmental topic area,
potential mitigation measures and residual effects are provided at the end of each corresponding
technical chapter. A distinction between direct and indirect; short and long-term; permanent and
temporary; primary and secondary; positive and negative effects has also been made in the
summary of effects tables.
4.4.30
The characteristics of an effect will vary depending on the duration of the activity causing the
effect, the sensitivity of the receptor and the resultant change. It is therefore necessary to assess
whether the effect is short, medium or long term; temporary or permanent; positive and negative;
and reversible or irreversible. Effects that are temporary are reversible and generally confined to
the construction period.
4.4.31
For the purposes of this ES the terms used in the assessment of effects are generally defined as
follows:
Short-term: where the effect would be of short duration and would occur for up to 2 years;
Medium-term: where the effect occurs for a period of between 2 10 years;
Long-term: where the effect occurs for 10 years or more and includes permanent effects;
Temporary: where the effect occurs for a limited period of time and the change at a defined
receptor can be reversed;
Intermittent: where the effect occurs for short periods of time and may re-occur occasionally
at regular or irregular intervals;
Permanent: where the effect represents a long-lasting change at a defined receptor;
Direct: where the effect is a direct result (or primary effect) of the Proposed Development;
Indirect: a secondary effect which occurs within or between environmental components, may
include effects of the environment which are not a direct result of the Proposed Development,
often occurring away from the proposals or as a result of a complex biological or chemical
pathway; and
Cumulative: the collective effects of changes that may be insignificant individually but in
combination, often over time, have the potential to be significant (see Section on cumulative
below).
4-26
4.4.32
Where a more appropriate effect duration scale or definition of the above terms is applicable to a
technical disciplines this is clearly outlined with technical chapters (Chapter 5 14, and Volume
2).
Mitigation measures have been identified to prevent, reduce or remedy any likely significant
adverse environmental effects that remain. Such measures will be implemented during
demolition, construction and / or operational phases of the Proposed Development. Where
mitigation measures are identified, they will be delivered in response to planning conditions or
secured via a Section 106 Agreement ass appropriate.
4.4.34
Each technical chapter details the measures which are recommended to mitigate any identified
significant effects, and a summary of the recommended mitigation measures identified from within
each of the technical chapters of this ES (Chapter 5 - 14 and Volume 2) is provided in Chapter
16 Summary of Effects and Mitigation Measures.
4.5
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
OVERVIEW
4.5.1
Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations requires that the cumulative effects of a development are
considered within the ES. The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
published a consultation draft of Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice
and Procedures in June 2006, which identified two types of cumulative effects that require
consideration within EIA:
The combined effect of the Proposed Development together with other reasonably
foreseeable developments (taking into consideration effects at both the construction and
operational phases); and
The combined or synergistic effects caused by the combination of a number of effects on a
particular receptor (taking into consideration effects at both the construction and operational
phases), which may collectively cause a more significant effect than individually. An example
could be the culmination of disturbance from dust, noise, vibration, artificial light, human
presence and visual intrusion on sensitive fauna (e.g. certain bat species) adjacent to a
construction site.
4.5.2
The Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact
Interactions provides the following guidance on cumulative effects:
In practical terms, the extent of the assessment in terms of how far into the past and into
the future will be dependent upon the availability and quality of information
it is only reasonable to consider current events and those that will take place in the
foreseeable future. Furthermore, the assessment can only be based on the data that is
readily available.
4.5.3
The guidance above identifies that regard should be had to the possible cumulative effects with
any existing or approved development. This is usually taken to be those schemes that are
4-27
validated, registered or have the benefit of Planning Permission as identified on the relevant
authoritys / authorities planning application Register(s).
The committed developments considered in respect of the potential for cumulative effects
together with the Proposed Development have been agreed with TDC and KCC and are set out in
Table 4.4. Their locations in relation to the Proposed Development Site are shown in Figure
15.1. Chapter 15 Cumulative Effects which presents the findings of the assessment of
cumulative effects with other developments and effect interactions arising from the Proposed
Development and provides the context for this assessment.
Table 4.4:
SCHEME
APPLICATION
NUMBER
OL/TH/11/0910
STATUS
DETAILS
Appeal
Allowed
with
Conditions
(2013)
Manston
Green
OL/TH/14/0050
Approved
(2015)
Westwood
Housing
OL/TH/06/0650
Approved
(2008)
F/TH/10/0726
Approved
(2012)
OL/TH/15/0187
Pending
Decision
EuroKent
Flambeau
Europlast
4.5.5
The assessment results presented in the Transport Assessment and Chapter 9 Traffic and
Transportation consider future growth on the local highway network associated with other
development in the local area together with the Proposed Development. The trip generation for
the identified committed developments has been determined and distributed onto the local
highway network. The cumulative effect in terms of the changes on the local highway network as
a result of future developments is therefore also included within the traffic data that have been
used in the assessments presented in Chapter 9 Traffic and Transportation; Chapter 5
Local Air Quality and Chapter 6 Noise. This is discussed further in Chapter 15 Cumulative
Effects.
4-28
4.6
CONSULTATION
4.6.1
Consultation has been undertaken with statutory and non-statutory consultees as part of the
technical studies for this ES. The purpose of these consultations was to identify any sensitivities
or concerns associated with the Proposed Development which may need to be considered in the
design process and assessed as part of this ES.
4.6.2
The following organisations were consulted during the preparation of this ES;
Various departments and officers at TDC and KCC;
Environment Agency;
Natural England;
Historic England; and
Southern Water.
4.6.3
Comments made by the statutory consultees and other interested parties are discussed where
appropriate in the relevant chapters and associated appendices of this ES.
4.7
4.7.1
Assumptions specific to certain topics have been identified in the appropriate technical chapters.
The key assumptions made and any limitations that have been identified in producing this ES are
set out below:
All of the principal existing land uses adjoining the Site remain;
Baseline conditions have been established from a variety of sources, including historic data,
and are assumed for the EIA to be unchanged, but due to the dynamic nature of certain
aspects of the environment, conditions may change during the course of the construction and
operation of the scheme;
For the purposes of this EIA, it has been assumed that all buildings on Site are empty and
vacant;
Information received from third parties is complete and up to date;
Assessment is on the basis of the completed Proposed Development and not interim phases;
Impact assessments for each EIA topic are based upon current or emerging legislative and
policy framework;
The scheme description is as described in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development and
assessments are based upon the application drawings and schedules submitted as part of
the planning application;
Construction activities will be as outlined in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development of this
ES;
Construction activities will be undertaken during normal construction industry working hours,
assumed to be 08h00 18h00 Mondays to Fridays, Saturdays 08h00 13h30 and no noisy
activities to occur on Sundays and Bank Holidays (out of hours works / deliveries will be
subject to prior agreement and / or notice to TDC);
The design, construction and completed scheme will satisfy minimum environmental
standards and be consistent with contemporary legislation, good practice and knowledge;
Conditions will be attached to the planning permissions, if approved, that will minimise
disturbance during construction works; and
4-29
Committed Developments included with the cumulative effect assessment (Chapter 15
Cumulative Effects) will be implemented as per the information pertaining to these
applications that is publically available. It is assumed that these developments will be subject
to the same environment standards, legislation, policy and good practice conditions.
4-30
4.8
REFERENCES
Ref. 4.1
Ref. 4.2
Ref. 4.3
Ref. 4.4
Ref. 4.5
5-1
5.1
INTRODUCTION
5.1.1
This Chapter reports the assessment of the likely significant effects of the construction and
operational phase of the Proposed Development in terms of impacts on local air quality at
relevant public exposure locations and sensitive ecological sites with statutory designation
(Designated Sites). Where appropriate it also identifies proposed mitigation measures to prevent,
minimise or control likely negative effects arising from the Proposed Development and the
subsequent anticipated residual effects are identified.
5.1.2
This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) should be read together with the
Introductory Chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 4), as well as Chapter 15 Cumulative Effects.
5.1.3
A glossary of terms used within the air quality ES Chapter can be found in Appendix 5.1.
5.2
5.2.1
Details of the relevant legislation, policy and guidance are provided in Appendix 5.2.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
5.2.2
PLANNING POLICY
5.2.3
Planning policy at the national and local levels and its relevance to environmental design and
assessment is confirmed in Chapter 1 Introduction of the ES and the Planning Statement
which accompanies the application and examines the merits of the Proposed Development
against the relevant planning policy.
5.2.4
Appendix 5.2 includes a summary of the relevant air quality policy used for this assessment. The
planning policy documents relevant to this assessment are as follows:
LOCAL PLAN OR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
5.2.5
5-2
Thanet Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies (Ref. 5.10);
Draft Thanet Local Plan (2015) Emerging Policy (Ref. 5.11); and
Air Quality Action Plan for Thanet District Council (2013) (Ref. 5.12)
GUIDANCE
5.2.6
5.3
5.3.1
The assessment adopts the approach outlined in Chapter 4 Approach to the Assessment and
is based on the Parameter Plans and Application Plans as described in Chapter 2 The
Proposed Development. The following components of the Proposed Development are relevant
to the assessment of the likely significant effects in terms of local air quality associated with the
Proposed Development:
Detailed Elements:
Development of Phase 1 comprising four industrial units (Use Class B1c/B2/B8) with
ancillary car parking and associated infrastructure.
Outline Elements:
Construction Phase:
Demolition of existing buildings, structures, hardstanding, site preparation.
5.4
5-3
SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT
5.4.1
Chapter 4 Approach to Assessment confirms the position on the EIA Scoping exercise and
the Report and subsequent letter is available at Appendix 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. An Environmental
Scoping Report was submitted to Thanet District Council (TDC) in January 2016. Following
receipt of a scoping response from TDC, this section provides an update on the scope of the
assessment.
5.4.2
The scoping report submitted to TDC scoped in the consideration of an onsite energy centre;
however, as the design has evolved the requirement for an onsite energy centre has been
removed, and therefore such an assessment has now been scoped out of the air quality
assessment.
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
5.4.3
5.4.4
The following air quality effects are expected during the operational phase:
Changes in pollutant concentrations (NO2, PM10 & PM2.5) as a result of exhaust emissions
from road traffic generated by the operation of the Proposed Development;
Changes in pollutant concentrations (NO2, PM10 & PM2.5) with Thanets Urban AQMA, inparticular in the vicinity of hotspot locations including: The Square - Birchington; High Street
St Lawrence, junction of Boundary Close & Herson Road and College Road, Margate; and
Changes in ambient annual mean NOx concentrations and nitrogen (N) deposition rates at
Designated Sites including Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes Site of Scientific Special
Interest (SSSI), and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) and
Ramsar site.
5.4.5
In addition, the effects of emissions from Ministry of Defence existing Fire Training Facility on the
future residential receptors proposed near to this facility within the Application Site have been
considered in response to scoping opinion.
CONSULTATION
5.4.6
Table 5.1 provides a summary of the consultation activities to inform the assessment in support of
the preparation of this Chapter.
Table 5.1: Summary of Consultation
BODY /
ORGANISATION
INDIVIDUAL / STAT
BODY/ORGANISATION
MEETING DATES
03/11/2015
21/03/2016
30/03/2016
5-4
BODY /
ORGANISATION
INDIVIDUAL / STAT
BODY/ORGANISATION
Brinckerhoff
Quality EHO at TDC
WSP | Parsons Amanda Berry Air
Brinckerhoff
Quality EHO at TDC
Amanda Barry
Air Quality
EHO at TDC
WSP | Parsons
Brinckerhoff
MEETING DATES
31/03/2016
04/04/2016
In accordance with guidance published by the IAQM (Ref. 5.13), the construction phase
assessment assessing the effects of dust and particulate matter considers an area extending to
350m from the construction site boundary, and up to 500m from the site entrance extending 50m
either side along construction traffic access routes. Beyond these distances any impacts are
unlikely to give rise to a significant effect and are scoped out.
5.4.8
To assess the effects of emissions resulting from development-generated road traffic, traffic data
have been provided for the surrounding network (further details are provided in Appendix 5.3 and
illustrated in Figure 5.1) by Aecom, the Project Traffic and Transport consultant. The road
network considered includes those roads which meet the criteria detailed in Table 6.2 of the
EPUK & IAQM Planning for Air Quality Guidance document (Ref. 5.17).
A desk study has been undertaken to obtain baseline data to inform the assessment. Sources of
information include:
DEFRAs background mapping for local authorities (Ref. 5.21);
Ordnance Survey (OS) map data;
Proposed Development details concerning construction and design phases
LAQM reports produced by TDC (Ref. 5.22) and Kent and Medway Air Quality Monitoring
Network (Ref. 5.23);
5-5
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
5.4.10
Construction of the full Proposed Development is anticipated to take place over 15 years,
commencing in 2017 and concluding in 2032.
5.4.11
An assessment of construction phase effects in terms of deposited dust and ambient PM10 and
PM2.5 concentrations has been undertaken following the relevant methodology published by the
IAQM (Ref.5.12). This assessment considers the risk of effects in relation to:
Demolition;
Earthworks;
General construction activities; and
Trackout (dust and dirt that can be carried out of the site predominantly on the wheels of
construction vehicles).
5.4.12
The IAQM method takes into account the nature and scale of the activities undertaken and the
sensitivity of the area to increases in dust, PM10 and PM2.5 levels in order to assign a level of risk
(low, medium or high). Once the level of risk has been established, then site specific mitigation
proportionate to the level of risk is identified, and the significance of residual effects determined. A
summary of the IAQM assessment methodology is provided in Appendix 5.4.
5.4.13
In terms of emissions from NRMM, detail regarding the nature and operations of NRMM do not
permit quantitative assessment of impacts on ambient NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.
Consequently, only commentary has been provided on this aspect.
5.4.14
Details of construction traffic routes and flows have been provided by Aecom, the Traffic and
Transport consultant for 2021 on the basis of ongoing construction, with 500 residential dwellings
and 22,667sqm of employment space complete by 2021, detailed in Chapter 2 The Proposed
Development. A quantitative assessment of impacts on ambient NO2, PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations at human receptors has therefore been carried out on this basis (see methodology
for the operational phase given below).
5.4.15
It should be noted that limited construction traffic movements are expected off-site, as Aecom, the
Project Transport consultant has determined that a cut and fill balance across the site would be
achieved; therefore, earthworks traffic movements would be contained within the site.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
5.4.16
DESCRIPTION
HEIGHT
ABOVE
GROUND (M)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
5-6
ID
DESCRIPTION
HEIGHT
ABOVE
GROUND (M)
R6
R7
R8
R9
5-7
ID
DESCRIPTION
HEIGHT
ABOVE
GROUND (M)
5.4.17
For the prediction of impacts due to emissions arising from road traffic sources during operation,
the ADMS-Roads (version 4.0) dispersion model has been used (Ref. 5.24). This model uses
detailed information regarding traffic flows on the local road network, surface roughness, and local
meteorological conditions to predict pollutant concentrations at selected relevant locations.
5.4.18
A summary of the traffic and emissions data used in the assessment can be found in Appendix
5.3. This includes details of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows, vehicle speeds (kph) and
the percentage of Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDVs) for the local road network in all assessment years
considered including 2015 as the baseline scenario.
5.4.19
Meteorological data are used by the model to determine pollutant transportation and levels of
dilution by the wind. Meteorological data for 2015 has been used from the Met Office observing
station at Manston Airport, which is considered as representative of the conditions at the study
area. A windrose representing the frequencies of wind speed and direction at proposed area is
shown in Appendix 5.5.
5.4.20
5-8
Scenario 5: 2026 Without Development; and
Scenario 6: 2026 With Full Development.
5.4.21
5.4.22
Vehicle emission factors for use in the assessment have been obtained using the Emission Factor
Toolkit (EFT version 6.0.2, Ref. 5.25). The EFT allows for the calculation of emission factors
arising from road traffic for all years between 2008 and 2030. For the predictions of future year
emissions, the toolkit takes into account factors such as anticipated advances in vehicle
technology and changes in fleet composition, such that vehicle emissions are assumed to reduce
over time.
5.4.23
Currently, there is some uncertainty over future predictions in-particular the ability of EURO 6
(VI) type approval emission standards, which were introduced in 2014 in relation to all new
vehicles, to deliver substantial reductions in NO x emissions. To address this uncertainty, it has
been assumed that there will be no improvement in emission factors from the baseline year of
2015 in the future year scenarios assessed. This represents the worst-case approach. The
emissions data assumed for each scenario are given in Appendix 5.3.
BACKGROUND POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
5.4.24
DEFRA has published maps giving estimates of background annual mean pollutant
concentrations for the whole of the UK on a 1 x 1 km grid basis (Ref. 5.18). Background
concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 taken from DEFRA for 2015 are detailed in Section 5.5
Baseline Conditions.
5.4.25
Inherent within the background maps is the assumption that concentrations will improve (i.e.
reduce) over time due to reductions in emissions achieved by replacement of old polluting
technologies over time with cleaner technologies. However, many local authorities are finding that
the results of local monitoring do not always support this assumption particularly in the case of
ambient NO2 concentrations. In recent years pollutant concentrations have remained fairly stable.
A number of factors are thought to be responsible for this including failures of some cleaner
vehicle technologies to deliver lower emissions and the popularity of diesel cars, which emit
higher levels of NOx than petrol cars.
5.4.26
For the purposes of the assessment, 2015 background concentrations have been adopted for all
assessment scenarios as a worst case approach. It is expected that the background
concentrations for the future year scenarios will be somewhat lower than those assumed for this
assessment. Further details are provided in Section 5.5 Baseline Conditions.
CALCULATION OF POLLUTION STATISTICS
5.4.27
The model generates estimates of annual mean concentrations of road source contributed NO x,
PM10 and PM2.5 at specified receptors. To permit comparison with the relevant air quality
objectives for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 it has been necessary to combine the model output data with
the assumed annual mean background concentrations.
5.4.28
To estimate total annual mean NO2 at each receptor, to compare with the annual mean air quality
3
objective (40g/m ), it is necessary to convert the road source contributed NO x to NO2. This has
been done using a NOx to NO2 calculator, which is maintained by DEFRA (version 4.1, Ref. 5.26).
5.4.29
To consider compliance with the 1-hour mean air quality objective for NO2, DEFRAs guidance
(Ref. 5.16) suggests that in locations where the annual mean NO2 concentration exceeds
3
60g/m then the 1-hour mean objective may be breached. Where annual mean concentrations
5-9
3
are less than 60g/m then compliance with the 1-hour mean objective is likely. This approach
has been adopted for this assessment.
5.4.30
To estimate total annual means for PM10 and PM2.5, to compare with the annual mean air quality
3
objectives (40 and 25 g/m respectively) the model output concentrations are simply added to
the background concentrations for these pollutants.
5.4.31
To consider compliance with the 24-hour mean air quality objective for PM10, DEFRAs guidance
(Ref. 5.16) gives the following equation that relates the annual mean concentration to the number
3
of exceedences of the 24-hour mean concentration of 50g/m , where up to 35 exceedences are
allowed:
3
No. 24-hour mean exceedences = -18.5 + 0.00145 x annual mean + (206/annual mean)
5.4.32
This approach has been adopted for 24-hour mean PM10 for this assessment.
5.4.33
Predicted concentrations have been compared against the relevant current statutory criterion set
out in Table 5.2A in Appendix 5.2.
ROADS MODEL VERIFICATION
5.4.34
ADMS-Roads has been widely validated for this type of assessment and is considered to be fit for
purpose.
5.4.35
Model validation which is undertaken by the software developer will not have included validation
in the vicinity of the Proposed Development. To determine the performance of the model at a local
level, a comparison of modelled results with local monitoring data at relevant locations is usually
undertaken. This process is known as verification and aims to minimise uncertainty and
systematic error (i.e. any tendency of the model to over- or under-estimate concentrations). It is
sometimes appropriate to calibrate (adjust) the model to bring the modelled estimates into line
with the monitoring data.
5.4.36
5.4.37
ADMS 5.1 has been used to model the long term and short term impacts on NO 2, PM10 and PM2.5
of the MoD Fire Training Facility at existing and new receptors. ADMS 5.1 has been widely
validated for this type of assessment and is considered to be fit for purpose.
5.4.38
The plume generated by the MoD Fire Training Facility during burring exercises will be visible for
a short period of time. The time taken for the dispersion of the plume will vary dependent up on
the prevailing meteorological conditions at the time of burning. Based on the data provided for
2015, the average number of burns on a typical day is less than two, with an average burn
duration of approximately 6 minutes.
5.4.39
Details of the calculations, assumptions made and modelling inputs are given in Appendix 5.7.
DESIGNATED SITES
5.4.40
The assessment of impacts of traffic generated by the operational phase of the Proposed
Development on Designated Sites has been based on the guidance provided in Annex F of the
DMRB HA 207/07 (Ref. 5.18). An initial review has been undertaken to indicate whether there are
likely significant impacts associated with the proposals. This includes:
Identification of affected roads which meet any of the listed criteria:
5-10
Data and method for N deposition calculation published on the Air Pollution Information System
(APIS) website (Ref. 20) has been used to obtain site specific ecological data and has been used
in the assessment.
5.4.42
There are three Designated Sites, which could have the potential to be sensitive to a change in
NOx and Nitrogen deposition as a result of traffic generated by the proposals. These are
Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI, and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and
Ramsar site (the SPA and Ramsar have the same boundaries in the context of this assessment).
5.4.43
Predicted Nitrogen deposition rates at both sites were compared against the critical loads for
Nitrogen deposition as set by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) for
the habitat of neutral grassland. The critical load for neutral grassland is 20 to 30 kilograms of
nitrogen per hectare per year (kg N/ha/yr). Annual mean NO X concentrations were also predicted
at both of these designated ecological sites for comparison with the relevant AQS objective for
vegetation and ecosystems. The average Nitrogen deposition rates for Sandwich Bay to
Hacklinge Marshes SSSI and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA have been obtained from the
APIS website, and are 12.7 and 11.9 kg N/ha/yr respectively.
5.4.44
In addition, consideration has been given to the vascular plant assemblage and invertebrate
assemblage within the Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI. It should be noted that these
species are sensitive to nitrogen however, APIS does not assign a critical load to either; therefore,
the potential effects have been discussed in the context of the more sensitive species within the
SSSI.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
5.4.45
For the construction phase, IAQM guidance (Ref.5.13) regarding determination of a significant
effect has been followed, where:
IAQM recommends that significance is only assigned to the effect after considering the
construction activity with mitigation. It is, therefore, important that the mitigation measures
are defined in a form suitable for implementation by way of a planning condition or legal
obligation within a section 106 agreement, and are included in a DMP or a more general
Code of Construction Practice or Construction Environmental Management Plan.
For almost all construction activity, the aim should be to prevent significant effects on
receptors through the use of effective mitigation. Experience shows that this is normally
possible. Hence the residual effect will normally be not significant.
5-11
OPERATIONAL PHASE
5.4.46
Effects have been described in accordance with EPUK & IAQM guidance (Ref.5.16), impact
descriptors are given in Appendix 5.8). This guidance has been followed to determine whether or
not local air quality impacts are likely to give rise to a significant effect, which may be adverse or
beneficial.
5.4.47
In determining whether or not an effect is significant the following have been considered:
The magnitude of each change in ambient pollutant concentration at each receptor (i.e. the
impact as given by the impact descriptors);
The existing and future air quality in the absence of the Proposed Development;
The extent of current and future population exposure to the impacts; and
The influence and validity of any assumptions adopted when undertaking the prediction of
impacts.
5.5
BASELINE CONDITIONS
EXISTING BASELINE
LOCAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
5.5.1
In 2011 TDC declared the whole borough as an AQMA due to exceedences of air quality
objectives for ambient concentrations of NO2 and PM10. Since 2011, TDC monitoring data only
indicate exceedences in relation to the annual mean NO2 objective (discussed further below).
5.5.2
Following the declaration of the AQMA, TDC produced an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) in 2013
(Ref. 5.12). The AQAP aims to improve air quality, with particular focus on measures to reduce
road transport emissions. Implementation is ongoing including - amongst others things improvements to public transport, encourage car sharing and cycling, promote air quality issues,
development planning, control of industrial emissions and the installation of electric vehicle
charging points.
LOCAL EMISSION SOURCES
5.5.3
The Application Site is located in an area where ambient concentrations of NO 2 are locally
influenced most strongly by road transport emissions. The A299, B2190 Spitfire Way and the
B2050 Manston Road along the south, west and northern boundary of the Application Site.
5.5.4
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) Fire Training Facility is located to the north west of the Application
site. Emissions from this site are intermittent and following correspondence with the Air Quality
EHO at TDC it is understood that these emissions adversely affect air quality at existing receptor
locations.
LOCAL MONITORING
5.5.5
There are currently four continuous air quality analysers operational in the TDC area. Table 5.3
and Table 5.4 present summaries of the NO2 and PM10 statistics (respectively) for these locations.
These monitoring sites are shown in relation to the Application Site in Figures 5.2a and 5.2b.
5.5.6
All four monitoring sites are located within the Thanet Urban AQMA. Two of the sites (ZH4 and
ZH5) are situated at roadside adjacent to heavily trafficked roads and as such represent worstcase locations. Site ZH2 is located in an urban background setting, and site ZH3 is located in a
suburban setting. In 2015 all four monitors recorded concentrations below the AQS objectives for
NO2 and PM10.
5-12
Table 5.3: Monitored ambient NO2 concentrations in TDC area
SITE ID
ZH2
Thanet
Margate
ZH3
Thanet
Airport
ZH4
Thanet
Ramsgate
ZH5
Thanet
Birchington
SITE X, Y
TYPE
2012
2013
2014
2015
UB
635460,
169833
19.5
19.5
19.3
635931,
165331
18.37 18.1
16.0
16
15
638483,
165430
26.8
25.1
25.2
26
23
630284,
169052
35.9
40.8
34.8
31
25
Notes:
R = Roadside, UB = urban background, S = Suburban
A concentration statistic shown in bold indicates non-compliance with the air quality objective.
SITE X, Y
TYPE
ZH4 Thanet R
Ramsgate
ZH5 Thanet R
Birchington
638483,
165430
630284,
169052
2012
2013
2014
2015
34
27.6
30.7
25
26
49
16
13
10
38.8
25.4
25.6
21
23
31
11
16
Notes:
R = Roadside
A concentration statistic shown in bold indicates non-compliance with the air quality objective.
5.5.7
TDC operates an extensive network of NO2 diffusion tubes. Details are provided below in Table
5.5.
Table 5.5: NO2 diffusion tube monitoring locations in TDC
SITE ID
TH05 The
Broadway
TH10
College Road
TH13_46_47
The Square
TH16
Earlsmede
Crescent
TH26 King
Street
TH27
Avebury
Avenue
TH31 High
Street
TH32 BellDavies Drive
TH33 HillHouse Drive
TH34 Pizza
Hut
TH36 Star
SITE
TYPE
X, Y
2012
2013
2014
2015*
639019,167981
34.4
34.7
31.2
38.7
34.4
635539,169840
40.4
35.4
33.7
39.4
38.8
630254,169037
46.6
45.1
43
53
47.8
UB
634445,164416
17.2
18.9
16.6
22.3
16.8
638492,165410
38.5
36.1
34.9
37.9
40.1
UB
639097,165971
19
18.4
17.9
19
16.1
UB
634662,166026
17.4
15
15.6
18.2
14.7
UB
632984,166419
19.2
16.6
15.9
17.4
16.4
UB
631161,165486
19.1
16.1
18.3
16.9
16.9
636570,167894
32.2
27.9
25.5
29.8
27.4
636405,168227
26.1
24
23.8
28.6
25.6
5-13
SITE ID
Lane
TH37_38_45
Kentmere
Avenue
TH48
Canterbury
Road
TH49 Kent
Gardens
TH50_60_62
63 Hereson
Road
TH51_52_53
Boundary
Road
TH54_64_65
High Street
TH55
Coxes Lane
TH66 High
Street
TH67_68_69
20 Hereson
Road
TH70_71_72
9 High
Street
TH73_74_75
3 Hereson
Road
SITE
TYPE
X, Y
2012
2013
2014
2015*
635932,165333
19.4
17.2
16.7
18.5
16.8
630438,169111
32.8
34.2
33.3
37.5
36.2
630186,168983
38.8
37.1
32.8
37.4
22.5
638616,165564
34.7
33.7
33.1
38.5
36.7
638472,165432
25.5
26.4
23.6
28.4
26.9
637135,165354
42.3
41.7
38
45.7
43.3
636815,167297
28.3
26.6
25.9
29.5
27.2
637112,165331
29
28.1
28.3
31.7
35.3
638536,165465
37.7
36.5
34.4
38.2
38.3
637092,165340
43.4
44.3
43.7
49.3
49.0
638528,165426
39.5
36
43.7
45.2
40.6
Notes:
R = Roadside, K = Kerbside, UB = urban background, S = Suburban
A concentration statistic shown in bold indicates non-compliance with the air quality objective.
*2015 Data are Provisional, and are yet to be ratified.
5.5.8
Annual mean NO2 concentrations at five of the seventeen roadside and kerbside diffusion tube
3
monitoring locations exceeded the air quality objective of 40g/m in 2015. Diffusion tubes
TH13_46_47 are located within Birchington at a kerbside location. Diffusion tubes TH54_65_65
and TH70_71_72 are located within Ramsgate at roadside locations. The locations where these
diffusion tubes are installed are in close proximity to junctions where increased road congestion is
likely and elevated NO2 concentrations would be expected.
5.5.9
Monitoring locations TH16, TH31, TH32 and TH33 are all urban background locations and are in
close proximity to the Application Site. The available data suggests that NO2 concentrations in
the vicinity of the site are well below the AQS objectives.
ESTIMATES OF BACKGROUND POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
5.5.10
Table 5.6 summarises DEFRAs estimates of total background concentrations of NO 2, PM10 and
PM2.5 for 2015 in the grid squares for the Application Site and the receptors considered in the
assessment.
Table 5.6: Background annual mean pollutant concentrations in 2015
X, Y
625500, 165500
625500, 164500
627500, 166500
626500, 167500
CONCENTRATION (G/M )
NOX
NO2
16.2
10.8
14.3
10.7
18.4
11.8
17.5
11.9
PM10
16.8
17.4
17.3
17.3
PM2.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
5-14
X, Y
627500, 165500
631500, 165500
634500, 165500
634500, 164500
635500, 164500
636500, 164500
629500, 167500
630500, 169500
630500, 168500
629500, 169500
631500, 169500
632500, 169500
633500, 169500
634500, 170500
635500, 169500
634500, 169500
631500, 167500
630500, 167500
632500, 166500
633500, 166500
633500, 167500
634500, 166500
635500, 167500
636500, 167500
635500, 166500
635500, 165500
636500, 166500
637500, 165500
636500, 165500
636500, 168500
633500, 165500
632500, 165500
633500, 162500
639500, 167500
638500, 165500
639500, 165500
CONCENTRATION (G/M )
NOX
NO2
15.6
11.1
14.8
12.8
15.7
13.5
17.3
12.3
18.9
13.2
22.1
15.0
20.2
11.6
18.2
12.9
14.2
12.2
14.3
12.1
16.3
12.9
17.9
13.3
16.9
13.3
18.7
13.9
15.8
14.4
14.5
12.6
15.9
12.2
15.3
11.6
15.7
12.7
15.6
13.2
15.8
11.8
17.1
12.6
20.5
12.5
20.1
14.6
15.8
14.0
16.0
14.6
15.5
14.7
15.9
15.9
15.5
14.9
20.2
14.9
15.3
13.5
17.0
13.3
18.4
12.1
13.9
14.8
14.8
16.0
15.3
13.5
PM10
17.3
17.4
16.5
16.4
16.5
16.2
17.4
15.4
16.3
15.4
15.9
16.1
16.4
15.4
15.5
16.1
17.4
17.0
16.7
15.5
16.5
16.4
17.2
16.8
17.1
17.5
15.9
15.8
15.9
17.5
17.4
17.2
16.0
15.4
15.6
14.5
PM2.5
10.7
10.9
10.8
10.7
10.8
11.0
10.8
10.5
10.6
10.4
10.6
10.7
10.7
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.9
10.7
10.8
10.6
10.6
10.7
10.8
11.0
11.0
11.2
10.9
11.0
10.8
11.2
11.0
10.9
10.6
10.7
10.9
10.3
Baseline annual mean concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 at 68 existing receptors have been
estimated by modelling as Scenario 1. Details are given in Appendix 5.9. With two notable
exceptions, all receptors have pollutant concentrations in compliance with AQS objectives.
5.5.12
The two exceptions are receptors R2 and R5 which are adjacent to the A253 at Sarre where
3
annual mean NO2 concentrations have been estimated to exceed the AQS objective of 40g/m .
This location is not designated as an AQMA.
FUTURE BASELINE
5.5.13
In the absence of the Proposed Development it is likely that other developments would come
forward, whether on the Application Site specifically or in the vicinity.
5.5.14
It is expected that the volume of road traffic in the vicinity of the Application Site would increase
between the current baseline and the future baseline. If cleaner vehicle technologies, such as
EURO 6 (VI) deliver substantial improvements in vehicle emissions, in particular in terms of NOx
emissions then total pollutant concentrations could be expected to be somewhat lower in 2026
than in 2015, although by how much would largely depend upon traffic growth and congestion.
However, if 2015 emissions factors are assumed for all future modelling scenarios then the future
5-15
baseline total pollutant concentrations are likely to be similar or possibly slightly higher than in
2015 (taking into account likely slightly lower background concentrations).
5.5.15
Future baseline annual mean concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 at 68 existing receptors
have been estimated by modelling as Scenarios 2 and 6 representing 2021 and 2026
respectively. Details are given in Appendix 5.9. As it has been assumed that vehicle emission
factors and background concentrations are unchanged from 2015 the results are similar to
5.6
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
5.6.1
DEFRA provides guidance in locations where air quality objectives should apply (Table 5.7, Ref.
5.16). This guidance has been used in the selection of receptors with likely relevant exposure to
pollutant concentrations.
Table 5.7: Examples of where the air quality objectives should/should not apply
AVERAGING PERIOD
Annual mean
24-hour mean
1-hour mean
15-minute mean
.Such locations should represent parts of the garden where relevant public exposure is likely, for example where there
are seating or play areas. It is unlikely that relevant public exposure would occur at the extremities of the garden
boundary, or in front gardens, although local judgement should always be applied.
5-16
5.6.1.1
A number of locations were selected to represent relevant public exposure receptors at which
pollution concentrations were predicted. The assessment receptors considered are shown in
Appendix 5.9 and their locations shown on Figures 5.3 and 5.4. They include existing (both
human and ecological) and future locations adjacent or near to the routes that are likely to
experience the greatest change in traffic volume as a result of the Proposed Development.
5.7
5.7.1
During the construction phase, there will be a number of activities which are likely to generate and
/ or re-suspend dust and PM10. These activities have been identified for the construction phase of
the Proposed Development and their likely effects evaluated using the risk assessment approach
published by the IAQM (Ref 5.13). The following sections present these sources and the risk
assessment results.
5.7.2
The main sources of dust and PM10 during the construction phase for both the detailed and
outline elements will include:
Site clearance and preparation including demolition activities;
Preparation of temporary access / egress to the Application Site and haulage routes;
Earthworks;
Materials handling, storage, stockpiling, spillage and disposal;
Movement of vehicles and construction traffic within the Application Site (including excavators
and dumper trucks);
Exhaust emissions from NRMM, especially when used at the extremes of their capacity and
during mechanical breakdown;
Construction of buildings, roads and areas of hardstanding alongside fabrication processes;
Internal and external finishing and refurbishment; and
Site preparation and restoration after completion.
5.7.3
The majority of the releases are likely to occur during the 'working week'. However, for some
potential release sources (e.g. exposed soil produced from significant earthwork activities) in the
absence of dust control mitigation measures, dust generation has the potential to occur 24-hours
per day over the period during which such activities are to take place.
SITE RISK IN TERMS OF DUST AND PM10 EMISSIONS
ASSESSMENT OF DUST EMISSION MAGNITUDE
5.7.4
As a worst case it has been assumed that all construction activities associated with the detailed
and outline applications occur simultaneously across the Application Site. The criteria to
determine the dust emission magnitude are detailed in Appendix 5.4 and results of the
assessment are summarised below.
DEMOLITION
5.7.5
5-17
EARTHWORKS
5.7.6
The total area of the Application Site is greater than 10,000m , the soil type is potentially dusty
and it is estimated that the amount of material to be excavated will exceed 100,000 tonnes. It is
also assumed that more than 10 heavy earth moving vehicles will be active at any one time.
Therefore, the potential dust emission magnitude is considered to be large for earthwork
activities.
CONSTRUCTION
5.7.7
The total volume of buildings to be constructed on the Application Site is estimated to be greater
3
than 100,000m . There is potential for onsite concrete batching and sand blasting activities to be
undertaken. Therefore, the potential dust emission magnitude is considered to be large for
construction activities.
TRACKOUT
5.7.8
Aecom have estimated that 45 Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements per day are expected
during the peak construction period in 2021, and this has confirmed by Aecom, the Traffic and
Transport Consultant. Due to the size of the site, it is likely that the length of unpaved roads
within the Application Site will be greater than 100m. Consequently, it is considered that the
emission magnitude for trackout is large.
5.7.9
Table 5.8 provides a summary of the potential dust emission magnitude determined for each
construction activity considered.
Table 5.8: Dust and PM 10 Emission Magnitude for Each Activity
ACTIVITY
Demolition
Earthworks
Construction Activities
Trackout
Large
Large
Depending on wind speed and turbulence it is likely that the majority of dust generated by
construction activities will be deposited in the area immediately surrounding the source (up to
350m away).
5.7.11
Within 350m of the Application Site, it is estimated that there are approximately 100 existing
residential units adjacent to the Site boundary.
5.7.12
Local background PM10 concentrations are, however, well below the air quality objective (highest
3
is 17.5g/m ) and therefore PM10 generated by the construction phase is unlikely to cause an
exceedence of the objectives for this pollutant at the nearby sensitive receptors. The
predominant wind direction at the Application Site is from the southwest and northeast (see
windrose in Appendix 5.5); therefore, for the majority of time it can be assumed that any dust and
particulate matter generated by the construction phase will be blown towards the existing
residential receptors located in Manston Village to the northeast of the Application Site.
5-18
5.7.13
Taking the above information and guidance produced by the IAQM into account, the area
surrounding the Application Site is considered to be of medium sensitivity to changes in dust and
PM10 for human receptors as a result of construction activities (Table 5.9).
Dust Soiling
DEMOLITION
Medium
EARTHWORKS
Medium
CONSTRUCTION
Medium
TRACKOUT
Medium
Human Health
Low
Low
Low
Low
Ecological*
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
* The ecological receptors are not located within 350m of the Application Site, or any of the roads
construction traffic are likely to travel, there have not been considered in the construction phase assessment.
5.7.14
According to the IAQM assessment procedure summarised in Appendix 5.4, and based on the
available information on the construction phase at the time of writing, the site risk for each of the
activities considered is summarised in Table 5.10. The risk category identified for each activity will
define the list of site specific mitigation measures for each relevant construction component.
Table 5.10: Summary Dust Risk Table to Define Site-Specific Mitigation
POTENTIAL IMPACT
5.7.15
RISK
DEMOLITION
EARTHWORKS
CONSTRUCTION
TRACKOUT
Dust Soiling
Medium Risk
Medium Risk
Medium Risk
Medium Risk
Human Health
Medium Risk
Medium Risk
Medium Risk
Medium Risk
Ecological
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Taking into account all of the above, in accordance with the IAQM Guidance the overall risk of the
surrounding area in terms of human receptors is Medium Risk. Therefore overall, there is likely to
be a direct, temporary, medium-to-long-term impact on sensitive receptors of minor negative
significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
NON-ROAD MOBILE MACHINERY (NRMM)
5.7.16
Final details of the type and number of NRMM units likely to be used on Application Site will be
determined by the appointed contractor. The numbers of NRMM and their location within the
Application Site are likely to be variable over the construction period. It is likely that the impacts of
emissions from NRMM on ambient concentrations of local air pollutants in the vicinity of existing
receptors in the surrounding area would be negligible.
CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES
5.7.17
The greatest impact on air quality due to emissions from vehicles associated with the construction
phase will be in the areas immediately adjacent to the site access. Based up on the information
provided by Aecom, up to 45 HGV movements per day are expected during the peak construction
period. The majority of the construction traffic will travel along the A299 (to the south of the site)
and the A256.
5-19
5.7.18
A detailed assessment of the potential air quality effects of the construction phase has been
undertaken using ADMS-Roads. Full results of the dispersion modelling for the construction
phase are presented in Appendix 5.9 and a summary is provided below.
EFFECTS OF EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
5.7.19
The AQS objective for annual mean NO2 concentrations is 40g/m . With Scenario 4 annual
mean NO2 concentrations at 66 of the 68 existing receptors are below the AQS objective. The
3
highest concentrations are 54.9g/m at R2 (residential receptor located near the junction of
3
Canterbury Road and A253 Ramsgate Road) and 49.7g/m at R5 (residential receptor on A253
3
Ramsgate Road). In both cases the annual mean concentration is only 0.3g/m higher than in
Scenario 2 (without development). Neither receptor is located within the Thanet Urban AQMA.
5.7.20
Prior to the implementation of construction mitigation measures the impacts are negligible at 66
of the 68 existing receptors and moderate negative at two (R2 and R5).
The annual mean NO2 concentrations predicted are below 60g/m at all receptors modelled;
therefore, a breach of the 1-hour mean NO2 AQS objective is unlikely to occur. All impacts are
negligible.
The AQS objective for annual mean PM10 concentrations is 40g/m . The AQS objective is met at
all receptors. All impacts are negligible.
The AQS objective for 24-hour mean PM10 concentrations is 50g/m to be exceeded no more
than 35 times a year. The AQS objective is met at all receptors. All impacts are negligible.
The AQS objective for annual mean PM2.5 concentrations is 25g/m . The AQS objective is met at
all receptors. All impacts are negligible.
MITIGATION
5.7.25
TDC Air Quality Planning Guidance (2016) requires the developer to mitigate the likely effects of
the Proposed Development on existing receptors and/or where the development may worsen an
existing AQMA.
5.7.26
The on-site mitigation measures to be implemented to minimise the identified risk of dust and
PM10 emissions associated with the various activities during the construction phase of the
proposed development (demolition, earthworks, construction and trackout) are presented in
Appendix 5.4. However, it is recommended that all contractor HGVs should be of Euro 6
emissions standards.
5.7.27
The contractor will be required to sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme, which sets out
the management measures to be adopted and implemented to avoid and manage any
construction effects on the environment and the local community. There will also be regular
liaison with the local community throughout the construction period.
5-20
5.7.28
Under Scenario 4, assuming the worst-case that vehicle emissions and background
concentrations do not improve from 2015, then mitigation may need to be considered in relation to
traffic approaching the A253/A28 junction (as indicated by the impacts on annual mean
concentrations at receptors R2 and R5) to improve movements traffic movements through the
junction.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
5.7.29
The residual effect in relation to PM10 and PM2.5 due to activities in the construction phase
following the implementation of the mitigation measures to prevent and control emissions is likely
to be not significant.
5.7.30
OPERATIONAL PHASE
5.7.31
For the operational phase a total of 68 existing receptor and 12 future receptor locations
modelled. Full results of the dispersion modelling are presented in Appendix 5.9 and a summary
is provided below.
The AQS objective for annual mean NO2 concentrations is 40g/m . Table 5.11 provides a
summary of the modelled scenarios, impact descriptors and the number of existing receptors
against each descriptor.
Table 5.11: Summary of NO2 Impacts at Existing Receptor Locations
SCENARIO
Major Positive
Moderate Positive
Minor Positive
Negligible
68
55
Minor Negative
10
Moderate Negative
Major Negative
68
68
5.7.33
5.7.34
In Scenario 6 the impacts on existing receptors are negligible at 56 receptors, minor negative at
nine, moderate negative at one and major negative at two.
5.7.35
The highest concentration occurs at R2 (near the A253/A28 junction) with 56.5g/m in Scenario
3
2 (without development), and 58.3g/m in Scenario 6; this represents a major negative impact. A
major negative impact has also been determined for R5 (on the A253) where the concentration
3
3
increases from 51.2g/m in Scenario 2 to 53.0g/m in Scenario 6. Neither receptor is located
within the Thanet Urban AQMA.
5-21
3
5.7.36
Two new exceedences of the AQS objective with Scenario 6 occur at Receptors R8 (40.4g/m )
3
and R31 (40.2g/m ), where the impacts are indicated as moderate negative and minor
negative respectively. R8 is the Holiday Inn hotel on the A253 near to the junction with the
B2190, and does not have relevant exposure in terms of annual mean concentrations; therefore,
the impact on at this site is not relevant. R31 is a ground floor retail premises on the corner of
Hartsdown Road and the A28 Canterbury Road, with residential on the first floor. Whilst there is
no relevant exposure at R31 - which represents exposure at the ground floor level, the residents
above are likely to experience concentrations that are below the AQS objective given that
concentrations reduce with height above road sources. Receptor R31 is located within Thanet
Urban AQMA.
5.7.37
Ten minor negative impacts occur with Scenario 6 although, with the exception of R31, the
concentrations remain below the AQS objective.
5.7.38
All new receptors in Scenarios 3 and 6 are predicted to have annual mean NO2 concentrations
below the AQS objective.
The annual mean NO2 concentrations are below 60g/m at all receptors in all
scenarios. Therefore, a breach of the AQS objective for 1-hour mean concentrations is unlikely.
All impacts are negligible.
The AQS objective for annual mean PM10 concentrations is 40g/m . Table 5.12 provides a
summary of the modelled scenarios, impact descriptors and the number of existing receptors
against each descriptor.
Table 5.12: Summary of PM 10 Impacts at Existing Receptor Locations
SCENARIO
Major Positive
Moderate Positive
Minor Positive
Negligible
68
68
Minor Negative
Moderate Negative
Major Negative
68
68
5.7.1
The AQS objective is met at all receptors. All impacts are negligible.
5.7.2
All new receptors in Scenarios 3 and 6 are predicted to have annual mean PM10 concentrations
well below the AQS objective.
5-22
5.7.3
The AQS objective for 24-hour mean PM10 concentrations is 50g/m to be exceeded no more
than 35 times a year. The AQS objective is met at all receptors. All impacts are negligible.
The AQS objective for annual mean PM2.5 concentrations is 25g/m . Table 5.13 provides a
summary of the modelled scenarios, impact descriptors and the number of existing receptors
against each descriptor.
Table 5.13: Summary of PM 2.5 Impacts at Existing Receptor Locations
SCENARIO
Major Positive
Moderate Positive
Minor Positive
Negligible
68
68
Minor Negative
Moderate Negative
Major Negative
68
68
5.7.5
The AQS objective is met at all receptors. All impacts are negligible.
5.7.6
All new receptors in Scenarios 3 and 6 are predicted to have annual mean PM2.5 concentrations
well below the AQS objective.
IMPACTS ON POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS OF THE MOD FIRE TRAINING FACILITY
5.7.7
The impacts of practice fires at the MoD Fire Training Facility on annual mean pollutant
3
concentrations at new receptors are extremely small; in all cases less than 0.01g/m (see
Appendix 5.9).
5.7.8
The greatest process contribution of the MoD Fire Training Facility in terms of 1-hour mean NO2
3
th
concentrations is 0.2g/m (as the 99.79 percentile) at new receptor N3. For 24-hour mean
3
th
PM10 concentrations the greatest process contribution is 0.4g/m (as the 90.41 percentile) at
new receptors N3 and N12. As the annual mean background concentrations for both NO2 and
PM10 are low (at least 50% below AQS objectives), it is considered highly unlikely that the short
term objectives for both pollutants would be breached.
5.7.9
There should be no air quality constraints on new receptors with the Proposed Development as a
consequence of activities continuing at the MoD Fire Training Facility at current levels.
IMPACTS ON DESIGNATED SITES
The AQS objective for annual mean NOx concentrations for the protection of vegetation and
3
ecosystems is 30g/m . The assessment considers impacts on concentrations at transect
receptor points (shown in Figure 5.4) in 2026, comparing Scenario 6 against Scenario 5 (without
5-23
development). Full results of the assessment are presented in Appendix 5.9 and a summary is
provided below.
3
5.7.11
The annual mean NOx concentration exceeds the AQS objective (30g/m ) at one (T1_1) of nine
transect receptors within the Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI in Scenarios 5 and 6. The
3
impact of Scenario 6 is to increase the concentration by 1.4g/m at T1_1, which is located on the
very edge of the Designated Site. This change represents a negative impact. Concentrations at all
other transect receptors are below AQS objective in both scenarios and the changes are
considered to be negligible.
5.7.12
Annual mean NOx concentrations are below the AQS objective at all transect receptors within
Sandwich Bay and Thanet Coast SPA (T2_8 and T2_9) in Scenarios 5 and 6. All impacts are
negligible.
NITROGEN DEPOSITION
5.7.13
Very slightly higher nitrogen deposition rates are expected Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes
SSSI and Sandwich Bay and Thanet Coast SPA with Scenario 6 than under Scenario 5 (without
development). All changes would be less than 1% of the lower Critical Load and therefore all
impacts are negligible. Full results of the assessment are presented in Appendix 5.9
MITIGATION
5.7.14
TDC Air Quality Planning Guidance (2016) requires the developer to mitigate the likely effects of
the Proposed Development on existing receptors and/or where the development may worsen an
existing AQMA.
5.7.15
The assessment clearly demonstrates that no specific mitigation would be required under
Scenario 3.
5.7.16
Under Scenario 6, assuming the worst-case that vehicle emissions and background
concentrations do not improve from 2015, then mitigation may need to be considered in relation to
traffic approaching the A253/A28 junction (as indicated by the impacts on annual mean
concentrations at receptors R2 and R5) to improve traffic movements through the junction.
5.7.17
The need for mitigation in relation to Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI under Scenario 6
should be considered in consultation with the Project Ecologist and Natural England. Further
information is detailed in Appendix 7.1 of Chapter 7 : Ecology and Nature Conservation.
5.7.18
Measures to assist new occupiers of the Proposed Development with sustainable travel choices
are to be set out in a Travel Plan (see Traffic and Transport chapter for further details).
RESIDUAL EFFECT
5.7.19
5.7.20
5.7.21
5.8
5.8.1
General assumptions have been made regarding the material volume and the type with each
phase of construction based on professional judgement in accordance with Chapter 2 The
Proposed Development.
5-24
5.8.1
The number of HGV movements associated with the construction phase has been provided by
Aecom, and on the basis that a cut and fill balance can be achieved across the site thereby
limiting construction traffic vehicle movements on the surrounding road network.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
5.8.2
The traffic data used in this assessment, as provided by the Traffic and Transport Consultant,
have been derived from traffic counts and forecasts. No traffic modelling has been undertaken.
5.8.3
A precautionary approach has been taken regarding the accuracy of future year vehicle emissions
and background concentrations, whereby an assumption of no improvement in vehicle emissions
or background concentrations from current levels has been adopted. This approach is considered
to provide a worst-case assessment of future air quality.
5.8.4
For the assessment of the MoD Fire Training Facility the following assumptions have been made:
The calculation of the emission at the MoD firing training facility is based on the log of training
exercises in 2015 provided by the MoD (details are summarised in Appendix 5.7);
Aviation gasoline (AVGAS) and aviation turbine fuel (AVTUR) are both assumed to be
kerosene; and
In the absence of any specific emissions data, emissions estimates of the relevant pollutants
were determined with reference to the report Initial Review of Air Quality Aspects of the
Buncefield Oil Depot Explosion, published by DEFRA (Ref. 5.27).
5.9
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
EFFECT INTERACTIONS
5.9.1
During the construction phase of a development, activities undertaken on-site are likely to occur
within close proximity to the point of generation. As outlined in the IAQM guidance, consideration
should be given up to a distance of 350m from the development site boundary. Where one or
more development sites are located in close proximity (i.e. within 700m of each other) and their
construction periods overlap, cumulative effects may arise at those receptors located within a
350m radius of each site.
5.9.2
Scenario 4 considers the interaction of construction traffic and partial development traffic impacts
in 2021. In this scenario, negative impacts are predicted which are primarily attributed to the
construction traffic which is added to the public road network.
5.9.3
5.10
SUMMARY
5.10.1
5-25
Table 5.14: Summary of Effects for Local Air Quality
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
MAJOR /
MODERATE /
MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE
Minor
Negative T
MT
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
N/A
Implementation of a
Negligible (not N/A
Construction Environmental significant)
Management Plan.
Environmental
Protection Act
1990
Air Quality
Directive
2008/50/EC;
The Air Quality
(England)
Regulations
2000
Air Quality
(England)
(Amendment)
Regulations
5-26
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
Impacts of
Construction
Vehicles on NO2
PM10, PM2.5
Concentrations
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
MAJOR /
MODERATE /
MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Sensitive
For annual
receptors
mean NO2,
within 200m of moderate
affected roads negative
impacts occur
at two
receptors near
the A253/A28
junction where
concentrations
exceed the
AQS objective
under
Scenarios 4.
POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE
Negative T
D
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
Elsewhere, air
quality impacts
are negligible
at all locations
with relevant
exposure.
Operation
5-27
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
Impacts of the
Development
Traffic on NO2,
PM10 and PM2.5
Concentrations
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
MAJOR /
MODERATE /
MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Sensitive
For annual
receptors
mean NO2,
within 200m of major negative
affected roads. impacts occur
at two
receptors near
the A253/A28
junction where
concentrations
exceed the
AQS objective
under
Scenarios 5
and 6.
POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE
Negative P
D
Sandwich Bay
to Hacklinge
Marshes
(SSSI) and
Sandwich Bay
and Thanet
Coast (SPA)
Environmental
Protection Act
1990
Air Quality
Directive
2008/50/EC;
The Air Quality
(England)
Regulations
2000
Air Quality
(England)
(Amendment)
Regulations
Elsewhere, air
quality impacts
are negligible
at all locations
with relevant
exposure.
Impacts of the
Development
Traffic on NOx and
Nitrogen
Deposition
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
LT
Air Quality
Strategy for
England,
Scotland, Wales
& Northern
Ireland July
2007.
Environmental
Protection Act
1990
Air Quality
Directive
2008/50/EC;
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016
5-28
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
MAJOR /
MODERATE /
MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
impacts are
predicted at all
other locations
and in all
development
scenarios.
POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
Key to table:
P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term
N/A = Not Applicable
5-29
5.11
REFERENCES
Ref. 5.1
Ref. 5.2
Ref. 5.3
Ref. 5.4
Ref. 5.5
Ref. 5.6
Ref. 5.7
The European Parliament and of the Council (2008), Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC;
HM Government (2000), The Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000;
HM Government (2002), The Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002;
HM Government (2010), The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010;
HM Government (1990), The Environmental Protection Act 1990;
HM Government (1995), The Environment Act 1995;
Kent County Council, Kent County Council Development and Infrastructure Creating Quality
Places
Kent County Council, Unlocking Kents Potential Kent County Councils Framework for
Regeneration
st
Kent County Council (2010), 21 Century Kent A Blueprint for the Countys Future
Thanet District Council (2006), Thanet Local Plan
Thanet District Council (2015), Draft Thanet Local Plan
Thanet District Council (2013), Air Quality Action Plan for Thanet District Council
Institute of Air Quality Management (2014) Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition
and Construction;
Department for Communities and Local Government (2014), Planning Practice Guidance available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ [Date accessed: 20.11.15];
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Devolved Administration (2007). The
Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Volumes 1 and 2);
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2016), Local Air Quality Management
Review and Assessment Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(16);
Environmental Protection UK and Institute of Air Quality Management (2015) Land-Use Planning
& Development Control: Planning for Air Quality;
Highways England (2007), Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11 Environmental
Assessment, Section 3, Part 1 HA207/07 Air Quality;
Highways England (2013), Interim Advice Note 174/16
Air Pollution Information System (APIS) website. Available at http://www.apis.ac.uk [Date
Accessed 04.04.2016].
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Background mapping data for local
authorities available at: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/laqm-background-maps?year=2011
[Data accessed 04.04.2016]
Thanet District Council (2014), LAQM Progress Report
Kent and Medway Air Quality Partnership, Kent and Medway Air Quality Monitoring Network
available at http://www.kentair.org.uk/ [Date accessed: 04.04.2016]
Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants: ADMS Roads, Dispersion Modelling Software;
Emission Factor Toolkit. Available at http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-andassessment/tools/emissions-factors-toolkit.html
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2012), NOx to NO2 Calculator - available
at: http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/tools-monitoring-data/no-calculator.html [Date Accessed 21.11.2015].
Ref. 5.8
Ref. 5.9
Ref. 5.10
Ref. 5.11
Ref. 5.12
Ref. 5.13
Ref. 5.14
Ref. 5.15
Ref. 5.16
Ref. 5.17
Ref. 5.18
Ref. 5.19
Ref. 5.20
Ref. 5.21
Ref. 5.22
Ref. 5.23
Ref. 5.24
Ref. 5.25
Ref. 5.26
6-1
6.1
INTRODUCTION
6.1.1
This Chapter reports the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in terms of noise
and vibration. In particular it considers the likely effects of noise and vibration on existing and
proposed sensitive receptors during both demolition and construction and operational phases.
The suitability of the Site for noise-sensitive development is also considered.
6.1.2
This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) should be read together with the
Introductory Chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 4), as well as Chapter 15 Cumulative Effects.
6.1.3
6.2
6.2.1
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
6.2.2
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref 6.3) sets out the Governments planning
policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
6.2.3
The planning system is required to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment.
Consequently, the aim is to prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or
being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise
pollution. The NPPF sets out the following generic guidance in paragraph 123:
Planning policies and decisions should aim to:
Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts
result of new development;
27
27
Mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on quality of life arising from noise
from new development, including through the use of conditions;
Recognise that development will often create some noise an existing businesses wanting to
develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on
28
them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and
Identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise
and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
6-2
6.2.4
Reference numbers 27 and 28 point respectively to the Explanatory Note to the Noise Policy
Statement for England (NPSE) (Ref. 6.4) and the provisions of the EPA 1990 and other relevant
law.
NOISE POLICY STATEMENT FOR ENGLAND (NPSE)
6.2.5
The NPSE was published in March 2010 by the Department for Environment Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) and seeks to clarify the underlying principles and aims in existing policy
documents, legislation and guidance that relate to noise. With the exception of occupational
noise, the statement applies to all forms of noise including environmental noise, neighbour noise
and neighbourhood noise.
6.2.6
The statement sets out the long term vision of the governments noise policy, which is to promote
good health and a good quality of life through the effective management of noise within the
context of policy on sustainable development.
6.2.7
That vision is supported by the following aims which are reflected in the aims for planning policies
and decisions in paragraph 123 of the NPPF:
Through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood
noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development:
avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life;
mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life; and
where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life.
6.2.8
The Explanatory Note to the NPSE introduces three concepts to the assessment of noise in this
country:
No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) the level below which no effect can be detected. Below this
level no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to noise can be established;
Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) the level above which adverse effects on
health and quality of life can be detected; and
Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) the level above which significant adverse
effects on health and quality of life occur.
6.2.9
None of these three levels are defined numerically in the NPSE and for the SOAEL the NPSE
makes it clear that the noise level is likely to vary depending upon the noise source, the receptor
and the time of day/day of the week, etc. The need for more research to investigate what may
represent an SOAEL for noise is acknowledged and the NPSE asserts that not stating specific
SOAEL values provides policy flexibility in the period until there is further evidence and guidance.
PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE
6.2.10
In March 2014 the Government published the web-based Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
(Ref. 6.5). The section on noise includes a table which summarises the noise exposure hierarchy
and offers examples of outcomes relevant to the NOEL, LOAEL and SOAEL effect levels
described in the NPSE.
6.2.11
6-3
a relatively quiet external amenity space for their sole use, (e.g. a garden or balcony).
Although the existence of a garden or balcony is generally desirable, the intended benefits will
be reduced with increasing noise exposure and could be such that significant adverse effects
occur, and/or;
a relatively quiet, protected, nearby external amenity space for sole use by a limited group of
residents as part of the amenity of their dwellings, and/or;
a relatively quiet, protected, external publically accessible amenity space (e.g. a public park or
a local green space designated because of its tranquillity) that is nearby (e.g. within a 5
minutes walking distance).
LOCAL PLAN OR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
THANET DISTRICT COUNCILS LOCAL PLAN (2006)
6.2.12
Saved policies EP7 and EP8 of TDCs Local Plan (2006) (Ref 6.6) are noise-related. However, in
both instances they reference aircraft noise and are, therefore, not relevant to this assessment.
6.2.13
6.2.14
Various British Standards and guidance documents have been referenced during the compilation
of this ES chapter.
6.2.15
The British Standards below are relevant to baseline measurements with BS 4142:2014 also
relevant to assessing noise of an industrial nature emanating from existing, new or proposed
industrial/commercial premises.
BS 4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound (Ref. 6.7);
and
BS 7445:2003 Part 1 and 1991 Parts 2 and 3: Description and measurement of environmental
noise (Refs. 6.8, 6.9 and 6.10 respectively).
6.2.16
The following documents are appropriate to the prediction and assessment of construction noise
and vibration:
BS 5228:2009+A1: 2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and
open sites Part 1: Noise and Part 2: Vibration (Refs. 6.11 and 6.12).
6.2.17
The following documents are appropriate to the prediction and assessment of road traffic noise
affecting proposed new and existing development:
Department of Transport/Welsh Office (1988) Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (Ref. 6.13)
The Highways Agency, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly and the Department for
Regional Development Northern Ireland (November 2011) The Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges (HD213/11) (Ref. 6.14); and
6.2.18
The following documents are appropriate when assessing noise affecting new and existing
development:
6-4
BS 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings (Ref. 6.15);
World Health Organisation (WHO) 2000 Guidelines for Community Noise (Ref. 6.16);
The Building Regulations 2000. (2003) The Building Regulations. Ventilation. Approved
Document F. (Ref. 16.17); and
Acoustic design of schools: performance standards 2015 (Ref. 6.18)
6.2.19
Further information on the above Standards and guidance can be found in Appendix 6.2.
6.3
6.3.1
The assessment adopts the approach outlined in Chapter 4 Approach to the Assessment and
is based on the Parameter Plans and detailed Application Plans as described in Chapter 2 The
Proposed Development. The following components of the Proposed Development are relevant
to the assessment of the likely significant effects in relation to noise and vibration associated with
the proposed mixed use development:
Outline element of the application:
demolition of the existing buildings, structures and hardstanding;
construction of the Proposed Development (including construction traffic); and
operation of the proposed non-residential aspects at existing and proposed sensitive
receptors.
Detailed element of the application (including change of use buildings to be retained):
demolition of the existing buildings, structures and hardstanding;
construction of the Proposed Development (including construction traffic);
means of access to the site; and
operation of the proposed non-residential aspects at existing and proposed sensitive
receptors.
6.3.2
In addition, the suitability of the site for noise-sensitive uses has also been considered. Noisesensitive uses include the proposed dwellings and schools.
6.4
6.4.1
In accordance with the noise and vibration section of the scoping report (see Appendix 4.1)
submitted to TDC and the Scoping Opinion received from TDC (see Appendix 4.2), this Chapter
of the ES considers effects during the demolition and construction and operation (i.e. once
completed and occupied) of the Proposed Development, as detailed below.
noise and vibration effects arising from demolition and construction works on existing
sensitive receptors and any completed and occupied dwellings within the Proposed
Development;
noise from external building services plant associated with the Proposed Development during
operation;
noise from the proposed employment space on existing and proposed sensitive receptors.
any changes to traffic noise on the surrounding road network during construction and
operation of the Proposed Development with particular focus on the designated Noise
Important Areas (please see paragraphs 6.7.57 to 6.7.62 below for assessment scenarios);
6-5
the effects of the existing and future noise climate on the proposed school and the proposed
dwellings.
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
6.4.2
6.4.3
It is considered that there will be little or no vibration generating sources resulting from the
operation of the Proposed Development. On this basis, operational vibration has been scoped out
of the assessment. However, an assessment of vibration resulting from the demolition and
construction phase has been included.
CONSULTATION
6.4.4
Table 6.1 below provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken in support of the
preparation of this Chapter.
6-6
Table 6.1: Summary of Consultation
BODY /
ORGANISATION
Thanet District
Council.
INDIVIDUAL / STAT
MEETING DATES AND
BODY/ORGANISATION OTHER FORMS OF
CONSULTATION
Environmental Health
31/11/2015 telephone
Officer (Amanda Berry) conversation followed by
email.
Environmental Health
Officer (Amanda Berry)
6.4.5
24/03/16 telephone
conversation followed by
email.
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME
OF DISCUSSIONS
A map of the noise monitoring
locations was sent via email to
TDC. The locations and
survey methodology were
agreed
Agreed assessment
methodology with regards to
Noise Important Areas and
the assessment criteria.
The extent of the study area includes the site itself and sensitive receptors beyond the proposed
development boundary. The extent of the study area beyond the site boundary is defined by the
proximity of the noise-sensitive uses to the Proposed Development. There are existing noisesensitive receptors close to the site, as set out below and shown on Figure 6.1.
dwellings on Smugglers Leap to the west of the site.
dwellings to the north of the site on Minster Road (north of the B2190);
dwellings to the north of the site on Alland Grange Lane;
dwellings to the north of the site on Spitfire Way (B2190);
dwellings to the west of the site on Bell Davies Drive;
dwellings to the north of the site on Manston Road;
dwellings to the north-east of the site on Manston Court Road;
dwellings to the east of the site on High Street (Manston);
dwellings to the south-east of the site on King Arthur Road;
dwellings to the south of the site on Ivy Cottage Hill; and
dwellings to the south of the site on Wayborough Hill.
6.4.7
The road traffic noise effects associated with the Proposed Development are considered on a
wider geographic scale.
6.4.8
The study area includes stretches from the A28/A299 roundabout in the west to Westwood Cross
in the east and Coffin House Corner in the north and the A256/A257 roundabout junction in the
south. It was understood that AECOM agreed this study area with Kent County Council.
However, a separate strategic transport model is being developed and the results of this will be
provided post-application. The study area for the strategic model extends to the entire District of
Thanet and parts of northern Dover District south as far as the A256/A257 junction.
th
rd
A baseline noise survey was undertaken between Thursday 25 June 2015 and Friday 3 of July
2015. The noise survey comprised both attended and unattended measurements, the locations
6-7
for which are shown on Figure 6.1 and were identified in Table 6 of the Scoping Report submitted
to TDC (see Appendix 4.1). The results of the baseline noise monitoring where provided with the
EIA Scoping Report.
6.4.10
There are no existing significant sources of vibration close to the site. As such, no baseline
vibration survey was considered necessary.
6.4.11
Unattended noise monitoring was undertaken for the duration of the survey period at the locations
shown below:
MP1: on the north-eastern site boundary adjacent to Manston Court Road and opposite the
solar farm.
MP2: adjacent to the north-western site boundary approximately 5 metres from Manston
Road.
MP3: adjacent to north-western site boundary approximately 4 metres from Spitfire Way.
MP4: on the western site boundary approximately 7 metres from Minster Road.
MP5: on the southern site boundary approximately 5 metres from Hengist Way. Weather
conditions were also measured at this location.
MP6: on the southern site boundary approximately 23 metres from Canterbury Road West.
MP7: on the southern site boundary adjacent to the northern-most housing on Windsor Road.
6.4.12
th
th
rd
Attended monitoring was undertaken on the 25 and 26 June and 3 July 2015 at the following
locations:
MPA: to the south of MP3 and approximately 6 metres from Spitfire Way, opposite Rose Farm
and the MG Centre.
MPB: to the south of MPA and approximately 5 metres from Spitfire Way, opposite Bell
Helicopter.
MPC: in the south-western corner of the site and approximately 20 metres from Hengist Way,
opposite the Texaco garage at the junction of Hengist Way and Tothill Street.
MPD: in the south of the site approximately 80 metres from Hengist Way and opposite
Whites Transport site.
MPE: in the south-eastern area of the site adjacent to the north-western boundary of the
Jentex compound and approximately 75 metres from Canterbury Road West.
MPF: approximately 4 metres from Manston Road (where it passes through the centre of the
site) and opposite the RAF Manston Museum.
MPG: adjacent to Polar Helicopters, within the area of the existing buildings to be retained.
6.4.13
Note that the measurements at MPF and MPG were part-attended only. The attended
measurements were mostly undertaken to supplement the unattended monitoring data.
6.4.14
At all positions the microphone was at a height of approximately 1.5 metres above the local
ground and in a free field-location (i.e. at least 3.5 metres from any vertical reflecting surfaces).
The equipment was calibrated before and after the measurements and no significant drift in
calibration was found to have occurred. An accredited laboratory calibrated the equipment not
more than two years prior to the measurements being made with the exception of the calibrator
which was calibrated not more than one year prior to the measurements. A list of equipment used
for the noise survey is set out in Appendix 6.4.
6.4.15
The weather conditions during the noise survey were mostly suitable for the measurement of
noise, it being dry with little or no wind. There were occasional short periods when the wind speed
6-8
gusted above 5m/s and short periods of occasional light drizzle. These short periods are
considered not to have unduly influenced the measured noise levels.
ASSESSMENT MODELLING
6.4.16
The noise modelling software CadnaA has been used to model the existing baseline noise climate
with respect to noise from road traffic. The model has been calibrated using a combination of road
traffic flow data (provided by AECOM) and the results of the baseline noise survey. See
paragraph 6.7.59 for road traffic flow scenarios that have been considered in the assessment
modelling.
6.4.17
The model has been configured to use the calculation methodology in CRTN for road traffic noise
and ISO 9613 Part 2 1996 Sound Propagation Outdoors (Ref 6.19) for all other noise sources.
6.4.18
The results of the modelling exercise have been used to determine the noise levels across the
site and, where necessary, to assist in deriving noise mitigation measures to ensure an
acceptable noise climate at the proposed noise-sensitive areas.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
6.4.19
The assessment of potential effects as a result of the Proposed Development has taken into
account both the demolition and construction phase, and the operational phase. The significance
level attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the
Proposed Development and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment to
change, as well as a number of other factors that are outlined in more detail in Chapter 4
Approach to Assessment. Magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the affected
receptor/receiving environment are both assessed on a scale of high, medium, low and negligible
(as shown in Chapter 4 Approach to Assessment).
6.4.20
All receptors considered in this assessment are either residential or the proposed schools and,
therefore, have a high sensitivity.
EFFECT SIGNIFICANCE
6.4.21
The following terms have been used to define the significance of the effects identified:
Major effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a very significant
effect (either positive or negative) on the noise and/or vibration climate;
Moderate effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a noticeable
effect (either positive or negative) on the noise and/or vibration climate;
Minor effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to result in a small, barely
noticeable effect (either positive or negative) on the noise and/or vibration climate; and
Negligible: where no discernible effect is expected as a result of the Proposed Development.
6.4.22
Table 6.2 to Table 6.4 below summarise the terms that have been used to define the significance
of the potential noise and vibration effects which are based on the terms above and on the noise
and vibration criteria described in Appendix 6.2.
6.4.23
A short term effect relates to an activity whose duration is estimated to be several weeks to a few
months, a medium-term effect relates to a duration estimated to be several months to a year, and
a long term effect relates to a duration estimated to be several years.
Table 6.2: Construction Noise Criteria, Faade, dB
THE LEVEL OF NOISE SOLELY FROM
DEMOLITION/CONSTRUCTION WORKS
SCALE OF EFFECT
SIGNIFICANCE
SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE
EFFECT
6-9
65 dB LAeq,T (T the time period over the core
working day)
Negligible
Minor negative
Moderate negative
Insignificant
Significant
Major negative
SCALE OF EFFECT
SIGNIFICANCE
SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE
EFFECT
Negligible
Insignificant
0.4 0.9
Minor negative
1.0 4.9
Moderate negative
Significant
5.0
Major negative
+5.0
SCALE OF EFFECT
SIGNIFICANCE
SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE
EFFECT
Major negative
Significant
+3.0 to +4.9
Moderate negative
+1.0 to +2.9
Minor negative
0 to +0.9
Insignificant
Negligible
0 to -0.9
-1.0 to -2.9
Minor positive
-3.0 to -4.9
Moderate positive
-5.0
6.5
Significant (positive)
Major positive
BASELINE CONDITIONS
EXISTING BASELINE
6.5.1
The measured daytime and night-time noise levels for the unattended monitoring locations are
summarised in Table 6.5 below and shown in full in Appendix 6.5. Note that the daytime (07:00
6-10
23:00 hours) and night time (23:00 07:00 hours) periods are in accordance with the advice
contained in BS 8233:2014.
6.5.2
For the unattended measurements the highest of the full period ambient noise levels (L Aeq) is
shown, for the typical background noise levels (L A90) the lowest most commonly occurring noise
level is presented whilst the typical maximum noise level (LAmax) is the 90th percentile of the
measured 15 minute values.
Table 6.5: Summary of Measured Noise Levels at Unattended Locations, dB(A) free field
POSITION
MP1
MP2
MP3
MP4
MP5
MP6
MP7
6.5.3
LAEQ,8H
57.3
57.6
61.0
62.4
63.7
51.1
42.2
The results of the attended noise survey is summarised in Table 6.6 below.
Table 6.6: Summary of Measured Noise Levels at Attended Locations dB(A) free field
POSITION
PERIOD
14:03 14:18
20:59 21:14
MPA
02:02 02:17
13:40 13:55
14:28 14:43
21:19 21:34
MPB
02:24 02:39
11:10 11:25
14:50 15:05
22:03 22:18
MPC
02:43 02:58
11:45 12:00
15:10 15:25
22:23 22:38
MPD
03:03 03:18
12:05 12:20
16:19 16:34
21:41 21:56
MPE
03:23 03:38
13:05 13:20
MPF
13:36 16:36
16:44 23:00
MPG
23:00 07:00
07:00 11:34
*maximum noise level in period
6.5.4
LAEQ,15MINS
65.4
70.0
56.1
66.6
68.1
70.3
60.5
69.5
63.0
65.1
57.5
57.5
55.4
54.6
43.8
49.0
46.7
54.8
42.7
38.8
68.5
52.5
52.5
56.3
LA90,15MINS
46.4
43.7
29.5
46.6
49.3
45.4
30.0
49.4
57.0
53.6
36.4
50.1
50.8
50.0
27.2
46.0
39.8
40.6
34.3
35.5
42.6
43.5
40.1
47.3
*LAFMAX
81.2
89.0
81.0
83.3
82.8
87.5
89.3
95.8
80.4
85.4
78.4
69.9
65.9
69.1
63.5
62.2
71.2
71.1
55.8
49.0
84.1
70.7
71.1
73.1
Four 15 minute attended measurements were undertaken at each location (MPA to MPE). At
MPF a three hour daytime measurement was undertaken in accordance with the shortened
measurement procedure of CRTN, and at MPG measurements were undertaken between 16:44
th
th
hours on 25 June and 11:34 hours on 26 June 2015 as summarised in Table 6.6.
SURVEY OBSERVATIONS
6.5.5
The noise climate in the area surrounding the site is dominated by road traffic from the
surrounding road network. In addition, noise was noted from infrequent helicopter flights
6-11
associated with two helicopter flight operators; one being located outside of the Proposed
Development boundary (Heli Charter/Bell Helicopter) and the other being Polar Helicopters within
the Proposed Development (close to the western site boundary). However, as noise from the
helicopters is infrequent and was subjectively not intrusive during the surveys it has not been
considered as an overriding design constraint.
6.5.6
Other noises included a low level and low frequency noise at MP1 from the nearby solar farm.
However, there are no proposed noise-sensitive uses in this area of the site and the noise was
only audible during lulls in road traffic noise.
6.6
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
6.6.1
The following are the sensitive receptors which will be assessed in the following assessment:
dwellings on Smugglers Leap to the west of the site.
dwellings to the north of the site on Minster Road (north of the B2190);
dwellings to the north of the site on Alland Grange Lane;
dwellings to the north of the site on Spitfire Way (B2190);
dwellings to the west of the site on Bell Davies Drive;
dwellings to the north of the site on Manston Road;
dwellings to the north-east of the site on Manston Court Road;
dwellings to the east of the site on High Street (Manston);
dwellings to the south-east of the site on King Arthur Road;
dwellings to the south of the site on Ivy Cottage Hill; and
dwellings to the south of the site on Wayborough Hill.
6.6.2
6.7
6.7.1
It is expected, as with any scheme of this scale, that there will be some disruption caused to
nearby sensitive receptors during the demolition and construction works. However, disturbance
will be localised and works will be temporary.
6.7.2
The noise and vibration levels will be attenuated by distance from the source; the greater the
distance between the source and receptor, the lower the noise and vibration at that receptor, all
else remaining equal. Features between the source and receptor can also help to obstruct the
passage of noise. When works are being conducted where a line of sight to the plant is obscured
or the works are contained within a building or structure, a significant reduction in noise levels will
be experienced.
6.7.3
An assessment of the effects of noise and vibration during the construction phase has been
carried out in accordance with the criteria detailed at Table 6.2 and assuming:
that Best Practicable Means (BPM) will be adopted for the demolition and construction works;
the use of plant that are no noisier than the relevant source noise level data listed in BS 52281:2009+A1:2014; and
the absence of any specific mitigation.
6-12
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION NOISE
6.7.4
Detailed information relating to the construction processes and plant schedules is not available at
this early stage of the project. As such, noise levels and the likely effects during the generic
construction operations have been predicted at nearby existing noise-sensitive premises listed in
paragraph 6 above. The construction period is likely to be 15 years commencing in 2017.
6.7.5
In the absence of detailed information, the main construction phases have been assumed to be
(as set out in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development):
Phase 1: demolition and site clearance;
Phase 2: substructure works;
Phase 3: superstructure works; and
Phase 4: external works.
6.7.6
The predictions are based on the methodology contained within BS 5228:2009+A1:2014 and
consider the equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq,T) over the core working day, assumed to be
from 08:00 to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturday. The noise
predictions assume that the best practice measures outlined below are incorporated into the
construction methodologies, as set out in the outline CEMP (Appendix 2.2):
Noisy works would be conducted within the above core hours, whilst work outside of those
hours would be inaudible at the site boundary. Deliveries to and from the site would only be
undertaken during the above core hours. Where necessary, deliveries outside of these core
hours would be agreed in advance with TDC;
Best Practicable Means as defined in Section 72 of The Control of Pollution Act 1974 would
be employed to minimise noise;
Plant will be certified to meet relevant current EU legislation and should be no noisier than
would be expected based on the noise levels contained in Annex C and Annex D of BS 52281:2009+A1:2014;
Guidance given in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 (Annex B Noise sources, remedies and their
effectiveness) would be followed;
Best construction practices and methods would be used in executing the construction works
so as to avoid or reduce noise as far as possible. Only plant that conforms to the relevant
European Union noise emission standards would be used during the construction of the
Proposed Development;
Screening such as site hoarding and barriers when noisy activities taking place should be
used as appropriate;
All plant items brought to the site would be properly maintained, provided with effective
silencers and operated in a manner so as to avoid causing any excessive noise;
All items of plant operating on the site in intermittent use would be shut down in the
intervening periods between use;
Where possible, mains electricity to be used instead of generators;
Loading and unloading of vehicles, dismantling of equipment such as scaffolding or moving
equipment or materials around the site will be conducted in such a manner as to minimise
noise generation;
Compressors must be sound reduced models and pneumatic tools must be fitted with
shrouding / silencers;
The Principal Contractor will ensure measures are taken to protect buildings from damage
and residents from nuisance or harm caused by vibration through appropriate good practice;
6-13
Deviation from approved method statements will be permitted only with prior approval from
the Principal Contractor and other relevant parties. This will be facilitated by formal review
before any deviation is undertaken;
A contact number which the public may use shall be displayed prominently on the site board
and any noise complaints will be reported to the Principal Contractor and immediately
investigated; When breaking out concrete, an oversized breaker will be used to minimise the
blow rate and hence the percussive nature of the noise being produced. This should also
minimise the time taken to complete the breaking out works;
Where possible, hand breakout of structures will be encouraged and walls/structures will be
dismantled or pushed over rather than conventionally broken-out using pneumatic drills;
Hydraulic munchers will be used where reasonably practicable in preference to breakers;
All materials will be handled, stored and used in a manner that minimises noise;
Concrete bursting and cutting will be considered where practical;
All stationary plant would be located as far as possible from occupied dwellings; and
Internal haul routes should be kept well maintained.
6.7.7
A full list of plant items and their associated sound power levels, along with the expected ontime (the percentage of the time the plant operates over the working day) are presented in
Appendix 6.6. Construction noise levels have been calculated for a 10-hour working day.
6.7.8
Table 6.7 presents the predicted noise levels at representative receptors solely from the
construction works. Worst-case (w/c) noise levels have been predicted where plant are working
closest to the site boundary with each receptor as well as average-case (a/c) levels where plant
are working in a more central location of the site.
Table 6.7: Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Existing Receptors, Faade, dB L Aeq,T
RECEPTOR
DEMOLITION AND
SITE CLEARANCE
SUBSTRUCTURE
a/c
w/c
a/c
w/c
a/c
w/c
a/c
w/c
Smugglers Leap
47
69
52
63
50
62
39
57
Minster Road
48
53
53
63
52
62
39
65
Alland Grange
Lane
54
58
51
55
57
60
44
59
Spitfire Way
61
67
64
69
63
68
46
57
70
79
69
80
68
78
51
69
Manston Road
59
76
63
71
62
70
48
54
Manston Court
Road
63
83
63
71
62
70
49
75
High Street
60
78
54
58
52
56
47
67
6-14
King Arthur
Road
66
70
47
51
46
50
44
55
58
63
52
56
51
55
45
53
Wayborough
Hill
58
63
52
58
51
55
44
53
6.7.9
The significance of the noise effects can be determined by comparing the predicted construction
noise levels with the construction assessment criteria in Table 6.2.
6.7.10
During the average-case works the majority of receptors will experience a direct, temporary,
short-term negligible effect with the exception of the following receptors where there will be a
direct, temporary, long-term minor negative (insignificant) effect:
Bell Davis Drive during the demolition and site clearance, substructure and superstructure
phases; and
King Arthur Road during the demolition and site clearance phase.
6.7.11
During the worst-case works the majority of receptors will be exposed to a direct, temporary,
short-term negligible effect with the exception of the following receptors where there will be a
direct, temporary, long-term minor negative (insignificant) effect:
Smugglers Leap during the demolition and site clearance phase;
Spitfire Way during the demolition and site clearance, substructure and superstructure
phases;
Bell Davis Drive during the external works phase;
Manston Road during the substructure phase;
Manston Court Road during the substructure and superstructure phase;
High Street during the external works phase; and
King Arthur Road during the demolition and site clearance phase.
6.7.12
At the following receptors during the worst-case works there will be a direct, temporary, long-term
moderate negative (significant) effect:
Manston Road during the substructure phase; and
Manston Court Road during the external works phases.
6.7.13
At the following receptors during the worst-case works there will be a direct, temporary, long-term
major negative (significant) effect:
Bell Davis Drive during the demolition and site clearance, substructure and substructure
phases;
Manston Road during the demolition and site clearance phase;
Manston Court Road during the demolition and site clearance phase; and
High Street during the demolition and site clearance phase.
6.7.14
6-15
MITIGATION
6.7.15
It is important to note that the worst-case noise levels are anticipated to be very short in duration
as predictions consider all plant are working on the site boundary closest to each receptor.
However, it is still appropriate to consider mitigation measures to ensure that construction noise
levels are reduced, where possible.
6.7.16
The most effective way of reducing noise levels is by controlling the noise at source through
targeted and specific measures, such as reducing the operating periods of noisy plant items,
employing the use of specialist quiet plant or techniques in sensitive areas of the site, or use of
specifically located acoustic shields or enclosures.
6.7.17
Major negative effects have been predicted during some worst-case works. As such, when plant
are working close to the site boundaries and in particular the north-western (close to Bell Davis
Drive, Manston Road and Manston Court Road) and eastern (close to High Street, Manston)
boundaries acoustic screens should be erected either on the site boundaries (e.g. site hoarding)
or close to the plant itself, if feasible. Any screens/hoarding should be approximately 2.4 metres
high, imperforate and sealed at the base. It is also recommended that plant items with low sound
power levels are selected, where possible.
6.7.18
Where the above measures do not reduce the effects to negligible to minor negative (i.e.
insignificant), the operating periods of individual plant items may need to be reduced such that the
noise level is reduced over the working period.
6.7.19
When a contractor(s) is appointed more information will become available regarding the
construction methods and plant selections. At that stage, it is recommended that this assessment
is reviewed. This review should also consider the completed and occupied phases of the
Proposed Development. Where appropriate, mitigation measures should be updated. This
assessment and any subsequent revisions should form part of the Construction Environmental
Management Plan (CEMP), a draft of which is set out in Appendix 2.2, which will formalise the
control procedures to be employed during the construction phases. However, at this stage of the
project, it is considered that the above assessment is sufficient to gain an appreciation of likely
construction noise effects.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
6.7.20
With the recommended mitigation measures it is anticipated that the majority of the construction
phase will result in a direct, temporary, -long-term negligible to minor negative (insignificant)
effect. However, it is likely that there will be a direct, temporary, short-term moderate negative
(insignificant) effect at dwellings to the north-west of the site during periods of the demolition and
site clearance phase.
6.7.21
With careful planning and consideration of the above mitigation measures, the future dwellings on
the site should be exposed to a direct, temporary, medium-term negligible to minor negative
(insignificant) effect.
VIBRATION
6.7.22
In accordance with the methodologies and criteria detailed in Appendix 6.2, vibration levels likely
during vibratory rolling (i.e. compaction) of material on the site have been predicted. If required,
this activity is likely to generate the highest level of vibration although similar levels may also be
generated during any hydraulic breaking (if required for removal of the hardstanding) or vibro
piling. In each instance a worst-case scenario has been assumed where plant are working close
to the site boundary.
6.7.23
The calculations have been undertaken at a distance of 25 metres from the site boundary to
represent a worst-case scenario at the closest dwellings to the site (those being on Manston
6-16
Court Road). A worst-case peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.9 mm/s has been predicted with a
33.3% confidence that the level will be exceeded but a 66.6% chance that it will not.
6.7.24
During the worst-case works there will be a direct, temporary, short-term minor negative
(insignificant) effect.
6.7.25
The closest of the average-case works is at a distance of 100 metres from the closest receptor. At
this distance a PPV level of 0.1 mm/s is predicted with a 33.3% confidence.
6.7.26
During the majority of the works there will be a direct, temporary, short-term negligible effect.
MITIGATION
6.7.27
6.7.28
The residual effects remain as reported above. During a worst-case scenario where plant are
working close to the site boundary there will be a direct, temporary, short-term minor negative
(insignificant) effect. However, more of the time when plant are working in a more central location
of the site there will be a direct, temporary, short-term negligible effect.
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
6.7.29
It is understood that a cut and fill balance can be achieved across the site allowing for fewer
construction traffic vehicle movements on the surrounding road network. It is, therefore,
anticipated that construction traffic movements would not noticeably increase noise levels on the
surrounding road network.
6.7.30
Notwithstanding the above, construction traffic flow data have been provided by the transport
consultants, AECOM. Table 6.8 below compares the 2021 base flows (i.e. without the Proposed
Development) and the 2021 base flows plus construction traffic. Further information on the
anticipated number of construction vehicle movements is provided in Chapter 2 Proposed
Development and Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport.
6.7.31
The data have been generated considering the construction traffic will access the site via a new
priority junction on Spitfire Way, a new access at Alland Grange Road, a new access onto
Manston Road and the A299 Hengist Way. The flows are associated with a proportion of the
development assumed to be built in a single year, on the basis of a 15 year construction period.
Table 6.8: Construction Traffic Noise Assessment, dB LA10,18hour
ROAD LINK
Site 1
Site 2
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
2021 BASELINE
2021 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
CONSTRUCTION
73.7
73.7
66.8
66.9
+0.1
67.2
67.3
+0.1
65.4
65.5
+0.1
77.1
77.2
+0.1
6-17
ROAD LINK
Site 8
Site 9
64.5
64.5
72.0
72.1
+0.1
69.0
69.0
70.8
70.8
67.6
67.6
79.4
79.4
68.1
68.5
+0.4
65.6
65.7
+0.1
66.2
66.2
65.3
65.3
67.6
67.6
62.7
62.7
67.9
67.9
64.6
64.6
64.1
64.1
72.2
72.4
+0.2
76.3
76.4
+0.1
72.4
72.4
80.7
80.8
+0.1
68.6
68.8
+0.2
61.7
61.7
65.7
65.8
+0.1
2021 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
CONSTRUCTION
2021 BASELINE
6-18
ROAD LINK
Site I-4
Site I-5
Site I-6
63.1
67.0
67.0
69.6
69.6
70.4
70.4
69.2
69.2
71.5
71.5
71.3
71.4
+0.1
68.6
68.6
67.7
67.7
67.9
68.0
+0.1
68.7
68.7
66.9
66.9
2021 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
CONSTRUCTION
63.1
2021 BASELINE
The table above shows that there will be a direct, temporary, short-term negligible effect on all
road links as a result of the construction traffic.
MITIGATION
6.7.33
6.7.34
The effects remain as set out above. There will be a direct, temporary, short-term negligible
effect on all road links as a result of the construction traffic.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
EXTERNAL BUILDING SERVICES PLANT AND EMPLOYMENT SPACE
6.7.35
It is likely that there will be external plant items associated with the proposed employment space
(use classes B1, B2 and B8), the village centre, mixed use areas, the hotel and the primary
school. Additionally, there may also be external noise sources associated with the employment
area such as fork-lift trucks and loading and unloading of materials and well as noise generated
from within the buildings themselves.
6-19
6.7.36
The proposed employment space is located in the west of the site with the proposed residential
areas located in the east. As such, most of the employment space is segregated and located
away from the proposed residential areas.
6.7.37
The closest existing residential receptors are approximately 55 metres from the boundary of the
outline element of the employment area. The closest receptor to the detailed Phase 1 area is
approximately 450 metres away with intervening buildings.
6.7.38
Assessments are set out below in relation to the detailed Phase 1 area (which also includes the
change of use retained buildings) and the outline element.
PHASE 1 DETAILED ELEMENT AND CHANGE OF USE RETAINED BUILDINGS
6.7.39
Whilst there is a proposed layout for the detailed Phase 1 area, the exact type of noise sources,
plant and indeed the plant locations are not known at this stage. As such, it is appropriate to set
noise emission limits for the employment area in addition to providing general advice with respect
to the proposed layout.
6.7.40
The criteria used to specify noise limits applicable to the noise sources described above are
based on the guidance given in BS 4142:2014.
6.7.41
The noise limits are set for both the daytime (07:00 to 23:00 hours) and night-time (23:00 to 07:00
hours) periods and are derived from the noise levels measured at MP3 close to dwellings on
Spitfire Way. The data from this location have been identified as being the most representative of
the noise climate at the closest existing and proposed residential dwellings to the employment
area.
6.7.42
As recommended in BS 4142:2014 and agreed with TDC, the typical background noise levels
(LA90) have been derived considering the 15 minute measured noise levels. A statistical analysis
has shown that during the daytime the lowest most commonly occurring background noise level is
40 dB LA90 whilst during the night-time it is 26 dB LA90. These noise levels have been used as the
basis of this assessment.
6.7.43
Table 6.9 shows the noise emission limits that must be achieved at noise-sensitive receptors
(both at existing and proposed dwellings).
Table 6.9: Noise Limits for Phase 1 Employment Area and Change of Use Retained
Buildings , dB
RECEPTOR
6.7.44
PERIOD
TYPICAL BACKGROUND
NOISE LEVEL (LA90)
Daytime
40
40
Night-time
26
26
It should be noted that the above limits apply to the overall noise level from the Phase 1
employment area and the change of use retained buildings and the following measures, amongst
others, may need to be considered:
Individual plant items may need to be designed (at the detailed design stage) to achieve lower
noise levels such that the overall noise level is not exceeded.
Mobile noise sources with low sound power levels should be selected, where possible.
6-20
6.7.45
The noise limit is expressed in terms of the LAr,T rating level, a term defined in BS 4142:2014. The
rating level is determined by applying corrections for the following acoustic features, where
relevant:
tonality;
impulsivity;
intermittency; and
other distinctive characteristics.
6.7.46
Whilst the proposed layout for Phase 1 shows service yards adjacent to the site boundaries, given
the distance to the closest receptor (approximately 450 metres) it is considered that no specific
measures need to be recommended in terms of the proposed layout.
6.7.47
The cumulative noise from all proposed building services plant and external noise sources that fall
within the scope of BS 4142 should be designed to meet the limits set out above, in which case a
permanent, long-term, negligible effect will remain.
6.7.48
It is suggested that the background noise levels may change upon completion of the
development. As such, it may be prudent to undertake a further baseline noise survey at this time
to validate the noise limits set out above.
OUTLINE ELEMENT
6.7.49
Table 6.10 below sets out the noise emission limits that should apply to external fixed plant items
(and other noise sources that fall within the remit of BS 4142:2014) associated with the outline
element.
6.7.50
The background noise levels measured at MP7 are the lowest of those measured across the
long-term monitoring positions in the central and eastern areas of the site. As such, these have
been used to derive the noise emission limits.
Table 6.10: Noise Limits for Outline Element, dB
RECEPTOR
6.7.51
PERIOD
TYPICAL BACKGROUND
NOISE LEVEL (LA90)
Daytime
36
36
Night-time
28
28
As set out above, the noise limits are expressed in terms of the LAr,T rating level, a term defined in
BS 4142:2014. The rating level is determined by applying a correction for the following acoustic
features, where relevant:
tonality;
impulsivity;
intermittency; and
other distinctive characteristics.
6.7.52
The cumulative noise from all proposed building services plant and external noise sources that fall
within the scope of BS 4142 should be designed to meet the limits set out above, in which case a
permanent, long-term, negligible effect will remain.
6-21
6.7.53
It is suggested that the background noise levels may change upon completion of the
development. As such, it may be prudent to undertake a further baseline noise survey at this time
to validate the noise limits set out above.
MITIGATION
6.7.54
At this stage, no mitigation measures have been considered due to the limited information
available. However, as information becomes available during the detailed design phase on the
plant types and locations and types of activities that may be undertaken, an assessment will be
carried out to ensure compliance with the overall noise limits. The limits in Table 6.9 above
should form the basis of specifying the noise emissions from any plant procurement programme
for Phase 1 and the limits in Table 6.10 should be used for the remainder of the Proposed
Development.
6.7.55
It is expected that a planning conditions would be imposed which would, at the appropriate time,
require a further noise survey to validate the baseline noise levels from which the above noise
limits have been derived.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
6.7.56
Assuming that all plant and relevant activities comply with the noise limits set out in Table 6.9 and
Table 6.10 above, there will be a permanent, long-term negligible residual effect.
OPERATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE
6.7.57
This assessment considers the permanent operational effects of the proposed development on
the wider road network, including the Noise Important Areas (NIA), as show on Figure 6.2. The
assessment has been carried out considering baseline and assessment years of 2021 and 2026
and considers the surrounding roads used by development-related traffic. The future years of
2021 and 2026 include committed development flows.
6.7.58
The assessment has been undertaken using traffic flow data provided by AECOM as detailed in
the Transport Assessment submitted in support of the application. The Basic Noise Level (BNL)
has been calculated in accordance with CRTN.
6.7.59
6.7.60
The entire development will be accessed via a new priority junction on Spitfire Way, a new access
at Alland Grange Road, a new access onto Manston Road and the A299 Hengist Way.
6.7.61
Assessments for the Phase 1 area and the Proposed Development in its entirety are set out
below.
6.7.62
Please note the limitations to this assessment, as set out in Section 6.9.
PHASE 1 DETAILED ELEMENT
6.7.63
Table 6.11 below show the 2021 baseline (i.e. without development) and the 2021 baseline with
Phase 1, therefore showing the effects of the proposed Phase 1 development only. The table also
shows the effect significance, in accordance with Table 6.4.
6-22
6-23
Table 6.11: Phase 1 Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment Scenario [1], dB LA10,18hour
ROAD LINK
Canterbury Road:
between Domneva Rd
and St Mildreds Rd
Shottendance Road:
between Park Road and
Minster Road
B2050 Manston Road:
between Manston Court
Road and Preston
Road/High Street
Canterbury Road West:
east of Windsor Road and
west of roundabout with
A256
2021
BASELINE
2021 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
PHASE 1
EFFECT
73.7
73.7
Negligible
66.8
66.9
+0.1
Negligible
67.2
67.3
+0.1
Negligible
65.4
65.4
Negligible
77.1
77.0
-0.1
Negligible
Site 8
Sandwich Rd north of
Foads Ln
64.5
64.5
Negligible
Site 9
72.0
72.1
+0.1
Negligible
69.0
69.0
Negligible
70.8
70.8
Negligible
67.6
67.6
Negligible
79.4
79.4
Negligible
68.1
68.3
+0.2
Negligible
65.6
65.7
+0.1
Negligible
66.2
66.2
Negligible
65.3
65.3
Negligible
67.6
67.6
Negligible
62.7
62.7
Negligible
67.9
67.9
Negligible
64.6
64.6
Negligible
Site 1
Site 2
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
6-24
ROAD LINK
2021
BASELINE
2021 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
PHASE 1
EFFECT
64.1
64.1
Negligible
72.2
72.2
Negligible
76.3
76.3
Negligible
72.4
72.4
Negligible
80.7
80.7
Negligible
68.6
68.6
Negligible
61.7
61.7
Negligible
65.7
65.8
+0.1
Negligible
63.1
63.1
Negligible
67.0
67.0
Negligible
69.6
69.6
Negligible
70.4
70.4
Negligible
69.2
69.2
Negligible
71.5
71.5
Negligible
71.3
71.3
Negligible
68.6
68.6
Negligible
67.7
67.7
Negligible
67.9
67.9
Negligible
68.7
68.7
Negligible
66.9
66.9
Negligible
It can be seen from Table 6.11 above that there will be a direct, permanent, long-term, negligible
effect on all road links as a result of the Phase 1 development in isolation.
6-25
FULL DEVELOPMENT (I.E. OUTLINE AND DETAILED)
6.7.64
Table 6.12 to Table 6.14 below consider scenarios [2] to [4] as set out in paragraph 6.7.59 above.
Table 6.12: Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment Scenario [2], dB LA10,18hour
ROAD LINK
Canterbury Road:
between Domneva Rd
and St Mildreds Rd
Shottendance Road:
between Park Road and
Minster Road
B2050 Manston Road:
between Manston Court
Road and Preston
Road/High Street
Canterbury Road West:
east of Windsor Road and
west of roundabout with
A256
2021
BASELINE
2021 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
DEVELOPMENT
EFFECT
73.7
73.7
Negligible
66.8
67.5
+0.7
Negligible
67.2
67.6
+0.4
Negligible
65.4
65.9
+0.5
Negligible
77.1
77.4
+0.3
Negligible
Site 8
Sandwich Rd north of
Foads Ln
64.5
64.5
Negligible
Site 9
72.0
72.3
+0.3
Negligible
69.0
69.0
Negligible
70.8
70.9
+0.1
Negligible
67.6
67.7
+0.1
Negligible
79.4
79.8
+0.4
Negligible
68.1
69.2
+1.1
Minor negative
65.6
66.6
+1.0
Minor negative
66.2
66.4
+0.2
Negligible
65.3
65.6
+0.3
Negligible
67.6
67.7
+0.1
Negligible
62.7
63.0
+0.3
Negligible
67.9
68.0
+0.1
Negligible
Site 1
Site 2
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
6-26
ROAD LINK
Site 42
Site 43
Site 44
Site 45
Site 47
2021
BASELINE
2021 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
DEVELOPMENT
EFFECT
64.6
64.8
+0.2
Negligible
64.1
63.9
-0.2
Negligible
72.2
72.5
+0.3
Negligible
76.3
76.5
+0.2
Negligible
72.4
72.7
+0.3
Negligible
80.7
80.9
+0.2
Negligible
68.6
68.9
+0.3
Negligible
61.7
61.9
+0.2
Negligible
65.7
66.3
+0.6
Negligible
63.1
63.4
+0.3
Negligible
67.0
67.1
+0.1
Negligible
69.6
69.8
+0.2
Negligible
70.4
70.4
Negligible
69.2
69.2
Negligible
71.5
71.9
+0.4
Negligible
71.3
71.7
+0.4
Negligible
68.6
69.0
+0.4
Negligible
67.7
67.9
+0.2
Negligible
67.9
68.1
+0.2
Negligible
68.7
68.8
+0.1
Negligible
66.9
67.1
+0.2
Negligible
6-27
6.7.65
It can be seen from the table above that, with the exception of Spitfire Way (east of Columbus
Avenue) and Manston Road (east of Shottendane Road), there will be a direct, permanent, longterm negligible effect on all road links. On Spitfire Way and Manston Road there will be a direct,
permanent, long-term minor negative (insignificant) effect.
Table 6.13: Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment Scenario [3], dB LA10,18hour
ROAD LINK
Canterbury Road:
between Domneva Rd
and St Mildreds Rd
Shottendance Road:
between Park Road and
Minster Road
B2050 Manston Road:
between Manston Court
Road and Preston
Road/High Street
Canterbury Road West:
east of Windsor Road and
west of roundabout with
A256
2026
BASELINE
2026 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
DEVELOPMENT
EFFECT
73.9
73.9
Negligible
67.0
67.7
+0.7
Negligible
67.4
67.8
+0.4
Negligible
65.7
66.1
+0.4
Negligible
77.3
77.7
+0.4
Negligible
Site 8
Sandwich Rd north of
Foads Ln
64.7
64.7
Negligible
Site 9
72.3
72.5
+0.3
Negligible
69.2
69.3
+0.1
Negligible
71.0
71.1
+0.1
Negligible
67.9
67.9
Negligible
79.6
80.0
+0.4
Negligible
68.4
69.4
+1.0
Minor negative
65.9
66.8
+1.0
Minor negative
66.5
66.6
+0.1
Negligible
65.5
65.9
+0.4
Negligible
67.8
68.0
+0.2
Negligible
62.9
63.2
+0.3
Negligible
68.2
68.2
Negligible
Site 1
Site 2
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
6-28
ROAD LINK
2026
BASELINE
2026 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
DEVELOPMENT
EFFECT
Gardens
B2048 Minster Road:
Site 33 north of B2190
Columbus Avenue: north
Site 34 of B2190
A256 Haine Road: south
Site 35 of B2050 Manston Road
A256 Richborough Way:
Site 36 south Sandwich Road
A28 Island Road
Site 38 (51.332715, -1.225583)
Site 39
Site 40
Site 42
Site 43
Site 44
Site 45
Site 47
64.8
65.0
+0.2
Negligible
64.1
64.0
-0.1
Negligible
72.5
72.8
+0.3
Negligible
76.5
76.8
+0.3
Negligible
72.6
72.9
+0.3
Negligible
81.0
81.1
+0.1
Negligible
68.9
69.1
+0.2
Negligible
61.9
62.1
+0.2
Negligible
66.0
66.5
+0.5
Negligible
63.4
63.6
+0.2
Negligible
67.3
67.3
Negligible
69.8
70.0
+0.2
Negligible
70.6
70.7
+0.1
Negligible
69.4
69.4
Negligible
71.7
72.1
+0.4
Negligible
71.6
71.9
+0.3
Negligible
68.8
69.2
+0.4
Negligible
68.0
68.1
+0.1
Negligible
68.2
68.3
+0.1
Negligible
69.0
69.0
Negligible
6-29
ROAD LINK
B2014 Newington Rd
Site I- north of junction with
9
Manston Rd
6.7.66
2026
BASELINE
67.1
2026 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
DEVELOPMENT
67.3
+0.2
EFFECT
Negligible
It can be seen from the table above that as with the assessment of Scenario 2, with the exception
of Spitfire Way (east of Columbus Avenue) and Manston Road (east of Shottendane Road), there
will be a direct, permanent, long-term negligible effect on all road links. On Spitfire Way and
Manston Road there will be a direct, permanent, long-term minor negative (insignificant) effect.
Table 6.14: Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment Scenario [4], dB LA10,18hour
ROAD LINK
Canterbury Road:
between Domneva Rd
and St Mildreds Rd
Shottendane Road:
between Park Road and
Minster Road
B2050 Manston Road:
between Manston Court
Road and Preston
Road/High Street
Canterbury Road West:
east of Windsor Road and
west of roundabout with
A256
2021
BASELINE
2026 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
DEVELOPMENT
EFFECT
73.7
73.9
+0.2
Negligible
66.8
67.7
+0.9
Negligible
67.2
67.8
+0.6
Negligible
65.4
66.1
+0.7
Negligible
77.1
77.7
+0.6
Negligible
Site 8
Sandwich Rd north of
Foads Ln
64.5
64.7
+0.2
Negligible
Site 9
72.0
72.5
+0.5
Negligible
69.0
69.3
+0.3
Negligible
70.8
71.1
+0.3
Negligible
67.6
67.9
+0.3
Negligible
79.4
80.0
+0.6
Negligible
68.1
69.4
+1.3
Minor negative
65.6
66.8
+1.2
Minor negative
66.2
66.6
+0.4
Negligible
65.3
65.9
+0.6
Negligible
Site 1
Site 2
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
6-30
ROAD LINK
Site 42
Site 43
Site 44
Site 45
Site 47
2021
BASELINE
2026 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
DEVELOPMENT
EFFECT
67.6
68.0
+0.4
Negligible
62.7
63.2
+0.5
Negligible
67.9
68.2
+0.3
Negligible
64.6
65.0
+0.4
Negligible
64.1
64.0
-0.1
Negligible
72.2
72.8
+0.6
Negligible
76.3
76.8
+0.5
Negligible
72.4
72.9
+0.5
Negligible
80.7
81.1
+0.4
Negligible
68.6
69.1
+0.5
Negligible
61.7
62.1
+0.4
Negligible
65.7
66.5
+0.8
Negligible
63.1
63.6
+0.5
Negligible
67.0
67.3
+0.3
Negligible
69.6
70.0
+0.4
Negligible
70.4
70.7
+0.3
Negligible
69.2
69.4
+0.2
Negligible
71.5
72.1
+0.6
Negligible
71.3
71.9
+0.6
Negligible
68.6
69.2
+0.6
Negligible
67.7
68.1
+0.4
Negligible
6-31
ROAD LINK
2021
BASELINE
2026 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
DEVELOPMENT
EFFECT
67.9
68.3
+0.4
Negligible
68.7
69.0
+0.3
Negligible
66.9
67.3
+0.4
Negligible
It can be seen from the table above that as with the assessment of Scenario [2] and Scenario [3],
with the exception of Spitfire Way (east of Columbus Avenue) and Manston Road (east of
Shottendane Road), there will be a direct, permanent, long-term negligible effect on all road
links. On Spitfire Way and Manston Road there will be a direct, permanent, long-term minor
negative (insignificant) effect.
MITIGATION
6.7.68
The effects of the operational road traffic noise, whether Phase 1 in isolation or the Proposed
Development in its entirety, are at worst direct, permanent, long-term minor negative
(insignificant). As such, no specific mitigation measures are considered necessary.
6.7.69
Furthermore, the minor negative (insignificant) effects do not result on any of the links which are
designated NIAs.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
6.7.70
The residual effects remain as set out above. With the exception of Spitfire Way (east of
Columbus Avenue) and Manston Road (east of Shottendane Road), there will be a direct,
permanent, long-term negligible effect on all road links. On Spitfire Way and Manston Road there
will be a direct, permanent, long-term minor negative (insignificant) effect.
USE OF SPITFIRE PARK
6.7.71
There will be occasional use of Spitfire Park for the taking off and landing of spitfire planes. Due
to this runway being used so infrequently, it is considered that there will be direct, permanent (in
the context of the infrequent use), long-term negligible effect.
MITIGATION
6.7.72
No mitigation measures are considered necessary as the overall noise effects are considered
negligible.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
6.7.73
The residual effects are as set out above. There will be a direct, permanent (in the context of the
infrequent use), long-term negligible effect.
6.8
6.8.1
It is necessary to consider the suitability of the site for the noise-sensitive elements of the
Proposed Development, i.e. the residential areas, the primary schools and the hotel.
6.8.2
6-32
PROPOSED DWELLINGS
6.8.3
An assessment has been undertaken to determine the suitability of the site for residential
development.
6.8.4
A 3D noise model has been constructed using the noise modelling software CadnaA. The noise
model includes topographical data for the site and surrounding area and has been calibrated
using the results of the baseline noise survey and traffic flow data provided by AECOM.
6.8.5
The noise model was set up to calculate LAeq noise levels during the daytime (07:00 to 23:00
hours) and night-time (23:00 to 07:00 hours) periods. The noise model has been run on a 5 metre
by 5 metre grid and at a height of 1.5 metres above the ground to represent the ground floor of
the proposed dwellings and at 4 metres above ground to represent the first floor. The daytime
scenario considers noise levels at ground floor and the night-time scenario considers noise levels
at first floor height.
6.8.6
Noise contour plots for the open site are shown in Figure 6.3 for the daytime and Figure 6.4 for
the night-time. The thick black line denotes the proposed residential area (including the village
centre) as shown on the land use parameter plan.
6.8.7
It can be seen from Figure 6.3 that during the daytime the large majority of the residential areas
will be exposed to noise levels below 55 dB LAeq,16hours with only the northern and southern areas
of the residential area being exposed to noise levels of up to approximately 59 dB LAeq,16hour.
Figure 6.4 shows that during the night-time, noise levels will be up to 54 dB LAeq,8hours.
6.8.8
It is also necessary to consider the maximum noise levels (LAFmax) during the night-time period.
Maximum noise levels in the south of the site are currently generated by car pass-bys on the
A299 Hengist Way. Noise levels measured at MP5 on the southern site boundary show that the
typical maximum noise level at the site boundary is 89 dB LAmax. This has been calculated
th
considering the 90 percentile of the measured 15 minute noise levels. At MP5 the microphone
was at a distance of approximately 5 metres from the road and the parameter plans show the
closest residential area in the south of the site being approximately 180 metres from the road.
Based on a moving point source, the maximum noise level at the proposed residential area will be
approximately 62 dB LAmax.
6.8.9
It is also necessary to consider the noise levels in the external amenity areas. BS 8233:2014
provides the following guidance (paragraph 7.7.3.2):
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 recognised
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.
6.8.10
As mentioned above, Figure 6.3 shows that there are small areas of proposed residential
development in the north and south of the site that will be exposed to noise levels up to 59 dB
LAeq,16hours.
MITIGATION
6.8.11
Where the above is not possible, it will be necessary to explore the sound reduction performance
of the building faade to ensure that suitable internal noise levels can be achieved in habitable
rooms overlooking the roads.
6-33
6.8.12
The sound reduction performance requirements for the building faade can be calculated by
subtracting the target criteria from the derived noise levels. Since glazing is typically the weak link
in the acoustic performance of the building faade, at this stage, these values can be taken as a
requirement for the glazing units.
6.8.13
BS 8233 identifies two methods to determine the degree of noise attenuation required from a
building faade based on a known external noise level, one of which is a simple calculation and
the other a more rigorous calculation which considers the frequency spectrum of the noise
source and the acoustic absorption in the room. With respect to the simple calculation, BS 8233
(Section G.1) includes the following advice:
Strictly, the insulation values used here relate to a pink noise spectrum, and actual values
achieved are lower for traffic noise. Furthermore, the method does not take account of the
absorption (e.g. furnishings) in the room. However, the Rw values suffice for a rough calculation,
although it is likely to underestimate the level in the room by up to 5 dBA. Where the estimate is
within 5 dBA of the target noise level, a more rigorous calculation needs to be carried out using
octave bands
6.8.14
Table 6.15 sets out the sound insulation performance requirements for the glazing units for
habitable rooms in the most exposed area of the residential development. Both the LAeq and LAmax
noise levels are considered, as required in BS 8233 and the WHO guidelines. The calculations
have adopted the BS 8233 simple method and the +5 dB adjustment to allow for the frequency
content of the noise source and the acoustics of habitable rooms has cautiously been included.
Table 6.15: Sound Reduction Requirements for Proposed Facades, dB
PERIOD
EXTERNAL NOISE
LEVEL*
TARGET
CRITERIA
Daytime LAeq,16hour
64
35
29
Proposed dwellings
in north and south of Night-time LAeq,8hour
site
59
30
29
67
45
22
RECEPTOR
Night-time LAFmax
6.8.15
The above sound reduction performance could be achieved with standard thermal double glazed
unit, e.g. 4/12/4, 6/12/4 or similar.
6.8.16
The sound insulation performance of the specified glazing unit assumes that windows remain
closed. Consequently, it is necessary to consider how adequate ventilation is to be provided to
the most noise exposed building faades. On ventilation, BS 8233 advises that:
The Building Regulations supporting documents on ventilation recommend that habitable rooms
in dwellings have background ventilation. Where openable windows cannot be relied upon for this
ventilation, trickle ventilators can be used and sound attenuating types are available. However,
windows may remain openable for rapid or purge ventilation, or at the occupants choice.
6.8.17
The Building Research Establishment (BRE) has published an Information Paper on the acoustic
performance of such passive ventilation systems. IP4/99: 1999: Ventilators: Ventilation and
Acoustic Effectiveness (Ref 6.20) details a study into the sound reduction performance of fourteen
different window mounted trickle ventilators and seven different through-wall passive ventilators.
The measured sound reduction performance, after taking into account flanking sound paths (i.e.
sound paths that do not travel directly through the ventilator) and the effective area of the
ventilator, were as summarised below.
6-34
Table 6.16: Range of Measured Sound Reduction Performance Values for Passive
Ventilators with Open Vents, dB
WINDOW MOUNTED TRICKLE VENTS
(OPEN) DB(A)
Note: The figures have been corrected for the effective area of the ventilator
6.8.18
It can be seen from the above table that window mounted trickle vents or passive through-wall
ventilators are available that meet the requirements of the Building Regulations Approved
Document F for background ventilation and also provide a sound reduction performance to meet
or exceed that required for the glazing elements.
6.8.19
All habitable rooms of proposed dwellings will be provided with a form of natural ventilation to
meet or exceed the sound insulation performance requirement of the glazed elements of the
building faade, the details of which would be assessed more precisely at the design stage.
6.8.20
With respect to noise levels in external amenity areas, with the exception of the areas
immediately adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries of the residential development
area, the site is exposed to noise levels lower than the 55 dB LAeq,16hour criterion.
6.8.21
Where possible, in locations exposed to noise levels in excess of 55 dB L Aeq,16hours gardens should
be located to the rear of the proposed dwellings such that the dwelling itself provides a barrier
between the garden and the road. Where this is not possible, it may be necessary to replace
some standard garden fences with acoustic fences.
6.8.22
The above assessment should be repeated when the SATURN traffic flow data are available to
ensure that the mitigation measures remain valid. It should also be revisited during the detailed
design process as further information becomes available to determine the exact mitigation
measures.
Two primary schools are proposed. However, as there are currently no traffic flow data for the
internal roads it is not possible to undertake an assessment of noise levels at the proposed
schools as the noise climate has the potential to be much different upon completion of the
Proposed Development.
6.8.24
However, based on the existing noise levels measured at MP2 and MP3, suitable external and
internal noise levels should be achievable. However, this assessment should be revisited when
the SATURN model traffic flow data are available. A further assessment should be undertaken
when further information becomes available during the detailed design stage to ensure suitable
internal and external noise levels for teaching.
PROPOSED HOTEL
6.8.25
The proposed hotel is located in the east of the site and surrounded by the proposed residential
area and also the sports village and primary school. It fronts one of the internal roads, for which
traffic data have not been provided.
6.8.26
It is not possible at this stage to determine the noise levels at the proposed hotel. This
assessment should be undertaken as more detailed information becomes available.
6.9
6-35
6.9.1
It has been necessary to make various assumptions which have been detailed throughout this
chapter. A summary of the assumptions is set out below.
The likely difference in road traffic noise comparing various scenarios has been predicted using
the Basic Noise Level (LA10,18hours) at 10 metres from the nearside kerb as defined in the CRTN.
The predictions incorporate the 18-hour vehicle flow and the proportion of heavy vehicles as
provided by AECOM along with the following assumptions:
Vehicle speeds are unchanged between the different scenarios;
The gradient for all roads is unchanged between the different scenarios; and
A standard bituminous, impervious surface (e.g. hot rolled asphalt) is assumed on all roads
for all scenarios.
6.9.3
One limitation of the CRTN methodology is that with the LA10,T being a statistical parameter, there
is a minimum traffic flow required to generate valid levels. For the 18-hour period, this threshold is
1,000 vehicles. Where the vehicle flow is between 1,000 and 4,000 a low flow correction has been
added in accordance with the CRTN methodology.
6.9.4
The operational road traffic noise assessment considers traffic flows that are based on the
development as a whole, with the exception of the specific Phase 1 only flows.
6.9.5
Mean traffic speeds have been provided for some, but not all, of the road links. Where these data
are missing, the calculations have been based on speed limits.
6.9.6
A SATURN transport model is currently being prepared by AECOM. The assessments below that
rely on the existing traffic flow data are, therefore, considered preliminary and will be revisited
upon receipt of the traffic flow data generated by the SATURN model.
6.9.7
It is understood that AECOM has agreed a two-stage modelling approach with KCC during
scoping discussions, as set out below.
Initially a transport assessment would be developed, underpinned by a manual assignment
spreadsheet based transport model to assess the potential effects of the Proposed
Development on the transport network surrounding the site and provide the necessary traffic
flow information for the noise and air quality assessments.
Separately a strategic transport model using the SATURN modelling software is being
developed by AECOM to understand the wider effects of the Proposed Development on the
highway network and identify what infrastructure would be required to deliver the
development proposals. This SATURN model will not be available for the planning
submission. As such, it was agreed that the output from the model would follow the transport
assessment as additional supporting information during the post application consultation
period. A separate scoping exercise to agree the parameters of the SATURN model was
undertaken in January 2016 and the model is currently being developed.
6.9.8
The above approach means that there are limitations to the noise assessment where traffic flow
data have been relied on. This extends to AECOM not being able to supply data for all requested
links. These elements of the assessment will be revisited when the SATURN model is available
and further traffic flow data have been provided.
6.10
SUMMARY
6.10.1
A baseline survey has been undertaken to establish noise levels across the site. The noise
climate is influenced by road traffic on the A299 Hengist Way, Spitfire Road, Minster Road and
Manston Road and also, but to a much lesser degree, the surrounding commercial uses.
6-36
6.10.2
Noise and vibration effects during the demolition and construction phase have been considered
based on generic plant lists and four broad construction phases. Best practice measures have
been set out that should be adopted and a more detailed assessment is likely to be required when
a contractor has been appointed and more details are known regarding the construction
methodology, plant schedules etc. Depending on the receptor location, the activity being
undertaken and the plant locations, construction noise is likely to result in direct, temporary, short
to short-term negligible to moderate negative (significant) negative effect at the surrounding
sensitive receptors.
6.10.3
Industrial/commercial noise limits have been derived in accordance with British Standard 4142
and the requirements of TDC. All proposed industrial/commercial noise that is subject to the
requirements of BS 4142 will need to be designed (collectively) to achieve these noise limits. It is
assumed that if all plant are designed cumulatively to achieve the specified noise limits, there will
be a permanent, long-term negligible residual effect.
6.10.4
The operational road traffic will lead to a direct, permanent, long-term negligible effect on most
roads. The exceptions are Spitfire Way (east of Columbus Avenue) and Manston Road (east of
Shottendane Road) there will be a direct, permanent, long-term minor negative (insignificant)
effect.
6.10.5
The assessment of the suitability of the site for noise-sensitive development is based on the
results of the baseline noise survey and noise levels derived from traffic flow data. The
assessment of the site for residential use has shown that acceptable internal noise levels will be
achieved with appropriate glazing and passive ventilation. External noise levels in gardens will
achieve the 55 dB criterion with the possible exception of any gardens immediately adjacent to
the northern and southern boundaries of the residential area. The standard garden fences for
these plots may need to be replaced with acoustic fences, depending on the orientation and
location of the gardens.
6.10.6
An assessment of the suitability of the site for the proposed primary schools and hotel will need to
be undertaken when traffic flow data for the internal roads is made available. However, on the
basis of the measured noise levels, the site is considered acceptable for these uses.
6.10.7
To conclude, the site is considered acceptable for development from a noise perspective.
6-37
Table 6.17: Summary of Effects for Noise and Vibration
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
MAJOR /
MODERATE /
MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIV P /
E/
T
NEGATI
VE
D/I
ST /
MT /
LT
Demolition and
Existing and
construction noise proposed
residential
receptors
Negligible to
major
Negative T
LT
Demolition and
construction
vibration
Existing and
proposed
residential
receptors
Existing
residential
receptors
Negligible to
minor
Existing and
proposed
residential
receptors
Existing
residential
receptors
Existing and
proposed
residential
receptors
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
(POST MITIGATION)
/ ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
MAJOR /
POSITIVE P / D / I ST /
MODERATE / /
T
MT /
MINOR /
NEGATIVE
LT
NEGLIGIBLE
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
Implementation of a CEMP
Construction
traffic
Negligible to
moderate
Negative
MT
None
Control of
Pollution Act
1974
Negligible to
minor
Negative
ST
None
Control of
Pollution Act
1974
N/A
ST
None
None
ST
Implementation of a CEMP
ST
LT
N/A
LT
None
Environmental
Protection Act
1990
Negligible to
minor
Negative P
LT
None required
Negligible to
minor
Negative
LT
None
N/A
Negligible
N/A
LT
None required
Negligible
N/A
LT
None
Environmental
Protection Act
1990
Negligible
Negative T
N/A
Operation
Noise from
commercial/
industrial sources
associated with
the proposed
employment and
mixed use areas
Operational road
traffic
Use of Spitfire
Park
Key to table:
P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term
N/A = Not Applicable
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement
Chapter 6 Noise and Vibration
6-38
6.11
REFERENCES
Ref. 6.1:
Ref. 6.2:
Ref. 6.3:
Department of Communities and Local Government, (2012); National
Planning Policy Framework
Ref 6.4:
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (2010); Noise Policy
Statement for England
Ref. 6.5:
Guidance
Ref. 6.6:
Ref. 6.7:
British Standards Institution. (2014). BS 4142: 2014. Methods for rating and
assessing industrial and commercial sound. London: British Standards Institution.
Ref. 6.8:
British Standards Institution. (2003). BS 7445: Part 1: 2003. Description and
measurement of environmental noise. Guide to quantities and procedures. London: British
Standards Institution.
Ref. 6.9:
British Standards Institution. (1991). BS 7445: Part 2: 1991. Description and
measurement of environmental noise. Guide to the acquisition of data pertinent to land use.
London: British Standards Institution.
Ref. 6.10:
British Standards Institution. (1991). BS 7445: Part 3: 1991. Description and
measurement of environmental noise. Guide to application to noise limits. London: British
Standards Institution.
Ref. 6.11:
British Standards Institution. (2014). BS 5228: Part 1: 2009+A1:2014. Code of
Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Noise. London: British
Standards Institution.
Ref. 6.12:
British Standards Institution. (2014). BS 5228: Part 2: 2009+A1:2014. Code of
Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Vibration. London: British
Standards Institution.
Ref 6.13:
Ref. 6.14:
The Highways Agency, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government and
The Department for Regional Development Northern Ireland, (February 2011); Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Part 3 Section 7 HD 213/11 Revision 1 (November 2011) Noise
and Vibration. HMSO.
Ref. 6.15:
British Standards Institution. (1999) BS 8233: 2014. Guidance on sound
insulation and noise reduction for buildings. London: British Standards Institution.
Ref. 6.16:
Edited by B. Berglund, T. Lindvall and D. Schwela (2000). Guidelines for
Community Noise. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organisation.
Ref. 6.17:
The Building Regulations 2000. (2003) The Building Regulations. Ventilation.
Approved Document F.
Ref. 6.18:
standards.
6-39
Ref. 6.19:
International Organisation for Standardisation (1996); ISO 9613 Acoustics
Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors Part 2: General method of calculation
Ref. 6.20:
Building Research Establishment (1999); IP4/99: 1999: Ventilators: Ventilation
and Acoustic Effectiveness
7-1
7.1
INTRODUCTION
7.1.1
This Chapter reports the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on ecological
features identified to have the potential to be significantly affected during the construction and / or
the operational phase of the Proposed Development.
7.1.2
Where appropriate it also identifies proposed mitigation measures to prevent, minimise or control
likely negative effects on ecological features arising from the Proposed Development and the
subsequent anticipated residual effects.
7.1.3
This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) should be read together with the
Introductory Chapters of this Environmental Statement (ES) (Chapters 1 4), as well as Chapter
15 Cumulative Effects. Where appropriate, reference has also been made to Chapter 5 Air
Quality, Chapter 11 Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage and Chapter 14 Artificial
Lighting. Appendix 7.1 Information for Habitats Regulations Assessment is intended to assist
Thanet District Council (TDC) and Kent County Council (KCC) in their assessment of the potential
impacts of the Proposed Development upon the nearby European and Ramsar sites. Appendix
7.1 includes an assessment of the Site alone and in combination with other development in
Thanet as requested by Natural England (Appendix 4.2).
7.1.4
This Chapter has been based upon ecological information that has been gathered to date. In
order to provide an accurate representation of all potential ecological features present at the Site,
and in line with Natural England requirements as outlined in the Scoping Opinion dated 08/03/16
(Appendix 4.2), further ecological surveys are scheduled to take place from April to August 2016
to ensure that the optimal survey time periods are captured as outlined within Natural England
Standing Advice and other sources of current good practice guidance (see Table 7.4). Thanet
District Council and other relevant statutory bodies will be informed of the outcome of these
ongoing surveys during the application determination period.
7.1.5
An Outline Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy has been prepared to accompany this
application and is included in Appendix 7.10. Table 7.1 details the figures and appendices that
accompany this Chapter.
Table 7.1: Figures and Appendices
FIGURE
REFERENCE
Figure 7.1
FIGURE TITLE
Results of Building Surveys
APPENDIX
REFERENCE
Appendix 7.1
Appendix 7.2
Appendix 7.3
Appendix 7.4
Appendix 7.5
Appendix 7.7
Appendix 7.8
Appendix 7.6
APPENDIX TITLE
7-2
FIGURE
REFERENCE
7.2
FIGURE TITLE
APPENDIX
REFERENCE
Appendix 7.9
APPENDIX TITLE
Appendix 7.10
Meeting Notes
7.2.1
PLANNING POLICY
7.2.2
Planning policy at the national and local level and its relevance to environmental design and
assessment is discussed in Chapter 1 Introduction of the ES and the Planning Statement (Ref.
7.7) which accompanies the application and examines the merits of the Proposed Development
against the relevant planning policy. Detailed information on planning policy is included in
Appendix 7.2; applicable planning policy is as follows:
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (Ref. 7.8);
Thanet Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies (Ref. 7.9); and
Unlocking Kents Potential Kent County Councils Framework for Regeneration (Ref. 7.10).
GUIDANCE
7.2.3
The following key guidance has been referenced in the preparation of this chapter:
CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland:
Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal (Ref. 7.11);
Defra (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for Englands Wildlife and Ecosystem Services
(Ref. 7.12); and
Kent Biodiversity Action Plan (KBAP) (2015) (Ref. 7.13).
7.2.4
Baseline surveys completed to inform this assessment have been carried out with regard for good
practice guidelines where applicable, and in compliance with the scope agreed with KCC and
TDC. Adherence to good practice (including Natural England Standing Advice) has ensured that
surveys have been undertaken during the optimum survey period for each species group; further
surveys due to be carried out in April to August 2016 have also been scheduled to ensure that
robust baseline data is gathered. References to specific guidelines are contained within the
respective technical reports contained in Appendices 7.3 to 7.8 and noted where applicable in
Table 7.4 which summarise the ecological baseline surveys completed to inform this assessment.
7.3
7-3
7.3.1
The assessment adopts the approach outlined in Chapter 4 Approach to the Assessment and
is based on the Parameter Plans and Application Plans as described in Chapter 2 The
Proposed Development. The following components of the Proposed Development are relevant
to the assessment of the likely significant effects in relation to ecological features associated with
the Proposed Development:
DETAILED ELEMENT OF THE APPLICATION:
Change of Use of retained existing buildings; and
Development of Phase 1 comprising four industrial units (Use Class B1c/B2/B8) with ancillary
car parking and associated access and infrastructure.
OUTLINE ELEMENTS OF THE APPLICATION:
Site preparation and other associated works (demolition of existing buildings and structures);
Provision of buildings;
Provision of car parking;
Provision of infrastructure (including roads and utilities); and
Provision of open space/landscaping/ecological mitigation and enhancements (Parameter
Plan 5: Green Infrastructure (Figure 2.5).
7.4
7.4.1
This Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) has been prepared with reference to the Chartered
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Managements Guidelines for Impact Assessment in the
United Kingdom and Ireland (Ref. 7.11). Each ecological feature has been evaluated within the
geographic scale of reference and potential effects during the construction and operational
phases of the Proposed Development, in the absence of mitigation, assessed. Mitigation
1
measures have been considered for the ecological features which have been fully assessed to
date (taken in this context to include mitigation and compensatory measures), and residual effects
assessed.
7.4.2
Ecological features have been scoped in to the assessment if effects could be significant at Local
scale or above (in accordance with the geographic scale of reference) or if effects have legal
implications, and/or if consultation with relevant stakeholders requires their inclusion on other
grounds.
Sufficient survey has been undertaken to establish a robust baseline understanding of the ecological status
of a feature (e.g. population size, species composition and type and frequency of habitat use).
7-4
SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT
7.4.3
The scope of this Chapter is to consider the likely effects of the Proposed Development upon
sensitive ecological features within the Site and in the wider area (where appropriate) identified
during the baseline survey and data collection. The Site and wider area (Study Area) are defined
in section 7.4.9.
7.4.4
The zone of influence for each ecological feature is defined by the pathways available for an
impact either directly or indirectly to result in a potential effect to the habitat and/or species.
7.4.5
Ecological features (habitats, species, ecosystems and their functions/processes) within the
following categories will be subject to detailed assessment:
An Environmental Scoping Report was submitted to Thanet District Council (TDC) in January
2016 (Appendix 4.1). Ecological baseline surveys to inform this EcIA are being completed at the
earliest opportunity within the respective optimal seasonal window. The survey programme will
therefore continue from April to August 2016 to ensure that surveys are completed in line with
Natural England Standing Advice and current good practice guidance. For this reason the full
ecological baseline is yet to be established; as a precautionary approach, all potential ecological
features are scoped in at this stage.
CONSULTATION
7.4.7
Consultation with various stakeholders has been undertaken throughout the baseline data
gathering process to ensure that the scope of the surveys and subsequent assessment is in line
with stakeholder requirements and good practice guidance.
7.4.8
Table 7.2 provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken in support of the
preparation of this Chapter.
Table 7.2: Summary of Consultation
BODY /
ORGANISATION
Natural England
INDIVIDUAL /
STAT BODY /
ORGANISATION
Angela Marlow
(Senior Advisor)
MEETING DATES /
OTHER FORMS OF
CONSULTATION
Email response to
meeting request
16/11/15
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME OF
DISCUSSIONS
Direction to Discretionary Advice Service
(DAS) and comment on green field sites that
may be functionally related to the Thanet
Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA, particularly in
relation to use by overwintering golden plover
Pluvialis apricaria. Recommendation of
consideration of potential usage of the Site by
bird species for which nearby sites are
designated.
Defined by CIEEM 2016 (Ref. 7.11) as: the area over which ecological features may be subject to
significant effects as a result of the Proposed Development and associated activities.
7-5
BODY /
ORGANISATION
INDIVIDUAL /
STAT BODY /
ORGANISATION
Kent County
Stefanie Bramley
Council (KCC) (on (Biodiversity
behalf of Thanet
Officer)
District Council
(TDC)).
KCC
Several KCC
attendees
including Stefanie
Bramley, and
SHP attendees
including WSP|PB
Ecologist
TDC (including.
Iain Livingstone
Natural England) (TDC), Heather
Twizell (NE)
MEETING DATES /
OTHER FORMS OF
CONSULTATION
Meeting 27/11/15 for
which meeting notes
are attached in
Appendix 7.9.
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME OF
DISCUSSIONS
Technical Meeting
18/01/16
Scoping Opinion
08/03/16
WSP|PB
WSP|PB
Ecologist
Scoping Opinion
Response Issued to
TDC and KCC
31/03/16
Natural England
(DAS)
Heather Twizell
(NE)
Meeting held on
13/04/16
A Study Area incorporating the entire site (Figure 1.1 Figure 1.3) was identified early in the
process to inform the scope and extent of the ecological surveys. This Study Area was further
defined, as necessary, for each potential ecological feature and the potential zone of influence
and was outlined in the Scoping Report (Appendix 4.1). The Study Area for each potential
ecological feature is detailed in each of the corresponding technical reports (Appendices 7.3
7.8).
7.4.10
Search radii for the purposes of the ecological desk study (Appendix 7.4) are detailed in Table
7.3 below.
An ecological desk study was completed in September 2015 (Appendix 7.4) to collate and review
existing information available in the public domain and to obtain information held by relevant third
parties. The desk study was completed to obtain existing baseline data; primarily focusing on
obtaining records of legally protected species and habitats, species and habitats of conservation
concern, and habitat designated for its nature conservation value. The relevant search radii
around the Study Area and data sources are shown in Table 7.3 below.
Table 7.3: Search Radii and Data Sources for Potential Ecological Features
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL FEATURE
SEARCH
RADIUS
FROM SITE
BOUNDARY
DATA SOURCE
7-6
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL FEATURE
SEARCH
RADIUS
FROM SITE
BOUNDARY
DATA SOURCE
2km
Ancient Woodland
Species
Protected & Notable Species Records
2km
KMBRC.
Bat Records
5km
An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Appendix 7.3) of the Site was completed in June 2015 to
provide baseline information on the types and distribution of habitats within the Site boundary. A
range of habitat types classified in line with standard definitions (JNCC, 2010) were recorded
within the Site, these were listed in Appendix 4 of the Scoping Report and the Phase 1 Habitat
Survey Report was provided as Appendix 5, the information is presented in Appendix 4.1 and
Appendix 7.3 in this ES respectively.
7.4.13
To inform the Proposed Development, targeted ecological surveys have been completed to
ensure that current baseline conditions may be evaluated accurately. Ecological surveys to date
have been undertaken in 2015 and 2016; further surveys have been discussed and agreed with
KCC and TDC (see Table 7.2) and are scheduled for completion up until August 2016. Survey
methods are summarised in Table 7.4 below.
Table 7.4: Summary of Ecological Survey Methods and Dates of Survey
TOPIC
DATES OF
SURVEY
REFERENCE
/APPENDIX
Extended
Phase 1
habitat survey
June 2015.
Appendix 7.3
Bats
June and
October
2015.
Appendix 7.5
Scheduled
Pending
for May to
August 2016.
7-7
TOPIC
DATES OF
SURVEY
REFERENCE
/APPENDIX
September
2015.
Appendix 7.6
Remaining
transect
surveys
scheduled
for May and
July 2016.
Full results
pending
Remaining
automated
detector
surveys
scheduled
for April to
August.
Hibernation survey
Appendix 7.8
January to
Buildings B23 and B47 were identified as having the potential March 2016.
to support hibernating bats. In line with good practice guidance
(Ref 7.19), 28 nights of automated detector data were gathered
in each building between January and March 2016; inspections
for hibernating bats by a Natural England licensed bat ecologist
on each visit were also undertaken.
Birds
Wintering birds
November
2015 to
The wintering bird survey comprised four visits, with one visit
each month from November 2015 to February 2016. Methods February
included the use of a combination of vantage point and walked 2016.
survey; the location of all birds seen and heard was mapped.
Surveys were completed with regard for methods outlined
within current good practice guidance (Ref. 7.18).
Appendix 7.7
Breeding birds
Pending
Scheduled
for April to
June 2016.
Botanical
survey
Great crested
newt
Four water bodies, one within the site boundary and three
April 2016.
within 500m of the Proposed Development were assessed for
their suitability to support great crested newts. Potentially
suitable water bodies were subsequently surveyed to
determine presence or likely absence of great crested newts; in
accordance with good practice guidance (Ref. 7.20, Ref. 7.21,
Ref. 7.22 and Ref. 7.23).
Pending
7-8
TOPIC
DATES OF
SURVEY
REFERENCE
/APPENDIX
Reptiles
April 2016.
Pending
Scheduled
for May (to
August if
further
surveys are
necessary)
2016.
Terrestrial
invertebrates
Subsequent
surveys
scheduled
for May and
June 2016.
Pending
The results from the above baseline surveys undertaken to date were used in conjunction with
information on the scheme design to assess the likely significant ecological effects that the
Proposed Development could have during both the construction and operational phases.
7.4.15
The conservation value of each ecological feature was evaluated within a defined geographical
context using the categories recommended in good practice (Ref. 7.11). The following geographic
scales are used:
International and European;
National (England);
Regional (South-East England);
Metropolitan, County (Kent), vice-county or other local authority-wide area;
District (Thanet);
Local (Minster Parish); and
Site.
7.4.16
In addition, in order to distinguish between habitats and species that are of value at the Site scale
and those that have negligible value at any scale (i.e. lower than Site value), the latter have been
assigned to be of negligible value.
7.4.17
7-9
buildings) and operational phases. Effects have been assessed against baseline conditions and
have been characterised with reference to ecological structure and function of the feature in
question, for instance the fragility/stability of an ecosystem and its connectivity to other features or
resources.
7.4.19
Ecological effects are described in terms of relevant characteristics, as identified in good practice
guidelines (Ref. 7.11) including whether the effect is positive or negative, the extent (area) which
3
would be affected, the magnitude (size, amount, intensity or volume) of the effect, the duration
(short term, medium term, long term and permanent or temporary) of anticipated change and
consequently resulting effects, whether the effect is reversible (i.e. whether recovery from the
effect is possible within a reasonable timescale) and the timing and frequency of change as a
consequence of the Proposed Development.
ASSIGNING SIGNIFICANCE
7.4.20
The geographical scale of significance has been used as specified within good practice guidelines
(Ref. 7.11) both to evaluate the ecological feature and to assess the scale at which an effect is
significant. An ecologically significant effect is defined as an effect that either supports or
undermines biodiversity conservation objectives for important ecological features or for
4
biodiversity in general .
7.4.21
The significance of effects upon important ecological features is determined considering their
value at a geographic scale (as noted above); however any given effect may be significant at a
reduced scale depending on the extent and magnitude of the effect. For example although a
habitat type may represent 20% of the resource at a County level and hence be considered of
value at this scale, the proposed works might affect only a portion of the habitat representing 1%
of the resource in the County hence the effect would not be considered significant at this scale.
However, that 1% may represent 20% of the resource at a Local scale and therefore the effect at
this geographic scale would be considered significant.
7.4.22
For the purposes of cross-referencing between other Chapters within this ES, Table 7.5 below
relates the geographic scale used in this EcIA to significance of effects used throughout the other
Chapters within the ES.
Table 7.5: Relating Geographic Scale to Significance
GEOGRAPHIC SCALE
SIGNIFICANCE DEFINITION
International / European
Major
Moderate
Minor
Site / Negligible
Negligible
National (England)
Regional (South-East England)
County (Kent)
District (Thanet)
Good practice guidelines (Ref. 7.11) advise the duration of an effect should be defined with regard to the
ecological characteristics of the feature affected. Consequently, what is considered short term, medium
term or long term can vary depending on the feature affected; therefore the meaning of these terms will
be defined within the assessment text where used.
4
CIEEM (2016) p24 (Ref. 7.11).
7-10
GEOGRAPHIC SCALE
SIGNIFICANCE DEFINITION
environment
In the process of EcIA, it is important to select the appropriate features for inclusion in the
assessment. For the purpose of this assessment ecological features have been scoped into the
assessment where potential effects could be of significance at the Local scale or greater and, or
where there are legal and/or planning implications associated with effects.
The following four point scale is used to describe the degree of confidence in the assessment of
the effects on ecological structure and function. This confidence level relates to the likelihood that
a construction or operational event or activity will lead to the described ecological effect on an
important ecological feature:
Certain / near-certain;
Probable / likely;
Unlikely / possible but uncertain; or
Extremely unlikely.
7.5
BASELINE CONDITIONS
EXISTING BASELINE
OFF-SITE HABITATS
STATUTORY DESIGNATED SITES
7.5.1
A number of European/internationally designated sites fall within a 10 km radius of the Site (see
Table 7.6 below and Figure 2 of Appendix 7.4); including Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay
Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site, located
approximately 900m south east of the Site. This site is designated for an internationally important
population of turnstones Arenaria interpres, amongst other features. The Outer Thames Estuary
SPA and Margate and Long Sands SAC are all located over 3km from the Site. Stodmarsh SPA,
SAC and Ramsar Site is located furthest from the Site at approximately 8km to the south west.
Table 7.6: European/Internationally Designated Sites within 10km of the Proposed Development
SITE NAME
DESIGNATION
PROXIMITY TO DESCRIPTION
SITE
905m SE
Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA is located at the northeastern tip of Kent in southern England. It is a coastal site
consisting of a long stretch of rocky shore, adjoining areas of
estuary, sand dune, maritime grassland, saltmarsh and grazing
marsh. The site supports important numbers of Turnstone
Arenaria interpres, and is also used by large numbers of
migratory birds as they make landfall in Britain in spring, or
depart for continental Europe in autumn.
This site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive
(79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European
importance of the following species;
Little tern Sterna albifrons, 6 pairs, representing at least 0.3% of
the breeding population in Great Britain (5 year mean 19921996).
7-11
SITE NAME
DESIGNATION
PROXIMITY TO DESCRIPTION
SITE
Over winter; golden plover Pluvialis apricaria [North-western
Europe - breeding] 0.2% of the wintering population in Great
Britain (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6).
This site qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive
(79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European
importance of the following migratory species:
Over winter; Turnstone Arenaria interpres, 940 individuals
representing at least 1.4% of the wintering Western Palearctic wintering population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6).
Ramsar Site
905m SE
Sandwich
Bay
SAC
905m SE
7-12
SITE NAME
DESIGNATION
PROXIMITY TO DESCRIPTION
SITE
sand catchfly Silene conica, as well as the UKs largest
population of lizard orchid Himantoglossum hircinum.
2170 Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion
arenariae)
The small area of dunes with creeping willow Salix repens ssp.
argentea found at Sandwich Bay is of interest as it is the only
example found in the dry south-east of England and is
representative of this habitat type in a near-continental climate.
Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature, but not a
primary reason for selection of this site:
2190 Humid dune slacks
Humid dune slacks occur on calcareous sand, where the slack
vegetation is similar to that of small sedge mires (mires with
low-growing sedges), or on acidic dunes where the vegetation
may have affinities to wet heath.
940m SE
Outer
Thames
Estuary
SPA
Margate and
Long Sands
SAC
3542m N
4706m N
7-13
SITE NAME
DESIGNATION
PROXIMITY TO DESCRIPTION
SITE
The fauna of the bank crests is characteristic of species-poor,
mobile sand environments, and is dominated by polychaete
worms and amphipods. Mobile epifauna includes crabs and
brown shrimp Crangon crangon, along with squid Teuthida spp.
and commercially important fish species such as sole Solea
solea, and herring Clupea harengus. Areas of high densityreefforming ross worm Sabellaria spinulosa support a diverse
attached epifauna of bryozoans, hydroids, sponges and
tunicates, and additional fauna including polychaetes, bivalves,
amphipods, crabs and lobsters. These diverse communities are
usually found on the flanks of the sandbanks and towards the
troughs.
Stodmarsh
SPA
8317m SW
SAC
7660m SW
7-14
SITE NAME
DESIGNATION
PROXIMITY TO DESCRIPTION
SITE
Ramsar Site
8317m SW
7.5.2
In addition, there are two UK statutory designated sites located within a 2km radius of the Site,
Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Sandwich and
Pegwell Bay National Nature Reserve (NNR), both of which are located 905m south of the site.
Details of these UK statutory designated sites are included in Table 7.7 below and shown on
Figure 3 of Appendix 7.4.
Table 7.7: UK Statutory Designated Sites within 2km of the Proposed Development
SITE NAME
DESIGNATION
PROXIMITY
TO SITE
DESCRIPTION
905m SE
This site contains the most important sand dune system and
sandy coastal grassland in South East England, and includes a
wide range of other habitats such as mudflats, saltmarsh, chalk
cliffs, freshwater grazing marsh, scrub and woodland. There are
30 nationally rare and scarce plant species; terrestrial and
marine. These areas provide an important landfall for migrating
birds and also support large wintering populations of waderssome of which regularly reach levels of national importance.
905m SE
7-15
SITE NAME
DESIGNATION
PROXIMITY
TO SITE
DESCRIPTION
The reserve is of international importance for its waders and
wildfowl, best seen over winter or during the spring and autumn
migrations.
There is one non-statutory designated site; Minster Marshes Local Wildlife Site (LWS) within 2km
of the Site. It is located approximately1,493m to the south of the Site and is designated for areas
of remnant habitat and open space; habitats on the site include grazing marsh, ponds, ditches
and scrub. This LWS separates the urban areas of Sheerness and Minster.
HABITATS OF PRINCIPAL IMPORTANCE (HPI)
7.5.4
No HPI was identified within the Site during the desk study, however, there are multiple parcels of
HPI falling within the 2km search radius of the Site; these include the following habitat types:
Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh;
Deciduous woodland;
Traditional orchard;
Saltmarsh;
Reedbed; and
Lowland fen.
7.5.5
There are numerous parcels of deciduous woodland present within a 2km radius of the Site; the
nearest parcel is 23m from the Site boundary. Two parcels of traditional orchard are located 570m
and just under 1km south of the Site, respectively. All other HPI is located in excess of 1km from
the Site.
WATER BODIES
7.5.6
There are three water bodies within 500m of the Site, in addition to the water body present on the
Site (see 7.5.10). The nearest water bodies are located 220m north of the Site boundary adjacent
to Alland Grange Lane. The third water body, a man-made reservoir is located 252m south of the
Site.
ON-SITE HABITATS
7.5.7
In general the Site is dominated by large areas of semi-improved neutral grassland and poor
semi-improved grassland interspersed with some extensive areas of hard-standing (in particular
the former runway and aircraft taxiing areas) with buildings clustered in parts of the Site, mainly to
the north-east and north-west of the runway.
7.5.8
Much of the grassland on the Site is subject to management including fertilisation and cutting (at
least annually). This has resulted in a grass-dominated sward in many places characterised by
species favouring more nutrient rich (semi-improved) conditions. Some areas of grassland appear
to be less frequently cut (particularly toward the western and eastern ends of the runway) and
have a higher species diversity with a greater range of herb species; however, grasses are still
dominant here.
7.5.9
The presence of species favouring calcareous conditions in a variety of locations across the Site
indicates the underlying chalk soil-type/geology, however, past and current management appears
to favour species indicative of more nutrient rich (semi-improved) conditions, with coarse grasses
7-16
such as false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) and cocks-foot (Dactylis glomerata) being
characteristic across the whole Site. Further detail is provided within the original Phase 1 habitat
survey report (Appendix 7.3).
7.5.10
There is one water body within the Site boundary, a water-filled balancing pond located towards
the eastern end of the runway. The man-made structure is steep sided and covered by a metal
grate with little aquatic or marginal plant species and a population of ornamental fish present.
7.5.11
Each habitat type has been assessed for its intrinsic conservation value with reference to the
geographical ranges discussed in 7.4.15 and 7.4.16 in combination with the following definitions
of nature conservation value (none of the habitat within the Site is evaluated as of above Local
value):
Negligible value: habitat parcels that constitute a relatively small proportion of the overall Site
and are of very common and widespread habitat types which are easily replaceable;
Site value: habitat parcels that contribute towards nature conservation value at the Site scale
but no greater owing to either abundance at the Local scale or transience (i.e. successional
habitat); these habitats are readily replaceable;
Local value: habitat parcels with nature conservation value that are evaluated to be of
sufficient extent and/or quality within the local (i.e. parish) context to appreciably enrich the
local habitat resource and are more challenging to replace; and
District value: habitat parcels that are scarce within the district or which appreciably enrich the
district habitat resource.
7.5.12
The majority of habitat parcels present on the Site are of Negligible conservation value and
constitute 32% of the total Site area. Three parcels equating to 9% of the total Site area are
evaluated to be of Site value and the two parcels of semi-improved neutral grassland constituting
59% of the total Site area are considered to be of District value.
7.5.13
Data gathered during the Kent Habitat Survey (Ref. 7.28) shows that neutral grassland represents
7.3% (c. 28,500ha) of all habitat types across Kent. This habitat is widely distributed across the
county with concentrations of neutral grassland within the northern districts of Gravesham, Swale
and Medway. Neutral grassland within Thanet, however, is uncommon (c. 400ha) and constitutes
3.7% of the total surface area of the district (1.4% of Kents neutral grassland). A significant
proportion of Thanets neutral grassland (c. 190ha) is located within the Site boundary. Whilst it
can be concluded that the neutral grassland present within the Site is not of County importance at
0.7% of the County resource, it is evaluated to be of District importance at almost 50% of the
Thanets resource.
7.5.14
Table 7.8 lists the habitat parcels present on the Site, includes a summary description of each
and evaluation of their nature conservation value. Figures 2a to 2d in Appendix 7.3 show the
distribution of habitat parcels across the Site.
Table 7.8: Summary of Habitats Present within the Site and their Conservation Value
HABITAT
PARCEL
AREA/
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH &
(PROPORTION
OF SITE)
CONSERVATION
VALUE
The conservation value of the habitats present on the Site for fauna is assessed below in paragraphs
7.5.15 to 7.5.38.
7-17
HABITAT
PARCEL
AREA/
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH &
(PROPORTION
OF SITE)
CONSERVATION
VALUE
Dense scrub
0.47ha
(0.15%)
Negligible
Dense scrub /
tall ruderal
mosaic
0.03ha
(0.01%)
Scattered
scrub
0.11ha
(0.03%)
Scattered
0.02ha
scrub/tall
(0.01%)
ruderal mosaic
Scattered
broadleaved
trees
N/A
Semi-improved 70.15ha
neutral
(22.13%)
grassland
Negligible
7-18
HABITAT
PARCEL
AREA/
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH &
(PROPORTION
OF SITE)
CONSERVATION
VALUE
118.59ha
(37.41%)
Scattered
1.63ha
scrub/ poor
(0.51%)
semi-improved
grassland/tall
ruderal mosaic
Site
7-19
HABITAT
PARCEL
AREA/
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH &
(PROPORTION
OF SITE)
CONSERVATION
VALUE
Poor semi0.08ha
improved
(0.03%)
grassland/
ephemeral /
short-perennial
mosaic
Tall Ruderal
0.27ha
(0.09%)
Tall Ruderal/
0.70ha
ephemeral /
(0.22%)
short-perennial
mosaic
Negligible
Negligible
The only area of standing water within the Site was a waterNegligible
filled oil interceptor toward the eastern end of the runway. This
was a rectangular structure below ground level approximately
15m long by 3m wide. No significant cover by aquatic or
marginal plant species was present but a population of
ornamental fish (goldfish) could be seen.
Arable
16.57ha
(8.6%)
Site
7-20
HABITAT
PARCEL
AREA/
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH &
(PROPORTION
OF SITE)
CONSERVATION
VALUE
0.39ha
(0.12%)
Negligible
Scattered
0.17ha
broadleaved
(0.05%)
trees/ amenity
grassland
mosaic
Ephemeral /
0.18ha
short-perennial (0.06%)
Species-poor
hedge
1.74km (N/A) Few hedgerows are present within or around the Site, with the Negligible
majority of boundaries being defined by fencing. However,
sections of species-poor hedgerow were recorded in a few
locations; particularly to the north and south of the runway at
its western end, close to the former car-park in the west of the
Site, short sections of the northern boundary of the airfield
south of Manston Road and along the northern-most boundary
of the Site (north of Manston Road). These hedgerows were
formed of native woody species; particularly hawthorn, field
maple (Acer campestre), dog rose and blackthorn (Prunus
spinosa). Other woody species not regularly occurring included
cherry, lime (Tilia sp.) and wayfaring-tree (Viburnum lantana).
Ground flora associated with the hedgerows included
Alexanders, ox-eye daisy, ribwort plantain, hedge bedstraw
and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare).
Short hedgerows dominated by non-native species were also
recorded toward the east of the Site south of the former carpark close to the terminal buildings. These included tall conifer
(Leyland cypress; Cupressus leylandii) hedging and a short
section across the road dominated by garden privet (Ligustrum
ovalifolium).
7-21
HABITAT
PARCEL
AREA/
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH &
(PROPORTION
OF SITE)
Buildings
2.50ha
(0.79%)
Bare ground
0.19ha
(0.06%)
Negligible
Negligible
Hard-standing 94.74ha
(29.88%)
CONSERVATION
VALUE
SPECIES
BATS
Roosting
7.5.15
During the extended Phase 1 habitat survey undertaken in June 2015 (Appendix 7.3), all
buildings/structures on the Site were externally assessed for their potential to support roosting
bats. Thirty four buildings/structures were assessed as having negligible potential to support
roosting bats and were therefore ruled out of further assessment. Twenty buildings/structures
were assigned low potential, two medium and one high potential.
7.5.16
Where buildings/structures with potential to support roosting bats appeared to have an internal
space that could be accessible to bats (nine buildings/structures), further detailed external and
internal building inspections were undertaken in October 2015 (Appendix 7.5). Of the nine
buildings/structures, four were confirmed as bat roosts (B23, B31, B36 and B46) and of the five
remaining, one retained its status as having high potential to support roosting bats, one was
upgraded from low to moderate potential, two were downgraded from moderate to low and the
other remain as having low potential.
7.5.17
The combined results of the inspections identified six buildings/structures with the potential to
support hibernating bats. Two of these buildings/structures had internal voids suitable for
hibernation surveys; due to the absence of internal voids, it was not possible to survey the
remaining four buildings for hibernating bats. Hibernation surveys undertaken in January to March
2016 confirmed one structure (B36) as a brown long-eared Plecotus auritus bat hibernation roost
(Appendix 7.8) and ruled out the other structure (B61) as suitable for hibernating bats. The
locations of the buildings/structures and their roosting bat status are shown on Figure 7.1.
7.5.18
Further roosting bat surveys will be carried out at 23 buildings/structures on the Site identified as
either confirmed roosts, or having the potential to support roosting bats. As outlined in Parameter
Plan 6: Demolition and Retention (Figure 2.6), 12 of these buildings/structures are due to be
removed, six will be subject to change of use and the remaining buildings/structures will be
retained. The vast majority (17) of the buildings/structures requiring further survey have low
potential to support roosting bats, one has moderate potential (B47), one has high potential (B43)
and four are confirmed roosts. Emergence and re-entry surveys will be undertaken between May
and August to identify the presence or likely absence of roosting bats. Thanet District Council and
other relevant statutory bodies will be informed of the outcome of the ongoing surveys during the
application determination period.
7-22
Commuting/Foraging
7.5.19
Bat activity surveys comprising walked manual transects and the deployment of automated
detectors were undertaken in September 2015 to determine levels of bat activity at the Site and
species of bat using the Site (Appendix 7.6). The surveys recorded five species of bat active over
the Site; common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus,
noctule Nyctalus noctula, serotine Eptesicus serotinus and Nathusius pipistrelle Pipistrellus
nathusii. Overall levels of activity recorded during the September activity surveys were low.
7.5.20
Further bat activity surveys will be carried out from April to August (manual transects in May and
July and automated detector surveys in April to August) to complete the required survey effort to
determine levels of bat activity and species of bat at the Site. Thanet District Council and other
relevant statutory bodies will be informed of the outcome of the ongoing surveys during the
application determination period.
BIRDS
Wintering birds
7.5.21
Wintering bird surveys were completed between November 2015 and February 2016 to identify
which species are present within the Site and whether the wintering bird community includes
species which are legally protected or of conservation concern; or species associated with the
designated coastal sites in proximity (Appendix 7.7).
7.5.22
Although the majority of species recorded are widespread and common or abundant, the
wintering bird community does include a number of species with conservation listings (Species of
Principal Importance (SPI), Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC), Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and KBAP species). The majority of these species, including
short eared owl Asio flammeus, raptors and passerines such as grey partridge Perdix perdix,
meadow pipit Anthus pratensis and skylark Alauda arvensis, are present in association with the
extensive grassland habitats present.
7.5.23
In summary, the wintering bird community present is considered of Local conservation value
owing to the presence of seventeen species which are of conservation concern or subject to
additional legal protection, with the exception of short eared owl. Short eared owl, whilst a regular
winter visitor, is usually only present in very small numbers in Kent; estimated around twenty birds
in the 2012 and 2013 winters (Ref. 7.29). Therefore, whilst this species is unpredictable in habits
and different birds can utilise different areas in different winters, the grassland habitat present and
recorded regular use throughout the 2015 to 2016 winter suggest the Site is of District
conservation value for short eared owl. It is not considered of county importance as the Survey
Area is likely one of several foraging areas in the county used by the individuals recorded, and
does not form a communal roost site for the species.
7.5.24
No waders which form part of the reasons for the designation of the Thanet Coast and Sandwich
Bay SPA, Ramsar, SAC and SSSI were recorded within the Site. The Site does not therefore
function as undesignated supporting habitat associated with these sites, and is not of
conservation value at a greater geographic scale.
Breeding birds
7.5.25
Suitable habitat for a variety of breeding birds is present on the Site. Some of the buildings and
structures along with limited areas of boundary habitat such as hedgerow and scrub provide
suitable nesting habitat for passerines including house sparrow Passer domesticus, starling
Sturnus vulgaris, dunnock Prunella modularis and song thrush Turdus philomelos. Building B8
supports a pair of roosting barn owls Tyto alba, a species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (Ref. 7.2). An evaluation of the barn owl population on the
Site is made below. Grassland habitat is used by foraging raptors and owls and likely used by
ground nesting birds such as skylark, meadow pipit and grey partridge.
7-23
7.5.26
Breeding bird surveys will be undertaken between April and June to identify which species are
present within the Survey Area and whether the breeding bird community includes species which
are legally protected or of conservation concern. Thanet District Council and other relevant
statutory bodies will be informed of the outcome of the ongoing surveys during the application
determination period.
Barn Owl
7.5.27
A pair of roosting barn owls was recorded occupying the disused fire station (building B8), see
Figure 7.1, during the summer. Fresh pellets were found below an empty water tank located in
the open roof void of the fire station during the extended Phase 1 habitat survey (July 2015)
(Appendix 7.3) and reports from the site manager of two barn owl using the building confirmed
presence. The building was also inspected visually during the January and February wintering
bird surveys to identify whether any roosting birds or fresh pellets were present which would
indicate use of the Site by this species during the winter; however, none were found.
7.5.28
Although further assessment of the presence of this species on the Site will be made during the
scheduled breeding bird surveys, it is considered unlikely that additional information will add to
what is currently known. The most current Kent Bird Report (2013) reported nine individuals were
recorded in east Kent in February 2013, with a spring (March and April) and summer (July) peak
count of eight individuals. Eight breeding pairs were confirmed in Kent in 2013, the same number
as the previous year; an increase on previous years with six pairs in 2011 and three pairs in 2010
(Ref. 7.30). Although this data reflects submitted and confirmed records it is likely to
6
underrepresent the true barn owl population which is estimated to be substantially higher . It is
nonetheless apparent that barn owls are scarce in east Kent, therefore the pair at the Site is
considered to be of District value.
BROWN HARE
7.5.29
Extensive areas of rough grassland on the Site are used by brown hare. Although this species is
not subject to specific surveys, ad hoc observations on the Site have determined presence
throughout the year. Across the South East region, brown hare are considered to occur regularly
but with a scattered distribution (Ref. 7.31); in Kent, numbers of brown hare have declined
dramatically and the distribution in the county is now limited; they are recorded most commonly
from the north Kent and Romney Marshes (Ref. 7.32). Brown hares are found at lower densities
on arable land in east Kent (Ref. 7.33).
7.5.30
Suitable habitat for brown hare within Thanet district includes areas of lowland grassland, arable
farmland and hedgerows (used for shelter). As the Site offers an expanse of long grassland
habitat suitable for brown hare, but lacks in other habitat required by this species (i.e. farmland,
hedgerows and woodland edges) the value of the Site for brown hare is evaluated to be of Local
value.
RARE / NOTABLE PLANTS
7.5.31
During the extended Phase 1 habitat survey (Appendix 7.3) parcels of less closely managed
semi-improved grassland were identified on the Site. These parcels were found to support a more
diverse range of species, including bee orchids Ophrys apifera in the grassland at the eastern end
of the Site, than adjacent parcels of poor semi-improved grassland. The ecological desk study
(Appendix 7.4) identified records of Martins ramping-fumitory Fumaria reuteri, a plant listed on
Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), located close to the Site
boundary. This species is found within boundary and linear features such as hedges and
roadsides and also cultivated and arable habitats. Records of other rare and notable plant species
The Kent Bird Atlas 2013 (Ref. 7.29) estimates the presence of 100 200 pairs of barn owls within the
county between 2008 and 2013.
7-24
nearby include southern marsh orchid Dactylorhiza praetermissa and pyramidal orchid
Anacamptis pyramidalis, the former grows in damp conditions and the latter grows in a range of
habitats including chalk grassland, scrub and roadside verges.
7.5.32
As suitable habitat for these and other rare and notable species is present within areas of less
closely managed grassland on the Site, botanical surveys will be undertaken between May and
August to determine the botanical composition within suitable habitat parcels. Thanet District
Council and other relevant statutory bodies will be informed of the outcome of the ongoing
surveys during the application determination period.
GREAT CRESTED NEWT
7.5.33
Suitable terrestrial habitat for GCN is present on the Site in the form of areas of longer grass,
bunds, brownfield areas and field margins. The ecological desk study (Appendix 7.4) identified
three water bodies within 500m of the Site boundary and the extended Phase 1 habitat survey
(Appendix 7.3) identified two water bodies on the Site. One of these on-site water bodies, a
covered metal tank, was discounted as it was assessed as unsuitable for GCN.
7.5.34
The four potentially suitable water bodies were subject to Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)
assessments along with eDNA testing if assessed as suitable. Two of the water bodies were
assessed as unsuitable to support GCN and were therefore ruled out of further survey. The
remaining two water bodies were assessed as potentially suitable for GCN and samples for eDNA
testing were taken; one presence/likely absence survey was also undertaken using methods
outlined in good practice guidelines (egg searching, bottle trapping and torching). The
presence/likely absence surveys recorded two male and one female smooth newt Lissotriton
vulgaris in the water body at Alland Grange Lane (off-site). Subsequent eDNA testing confirmed
the absence of GCN from both water bodies. As GCN have been confirmed as absent from the
surrounding water bodies, this species is therefore unlikely to be using potentially suitable
terrestrial habitat on the Site.
REPTILES
7.5.35
Areas of tall ruderal vegetation and scattered scrub, bunds, brownfield areas and field margins
within the Site boundary provide suitable habitat for reptiles. A record of a common lizard Zootoca
vivipara just less than 1km south east of the Site boundary was returned in the data search
(Appendix 7.4).
7.5.36
Reptile surveys are currently underway at the Site to determine the presence of likely absence of
reptiles, and if present, identify the species and broad distribution of reptiles. Thanet District
Council and other relevant statutory bodies will be informed of the outcome of the ongoing
surveys during the application determination period.
TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES
7.5.37
Areas of less intensively managed semi-improved neutral grassland on the Site support a greater
diversity of botanical species compared to areas of poorer quality semi-improved grassland or
highly modified areas of amenity grassland. These areas have the potential to support a range of
terrestrial invertebrates, although it is likely that the assemblage would be limited to species
favouring grassland habitats/plant species. Field margins and brownfield habitat/bunds on the Site
also provide suitable habitat for a variety of invertebrate species.
7.5.38
An initial walkover survey of the Site, focussing on less closely managed parcels of grassland,
field margins and brownfield habitat/bunds, by an entomologist will be undertaken in April/May
2016 to evaluate the potential for habitats present to support an invertebrate assemblage of
elevated value. Should further survey be required, visits will be undertaken between May and
August. Thanet District Council and other relevant statutory bodies will be informed of the
outcome of the ongoing surveys during the application determination period.
7-25
7.6
7.6.1
Table 7.9 below lists the ecological features identified during the baseline assessment and
summarises the scoping of potential effects which are to be taken forward in the EcIA. Where
baseline surveys for a feature are still to be completed in the optimal survey season, an
assessment of the features nature conservation value is to be confirmed (TBC) pending survey
results.
Table 7.9 Scoping of Ecological Features for Inclusion in EcIA
ECOLOGICAL FEATURE
NATURE
SCOPING
CONSERVATION
(IN/OUT)
VALUE OF FEATURE
European
Out
Out
National
In
Sandwich Bay to
Hacklinge Marshes
SSSI
National
In
In
Out
7-26
ECOLOGICAL FEATURE
NATURE
SCOPING
CONSERVATION
(IN/OUT)
VALUE OF FEATURE
Habitats
On-site Habitat (good District
and poor semiimproved grassland)
In
Bats (foraging /
commuting)
Birds (wintering)
TBC
TBC
Local/District
TBC
TBC
In
Indicates that the nature conservation status (and therefore whether it is scoped in or out of the EcIA) of an
ecological feature is to be confirmed pending the results of further surveys to be completed during the
optimum survey season 2016.
7-27
ECOLOGICAL FEATURE
NATURE
SCOPING
CONSERVATION
(IN/OUT)
VALUE OF FEATURE
Birds (breeding)
TBC
Barn owl
District
Brown hare
Local
TBC
In
TBC
In
Out
7-28
ECOLOGICAL FEATURE
NATURE
SCOPING
CONSERVATION
(IN/OUT)
VALUE OF FEATURE
Site.
Reptile
Terrestrial
invertebrates
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
7-29
7.7
7.7.1
The proposed design includes the following integral measures to avoid or reduce effects upon
sensitive ecological features:
Avoidance
The EcIA considers the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development including these
measures. It then goes on to consider residual effects following the implementation of mitigation,
which includes:
Mitigation
Destruction of bat roosts (B31 and B46) and replacement roost creation under licence from
Natural England;
Provision of replacement barn owl roosting opportunities in B8;
Creation of replacement reptile habitat in the form of mosaics of rough grassland and scrub,
hedgerows with soft edges, south-facing bunds and field margins;
Sensitive timing of construction works and use of hoarding to ensure species present on Site
are not harmed or disturbed;
Detailed management plan to ensure retained, enhanced and new habitats are managed in a
wildlife-sensitive way, taking into account the intrinsic value of the habitat and its importance
as a resource for fauna using the Site;
Wildlife sensitive lighting strategy; and
Site-wide dog management strategy to include zones where dogs are encouraged to run
freely and engage in activity trails and areas where dog presence is controlled (on-lead) or
restricted to protect wildlife (in particular ground nesting birds).
Enhancement
Improve existing habitats, including additional planting of native hedgerow species into
hedgerows at Site boundaries;
Creation of new habitats to include wild bird cover at appropriate locations along field
margins/Site boundary, species rich hedgerows, native woodland, green verges alongside
road infrastructure, street tree planting and gardens/allotments;
Additional bat roosting opportunities will be designed into the development in the form of
inbuilt bat roosts and bat boxes where appropriate;
Inclusion of hibernacula (dead wood and brash piles) in areas on the Site managed for
wildlife; and
Nesting provision for raptors, such as kestrels Falco tinnunculus, and passerines incorporated
into buildings and green spaces throughout the Proposed Development.
7-30
7.7.3
Mitigation in the form of sensitive habitat management of the retained semi-natural habitats on the
Site (semi-improved grassland in particular) will be implemented during the construction phase. It
is likely that this management over the 15 year construction period will result in a positive effect
on some of the habitats on the Site and species using them. The effect of discontinuing sensitive
management during the operational phase (i.e. in the absence of mitigation) is considered in the
assessment below followed by an assessment of the effects post mitigation (i.e. continued
sensitive management during the operational phase).
7.7.4
An outline Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy for the Proposed Development has
been produced to accompany this application. This is included in Appendix 7.10.
7.7.6
During the construction phase of the Proposed Development, it is assumed that all semi-improved
grassland within the Development Zone, Special Outdoor Water-Based Recreation Zone and
the Phase 1 Detailed Application area (as shown on Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure
Figure 2.5) will be permanently lost. This has been estimated as a loss of approximately 90ha
which represents approximately 47% of the semi-improved grassland currently present on the
Site. The development zone will also fragment parcels of semi-improved grassland that are
currently well-connected on the Site. A proportion of the Structural Open Space and
Infrastructure Zone, Heritage Park Open Space Infrastructure Zone and Habitat Open Space
Zone will remain as semi-improved grassland. In the absence of mitigation, loss and
fragmentation of this habitat would result in a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative
significance at the district scale.
7.7.7
It is possible that during the construction phase pollution events could have detrimental effects
upon semi-improved grassland on the Site (for example through spillage of contaminants). Should
a spillage occur in the absence of mitigation a temporary (medium term) direct effect upon
semi-improved grassland of negative significance at the site scale is probable.
7.7.8
During the construction phase (15 years), in the absence of mitigation, the grassland
management regime will continue (on grassland where phases of development are not occurring).
Grass on the Site is currently cut for silage, up to twice a year (once between June and August
and then again in September should conditions permit); fertilisers and herbicides are applied to
the grassland to encourage vigorous grass growth and limit the growth of weeds. It is considered
near certain that a negligible effect on the unaffected areas of semi-improved grassland during
the construction phase would result.
MITIGATION
7.7.9
Approximately 100ha of semi-improved grassland will be retained and enhanced as part of the
Proposed Development (see Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure, Figure 2.5). During the
construction phase a modified grassland management regime will be implemented. The phased
development approach will result in some areas of grassland on the Site being left undisturbed
whilst other areas are developed. These undisturbed areas will be managed more sensitively,
including the cessation of use of fertilisers and limited (targeted) use of herbicides. The number
and timing of cuts will also be managed to ensure a higher quality sward structure and botanical
community type.
7-31
7.7.10
The landscaping strategy for the Proposed Development (Ref. 7.34) aims to retain connections
between surrounding grassland habitat and new landscaping with interconnecting grassed
borders and verges. This mitigation will not be functional until landscaping is complete after the
construction phase.
7.7.11
7.7.12
Following implementation of mitigation the residual effect upon this ecological feature will
comprise a combination of permanent loss of habitat within the development zone and some
fragmentation of the retained habitat. Consequently it is probable that the residual effect upon
semi-natural grassland habitat on the Site will be a direct temporary (medium term) effect of
negative significance at the local scale.
7.7.13
The cessation of the use of fertilisers and limited (targeted) use of herbicides along with the
sensitive timing of grass cuts during the construction period, will likely result in a direct
temporary positive (medium term) residual effect at the site scale.
7.7.14
It is near certain that following the implementation of standard mitigation measures and good
environmental site practices the effect upon the semi-natural grassland habitat on the Site as a
consequence of pollution events, should these occur, would be limited to the site scale only and
would constitute a direct temporary (short term) effect of negative significance.
BIRDS (WINTERING)
7.7.15
It is assumed that all wintering bird habitat (semi-improved grassland) within the Development
Zone, Phase 1 Detailed Application area and Special Outdoor Water-Based Recreation Zone
(as shown on Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure Figure 2.5) will be permanently lost during
the construction phase of the Proposed Development. This has been estimated as a loss of
approximately 90ha which represents approximately 47% of the wintering bird habitat present on
the Site. The Development Zone will also fragment parcels of wintering bird habitat that are
currently well-connected on the Site. The wintering bird community at the Site is considered to be
of Local conservation value, with the exception of short eared owl, which is evaluated to be of
District value. In the absence of mitigation, loss and fragmentation of this wintering bird habitat
would likely result in a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the
district scale on wintering birds.
7.7.16
During the 15 year construction phase of the Proposed Development, the volume of Site traffic
will increase considerably. This, in combination with an increase in human presence and site
preparation and construction activity is likely to result in disturbance of wintering birds in the
absence of mitigation. It is considered that a temporary (medium term) direct effect of negative
significance at the local scale is likely to occur.
7.7.17
During the construction phase and in the absence of mitigation, the grassland management
regime will continue (on grassland where phases of development are not occurring). Grass on the
Site is currently cut for silage, up to twice a year (once between June and August and then again
in September should conditions permit); fertilisers and herbicides are applied to the grassland to
encourage vigorous grass growth and limit the growth of weeds. It is therefore considered near
certain that a negligible effect on the wintering bird community as a result of continued
grassland management during the construction phase would occur.
7-32
7.7.18
Degradation of supporting habitat (pasture and farmland adjacent to the Site) through changes in
hydrology as a result of the construction phase of the Proposed Development is possible. In the
absence of mitigation, an indirect temporary (short term) effect of negative significance at the
local scale is possible.
MITIGATION
7.7.19
The retained semi-improved grassland at the Site will be enhanced for wintering birds through a
sensitive management regime (cessation of fertiliser input and limited (targeted) herbicide input;
the number and timing of cuts will also be determined with regard for wintering birds). It is also
possible that prey abundance will increase for short eared owl as a result of the implementation of
a sensitive management regime.
7.7.20
The landscaping strategy (Ref. 7.34) will include the incorporation of berry-bearing native shrubs
to provide food sources for wintering birds throughout the winter period. The creation of grass
borders and verges across the site will provide linking habitat between retained parcels and areas
of new habitat.
7.7.21
7.7.22
Following implementation of mitigation the residual effect upon wintering birds will comprise a
combination of permanent loss of approximately 47% of the wintering bird habitat within the
Development Zone, Phase 1 Detailed Application area and Special Outdoor Water-Based
Recreation Zone and some fragmentation of the retained habitat. Consequently, it is probable
that the residual effect upon wintering birds on the Site during the construction phase will be of
direct permanent (long term) negative significance at the local scale.
7.7.23
Approximately 100ha of retained habitat will be enhanced for wintering birds during the
construction phase through the cessation of the use of fertilisers and limited (targeted) use of
herbicides along with the sensitive timing of grass cuts. Consequently it is probable that the
residual effect upon wintering birds on the Site during the construction phase will be a direct
temporary (medium term) residual effect of positive significance at the site scale.
7.7.24
It is probable that following the implementation of standard mitigation measures and good
environmental site practices through the CEMP the effect of changes in hydrology upon
7-33
supporting habitat for wintering birds is likely to be of negligible significance. Effects on
wintering birds on the Site following the implementation of the CEMP as a consequence of
disturbance during the construction phase would likely be a temporary direct (medium term)
effect of negative significance at the local scale.
BARN OWL
7.7.25
During the 15 year construction phase of the Proposed Development, the volume of Site traffic
will increase considerably. Collisions with road traffic are the most commonly reported cause of
barn owl deaths, however, it is acknowledged that reported deaths have a strong bias towards
road deaths as birds lying dead on a roadside are generally more conspicuous and much more
likely to be seen and reported than birds lying dead in more remote locations (Ref. 7.35).
Although most of these records are from A roads (suggesting that fatalities are more likely to
occur on faster roads) a study undertaken by The Mammal Society found that the road speed limit
was not a significant factor in barn owl mortality (Ref. 7.36). As barn owls are foraging across the
Site, it is possible but uncertain that in the absence of mitigation, the direct loss of a barn owl
will occur; owing to the District conservation value of this important ecological feature this would
result in a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the district scale.
7.7.26
A pair of barn owls has been recorded roosting in the disused fire station building (B8) on the Site
during the summer. Owing to the low numbers of breeding barn owls recorded within Kent, the
pair on the Site has been evaluated to be of District nature conservation value. Building 8 is
proposed for change of use as part of the Development, therefore in the absence of mitigation,
the barn owl roost within it would be lost. It is also assumed that all suitable foraging habitat
(semi-improved grassland) within the Development Zone, Phase 1 Detailed Application area
and Special Outdoor Water-Based Recreation Zone (as shown on Parameter Plan 5: Green
Infrastructure Figure 2.5) will be permanently lost. This loss has been estimated at approximately
90ha which represents approximately 47% of the barn owl foraging habitat present on the Site.
The Development Zone will also fragment parcels of foraging habitat that are currently wellconnected within the Site. In the absence of mitigation, and when considered in combination, the
change of use proposed for Building 8, the loss of a roosting location and loss and fragmentation
of foraging habitat, is likely to result in a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative
significance at the district scale on barn owls.
7.7.27
It is assumed that in the absence of mitigation, the barn owl roost on the Site (B8) will be lost
during the construction phase (change of use of the building). Providing the barn owls can locate
an alternative roosting site in the area, they may attempt to continue to use the Site as foraging
habitat during the construction phase. Noise and movement generated by increased vehicle,
machinery and human presence (and associated lighting) at the Site during the construction
phase is likely to deter barn owls from feeding at the Site. In the absence of mitigation,
disturbance of foraging barn owls in the grassland habitat on the Site during the construction
phase of the Proposed Development is likely to constitute a temporary (long term) direct effect
of negative significance at the local scale.
7.7.28
During the construction phase and in the absence of mitigation, the grassland management
regime will continue (on grassland where phases of development are not occurring). Grass on the
Site is currently cut for silage, up to twice a year (once between June and August and then again
in September should conditions permit); fertilisers and herbicides are applied to the grassland to
encourage vigorous grass growth and limit the growth of weeds. In the absence of mitigation, it is
considered near certain that a negligible effect on the barn owl population on the Site as a
result of continued grassland management during the construction phase would result.
MITIGATION
7.7.29
A replacement barn owl roost of sufficient dimensions and a suitable access point will be created
within B8. Timing of works to, and in the vicinity of B8, will take barn owls into consideration,
ensuring that they are carried out outside the breeding season. This will prevent disturbance to
7-34
barn owls whilst they are roosting; the replacement roost will be installed over winter before the
end of February, prior to return of the barn owls in spring.
7.7.30
As detailed in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development, the contractor will sign up to the
Consideration Constructors Scheme, the objective of which is to minimise disturbance or negative
impact (in terms of noise, dirt and inconvenience). In addition to general good environmental site
practices, the co-ordination of deliveries to reduce frequency of vehicle movements and restriction
of site working hours to times when barn owls are less likely to be foraging (i.e. after dawn and
before dusk) will be implemented. Noise barriers will also be installed where necessary and
sensitive lighting schemes in the immediate vicinity of the replacement roost (see below) and in
the surrounding semi-natural habitat will also be employed. These measures are captured in the
outline CEMP (Appendix 2.2).
7.7.31
The retained semi-natural grassland habitat will be enhanced for barn owls through sensitive
management regimes (cessation of fertiliser input and limited (targeted) herbicide input; the
number and timing of cuts will also be determined with regard for barn owl prey i.e. small
mammals). Rough grassland with a tussocky structure and dense ground level thatch to provide
cover for small mammals (food source for barn owls) will be cultivated. Broad grassland verges
linking parcels of habitat will be created to form corridors for commuting and foraging barn owls.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
7.7.32
It is probable that following implementation of the CEMP, the likelihood of a barn owl fatality
arising from traffic collision will be reduced, however should this event occur, a residual effect
upon barn owls during the construction phase will be a direct permanent (long term) effect of
negative significance at the district scale.
7.7.33
It is possible that following the implementation of mitigation measures (including the replacement
roost in B8) and the CEMP the residual effect upon barn owls on the Site as a consequence of
disturbance during the construction phase will be a temporary direct (medium term) effect of
negative significance at the local scale.
7.7.34
7.7.35
The cessation of the use of fertilisers and limited (targeted) use of herbicides along with the
sensitive timing of grass cuts during the construction period, will likely result in a direct
temporary (medium term) positive residual effect at the site scale on barn owl.
BROWN HARE
7.7.36
During the construction phase the volume of site traffic will increase considerably; use of
machinery for soil and vegetation clearance will also pose a threat to brown hare. Although hares
have acute senses and run at speed to evade threats (Ref. 7.37), in areas where brown hare are
likely to be present, grassland habitat and field margins, construction activities and associated
traffic may harm or kill sheltering animals. Leverets, or young hares, are particularly susceptible
as they remain unattended in forms during the day. Hares may also become trapped in pits
resulting from earthworks or containers, pipes and fencing material associated with construction
activity. It is unlikely that a significant number of hare are at risk of direct mortality during the
construction phase. In the absence of mitigation, construction activity on the Site is therefore likely
to result in a direct permanent (medium term) effect of negative significance at the site scale
on brown hare.
7.7.37
All brown hare habitat (semi-improved grassland) within the Development Zone, Phase 1
Detailed Application area and Special Outdoor Water-Based Recreation Zone (as shown on
Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure Figure 2.5) will be permanently lost. This loss has been
7-35
estimated at approximately 90ha which represents approximately 47% of brown hare habitat
present on the Site. The Development Zone will also fragment parcels of brown hare habitat that
are currently well-connected on the Site; this may prevent hares from moving freely in and
between existing areas of suitable habitat. Taking into consideration the extent of loss and
fragmentation of brown hare habitat in the absence of mitigation, the Proposed Development
would likely result in a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the
local scale.
7.7.38
Disturbance of brown hares is likely during the construction phase of the Proposed Development.
Noise and movement from machinery, vehicles and the presence of humans is likely to disturb
brown hare, particularly breeding females (Ref. 7.38). Disturbance to hares on the Site during the
construction phase in the absence of mitigation is likely to result in a direct temporary (medium
term) effect of negative significance at the local scale.
7.7.39
During the construction phase and in the absence of mitigation, the grassland management
regime will continue (on grassland where phases of development are not occurring). Grass on the
Site is currently cut for silage, up to twice a year (once between June and August and then again
in September should conditions permit). In the absence of mitigation, it is considered near certain
that a negligible effect on the brown hare population on the Site as a result of continued
grassland management during the construction phase would result.
MITIGATION
7.7.40
As detailed in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development, the contractor will sign up to the
Consideration Constructors Scheme, the objective of which is to minimise disturbance or negative
impact (in terms of noise, dirt and inconvenience). In addition to general good environmental site
practices (i.e. preventing access to pits and ensuring the site is kept clean and free of materials
that could trap brown hare), the co-ordination of deliveries to reduce frequency of vehicle
movements and restriction of site working hours will reduce the risk of direct mortality and
disturbance. These measures are captured in the CEMP (Appendix 2.2).
7.7.41
The sensitive management of approximately 100ha of semi-improved grassland on the Site for
brown hare will provide suitable foraging and sheltering opportunities and mitigate for the loss of
habitat proposed as part of the Development.
7.7.42
Further habitat will be created on the Site in the form of scrub, hedgerows, and woodland edge
(landscaping strategy (Ref. 7.34)); habitats that are currently absent from the Site or present in
low quantities and of low quality. This mosaic of habitat offers hares vegetation of varying height,
composition and structure (in combination with open grassland on the Site and arable habitat
surrounding the Site) required for breeding, feeding and laying-up. The implementation of wild
bird cover margins around the edges of the Site boundary (where appropriate) will also offer a
source of food and shelter.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
7.7.43
7.7.44
Following implementation of mitigation, there will be a loss of approximately 90ha of brown hare
habitat and the retention of approximately 100ha of brown hare habitat during the construction
phase. It is considered that the resulting residual effect upon brown hare at the Site as a result of
the construction phase will likely be a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative
significance at the site scale.
7-36
7.7.45
The cessation of the use of fertilisers and limited (targeted) use of herbicides along with the
sensitive timing of grass cuts during the construction period, will likely result in a direct
temporary (medium term) positive residual effect at the site scale on brown hare.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
STATUTORY SITES
7.7.46
7.7.47
During the operational phase, hydrological changes associated with surface runoff, drainage and
flood water could have a significant effect on the semi-improved grassland habitat on the Site.
Alterations to botanical composition are possible, and in the absence of mitigation, it is possible
but uncertain that a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the local
scale may occur.
7.7.48
Approximately 100ha of semi-improved grassland habitat will be retained as part of the Proposed
Development (Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure, Figure 2.5). This grassland will be subject
to a sensitive management regime (including the cessation of fertilisation, limited (targeted) use of
herbicides and sensitive cutting regime) during the construction phase. In the absence of
mitigation (i.e. continued implementation of a sensitive management regime which will commence
during the construction phase and continue during the operational phase), it is likely that the
grassland will revert to a less diverse sward structure and botanical community resulting in a
direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the local scale.
7.7.49
MITIGATION
7.7.50
The implementation of SuDS (see Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure, Figure 2.5, Chapter
11 Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage and Flood Risk Assessment and Outline
Drainage Strategy, Appendix 11.1) will ensure that the habitat supporting the wintering bird
community is protected from changes in hydrological regime.
7.7.51
7.7.52
The implementation of SuDS on the Site will likely result in a negligible residual effect on the
semi-improved grassland habitat on the Site.
7.7.53
The continued implementation of a sensitive management regime will likely result in a smaller
area of more structurally and botanically diverse neutral grassland (c. 100ha) on the Site. It is
therefore considered likely that a direct permanent (long term) residual effect of positive
significance at the local scale will occur.
7-37
BIRDS (WINTERING)
7.7.54
During the operational phase, it is probable that wintering birds will be lost through cat (and
potentially dog) predation. A survey undertaken by The Mammal Society found that 24% of the
prey items brought home by a sample of 986 cats were birds (Ref. 7.39). Whilst ground nesting
birds and passerines are at greater risk from predation (skylark in particular), short eared owl
could be impacted by increased traffic movement on the Site (direct loss through traffic collision)
and a reduction in prey availability due to predation of small mammals by cats (the same survey
found that mammals made up 69% of cat prey items). Taking into consideration the Local nature
conservation value of the wintering bird population at the Site and the District level value of short
eared owl, a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the local scale on
the wintering bird community and a direct / indirect permanent (long term) effect of negative
significance at the district scale on short eared owl is likely.
7.7.55
The operational phase of the Proposed Development will bring with it a significant increase in
activity levels i.e. vehicle and machinery noise and movement, the day-to-day presence (and
associated noise and movement) of humans working, living and participating in recreation and
additional lighting provision. Whilst this is likely to be concentrated in the Development Zone,
Phase 1 Detailed Application area and Special Outdoor Water-Based Recreation Zone, dog
walking in semi-natural areas will impact upon the wintering bird community. In the absence of
mitigation, a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the district scale
is likely.
7.7.56
Degradation of grassland habitat on the Site through changes in hydrology resulting from the
Proposed Development is possible. Changes in hydrology can alter the botanical and invertebrate
composition of foraging grounds for wintering birds; in the absence of mitigation, an indirect
permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the local scale is possible but
uncertain.
7.7.57
Approximately 100ha of semi-improved grassland habitat will be retained as part of the Proposed
Development. This grassland (in addition to other semi-natural habitats on the Site) will be subject
to a sensitive management regime (including the cessation of fertilisation, limited (targeted) use of
herbicides and sensitive cutting regime i.e. cutting will be avoided between April and August)
during the construction phase. This management regime will provide improved foraging resource
for wintering birds and also result in an increase in prey abundance for short eared owl. In the
absence of mitigation (i.e. continued sensitive management which will commence during the
construction phase and continue during the operational phase) it is likely that the effects of the
Proposed Development on wintering birds will revert from a probable direct / indirect
permanent (medium term) residual effect of positive significance at the site scale achieved
during the 15 year construction phase to a direct / indirect permanent (long term) effect of
negative significance at the site scale.
MITIGATION
7.7.58
Where major new roads intersect significant areas of open short eared owl foraging habitat high
hedgerows will be cultivated as a buffer between the road and the adjacent habitat on both sides.
This will force birds to fly up and over the screen and over the passing traffic below (Ref. 7.35).
7.7.59
7-38
7.7.60
The implementation of SuDS (see Chapter 11 Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage
and Appendix 11.1) will ensure that the habitat supporting the wintering bird community is
protected from changes in hydrological regime.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
7.7.61
The control of cat predation of birds is impractical to mitigate on a large scale; a residual effect of
the same magnitude, duration and extent is likely to persist despite the implementation of
mitigation
7.7.62
Continued implementation of a sensitive management regime during the operational phase will
result in a probable direct permanent (long term) effect of positive significance at the site
scale.
7.7.63
Following implementation of mitigation traffic collision with a short eared owl is unlikely; however,
if it a fatality did occur the residual effect on short eared owl of the same magnitude, duration and
extent would remain.
7.7.64
The provision of alternative dog walking areas, accompanied by signage and awareness-raising
amongst Site residents, is likely to contribute towards a reduction in the disturbance caused to
wintering birds by dog walkers on the Site and is therefore considered to result in a direct
permanent (long term) residual effect of negative significance at the local scale.
7.7.65
The implementation of SuDS on the Site will likely result in a negligible residual effect on the
wintering bird community as a result of changes in the hydrological regime.
BARN OWL
7.7.66
It is possible that barn owls using the Site will be at increased risk of traffic collision during the
operational phase. Five new access points linked by four primary routes and one secondary route
(Parameter Plan 2: Access and Movement, Figure 2.2) are proposed as part of the Development,
one of which will bisect an area of foraging habitat due to be retained. In the absence of
mitigation, a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the district scale
on the barn owl population at the Site is possible but uncertain.
7.7.67
The presence of cats on the Site during the operational phase is also likely to have an indirect
effect on barn owls. Cats will predate on small mammals at the Site resulting in a reduction in
prey availability for barn owls; in the absence of mitigation, an indirect permanent (long term)
effect of negative significance at the district scale on barn owls is possible.
7.7.68
In the absence of mitigation, habitat fragmentation during the operational phase may result from
the implementation of an insensitive lighting regime around the roost and suitable foraging habitat
within the Site boundary. This could deter barn owls from using the roost and, as barn owls are
known to hunt small mammals across open habitats in low light conditions (Ref. 7.40), also
reduce foraging opportunities in the semi-improved grassland and verges within the Site. A direct
permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the district scale on the barn owl
population on the Site is possible in the absence of mitigation.
7.7.69
As the Site is currently disused, the barn owls have become accustomed to a low level of
disturbance. The operational phase of the Proposed Development will bring with it a significant
increase in activity levels i.e. vehicle and machinery noise and movement, the day-to-day
presence (and associated noise and movement) of humans working, living and participating in
recreation and additional lighting provision. Although barn owls are shy, unobtrusive birds, which
generally prefer to hide away in the dark, providing they have somewhere to hide, they can
tolerate a remarkable amount of noise (Ref. 7.40). Assuming that a replacement roost is
provided, in the absence of mitigation, it is likely that a direct temporary (medium term) effect
of negative significance at the local scale will occur as a result of increased disturbance during
the operational phase.
7-39
7.7.70
Approximately 100ha of semi-improved grassland habitat will be retained as part of the Proposed
Development. This grassland will be subject to a sensitive management regime (including the
cessation of fertilisation, limited (targeted) use of herbicides and sensitive cutting regime) during
the construction phase. This regime will provide more suitable habitat for small mammals such as
voles, shrews and mice which in turn provide an increased food source for barn owls. In the
absence of mitigation (i.e. continued sensitive management which will commence during the
construction phase and continue during the operational phase), it is likely that the effects of the
Proposed Development on barn owl will revert from an indirect temporary (medium term)
residual effect of negative significance at the local scale during the 15 year construction
phase to an indirect permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the district
scale.
MITIGATION
7.7.71
Where major new roads intersect significant areas of open barn owl foraging habitat, high
hedgerows will be cultivated as a buffer between the road and the adjacent habitat on both sides.
This will force birds to fly up and over the screen and over the passing traffic below (Ref. 7.35).
Sensitive light management around the roost (B8) and surrounding semi-improved grassland on
the Site will be implemented as part of the Proposed Development.
7.7.72
Users of the building where the barn owl roost is retained will be prevented from accessing the
roost and encouraged to keep disturbance (above normal daily activities) to a minimum.
7.7.73
7.7.74
Following implementation of mitigation, the risk of a traffic collision event killing a barn owl will be
reduced; however, if a fatality did occur, the residual effect upon barn owl as a result of direct loss
through traffic collisions on the Site during the operational phase will be a direct permanent
(long term) effect of negative significance at the district scale.
7.7.75
Sensitive lighting management directly around the roost and across suitable foraging habitat
within the Site and prevention of excessive disturbance by the occupiers of B8 will result in a
negligible residual effect upon the barn owl population.
7.7.76
Continued implementation of a sensitive management regime during the operational phase will
result in a probable indirect permanent (long term) effect of positive significance at the site
scale on barn owls.
BROWN HARE
7.7.77
During the operational phase, there will be an increased risk that hares may be killed or injured on
new roads within the development, or be more likely to be killed or injured on the surrounding
roads which will be subject to increased traffic flows as a result of the development. In the
absence of mitigation, direct mortality during the operational phase could result in a direct
permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the local scale.
7.7.78
Brown hare are mainly nocturnal and spend the majority of the night time feeding (Ref. 7.41)
Significant disturbance to brown hare between dusk and dawn during the operational phase is
unlikely. As hares tend to lie up in long grassland during the daytime, the majority of
disturbances associated with the development i.e. vehicle noise and movement, the day-to-day
presence (and associated noise and movement) of humans working, living and participating in
recreation will be concentrated within the Development Zone, will occur during the day and will
be unlikely to have a significant impact on hares. The exception to this is the potential impact of
dog walking within the green spaces on the Site. It is anticipated that 27% of new home owners
7-40
will have dogs (Ref. 7.42); this could have a significant effect on the hare population on the Site.
In the absence of mitigation, it is likely that a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative
significance at the local scale on the brown hare population at the Site could result.
7.7.79
Approximately 100ha of semi-improved grassland habitat will be retained as part of the Proposed
Development. This grassland will be subject to a sensitive management regime (including the
cessation of fertilisation, limited (targeted) use of herbicides and sensitive cutting regime i.e. to
avoid new born leverets) during the construction phase. This regime will provide more suitable
sheltering and feeding habitat for brown hares and their young. In the absence of mitigation (i.e.
continued sensitive management which will commence during the construction phase and
continue during the operational phase), it is likely that the effects of the Proposed Development
on brown hare will revert from a positive residual effect at the site scale during the 15 year
construction phase to an overall negligible effect when compared to baseline conditions.
MITIGATION
7.7.80
A Dog Management Strategy will be implemented at the Development during the operational
phase with the aim of reducing the use of the designated sites in close proximity to the Proposed
Development by the new residents (i.e. by retaining them on Site) and ensuring that areas
allocated for wildlife on the Site are subject to minimal disturbance (i.e. dogs excluded or where
leads are required).
7.7.81
7.7.82
The prevention of hares from accessing the roads within and around the Proposed Development
is impractical and would significantly alter the open green space character of the Site. It is
therefore probable that the residual effect of increased traffic on the brown hare population at the
Site during the operational phase will be a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative
significance at the local scale.
7.7.83
Disturbance to brown hare caused during the operational phase of the Proposed Development is
manageable to a certain extent through responsible dog walking on the Site. This relies heavily on
the good will of residents, and whilst it minimises the probability of negative effects upon hares
on Site, it may not remove effects to a negligible scale. It is therefore concluded likely that
disturbance during the operational phase will still have a direct permanent (long term) effect of
negative significance at the local scale on the brown hare population.
7.7.84
It is probable that the effect of the continued implementation of a sensitive management regime
during the operational phase will result in a direct permanent (long term) effect of positive
significance at the local scale on brown hare.
7.8
7.8.1
This Ecology Chapter has been prepared on the assumption that the recommended ecological
mitigation detailed will be designed into the Proposed Development during the detailed design
stage.
7.8.2
Any limitations applicable to individual technical surveys are documented within the relevant
technical appendices. No limitations sufficiently significant to influence the interpretation of the
results of these surveys were encountered.
7.9
SUMMARY
7-41
7.9.1
Although the Proposed Development does not require land take from any statutory or nonstatutory designates sites, it does lie in proximity to areas designated for assemblages of habitats
or species important at international and national levels. The Site includes large areas of semiimproved neutral grassland and poor semi-improved grassland, a scarce habitat within the district
of Thanet. This important ecological feature is assessed to be of District conservation value.
Species of conservation value on the Site have been identified as the wintering bird community
(Local value, with the exception of short eared owl, which is assessed as being of District value),
barn owl (District value) and brown hare (Local value).
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
7.9.2
Supplementary documentation regarding potential effects upon European designated sites and
their component SSSIs and NNRs (Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA, SAC and Ramsar Site,
Thanet Coast SSSI, Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI and Sandwich and Pegwell Bay
NNR) is provided in the Information for Habitats Regulation Assessment report contained in
Appendix 7.1.
7.9.3
During the construction phase, on-site habitat of ecological importance will be lost to and
fragmented by the Proposed Development resulting in a direct permanent (long term) effect of
negative significance at the District scale for the duration of the construction phase. Retention of
approximately 100ha of grassland on the Site through the construction phase will mitigate for
some of this loss, resulting in a residual effect of direct temporary (medium term) negative
significance at the local scale. The implementation of a sensitive management regime during the
construction phase is likely to have a direct temporary positive (medium term) residual effect at
the site scale.
7.9.4
The wintering bird community will also be impacted by the loss and fragmentation of grassland
habitat at the Site. Taking into consideration the Local value of the wintering bird community and
the District value of the short eared owl, this impact is assessed as being of direct permanent
(long term) negative significance at the District scale. Despite the retention of wintering bird
habitat, it is probable that the residual effect upon wintering birds through loss and fragmentation
of habitat on the Site during the construction phase is of direct permanent (long term) negative
significance at the local scale.
7.9.5
The continued implementation of the existing grassland management regime on the Site during
the construction phase is likely to result in a negligible effect on wintering birds. However, the
implementation of a sensitive management regime for the retained semi-natural habitat on the
Site during the construction phase is likely to result in a direct temporary (medium term) residual
effect of positive significance at the site scale.
7.9.6
Disturbance of wintering birds during the construction phase is likely to result in a temporary
(medium term) direct effect of negative significance at the local scale; a residual effect of the
same magnitude, duration and extent is likely to persist despite the implementation of mitigation.
7.9.7
Degradation of supporting wintering bird habitat during the construction phase as a result of
changes in hydrology could result in an indirect temporary (short term) effect of negative
significance at the local scale. Following implementation of standard mitigation measures and
good environmental site practices effects arising from hydrological changes are likely to be
negligible.
7.9.8
The direct loss of barn owl arising from traffic collision during the construction phase would result
in a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the district scale. Good
environmental site practices, such as limiting working hours to times when barn owls are less
likely to be foraging may reduce the likelihood of barn owl fatality, however, the risk cannot be
eliminated. For this reason, the residual effect on barn owls as a result of increased traffic on the
Site remains of the same magnitude, duration and extent.
7-42
7.9.9
The effect of loss of the barn owl roost in combination with the loss and fragmentation of barn owl
foraging habitat is likely to result in a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance
at the district scale. Provision of a replacement roost and retention of approximately 90ha of
grassland will result in a residual effect of temporary direct (medium term) negative significance at
the local scale.
7.9.10
The continued implementation of the existing grassland management regime on the Site during
the construction phase is likely to result in a negligible effect on barn owl. However, the
implementation of a sensitive management regime for the retained grassland habitat on the Site
during the construction phase is likely to result in a direct temporary (medium term) residual effect
of positive significance at the site scale.
7.9.11
Disturbance of barn owl associated with the construction phase will constitute a temporary (long
term) direct effect of negative significance at the local scale. Following the implementation of a
CEMP outlining good environmental practice measures the residual effect upon barn owls at the
Site during the construction phase will be a temporary direct (medium term) effect of negative
significance at the local scale.
7.9.12
Direct mortality of brown hare resulting from traffic collision during the construction phase is likely
to result in a direct permanent (medium term) effect of negative significance at the site scale.
Following the implementation of standard mitigation measures and good environmental site
practices, the residual effect upon brown hare as a consequence of increase vehicular movement
and construction related activities is likely to be negligible.
7.9.13
The loss and fragmentation of brown hare habitat during the construction phase is likely to result
in a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the local scale. The
implementation of sensitive habitat management for hare during this 15 year phase could reduce
the impact of habitat loss and fragmentation to a direct permanent (long term) residual effect of
negative significance at the site scale.
7.9.14
The continued implementation of the existing grassland management regime on the Site during
the construction phase is likely to result in a negligible effect on brown hare. However, the
implementation of a sensitive management regime for the retained grassland habitat on the Site
during the construction phase is likely to result in a direct temporary (medium term) residual effect
of positive significance at the site scale.
7.9.15
Disturbance of brown hare through increased site activity associated with the construction phase
could constitute a direct temporary (medium term) effect of negative significance at the local
scale. Through the implementation of a CEMP outlining good environmental practice measures, it
is probable that the residual effect on brown hare will be negligible.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
7.9.16
Supplementary documentation regarding potential effects upon European designated sites and
their component SSSIs and NNRs (Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA, SAC and Ramsar Site,
Thanet Coast SSSI, Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI and Sandwich and Pegwell Bay
NNR) is provided in the Information for Habitats Regulation Assessment report contained in
Appendix 7.1.
7.9.17
Hydrological changes associated with the operational phase could have a significant impact on
the semi-improved grassland habitat on the Site. It is possible but uncertain that a direct
permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the local scale may occur. The
implementation of SuDS on the Site will likely result in a negligible residual effect.
7.9.18
In the absence of continued sensitive management of the grassland habitat on the Site, it is likely
that the grassland will revert to a less diverse sward structure and botanical community resulting
in a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the local scale. With mitigation
7-43
in place, continued sensitive management is likely to have a direct permanent (long term) residual
effect of positive significance at the local scale.
7.9.19
Impacts on wintering birds (particularly ground nesting birds and passerines) through predation by
cats during the operational phase could constitute a direct permanent (long term) effect of
negative significance at the local scale. Mitigation for this issue at large scale developments is
impractical, therefore a residual effect of the same magnitude, duration and extent is probable.
7.9.20
The presence of cats is also likely to indirectly impact short eared owl during the operational
phase through the reduction of prey availability. This in combination with increased traffic
movement on the Site (and therefore the increased risk of traffic collision) constitutes an effect of
direct / indirect permanent (long term) negative significance at the district scale on short eared
owl. Measures to reduce the likelihood of traffic collision events for short eared owl will be
implemented. As the risk of fatalities cannot be removed and the impact of the loss significant on
the short eared owl population in the area, the residual effect on short eared owl of the same
magnitude, duration and extent would remain.
7.9.21
In the absence of continued sensitive management of the grassland and foraging resource habitat
on the Site, it is likely that a direct / indirect permanent (long term) effect of negative significance
at the site scale on wintering birds will occur. With mitigation in place, however, continued
sensitive management is likely to have a direct / indirect permanent (long term) residual effect of
positive significance at the site scale on wintering birds.
7.9.22
Dog walking within areas used by wintering birds is likely to have a disturbance effect of direct
permanent (long term) negative significance at the district scale during the operational phase of
the Proposed Development. A dog management strategy will discourage dog walkers from using
sensitive areas and encourage use of amenity dog-friendly areas; with this mitigation in place, a
direct permanent (long term) residual effect of negative significance at the local scale is possible.
7.9.23
Degradation of grassland habitat on the Site through changes in hydrology is possible. This in
turn can alter the botanical and invertebrate composition of foraging habitat for wintering birds; it
is possible but uncertain that an indirect permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at
the local scale could result. The implementation of SuDS on the Site will likely result in a
negligible residual effect on the wintering bird community as a result of changes in the
hydrological regime.
7.9.24
It is possible that increased traffic levels associated with the operational phase of the Proposed
Development could result in barn owl fatalities at the Site, resulting in a direct permanent (long
term) effect of negative significance at the district scale on the barn owl population. Mitigation may
reduce the likelihood of a barn owl fatality, but the impact of a fatality would remain of significance
at the district scale.
7.9.25
A reduction in prey availability owing to cat predation would likely result in a permanent indirect
(long term) effect of negative significance at the district scale on barn owls in the absence of
mitigation. Although controlling cat predation on the small mammal population is difficult on such
a large scale, the implementation of a sensitive grassland management regime to increase
abundance of small mammals during the construction phase and continued implementation
during the operational phase would likely result in an indirect permanent (long term) effect of
positive significance at the site scale on barn owls.
7.9.26
Habitat fragmentation through use of an insensitive light regime during the operational phase
could result in a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the district scale on
barn owls. Sensitive lighting directly around the barn owl roost and across foraging habitat will
reduce this effect to negligible significance.
7.9.27
Disturbance to barn owl during the operational phase is likely to have a direct temporary (medium
term) effect of negative significance at the local scale. The prevention of excessive disturbance by
the occupiers of the building containing the barn owl roost will result in a negligible residual effect.
7-44
7.9.28
Increased traffic movements with the Site and on roads surrounding the Site are likely to result in
increased brown hare mortality. This could constitute a direct permanent (long term) effect of
negative significance on brown hare at the local scale. Mitigation for this impact is impractical at a
large scale development and therefore a residual effect of the same magnitude, duration and
extent is likely.
7.9.29
Disturbance of brown hare by dog walking on the Site could have a significant effect on the
population during the operational phase. A likely direct permanent (long term) effect of negative
significance at the local scale could occur. Implementation of a dog management strategy is likely
to reduce dog presence in sensitive areas; however, it is likely that a residual effect of the same
magnitude, duration and extent will result.
7.9.30
In the absence of continued sensitive management of the grassland habitat on the Site during the
operational phase, it is likely that effects of brown hare as a result of the Proposed Development
will revert from a positive residual effect at the site scale achieved during the construction period
to an overall negligible effect. With mitigation in the form of continued sensitive management in
place, a direct permanent (long term) effect of positive significance at the local scale is probable.
7-45
Table 7.10: Summary of Effects for Ecology and Nature Conservation
DESCRIPTION
IMPORTANT
OF SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
FEATURE
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E
POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
/ LT
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
NEGATIVE
MT /
LT
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
Statutory
Sites: Thanet
Coast and
Sandwich Bay
SPA, SAC and
Ramsar site,
See Information for Habitats Regulation Assessment report contained in Appendix 7.1.
Sandwich Bay
to Hacklinge
Marshes SSSI
and Sandwich
and Pegwell
Bay NNR.
Direct habitat loss
District
Negative P
D
LT
Retention of significant areas Local
and
of existing grassland;
fragmentation.
sensitive management to
improve sward diversity and
quality.
On-site semi
improved
grassland
Degradation by
water borne
pollution.
Site
Negative T
Changes in
management
regime.
Negligible
N/A
N/A N/A
MT
N/A
Landscaping strategy to
retain connections between
retained grassland and new
landscaping with interconnecting grassed borders
and verges.
Implementation of standard Site
mitigation measures
including a variety of good
environmental sites practices
(CEMP).
Cessation of use of fertilisers Site
and limited (targeted) use of
herbicides and sensitive
timing of grass cuts.
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016
Negative
MT
Thanet N/A
Local
Plan
2006
Negative
ST
N/A
N/A
Positive
MT
N/A
N/A
7-46
DESCRIPTION
IMPORTANT
OF SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
FEATURE
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
/ LT
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E
POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE
District
Negative P
LT
Negative
LT
Local
Negative T
MT
Local
Negative
MT
Changes in
management
regime.
Negligible
N/A
Site
Positive
MT
N/A
N/A
Degradation of
supporting habitat
through
hydrological
changes.
Direct loss.
Local
Negative T
ST
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
District
Negative P
LT
Implementation of standard
mitigation measures
including a variety of good
environmental sites practices
(CEMP).
Cessation of use of fertilisers
and limited (targeted) use of
herbicides and sensitive
timing of grass cuts.
Implementation of standard
mitigation measures
including a variety of good
environmental sites practices
(CEMP).
Implementation of standard
mitigation measures
including a variety of good
environmental sites practices
and sensitive light
management (CEMP).
District
Negative
LT
District
Negative P
LT
Negative
MT
NPPF
2012;
ODPM
Circular
06/
2005,
Thanet
Local
Plan
2006
NPPF
2012;
Disturbance.
Birds
(wintering)
N/A N/A
N/A
Barn owl
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
NEGATIVE
MT /
LT
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
7-47
DESCRIPTION
IMPORTANT
OF SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
FEATURE
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E
POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
/ LT
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
NEGATIVE
MT /
LT
Disturbance.
Local
Negative T
Changes in
management
regime.
Negligible
N/A
Direct loss.
Site
Negative P
MT
Local
Negative P
LT
N/A N/A
LT
N/A
Negative
MT
Positive
MT
N/A
Negative
Brown hare
Habitat loss and
fragmentation
LT
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
ODPM
Circular
06/
2005,
Thanet
Local
Plan
2006
N/A
WCA 1981 (as
amended)
N/A
N/A
7-48
DESCRIPTION
IMPORTANT
OF SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
FEATURE
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E
POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE
Disturbance.
Local
Negative T
Changes in
management
regime.
Negligible
N/A
N/A N/A
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
/ LT
MT
N/A
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
NEGATIVE
MT /
LT
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
N/A
Local
Plan
2006
N/A
Positive
MT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Positive
LT
N/A
N/A
Negative
LT
N/A
Operation
Degradation
through air borne
pollution,
hydrological
changes and
increased
recreational
pressure.
Hydrological
changes.
Changes in
management
regime.
Direct loss.
See Information for Habitats Regulation Assessment report contained in Appendix 7.1.
Statutory
Sites: Thanet
Coast and
Sandwich Bay
SPA, SAC and
Ramsar site,
Sandwich Bay
to Hacklinge
Marshes SSSI
and Sandwich
and Pegwell
Bay NNR.
Local
Negative P
D
LT
Implementation of SuDS.
Negligible
On-site semi
improved
Local
Negative P
D
LT
Continued implementation of Local
grassland
sensitive grassland
management regime.
Local
Negative P
D
LT
Cat predation on large scale Local
impractical to mitigate.
Birds
(wintering)
7-49
DESCRIPTION
IMPORTANT
OF SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
FEATURE
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E
POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
/ LT
District (short
eared owl)
Negative P
D/I
LT
Disturbance.
District
Negative P
LT
Degradation of
supporting habitat
through
hydrological
changes.
Changes in
management
regime.
Local
Negative P
LT
Site
Negative P
D/I
LT
Direct loss.
District
Negative P
D/I
LT
Barn owl
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
NEGATIVE
MT /
LT
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
Negative
D / I LT
5,
Thanet
Local
Plan
2006
NPPF NERC Act 2006
2012,
ODPM
Circular
06/200
5
Negative
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Positive
D / I LT
N/A
N/A
Negative
D / I LT
LT
7-50
DESCRIPTION
IMPORTANT
OF SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
FEATURE
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E
POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
/ LT
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
NEGATIVE
MT /
LT
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
2005,
Thanet
Local
Plan
2006
NPPF N/A
2012;
ODPM
Circular
06/
2005
NPPF WCA 1981 (as
2012; amended)
ODPM
Circular
06/
2005
Habitat
fragmentation.
District
Negative P
LT
N/A
Disturbance.
Local
Negative T
MT
Prevent access to
replacement roost by
building users and
discourage disturbance.
N/A
Positive
LT
N/A
Negative
LT
Changes in
management
regime.
District
Negative P
LT
Direct loss.
Local
Negative P
LT
Negligible
Brown hare
N/A
7-51
DESCRIPTION
IMPORTANT
OF SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
FEATURE
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E
POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE
Disturbance.
Local
Negative P
Changes in
management
regime.
Negligible
N/A
N/A N/A
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
/ LT
LT
N/A
Implementation of dog
Local
management strategy,
encourage use of amenity
areas by public (discourage
access to nature areas).
Continued implementation of Local
sensitive grassland
management regime.
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
NEGATIVE
MT /
LT
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
Negative
LT
N/A
N/A
Positive
LT
N/A
N/A
Key to table:
P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term
N/A = Not Applicable
* = Although this mitigation reduces the risk of the effect i.e. likelihood of the effect occurring, the impact should the effect occur will be high and therefore the residual effect remains the same.
7-52
7.10
REFERENCES
Ref. 7.1
Her Majestys Stationery Office (2010), The Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010 (as amended).
Ref. 7.2
Her Majestys Stationery Office (1981), The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended).
Ref. 7.3
Her Majestys Stationery Office (2000), Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
Ref. 7.4
Ref. 7.5
Ref. 7.6
Ref. 7.7
Ref. 7.8
Ref. 7.9
Ref. 7.10
Kent County Council (2009), Unlocking Kents Potential: Kent County Councils
Framework for Regeneration.
Ref. 7.11
Ref. 7.12
Defra (2011), Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England's wildlife and ecosystem
services available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity2020-a-strategy-for-england-s-wildlife-and-ecosystem-services
Ref. 7.13
Ref. 7.14
Ref. 7.15
Ref. 7.16
Ref. 7.17
Collins, J. (ed.) (2016), Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice
rd
Guidelines (3 edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.
nd
edition).The
7-53
Ref. 7.18
Bibby, C.J, Burgess, N.D, Hill, D.A, Mustoe, S. (2000), Bird Census Techniques
nd
(2 edition).
Ref. 7.19
Ref. 7.20
Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom (2010), ARG UK Advice
Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index.
Ref. 7.21
Oldham, R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S., and Jeffcote M. (2000), Evaluating the
suitability of habitat for the great crested newt. Herpetological Journal 10: 143155.
Ref. 7.22
English Nature (2001), Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature,
Peterborough.
Ref. 7.23
Natural England Standing Advice: Great crested newts: surveys and mitigation for
development projects accessed online at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/greatcrested-newts-surveys-and-mitigation-for-development-projects (accessed March
2016).
Ref. 7.24
Ref. 7.25
Ref. 7.26
Ref. 7.27
Ref. 7.28
Ref. 7.29
Kent Ornithological Society (2015), Kent Breeding Bird Atlas 2008 13.
Ref. 7.30
Kent Ornithological Society (2015), Kent Bird Report 2013, No. 62.
Ref. 7.31
Ref. 7.32
Ref. 7.33
Young, J. S, Ryan, H., Thompson, S., Newcombe, M., and Puckett, J. (2015),
Mammals of Kent. Kent Mammal Group.
Ref. 7.34
Ref. 7.35
th
7-54
Ref. 7.36
Ref. 7.37
Ref. 7.38
Ref. 7.39
Woods, M. McDonald, A., and Harris, S. Domestic Cat Predation on Wildlife. The
Mammal Society.
Ref. 7.40
Barn Owl Trust (2015), Barn Owls and Rural Planning Applications a Guide.
Ref. 7.41
Ref. 7.42
8-1
8.1
INTRODUCTION
8.1.1
This Chapter reports the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the Site and
surrounding area in terms of landscape and views. Where appropriate it also identifies proposed
mitigation measures to prevent, minimise or control likely negative landscape and visual effects
arising from the Proposed Development and the subsequent anticipated residual effects.
8.1.2
8.1.3
This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) should be read together with the
Introductory Chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 4), as well as Chapter 15 Cumulative Effects.
8.2
8.2.1
Details of the relevant legislation, policy and guidance are provided in Appendix 8.1. National
landscape guidance uses landscape character as a basis for policy. Natural England, formerly
the Countryside Agency, developed methodology for the character-based approach to landscape
assessment (2002). This sets out landscape assessment methodology, which provides a
foundation, with adaptation, for use in project-specific landscape impact assessment. It describes
the application of landscape character assessment at different scales: the national/regional scale,
local authority scale and local scale.
8.2.2
This assessment has been carried out with reference to the Guidelines for Landscape & Visual
Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, 2013 (referred to hereafter as the Guidelines) (Ref. 8.8) and
the Landscape Institute Advice Note on Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual
Assessment (Ref. 8.9).
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
8.2.3
8-2
PLANNING POLICY
8.2.4
Planning policy at the national and local level and its relevance to environmental design and
assessment is confirmed in Chapter 1 Introduction of the ES and the Planning Statement
which accompanies the application and examines the merits of the Proposed Development
against the relevant planning policy.
8.2.5
A summary of the Proposed Development with legislation and planning policy is provided below.
8.2.6
Appendix 8.1 includes a summary of policy and guidance relevant to landscape and views used
for this assessment, which has been taken from the following documents:
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
8.2.7
A list of NPPF (Ref. 8.3) policies relevant to landscape and views and the Proposed Development
is provided below:
Section 7: Requiring Good Design.
Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.
LOCAL PLAN OR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
8.2.8
The policy and guidance documents relevant to the purposes of this assessment include:
Unlocking Kents Potential Kent County Councils Framework for Regeneration (Ref. 8.4);
Thanet Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies (Ref. 8.5);
Draft Thanet Local Plan (2015) Emerging Policy (Ref. 8.6);
8.3
8.3.1
The assessment adopts the approach outlined in Chapter 4 Approach to the Assessment and
is based on the Parameter Plans and Application Plans as described in Chapter 2 The
Proposed Development. The following components of the Proposed Development are relevant
to the assessment of the likely significant effects in relation to landscape and views associated
with the proposed mixed use residential led development:
8.3.2
The design of the Proposed Development as defined by the parameter plans was informed by the
varying landscape and visual sensitivity across the Site. Open land uses have been located
where sensitive areas of land (both landscape or visual sensitivity), have been identified, as
defined within Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones (Figure 2.1).
8.3.3
Access across the site is defined within Parameter Plan 2 (Figure 2.2), and has been designed to
accommodate the Proposed Development, but also to maximise any positive effects on the wider
route network.
8.3.4
Proposed land uses, as illustrated within the Parameter Plan (Figure 9C), have been
accommodated within the site in order to create a legible settlement. Residential uses are
consolidated within the centre of the site, with a clearly defined village centre. Employment uses
are centred on the western edge and western parts of the site, in order to relate fully to, and
consolidate the existing Manston Business Park to the north-west.
8.3.5
The height and density of buildings, as defined by the Parameter Plan (Figure 9D), responds to
landscape and visual sensitivity, with maximum heights reduced for development in closest
proximity to Manston Village, and an area identified for Special Control along the southern edge.
The southern edge of the development zones (where new buildings are allowed) should be
staggered within this area. The actual positioning of the edge(s) and the form of development in
8-3
this area (in terms of scale and density) should ensure that significant adverse visual impacts
from viewpoints to the south are avoided. This should be defined as part of reserved matters
applications and be informed by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.
8.3.6
The site was assessed to determine whether there were any landscape features of value which
could be used to inform the masterplanning of the site. Due primarily to the former use of the site,
landscape features are scarce. Retained features are therefore limited to hedgerows along
northern edge of the site, and an ornamental tree line along the edge of the museum (retained for
their amenity value). The Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan (Figure 9E) sets out a proposed
new landscape structure for the site which seeks to reflect the wider landscape character as
defined at County level, and provide a high quality new setting for the proposed development.
8.3.7
Consistent with the Scoping report the LVIA (Appendix 4.1) for the hybrid application, the
Landscape and Visual Assessment tests the Parameter Plans (for the outline element) and the
Phase 1 and change of use plans for the detailed elements of the application, which define the
disposition, scale and massing of the proposed development across the site. The illustrative
masterplan shows how the development could be built out compliant with those plans. The Vision
for the site is set out within the Design and Access Statement (DAS) (SHP1-3) that accompanies
this application. The site is already well connected to the surrounding movement network. The
development will help deliver the wider Kent transport strategy while also reinstating the lost links
at a local level.
8.4
There will be a series of major new public parks for Thanet at the heart of the
development. These will provide a range of new green space experiences and links
across the site, and connect to network of smaller recreational pocket parks, greens and
green streets within the built environment.
8.4.1
An Environmental Scoping Report was submitted to TDC in January 2016 (Appendix 4.1), and
included the proposed viewpoints relied upon for the Landscape and Visual Assessment. Their
th
formal Scoping Opinion was received on 8 March (Appendix 4.2) and a Scoping Response was
issued to clarify a number of matters (Appendix 4.3).
8.4.2
Within the Scoping Opinion TDC did not indicate any further requirements to consider within the
assessment below. This section provides an update on the scope of the assessment and reiterates the evidence base for insignificant effects.
8.4.3
This assessment considers effects on landscape and views as separate issues. Landscape
effects relate both to physical changes to landscape elements, for example, landform,
watercourses, footpaths, trees, hedgerows and other types of vegetation, and to the resulting
landscape character. Visual effects relate to changes in people's views.
8.4.4
8.4.5
The Guidelines also note in relation to Scope, at paragraph 6.2, page 98, that:
The emphasis must be on a reasonable approach which is proportional to the scale and nature
of the proposed development
8.4.6
In accordance with the Guidelines, this assessment identifies the specific attributes of the Site
and its setting and defines how these attributes combine to form the character of the place. The
assessment then goes on to discuss the degree of effect from the Proposed Development on the
8-4
Site and the surrounding landscape, and whether these effects are positive or negative and the
significance of any potential effects.
8.4.7
The assessment of likely effects is considered in two separate but inter-linked parts as follows:
Landscape impacts (construction and operational phases) relating to changes in the fabric,
character and quality of the landscape. These could be direct impacts on specific landscape
elements or features (such as loss of semi-improved grassland) or effects on landscape
character and designated areas of landscape; and
Visual impacts (construction and operational phases) relating to specific changes in the
character of available views and the effects of those changes on visual receptors (e.g.
residents, users of public rights of way or recreational facilities). Visual impacts to the setting
of cultural heritage features are also considered (e.g. scheduled monuments, listed buildings
and conservation areas) as these interests are protected by planning policy.
The potentially significant effects that are considered further within the assessment are outlined
below:
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Effects on landscape character at the county level.
Effects on landscape character at the local/site level.
Effects on land use.
Effects on environmental designations.
Effects on movement and linkages.
Effects on topography.
Effects on site features
Effects on movement, linkages and public open space.
Effects on visual receptors/key views.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
Effects on landscape character at county level.
Effects on landscape character at the local/site level.
Effects on land use.
Effects on environmental designations.
Effects on movement and linkages.
Effects on topography.
Effects on site features.
Effects on movement, linkages and public open space.
Effects on visual receptors/key views.
CONSULTATION
8.4.9
Table 8.1 provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken in support of the
preparation of this Chapter.
Table 8.1: Summary of Consultation
8-5
BODY /
ORGANISATION
INDIVIDUAL / STAT
MEETING DATES AND
BODY/ORGANISATION OTHER FORMS OF
CONSULTATION
Thanet District Council Iain Livingstone
Email 23/02/16 to request
(Planning Officer).
comment on draft principal
viewpoints.
Thanet District Council Iain Livingstone
Pre-App Meeting 8
(Planning Officer).
24/02/16
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME
OF DISCUSSIONS
Initial viewpoints plan sent
with request for comment.
Some additional views agreed
plus identification of points
where no view identified
The key steps in the methodology for assessing landscape and visual effects has been as follows:
The landscape of the study area was analysed and landscape receptors identified;
The area over which the development will be visible was established through creation of a
Zone of Theoretical Visibility based on a combination of desktop study and field survey;
The visual baseline was recorded in terms of the different groups of people who may
experience views of the development and the nature of their existing views and visual
amenity;
The level (and significance) of landscape and visual effects were judged with reference to
the sensitivity of the resource /receptor (its susceptibility and value) and magnitude of
effect (a combination of the scale of effect, geographical extent and duration/reversibility).
DESK STUDY
8.4.11
The assessment included both a desk-based analysis and on-site field study and observation.
The desk study involved the collation and review of existing maps and written information about
the site and the wider landscape beyond. This information provided the basis for an appraisal of
the pattern and character of the site and its surroundings. It served to identify relevant planning
policy and special designated areas, and highlighted potential receptors of landscape and visual
impact.
8.4.12
The visual assessment for the development was carried out through a mix of desktop analysis
and on site observation.
8-6
8.4.13
The assessment of landscape character was carried out with reference to guidelines produced by
Natural England, An approach to landscape character assessment (Ref. 8.10)
FIELD STUDY
8.4.14
The principal views of the site were determined in the field, with particular emphasis on checking
potential visual receptor areas such as public footpaths, public open space, principal vehicular
routes, key vantage points and residential areas. Potential viewpoints were identified as part of a
th
th
desk-top study and verified in the field on the 16 and 17 February 2016. The field survey of the
Site involved walking the Site and travelling extensively through the study area as identified in the
desk-study, to verify any variations in landscape character and the locations of visual receptors.
The findings of the desk study and field work were then used to identify the sensitive receptors to
be used as key viewpoints which were submitted to TDC
8.4.15
8.4.16
A professional photographer using a fixed lens camera took photographs of each of the principal
viewpoints. The camera lens had a focal length equivalent to 50mm, i.e. similar to that seen with
the naked eye. Where panoramic views were taken, the individual frames were stitched together
in accordance with the Guidelines. A total of 25 views were initially selected, and photographs
th
th
were taken on 4 and 5 of April, 2016. The trees were not in leaf at this time and therefore
provided minimal visual screening, which approximates the worst case scenario required for this
assessment.
8.4.17
Each of the principal viewpoints has been assessed in order to determine the construction phase
effects, operational phase effects and cumulative effects. The operational phase of the Proposed
Development assesses the impacts of the maximum parameters of development, as defined by
the Parameter Plan: Density and Height (Figure 9D). The predicted landscape and visual
impacts of development if the site is developed in accordance with the illustrative masterplan are
also assessed. The illustrative masterplan has evolved through a process of extensive site
survey and assessment, and has been developed in accordance with principles of good design.
The masterplan has been developed in accordance with the Parameter Plans and demonstrates
how sensitive and appropriate design within the parameters can minimise any potential negative
impacts, and provide landscape and visual enhancements.
8.4.18
To create the photomontages, a digital block model of the proposed development was produced,
based on the maximum building heights parameter plan. Using 3-D modelling software,
perspective views of the model are created and can be placed accurately within the photographs.
The location and scale of the development within the photographs is verified by topographic
survey, whereby, key features within the view are surveyed. This can then be used, together with
digital terrain data, to accurately position the rendered model within each photomontage.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
8.4.19
A three-stage assessment process has been adopted for the Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment, in accordance with the Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental Management
and Assessment guidelines. Firstly, the nature of receptors (sensitivity) has been assessed.
Secondly the nature of effects (magnitude) likely to result from the proposed development has
been assessed. Lastly, the significance of the identified effects on receptors has been assessed,
as required by the Environmental Impact Assessment EU Directive and UK Regulations.
Sensitivity of Receptors The sensitivity of receptors has been assessed by undertaking an
appraisal of landscape value or the value of views, in relation to an assessment of each
receptor's susceptibility to change of the type of development proposed.
Magnitude of Effects - The assessment of the magnitude of effects combines an assessment
of the size or scale of effects likely to arise on landscape and views, with an assessment of
8-7
the geographical extent over which those effects are likely to be experienced and their
duration and potential reversibility.
Impacts on key views - The significance of likely landscape and visual effects has been
judged by assessing the sensitivity of receptors in relation to the magnitude of effects, for
example, a moderate to high magnitude of effect on a highly sensitive receptor is likely to be
significant, whereas a similar effect on a receptor of lower sensitivity is less likely to be
significant.
8.4.20
The methodology and criteria used to undertake the above assessments are set out below.
LANDSCAPE VALUE
8.4.21
As part of the baseline description, the value of potentially affected landscape receptors has been
assessed, including landscape character and the individual elements or features, which contribute
to landscape character. Landscapes may be valued at community, local, national level or above.
Existing landscape designations have been taken as the starting point for this assessment, as
shown on Table 8.1 below. However, the value attached to undesignated landscapes also needs
to be assessed and this is considered in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2 sets out the relative importance of generic landscape designations and descriptions,
identifying those designations applicable to the study area in the third column:
Table 8.2: Landscape Designations
Typical Designation
Description
Actual Designation
for the site
Importance
(value)
Unique sites,
features or areas of
international
importance with
settings of very
high quality.
None
International
(High)
Sites, features or
areas of national
importance with
settings of high
quality.
None
National
(High)
Special Landscape
Areas, Areas of Great
Landscape Value, long
distance footpaths
Sites, features or
areas of regional
importance with
intact character.
None
Regional
(High/
Medium)
Areas of Local
Landscape
Importance, Tree
Preservation Orders
(TPO)
Sites, features or
areas of district
importance.
None
District
(Medium/Lo
w)
Probably no
designation, eg. Public
General
countryside area
None
Local
(Medium/
8-8
Open Space or local
footpath
8.4.22
Low)
Whilst the assessment of value is partly based on the planning policy importance of the
landscape, other criteria used to assess landscape value in more detail, including that of
undesignated landscapes, are set out in Table 8.3, below:
Table 8.3: Criteria for Assessing the Value of Non-Designated Landscapes
8.4.23
Attribute
Description of criteria
Landscape
Condition
Scenic Quality
Rarity
Representativeness
Cultural Interest
Recreation Value
Wildness/Tranquillity
Associations
An overall assessment has been made for each receptor, based on an overview of the
assessments made using each of the above criteria, in terms of high, medium and low value. For
example, an intact landscape in good condition, where scenic quality, tranquillity, and or cultural
heritage features make a particular contribution to the landscape, or where there are important
cultural or historical associations, is likely to be highly valued. Conversely, a degraded landscape
in poor condition, with no particular scenic qualities or cultural interest is likely to be considered of
only low landscape value.
SUSCEPTIBILITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS TO CHANGE
8.4.24
Susceptibility of landscape receptors to change has been assessed using the following criteria,
with reference to the baseline conditions:
Table 8.4: Landscape Receptor Susceptibility to Change
Attribute
Description of criteria
High
Medium
8-9
Attribute
Description of criteria
High
Low
The assessment of receptor sensitivity combines judgements on the susceptibility of the receptor
to the specific type of development proposed and the value attributed to that receptor.
BASELINE VISUAL ASSESSMENT
8.4.26
The assessment of receptor sensitivity combines judgements on the susceptibility of the receptor
to the specific type of development proposed and the value attributed to that receptor. In terms of
assessing the baseline sensitivity, a key factor to consider is the type of view and the number of
users. Following on from this, we have established the overall value of the view. The type of view
and the number of viewers are described in the following terms:
Few/Moderate/Many Viewers
VALUE OF VIEWS
8.4.27
Visual receptors generally comprise users of public rights of way or other outdoor recreational
facilities, residents, and also, vehicle travellers who may be visiting, or living or working within the
study area and their views at particular places.
8.4.28
8.4.29
the popularity of the viewpoint, its appearance in guidebooks, literature or art, on tourist
maps and the facilities provided for its enjoyment.
The assessment of the value of views is summarised in Table 8.5 below, in terms of High,
Medium and Low value. These criteria are provided for guidance only and are not intended to be
absolute:
Table 8.5: Value attached to Views
Value
Description of criteria
High
Medium
8-10
associations.
Low
Visual receptors generally comprise users of public rights of way or other outdoor recreational
facilities, residents, and also, vehicle travellers who may be visiting, or living or working within the
study area and their views at particular places.
8.4.31
The susceptibility of different types of people to changes in views is mainly a function of:
8.4.32
the extent to which a person's attention or interest may therefore be focussed on a view
and the visual amenity experienced at a given view.
The assessment of a visual receptor to change is specific to the proposed development. However
the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment offers the following generic
guidance as a starting point for the assessment:
Table 8.6: Visual Receptor Susceptibility to Change
Value
High
Description of criteria
Residents;
People engaged in outdoor recreation, including users of public
rights of way, whose attention is likely to be focussed on the
landscape and on particular views;
Visitors to heritage assets or other attractions where views of
the surroundings are an important part of the experience, and;
Travellers on scenic routes.
Medium
Low
8.4.33
The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment qualifies the above examples as
follows:
This division is not black and white and in reality there will be a gradation in susceptibility to
change. Each project needs to consider the nature of the groups of people who will be affected
8-11
and the extent to which their attention is likely to be focussed on views and visual amenity. (page
114, paragraph 6.35).
OVERALL SENSITIVITY OF VISUAL RECEPTOR
8.4.34
The assessment of receptor sensitivity combines judgements on the susceptibility of the receptor
to the specific type of development proposed and the value attributed to that receptor.
MAGNITUDE OF EFFECTS
8.4.35
The magnitude of a landscape or visual effect is assessed in terms of its size or scale, the
geographical extent of the area influenced by that effect, and its duration and degree of
reversibility.
SIZE AND SCALE OF EFFECTS
8.4.36
The size and/or scale of effects relates to the scale of changes in the landscape, such as the loss
or addition of features and the scale of the change in views.
GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT OF EFFECTS
8.4.37
the area over which landscape effects are likely to be experienced, ie. this could be at the
site level, the immediate setting of the site, or landscape character type or area; and
DURATION
8.4.38
Effects may be temporary, permanent or reversible over time. For example, visual effects arising
from construction activities may be limited solely to the construction period and therefore only
temporary or they may be permanent, for example, where construction necessitates some
clearance of existing vegetation.
REVERSIBILITY
8.4.39
Effects may be reversible, for example, restoration of a quarry following mineral extraction. The
assessment therefore considers the practicality of effects being reversed with an approximate
timeframe for reversibility.
NATURE OF EFFECTS
8.4.40
The nature of effects may be positive or negative (beneficial or adverse) direct or indirect. Direct
effects are those which result directly from a development itself, whereas indirect or secondary
effects may arise as a consequential change resulting from development, for example, changes to
downstream vegetation as a result of alterations to a drainage regime.
MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS
8.4.41
The size and/or scale of change in the landscape takes into consideration the following factors:
the contribution of that element to landscape character and the degree to which
aesthetic/perceptual aspects are altered; and
8-12
whether the effect is likely to change the key characteristics of the landscape, which are
critical to its distinctive character.
8.4.42
The criteria used to assess the size and scale of landscape effects are based upon the amount of
change that will occur as a result of the proposals.
8.4.43
The magnitude (scale) of change for each effect has been identified and predicted as a deviation
from established baseline conditions, for the construction and operational phases of the Proposed
Development. The scale used .high, medium, low and negligible and no change.
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
8.4.44
The assessment of potential effects as a result of the Proposed Development has taken into
account both the Demolition and Construction Phase, and Operational phases. The significance
level attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the
Proposed Development and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment to
change, as well as a number of other factors that are outlined in more detail in Chapter 4
Approach to Assessment. Magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the affected
receptor/receiving environment are both assessed on a scale of high, medium, low and negligible
(as shown in Chapter 4 Approach to Assessment).
8.4.45
Table 8.9 below is used to guide the assessment of the significance of both landscape and visual
effects, from a combination of the assessment of receptor sensitivity and the magnitude of effects:
8.4.46
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
NEGLIGIBLE
HIGH
Major
Moderate to Minor to
Major
Moderate
MEDIUM
Moderate to Moderate
Major
Minor
Negligible
LOW
Minor to
Moderate
Minor
Negligible
to Minor
Negligible
NEGLIGIBLE Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
NO CHANGE Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
The likely significance of effects reflects judgements as to the importance or sensitivity of the
affected receptor(s) and the nature and magnitude of the predicted changes. For example, a
moderate negative effect on a feature or site of low importance will be of lesser significance than
the same effect on a feature or site of high importance.
8-13
8.4.47
The table has regard to guidance in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment,
Third Edition, 2013, at paragraph 5.56, page 92 (significance of landscape effects) and paragraph
6.44, page 116 (significance of visual effects). This matrix is used as a guide to determine
significance, along with professional judgement.
8.4.48
The following terms are used to describe the significance of effects, where they are predicted to
occur:
Major positive or negative effect: where the Proposed Development would cause a
significant improvement (or deterioration) to the existing environment;
Moderate positive or negative effect: where the Proposed Development would cause a
noticeable improvement (or deterioration) to the existing environment;
Minor positive or negative effect: where the Proposed Development would cause a barely
perceptible improvement (or deterioration) to the existing environment; and
Negligible: where the Proposed Development would result in a barely discernible
improvement or deterioration to the existing environment.
No change: The proposals will not cause any change to the landscape
character/elements/features/characteristics.
8.4.49
Effects that are deemed to be significant for the purposes of this assessment are those that are
described as being moderate or major positive / negative.
CONFIDENCE
8.4.50
The predicted impact is assessed against the criteria set out below in order to attribute a level of
confidence to the visual assessment.
High - The predicted impact is either certain, or very likely to occur, based on reliable
information or previous experience.
Medium The predicted impact and its level are best estimates, based on on-site and
desktop study.
Low The predicted impact and its level are best estimates, based on given knowledge
and experience. More information may be needed to improve the level of confidence.
LIMITATION OF ASSESSMENT
8.4.51
Viewpoints were selected as being representative following a field study of the wider area to
establish the visibility of existing industrial buildings, and through consultation with Thanet District
Council. The locations were determined on the basis of public accessibility, preference for high
sensitive receptors and the likely number of receptors affected.
8.5
BASELINE CONDITIONS
EXISTING BASELINE
SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT
8.5.1
The site is comprised 303ha former Manston Airport at Manston on the Isle of Thanet. The site
was in full operation as an airfield until 2014 when this operation ceased. The site lies in
countryside, outside the settlement area, to the north of the A299 approximately 3km west of the
centre of Ramsgate. The site itself retains operational features of the former airfield, including
two control towers, runway and associated hangars and outbuildings. Limited employment
8-14
activities remain on parts of the site. The landscape character of the site is heavily influenced by
the former land use. The open character of the landscape necessitated by the former land use
also influences the extent of visibility and key views of the site.
8.5.2
The figures which accompany the baseline description are in Appendix 8.2.
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATIONS
8.5.3
There are no environmental designations or other designations covering the site relevant to the
purposes of this assessment covering the site (Figure 1), which reflects the former use of the site
as an airport, and the sites location within a larger area of agricultural land.
8.5.4
The area to the south-east of the site, around Pegwell Bay, and the coastline around the Isle of
Thanet are particularly sensitive, and this is reflected by numerous designations, including Special
Protection Areas (SPA), National Nature Reserves, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and
Special Areas of Conservation (SPA).
8.5.5
The proposed development has the potential to impact on the visual setting of the designated
areas around Pegwell Bay, where visitors are likely to be focussed on the high quality landscape
and therefore highly sensitive to change.
8.5.6
Any potential effects on designated areas will be fully assessed within Chapter 7 Ecology.
Ecology has been considered within this chapter in terms of to what extent it contributes to
landscape character and views.
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
8.5.7
Manston and the wider area of Thanet lies within National Character Area 113: North Kent Plain,
as defined by The Character of England Landscape, Wildlife and Cultural Features Map produced
in 2005 and updated in 2015 by Natural England with support from English Heritage (updated
from The Countryside Character Map of England, Countryside Commission, 1996) (Ref. 8.11).
The character area is defined by the following key characteristics:
The areas geology is dominated by Palaeogene clays and sands, underlain by the Chalk.
Geologically a chalk outlier and historically an island separated from the mainland by a
sea channel Thanet forms a discrete and distinct area that is characterised by its unity
of land use, arising from the high-quality fertile soils developed in thin drift deposits over
chalk.
A diverse coastline (both in nature and orientation), made up of cliffs, intertidal sand and
mud, salt marshes, sand dunes and shingle beaches. Much of the coastal hinterland has
been built on, and the coast itself has been modified through the construction of sea
walls, harbours and piers.
Orchards and horticultural crops characterise central and eastern areas, and are often
enclosed by poplar or alder shelterbelts and scattered small woodlands.
Woodland occurs on the higher ground around Blean and in smaller blocks to the west,
much of it ancient and of high nature conservation interest.
8-15
The Stour and its tributaries are important features of the eastern part of the NCA,
draining eastwards into the North Sea, with associated wetland habitats including areas
of grazing marsh, reedbeds, lagoons and gravel pits. The River Medway cuts through the
NCA as it flows into the Thames Estuary.
Other semi-natural habitats include fragments of neutral, calcareous and acid grassland,
and also heathland.
The area has rich evidence of human activity from the Palaeolithic period. Key heritage
assets include Roman sites at Canterbury, Reculver and Richborough; the Historic
Dockyard at Chatham; military remains along the coast; and historic parks and buildings.
Large settlements and urban infrastructure (including lines of pylons) are often visually
dominant in the landscape, with significant development around Greater London and the
Medway Towns, as well as around towns further east and along the coast. Major rail and
road links connect the towns with London.
8.5.8
The development of the site from agricultural land into an airport has resulted in few of the key
characteristics typical of the landscape character at the national level being present within the
site. However, the large-scale, open areas allow the site to fit into the wider agricultural field
pattern. There is also some urban influence from the former airport land use.
8.5.9
A county level Landscape Assessment of Kent was carried out in 2004 by Jacobs Babtie on
behalf of Kent County Council (Figure 2) (Ref. 8.12).
8.5.10
The site is located in the North East Kent character area, which has in turn been divided into 7
character areas, encompassing The East Kent Arable Belt, The East Kent Horticultural Belt, The
North Kent Fruit Belt, Thanet, The Blean, The Stour Valley and The Wantsum and Lower Stour
Marshes. The site falls within the Thanet character area.
8.5.11
As defined in the document by Jacobs Babtie, Thanet forms a distinct landscape area defined by
the former limits of the island that was cut off from the mainland by the Wantsum Channel; until it
silted up approximately 1000 years ago. The island quality is preserved in the way that Thanet
rises out of the marshes to a modest height of about 50 metres. The landscape falls into two
distinct types, based on the local topography; a flat plateau top above the 40 metre contour, and a
sloping backdrop to the marshes between the 20 and 40 metre contours. The sloping edge runs
around the south and west of the chalk outlier from Cliff End, Minster and Monkton to Sarre and
St. Nicholas at Wade. The slope and plateau top of the character area give long views over
Pegwell Bay and the Chislet and Worth Marshes. On the seaward side Thanet is characterised by
steep chalk cliffs and small sandy bays.
8.5.12
The geology of the Upper Chalk which underlies most of the area is a soft white chalk with
abundant flint horizons, hence the use of the latter material for building. The soils of Thanet are
nearly all Grade 1 except for small pockets of woodland which mark tiny areas of Grade 3 land.
The Thanet landscape has been an arable one for generations, the good quality easily-worked
soils lending themselves to cultivation.
8.5.13
With the exception of Monkton, settlements are nucleic, centred on mills and former small ports or
ferry landings at the edge of the Wantsum Channel, now located on the edge of the marsh.
Downbarton and Minster still retain some evidence of their harbours, which form important
monuments. Those located on the seaward side of the island were originally fishing villages but
have now burgeoned into an urban network that follows the coastline with few undeveloped
breaks. The road pattern encircles the plateau and crosses it in fairly straight routes with large
open spaces in between.
8.5.14
The Landscape Assessment states that, Since 1960 there has been a marked increase in the
extent of urban land, notably in the coalescence of Ramsgate with both Broadstairs and Margate.
Ramsgate-Margate-Broadstairs now forms the largest conurbation in East Kent. This has been, in
8-16
part, at the expense of some of the few remaining grasslands, for example at what is now
Northwood industrial estate. Arable land has also been lost between Cliftonville and Kingsgate at
Northdown, St. Lawrence in Ramsgate and through infilling at Birchington. Pasture has been lost
to arable land south and west of Garlinge, north of Stone House on the outskirts of Broadstairs
and around Manston Aerodrome and Sarre. A few pockets of orchard west of Cliff End have been
removed, as have those west of Minster.
8.5.15
Local policy, encourages separation of settlements through the idea of open arable fields or
country parks as a way of retaining the intrinsic character of the landscape.
8.5.16
Views on the plateau are wide, simple and unrestricted and there is a sensation of being on
elevated ground. One of the most striking characteristics of Thanet are the long views both to the
'island' from the main routes onto it, and back from Thanet over the old Wantsum Channel, now
the Chislet Marshes. This open nature is exacerbated by a distinctive lack of vegetation. This is,
in part, an historic characteristic, brought about due to early intensive agriculture. It is thought that
the centre of Thanet would originally have been heavily wooded.
8.5.17
Also distinctive on the coastal side are the dramatic chalk cliffs which are designated a Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) with their narrow strip of remnant grassland alongside. At
Kingsgate Bay this drama is enhanced by the striking stacks.
8.5.18
The unenclosed nature of the landscape has been amplified since the last war by the loss of elm
trees and hedgerows to Dutch elm disease. This loss of vegetation has allowed the suburban
edges of the seaside towns to spill into the landscape visually. Further developments, such as the
Manston Business Park and Allan Grange Park have intensified this sense of intrusion into the
rural landscape.
8.5.19
An analysis of the Thanet landscape character area carried out as part of the County Level
Assessment by Jacobs Babtie highlights the landscape of the area as being of poor condition
and very high sensitivity, resulting in a need for restoration. The landscape condition is
categorized as poor due to the vulnerability of its intensively farmed land, the lack of natural
habitats and the negative impact of recent developments. The sensitivity of the area is
characterized as very high due to the strong sense of place that Thanet imbues, in part due to
the island quality, accentuated by the dominant landform and long, open views, and in part due to
the areas historic and ancient characteristics associated with settlement patterns, farming and
cultural use. The analysis results in the landscape action restore, which is defined by the
following points:
Restore the scale and containment of settlements on the edge of the marshes;
Restore coastal and sea-edge influences in the location and detail of the built form;
Restore areas of scrub planting on areas of marginal vegetation and marsh edges;
Ensure that development and associated planting respect and enhance the landform.
Local land use is illustrated in Figure 3 (Appendix 8.2). The airport forms a distinct land use
within the area, with the character of the site defined by the former airport use. Due to its
8-17
previous land use, the site is currently devoid of any recreational open space. Ultimately, the
sites former use as an airfield has resulted in an area of land that forms a distinctive interruption
within both the connectivity and open space networks of the surrounding context.
8.5.21
The surrounding land use is typically agricultural, with a varied pattern consisting of small,
medium and large-scale irregular fields. The landscape around Manston is typical of the wider
landscape as defined at the County level, with few areas of tree cover and hedgerows. A more
recent introduction to the agricultural landscape is the presence of solar farms. The farms form
distinctive features which are relatively visually prominent in the landscape due to the lack of trees
and hedgerows.
8.5.22
The Thanet District Adopted Local Plan 2006 contains Policy CC2 relating to Landscape
Character Areas, which states that the following policy principle relevant to the site, On the
central chalk plateau, a number of sites are identified for various development purposes. Where
development is permitted by other policies in this plan, particular care should be taken to avoid
skyline intrusion and the loss or interruption of long views of the coast and the sea.
TOWNSCAPE CHARACTER
8.5.23
The merged conurbation of Ramsgate, Broadstairs and Margate to the east of the site forms the
main settlement area. The settlement continues around the coastline to the north, with Westgateon-Sea and Birchington-on-Sea.
8.5.24
The villages of Manston and Minster form small, nucleated settlements closest to the site. Both
have been occupied for many centuries and contain a considerable number of heritage assets.
8.5.25
Caravan parks form a typical land use in the area, and reflect the coastal location of the site.
Many are well established but frequently form incongruous elements within the landscape and
settlement pattern.
8.5.26
Manston Business Park is located to the west of the site, north of the runway. It occupies a total
of 43 acres/17.4 hectares of serviced land available for commercial development. The Park is
partially developed at present, with potential for business, industrial, storage and distribution
businesses to be incorporated.
8.5.27
The Royal Air Forces Defence Fire Training and Development Centre (DFTDC) site is located to
the north-west, off Manston Road, on the site of the former RAF base, which was operational
between 1916 and 1996. In 1996, Manston's satellite station RAF Ash, was closed, and in 1999,
it was decided to close the RAF Manston base. The 'airside' portion of the base was signed over
to the commercial operator of Kent International Airport. The MOD decided to keep the central
fire training school facility open, and almost the entirety of the 'domestic' side of the base became
FSCTE Manston (Fire Service Central Training Establishment). In 2007 the Army took over
responsibility for firefighting across the armed services and the school became the Defence Fire
Training and Development Centre (DFTDC).
MOVEMENT AND LINKAGES
8.5.28
Figure 4 illustrates the movement and linkages within and around the site. There are a number of
Public Rights of Way surrounding the site, which connect into a wider system of local, regional
and national routes. However, due to the sites former use as an airport, the site itself does not
currently allow public access, and does not contribute to wider connectivity. A public footpath runs
along the eastern edge of the site, connecting the B2050 Manston Road with the end of High
Street, to the south of Manston village.
8.5.29
Internally there is a loose but fragmented network of paths, lanes, trails, field short-cuts, crosscuts and furrows, many of which are informal and unmarked, and rely on links along the minor
road network to form long distance routes.
8-18
8.5.30
The site contains an historic Public Right of Way, which was removed by the Ministry of Defence.
The route is believed to have run directly between the two rights of way from Bush Farm in the
north to Canterbury Road West in the south.
8.5.31
Thanet Coastal Path forms a 20 mile recreational route around the coastal edge, and finishes at
Pegwell Bay Country Park to the south of the site. The Country Park has potential for views
towards the site.
8.5.32
Saxon Shore Way runs on an east-west axis to the south of the site, along the course of the River
Stour. The route forms a 163 mile long distance recreational route, running from Gravesend in
Kent to Hastings in East Sussex. The route has potential visual linkages towards the site.
8.5.33
The site is potentially well connected to the surrounding comprehensive network of strategic and
local routes. The East Kent Access Improvement Scheme, opened in 2012, provides 5 miles of
dual carriageway around the Isle of Thanet, and aims to reduce traffic congestion, and improved
connectivity to the ports of Dover and Ramsgate. The dual carriageway runs along the sites
southern boundary, and creates the opportunity for access into the site from the south.
8.5.34
The railway line runs on an east-west axis to the south of the site, connecting east Kent with
London St Pancras with a journey time of around 80 minutes. The proposed new Thanet
Parkway station will be located in the vicinity of Cliffsend village to the south-east of the site. The
station will increase rail connectivity between East Kent, London and the wider Kent area.
LANDFORM/TOPOGRAPHY
8.5.35
Figure 5 illustrates the topography of the site and its surrounding context. The area is
characterised by three distinctive topographical characteristics; the low-lying flat land below the
10 metre contour that forms the Wantsum and Lower Stour Marshes, the sloping backdrop to the
marshes between the 20 and 40 metre contours and the flat plateau above the 40 metre contour.
The site is located on the flat plateau, around the 50 metre contour. This elevated situation results
in an exposed landscape, which is highly visible from surrounding areas. Levels within the site
itself are essentially flat (with large expansive areas modified to accommodate the former runway)
creating an open landscape typology characterised by long views and big skies.
HERITAGE ASSETS
8.5.36
Figure 6 documents all the listed buildings and scheduled monuments within the area surrounding
the site. This plan confirms that there are no listed buildings or scheduled monuments within the
site itself. There are, however, several listed buildings and scheduled monuments that sit on or
close to the site boundary. Any potential impacts will be assessed, with consideration of impacts
on the setting of any listed buildings or scheduled monument, and/or consideration of impacts on
sensitive visual receptors.
8.5.37
The heritage features within the site, as illustrated in Figure 7. Undesignated heritage assets
include; the runways, taxiways, dispersal bays, and many of the buildings the radar dish, control
towers, and the fire station. The heritage assets have been assessed in terms of their landscape
and visual impacts as part of the proposals. A full heritage assessment forms Chapter 10
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage and Appendix 10.1 of the ES.
ECOLOGY AND HABITAT
8.5.38
Habitat and ecological survey information is illustrated in Figure 8 (Appendix 8.2). A full
assessment of ecological impacts is included within chapter 7 the ES. A summary of ecology and
landscape is included within this chapter in order to fully assess landscape impacts. The
ecological assets have been assessed in terms of their contribution to landscape character within
the site.
8-19
8.5.39
Much of the site is dominated by large areas of semi-improved neutral grassland and poor semiimproved grassland which is visually poor and shows little variation across the site. The grassland
is subject to management in the form of silage cutting (at least once a year) and fertilisation for
silage.
VISUAL ANALYSIS
8.5.40
8.5.41
A visual analysis of the site and wider area, identifying key visual receptors, is illustrated in Figure
11. The analysis indicates that there are a number of potentially highly sensitive visual receptors,
in accordance with the criteria set out within the methodology. The most sensitive visual
receptors with potential views include;
Residents within neighbouring settlements, and in particular within Manston, which lies
within closest proximity to the site boundary.
Users of public footpaths who are likely to be focussed on the landscape. Long distance
recreational routes in particular are likely to be well trafficked and therefore the number of
visual receptors is potentially high.
The railway line to the south forms a strong linear, tree-lined corridor which forms a visual barrier
within the landscape. However, the flat, open character of the landscape means that there are
very few landscape features, such as areas of woodland, hedgerows and trees that provide visual
screening.
PRINCIPAL VIEWPOINTS
8.5.42
Figures 12 and 13 (Appendix 8.2) illustrate the principal viewpoints for the site. A total of 25
viewpoints were identified through a process of desk-top and on-site survey and assessment. A
baseline assessment of the views is contained within Appendix 8.4: Visual baseline and effects.
The principal views of the site were determined in the field, with particular emphasis on checking
potential visual receptor areas such as public footpaths, open spaces, designated and protected
areas, principal vehicular routes and residential areas. Representative viewpoints were identified
which were considered to be of particular significance in terms of providing a range of views of the
site and where development would have the potential to affect their character and quality.
8.6
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
8.6.1
The following are the sensitive receptors which will be assessed in the following assessment:
Landscape character as defined at county level.
Landscape character as defined at the local/site level.
Areas of the site and surrounding site context covered by environmental designations.
Movement, linkages and the public open space network.
Ecology and habitat
Topography.
Heritage assets.
Visual receptors (refer to table 8.6 above). The most sensitive visual receptors are residents
with views of the site, and visitors to open spaces and users of public footpaths who are likely
to be focussed on the landscape.
8-20
8.7
8.7.1
The predicted landscape and visual effects can be divided into temporary impacts, i.e. those
which will occur during the demolition and construction phase, and permanent impacts, which will
be ongoing throughout the operational phase of the proposals.
Subject to the granting of planning permission, demolition and construction is due to commence in
2017 and is likely to be completed in around 2032. Demolition and construction will be
undertaken in a number of phases. Refer to Chapter 2 The Proposed Development of the
Environmental Statement.
DESCRIPTION OF LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS
8.7.3
The development is at a relatively early stage in the design and construction programme given
the hybrid nature of the proposals and, as such, it is difficult to predict with much certainty the
precise methodology that will be adopted for construction and site management. However, it is
possible to identify some broad impacts that may arise during the construction phase based on
the demolition and construction programme set out within Chapter 2 . The impacts identified
below are likely to be minor negative in terms of their significance (direct and indirect, short-term):
The visual impact of HGV movements and other machinery carrying out enabling works
on the site, implementing landscape proposals and implementing masterplan proposals;
Landscape and visual impacts of temporary parking, on-site accommodation and work
areas;
MITIGATION
8.7.4
An outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been prepared and
submitted. A detailed CEMP will be prepared in line with best practice construction management
approaches, such as those set out in the Considerate Constructors Scheme. The aims of the
CEMP will be to reduce the risk of likely significant adverse effects on sensitive environmental
resources and other receptors as a result of construction activities, and to minimise disturbance to
local residents. It is anticipated that measures to control construction impacts can be included:
Site compounds to be positioned close to the proposed access points and as remote from
existing developed areas as feasible;
8-21
Hydraulic cranes will be used, where possible, which can be lowered when not in use, in
order to minimise impacts of construction works.
advanced planting to the first phase of development, prior to the commencement of any
built development on the site.
Site hoarding will be used where appropriate and coloured to be sympathetic to the
surrounding environment to minimise visual impacts.
Where possible, hoarding lines will also utilise existing areas of woodland and scrub
cover to help visually break up the extent of the fencing.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
8.7.5
The implementation of good site management, maintenance and housekeeping would ensure that
temporary deterioration to landscape resources, character and visual amenity will be kept to a
practicable minimum. Despite these better practice measures, there would still remain inevitable
adverse effects during construction works. However in overall terms the residual effects upon
landscape resources, landscape character and the visual envelope are not anticipated to be
significant and the majority of which are predicted to be short term, temporary and local.
8.7.6
The residual effects assessment assumes that all mitigation described in the section above has
been implemented. The predicted construction phase landscape and visual effects are set out in
Appendices 8.3 and 8.4, and are summarised below.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
LANDSCAPE EFFECTS
8.7.7
The text below provides a brief summary of the landscape effects. A full assessment is provided
in Appendix 8.3.
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
National Level
8.7.8
The site forms a small percentage of the wider landscape character area as defined at the
national level. The development of the site from agricultural land into an airport has resulted in
few of the key characteristics typical of the landscape character at the national level being present
within the site. The completed development will therefore not impact upon this extensive
landscape character, resulting in no change.
8-22
Regional Level
8.7.9
Due to its former use as an airfield, the site is not particularly characteristic of the Thanet
character area. However, it does share some of the key characteristics as defined at the regional
level, such as the open nature, long, wide views and lack of vegetation. As highlighted in the
baseline, the Thanet landscape character area has been defined as being of poor condition,
high sensitivity and in need of restoration. The proposed development will contribute to the
restoration of the landscape, including the restoration of heritage features, the restoration of
vegetation and habitats, the enhancement of views and the restoration of access and circulation.
However, due to the scale of the site within the regional context, the overall magnitude of the
effect is described as low. The outcome is therefore predicted to be of moderate positive
significance.
Local Level
8.7.10
The large-scale open areas of the site allow it to fit into the wider agricultural field pattern.
However, due to its former use as an airfield, the site forms a specific local landscape character of
its own, differentiating it from the surrounding landscape character. As described above, the
proposed development will facilitate the restoration of the landscape and in addition will open up
the former airport to public access. The overall sensitivity of the receptor is described as low and
the overall magnitude of the effect is described as medium, resulting in a minor positive
significance.
Site Level
8.7.11
The character of the site is defined by its former use as an airfield, resulting in a distinctive
interruption within the typical characteristics, connectivity and open space networks of the
surrounding context. The proposed development will facilitate the restoration of the landscape
and the enhancement of key heritage assets (such as the runways and taxiways) resulting in an
improvement in the landscape character of the site. The overall magnitude of the effect is
therefore described as high, resulting in a moderate positive significance.
TOWNSCAPE CHARACTER
Surrounding Townscape
8.7.12
8.7.13
Manston village is an historic settlement with numerous heritage assets and as such has been
identified as highly sensitive. This has been taken into account within the proposed development,
with careful consideration given to the design and layout of the masterplan. Buffer planting is
utilised to generate a feeling of separation, minimising impact upon the townscape character of
Manston village. As a result of these embedded mitigation methods, there will be no change to
the townscape character of Manston Village. The landscape effect is therefore considered to be of
negligible significance.
Site Level
8.7.14
Due to its former use as an airfield, the site is currently devoid of any townscape character. The
overall sensitivity of the receptor is therefore described as low, with a high overall magnitude of
effect, resulting in a moderate positive significance.
8-23
TREE COVER AND VEGETATION
8.7.15
The site is characterised by a distinctive lack of vegetation, with much of the site dominated by
large areas of semi-improved neutral grasslands. Some of these grassland areas will be removed
as part of the proposed development. However, with the addition of new woodland, trees,
hedgerows, meadows and SUDs landscaping, the proposal will ultimately restore and
considerably enhance the landscape. The overall magnitude of the effect is therefore described
as high, resulting in a moderate positive significance.
PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY AND OPEN SPACE
8.7.16
The site does not currently allow public access and does not contribute to wider connectivity due
to its former use as an airfield. The site forms a distinctive gap within the surrounding movement
and open space networks. The proposed development will bridge this gap, creating new
connections with the surrounding movement network and restoring historic public rights of way,
increasing the connectivity and permeability of the area. The proposed development will include
significant new areas of public open space and recreational facilities to serve both the new local
community and the wider area. Key benefits will include the proposed Wave Garden, recreational
space, sports and play facilities. The overall magnitude of the effect is therefore described as
high, resulting in a moderate positive significance.
TOPOGRAPHY
8.7.17
The proposed new development will work with existing ground levels within the site, in order to
ensure that heritage features of value can be retained. The topography is identified as being of
low sensitivity with a negligible overall magnitude of effect, resulting in a landscape effect of
negligible significance.
HERITAGE ASSETS
8.7.18
There are no listed buildings or scheduled monuments within the site, however there are a
significant number of heritage assets within the context of the site, some of which sit on or close
to the site boundary. The development will not impact upon these assets, thus the landscape
effects are considered to be of negligible significance.
8.7.19
There are a number of locally identified heritage features within the site. These features contribute
significantly to the character of the site, referencing its former use, and as such form key drivers
behind the masterplan. The proposed development will retain and enhance these elements by
accommodating them within the proposals as defined by the parameters. The illustrative
masterplan and Design and Access statement that accompany this application demonstrate how
the proposed development will provide a new built context for the heritage features, and provides
them with a positive setting. The layout of the site has been influenced to allow for
interconnecting views between heritage assets where feasible, and all heritage assets are
connected by a proposed heritage walk around the site. This assessment is purely concerned
with the heritage assets as part of the landscape, and does not constitute a heritage assessment.
The overall magnitude of the effect is therefore described as medium, resulting in a moderate
positive significance.
MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS
8.7.20
As the key mitigation measures have been designed into the scheme, the residual effects are
likely to remain as set out above. The residual landscape effects are summarised in Appendix
8.3. As this is a hybrid application, it is acknowledged that some aspects of the detailed design
may change from the illustrative masterplan. However, the principles set within the parameter
plans and defined more fully within the Design and Access statement will ensure no greater
landscape impacts than those predicted in this assessment.
8-24
8.7.21
A Landscape Management Plan may be employed to provide further mitigation once the site is
operational. The Plan would ensure the longevity of tree cover, woodland and planting, and
promote native species and diversity.
VISUAL EFFECTS
8.7.22
Photomontages have been produced for each of the 25 principal viewpoints to illustrate the
maximum building heights parameters (refer to drawing PL1436-VW-014-Parameter Plan 4Density and Height). Refer to Appendix 8.2 Figures, Views and Photomontages and Appendix
8.4: Visual Baseline and Effects.
8.7.23
The maximum height parameter has been illustrated with a wireline outline of maximum
proposed heights. In addition, a photomontage view of the illustrative masterplan has been
produced for each principle viewpoint. The wireline photomontages have been used to
demonstrate worst case scenario. The photomontages of the illustrative masterplan have been
used to demonstrate that through the process of reserved matters, there is significant potential to
minimise impacts.
8.7.24
A summary of the visual impacts for the Proposed Development that are considered to be
significant are summarised in the table below. Refer to Appendix 8.4: Visual Baseline and
Effects for the full assessment.
Table 8.10: Summary of Significant Effects
RECEPTOR PHASE/STAGE
Viewpoint 3
Viewpoint 6
Viewpoint 8B
Viewpoint 9
Viewpoint 19
Viewpoint 22
Viewpoint 24
Viewpoint 25
Construction (max.
Parameters)
Construction (max.
Parameters)
Operation (max.
Parameters)
Construction (max.
Parameters)
Operation (max.
Parameters)
Construction (max.
Parameters)
Operation (max.
Parameters)
Construction (max.
Parameters)
Construction (Ill.
Masterplan)
Operation (max.
Parameters)
Operation (Ill.
Masterplan)
Construction (max.
Parameters)
Operation (max.
Parameters)
Construction (max.
Parameters &
illustrative
masterplan)
Operation (Ill.
Masterplan)
MAJOR OR
MODERATE
Moderate
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
POSITIVE /
P/T
D/I
NEGATIVE
Negative
T
D
Moderate
Negative
ST/MT
Moderate
Negative
LT
Moderate
Negative
ST/MT
Moderate
Negative
ST/MT
Moderate
Negative
ST/MT
Moderate
Negative
LT
Moderate
Negative
ST/MT
Moderate
Negative
ST/MT
Moderate
Negative
LT
Moderate
Positive
LT
Moderate
Negative
LT
Moderate
Negative
LT
Moderate
Negative
ST/MT
Moderate
Positive
LT
ST / MT /
LT
ST/MT
Key to table:
P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term
N/A = Not Applicable
8-25
The illustrative masterplan accords with the principles set within the parameter plans, and the
design approach outlined within the Design and Access Statement which accompanies this
application. The photomontages of the illustrative masterplan demonstrate how the parameter
plans and design principles can be employed to minimise, reduce or offset any potential adverse
impacts on identified key views. In addition the layout of the site can be used to create and
enhance existing views, including the creation of visual linkages between key site heritage
assets, and orientation of streets to allow views out towards Pegwell Bay.
8.7.26
As the key mitigation measures have been designed into the scheme, the residual effects are
likely to remain as set out above. The residual visual effects are summarised in Appendix 8.4.
Refer to Appendix 8.2 for the photographs and photomontages. As this is primarily a hybrid
application, it is acknowledged that some aspects of the detailed design may change from the
illustrative masterplan. However, the principles set within the parameter plans and defined more
fully within the Design and Access statement will ensure no greater landscape and visual impacts
than those predicted in this assessment.
8.8
8.8.1
Subject to the granting of planning permission, demolition and construction is due to commence in
2017 and is likely to be completed in around 2032. Demolition and construction will be
undertaken in a number of phases.
8.8.2
As a result of hybrid nature of the proposal, full details of individual building designs, materials
and landscape design are not yet finalised, and therefore the photomontages of the Illustrative
Masterplan does not give a full indication of how the development will look. It indicates the
potential layout of the scheme including buildings and landscape.
8.8.3
Parameter plans provide the maximum parameters in which the development will be contained
(i.e. worst case). The storey heights given are the maximum amounts. The style of the
visualisations (wirelines) was purposefully chosen to show the worst case dimensions for which
planning permission is being sought to inform the visual assessment. This style of visualisation is
suitable for an outline planning application and is not intended to provide a realistic image of how
the finished development might look.
8.8.4
Effect on residential receptors outside of public spaces are not included because private
individuals do not have a right to a view in law (as established in Aldreds Case 1610), and
impacts on living conditions are usually dealt with through a separate residential amenity
assessment if required. In this case such an assessment is not considered to be required
because the proposed development is not likely to be so overbearing or dominating as
experienced from any individual property as a result in unacceptable living conditions.
8.9
SUMMARY
8.9.1
This report has assessed the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development within
the application site boundary. The assessment has been carried out with reference to the
rd
Landscape Institutes Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment, 3 Edition, 2013.
8.9.2
A three-stage assessment process has been adopted; firstly the nature of receptors (sensitivity)
has been assessed, secondly the nature of the effects (magnitude) likely to result from the
proposed development have been assessed. From this the overall significance of the identified
effects on receptors have been assessed. The assessment also considers the cumulative
landscape and visual effects.
8-26
8.9.3
The design proposals have been formulated through a lengthy iterative process involving
environmental assessment and consultation. This process has allowed site constraints and
opportunities to directly influence the evolution of the masterplan and the landscape proposals. As
a result, mitigation measures form part of the detailed design of the landscape and surrounding
built form.
8.9.4
The parameter plans and illustrative masterplan have been developed in accordance with good
landscape and urban design principles, which avoids, reduces or offsets potential impacts on the
landscape and views.
8.9.5
The assessment predicts that the proposed development will result in substantial positive
landscape effects as a result of the proposed development, as defined by the Parameter Plans.
The positive effects have the potential to be maximised further through the reserved matters
application process, as demonstrated by the illustrative masterplan.
8.9.6
The assessment predicts that there will be positive visual effects as a result of the proposed
development. Where negative effects have been predicted, there is substantial potential to
reduce these through the process of reserved matters, as demonstrated by the illustrative
masterplan.
8-27
8.10
REFERENCES
Ref 8.1
Ref 8.2
Ref 8.3
Ref 8.4
Ref 8.5
Ref. 8.6
Thanet District Council, Draft Thanet Local Plan (2015) Emerging Policy;
https://www.thanet.gov.uk/your-services/planning-policy/thanets-new-localplan/what-is-the-new-local-plan/
[Date accessed: 27. 04.16]
Ref 8.7
Ref. 8.8
Landscape Institute, IEMA, 2013. Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact
rd
Assessment, 3 Edition, Oxon, Routledge.
[Date accessed: 27. 04.16]
Ref. 8.9
Ref. 8.10
8-28
Ref. 8.11
Ref. 8.12
9-1
9.1
INTRODUCTION
9.1.1
This Chapter reports the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the Site and
surrounding area in terms of traffic and transport. Where appropriate it also identifies proposed
mitigation measures to prevent, minimise or control likely negative transport effects arising from
the Proposed Development and the subsequent anticipated residual effects.
9.1.2
This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) should be read together with the
Introductory Chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 4), as well as Chapter 15 Cumulative Effects
and the separately prepared Application Reports Transport Assessment (TA) (SHP1-7) (Ref 9.1)
and Framework Travel Plan (FTP) (SHP1-7.1) (Ref 9.2) that accompany the planning application.
9.2
9.2.1
Details of the relevant legislation, policy and guidance are provided in the separately prepared TA
Application Report (Ref 9.1). A summary is outlined below.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
9.2.2
There is no applicable legislation relevant to the Proposed Development from a traffic and
transport perspective.
PLANNING POLICY
9.2.3
Planning policy at a national and local level and its relevance to environmental design and
assessment is confirmed in Chapter 1 Introduction of the ES and the Planning Statement (Ref
9.3) which accompanies the application and examines the merits of the Proposed Development
against the relevant planning policy.
9.2.4
In recent years, the Governments approach to rising levels of car traffic has changed. In the past,
the approach has been that increasing demand for road capacity should be met with increased
supply. During the early nineties it was recognised that the construction of new roads leads to
more traffic generation, in turn, leading to the requirements for more roads in an escalating spiral.
This has led the Government to review its policy on the location of developments, in particular
developments generating traffic to focus on sustainable development.
9.2.5
The general driving force of sustainable transport policy is to decrease reliance on the single
occupancy private car by ensuring that developments are accessible by more sustainable modes
of transport, including; bus, rail, cycle and by foot. In addition, mixed use developments are
encouraged to reduce the overall need for travel by encouraging day to day activities to be
undertaken on site.
9.2.6
A summary of the Proposed Development compliance with planning policy is provided below.
9.2.7
The separately prepared TA Application Report (Ref 9.1) includes a detailed assessment of
transport policy relevant to the Proposed Development and should be read in conjunction with this
ES chapter.
9-2
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
9.2.8
National transport policy sets strategic aims and objectives for new developments which should
cascade down through local policy. Such principles are embodied within the National Planning
Policy Framework (2012) (Ref 9.4). Policies of particular relevance include:
Paragraphs 29-31 which promote sustainable development to enhance the built environment.
Paragraphs 32-36 which outline the requirements for TAs and Travel Plans (TP).
Paragraphs 37-38 which encourage mixed use development to minimise journey lengths and
provide opportunities to undertake day to day activities on site.
LOCAL PLAN OR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
9.2.9
Draft Thanet Local Plan (2015) (Ref 9.10) outlines emerging policy in the District. Whilst
this document is not adopted and therefore holds little weight in planning terms the following
emerging policies are considered relevant to this Chapter:
9-3
GUIDANCE
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (2014) (Ref 9.11) This document provides
guidance on when a TA and TP are required and the minimum requirements for their
preparation;
Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (1993) (Ref 9.12), produced by
the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA). This guidance document establishes the
criteria that should be assessed from a transport perspective in an ES and a suggested
methodology for undertaking the Chapter; and
Guidance on Transport Assessment (2007) (Ref 9.13), produced by the Department for
Transport (DfT). This document has now been superseded by NPPG but provides useful
background on best practice preparation of TAs and TPs.
9.3
9.3.1
This assessment adopts the approach outlined in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development and
is based on the Parameter Plans, Application Plans and Means of Access Plans as described in
Chapter 4 Approach to the Assessment.
9.3.2
For the purposes of this Chapter the following description of development is also relevant:
9.3.3
Vehicular access to the proposed development will be achieved from six main points of access as
follows:
A fourth arm on the existing roundabout at the A299 Hengist Way/Canterbury Road West
(Cliffsend roundabout) junction to provide the principal point of access to the development;
A new roundabout on Spitfire Way at the existing junction of Alland Grange Lane and Spitfire
Way as the secondary point of access to the development;
A new priority junction on Spitfire Way to serve the Phase 1 employment land;
A new priority junction with ghost island right turn facility on Spitfire Way to serve the
employment development zones in the west of the site;
A new roundabout to replace the existing Spitfire Corner junction with access provided to the
development via one of the arms; and
A new priority junction on Manston Road to access the development from the north.
9.3.4
The following primary and secondary road network is proposed across the Site as shown on the
Access and Movement parameter plan:
A north-south connection between the A299 Hengist Way at the Cliffsend Roundabout and
Manston Road;
An east-west connection between Spitfire Way and the north-south link road;
A north-west to south-east road connecting Spitfire Corner with the north-south and east-west
routes;
A secondary road for access to the East Kent Sports Village and a secondary road on a
north-east to south-west axis connecting future employment development zones with the
east-west connection.
9.3.5
Through movements across the development will be controlled by the implementation of bus
gates at appropriate locations to limit the amount of traffic that can travel north directly onto
Manston Road.
9-4
9.3.6
New pedestrian and cycle links will be provided across the Site in order to improve accessibility
and connections to the surrounding pedestrian and cycle infrastructure. All primary and secondary
routes described above will include provision for pedestrians and cyclists. This provision will be
connected to off-site existing infrastructure around the site as appropriate.
9.3.7
Further details regarding the access strategy can be found in Section 4 of the TA Application
Report (Ref 9.1).
9.4
9.4.1
The scope of this Chapter has been informed by pre-application discussions with KCC and TDC.
It was agreed during the scoping discussions that a TA and FTP would be required to accompany
the planning application documents to assess the effects of the proposed scheme on the
transport network within the vicinity of the application site.
9.4.2
Separate TA and Environmental Scoping exercises were undertaken with relevant stakeholders.
The TA scoping process was split into two stages with the agreement of a scope for a Thanet
th
th
wide strategic transport model (8 February 2016) and the agreement of a TA scope (12
February 2016) to be submitted with the planning application. An Environmental Scoping Report
was submitted to TDC in January 2016. This Chapter accords with the Environmental scope
submitted and reflects the comments received and is also in line with the agreed TA scope..
9.4.3
Table 9.1 provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken as part of the preparation
of this Chapter.
9-5
Table 9.1: Summary of Consultation
BODY /
ORGANISATION
INDIVIDUAL / STAT
BODY/ORGANISATION
9.4.4
29 February 2016
th
16 March 2016
22
nd
March 2016
Scoping discussions are ongoing with KCC regarding the strategic transport model and the
development of on and off-site highway mitigation measures.
The extents of the study area for the purposes of this ES and the accompanying TA were agreed
with KCC during the scoping discussions. For the planning application submission a study area
that stretches from the A28/A299 roundabout in the west to Westwood Cross in the east, Coffin
House Corner in the North and the A256/A257 roundabout junction in the south was agreed.
However, a separate strategic transport model is being developed and the results of this will be
provided post-application. The study area for the strategic model extends to the entire District of
Thanet and parts of northern Dover District south as far as the A256/A257 junction. Figure 9.1
shows the study area for the purposes of this Chapter and Figure 9.2 shows the study area for
the strategic transport model.
9.4.6
This assessment has been carried out in accordance with the Guidelines for the Environmental
Assessment of Road Traffic (1993), produced by the Institute of Environmental Assessment
(IEA), which provides guidance on examining the environmental effects of development in terms
of traffic and transportation.
9.4.7
In addition to the geographic scope identified above, the guidance provided within the IEA has
been referred to in order to further refine the study area. To determine the number of links where
the effect significance should be assessed the following rules from the IEA guidelines have been
adopted:
Two-way AADT all traffic flows have increased by 30% or more;
Two-way AADT HGV traffic flows have increased by 10% or more; or
Any link which has been classified as medium or high sensitivity.
9-6
9.4.8
Only links where any of the three rules identified above have been met were continued forwards
for further assessment. In terms of junctions, only those locations where the effect of the
development in respect of changes in peak hour traffic flows across the junction as a whole of 5%
or more were carried forward for assessment. This approach is consistent with the TA that
accompanies the planning application.
9.4.9
As a result of this analysis the following junctions contained within the study area agreed with
KCC for the planning submission TA and described above were not assessed as part of this
Chapter:
B2050 Manston Road/Park Lane;
Acol Hill/The Street;
Park Lane/A28 Canterbury Road;
Star Lane Link/Manston Court Road;
A254 Ramsgate Road / B2052 College Road;
A254 Margate Road / Star Lane / Poorhole Lane;
A256 / Poor Hole Lane;
Star Lane / Nash Road;
A256 / Monks Way;
Margate Road / New Cross Gate;
A255 / B2014 Newington Road; and
B2014 Newington Road / B2050 Manston Road.
ASSESSMENT MODELLING
9.4.10
A two-stage modelling approach has been agreed with KCC during scoping discussions.
Initially a TA would be developed, underpinned by a manual assignment spreadsheet based
transport model to assess the potential effect of the development on the transport network
surrounding the Site and provide the necessary traffic flow information for the noise and air
quality teams to inform the ES.
Separately a strategic transport model using the SATURN modelling software would be
developed by AECOM to understand the wider effects of the development on the highway
network and identify what infrastructure would be required to deliver the development
proposals. This SATURN model would not be ready in time for a Spring 2016 planning
application due to the process required to validate and calibrate the model to replicate
existing traffic conditions. As such, it was agreed that the output from the model would follow
the TA as additional supporting information during the post application consultation period. A
separate scoping exercise to agree the parameters of the SATURN model was undertaken in
January 2016 and the model is currently being developed. Current timescales for the model
envisage it being ready and the results provided to KCC in Summer 2016.
9.4.11
It is anticipated that this ES Chapter, if required will be reviewed once the outputs from the
strategic transport model are available and any revisions submitted as a revised ES Chapter.
Much of the data used to determine the assessment baseline has been gathered from a desk
study. The following list summarises the key sources of information used when conducting this
assessment:
9-7
Local travel information was gathered from various sources including local bus operators, rail
operators and local councils;
Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data was obtained from KCC to determine any existing road
safety issues in the vicinity of the Site;
OS Base Mapping, historic topographic survey information and aerial photographs were used
to ascertain an accurate geographical representation of the areas in the vicinity of the Site;
2011 Census Data was obtained from the Office for National Statistics website in order to
determine existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the Site;
National Travel Survey (NTS) data was obtained from the DfT website in order to derive
national household trip generation statistics;
The TRICS (Trip Rate Information Computer System) database was used to obtain person
trip rates for various land uses proposed on the Site;
TAs from other developments, were consulted to determine the levels of development
planned in the vicinity of the Site as well as to inform the trip generation for some land uses
on the site.
The Trip End Model Presentation Program (TEMPRO) was used to derive growth factors for
the highway network within the study area.
9.4.13
The data collected during the desk study has been used to assess the existing and forecast future
baseline conditions on the transport networks in the vicinity of the application site. The data has
also been used to forecast the multi-modal trip generation associated with the Proposed
Development.
SITE VISIT / FIELD SURVEYS
9.4.14
In addition to the desk study, field surveys were undertaken to obtain the following locally specific
baseline information:
Traffic Surveys were used to determine baseline traffic information. A comprehensive data
collection exercise was undertaken between January and March 2016 when Automatic Traffic
Counts, Junction Turning Counts, Queue Length Surveys and Journey Time Surveys were
undertaken.
Topographical Surveys were undertaken to inform the highway assessment and design
process and to obtain ground level information.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
9.4.15
The assessment of potential effects as a result of the Proposed Development has taken into
account both the Demolition and Construction Phase, and Operational Phases. The significance
level attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the
Proposed Development and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment to
change, as well as a number of other factors that are outlined in more detail in Chapter 4
Approach to Assessment. Magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the affected
receptor/receiving environment are both assessed on a scale of high, medium, low and negligible
(as shown in Chapter 4 Approach to Assessment).
TRAFFIC ISSUES
9.4.16
The effect of traffic is dependent upon a wide range of factors including; volume of traffic, traffic
speeds and operational characteristics and traffic composition (e.g. percentage of heavy goods
vehicles).
9.4.17
The assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of traffic requires a number of
stages, including:
9-8
Determination of existing traffic levels and characteristics;
Determining the time period suitable for assessment;
Determining the year of assessment;
Identifying the geographical boundaries of assessment; and
Determining forecast traffic levels.
SCENARIOS ASSESSED
9.4.18
To determine the effect of the development on the highway network the roads surrounding the
Site are tested in a number of development scenarios. The purpose of scenario testing is to
determine the level of effect that the development is likely to have taking into account external
factors such as background growth on the highway network and other committed developments in
the surrounding area.
9.4.19
The following scenarios have been tested for each peak period (Weekday AM and PM) and
across the day for this ES:
2016 base traffic (surveyed flows)
2021 future base traffic (base traffic flows growthed from 2016 to 2021).
2021 future base traffic + development proposals (base traffic flows growthed from 2016 to
2021 and Proposed Development traffic).
2021 future base traffic + a proportion of the development +construction traffic (base traffic
flows growthed from 2016 to 2021, a proportion of the development that would be expected to
be completed by the future forecast year of 2021 in accordance with the Outline Phasing and
Delivery Strategy (Ref 9.14) and construction traffic).
2026 future base traffic + development proposals (base traffic flows growthed from 2016 to
2026 and the development traffic).
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
9.4.20
In accordance with the IEA guidance, the following criteria have been considered in this
assessment:
Severance
Driver delay
Pedestrian delay
Pedestrian and cycle amenity
Fear and intimidation
Accidents and safety; and
Hazardous loads.
9.4.21
The IEA guidance requires the assessment of hazardous loads, however as the development is
not expected to generate any such vehicle movements during either the construction or
operational phases, no further assessment has been undertaken.
9.4.22
Table 9.2 indicates how these assessment criteria relate to different modes of transport.
Table 9.2: Scope of Effect of Assessment Criteria
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
MODE OF TRANSPORT
9-9
Car
Bus
Severance
Driver delay
Cycle
Walk
Pedestrian delay
Pedestrian and cycle amenity
9.4.23
Potential effects on public transport (bus and rail) have not been directly assessed as the effects
on these modes are considered to be inherent within the assessment undertaken. For example,
the effect on buses and their passengers is included within the assessment on Driver Delay,
Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity, Fear and Intimidation and Accidents and Safety. The effect on rail
based public transport is assessed through Driver Delay, Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity, Fear and
Intimidation and Accidents and Safety in terms of journeys made by rail users to and from their
nearest Railway Station.
9.4.24
In relation to bus public transport capacity, the comprehensive public transport strategy that is
discussed later in this chapter has been devised to accommodate the demand anticipated from
the development and therefore no quantitative assessment of capacity is included. Scoping
discussions with KCC did not highlight an issue with rail based public transport capacity and
improvements are proposed (see future baseline) to enhance this mode. No further consideration
is therefore given to public transport capacity.
9.4.25
Potential effects have been considered during the construction and operational periods. Potential
effects during the construction period are typically considered as either short-term or mediumterm, while potential effects during the operational phase are typically considered as either
medium-term or long-term.
9.4.26
The significance of effect is determined through consideration of two elements; the magnitude of
the effect and the sensitivity of the receptor. The following sections outline the approach that has
been used to determine these factors.
MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT
9.4.27
The overall magnitude of an effect will be determined by measuring the magnitude of the residual
effect against criteria including; the number and activities of the population affected; the type and
sensitivity of the receptor; and the type of effect. Effects are defined as positive or negative
effects further defined as:
Negligible no change and therefore no significant consequence;
Minor slight, very short, or highly localised effect of no significant consequence;
Moderate limited effect (by extent, duration or magnitude) which may be considered
significant; and
Major considerable effect (by extent, duration or magnitude) of more than local significance,
or in breach of recognised acceptability, legislation, policy or standards.
9.4.28
The IEA set out a number of criteria by which the magnitude of effect can be measured. These
are outlined below and in Table 9.3. Many of the criteria do not provide specific thresholds by
which such effects can be measured, and as a result the effects have been measured
qualitatively throughout the rest of this Chapter, where necessary.
9.4.29
Severance is defined in the guidelines as the, perceived division that can occur within a
community when it becomes separated by a major traffic artery. The term is used to describe a
9-10
complex series of factors that separate people from places and other people. Severance may
result from the difficulty of crossing a heavily trafficked road or a physical barrier created by the
road itself. It can also relate to quite minor traffic flows if they impede pedestrian access to
essential facilities. IEA guidelines suggest that a 30%, 60% and 90% increase in traffic flows will
result in a slight (i.e. minor), moderate, and substantial (i.e. major) change in severance
respectively. Baseline AADT traffic flows have been used as the basis of this assessment.
9.4.30
Driver Delay can be determined through the analysis of junction capacity assessments contained
within the TA, which will be measured in terms of change in delay per vehicle (in seconds) from
the baseline situation. This criterion is considered to be applicable to all modes of vehicular
transport using the public highway, namely cars, motorcycles, pedal cycles and buses.
9.4.31
9.4.32
Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity is broadly defined as the relative pleasantness of a journey, and
is considered to be affected by traffic flow, traffic composition and pavement width / separation
from traffic. The guidance suggests that a tentative threshold for judging the significance of
changes in pedestrian and cycle amenity would be where the traffic flow is halved or doubled.
9.4.33
Fear and Intimidation is dependent on the volume of traffic, its HGV composition, its proximity to
people or the lack of protection caused by such factors as narrow pavement widths. In the
absence of commonly agreed thresholds an early study described in the IEA guidelines defined
the degree of hazard to pedestrians by average traffic flow. The study suggested that an average
18 hour traffic flow of 600-1200 vehicles has a moderate effect upon fear and intimidation, 12001800 vehicles a great effect (i.e. major), and above 1800 vehicles an extreme effect. Given the
volume of base traffic on the highway network and established pedestrian/cycle facilities in urban
areas these thresholds have been taken as increases in volumes of traffic for the purposes of this
Chapter.
9.4.34
A detailed assessment of Accidents and Safety has been carried out by examination of road
traffic accident data for the most recent five-year period available. This analysis is included in the
separate TA that accompanies the planning application. DfT Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG)
indicates that a change in accidents of less than 30% has a slight effect while a change of greater
than 30% has a significant effect. For the purposes of this assessment, a change of 5-20% is
deemed to be minor, while a change of 20-30% would be moderate, anything above 30% is
deemed to be major. For the purposes of this assessment, it has been assumed that the number
of accidents will grow in proportion to the growth in traffic flows.
9-11
Table 9.3: Magnitude of Effect criteria
MAGNITUDE
OF EFFECT
CRITERIA
SEVERANCE
PEDESTRIAN
DELAY
Decrease
in average
90% decrease
90% decrease
vehicle
Major Positive
in traffic
in traffic
delay of
volumes
volumes
20+
seconds
Moderate
Positive
Decrease
in average
60%-90%
60%-90%
vehicle
decrease in
decrease in
delay of
traffic volumes
traffic volumes
10-20
seconds
30%-60%
Minor Positive decrease in
traffic volumes
Negligible
Minor
Negative
30%-60%
increase in
traffic volumes
Moderate
Negative
60%-90%
increase in
traffic volumes
Major
Negative
90% increase
in traffic
volumes
Decrease
in average
vehicle
delay of 510
seconds
Change in
average
vehicle
delay of
less than 5
seconds
Increase in
average
vehicle
delay of 510
seconds
Increase in
average
vehicle
delay of
10-20
seconds
Increase in
average
vehicle
delay of
20+
seconds
30%-60%
decrease in
traffic volumes
PED/
CYCLE
AMENITY
90%+
decrease in
traffic
volumes or
more direct
traffic free
alternative
route
provided
60%-90%
decrease in
traffic
volumes or
traffic free
alternative
route
provided
FEAR &
INTIMIDATION
ACCIDENTS
& SAFETY
1800+ decrease
in average 18
hour traffic
volumes or more
direct traffic free
alternative route
provided
30%
decrease in
traffic
volumes
600-1800
decrease in
average 18 hour
traffic volumes or
traffic free
alternative route
provided
20%-30%
decrease in
traffic
volumes
Less than
Less than 30%
30% change
change in
in traffic
traffic volumes
volumes
Less than 5%
change in
traffic
volumes
30%-60%
increase in
traffic volumes
30%-60%
increase in
traffic
volumes
300-600 increase
in average 18
hour traffic
volumes
5%-20%
increase in
traffic
volumes
60%-90%
increase in
traffic volumes
60%-90%
increase in
traffic
volumes
600-1800
increase in
average 18 hour
traffic volumes
20%-30%
increase in
traffic
volumes
90% increase
in traffic
volumes
90%+
increase in
traffic
volumes
SENSITIVITY OF RECEPTORS
9.4.35
The projected effects of the proposed scheme will be measured on two separate scales
dependent upon the receptor.
9.4.36
In terms of Driver Delay and Accidents and Safety, the effects of the proposed scheme will be
assessed at junction level. The sensitivity of these receptors will be expressed in terms of Ratio
of Flow to Capacity (RFC) or Degree of Saturation (DoS). The worst case of the AM and PM
9-12
peak assessments has been taken and thresholds for sensitivity of junctions have been defined
as:
Low Sensitivity:
Medium Sensitivity: RFC between 85% and 95% or DoS between 90% and 95%; and
High Sensitivity:
9.4.37
In terms of Severance, Pedestrian Delay, Pedestrian / Cycle Amenity and Fear and
Intimidation, the links within easy walking/cycling distance of the application site will be used as
receptors cognisant of the study area agreed with KCC. The sensitivity of pedestrian routes and
cycle routes is based on a qualitative assessment, taking into consideration the importance and
attractiveness of the route and the destinations served. The thresholds are defined as:
Negligible Sensitivity:
Low Sensitivity:
provided;
Medium Sensitivity: Main vehicular route with pedestrian / cycle facilities provided in built up
area;
High Sensitivity:
EFFECT SIGNIFICANCE
9.4.38
In order to determine the significance of an effect on specific receptors, both the sensitivity of
receptors and the magnitude of effect, outlined above are considered. Table 9.4 shows the
matrix that has been used to determine the significance of effect.
Table 9.4 Matrix for determining effect significance
RECEPTOR SENSITIVITY
High
Effect
magnitude
Moderate
Low
Negligible
Moderate
Negative
Minor Negative
Negligible
Moderate
Major Negative
Moderate
Negative
Negative
Minor Negative
Moderate
Minor Negative Minor Negative
Negative
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
9.5
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
BASELINE CONDITIONS
EXISTING BASELINE
HIGHWAY NETWORK
9.5.1
The principal point of access to the existing site is via a priority junction located on Manston Road.
This internal road provides access to the former terminal building, car park and a number of other
existing buildings on the site. The B2050 Manston Road is a single carriageway road that runs
between St Lawrence in the east and Birchington on Sea in the northwest. 150m east of the
existing access, the Manston Road forms a priority junction with Manston Court Road, which
connects with Westwood Cross in the northeast. The village of Manston is situated some 800m
further east of the site via the Manston Road. Manston Road continues through the Village where
it is traffic calmed and subject to a 30mph speed limit. Manston Road then continues east and
forms a roundabout junction with the A256 Haine Road at Stanner Hill.
9-13
9.5.2
To the west of the airport access road Manston Road forms a priority staggered crossroads with
the B2190 Spitfire Way (Spitfire Corner). In the vicinity of the airport site Manston Road is subject
to a 40mph speed limit. Through the Spitfire junction Manston Road is subject to a 30mph, which
then increases to the national speed limit towards Birchington on Sea. In the vicinity of the site
the road is not street lit.
9.5.3
A further section of Manston Road runs northeast to southwest between Shottendane Road in the
north and Spitfire Corner in the south. This road is a single carriageway with one lane running in
each direction. Near Shottendane Road, Manston Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit and is
street lit. The road becomes national speed limit immediately south of the junction with Half Mile
Road and continues until approximately the northern extremity of the site where it becomes
30mph. Except through the built up area of Margate the road is not street lit.
9.5.4
Spitfire Way is a single carriageway road with one lane running in each direction that runs
between Spitfire Corner in the northeast and the A299 in the southwest. In the vicinity of Spitfire
Corner the road is subject to a 30mph speed limit. This changes to the national speed limit
(60mph) to the south of the junction with Bell Davies Drive. This section of Spitfire Way is not
street lit. Towards the west of the site Spitfire Way forms a roundabout junction with Columbus
Avenue. The road then continues west where it forms a further roundabout junction with Minster
Road. Minster Road then continues south where it forms a roundabout junction with the A299
and Tothill Street (Minster Roundabout). The section of road between the Minster roundabout
and Columbus Avenue roundabout is a dual-carriageway featuring two lanes in each direction, is
subject to a 50mph speed limit and is street lit.
9.5.5
A number of points of access to the site are located on Spitfire Way providing emergency access
to the former runway and taxiway network in addition to a number of existing buildings.
9.5.6
The site is well located in terms of strategic vehicular access with the A299 skirting the southern
boundary. The A299 has recently been upgraded as part of the East Kent Access scheme which
opened in May 2012 and provides strategic highway connections towards Sandwich, Deal and
Dover to the south and towards Canterbury, Maidstone and London to the west. The A299 in the
vicinity of the site is a dual carriageway featuring two lanes in each direction. With the exception
of the junctions the road is not street lit and subject to national speed limit (70mph).
9.5.7
From the Minster roundabout the A299 continues east on an east-west alignment along the
southern boundary of the site to where it forms a three arm roundabout with the A299 Hengist
Way and Canterbury Road West (Cliffsend Roundabout). Canterbury Road West borders the site
in the south east and is the former A299 before the East Kent Access scheme was introduced.
The road is in places a wide single carriageway with one lane running in each direction but has
been traffic calmed through the village of Cliffsend. Immediately to the east of the Cliffsend
roundabout a set of traffic signals have been implemented to calm traffic and encourage the use
of the A299 Hengist Way. Through the village of Cliffsend Canterbury Road West is subject to a
30mph speed limit and is street lit. Either side of this the road is subject to national speed limit
(60mph). Canterbury Road West continues east through Cliffsend where it forms a roundabout
with the A256 Haine Road at Lord of the Manor.
9.5.8
To the south of the site the A299 forms a roundabout junction with the A256 and Cottington Link
Road (Sevenscore Roundabout). The A256 then continues south towards Sandwich and
ultimately Dover. The A256 continues east and forms a traffic signal junction with Sandwich
Road, Haine Road and Canterbury Road East at Lord of the Manor.
9.5.9
The A256 Haine Road runs in a north-south direction to the east of the site and links the Lord of
the Manor junction and Sandwich Road in the south with Westwood Cross and the A254 Margate
Road in the north.
9.5.10
To the west of the Minster roundabout the A299 forms roundabout junctions with the A28 which
provide connections towards Canterbury to the south and Margate to the north. The A299
9-14
continues west and provides connections towards Herne Bay, Whitstable and the A2/M2 at
Brenley Corner.
9.5.11
The highway network in the vicinity of the Site is shown in Figure 9.3.
PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
9.5.12
The Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) guidelines Providing for Journeys
on Foot (2000) provides details on acceptable walking distances. For commuting the guidelines
state that a distance of up to 500 metres is considered to be desirable, whilst one kilometre and
two kilometres are considered to be acceptable and preferred maximum walking distances. These
distances have been used when assessing pedestrian infrastructure in the vicinity of the site.
9.5.13
There are currently limited facilities for pedestrians on the highway network in the vicinity of the
site. The B2050 which intersects the site has no pedestrian footway provision along the site
frontage. The B2050 Manston Road bisects the village of Manston approximately 800m to the
east of the site. A footway is provided on the northern side of the carriageway through the village
within the residential area. The village of Manston is 800m east of the site access, which is
considered to be an acceptable distance to travel on foot or by bicycle. However, it is
acknowledged that pedestrian infrastructure in the area is limited.
9.5.14
There are no pedestrian facilities provided along Spitfire Way which bounds the site in the west
with the exception of a short section of shared cycle/footway near the Manston Business Park and
a footway between Bell Davies Drive and Spitfire Corner. There is a section of informal shared
cycle/footway adjacent to the A299 Hengist Way which bounds the site to the south. This
connects the Minster roundabout with the old Canterbury Road West highway with some amenity
for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to travel along the southern boundary.
9.5.15
There are footways in the vicinity of the Minster roundabout and a Toucan (pedestrian and cycle)
crossing across the A299 Hengist Way linking the southwestern corner of the site to Minster and
the Viking Coastal Trail to the south. However, provision is disjointed and overall pedestrian
infrastructure is considered limited.
9.5.16
In addition to the provision of some footways adjacent to highways in the local area, there is a
network of Public Rights of Way (PROW) comprising public bridleways and public footpaths in the
vicinity of the site. Most notably the TR10 bridleway connects the east of the site with Ramsgate.
9.5.17
Pedestrian Isochrones for 400m and 800m walking distance from the perimeter of the Site along
with PROWs in the vicinity are shown in Figure 9.4.
CYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
9.5.18
DfT Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycling Infrastructure Design states that many utility cycle trips
are less than three miles (4.8 kilometres), but for commuter journeys a distance of over five miles
(eight kilometres) is not uncommon. These distances have been used to define the area of study
for cycle infrastructure.
9.5.19
No formal cycle facilities are available along the Manston Road, however a local on-road route is
located along Spratling Street, Haine Road and Sitrling Way, providing access to Westwood
Cross and Newington. Although there are no cycle facilities provided on Spitfire Way, a shared
cycle/footway is provided from the Manston Business Park through to the Minster roundabout. At
this junction a toucan crossing is provided to facilitate cycle connections south towards Minster
village and west along the A299. A section of shared cycle/footway is provided between the
Minster roundabout and the old highway of Canterbury Road West to the immediate south of the
site.
9.5.20
The nearest National Cycle Network (NCN) route identified by Sustrans is Regional Route 15
(RR15), located 800m (crowfly distance) south of the sites southern boundary. Regional Route
9-15
15 is also known as the Viking Trail and runs from St Nicholas At Wade and follows the coast
north east through Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs and southeast to Whitfield and Dover.
9.5.21
Cycle Isochrones representing 2.5km and 5km cycling distance of the Site and showing cycle
routes within these thresholds are shown in Figure 9.5.
9.5.22
The following destinations are considered accessible by bicycle from the site.
Minster on Sea;
Birchington;
Westgate on Sea;
Margate;
Ramsgate;
Newington; and
Cliffsend.
BUS BASED PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
9.5.23
Bus services 11, 38 and 38A currently operate along Spitfire Way and Manston Road that bound
the site. There are two pairs of bus stops provided along the site boundary, one set on Minster
Road to the southwest of the site and one along Spitfire Way at Spitfire Corner. A further bus stop
is provided outside of the former terminal building. Facilities at these bus stops are limited with
flag poles and timetable information at some stops and a shelter provided on Spitfire Way.
9.5.24
Bus routes 9 and 9X operate services along Canterbury Road West to the southeast of the site
and a pair of bus stops are provided along this road to the south of the eastern extents of the site.
These stops feature bus stop flags and timetable information. The frequency of bus services in
the vicinity of the site is summarised in Table 9.5 below.
9-16
Table 9.5 Bus Services, frequencies and routes in the vicinity of the site
SERVICE DESTINATIONS
9
11
38
38A
WEEKDAY
FREQUENCY PER
DAY OUTBOUND
11
WEEKDAY
FREQUENCY PER
DAY INBOUND
14
FIRST /LAST
BUS
OUTBOUND
0618 / 1642
FIRST /LAST
BUS
INBOUND
0845 / 1815
1051 /
1841
0704 / 1605
Ramsgate
Birchington on Sea
13
14
0746 / 1736
0838 / 1752
Ramsgate - St
Nicholas at Ware
0711 / 1613
0755 / 0755
9.5.25
The 9 and 9X routes run between Canterbury and Westwood Cross. The services combine to
provide approximately one service per hour in either direction during the day along this route.
The 9X service provides one AM peak hour service towards Canterbury however there are no AM
peak hour services provided in the opposite direction towards Westwood Cross.
9.5.26
The 38 and 38A routes run between Ramsgate and Birchington and combine to provide a service
with a headway of approximately one hour during the day. One AM peak hour service is provided
from Birchington to Ramsgate via the site, however there are no AM peak hour services provided
in the opposite direction.
9.5.27
Bus route 11 runs between Canterbury and Westwood Cross and operates with a headway of two
to three hours throughout the day with no peak hour services.
9.5.28
A plan showing the bus routes and stops in the vicinity of the Site is shown in Figure 9.6.
RAIL BASED PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
9.5.29
The closest railway stations to the site are Ramsgate station located approximately 4km to the
east and Minster station approximately 2km to the south of the boundary of the site. Ramsgate
station is operated by Southeastern and benefits from access to both high speed and standard
services. A wide range of destinations across Kent are accessible directly from Ramsgate
including Dover, Folkestone, Canterbury, Ashford and the Medway Towns with onwards travel to
London St Pancras, Charing Cross and Victoria.
9.5.30
Access to high speed services from Ramsgate are provided via two routes. The first provides an
hourly service to London St Pancras via Canterbury West with a journey time of approximately 80
minutes. A further north Kent loop service travels via Whitstable, Sittingbourne and the Medway
Towns and takes approximately 110 minutes to reach London. Combined these services provide
trains to/from London on a 30 minute frequency throughout the day. Ramsgate Station is also
served by an hourly standard service train to London Charing Cross via Canterbury West, and
one train an hour to London Victoria via Sittingbourne and Bromley South. The station is served
by bus route 11 and therefore connects the development to the station.
9.5.31
Minster Station is located approximately 2km south of the southwest corner of the site and is
considered accessible by cycling and bus routes 38A and 11. Minster train station provides one
train per hour to London Charing Cross (via Canterbury). However, the station does not offer
access to high speed services making this station less attractive for access to rail based public
transport.
9.5.32
The location of the rail stations in the vicinity of the Site are shown in Figure 9.6.
9-17
ACCESS TO AMENITIES
9.5.33
Access to local amenities has been considered by reference to the number of services and
facilities available within walking, cycling and driving distance of the site. An acceptable walking
distance to access an amenity is considered to be up to two kilometres. An acceptable cycling
distance is considered to be up to five kilometres.
9.5.34
The site is located remote from large urban centres and therefore existing access to amenities on
foot is limited. However, as identified above parts of Westwood, Ramsgate and Margate are
accessible by bicycle.
9.5.35
Table 9.6 below summarises the distance between the former terminal building on the site and
local facilities.
Table 9.6: Access to facilities and amenities
FACILITY
Convenience Store
Public House
Pre-school and Nursery
Supermarket
Primary School
Secondary School
Shopping centre
(Westwood Cross)
Doctor
Leisure Centre
Dentist
Hospital
Library
DISTANCE
0.8KM
0.8 KM
1.0 KM
2.4 KM
2.8 KM
3.2KM
3.6 KM
WALKING TIME
10 mins
10 mins
12 mins
30 mins
35 mins
40 mins
45 mins
CYCLING TIME
3 mins
3 mins
4 mins
10 mins
11 mins
13 mins
14 mins
4.1 KM
4.4KM
4.8 KM
5.0 KM
5 KM
51 mins
55 mins
1 hour
1 hr two mins
1 hour two mins
16 mins
18 mins
19 mins
20 mins
20 mins
9.5.36
Table 9.6 above demonstrates that whilst limited amenities are available within walking distance
of the site a range of facilities are within cycling distance. To address this a local centre is
proposed to be provided on site as part of the Proposed Development to ensure the necessary
facilities and amenities for both residents and users of the development are provided reducing the
need for travel in line with national and local policy.
9.5.37
A plan showing the amenities within the vicinity of the Site is included in Figure 9.7.
ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY
9.5.38
Five years of Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data has been obtained from KCC for the local
highway network in the vicinity of the site. The PIA data covers the period up to the 31st
December 2014.
9.5.39
The study area for the accident data analysis only extends from the A28/A299 roundabout in the
west to Westwood Cross in the east, Coffin House Corner in the North and the A256/A299
roundabout junction in the south. The study area is shown in Figure 9.8.
9.5.40
The PIA data indicates that there were 306 accidents recorded within the study area over the five
year period, 268 of which were classified as slight in severity, 34 were classified as serious and
four were classed as fatal. The collisions have been analysed in detail within the accompanying
TA.
9.5.41
There are a large number of collisions that have occurred across the study area and at some
locations there are patterns to the types of collisions taking place. However, given the volume of
traffic on the highway network and constrained nature of the corridors in the built-up areas this
pattern is not considered to be abnormal with the accidents generally occurring at junctions and
9-18
being of the types expected for the road layout. A pattern of KSIs occurring on the A28 has been
identified and should be considered further by the highway authority. However, the development
is not anticipated to have a material effect in the location of the accidents on the A28 and
therefore no further consideration is given to this within this Chapter.
FUTURE BASELINE
9.5.42
A number of improvements are proposed to the local transport network in the vicinity of the site
that will effect the future baseline.
RAIL IMPROVEMENTS
9.5.43
Future proposals for a Parkway Station to the south of the site, due to open in 2019, will provide
further enhanced rail connections and access to Kents high speed rail services. This
improvement has not been considered as committed within this Chapter.
9.5.44
Thanet Parkway station is part of a wider package of improvements on the Ramsgate to Ashford
line that aims to reduce journey times to London from Ramsgate to around one hour. This is a
two phase project broken down as follows:
Phase 1 - Ashford to Canterbury West - work currently underway;
Phase 2 - Canterbury West to Ramsgate - due to be complete by the end of 2016
9.5.45
Reduced journey times to London will greatly enhance the accessibility of Thanet as a whole and
provide access to London within approximately one hour. This improvement has been considered
as committed for the purposes of this Chapter.
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS
9.5.46
The consented Manston Green development (Ref: OL/TH/13/0050) will deliver improvements to
the A256 Haine Road corridor in the form of:
A new enlarged roundabout at the Canterbury Road West/Haine Road junction (Lord of the
Manor northern junction);
A new single carriageway highway link between the Lord of the Manor northern junction and
Manston Road;
A new roundabout on Manston Road where the new highway link from the south will tie in;
and
A new roundabout at the existing Manston Road/Haine Road roundabout and priority junction.
This new junction will provide a four arm conventional roundabout to replace the current three
arm arrangement with a priority junction to the immediate north.
9.5.47
These improvements have been considered as committed for the purposes of this Chapter.
9.5.48
The consented Discovery Park development (Ref: DOV/14/00058) will deliver an improvement to
the A256/A257 Ash Road roundabout junction. This improvement is secured through the S106
th
agreement for implementation upon the occupation of the 400 dwelling on the site and has been
considered as committed within this Chapter.
9.6
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
9.6.1
A number of receptors have been identified in the vicinity of the application site potentially
susceptible to the effects of the proposed scheme. The effects of the development on Severance,
9-19
Pedestrian Delay, Pedestrian / Cycle Amenity and Fear and Intimidation are measured as a
change in traffic flows along links in the vicinity of the site.
9.6.2
Table 9.7 below presents the links that have been assessed as part of this development and the
sensitivity of these links as defined by the criteria in Section 9.4.
9-20
Table 9.7: Receptors for assessment of effects on Pedestrians and Cyclists (Severance,
Pedestrian Delay, Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity and Fear and Intimidation) and Sensitivity
RECEPTOR (LINK)
SENSIVITY OF
RECEPTOR
Link Number
Road Name
Start Junction
End Junction
Manston Road
(B2050)
Spitfire Corner
Medium
Manston Road
(B2050)
Spitfire Corner
Park Lane
Medium
Manston Road
Spitfire Corner
Shottendane Road
Medium
Spitfire Way
(B2190)
Spitfire Corner
Minster Road
Low
Columbus Avenue
Spitfire Way
Columbus Avenue
Low
Spitfire Way
Park Lane
High
Minster Road
(including The
Street and Acol
Hill)
Park Lane
Manston Road
Canterbury Road
(A28)
Medium
Shottendane Road
Park Lane
Medium
Manston Court
Road
Medium
10
Minster roundabout
Cliffsend roundabout
Low
11
Minster roundabout
Thanet Way
Low
12
A253 Canterbury
Road
Monkton Roundabout
Old Road
Medium
13
Cliffsend roundabout
Sevenscore
roundabout
Low
14
Canterbury Road
West
Cliffsend roundabout
Medium
15
A256
Sevenscore roundabout
Low
16
A256
Sevenscore roundabout
Ramsgate Road
(Copart roundabout)
Low
17
Sandwich Road
Ebbsfleet roundabout
Medium
18
Manston Road
(B2050)`
Low
19
Spratling Street
Medium
20
Spratling Street
Haine Road
Medium
21
Haine Road
Medium
22
Haine Road
Nash Road
Medium
9-21
23
A299 Canterbury
Road East
Royal Harbour
Approach
Medium
24
A255
Royal Harbour
Approach
London Road
Medium
Notes:
*This link is measured as the existing A256 Haine Road in the base year but is replaced by the
proposed Haine Road improved corridor in the future year scenarios assessed as part of the
Manston Green committed highway infrastructure package delivered through planning consent
(OL/TH/13/0050).
9.6.3
In terms of Driver Delay and Accidents and Safety, the effects of the development have been
measured at junctions. The receptors identified for this assessment are presented in Table 9.8
below along with their sensitivity measured as the performance of the junction in the base year as
defined in Section 9.4.
9-22
Table 9.8: Receptors for assessment of effects on Highway Network and Sensitivity
JUNCTION
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
13
14
17
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
37
40
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)
A299 Hengist Way/Minster Road/Tothill
Street (Minster roundabout)
A299 Hengist Way/A253/Willets Hill
(Monkton roundabout)
A299/A28 Canterbury Road
A253/A28 Canterbury Road
B2190 Spitfire Way/Minster Road
B2190 Spitfire Way/Columbus Avenue
B2050 Manston Road/Spitfire Way (Spitfire
Corner)
B2050 Manston Road/Shottendane Road
Manston Road/Shottendane Road
Shottendane Road/Nash Road (Coffin
House Corner)
A256 Haine Road/A254 Margate Road
A256 Haine Road/Star Lane Link
A256 New Haine Road/Haine Road (Toby
Carvery roundabout)
A256 New Haine Road/Sainsburys Access
A256 Haine Road/New Haine Road
A256 Haine Road/B2050 Manston Road
B2050 Manston Road/Manston Court Road
A299/A256/Sandwich Road (Lord of the
Manor south)
A256 Haine Road/Canterbury Road West
A299/Royal Harbour Approach
A255/London Road
A299 Hengist Way/A256/Cottington Link
Road (Sevenscore roundabout)
A299 Hengist Way/Canterbury Road West
(Cliffsend roundabout)
A256/Sandwich Road (Ebbsfleet
roundabout)
A256/Ramsgate Road (Copart roundabout)
A256/A257 Ash Road
A256 Haine Road/Manston Road (new
junction)
JUNCTION TYPE
SENSITIVITY
Roundabout
High
Roundabout
Low
Roundabout
Mini-roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Priority junction
Medium
Priority junction
Priority Junction
Low
Low
Signalised junction
Low
Roundabout
Roundabout
Low
Low
Roundabout
Low
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
Priority junction
Low
Low
Medium*
Low
Signalised gyratory
Medium
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
Low**
Medium
High
Roundabout
Low
Roundabout
Low
Roundabout
Low**
Roundabout
Roundabout
Low**
High**
Roundabout
Low**
Notes:
*Existing roundabout junction
**Measured in base + committed development scenario due to provision of committed
infrastructure.
9-23
9.7
9.7.1
Construction of the Proposed Development is described in detail within Chapter 2 and is expected
to commence in 2017. For the purposes of this assessment a 2021 future forecast year has been
used to align with the assessment years used in the TA. At this stage, prior to planning consent
being granted the phasing of the development is undecided therefore a linear construction
programme has been assumed with the development being built over a 15 year period.
9.7.2
Access for construction traffic associated with the development on the application site will initially
be via Spitfire Way in terms of the Phase 1 employment zone. Following Phase 1 it is envisaged
that construction traffic will access from either Spitfire Way or the A299 Hengist Way.
9.7.3
It is anticipated that all construction traffic will occur outside of the peak hours and this could be
secured by condition as part of any planning permission. The daily construction traffic generation
of the residential proportion of the application site has been calculated based upon sites of similar
scale that AECOM (the author of this chapter) have previously worked on. The construction traffic
associated with the residential uses has been estimated based upon the number of dwellings
anticipated to be delivered each year.
9.7.4
The construction traffic associated with the development of the employment uses on the
application site has been calculated based upon the anticipated volumes of building materials to
be delivered to the site. Assumptions have then been made as to the number of deliveries
associated with the anticipated volumes of building materials. All demolition is assumed to have
been completed by this date and therefore not considered within this construction traffic
assessment.
9.7.5
Overall, given the size of the site it is anticipated that a cut and fill balance can be achieved
across the site and as such traffic associated with achieving the necessary levels for construction
of on-site infrastructure and development zones would be contained to the site and would not
therefore have an effect on the surrounding transport network. It is anticipated that construction
traffic would be managed and controlled through appropriately worded planning conditions
attached to any planning consent that would require detailed construction method statements and
managed plans to be prepared and submitted for approval which would include further details on
construction traffic.
9.7.6
Based upon the methodology outlined above it is anticipated that 167 dwellings and 5667m of
employment floorspace would be delivered per year. The daily construction traffic associated with
the build out of each element of the application site is outlined in Table 9.9 below. The quantum
of construction taking place in a 2021 assessment year has been based upon an estimation of the
build out of the development. By 2021, it was assumed that all of the demolition on the
application site would have taken place to enable construction of the masterplan.
9.7.7
In addition to the construction traffic it was assumed that an element of the development would be
complete by this stage. The proportion of development that was assumed to be completed by this
stage was 500 dwellings and 22667m of employment space. Other uses such as the local centre,
school and leisure were not assumed to be in place by this time.
9-24
Table 9.9: Daily Total Application site Construction Traffic Trip Generation
ARRIVALS
Employment
Residential
Total
Light
Vehicles
50
36
86
Heavy
Vehicles
20
21
41
DEPARTURES
Light
Vehicles
50
36
86
Heavy
Vehicles
20
21
41
TWO-WAY
Light
Vehicles
100
72
172
Heavy
Vehicles
40
42
82
Total
140
114
254
MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT
9.7.8
The effect of the construction scenario on Fear and Intimidation is measured in terms of change in
traffic volumes along links in the vicinity of the site. Links that experience an increase in traffic
volumes of between 300 and 600 vehicles AADT are classified as having a minor negative effect,
links that experience an effect of between 600 and 1800 are classified as experiencing a
moderate negative effect and links that experience an increase of over 1800 vehicles AADT are
considered to have experienced a major negative effect. The application site will generate fewer
than 300 construction movements per day and therefore construction will have a negligible effect
on Fear and Intimidation.
9.7.9
9.7.10
The magnitude of effect of Driver Delay is measured in terms of average driver delay during the
peak hour. It is not envisaged that the construction of the development will generate any
construction vehicle movements during the peak hours. The construction phase of development
is therefore not predicted to amount to a change in average driver delay of more than 5 seconds
at any of the junctions within the study area during the peak hours. Delays outside of the peak
hours, when background traffic flows are generally lower, are also likely to have a negligible
effect. The magnitude of effect of the construction traffic on driver delay is therefore predicted to
be negligible.
9.7.11
The magnitude of effect on Pedestrian Delay, Ped/Cycle Amenity and Accidents and Safety is
measured by increase in traffic volumes. When compared with the 2021 Base + Committed
Development 18 hour AAWT flows, none of the links affected by the construction traffic are
expected to experience an increase of more than 30% in total traffic or a 10% increase in AAWT
HGV traffic with the addition of the construction traffic. The magnitude of effect of the
construction traffic on Pedestrian Delay, Ped/Cycle Amenity and Accidents and Safety is therefore
predicted to be negligible.
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT
9.7.12
As the magnitude of effect of all of the effects outlined above are predicted to be negligible,
according to Table 9.4 above, the significance of effect will be negligible, regardless of the
sensitivity of receptor.
MITIGATION
9.7.13
Whilst the sensitivity of some receptors is high the magnitude of change is low. Therefore, there
is unlikely to be a significant effect as a result of construction of the development.
Notwithstanding this, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be secured
through any planning consent to ensure that the effects of construction on the surrounding
9-25
transport network are minimised. An outline CEMP is provided as Appendix 2.1 of Chapter 2 of
this ES.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
9.7.14
The residual effects resulting from the construction stage are considered to be negligible.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
METHODOLOGY
9.7.15
This section sets out the expected trip generation associated with the long-term activity on the
application site and assesses the effects that this activity is expected to have on the surrounding
highway network during the operational phase of the development.
9.7.16
The proposed scheme is expected to generate a significant number of additional trips by all
modes. In order to assess the effects of the proposed scheme on the local transport networks,
trip generation forecasts have been derived for each of the land uses proposed on the site. The
trip generation forecasts have been described in full in Section Five of the TA Application Report
(Ref 9.1) that accompanies the planning application.
9.7.17
The total all mode trip generation proposed on the application site when fully operational is
summarised in Table 9.10 below.
Table 9.10: Total Application Site Multi-modal Trip Generation (including internalisation)
MODE
Rail
Bus
Taxi
M/C
Car Driver
Car Passenger
Cycle
Pedestrian
Total
AM PEAK
IN
20
100
4
9
495
74
29
180
910
OUT
40
223
5
12
746
96
47
340
1509
PM PEAK
IN
39
86
6
14
803
153
41
195
1337
OUT
32
80
6
13
716
138
37
178
1201
DAILY
IN
300
957
55
113
6505
1333
347
1886
11497
SATURDAY PEAK
OUT
312
1037
56
116
6694
1342
361
1992
11911
IN
21
77
5
7
520
159
22
170
980
9.7.18
The anticipated trip generation of the application site has been distributed onto the highway
network based upon journey purpose. Full details of the distribution of trips onto the highway
network are contained in Section Five of the separately prepared TA Application Report (Ref 9.1)
that accompanies the Planning Application.
9.7.19
It should be noted that this assessment considers the effects of the Proposed Development
without the implementation of any mitigation. Mitigation and the effect this has is considered later
in this Chapter.
OUT
28
96
6
9
707
192
30
219
1287
MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT
9.7.20
As per Table 9.3, the magnitude of effect of Severance, Pedestrian Delay, Pedestrian and Cycle
Amenity and Fear and Intimidation is measured in terms of proportional change in traffic volumes
as a result of the development. Table 9.11 and Table 9.12 below compares the proposed
scheme traffic (for both the AAWT and AADT scenarios) against the 2021 Future Baseline +
Committed Development traffic flows to ascertain the proportion of effect of the development
flows. Traffic flow information used to inform this Chapter is contained in Appendix 9.
Table 9.11: Proportional Effect of Development on 2021 Future Link Flows AAWT
9-26
RECEPTOR (LINK)
Link
Road Name
Number
Start
Junction
Manston
A256 Haine
Road (B2050)
Road
Manston
Road (B2050)
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Spitfire
Corner
9679
10496
817
8%
Spitfire
Corner
Park Lane
5197
6399
1201
23%
Manston
Road
Spitfire
Corner
Shottendane
Road
3954
4633
679
17%
Spitfire Way
(B2190)
Spitfire
Corner
Minster Road
8798
11199
2401
27%
Columbus
Avenue
2141
2348
206
10%
Park Lane
6908
7181
273
4%
Canterbury
Road (A28)
5311
5575
264
5%
Coffin House
Corner
7788
8975
1187
15%
Star Lane
Link
3439
3625
186
5%
Cliffsend
roundabout
23311
26905
3594
15%
30993
33278
2284
7%
10411
11552
1141
11%
27450
29499
2048
7%
4993
5793
800
16%
30038
33866
3828
13%
27450
29499
2048
7%
3096
3096
0%
23987
26609
2621
11%
25967
28018
2052
8%
13114
14698
1584
12%
17659
19243
1584
9%
Columbus
Spitfire Way
Avenue
Minster Road
(including The
Spitfire Way
Street and
Acol Hill)
Manston
Park Lane
Road
Shottendane
Road
Park Lane
Manston
Road
(B2050)
A299 Hengist
Minster
Way
roundabout
Manston
Court Road
A299 Hengist
Minster
Thanet Way
Way
roundabout
A253
Monkton
Canterbury
Old Road
Roundabout
Road
A299 Hengist
Cliffsend
Sevenscore
Way
roundabout roundabout
14
Canterbury
Road West
15
A256
16
A256
17
Sandwich
Road
18
A256 Haine
Road
19
A256 Haine
Road
20
A256 New
Haine Road
21
A256 Haine
Road
Cliffsend
Lord of the
roundabout Manor (north)
Lord of the
Sevenscore
Manor
roundabout
(south)
Ramsgate
Sevenscore
Road (Copart
roundabout
roundabout)
Lord of the
Ebbsfleet
Manor
roundabout
(south)
Lord of the
Manston
Manor
Road
(north)
(B2050)`
Manston
Spratling
Road
Street
(B2050)
Spratling
Haine Road
Street
Haine Road
Star Lane
Link
9-27
22
23
24
Star Lane
Link
A299
Canterbury
Road East
A255
Haine Road
Nash Road
Lord of the
Royal
Manor
Harbour
(south)
Approach
Royal
Harbour
London Road
Approach
8288
8456
168
2%
21584
23774
2190
10%
21248
23062
1814
9%
Table 9.12: Proportional Effect of Development on 2021 Future Link Flows AADT
RECEPTOR (LINK)
Link
Road Name
Number
Start
Junction
Manston
A256 Haine
Road (B2050)
Road
Manston
Road (B2050)
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Spitfire
Corner
9241
10059
817
9%
Spitfire
Corner
Park Lane
4916
6117
1201
24%
Manston
Road
Spitfire
Corner
Shottendane
Road
3654
4333
679
19%
Spitfire Way
(B2190)
Spitfire
Corner
Minster Road
8166
10394
2227
27%
Columbus
Avenue
1703
1909
206
12%
Park Lane
6507
6780
273
4%
Canterbury
Road (A28)
4849
5113
264
5%
Coffin House
Corner
7085
8272
1187
17%
Star Lane
Link
2865
3051
186
7%
Cliffsend
roundabout
27325
30919
3594
13%
36510
38794
2284
6%
9817
10958
1141
12%
25447
27495
2048
8%
4775
5576
800
17%
28628
32455
3828
13%
25447
27495
2048
8%
Columbus
Spitfire Way
Avenue
Minster Road
(including The
Spitfire Way
Street and
Acol Hill)
Manston
Park Lane
Road
Shottendane
Road
Park Lane
Manston
Road
(B2050)
A299 Hengist
Minster
Way
roundabout
Manston
Court Road
A299 Hengist
Minster
Thanet Way
Way
roundabout
A253
Monkton
Canterbury
Old Road
Roundabout
Road
A299 Hengist
Cliffsend
Sevenscore
Way
roundabout roundabout
14
Canterbury
Road West
15
A256
16
A256
Cliffsend
Lord of the
roundabout Manor (north)
Lord of the
Sevenscore
Manor
roundabout
(south)
Ramsgate
Sevenscore
Road (Copart
roundabout
roundabout)
9-28
17
Sandwich
Road
18
A256 Haine
Road
19
A256 Haine
Road
20
A256 New
Haine Road
21
A256 Haine
Road
22
23
24
9.7.21
Star Lane
Link
A299
Canterbury
Road East
A255
Lord of the
Manor
(south)
Lord of the
Manor
(north)
Manston
Road
(B2050)
Spratling
Street
Ebbsfleet
roundabout
2928
2928
0%
Manston
Road
(B2050)`
23095
25716
2621
11%
Spratling
Street
25109
27161
2052
8%
Haine Road
12483
14067
1584
13%
Haine Road
Star Lane
Link
17262
18846
1584
9%
Haine Road
Nash Road
7771
7939
168
2%
20671
22861
2190
11%
20356
22170
1814
9%
Lord of the
Royal
Manor
Harbour
(south)
Approach
Royal
Harbour
London Road
Approach
In addition to the 2021 scenario and in accordance with the TA Application Report (Ref 9.1) that
has been prepared separately a 2026 scenario has also been considered. Table 9.13 and Table
9.14 below compares the proposed scheme traffic (for both the AAWT and AADT scenarios)
against the 2026 Future Baseline + Committed Development traffic flows to ascertain the
proportion of effect of the development flows.
Table 9.13: Proportional Effect of Development on 2026 Future Link Flows AAWT
RECEPTOR (LINK)
Link
Road Name
Number
Start
Junction
Manston
A256 Haine
Road (B2050)
Road
Manston
Road (B2050)
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
Spitfire
Corner
10262
11079
817
8%
Spitfire
Corner
Park Lane
5510
6712
1201
22%
Manston
Road
Spitfire
Corner
Shottendane
Road
4192
4871
679
16%
Spitfire Way
(B2190)
Spitfire
Corner
Minster Road
9328
11729
2401
26%
Columbus
Avenue
2270
2477
206
9%
Park Lane
7324
7597
273
4%
Canterbury
Road (A28)
5631
5895
264
5%
Coffin House
Corner
8257
9444
1187
14%
Star Lane
Link
3646
3832
186
5%
Cliffsend
roundabout
24715
28309
3594
15%
Columbus
Spitfire Way
Avenue
Minster Road
(including The
Spitfire Way
Street and
Acol Hill)
Manston
Park Lane
Road
Shottendane
Road
Park Lane
Manston
Road
(B2050)
A299 Hengist
Minster
Way
roundabout
Manston
Court Road
9-29
11
12
13
A299 Hengist
Minster
Thanet Way
Way
roundabout
A253
Monkton
Canterbury
Old Road
Roundabout
Road
A299 Hengist
Cliffsend
Sevenscore
Way
roundabout roundabout
14
Canterbury
Road West
15
A256
16
A256
17
Sandwich
Road
18
A256 Haine
Road
19
A256 Haine
Road
20
A256 New
Haine Road
21
A256 Haine
Road
22
23
24
Star Lane
Link
A299
Canterbury
Road East
A255
Cliffsend
Lord of the
roundabout Manor (north)
Lord of the
Sevenscore
Manor
roundabout
(south)
Ramsgate
Sevenscore
Road (Copart
roundabout
roundabout)
Lord of the
Ebbsfleet
Manor
roundabout
(south)
Lord of the
Manston
Manor
Road
(north)
(B2050)`
Manston
Spratling
Road
Street
(B2050)
Spratling
Haine Road
Street
32860
35144
2284
7%
11038
12179
1141
10%
29103
31152
2048
7%
5294
6094
800
15%
31847
35674
3828
12%
29103
31152
2048
7%
3283
3283
0%
25432
28053
2621
10%
27531
29582
2052
7%
13904
15488
1584
11%
Haine Road
Star Lane
Link
18722
20306
1584
8%
Haine Road
Nash Road
8788
8955
168
2%
22884
25074
2190
10%
22527
24341
1814
8%
Lord of the
Royal
Manor
Harbour
(south)
Approach
Royal
Harbour
London Road
Approach
Table 9.14: Proportional Effect of Development on 2026 Future Link Flows AADT
RECEPTOR (LINK)
Link
Road Name
Number
Start
Junction
Manston
A256 Haine
Road (B2050)
Road
Manston
Road (B2050)
Spitfire
Corner
9793
10611
817
8%
Spitfire
Corner
Park Lane
5210
6411
1201
23%
Manston
Road
Spitfire
Corner
Shottendane
Road
3872
4551
679
18%
Spitfire Way
(B2190)
Spitfire
Corner
Minster Road
8654
10882
2227
26%
Columbus
Avenue
Spitfire Way
Columbus
Avenue
1804
2011
206
11%
Minster Road
Spitfire Way
(including The
Park Lane
6895
7168
273
4%
9-30
Street and
Acol Hill)
7
Park Lane
Manston
Road
Canterbury
Road (A28)
5139
5403
264
5%
Shottendane
Road
Park Lane
Coffin House
Corner
7508
8695
1187
16%
Star Lane
Link
3036
3222
186
6%
Cliffsend
roundabout
28957
32551
3594
12%
38690
40974
2284
6%
10403
11544
1141
11%
26966
29015
2048
8%
5060
5861
800
16%
30337
34165
3828
13%
26966
29015
2048
8%
3103
3103
0%
24474
27095
2621
11%
26609
28660
2052
8%
13229
14812
1584
12%
9
10
11
12
13
Manston
Road
(B2050)
A299 Hengist
Minster
Way
roundabout
Manston
Court Road
A299 Hengist
Minster
Thanet Way
Way
roundabout
A253
Monkton
Canterbury
Old Road
Roundabout
Road
A299 Hengist
Cliffsend
Sevenscore
Way
roundabout roundabout
14
Canterbury
Road West
15
A256
16
A256
17
Sandwich
Road
18
A256 Haine
Road
19
A256 Haine
Road
20
A256 New
Haine Road
21
A256 Haine
Road
22
23
24
Star Lane
Link
A299
Canterbury
Road East
A255
Cliffsend
Lord of the
roundabout Manor (north)
Lord of the
Sevenscore
Manor
roundabout
(south)
Ramsgate
Sevenscore
Road (Copart
roundabout
roundabout)
Lord of the
Ebbsfleet
Manor
roundabout
(south)
Lord of the
Manston
Manor
Road
(north)
(B2050)`
Manston
Spratling
Road
Street
(B2050)
Spratling
Haine Road
Street
Haine Road
Star Lane
Link
18293
19877
1584
9%
Haine Road
Nash Road
8235
8403
168
2%
21906
24096
2190
10%
21572
23386
1814
8%
Lord of the
Royal
Manor
Harbour
(south)
Approach
Royal
Harbour
London Road
Approach
9.7.22
It is evident from the tables above that the effects of the Proposed Development in terms of
proportional change in traffic flows of the development in the 2021 scenario are greater than in
2026. As such only the 2021 traffic flows have been used in the remainder of this Chapter to
ensure a worst case assessment for the purposes of link flow analysis. Where junction
performance is assessed the 2026 scenario has continued to be referred to as the effects of the
Proposed Development at a junction level are more severe in the 2026 future year than compared
to the 2021 future year.
9.7.23
The magnitude of the effect of the development on Driver Delay is measured as the average
additional driver delay over the whole junction, during the worst case peak hour assessment
9-31
caused by the development traffic. The additional driver delay forecast to be experienced at each
junction for the 2021 scenario is presented in Table 9.15 and Table 9.16 for the 2026 scenario
below. The junction modelling used in this Chapter is included as an Appendix within the
separately prepared TA (Ref 9.1) that accompanies the planning application.
9-32
Table 9.15: Predicted Effect of the Development on Driver Delay in 2021 scenario
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)
Juncti Junction Name
on ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
13
14
17
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
37
40
JUNCTION
TYPE
Junction Type
Roundabout
13
44
31
Roundabout
Roundabout
Mini-roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
6
10
2
2
8
13
3
2
2
4
1
0
Priority junction
13
95
82
Priority junction
14
25
11
Priority Junction
Signalised
junction
Roundabout
Roundabout
24
26
5
5
7
6
2
1
Roundabout
14
28
14
Roundabout
33
91
58
Roundabout
Roundabout
149
16
232
52
83
36
37
77
40
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
13
22
23
39
10
17
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
190
247
56
Roundabout
15
Priority junction
Signalised
gyratory
Table 9.16: Predicted Effect of the Development on Driver Delay in 2026 scenario
Junction
ID
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)
Junction Name
Junction Type
2026
Base +
9-33
Committe Development
d
A299 Hengist Way/Minster
1 Road/Tothill Street (Minster
roundabout)
A299 Hengist Way/A253/Willets Hill
2
(Monkton roundabout)
3 A299/A28 Canterbury Road
4 A253/A28 Canterbury Road
5 B2190 Spitfire Way/Minster Road
6 B2190 Spitfire Way/Columbus Avenue
B2050 Manston Road/Spitfire Way
7
(Spitfire Corner)
B2050 Manston Road/Shottendane
11
Road
13 Manston Road/Shottendane Road
Shottendane Road/Nash Road (Coffin
14
House Corner)
A256 Haine Road/A254 Margate
17
Road
21 A256 Haine Road/Star Lane Link
A256 New Haine Road/Haine Road
22
(Toby Carvery roundabout)
A256 New Haine Road/Sainsburys
23
Access
24 A256 Haine Road/New Haine Road
A256 Haine Road/B2050 Manston
25
Road
B2050 Manston Road/Manston Court
26
Road
A299/A256/Sandwich Road (Lord of
27
the Manor south)
A256 Manston Road/Canterbury Road
27
West (Lord of the Manor North)
28 A299/Royal Harbour Approach
29 A255/London Road
A299 Hengist Way/A256/Cottington
32
Link Road (Sevenscore roundabout)
A299 Hengist Way/Canterbury Road
33
West (Cliffsend roundabout)
A256/Sandwich Road (Ebbsfleet
34
roundabout)
A256/Ramsgate Road (Copart
35
roundabout)
37 A256/A257 Ash Road
A256 Haine Road/Manston Road
40
(new junction)
Delay
Roundabout
25
64
39
Roundabout
Roundabout
Mini-roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
8
5
2
2
13
16
2
2
5
11
0
0
Priority junction
19
125
106
Priority junction
19
38
19
Priority Junction
Signalised
junction
22
27
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
14
29
15
Roundabout
33
92
59
Roundabout
156
239
83
Roundabout
28
83
55
39
86
48
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
22
38
100
65
78
26
Roundabout
19
14
Roundabout
Roundabout
14
Roundabout
14
23
Roundabout
161
209
48
Roundabout
27
19
Priority junction
Signalised
gyratory
9.7.24
It should be noted that where a junction is proposed to exceed capacity, the model used is not
expected to accurately reflect the delay experienced by each driver. The results on the Haine
Road and A256 corridors where junctions currently operate over-capacity should therefore be
treated with caution.
9.7.25
The magnitude of effect of the development on Accidents and Safety is considered proportionate
to the increase in traffic at the junctions. This assessment criteria is based upon the assumption
that when junctions get more congested, it is expected that there would be an increase in risk
taking behaviour as motorists seek shorter gaps in traffic resulting in a higher risk of traffic
accidents. It is acknowledged that as congestion increases, speeds would be reduced and
therefore road safety would improve, however for the purposes of this assessment, road safety is
assumed to reduce as traffic volumes increase. The proportional increase in peak hour traffic at
9-34
junctions (total flow through junctions) in the future year as a result of the development is
presented in Table 9.17 below. The traffic flow information used in Table 9.17 is included as an
Appendix within the separately prepared TA Application Report (Ref 9.1) that accompanies the
planning application.
TABLE 9.17: PREDICTED EFFECT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY
(2021)
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
13
14
17
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
37
40
JUNCTION TYPE
Junction Type
Roundabout
3,551
4,110
16%
Roundabout
2,685
3,129
17%
Roundabout
Mini-roundabout
Roundabout
3,711
1,089
1,568
3,951
1,240
1,845
6%
14%
18%
Roundabout
1,082
1,307
21%
Priority junction
1,293
1,587
23%
Priority junction
1,075
1,181
10%
Priority Junction
848
975
15%
Signalised junction
1,772
1,898
7%
Roundabout
2,979
3,209
8%
Roundabout
2,330
2,547
9%
Roundabout
1,955
2,172
11%
Roundabout
2,894
3,163
9%
Roundabout
2,797
3,066
10%
Roundabout
3,607
3,972
10%
Priority junction
1,011
1,108
10%
Signalised gyratory
4,281
4,818
13%
Roundabout
2,693
3,057
14%
Roundabout
Roundabout
2,221
2,196
2,485
2,429
12%
11%
Roundabout
3,747
4,460
19%
Roundabout
2,408
3,534
47%
Roundabout
2,841
3,063
8%
Roundabout
3,065
3,287
7%
Roundabout
3,563
3,785
6%
Roundabout
2,848
3,224
13%
9-35
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT
SEVERANCE
9.7.26
In terms of Severance, none of the links assessed are expected to experience an increase in
traffic flows greater than 30% and therefore the magnitude of effects are negligible. The
magnitude of effect is combined with the sensitivity of receptors to determine the significance of
effects on that receptor. Table 9.15 below presents the significance of the effects on the
receptors in terms of Severance.
TABLE 9.18: SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT ON SEVERANCE
RECEPTOR (LINK)
Link Road Name
Number
SEVERANCE
Start
Junction
End
Junction
Magnitude of
Effect
Manston
Road
(B2050)
Manston
Road
(B2050)
Manston
Road
A256 Haine
Road
Spitfire
Corner
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Spitfire
Corner
Park Lane
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Spitfire
Corner
Shottendane
Road
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Spitfire Way
(B2190)
Spitfire
Corner
Minster
Road
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Columbus
Avenue
Spitfire Way
Columbus
Avenue
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Minster
Road
(including
The Street
and Acol
Hill)
Park Lane
Spitfire Way
Park Lane
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
7
8
10
Manston
Road
Canterbury
Road (A28)
Coffin
House
Corner
Star Lane
Link
Manston
Road
(B2050)
A299
Minster
Cliffsend
Hengist Way roundabout roundabout
11
A299
Minster
Thanet Way
Hengist Way roundabout
12
A253
Monkton
Old Road
Canterbury Roundabout
Road
A299
Cliffsend Sevenscore
Hengist Way roundabout roundabout
13
14
15
Canterbury
Road West
A256
Cliffsend
roundabout
Lord of the
Manor
(north)
Sevenscore Lord of the
roundabout
Manor
(south)
Sensitivity Significance of
of
Effect
Receptor
9-36
16
17
18
19
Sandwich
Road
A256 Haine
Road
A256 Haine
Road
Sevenscore
roundabout
Ramsgate
Road
(Copart
roundabout)
Lord of the
Ebbsfleet
Manor
roundabout
(south)
Lord of the
Manston
Manor
Road
(north)
(B2050)`
Manston
Spratling
Road
Street
(B2050)
Spratling Haine Road
Street
20
A256 New
Haine Road
21
22
Star Lane
Link
23
A299
Canterbury
Road East
A255
24
9.7.27
A256
Star Lane
Link
Royal
Harbour
Approach
London
Road
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Table 9.18 identifies that the effect of the operational phase of the development on severance will
be negligible.
DRIVER DELAY
9.7.28
The effect of the development on Driver Delay is measured at the junctions in the vicinity of the
application site during the worst case peak hour at each junction. The significance of the effect of
the development on Driver Delay in the 2021 scenario is presented in Table 9.19 and the 2026
scenario in Table 9.20 below.
9-37
TABLE 9.19: SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT ON DRIVER DELAY 2021
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)
Junction
ID
Junction Name
1
2
6
7
11
13
14
17
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
JUNCTION
TYPE
Magnitude of
Effect
Roundabout
Major Negative
High
Major Negative
Roundabout
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Roundabout
Miniroundabout
Roundabout
Negligible
Moderate
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Roundabout
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Major Negative
Moderate
Major Negative
Moderate
Negative
Low
Minor Negative
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Roundabout
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Roundabout
Negligible
Moderate
Negative
Low
Negligible
Low
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Major Negative
Low
Roundabout
Major Negative
Low
Roundabout
Major Negative
Moderate
Major Negative
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Major Negative
Moderate
Minor Negative
Negligible
Moderate
Negligible
Moderate
Moderate
Negative
High
Major Negative
Priority
junction
Priority
junction
Priority
Junction
Signalised
junction
Roundabout
Priority
junction
Signalised
gyratory
Roundabout
Roundabout
29
A255/London Road
Roundabout
33
34
35
37
40
Sensitivity
Significance of
of
Effect
Receptor
Junction
Type
28
32
DRIVER DELAY
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Roundabout
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Roundabout
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Roundabout
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Roundabout
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Roundabout
Major Negative
High
Major Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Low
Minor Negative
9-38
TABLE 9.20: SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT ON DRIVER DELAY 2026
Junction
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
13
14
17
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
37
40
9.7.29
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)
JUNCTION
TYPE
Junction Name
Junction
Type
DRIVER DELAY
Magnitude of
Effect
Sensitivity
Significance of
of
Effect
Receptor
Major Negative
High
Major Negative
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Moderate
Negative
Negligible
Moderate
Negligible
Low
Minor Negative
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Major Negative
Moderate
Major Negative
Moderate
Negative
Low
Minor Negative
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Minor Negative
Low
Minor Negative
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Moderate
Negative
Low
Negligible
Low
Minor Negative
Major Negative
Low
Roundabout
Major Negative
Low
Roundabout
Major Negative
Moderate
Major Negative
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Major Negative
Moderate
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Negligible
Moderate
Negligible
Roundabout
Roundabout
Major Negative
Major Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
High
Major Negative
Major Negative
Low
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Low
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Low
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Major Negative
Moderate
Negative
High
Major Negative
Moderate
Negative
Priority
junction
Signalised
gyratory
Roundabout
Roundabout
Low
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
It should be noted that although the development is demonstrating a permanent Major Negative
effect on a number of junctions located along the Haine Road and A256 corridors during the
operational phase these junctions currently operate at or near capacity which makes the results of
9-39
the modelling less reliable. Effects reported in this Chapter are therefore likely to be greater than
is witnessed on site.
9.7.30
It should also be noted that the strategic transport model will re-assess these effects and an
update to this Chapter is anticipated to be provided when available.
PEDESTRIAN DELAY
9.7.31
The effect of the development on Pedestrian Delay is measured in terms of proportional change
in traffic volumes along links in the vicinity of the site. None of the links assessed in the vicinity of
the application site are expected to experience an increase in traffic volumes of greater than 30%
and therefore the effect of the proposed scheme on Pedestrian Delay is considered negligible as
per Table 9.21 below.
TABLE 9.21: SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT ON PEDESTRIAN DELAY
RECEPTOR (LINK)
SEVERANCE
Link
Road Name
Start
End
Magnitude of Sensitivity Significance
Number
Junction
Junction
Effect
of Receptor
of Effect
1
Manston
A256 Haine
Spitfire
Road
Road
Corner
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
(B2050)
2
Manston
Spitfire
Park Lane
Road
Corner
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
(B2050)
3
Manston
Spitfire
Shottendane
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Road
Corner
Road
4
Spitfire Way
(B2190)
Spitfire
Corner
Minster
Road
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Columbus
Avenue
Spitfire Way
Columbus
Avenue
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
7
8
10
Minster
Spitfire Way Park Lane
Road
(including
The Street
and Acol Hill)
Park Lane
Manston
Canterbury
Road
Road (A28)
Shottendane
Road
Park Lane
Manston
Court Road
Coffin
House
Corner
Star Lane
Link
Manston
Road
(B2050)
A299
Minster
Cliffsend
Hengist Way roundabout roundabout
11
A299
Minster
Thanet Way
Hengist Way roundabout
12
A253
Monkton
Old Road
Canterbury Roundabout
Road
A299
Cliffsend Sevenscore
Hengist Way roundabout roundabout
13
14
Canterbury
Road West
Cliffsend
roundabout
Lord of the
Manor
(north)
9-40
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Lord of the
Manor
(south)
A256
Sevenscore Ramsgate
roundabout
Road
(Copart
roundabout)
Sandwich
Lord of the
Ebbsfleet
Road
Manor
roundabout
(south)
A256 Haine Lord of the
Manston
Road
Manor
Road
(north)
(B2050)`
A256 Haine
Manston
Spratling
Road
Road
Street
(B2050)
A256 New
Spratling Haine Road
Haine Road
Street
Sevenscore
roundabout
22
Star Lane
Link
23
A299
Canterbury
Road East
A255
24
9.7.32
A256
Star Lane
Link
Royal
Harbour
Approach
London
Road
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Table 9.21 above identifies that the effect of the operational phase of the Proposed Development
would be negligible in terms of Pedestrian Delay.
PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE AMENITY
9.7.33
SEVERANCE
Start
Junction
End
Junction
Manston
Road
(B2050)
Manston
Road
(B2050)
Manston
Road
A256 Haine
Road
Spitfire
Corner
Spitfire
Corner
Park Lane
Spitfire
Corner
Spitfire Way
(B2190)
Columbus
Avenue
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Shottendane
Road
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Spitfire
Corner
Minster
Road
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Spitfire Way
Columbus
Avenue
Negligible
Low
Negligible
9-41
6
7
8
10
Spitfire Way
Manston
Road
Park Lane
Canterbury
Road (A28)
Coffin
House
Corner
Star Lane
Link
Manston
Road
(B2050)
A299
Minster
Cliffsend
Hengist Way roundabout roundabout
11
A299
Minster
Thanet Way
Hengist Way roundabout
12
A253
Monkton
Old Road
Canterbury Roundabout
Road
A299
Cliffsend Sevenscore
Hengist Way roundabout roundabout
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Canterbury
Road West
Cliffsend
roundabout
A256
Sevenscore
roundabout
A256
Sandwich
Road
A256 Haine
Road
A256 Haine
Road
Sevenscore
roundabout
A256 New
Haine Road
21
22
Star Lane
Link
23
A299
Canterbury
Road East
A255
Lord of the
Manor
(north)
Lord of the
Manor
(south)
Ramsgate
Road
(Copart
roundabout)
Ebbsfleet
roundabout
Lord of the
Manor
(south)
Lord of the
Manston
Manor
Road
(north)
(B2050)`
Manston
Spratling
Road
Street
(B2050)
Spratling Haine Road
Street
20
24
9.7.34
Minster
Road
(including
The Street
and Acol
Hill)
Park Lane
Star Lane
Link
Royal
Harbour
Approach
London
Road
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Negligible
Table 9.22 identifies that the effect of the operational phase of the Proposed Development on
Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity would be negligible.
9-42
FEAR AND INTIMIDATION
9.7.35
The effect of the development on Fear and Intimidation is measured in terms of change in traffic
volumes along links in the vicinity of the site. There are a number of links expected to experience
negative effects in the vicinity of the site. Links that experience an increase in traffic volumes of
between 300 and 600 vehicles AADT are classified as having a minor negative effect, links that
experience an effect of between 600 and 1800 are classified as experiencing a moderate
negative effect and links that experience an increase of over 1800 vehicles AADT are considered
to have experienced a major negative effect. Table 9.23 below outlines the Significance of the
effects of the development on each of the links assessed.
TABLE 9.23: SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT ON FEAR AND INTIMIDATION
RECEPTOR (LINK)
SEVERANCE
Link
Road Name
Start
End
Magnitude of Sensitivity Significance
Number
Junction
Junction
Effect
of Receptor
of Effect
1
Manston
A256 Haine
Spitfire
Moderate
Moderate
Road
Road
Corner
Moderate
Negative
Negative
(B2050)
2
Manston
Spitfire
Park Lane
Moderate
Moderate
Road
Corner
Moderate
Negative
Negative
(B2050)
3
Manston
Spitfire
Shottendane
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Road
Corner
Road
Negative
Negative
4
Spitfire Way
Spitfire
Minster
Major
Moderate
Low
(B2190)
Corner
Road
Negative
Negative
5
Columbus Spitfire Way Columbus
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Avenue
Avenue
6
7
8
10
Minster
Spitfire Way Park Lane
Road
(including
The Street
and Acol Hill)
Park Lane
Manston
Canterbury
Road
Road (A28)
Shottendane
Road
Park Lane
Manston
Court Road
Coffin
House
Corner
Star Lane
Link
Manston
Road
(B2050)
A299
Minster
Cliffsend
Hengist Way roundabout roundabout
11
A299
Minster
Thanet Way
Hengist Way roundabout
12
A253
Monkton
Old Road
Canterbury Roundabout
Road
A299
Cliffsend Sevenscore
Hengist Way roundabout roundabout
13
14
15
16
Canterbury
Road West
Cliffsend
roundabout
A256
Sevenscore
roundabout
A256
Sevenscore
roundabout
Lord of the
Manor
(north)
Lord of the
Manor
(south)
Ramsgate
Road
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
Moderate
Negligible
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Moderate
Negative
Negligible
Moderate
Negligible
Major
Negative
Low
Moderate
Negative
Major
Negative
Low
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Moderate
Negative
Major
Negative
Low
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Moderate
Negative
Major
Negative
Low
Moderate
Negative
Major
Negative
Low
Moderate
Negative
9-43
(Copart
roundabout)
17
18
19
A256 Haine
Road
A256 Haine
Road
Lord of the
Ebbsfleet
Manor
roundabout
(south)
Lord of the
Manston
Manor
Road
(north)
(B2050)`
Manston
Spratling
Road
Street
(B2050)
Spratling Haine Road
Street
20
A256 New
Haine Road
21
22
Star Lane
Link
23
A299
Canterbury
Road East
A255
24
9.7.36
Sandwich
Road
Star Lane
Link
Royal
Harbour
Approach
London
Road
Negligible
Moderate
Negligible
Major
Negative
Low
Moderate
Negative
Major
Negative
Moderate
Major
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Moderate
Negative
Negligible
Moderate
Negligible
Major
Negative
Moderate
Major
Negative
Major
Negative
Moderate
Major
Negative
Table 9.23 identifies that the Proposed Development could have a permanent Major Negative
effect on some links during the operational phase. These effects are therefore considered further
below.
ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY
9.7.37
The effect of the development on Accidents and Safety is measured in terms of predicted
change in traffic flows at junctions. The significance of the effects of the development on
Accidents and Safety is presented in Table 9.24 below.
TABLE 9.24: SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT ON ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)
Junction Junction Name
ID
1
2
6
7
11
13
14
JUNCTION
TYPE
Junction
Type
DRIVER DELAY
Magnitude of
Effect
Sensitivity Significance of
of
Effect
Receptor
Roundabout
Moderate
Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Miniroundabout
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Minor Negative
Minor Negative
Minor Negative
Minor Negative
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Priority
junction
Priority
junction
Priority
Junction
Signalised
junction
Minor Negative
Moderate
Negative
9-44
28
29
A255/London Road
17
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
32
33
34
35
9.7.38
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Minor Negative
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Moderate
Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Moderate
Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Priority
junction
Signalised
gyratory
37
Roundabout
Moderate
Negative
40
Roundabout
Minor Negative
Table 9.25 shows that the Proposed Development could have a moderate negative effect on
Accidents and Safety during the operational phase on some links. These effects are therefore
considered further below.
MITIGATION
9.7.39
A series of mitigation measures have been provisionally proposed as part of the planning
submission TA in order to enhance the sustainability of the development and reduce the overall
effect of it on the surrounding transport network. The final measures to be implemented will be
the subject of ongoing and post-application discussions with KCC and the results of the strategic
transport model that is being prepared. The list of measures outlined should therefore be treated
as provisional. It is anticipated that any agreed mitigation measures will be secured by condition
or through the S106 agreement attached to any planning permission.
9.7.40
The measures proposed are aimed at mitigating effects on Driver Delay, Fear and Intimidation
and Accidents and Safety. However, they may have other indirect positive impacts on
Severance, Pedestrian Delay and Pedestrian/Cycle Amenity.
FRAMEWORK TRAVEL PLAN
9.7.41
A FTP is proposed that will aim to reduce single occupancy car driver trips generated by the
development. A FTP has been prepared to accompany the Planning Application (Ref 9.2) which
establishes how Travel Plans for the individual land uses on the site will be developed in due
course. It is envisaged that Travel Plans for the development will be secured by condition.
9-45
SERVICING MANAGEMENT PLAN
9.7.42
A Servicing Management Plan (SMP) will be provided and could be included as an appropriately
worded Planning Condition attached to the relevant planning decision notice. The SMP would be
prepared on a site wide basis with SMPs for each individual development zone where appropriate
based upon the requirements of the end user of each building. As a minimum the SMP could
include such details as:
The maximum size delivery vehicle that can be used at the site;
The proposed delivery arrangement at the site;
The proposed delivery route to the site; and,
Proposed delivery times.
CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
9.7.43
A CEMP will be produced and could be included as an appropriately worded condition attached to
the relevant planning decision notice. The CEMP would be prepared on a site wide basis and
then also on a development zone phase basis and an outline CEMP is provided within Appendix
2.1 of this ES.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT STRATEGY
9.7.44
A comprehensive Public Transport Strategy (PTS) has been developed for the site in conjunction
with the principal bus operator for the area Stagecoach East Kent and KCC. The final strategy
that is implemented will very much depend upon the phasing of the development and external
factors such as the wider bus market and delivery of other strategic sites including the proposed
Parkway Station. However, based upon discussions to date and an indicative phasing schedule
the following strategy is proposed:
PHASE 1
9.7.45
Development Quantum: 10,244m of B1(c)/B2/B8 employment space accessed from Spitfire Way
and re-occupation of existing buildings.
Accompanying PTS:
Existing routes 11 and 38 pass the site on Spitfire Way. No increase in frequency to services
proposed but some re-timing of services may be achievable to suit the demand of future
tenants of the development. This will be determined by the bus operator closer to the site
opening;
Provision of new bus stops on Spitfire Way to serve the development; and
Any new bus stops should feature bus stop flags, timetables and DDA compliant kerbing as a
minimum. Provision of shelters subject to agreement with TDCs contractor.
PHASE 2
9.7.46
Development Quantum: Up to 500 dwellings served from the A299 Hengist Way with
emergency/bus access also provided from Manston Road via the former Terminal Building access
road. Further employment space provided (circa up to 25,000m) accessed from Spitfire Way
Accompanying PTS:
A contribution towards the extension of an existing bus route that currently terminates at
Westwood Cross to terminate within the site. Route to operate once per hour in Phase 2
9-46
(Monday to Friday). This would be flexible to allow connection with Parkway Station
depending upon delivery; and
Provision of new bus stops on Spitfire Way to serve the Phase 2 employment space (served
by routes 11 and 38) and on Canterbury Road West for the residential (served by route 9).
PHASE 3
9.7.47
Development Quantum: Up to 1000 dwellings served from the A299 Hengist Way and Spitfire
Way with emergency/bus access also provided from Manston Road. Up to 55,000m employment
space provided accessed from Spitfire Way.
Accompanying PTS:
A contribution towards increasing frequency of extended route to every 30 minutes throughout
the day; and
A contribution towards diversion of route 11 through the site to serve the local centre.
PHASE 4
9.7.48
Development Quantum: Up to 1700 dwellings served from the A299 Hengist Way and Spitfire
Way with emergency/bus access also provided from Manston Road. Up to 85,000m2 of
employment space provided accessed from Spitfire Way.
Accompanying PTS:
A contribution towards diversion of route 38 through the site to serve the new local centre;
and
A contribution towards diversion of route 9 through the site to serve the new local centre.
PHASE 5
9.7.49
9.7.50
It is considered that this PTS will be sufficient to accommodate the demand generated for public
transport as a result of the Proposed Development and will encourage the use of this mode for
travel to and from the site in line with the targets set out in the FTP.
PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE PROMOTION
9.7.51
New pedestrian and cycle links will be promoted across the development in order to improve
accessibility and connections to the surrounding pedestrian and cycle infrastructure. All primary
and secondary routes within the site will include provision for pedestrians and cyclists. In
addition, this infrastructure will be connected to off-site infrastructure as appropriate.
9.7.52
Discussions were with the PROW Officer at KCC. The outcome from these discussions resulted
in the following pedestrian and cycle access strategy which is outlined within the Access and
Movement Parameter Plan that has been submitted for approval with the Planning Application:
Provision of a permissive route across the proposed runway park along the former runway.
This route would connect with Minster Road near the Minster roundabout in the west and a
new north-south PROW in the east. At Minster Road a new pedestrian crossing facility will be
secured as part of any planning consent to enable a connection between the site and the
9-47
existing pedestrian and cycle infrastructure at the Minster roundabout and facilitate onward
links to/from Minster and the Viking Coastal Trail (RR15);
Provision of a PROW connecting Canterbury Road West in the south at the village of
Cliffsend with High Street in the north to provide onward connections to Manston Village;
A connection to PROW TR10 that provides a link between the site and Ramsgate. A
contribution will be provided as part of any planning consent to enable the upgrading of this
route to make it suitable for walking and cycling. A further contribution from the neighbouring
Manston Green development (application reference: OL/TH/13/0050) will upgrade the
remainder of the route into Ramsgate to facilitate a connection between the site and
Ramsgate railway station. Should the Manston Green development not come forwards in the
same timescales as this development a route via the Lord of the Manor junction could be
explored and secured as part of any planning consent;
Facilities at the Alland Grange Lane roundabout to facilitate equestrian connections between
the riding school and site;
A new pedestrian crossing on Manston Road to be implemented at an appropriate phase of
the development to enable onward connections from the site to the northern grasslands
located immediately north of Manston Road; and
A permissive route across the northern grasslands to facilitate onward connections to the
PROW network in the north. This permissive route will become a PROW once the proposals
for the new link road proposed between the A299 and Westwood Cross has been defined.
9.7.53
Allowance has been made within the pedestrian and cycle strategy for connections to/from the
proposed Parkway Station. Should this station be delivered it is proposed that the footway on
Canterbury Road West between the existing emergency access to the site immediately to the
west of the Jentex and Cliff View Road will be widened to provide a pedestrian (and if possible
cycle) route to/from the station. It is envisaged that this proposal will be secured via S106
agreement.
SITE ACCESS PROPOSALS
9.7.54
As part of the proposals for the development a roundabout is proposed to replace the existing
staggered cross-roads at the Spitfire Way junction with Manston Road (Junction 7). This
measure will significantly increase capacity at this location.
9.7.55
Pedestrian and cycle provision has been included within the development proposals where
appropriate to link existing off-site infrastructure with enhanced on-site routes.
OFF-SITE HIGHWAY MITIGATION
9.7.56
A number of highway mitigation measures have been investigated to determine whether the
effects of the development can be accommodated on the surrounding highway network within
land controlled by the highway authority. These measures have been investigated as part of the
accompanying TA and include:
Junction 1 - 2 lane entry from Tothill Street;
Junction 22 - Extend flare length on New Haine Rd (South);
Junction 23 - Increase entry width + flare length on New Haine Rd;
Junction 24 - Increase Flare Length Haine Rd (South);
Junction 25 - Increase entry width + flare length on Haine Rd (North);
Junction 27 - (LOTM signalised) 2 lane entry from Sandwich Rd;
Junction 28 Increased flare length on eastern approach;
Junction 29 - Increased flare length on Canterbury Rd (West) and London Rd; and
9-48
Junction 40 - Increase entry width + flare length (Manston Road West).
RESIDUAL EFFECT
9.7.57
The significance of effect was only found to be significant in terms of Driver Delay, Fear and
Intimidation and Accidents and Safety. As such only these effects have been considered below.
DRIVER DELAY
9.7.58
Following implementation of the mitigation identified above the residual effect on the criteria
assessed for driver delay is outlined below in Tables 9.25 and 9.26.
TABLE 9.25: MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT ON DRIVER DELAY FOLLOWING MITIGATION IN
2021
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)
Junction
ID
1
7
11
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
37
40
Junction Name
JUNCTION
TYPE
DRIVER DELAY
2021 Base +
2021 Base Committed + Change in
Junction Type
+
Development Driver
Committed
with
Delay
mitigation
Roundabout
13
-4
Priority junction
13
-6
Priority junction
14
25
11
Roundabout
14
11
-3
Roundabout
33
14
-19
Roundabout
149
139
-10
Roundabout
16
16
37
25
-12
13
22
68
8
14
109
-5
-7
41
Signalised
gyratory
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
9-49
TABLE 9.26: MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT ON DRIVER DELAY FOLLOWING MITIGATION IN
2026
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)
Junction
ID
7
11
14
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
32
34
35
37
40
9.8.1
Junction Name
JUNCTION
TYPE
DRIVER DELAY
2026 Base +
2026 Base Committed + Change in
Junction Type
+
Development Driver
Committed
with
Delay
mitigation
Roundabout
25
14
-11
Roundabout
Miniroundabout
13
16
11
19
-11
19
38
19
22
27
14
16
33
14
-19
156
145
-11
28
27
-1
39
36
-3
22
38
26
27
4
-11
19
14
14
14
23
160
209
49
-1
Table 9.27 below outlines the residual effect of the development when compared to the effect
identified before mitigation.
9-50
TABLE 9.27: SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT ON DRIVER DELAY FOLLOWING MITIGATION
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)
JUNCTION
TYPE
DRIVER DELAY
Juncti
on ID
Junction Name
Junction
Type
Significance of
Significance Sensitivity
Effect following
of Effect
of Receptor
mitigation
Roundabout
Roundabout
7
11
14
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
32
34
35
9.8.2
Miniroundabout
Priority
junction
Priority
junction
Signalised
junction
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
37
Roundabout
40
Roundabout
Moderate
Positive
High
Minor Positive
Moderate
Moderate
Negative
Low
Minor Negative
Moderate
Moderate
Positive
Low
Minor Negative
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Positive
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Positive
Moderate
Positive
Moderate
Positive
Moderate
Positive
Low
Low
Negligible
Moderate
Negligible
Negligible
Moderate
Negligible
Negligible
Moderate
Positive
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negligible
Moderate
Positive
Low
Minor Negative
Negligible
Low
Negligible
Low
Minor Negative
High
Major Negative
Low
Minor Positive
Minor
Negative
Major
Negative
Moderate
Negative
High
Following mitigation the locations where a negative effect are still anticipated are:
A299/A28 Canterbury Road;
A253/A28 Canterbury Road;
B2050 Manston Road/Shottendane Road;
A299 Hengist Way/A256/Cottington Link Road (Sevenscore roundabout);
A256/Ramsgate Road (Copart roundabout); and
A256/A257 Ash Road.
9.8.3
With the exception of the A256/A257 Ash Road junction the effects of the development are either
moderate or minor negative. In junction delay terms these effects are minor and are unlikely to be
material on a day to day basis. Mitigation at the A256A257 Ash Road junction will be discussed
with KCC as part of ongoing and post-application discussions with the intention of bringing the
effects of the development within an acceptable level.
9-51
9.8.4
It should also be noted that the strategic transport model will re-assess these effects and an
update to this Chapter will be provided when available.
FEAR AND INTIMIDATION
9.8.5
In terms of Fear and Intimidation 24 links were assessed as part of this Chapter. Of the 24 links
six were found to have a negligible effect on fear and intimidation and have therefore not been
considered further. 15 links were identified as having a potential moderate negative effect.
These links are identified in Table 9.28 below along with a description of the likely effect, any
proposed mitigation and the residual effect.
TABLE 9.28: SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT ON FEAR AND INTIMIDATION, MITIGATION AND
RESIDUAL EFFECT
RECEPTOR (LINK)
Link Road Name
Start
Number
Junction
1
Manston
A256 Haine
Road
Road
(B2050)
Manston
Road
(B2050)
Manston
Road
Spitfire
Corner
Spitfire
Corner
Magnitude Comment/Mitigation
of Effect
No footpaths are
provided along the
majority of this link and
where pedestrians
would be expected
footways are provided.
Moderate
New footways are
Negative
proposed as part of the
development where
appropriate. No
cyclists would be
expected to use this
link.
Park Lane
No footpaths are
provided along the
majority of this link and
where pedestrians
would be expected
footways are provided.
Moderate
New footways are
Negative
proposed as part of the
development where
appropriate. No
cyclists would be
expected to use this
link.
Shottendane
No footpaths are
Road
provided along the
majority of this link and
where pedestrians
would be expected
footways are provided.
Moderate
New footways are
Negative
proposed as part of the
development where
appropriate. No
cyclists would be
expected to use this
link.
Residual
Effect
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
9-52
4
Spitfire Way
(B2190)
Spitfire
Corner
Minster
Road
Moderate
Negative
Coffin
House
Corner
Moderate
Negative
10
A299
Minster
Hengist Way roundabout
Cliffsend
roundabout
Moderate
Negative
11
A299
Minster
Thanet Way
Hengist Way roundabout
Moderate
Negative
12
A253
Monkton
Canterbury Roundabout
Road
Old Road
Moderate
Negative
13
A299
Cliffsend Sevenscore
Hengist Way roundabout roundabout
Moderate
Negative
14
Canterbury
Road West
Cliffsend
roundabout
Lord of the
Manor
Moderate
Negative
No footpaths are
provided along the
majority of this link and
where pedestrians
would be expected
footways are provided.
New footways
incorporating cycle
facilities are proposed
as part of the
development where
appropriate.
No footpaths are
provided along the
majority of this link and
where pedestrians
would be expected
footways are provided.
No cyclists would be
expected to use this
link.
No footpaths are
provided along the
majority of this link and
where pedestrians
would be expected
footways are provided.
Cycle facilities are
provided to segregate
this user group from
general traffic.
No footpaths are
provided along the
majority of this link and
where pedestrians
would be expected
footways are provided.
No cyclists would be
expected to use this
link.
No footpaths are
provided along the
majority of this link and
where pedestrians
would be expected
footways are provided.
No cyclists would be
expected to use this
link.
No footpaths are
provided along this link
and pedestrians would
not be expected to use
this link. No cyclists
would be expected to
use this link.
No footpaths are
provided along the
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
9-53
(north)
15
16
18
20
A256
A256
Sevenscore
roundabout
Lord of the
Manor
(south)
Sevenscore
roundabout
Ramsgate
Road
(Copart
roundabout)
A256 Haine
Road
Lord of the
Manor
(north)
Manston
Road
(B2050)`
A256 New
Haine Road
Spratling
Street
Haine Road
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
21
9.8.6
Star Lane
Link
Moderate
Negative
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
A further three links were identified where effects could be major negative. These were:
A299 Canterbury Road East between Lord of the Manor and Royal Harbour Approach
A255 between Royal Harbour Approach and London Road
A256 Haine Road between Manston Road and Spratling Street
9.8.7
In terms of the A299 and A255 improvements are proposed as part of this development and the
Manston Green committed development to provide an off-road cycle link between the site and
Ramsgate. Pedestrian and cycle movements associated with the development would therefore
be mitigated by this measure. In terms of existing users of these links these roads feature
segregated pedestrian facilities and as such users are not expected to be negatively affected by
the presence of additional traffic using these links. Cyclists would be able to utilise the new offroad cycle link identified above which would reduce the overall impact. However, as this
assessment cannot quantify the change in usage pattern as a result of the mitigation the effect
has remained as per the effect prior to mitigation for robustness.
9.8.8
With respect to the A256 segregated pedestrian facilities are provided where pedestrians would
be expected and these are considered suitable to cater for the pedestrian demand along this link.
An increase in traffic as a result of the development is unlikely to materially affect these users.
9-54
Cyclists would be expected to use other quieter routes and are therefore unlikely to be affected by
the Development Proposals.
ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY
9.8.9
The assessment was found to have a minor or moderate effect on accidents and safety on all the
links identified for assessment. However, it is not considered that there are any significant
existing safety issues at any of these junctions, which could be exacerbated by the traffic resulting
from the development. Mitigation measures are proposed at a number of these junctions to
relieve congestion. It is considered that these will have a positive effect on accidents which would
mitigate any residual effects resulting from the development.
9.9
9.9.1
The scope of this chapter has been agreed with KCC and TDC and reflects the discussions that
have been held in the period up to the planning submission. Discussions with these stakeholders
are ongoing and will continue post application.
9.9.2
In terms of assumptions this Chapter assumes that the Manston Green development and its
associated improvement measures would be implemented and therefore this development is
considered committed as requested by KCC.
9.10
SUMMARY
9.10.1
This chapter outlines any potentially significant transport related environmental effects of the
proposed scheme at Stone Hill Park. A detailed TA and FTP have also been prepared as part of
the evidence base for the planning application.
9.10.2
A baseline assessment has been undertaken against which the effects of the Proposed
Development have been assessed. The baseline assessment considers the existing transport
conditions in the vicinity of the application site and the policy context.
9.10.3
In accordance with the IEA, Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic
(1993), the effects of the development have then been assessed in terms of the following
assessment criteria:
Severance;
Driver delay;
Pedestrian delay;
Pedestrian and cycle amenity;
Fear and intimidation; and,
Accidents and safety.
9.10.4
No hazardous loads are anticipated in either the construction or operational phases of the
Proposed Development.
EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION
9.10.5
The assessment indicates that the proposed scheme is not predicted to have any significant
transport related environmental effects during the construction phase.
EFFECTS DURING OPERATION
9.10.6
The assessment indicates that the proposed scheme would have a Moderate to Major Negative
effect in terms of Driver Delay at a number of junctions located within the study area without
9-55
mitigation. Each of the junctions identified currently operate over capacity, as such the model
used is not expected to accurately reflect the delay experienced by each driver. In reality, the
driver delay at each of these junctions is expected to be considerably less. A number of
mitigation measures have been considered and these are discussed in detail within the TA.
These will aid in providing additional capacity to accommodate traffic associated with the
development. Several junctions show a minor or moderate negative effect in terms of driver delay
following mitigation. However, in junction delay terms these effects are minor and are unlikely to
be material on a day to day basis. The only junction that shows a major negative effect following
mitigation is the A256/A257 Ash Road. We will discuss the effects at this junction with KCC as
the highway authority post-application with the intention of bringing effects down within an
acceptable level.
9.10.7
The Proposed Development would have a Moderate to Major Effect in terms of Fear and
Intimidation on a number of links within the study area without mitigation. However, a number of
these links are not expected to carry pedestrians and cyclists and improvements are proposed
where appropriate to mitigate the effects of the development. Overall it is not considered that
there are any residual effects as a result of the proposed development.
9.10.8
The Proposed Development would have a Moderate Negative effect upon Accidents and Safety
at a number of junctions located on the local highway network in the vicinity of the site. It is not
considered that there are any significant existing safety issues at any of these junctions, which
could be exacerbated by the traffic resulting from the development. Therefore no supplementary
mitigation measures are required.
9-56
Table 9.29: Summary of Effects for Traffic and Transport
9-57
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
MAJOR /
MODERATE /
MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
/ ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
POSITIV P /
E/
T
NEGATI
VE
D/I
ST /
MT /
LT
Perceived
Negligible
division that
can occur
within a
community
when it
becomes
separated by a
major traffic
artery
The capacity Negligible
of junctions to
accommodate
additional
traffic
associated
with the
Proposed
Development
The ability of Negligible
pedestrians to
cross the road
Negative T
LT
Negligible
Negative
MT
N/A
N/A
Negative T
LT
Negligible
Negative
MT
N/A
N/A
Negative T
LT
Negligible
Negative
MT
N/A
N/A
Pedestrian and
cyclist amenity
The relative
Negligible
pleasantness
or a journey
for pedestrians
or cyclists
Negative T
LT
Negligible
Negative
MT
N/A
N/A
Fear and
Intimidation
The scale of
Negligible
fear and
intimidation to
pedestrians
Negative T
LT
Negligible
Negative
MT
N/A
N/A
Driver Delay
Pedestrian delay
9-58
Accidents and
Safety
and cyclists
(including bus
passengers
waiting at
stops) caused
by increases in
traffic volume
The likelihood Negligible
of accidents
occurring as a
result of
increased
traffic flows
resulting from
the Proposed
Development.
surrounding transport
network for all users.
Negative T
LT
Negligible
Negative
MT
N/A
N/A
Perceived
Negligible
division that
can occur
within a
community
when it
becomes
separated by a
major traffic
artery
The capacity Major
of junctions to
accommodate
additional
traffic
associated
with the
Proposed
Development
Negative P
LT
Negative
LT
N/A
N/A
Negative P
LT
Negative
LT
N/A
N/A
Negative P
LT
A number of junction
Major
capacity improvements are Negative
proposed as part of the
development that will provide
nil detriment and in some
cases a minor positive effect.
At the A256/A257 Ash Road
we will discuss the effects of
the development at this
junction with KCC postapplication.
The Development Proposals Negligible
are not expected to have a
material effect on pedestrian
delay. No mitigation is
therefore proposed.
Negative
LT
N/A
N/A
Operation
Severance
Driver Delay
Pedestrian delay
9-59
Pedestrian and
cyclist amenity
The relative
Negligible
pleasantness
or a journey
for pedestrians
or cyclists
Negative P
LT
Fear and
Intimidation
The scale of
Major
fear and
intimidation to
pedestrians
and cyclists
(including bus
passengers
waiting at
stops) caused
by increases in
traffic volume
Negative P
LT
Accidents and
Safety
Negative P
LT
Negative
LT
N/A
N/A
Negative
LT
N/A
N/A
Negative
LT
N/A
N/A
9-60
measures are identified for a
number of junctions which
may have a positive effect
on accidents and safety and
therefore no supplementary
mitigation measures have
been considered.
Key to table:
P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term
N/A = Not Applicable
9-61
9.11
REFERENCES
Ref. 9.1
Ref. 9.2
Ref. 9.3
Ref. 9.4
Ref. 9.5
Ref. 9.6
Ref. 9.7
Kent County Council (2006), Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 Mapping out
the future Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG 4 Kent Vehicle Parking
Standards
[Date accessed: 25.04.2016]
Ref. 9.8
Kent County Council (2008), Kent Design Guide Review: Interim Guidance Note
3: Residential Parking
[Date accessed: 25.04.2016]
Ref. 9.9
Ref. 9.10
Ref. 9.11
Ref. 9.12
Ref. 9.13
Ref. 9.14
GVA (2016) Stone Hill Park Outline Phasing and Delivery Strategy
10-1
10
10.1
INTRODUCTION
10.1.1
This Chapter reports the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the Site and
surrounding area in terms of Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. Where appropriate it also
identifies proposed mitigation measures to prevent, minimise or control likely negative
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage effects arising from the Proposed Development and the
subsequent anticipated residual effects.
10.1.2
This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) should be read together with the
Introductory Chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 - 4), as well as Chapter 8 Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment, 13 Ground Conditions, Contamination and Hydrogeology and 15
Cumulative Effects.
10.2
10.2.1
Details of the relevant legislation, policy and guidance are provided in Appendix 10.2.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
10.2.2
10-2
PLANNING POLICY
10.2.3
Planning policy at the national and local level and its relevance to environmental design and
assessment is confirmed in Chapter 1 Introduction of the ES and the Planning Statement
which accompanies the application and examines the merits of the Proposed Development
against the relevant planning policy.
10.2.4
A summary of the Proposed Development compliance with legislation and planning policy is
provided below.
10.2.5
Appendix 10.2 includes a summary of the relevant Archaeology and Cultural Heritage policy
used for this assessment which has been from the following documents:
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
10.2.6
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012. Section 12.
Conserving and enhancing the historic environment sets out national planning policy for the
historic environment. The following paragraphs are considered of particular relevance to this
assessment:
The general approach to assessing the historic environment is now embedded within the
definition of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 [P7] of the NPPF states that sustainable
development should "contribut[e] to protecting and enhancing our historic environment".
There is also a need for positive inclusion of the historic environment in development design
[P9]; and
The historic environment is mentioned within the NPPF core principles: development should
"conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be
enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations". There is no
distinction here between designated and non-designated heritage assets. As such, all
heritage assets need to be judged by this criteria and significance must be assessed in order
to achieve this [P17].
LOCAL PLAN OR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
10.2.7
HE11
Archaeological Assessment
HE12
GUIDANCE
Planning Practice Guidance (2014) (Ref.10.15);
10-3
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Standards and Guidance for Undertaking Historic
Environment Desk Based Assessments (2014) (Ref. 10.1);
English Heritage (Historic England) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the
Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (2008) (Ref. 10.14);
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Section 3Part 2 'Cultural Heritage'
HA208/07 (2007) (Ref. 10.9);
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Code of Conduct (2014);
Historic England Historic Environment Good Practice Advice Notes 1, 2, 3 and 4 (2015);
Management of Research Project in the Historic Environment (MoRPHE) Project Managers
Guide (Historic England, 2015); and
Kent County Council Heritage Conservation: The South East Research Framework (SERF)
for Archaeology (2007).
10.3
10.3.1
The assessment adopts the approach outlined in Chapter 4 Approach to the Assessment and
is based on the Parameter Plans and Application Plans as described in Chapter 2 The
Proposed Development:
10.3.2
It is not proposed to re-iterate here the details of the development described in Chapter 2 The
Proposed Development but it is worth noting that:
A piling foundation solution has been assumed across the Site within the area of built
development. The piles will be driven to the required depth using conventional pile driving
equipment.
Parameter Plan 5 (Figure 2.5) identifies the land where surface and sub-surface fixed
infrastructure (including roads and sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS)), green
infrastructure (Including structural landscape, planting and parks) and outdoor sport /
recreation facilities is permitted.
There will be a Heritage Park Open Space and Infrastructure Zone to consist of an area of
open parkland managed as informal grassland which allows occasional use as a heritage
grass runway when required.
The historic structures on the site have been identified and their value recognised. Table 2.4
of Chapter 2 The Proposed Development lists the buildings to be retained with a change
of use proposed. Table 2.5 lists those to be retained with no change of use.
A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared prior to
construction. This will include details of measures to record and/or preserve heritage assets
as may be appropriate. An Outline CEMP is provided in Appendix 2.2.
10.4
10.4.1
An Environmental Scoping Report (January 2016), a Scoping Opinion dated 8 March and a
st
response letter dated 31 March which included confirmation of the approach to Heritage and
survey were submitted to Thanet District Council (TDC) (Appendix 4.1).
10.4.2
KCCs outlined within their response to Scoping Opinion March 2016 that they required a pre
application archaeological evaluation including geophysical survey followed by targeted trial
trenching. Survey and evaluative measures have been undertaken with full engagement of KCC
to inform the Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment (HEDBA), this Chapter and
appropriate mitigation measures. This has so far included a survey of the historic airfield
structures (Appendix 10.1) to assess the significance, interpretation and potential opportunities
10-4
for providing a positive contribution towards the sense of place and a geophysical survey of those
areas with the potential to contain archaeological remains which may be disturbed by the
Proposed Development
10.4.3
The geophysical surveys and preliminary results have informed the HEDBA (Appendix 10.1) and
this Chapters assessment. It has identified areas of significant archaeological potential and the
requirement for targeted trial trenching, the details of which will be discussed further with KCC.
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
10.4.4
The potential significant effects that are considered further within this assessment relate to the
truncation or loss of potential buried and surface archaeological remains. They also relate to the
historic setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets including above ground
standing buildings and/or structures within the defined Study Areas.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Truncation or loss of buried and surface archaeological remains. An effect on the setting of
designated and non-designated heritage assets.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
An effect on remaining in situ archaeological and above ground heritage assets.
CONSULTATION
10.4.5
Table 10.1 provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken in support of the
preparation of the HEDBA (Appendix 10.1) and this Chapter.
Table 10.1: Summary of Consultation
BODY /
ORGANISATION
INDIVIDUAL / STAT
MEETING DATES AND
BODY/ORGANISATION OTHER FORMS OF
CONSULTATION
Kent County Council
Simon Mason
Site Meeting 1/03/16 and
Heritage Conservation. (Principal
follow-up telephone calls,
Archaeologist).
for which telephone
records are attached in
Appendix 10.0.
Historic England
KCC Heritage
Conservation
Simon Mason
KCC
Simon Mason
Emails 18/01/16
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME
OF DISCUSSIONS
Agreed areas on site for
geophysical survey. Also,
agreed concept of TT during
application period.
10-5
KCC
Simon Mason
Emails 11/01/16
KCC Heritage
Conservation
Simon Mason
9/12/15
Emails
KCC Heritage
Conservation
Simon Mason
18/02/16
Site meeting and Walk
over of the site area.
Simon Mason
30/10/16 Email
Simon Mason
08/10/16
Telephone and email
The HEDBA (Appendix 10.1) considers the potential effects upon the historic environment based
upon the following Study Area and Scope:
2km for World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments with 5km for Richborough Castle;
1km for Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields, Conservation Areas
and Listed Buildings from the Site boundary;
500m for Archaeological sites, Monuments and Events around the Site boundary;
Changes to buried and surface archaeological remains;
Changes to the fabric of non-designated heritage assets;
Changes to the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets; and
Changes to historic landscape character.
10.4.7
Searches were undertaken through the KCC Historic Environment Record (HER) and the English
Heritage Archive (EHA), for information pertaining to known site, finds, monuments, events and
designated and non-designated assets. This Study Area is considered appropriate to ascertain
the potential archaeological and above ground built heritage assets within and surrounding the
Site.
10-6
HEDBA (Appendix 10.1);
A geophysical survey (summarised in Appendix 10.1).
SITE VISIT
10.4.9
Site walkovers were undertaken in January and February 2016 in order to conduct a visual
inspection. The condition and use of each part of the Site were noted and heritage assets were
identified and characterised where changes to their setting would arise from the Proposed
Development. Areas where truncation or loss of potential buried and surface archaeology might
occur were also noted.
10.4.10
The assessment of potential effects arising from the Proposed Development on potential
unknown buried and surface archaeological assets is based upon the baseline conditions and
knowledge of the Site and surrounding area and the potential value of assets found and the
magnitude of change associated with the proposed excavations and ground works.
The changes to the fabric and setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets are
considered below.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
10.4.12
The assessment of potential effects as a result of the Proposed Development has taken into
account both the Demolition, Construction Phase, and Operational phases. The significance level
attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the
Proposed Development and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment to
change, as well as a number of other factors that are outlined in Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Section 3, Part 2 'Cultural Heritage' HA208/07 (2007) (Ref. 10.9).
Magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/historic environment are both
assessed on a scale of high, medium, low and negligible. The potential for known assets of
unknown value are considered to be of very high value as a worse case.
10.4.13
The assessment of potential effects resulting from the Proposed Development has taken into
account both the Site preparation, earthworks and construction and operational phases. The
significance level attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change
due to the implementation of the Proposed Development and the value of the affected receptor,
as well as a number of other factors that are outlined in more detail in Chapter 4 Approach to
Assessment.
10.4.14
The combined value and magnitude used to determine significance is summarised within Table
10.2 and has been used to determine significance of the effects identified.
10.4.15
The overall significance of an effect will distinguish between temporary and permanent effects
based on the timescale identified.
10.4.16
The criteria used to identify the value of below ground designated and non-designated (known
and unknown) heritage assets, and above ground built heritage designated and non-designated
heritage assets has been informed by the criteria provided in the DMRB. The criteria used to
ascertain the value of heritage assets are set out in Table 10.2.
10-7
Table 10.2: Criteria Used to Determine Value of all elements of the Historic Environment
Value
Criteria
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Non-designated assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research
objectives
Negligible
Unknown
10.4.17
The relevant Regional Archaeological Research Framework is the South East Research
Framework for the Archaeology 2002 (10.16).
10.4.18
The criteria used to ascertain the magnitude of change in this Chapter are set out in Table 10.3.
This has been informed by the criteria set out in the DMRB.
Table 10.3:
Magnitude of
Change
Criteria
High
Change to most or all of the key elements of the asset so that it is totally altered
Medium
Low
Negligible
No Change
No change to elements
EFFECT SIGNIFICANCE
10.4.19
The following terms have been used to define the significance of the effects identified:
Major effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a very significant
effect (either positive or negative) on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage receptors. Where the
Proposed Development could be expected to result in a significant effect (either positive or
negative) on designated or non-designated heritage assets or potential archaeological
remains. Positive effects may result from the recovery of new archaeological evidence, which
greatly improve the way in which members of the public may experience historic or
archaeological assets. In terms of negative effects, this could constitute effects upon
designated or non-designated heritage assets and archaeological remains sites or elements
of international / national value without adequate record or mitigation;
Moderate effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a noticeable
effect (either positive or negative) on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage receptors; where the
Proposed Development could be expected to have a noticeable effect (either positive or
negative) on designated or non-designated heritage assets and or potential archaeological
remains. Positive effects may result from the recovery of new archaeological evidence, which
moderately improve the way in which members of the public may experience historic or
archaeological assets. In terms of negative effects, this could constitute alterations to a
10-8
regionally important heritage asset or potential archaeological remains without appropriate
mitigation;
Minor effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to result in a small, barely
noticeable effect (either positive or negative) on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage receptors;
where the Proposed Development could be expected to result in a small, barely noticeable
effect (either positive or negative) on designated or non-designated heritage assets and
potential archaeological remains. Positive effects may result from the recovery of new
archaeological evidence, which improve the way members of the public may experience
heritage assets. In terms of negative effects, these could constitute direct alterations to the
fabric of locally important heritage assets; and
Negligible: where no discernible effect is expected as a result of the Proposed Development
on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage receptors; where no discernible effect is expected as a
result of the Proposed Development on the condition or setting of features or elements of the
historic environment including potential archaeological remains.
10.5
BASELINE CONDITIONS
EXISTING BASELINE
10.5.1
Table 10.4 illustrates the timeline that has been used to identify time periods within this Chapter.
Table 10.4: Archaeological and Historical Timeline
Period
Prehistoric
Approximate date
Palaeolithic
c. 750,000 10,000 BC
Mesolithic
c, 10,000 4,500 BC
Neolithic
c, 4,500 2,300 BC
Bronze Age
c. 2,300 700 BC
Iron Age
c. 700 BC 43 AD
Roman
AD 43 410
Anglo-Saxon/Early medieval
410 1066
Medieval
1066-1539
Post-Medieval
1539-1900
Modern
1901 onwards
The Site is located to the west of Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs in the District of Thanet and
is bound by the A299 Hengist Way to the south, B2190 Spitfire Way to the west, arable farmland
to the north and Manston Court Road and further farmland to the east. The Site is bisected by the
B2050 Manston Road which connects Spitfire Way and Birchington in the west with the A256 and
Ramsgate in the east. The Site extends to approximately 303 ha and is a secure previously
developed site located in open countryside close to Ramsgate, wholly within the administrative
area of TDC in Kent (Figures 1.1 1.3). The Site has most recently been used as an airport
(alongside ancillary employment type uses). The commercial aviation function has now ceased
and only a limited number of small scale employment-type activities remain. It accommodates
numerous existing buildings and extensive areas of hard-standing (including a runway). The site
is not within a designated Conservation Area, and the nearest Conservation Area is Acol Village
located 900m further from the north west boundary of the Site.
10-9
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC BACKGROUND
PREHISTORIC
10.5.3
No designated archaeological assets are recorded within the Site relating to this period. A number
of non-designated sites or evidence is recorded that can be dated to the prehistoric period on the
Site. Many of these sites were recorded during East Kent Access route excavations undertaken
between 2009 and 2011. A number of prehistoric sites and events were recorded along this route
which follows the complete southern boundary of the proposed Site. These include Bronze Age
ring ditches (TR 32076547, TR 31776559) and an Iron Age settlement enclosure (TR 31566563)
among others.
10.5.4
The geographical location, topography and the geology of the region provides a high potential for
the survival of remains of Prehistoric origin. The main focus of this activity lies within the deep
lying alluvial gravel deposits associated with the River Stour to the south. It is in this area in which
Palaeolithic remains may survive or may be derived. However, more recent silt and peat deposits
in which Neolithic and Bronze Age remains have been recorded, both palaeo-environmental and
anthropogenic, survive to the north, south, east and west of the Site, indicative of prehistoric
settlement and burial activity (Neolithic/Bronze Age).
10.5.5
Parts of the Site itself is less likely to be a source of surviving buried archaeological remains
dating to this period due predominantly to the construction of the airfield and modern airport with
large areas of concrete hard standing. Much of the central airport area was largely
decontaminated and reinstated after World War II due to the large amount of bomb damage the
military airfield endured. This decontamination was carried out during the late 20th and early 21st
centuries. Preliminary results from the recent geophysical survey undertaken in March and April
2016 by AOC Archaeology Group (Ref. 10.19) have revealed significant archaeological
anomalies that are characteristic of prehistoric typologies. Therefore, it is considered that the
potential for surviving Prehistoric remains, whether in situ or dispersed and unstratified, within the
proposed development areas of the Site is medium to high.
10.5.6
The South East Research Framework for Archaeology (2007, Ref. 10.16) identifies the need to
understand the patterns of occupation, settlement and cultural changes in the region and explore
the relationship between the chalk ridge plateau and the historic landscape of the Wantsum
Estuary, its woodland and coastal settlements during the prehistoric period. A prime determinate
for further research is the examination of the relationships between the varied landscape areas
and issues regarding the interaction of local communities with the natural environment, and how
they respond to change and to a certain extent exploit it. Ultimately, this is of relevance, not only
to understanding the past but also to current concerns regarding environmental management
along the chalk ridges of Thanet and emerging coastal settlements. A focus on continued human
activity and occupation patterns within Thanet and its hinterland from the Palaeolithic to the
Roman period is highlighted by the changes in the landscape, especially along the coast and
River Stour, also following the changes in transport, trade and shipbuilding. Moreover, the
significance of the Isle of Thanet as a gateway for continued migration and invasion is integral to
the understanding of prehistoric communities.
10.5.7
It is concluded that the potential for surviving prehistoric remains within the Site is medium to
high, and that any potentially surviving buried archaeological remains dating to the Prehistoric
period, within the Site boundary, would be of Medium/High (Regional/National) value.
ROMAN
10.5.8
No designated archaeological assets are recorded within the Site relating to this period. However,
a number of non-designated sites or evidence is recorded that can be dated to the Roman period
on the Site. These include a number of features discovered during the East Kent Access Route
excavations (2009-2011), such as possible Roman features located close to an Iron age
horseshoe enclosure (TR 36 NW 1168, TR 31566561) and Roman or Saxon linear features
running on an east west alignment (TR 36 NW 158, TR 32966545).
10-10
10.5.9
Evidence within the study area comprises a number of finds of pottery and some evidence of
former settlement activity such as at a postulated Roman Road (TR 36 NW 1158 & TR 36 NW
1138), and a small Roman cemetery discovered during the East Kent Access Route (TR 36 NW
1165, TR 32546554). Although archaeological remains dated to this period are likely to have been
th
st
destroyed by 20 and 21 century construction and Second World War bomb damage,
preliminary results from a recent geophysical survey throughout much of the Site has revealed
significant archaeological anomalies similar to Roman typologies. Therefore, it is considered that
the potential for surviving Roman period remains, whether in situ or dispersed and unstratified,
within the Site is medium.
10.5.10
Relatively little is known about Roman Thanets social, cultural and economic character and the
South East Research Framework for Archaeology (2007, Ref 10.16) identifies the need to
understand the patterns of occupation, settlement and cultural changes and highlight and answer
some of the fundamental questions. For example, the environmental impact of Roman
development, social status and institutions, family and social organisations and systems of belief
would give a broader human narrative of Roman life in Thanet. The use of the Isle of Thanet as a
gateway for initial Roman military activities, then Roman civilian occupation and eventually
Romano-British defensive capabilities associated with the Roman forts to the north and south of
the Wantsum Channel is a key research consideration.
10.5.11
It is concluded that the potential for surviving Roman remains within the Site is medium, and that
any potentially surviving buried archaeological remains dating to the Roman period, within the
Site boundary, would be of Medium (Regional) value.
10-11
EARLY MEDIEVAL PERIOD (AD 410 1066)
10.5.12
No designated archaeological assets are recorded within the Site relating to this period. However,
a number of non-designated sites or evidence is recorded that can be dated to the Early Medieval
period on the Site.
10.5.13
Evidence of the Early Medieval (Anglo-Saxon) period has been identified within the Study Area,
and evidence of this period has also been identified within the Site. These include a number of
features discovered as part of the East Kent Access Route (2009-2011), and Anglo-Saxon graves
and dispersed cemeteries (TR 36 NW 1144, TR 36 NW 1143, TR 36 NW 1142). Further AngloSaxon sites or events were discovered along this route including Anglo-Saxon hollow ways (TR
36 NW 1145) appearing to run from the north east towards the west possibly towards Minster.
10.5.14
Evidence of the Early Medieval (Saxon) period is common within the Study Area, and it is very
likely that some settlement and perhaps associated agricultural and extensive burial activity may
exist. As discussed above sections of the Site are less likely to be a source of surviving buried
archaeological remains dating to the period due to their likely 20th and 21st century destruction.
Preliminary results from the recent geophysical survey throughout much of the Site have revealed
significant archaeological anomalies similar to Early Medieval typologies. It is considered that the
potential for surviving Early Medieval (Saxon) period remains, whether in situ or dispersed and
unstratified, within the Site is medium/high.
10.5.15
The South East Research Framework for Archaeology (2007, Ref 10.16) identifies the need to
understand the patterns of occupation, settlement and cultural changes and highlight and answer
some of the fundamental questions concerning the transition between late Roman and early
Saxon, including the reasons and implications for shifting settlement patterns. As with many sites
near the East Kent Coast, there is an importance to studying the connection between Saxon sites
associated with watercourses and coastal settlement, with a view to understanding the origins
and roles of settlements along this stretch of the Kent coastline and Thanets hinterland and
beyond. A review of the relationship between the Kent coastal settlement along the Wantsum
Channel and the Thanet hinterland during the Saxon period would enhance Anglo-Saxon
research.
10.5.16
It is concluded that the potential for surviving Early Medieval remains within the Site is
medium/high and that any potentially surviving buried archaeological remains dating to the Early
Medieval period, within the Site boundary, would be of Medium (Regional) to High (National)
value.
No designated archaeological assets are recorded within the Site relating to this period. A number
of non-designated sites or evidence are recorded that can be dated to the Medieval period on the
Site.
10.5.18
Evidence of the Medieval period has been identified within the Study Area, and evidence of this
period has also been identified within the Site. These include a number of features discovered as
part of the East Kent Access Route (2009-2011), numerous Medieval ditches and a gully (TR 36
NW 503) were found along the East Kent Access Route which roughly follows the length of the
southern boundary of the Site (TR 36 SW 372). Further Medieval sites or events were discovered
along this route including a probable Medieval road, Dunstrete (TR 36 NW 438) appearing to run
from the south west towards the north east possibly towards Manston.
10.5.19
The earliest documented reference for settlement at Manston is c.1254 and evidence of the
Medieval period is common within the Study Area, and it is likely that some settlement and
perhaps associated agricultural activity may exist. Results from geophysical survey throughout
much of the Site have revealed significant archaeological anomalies similar to Medieval
typologies. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for surviving Medieval period remains,
whether in situ or dispersed and unstratified, within the Site is medium.
10-12
10.5.20
The South East Research Framework for Archaeology (2007, Ref. 10.16) identifies the need to
understand the patterns of occupation, settlement and cultural changes and highlight and answer
some of the fundamental questions concerning the transition between the early Saxon and
Medieval period, including the reasons and implications for shifting settlement patterns. As with
many sites near the East Kent Coast, there is an importance to studying the connection between
early Saxon sites and the continuation of occupation into the Medieval period. The origin of
settlement and the differentiation between Saxon and Norman (Medieval) settlement patterns
including foundations, is a core research determinate. Moreover, the understanding of the Isle of
Thanet as a gateway and conduit for Medieval trade and ecclesiastical pilgrimage (to Canterbury)
places an importance upon Thanet as a growing and important entrance hub during this period.
10.5.21
It is concluded that the potential for surviving medieval remains within the Site is medium, and
that any potentially surviving buried archaeological remains dating to the Medieval Period, within
the Site boundary, would be of Medium (Regional) to Low (Local) value.
POST MEDIEVAL PERIOD
10.5.22
No designated archaeological assets are recorded within the Site relating to this period. A number
of non-designated sites or evidence are recorded that can be dated to the Post Medieval period
on the Site.
10.5.23
It is likely that for much of the period the Site may have remained in marginal agricultural use, as
perhaps sparsely used agricultural land. As a whole the period is dominated within the Study Area
by evidence of the agricultural and extractive industries, represented by the remains of chalk pits
scattered throughout this part of Thanet. For example, a large number of farmsteads are identified
from this period (MKE87021, MKE87022, MKE87023 and MKE88749), and chalk and flint
quarries proliferate throughout the area (TR 36 NW 481 & TR 36 NW 1125). Therefore, it is
considered that the potential for surviving Post Medieval period remains, whether in situ or
dispersed and unstratified, within the Site is medium.
10.5.24
The South East Research Framework for Archaeology (2007, Ref. 10.16) identifies the need to
understand the patterns of occupation, settlement and cultural changes and highlight and answer
some of the fundamental questions concerning the transition between the Medieval and Post
Medieval period, including the reasons and implications for shifting settlement patterns. The need
to identify the consequences of infrastructural development at a local level and the contribution to
our understanding of the creation of the Kent suburb, and the meanings and values of
encroaching urbanisation, including an understanding of the development of rural industry and
regional commerce and transportation is also highlighted. Moreover, the understanding of Thanet
as a gateway and conduit for trade and the growth of the coastal resort, places an importance
upon Thanet as a growing and important entrance hub during this period, especially in relation to
the increased influence of London.
10.5.25
It is concluded that the potential for surviving Post-Medieval remains within the Site is medium to
low, and that any potentially surviving buried archaeological remains dating to the Post-Medieval
period, within the Site boundary, would be of Low (Local) to Medium (Regional) value.
MODERN PERIOD
10.5.26
No designated archaeological assets are recorded within the Site relating to this period. There is
evidence for non-designated heritage assets previously recorded that can be dated to the Modern
period on the Site, mainly regarding the extant remains of the various phases of the military
airfield (RAF Manston) throughout the Site.
10.5.27
Evidence of the Modern period has been identified within the Study Area and within the Site. It
includes a number of features discovered as part of the East Kent Access Route (2009-2011),
and numerous features associated with the military airfield such as a Second World War air raid
shelter cut deep into the natural chalk deposits (TR 36 NW 518) found during excavations within
the airfields east central area. The airfield and its associated remains is evident through all of the
10-13
Site and includes extant military features such as hangers and pillboxes and more unusual
features represented by the identification of aircraft crash site (TR 36 NW 260) were a Douglas
Havoc Mark I, crashed in 1940. Nevertheless, sections of the Site itself are less likely to be a
source of surviving buried archaeological remains dating to the period due predominantly to the
construction of the post Second World War airfield and modern airport with large areas of
concrete hard standing. Therefore, it is considered that the potential for surviving Modern period
remains, whether in situ or dispersed and unstratified, within the Site is medium.
10.5.28
The South East Research Framework for Archaeology (2007, Ref. 16) identifies the need for
extensive research regarding defence within the South-East region in general and Kent in
particular, which, incidentally, follows somewhat the strategic grouping of territory in the Second
World Wars South-Eastern Command, has figured prominently in the defence of Britain. This was
because its closeness to the Continent via the convenient sea-crossing of the English Channel
which so favoured communication and trade also exposed a vulnerability to raiding and to the
landing of an enemy, making the broader land-mass and the country in general open to invasion,
conquest and occupation. And as the coast was a national border, its security and that of its
hinterland was an insistent and enduring concern to government and people. That is why the
signature of defence was written so assertively in stone, brick, earth, concrete and steel,
sometimes prominent and sometimes below ground, upon the territory of the region as well as
perhaps more passingly or not - in its social and industrial development. Manston airfield has
itself played a prominent role in that defence and also in the social and industrial development of
Thanet.
10.5.29
The development of defensive industrial practices during the Modern period is a key research aim
within the South East Research Framework for Archaeology (Ref. 16). Given the research aims
highlighted above, it is concluded that the importance of archaeological remains from this period
is considered to be medium.
10.5.30
It is concluded that the potential for surviving Modern remains is medium, and that any potentially
surviving buried archaeological remains dating to the Modern period, within the Site boundary,
would be of Medium (Regional) value.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
10.5.31
The HEDBA has identified a number of designated and non-designated archaeological assets
within the Study Area although no designated assets will be affected by the Proposed
Development. These are outlined in Table 10.5 and their location is illustrated in Appendix 10.1.
10.5.32
There are seven SMs situated within the Study Area of 2km, 1 Scheduled Monument,
Richborough Castle is located 5km to the south but is situated on high ground and is therefore
considered for this study, the other six SMs are located within the 2km Study Area with no intervisibility views and therefore are not considered for assessment below.
10.5.33
There is one CA within the 1km Study Area. This comprises Acol village Conservation Area. All of
the proposed Site lies within the parameter of the former Manston Airport/Military Airfield, and
Acol CA is located a further 900m to the north west with no inter-visibility views and therefore is
not considered for assessment below.
10.5.34
There are no designated assets located within the Site boundary. A detailed list of the designated
heritage assets within the Study Area is provided in Appendix 10.1.
10-14
Table 10.5: Summary of Designated Heritage Assets Considered within the Assessment
Asset Name
Richborough Castle
Saxon Shore Fort
Scheduled Monument
Ref. 1014642.
OS Grid Reference:
TR3101065730
OS Grid Coordinates:
631010, 165730
Latitude/Longitude:
51.3437, 1.3157
10-15
As there are limited views of the Site due
to the undulating topography and
intervening built environment, as such the
Site makes a slight contribution to the
significance of the asset through setting.
Table 10.5.1: Summary of Non-Designated Heritage Assets Considered within the Assessment
Asset Name
Former Manston
Airfield, Kent. (TR 36
NW 888). Battle HQ.
Hanger 3
Fire Station
10-16
asset are also considered to contribute to
its significance, but to a more limited
degree than the views within and adjacent
to the historic airfield building complex. As
such, the Site is considered to make a
contribution to the significance of this
asset through setting.
There is inter-visibility from the Site
towards the asset to the immediate south,
east and west which comprise a 20th
century historic airfield backdrop of this
section of former Manston Airfield towards
this asset. As such the Proposed
Development is considered to make a
negative contribution to the experience of
the heritage assets through setting but a
positive contribution through re-use and
retention.
Engineering Offices
10-17
RAF Museum.
Transportation
hanger/garage
Radar Dish
10-18
Development is considered to make a
negative contribution to the experience of
the heritage assets through setting but a
positive contribution through continued
use and/or retention.
TR 36 NW 885
10-19
than the views within and adjacent to the
historic airfield building complex. As such,
the Site is considered to make a
contribution to the significance of these
assets through setting but a positive
contribution through continued re-use
and/or retention.
There is inter-visibility from the Site
towards the assets from the immediate
south and east which comprise a 20th
century historic airfield backdrop of this
section of former Manston Airfield towards
these assets. As such the Proposed
Development is considered to make a
negative contribution to the experience of
the heritage assets through setting but a
positive contribution through continued reuse and/or retention.
10.6
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
10.6.1
10-20
10.7
10.7.1
The demolition and construction phase will be as outlined in Chapter 2 The Proposed
Development.
10.7.2
The Heritage Runway Park, other green infrastructure and retained former buildings (see Chapter
2 The Proposed Development) within the development help to conceptualise the former
presence of Manston Airport and are likely to have a beneficial effect on the setting of assets that
have clear associations with the former site.
DISTURBANCE OR LOSS OF POTENTIAL BURIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS
10.7.3
The ground clearance activities across the Proposed Development have the potential to truncate
or cause the loss of buried or surface archaeological remains that might be present within the Site
boundary.
10.7.4
Based on the findings of the HEDBA (Appendix 10.1) including previous archaeological fieldwork
there is the potential for currently unknown archaeological remains to exist from the Prehistoric
through to the Modern periods within the site. A number of assets from the Prehistoric period
have been recorded near to the development Site comprising of Neolithic settlement activity,
Mesolithic flint scatters and an area of Iron Age activity associated with localised transportation
and industrial activity. The potential features and remains associated with these features are likely
to provide more information on the nature and extent of occupation and activity within the
landscape during these periods, contributing towards regional research goals.
10.7.5
The value of buried archaeological assets from the Prehistoric and early medieval periods is
considered to be medium to high due to the contribution any assets found are likely to make
towards regional research goals in accordance with the criteria set out in Table 10.2. The
magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is high in accordance with the criteria in Table 10.3.
Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect on potential buried
archaeological remains from prehistoric and early medieval periods of moderate to major
negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
10.7.6
Archaeological remains from the, Roman, medieval, post medieval and modern periods may also
exist within the Site. A number of assets, including the settlements of Manston and Minster, of
Saxon and medieval date, are known within and in the vicinity of the Site. The available evidence
suggested that the Site itself has been open agricultural fields and therefore post medieval and
medieval deposits may be evident within the development site. The potential for Roman
archaeological deposits within the Site also appear to be medium and evidence for Roman-British
activity is within the Site boundary, and found throughout beyond the boundaries of the Study
Area, with evidence of a potential Roman Road and Romano-British cemeteries scattered
throughout the area, especially along the route of the East Kent Access Road.
10.7.7
The value of potential buried archaeological remains from the Roman, medieval, post medieval
and modern periods is considered to be medium and medium to low given the contribution the
anticipated archaeological remains would make to local/regional research goals in accordance
with the criteria set out in Table 10.2. The magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is high in
accordance with the criteria in Table 10.3. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent,
long-term effect on potential buried archaeological remains from the Roman, Medieval, PostMedieval and Modern periods of major negative significance prior to the implementation of
mitigation measures.
10-21
MITIGATION
10.7.8
10.7.9
It is considered that at this stage (prior to evaluative trial trench results), archaeological assets will
not in their entirety be considered to be of national importance and therefore preservation 'in situ'
would not be a proportionate or appropriate mitigation response for the Proposed Development.
For areas where it is consistent with the NPPF, preservation by record can be achieved prior to
construction activity or in association with it.
10.7.10
It is likely that the fieldwork will comprise of archaeological Strip, Map and Sample excavation
and/or open area excavation, trial trenching and watching briefs and historic building survey of
historic buildings that are to remain in situ prior to renovation works. This approach has been
discussed with KCCHC. All works will be completed in accordance with current Chartered
Institute for Archaeologists guidance for field practice (2015), as well as being formally agreed
through a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI).
RESIDUAL EFFECT
10.7.11
Archaeological recording will ensure that any archaeology that does survive is either preserved 'in
situ' or preserved 'by record' and will add further to our knowledge of the history and development
of this area of Thanet, East Kent. This will in part reduce the overall magnitude of change.
However, as a result of the potential loss of archaeological remains in situ, the effect for all time
periods is considered to be negative.
10.7.12
The value of potential buried archaeological remains from the Prehistoric and Early medieval
periods is medium to high and the magnitude of change, following mitigation, is medium.
Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual effect on potential buried
archaeological remains from the Prehistoric and Early medieval periods of moderate negative
significance following the implementation of mitigation measures.
10.7.13
The value of potential buried archaeological remains from the Roman, Post Medieval, Medieval,
and Modern periods is medium and medium to low and the magnitude of change, following
mitigation, is low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual effect on
potential buried archaeological remains from the Roman, Early Medieval, Medieval, and Modern
periods of minor negative significance following the implementation of mitigation measures.
CHANGE TO THE FABRIC OF NON-DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS
10.7.14
There are a small number of non-designated heritage assets which may be physically affected by
the activities associated with the demolition and construction phase of the Proposed
Development.
10.7.15
The site of the airfield comprises the remains of the former RAF and USAF complex located
throughout the Site. During the demolition and construction phase, it is intended that renovation to
existing historic airfield buildings will be undertaken (Demolition and retention plan shown with
figures of HEDBA, Appendix 10.1). This work will enhance the use and function of these
structures.
10.7.16
Renovation work in accordance with national guidelines will enhance and conserve the evidential
and historic values of asset. Therefore, overall the magnitude of change is low.
10-22
10.7.17
The value of the historic buildings associated with the former RAF/USAF airfield is considered to
be low to medium in line with the criteria set out in Table 10.2. The magnitude of change, prior to
mitigation, is considered to be low in accordance with the criteria set out in Table 10.3. Therefore,
there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect on the remains of airfields in situ historic
buildings of minor negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
10.7.18
The effects of the activities associated with the demolition and construction phase of the
Proposed Development on the non-designated heritage assets within the Site are, to a certain
extent, unavoidable.
10.7.19
Works undertaken in accordance with the principles set out in Chapter 2 The Proposed
Development will be monitored, and further mitigation in the form of detailed historic building
recording for all structural remains of the former Manston military airfield will be considered.
Where possible non-designated built heritage assets assessed within the site will be preserved
and re-used. They will thus be conserved and enhanced through the Development.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
10.7.20
The value of the historic buildings is considered low to medium and the magnitude of change,
following mitigation, is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term
residual effect on the airfields historic buildings of negligible negative significance following the
implementation of mitigation measures.
CHANGES TO THE SETTING OF DESIGNATED AND NON-DESIGNATED HERITAGE
ASSETS
10.7.21
The introduction of plant and equipment and activities, including topsoil stripping and excavation
during the construction phase of the Proposed Development (as outlined in Chapter 2 The
Proposed Development) have the potential to change the setting of designated and nondesignated heritage assets.
10.7.22
The Site of Richborough Castle, Roman Scheduled Monument is situated 5.2km to the south of
the Site boundary. The significance of this asset derives from its historic and evidential values.
However, its setting is also considered to contribute to its significance, and the relationship and
physical proximity between the flats of the former Wantsum Channel and the higher land to the
north and the coastal landscape. The significance of the asset is best understood and appreciated
in local views from the immediate setting of the Scheduled Monument.
10.7.23
These local views will not be affected by the Proposed Development. The medium distance views
to or from the Scheduled Monument will have limited to no contribution to the experience of the
heritage asset. During this phase, plant and equipment will be introduced into these views to this
asset. Due to the distance between the Proposed Development and this asset, there is
considered to be no degree of acoustic intrusion on the setting of this asset. Therefore, whilst the
Proposed Development will have limited to no effect on the overall understanding and
appreciation of the significance of the Scheduled Monument, and there will be barely noticeable
change in setting. As such, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible.
10.7.24
The value of Richborough Castle Scheduled Monument is considered to be high in line with the
criteria set out in Table 10.2. The magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is considered to be
negligible in accordance with the criteria set out in Table 10.3. Therefore, there is likely to be a
direct, temporary, medium-term effect on the Scheduled Monument (SM) deemed negligible to
the assets significance.
10.7.25
The former Prospect Inn, Grade II Listed Building is situated across the A299 from the western
section of the Site boundary, approximately 200m. The significance of this asset derives from the
relationship and physical proximity between the designed landscapes of the former airfield and an
10-23
historical, architectural association. The Prospect Inn was designed to reflect the Cunard style of
architecture at the time (1930s) a modern signature to the nearby airfield reflecting modernity. As
such, the significance of the asset is best appreciated within and in the immediate vicinity of the
asset, with views towards the high ground of the western end of the large runway to the south
west and the runway buffer to the west. The significance of the asset is also understood and
appreciated in local views on the entrances to the Listed Building Forecourt Area. These local
views will have a limited affect arising from the Proposed Development. The medium distance
views of the Site make some, albeit limited, contribution to the experience of the Listed Building.
However, due to the presence of intervening built environment and the undulating topography
between this asset and the Site, it is likely that the effect will be greatly reduced.
10.7.26
Therefore, whilst the Proposed Development will have no effect on the overall understanding and
appreciation of the significance of the Listed Building, there will be a slight change in setting. As
such, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible.
10.7.27
The value of the former Prospect Inn is considered to be medium in line with the criteria set out in
Table 10.2. The magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is considered to be negligible in
accordance with the criteria set out in Table 10.3. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct,
temporary, medium-term effect on the Listed Building of negligible significance prior to the
implementation of mitigation measures outlined below.
10.7.27.1
The value of the former Manston Airfield and associated historic buildings is considered to be low
to medium in line with the criteria set out in Table 10.2. The magnitude of change, prior to
mitigation, is considered to be low in accordance with the criteria set out in Table 10.3. Therefore,
there is likely to be a direct, temporary, medium-term effect on the former military airfield and
associated historic buildings of negligible to minor significance prior to the implementation of
mitigation measures outlined below.
MITIGATION
10.7.27.2
The effects of the activities associated with the construction phase of the Proposed Development
upon the designated and non-designated heritage assets are, to a certain extent, unavoidable.
However, the following measures may slightly reduce the magnitude of change:
Tidy site management; and
Uniform hoardings or artwork.
Phased development works over a number of years, so that one stage of the development
works is completed prior to the start of the next phase of works, allowing for a localised effect
on setting.
10.7.27.3
Mitigation measures in relation demolition and construction will be detailed in a dedicated CEMP.
An outline CEMP is provided in Appendix 2.2.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
10.7.27.4
The value of Richborough Castle SM is high and the magnitude of change remains negligible.
Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, medium-term residual effect on the SM of
negligible significance.
10.7.27.5
The value of the former Prospect Inn Listed Building is medium and the magnitude of change
remains negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, medium-term residual
effect on the Listed Building of negligible significance.
10.7.27.6
The value of the former Manston Airfield and associated historic buildings is low to medium and
the magnitude of change remains low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary,
medium-term residual effect on this asset of minor to negligible significance following the
implementation of mitigation measures.
10-24
CHANGES TO THE HISTORIC LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
th
10.7.27.7
The predominant historic character within the Site consists of semi-rural post 1800 and 20
century and modern settlement expansion. The site development activities during the construction
phase, including excavation below existing levels across the main development site, as indicated
on the Land Use Parameter Plan (Figure 2.3) will remove and replace the existing modern
development present within the Site. It is also expected that a limited intrusion into the historic
fabric of the former airfield consisting of retention and renovation works on existing historic
buildings associated with the airfield will change the historic landscape character to a limited
degree. As such, the magnitude of change is considered to be low.
10.7.27.8
The value of the airfield within the Site is considered to be low to medium in accordance with the
criteria set out in Table 10.2. The magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is low in accordance
with the criteria set out in Table 10.3. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, longterm effect on the airfield within the Site of minor to negligible significance prior to the
implementation of mitigation measures.
10.7.27.9
Historic landscape character is classified as Post 1800 settlement and irregular fields, track ways
th
and boundaries semi-rural landscape consisting of 20 century and modern settlement
throughout the Site Ref. 17. The site development activities during the construction phase,
including excavation from existing levels across the main development site, as indicated on the
Land Use Parameter Plan (Figure 2.3), will remove the existing modern development present
within the Site. It is expected that limited alterations of the existing airfield and associated
buildings is likely to result in a slight change to key elements of the historic landscape. As such,
the magnitude of change is considered to be low.
10.7.27.10
The value of the airfield landscape character within the Site is considered to be low to medium in
accordance with the criteria set out in Table 10.2. The magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is
low in accordance with the criteria set out in Table 10.3. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct,
permanent, long-term effect on the airfields historic landscape within the Site of minor to
negligible significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
10.7.27.11
Effects of the activities during the construction phase upon the historic landscape character units
within the Site are, to a certain extent, unavoidable, this can be partly mitigated assuming all
works are undertaken in accordance with the principles set out in Chapter 2 The Proposed
Development. However, a full historic buildings assessment as a further mitigation measure is
proposed as a condition to consent, which will be followed by historic buildings survey and record
of the former military airfield and its associated buildings. This will follow guidance from Historic
Englands (English Heritage) Understanding Historic Buildings; a guide to good recording practice
(2006).
10.7.27.12
Moreover, a number of historic buildings related to the airfield will be retained and renovated in
accordance with Historic Englands Guidance. Therefore, the main intrinsic element of the former
airfield will remain in place allowing for the majority of the historic landscape character of the Site
to albeit slightly altered for greater public access and as such reduce the magnitude of change,
which is therefore considered to be low.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
10.7.27.13
The value of the former airfield and associated historic buildings within the Site is low to medium
and the magnitude of change is considered low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct,
permanent, long-term residual effect on the historic character of the airfield and associated
buildings within the Site of minor to negligible negative significance.
10.7.27.14
The value of the wider historic townscape character within the Site is low to medium and the
magnitude of change is considered to be low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent,
10-25
long-term residual effect on the historic landscape character within the Site of minor negative
significance.
OPERATION
CHANGES IN THE SETTING OF DESIGNATED AND NON-DESIGNATED
HERITAGE ASSETS
10.7.27.15
Once completed, the Proposed Development has the potential to change the setting of
designated and non-designated heritage assets due to the visual, acoustic and artificial lighting
intrusion caused by the new built form and associated infrastructure.
10.7.27.16
Richborough Castle, Scheduled Monument is situated 5.2km to the south of the Site boundary.
The significance of this asset derives from its historic and evidential values. However, its setting is
also considered to contribute to its significance, and the relationship and physical proximity
between the flats of the former Wantsum Channel and the higher land to the north and the coastal
landscape. The significance of the asset is best understood and appreciated in local views from
the immediate setting of the Scheduled Monument. These local views will not be affected by the
Proposed Development. The medium distance views to or from the SM will have limited to no
contribution to the experience of the heritage asset. Therefore, whilst the Proposed Development
will have limited to no effect on the overall understanding and appreciation of the significance of
the SM, and there will be barely noticeable change in setting. As such, the magnitude of change
is considered to be negligible.
10.7.27.17
Overall, the proposals are not considered to harm the significance of the rural estuary
historiography through development in its wider setting. For the purposes of the NPPF, this is
considered to constitute no harm to this asset.
10.7.27.18
The former Prospect Inn Grade II Listed Building is situated across from the A299 from the
western section of the Site boundary, approximately 200m. The significance of this asset derives
from the relationship and physical proximity between the designed landscapes of the former
airfield and an historical, architectural association. The Prospect Inn was designed to reflect the
Cunard style of architecture at the time (1930s) a modern signature to the nearby airfield
reflecting modernity. As such, the significance of the asset is best appreciated within and in the
immediate vicinity of the asset, with views towards the high ground of the western end of the large
runway to the south west and the runway buffer to the west.
10.7.27.19
The significance of the asset is also understood and appreciated in local views on the entrances
to the Listed Building Forecourt Area. These local views will have a limited affect arising from the
Proposed Development. The medium distance views of the Site make some, albeit limited,
contribution to the experience of the Listed Building. However, due to the presence of intervening
built environment and the undulating topography between this asset and the Site, it is likely that
the effect will be greatly reduced. Therefore, whilst the Proposed Development will have no effect
on the overall understanding and appreciation of the significance of the Listed Building, there will
be a slight change in setting. As such, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible.
10.7.27.20
Overall, the proposals are not considered to harm the significance of the Listed Building through
development in its wider setting. For the purposes of the NPPF, this is considered to constitute no
harm to this asset.
10.7.27.21
The former military airfield, Manston Airport forms part of the Proposed Development Area
located within and throughout the Site boundary. The significance of this asset derives from its
evidential and historic value as an area containing the remains of an important military airfield for
the past 100 years, but also from the relationship and physical proximity between the former
airfield complex and the remaining historic buildings within its curtilage. Views to and from the
airfield complex and historic buildings that are associated with the former military airfield also
contributes to the significance of this asset.
10-26
10.7.27.22
As such, the significance of the asset is best understood and appreciated in both local and
medium distance views from within its immediate and associated setting of the surrounding
landscape. These local views will be slightly affected by the Proposed Development during the
operational phase of the development. The long distance views across the Site makes some,
albeit limited, contribution to the experience of the non-designated heritage asset and historic
buildings and emphasises its semi-rural airfield location. Therefore, whilst the Proposed
Development will not have an effect on the overall understanding and appreciation of the
significance of the historic military airfield and associated buildings, there will be a change in
setting. As such, it is considered that the magnitude of change is considered to be low.
10.7.27.23
Overall, the proposals are not considered to harm the significance of the former Manston Airfield
through development in its wider setting. For the purposes of the NPPF, this is considered to
constitute no harm to this asset.
MITIGATION
10.7.27.24
The effects referred to above concerning the operational phase upon the designated and nondesignated heritage assets are, to a certain extent, unavoidable. As such, for these receptors, no
substantive measures beyond those included in the design of the Proposed Development as
described within Design and Access Statement (Ref 10.27) that is submitted in support of the
application is required. However, the runway will be retained and the two earlier runways to the
north of the Site will be reinstated, along with the renovated historic buildings associated with the
former airfield, this should reduce the magnitude of effect of the development.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
10.7.27.25
The value of Richborough Castle SM is high and the magnitude of change remains negligible.
Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, medium-term residual effect on the SM of
negligible significance.
10.7.27.26
The value of the former Prospect Inn Listed Building is medium and the magnitude of change
remains negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, medium-term residual
effect on the Listed Building of negligible negative significance.
10.7.27.27
The value of the former Manston Airfield and associated historic buildings is low to medium and
the magnitude of change remains low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary,
medium-term residual effect on this asset of minor negligible negative significance following the
implementation of mitigation measures.
10.8
10.8.1.1
Data from the NMR and the KCCHER comprises secondary information derived from varied
sources. It is assumed that this data, as well as that derived from other secondary sources, is
reasonably accurate. Data from the geophysical survey provides information on the potential for
below ground archaeological remains. Its interpretation requires validation through archaeological
trial trenching. Due to the limitations identified above, it is possible that previously unrecorded
archaeological sites will have survived within the Site. In addition, due to the buried and invisible
nature of below ground archaeological sites, there is an element of uncertainty regarding the
survival, condition, nature and extent of the known sites identified within the Site. Grading of
significance, therefore, may be revised for currently unknown buried and surface archaeological
remains following further assessment and evaluation.
10.9
SUMMARY
10.9.1.1
10-27
| Parsons Brinckerhoff in 2016, and a geophysical survey completed by AOC Archaeology in 2016
(Appendix 10.1). This document provides an evaluation of previous land use and archaeological
potential utilising archaeological asset data from the HER and the NMR, geophysical survey,
aerial photography, cartographic information and other background material (including various
internet sources such as the Victoria County History). This chapter should be viewed in
conjunction with Chapters 8 and 13, LVIA and Ground Conditions.
10.9.1.2
In terms of archaeological baseline, there is evidence for Prehistoric activity (particularly during
the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age periods within the Site and wider Study Area. There is
also significant evidence to suggest activity within the Site and Study Area during the Roman and
Saxon/Early Medieval periods, and evidence of continued occupation of all periods within the
th
wider area is known (Appendix 10.1). The 20 century former Manston airfield is also considered
a significant non-designated heritage asset.
10.9.1.3
No designated assets will be significantly affected by the Proposed Development. There are no
World Heritage Sites or Registered Battlefields or Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within
the Site or the 1km Study Area. There is one Conservation Area within the 1km Study Area, which
is Acol CA. This Conservation Area is located 900m north west of the Site. There are no Listed
Buildings within the Site curtilage; and one Listed Building affected through setting by the
Proposed Development, the Former Prospect Inn a Grade II Listed Building. There are however
19 Grade II listed buildings within the Study Area; There are two Grade II* Listed Buildings within
the 1km Study Area. There are six Scheduled Monuments within the 2km Study Area and one
Scheduled Monument within the 5km Study Area, assessed to cover that particular asset. Only
two designated heritage assets, SM Richborough Castle and the former Prospect Inn, have been
brought forward for settings assessment within this chapter.
10.9.1.4
There are no designated heritage landscapes within the Site or within the 1km study area around
the Site. There are no Areas of Archaeological Potential within the wider Study Area.
10.9.1.5
During the construction phase, the assessment considered that the residual effects on any
potential buried/surface archaeological deposits are likely to be of moderate negative significance
for the Prehistoric and Early Medieval periods, and minor negative for all other periods following
the implementation of mitigation measures. Such mitigation measures include geophysical survey
undertaken by AOC Archaeology across the Site which has revealed widespread potential for
archaeological sites and features within the Proposed Development areas. This survey will target
areas for evaluative trial trenching within the Site, agreed with KCCHC through a WSI. Following
archaeological evaluation further archaeological mitigation will be required as a condition to
planning consent by KCCHC in the form of archaeological excavations and watching briefs
agreed with KCCHC through a WSI.
10.9.1.6
During the construction phase, the assessment has determined that there are a number of nondesignated heritage assets that would be affected by the Proposed Development, mainly the
historic former military buildings located within the Site boundary. Mitigation measures are
proposed to reduce the effects on the non-designated heritage assets within the Site, in the form
of historic building assessment and survey including sympathetic historic restoration and
renovation. Therefore, the residual effects are considered to be negligible negative significance.
10.9.1.7
During the construction and operational phases, the assessment has determined that the historic
setting of two designated heritage assets and one non-designated heritage asset would be
directly affected by the Proposed Development, including Richborough Castle Scheduled
Monument, the former Prospect Inn, a Grade II Listed Building and the former Manston military
airfield and its associated historic buildings. No measures are proposed to reduce the negative
effects on these heritage assets. Therefore, the residual effects are considered to range from
negligible to minor negative significance depending on the asset affected.
10.9.1.8
Proposed features of the development including the Heritage Runway Park, other green
infrastructure and retained former properties within the development help to conceptualise the
10-28
former presence of Manston Airport and are likely to have a beneficial effect on the setting of
assets that have clear associations with the former Airport.
10.9.1.9
An assessment of the historic landscape character was undertaken during the construction
phase. The assessment concluded that a residual effect ranging from negligible to minor negative
significance for the partial loss of the complete open landscape of the former military airfield site
and Historic Landscape Character units pertaining to this area of Thanet, outlined with Kent
County Councils Historic Landscape Character Assessment Ref. 17.
10-29
Table 10.6: Summary of Effects for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
10-30
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
MAJOR /
POSITIVE P / D / I
ST /
MODERATE /
T
MT /
/ MINOR /
NEGATIV
LT
NEGLIGIBLE E
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION /
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
ENHANCEMENT MEASURES MAJOR /
POSITIVE P / D / I ST /
MODERATE /
T
MT /
/ MINOR /
NEGATIVE
LT
NEGLIGIBL
E
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
NPPF
Changes to the
Fabric of nondesignated
heritage assets.
Disturbance or
loss of potential
buried/surface
archaeological
remains.
Richborough Negligible
Castle
Scheduled
Monument. A
Roman
(Saxon) Shore
Fort.
Negative P
The former
Negligible
Prospect Inn.
Grade II Listed
Building.
Negative
Negligible
The former
Manston
military airfield
and
associated
historic
buildings.
The former
Manston
military airfield
and
associated
historic
buildings.
Negligible to
Minor
Negative
Negligible to Negative
Minor
Minor to
Moderate
Negative P
Moderate
P
Negative
MT
LT
LT
Negligible
Negative
MT
Positive
AMAAA 1979 P
(LBCA) Act
1990
Planning (Listed
Buildings and
Conservation
Areas)
(P(LBCA)) Act
1990
Negative
Archaeological evaluation
Negligible to Negative
including recent geophysical minor
survey and so to start targeted
trial trenching. Further
mitigation in archaeological
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016
LT
LT
NPPF
NPPF
AMAAA 1979 P
(LBCA) Act
1990
Planning (Listed
Buildings and
Conservation
Areas)
(P(LBCA)) Act
1990
Burial Act 1857,
Treasure Act
1996
10-31
Historic
Landscape
Character
Negative P
HLC Units.
Negligible
Semi-rural
post 1800
settlements
and field
th
systems. 20
century
modern
settlement
expansion with
irregular fields,
track ways and
boundaries.
Negative
Historic
Manston
Airfield.
Negative P
LT
Negative P
LT
Negative P
LT
MT
Negative
LT
Negative
LT
NPPF
AMAAA 1979 P
(LBCA) Act
1990
Planning (Listed
Buildings and
Conservation
Areas)
(P(LBCA)) Act
1990
Operation
Historic
Landscape
Character
Minor
HLC Units.
Negligible
Semi-rural
post 1800
settlements
and field
th
systems. 20
century
modern
settlement
expansion with
irregular fields,
track ways and
boundaries.
Minor
Negative
LT
NPPF
AMAAA 1979 P
(LBCA) Act
1990
Minor
Negative
LT
NPPF
Planning (Listed
Buildings and
Conservation
Areas)
(P(LBCA)) Act
1990
Key to table:
P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term
N/A = Not Applicable
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement
Chapter 10 Archaeology & Cultural Heritage
10-32
10.10
REFERENCES
10.10.1.1
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2013) Standard and Guidance for Historic
Environment Desk-Based Assessment
Ref. 2
Conservation Area Character Appraisal, Acol and Minster, Kent County Council
Conservation Areas Appraisals and Management Guidelines (2006)
Ref. 3
Ref. 4
Ref. 5
Ref. 6
Ref. 7
Ref. 8
Ref. 9
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DRMB) (2007) Volume 11 Section 3 Part
2 HA208/07 Cultural Heritage
Ref. 10
Ref. 11
Kent County Council, 21 Century, A Blueprint for the Countys Future (2010)
Ref. 12
Historic England (2015), Good Practice Advice Note: The Setting of Heritage
Assets
Ref. 13
Historic England (2015), Good Practice Advice Note: Seeing the History in the
View
Ref. 14
English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the
Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment
Ref. 15
Ref. 16
Ref. 17
Ref. 18
KCC (2011), East Kent Access Route Archaeological Investigations: KCC and
OA, 2011
Ref. 19
AOC Archaeology (2015). Interim Results from Geophysical Survey at the former
Manston Airport, Ramsgate, Kent.
Ref. 20
VCH: Volumes 1, 2 & 3, Victoria County History of the County of Kent: BHO:
British History Online: 1994.
Ref. 21
st
10-33
Ref. 22
Ref. 23
Ref. 24
Ref. 25
Ref. 26
Survey of Buildings and Structures associated with Manston Airport and the
surrounding areas (2015-16). Richard Taylor and Victor Smith. Kent County
Council Heritage Group (2016). (2016)
Ref.27
11-1
11
11.1
INTRODUCTION
11.1.1
This Chapter reports the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the Site and
surrounding area in terms of Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage in the context of the
baseline conditions at and in the vicinity of the Site. Where appropriate it also identifies proposed
mitigation measures to prevent, minimise or control likely negative effects in terms of Water
Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage arising from the Proposed Development and the subsequent
anticipated residual effects.
11.1.2
This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) should be read together with the
Introductory Chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 4), as well as Chapter 15 Cumulative Effects
and Chapter 13 Ground Conditions, Contamination and Hydrogeology which discusses the
various issues in relation to contamination and potential effects on ground water resources.
11.1.3
In addition, a Flood Risk Assessment and Outline Drainage Strategy (FRA & ODS) which also
includes a surface water drainage strategy to sustainably manage surface water runoff has been
prepared (Appendix 11.1) and has been used to inform this Chapter. This document is submitted
as a supporting document for the planning application. Additionally a Utilities Statement (Ref.
11.1) has been prepared to cover potable water, gas and electric supply and has been used to
inform this Chapter, particular in terms of potable water supply. Also a Water Framework
Directive Assessment Screening Report (Appendix 11.2) has been produced and is referred to
in these pages in relation to water quality.
11.2
11.2.1
Details of the relevant legislation, policy and guidance are provided in Appendix 11.3.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
11.2.2
11-2
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (2010) (Ref. 11.14)
PLANNING POLICY
11.2.3
Planning policy at the national and local level and its relevance to environmental design and
assessment is confirmed in Chapter 1 Introduction of the ES and the Planning Statement (Ref.
11.17) which accompanies the application and examines the merits of the Proposed Development
against the relevant planning policy.
11.2.4
Appendix 11.3 includes a summary of the relevant Water Resource, Flood Risk and Drainage
policy used for this assessment based on the following documents:
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
11.2.5
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref. 11.15) was published on 27 March 2012
and is a key part of the reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible,
to protect the environment and to promote sustainable growth. There is an overarching
presumption in favour of sustainable development that should be the basis of every plan and
every decision.
11.2.6
The NPPF consolidates all of the previous Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning
Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) into one document. Among others, the following
paragraphs/policies are considered relevant to this assessment:
Paragraph 100: Requires that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding is
avoided by directing development away from areas considered high risk, but where
development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood elsewhere.
Paragraph 101: Explains that the aim of the Sequential Test aims to steer development in
areas with the lowest probability of flooding.
11.2.7
The NPPF also recommends that development [] gives priority to the use of sustainable
drainage systems (Paragraph 103).
LOCAL PLAN OR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Thanet Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies; (Ref. 11.16)
Kent and Medway Growth and Infrastructure Framework (2015) (Ref. 11.18)
GUIDANCE
Flood Risk and Coastal Change Planning Practice Guidance (2015) (Ref. 11.19);
Future Water The Governments Water Strategy for England (February 2008) (Ref. 11.20)
CIRIA 753 2015: The SuDS Manual (Ref. 11.21)
Water Research Centre (WRc) Sewers for Adoption 7th Edition August 2012. (Ref. 11.22)
Kent County Council Flood Response Plan (2015) (Ref. 11.23)
Kent County Council Environmental Policy (2012) (Ref. 11.24)
Kent County Council Drainage and Planning Policy Statement (September 2015) (Ref.
11.25)
Kent County Council Kent and Medway Shoreline Pollution Emergency Plan (September
2015) (Ref. 11.26)
Kent County Council Climate Local Kent (2013) (Ref. 11.27)
Kent County Council Kent Environment Strategy (2013-2015) (Ref. 11.28)
Kent County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (2013) (Ref. 11.29)
11-3
Kent County Council Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (2011) (Ref. 11.30)
Kent Environment Strategy: Rising to the Climate Change Challenge (2011-2012) (Ref.
11.31)
Kent County Council Water. People. Places (Ref. 11.32)
Thanet Stage 1 Surface Water Management Plan (2013) (Ref. 11.33)
Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2013) (Ref. 11.34)
Thanet District Council Thanet District Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2009) (Ref. 11.35)
Southern Water Water Resources Management Plan (2009) (Ref. 11.36)
Southern Water Final Water Resources Management Plan: Strategic Environmental
Assessment (2009) (Ref. 11.37)
Southern Water Drought Plan (2013) (Ref. 11.38)
Environment Agency Water for life and livelihoods: River Basin Management Plan South
East River Basin District (2009) (Ref. 11.39)
Environment Agency The Stour Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (2003) (Ref.
11.40)
Environment Agency Stour Abstraction Licensing Strategy (2013) (Ref. 11.41)
TAG Unit A3 EIA Impacts on the Water Environment Chapter (Ref. 11.42)
11.2.8
While the Environment Agency (EA) no longer provides good practice guidance, the below
Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) are still relevant to this assessment:
PPG1: Understanding Your Environmental Responsibilities (Ref. 11.43)
PPG2: Above ground oil storage tanks (Ref. 11.44)
PPG3: Choosing and using oil separators: prevent pollution (Ref. 11.45)
PPG4: Treatment and disposal of sewage where no foul sewer if available (Ref. 11.46)
PPG5: Works in, near or over or over watercourses: prevent pollution (Ref. 11.47)
PPG6: Construction and demolition sites: prevent pollution (Ref. 11.48)
11.3
11.3.1
The assessment adopts the approach outlined in Chapter 4 Approach to the Assessment and
is based on the Parameter Plans and Application Plans as described in Chapter 2 The
Proposed Development. The entire scheme is relevant to this chapter as the proposals will
entail an increase in users of the Site which will have an effect on water supply and foul water
discharge. Considering that the development proposals will result in an increase in impermeable
area, there will also be effects on surface water runoff and potential surface water flooding. A
surface water drainage strategy however, has been produced as part of the FRA which
incorporates the use of SUDS in the form of attenuation basins, swales and permeable paving in
order to manage surface water runoff.
11.4
11.4.1
An Environmental Scoping Report was submitted to Thanet District Council (TDC) in January
th
2016 (Appendix 4.1). Their formal Scoping Opinion was received on 8 March 2016 (Appendix
4.2a) and a Scoping Response was issued to clarify a number of matters (Appendix 4.3). This
section provides an update on the scope of the assessment and investigates:
11-4
11.4.2
The effects of the development on surface water runoff quality during the construction
and operational phases;
The effect of the development on flood risk at the Site and elsewhere;
The increase in water demand through the change of use of the Site; and
The effects on the public drainage network during the construction and operational phase
of the proposed development.
In addition to the above, a WFD Screening Report was submitted to the EA for comment, they
th
replied on 15 April 2016 confirming that they agree that the proposed works do not constitute a
significant risk to WFD compliance. They have also stated that they would like to be consulted on
the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) this consultation should be
undertaken by the contractor in the later stages.
INSIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Construction Phase and Operational Phase
11.4.3
The insignificant effects outlined below have been identified as part of the FRA process
(Appendix 11.1).
11.4.4
The Site is located within Flood Zone 1 as confirmed in the FRA (Appendix 11.1), this is a zone
where probability of fluvial and tidal flooding is lowest, less than 0.1% every year and therefore
the impact the proposed development will have on tidal/fluvial flood risk during construction or
operation is considered to be negligible, and thus will not be considered further.
11.4.5
The probability of flooding from other potential sources was deemed low as discussed in the FRA
(Appendix 11.1) as discussed also in the following baseline; pages; the only source of flooding
which will be investigated and assessed in the following pages as a potential source of flood risk
is surface water flooding as the incorrect management of surface water at the development might
increase the probability of flooding and the associated flood risk at the Site and elsewhere.
11.4.6
The water quantity (capacity) of discharge to Pegwell Bay was deemed to be insignificant since
the discharge rate to a tidal water body is not relevant.
11.4.7
Likely Significant Effects that are considered further within the assessment section are set out
below.
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Effects on/off surface water flooding with reference to:
Construction Workers
Residents and occupants of the surrounding area (staff and public) and any
occupants of the initial development phases
Effects on foul public drainage network with reference to Water Quantity (capacity)
Effect on water quality (Pegwell Bay)
Effects on potable water demand/water supply
OPERATIONAL PHASE
Effects on/off surface water flooding with reference to:
11-5
Effects on foul public drainage network with reference to Water Quantity (capacity)
Effect on water quality (Pegwell Bay)
Effects on potable water demand/water supply
11.4.8
Any likely significant effect in relation to contamination and potential effects on ground water
resources are set out in Chapter 13 Ground Conditions, Contamination and Hydrogeology.
CONSULTATION
11.4.9
Table 11.1 provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken in support of the
preparation of this Chapter.
Table 11.1: Summary of Consultation
BODY /
ORGANISATION
Southern Water (SW)
Environment Agency
(EA)
INDIVIDUAL / STAT
MEETING DATES AND
BODY/ORGANISATION OTHER FORMS OF
CONSULTATION
Initial Flood Risk
Consultation sent on
26/08/2015
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME
OF DISCUSSIONS
Chris Nelson
Stuart Ward
John Moore
Louise Reid
Chantal Bland
Meeting on 01/02/2016
Jo Beck
Lisa Westcott
Meeting on 16/11/2015
Bronwyn Buntine
Alan Turner
Joseph Williamson
Meeting on 16/11/2016
Bronwyn Buntine
Meeting on 18/01/2016
11-6
Thanet District Council (TDC)
Iain Livingstone
Abby Raymond
Delegated responsibility
regarding flooding and
surface water drainage
strategy to KCC
A desktop study has been undertaken to establish hydrogeological conditions and other relevant
features at and in proximity to the Site, this was a qualitative assessment and the spatial
distances varied based on the specific influences. However, the assessment considers the effects
on downstream sewers and the local water supply distribution network.
The following sources of information have been reviewed as part of the desk study:
The Environment Agency online database;
British Geological Survey (BGS) geological mapping;
Chapter 13 Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and Contamination of this ES
WSP | PB Flood Risk Assessment and Outline Drainage Strategy (Appendix 11.1)
WSP | PB Water Framework Directive Assessment Screening Report ((Appendix 11.2))
All relevant legislation and guidance noted in Section 11.2.
11.4.12
Reference to the above information is made, where appropriate, in the following sections and
relevant flood maps are included within the FRA (Appendix 11.1).
11.4.13
Consultations/meetings with the statutory consultees have been undertaken and the advice and
guidance provided have been used to inform this assessment, relevant consultation and minutes
of meetings are provided within the FRA & ODS (Appendix 11.1) and Utilities Statement (Ref.
11.1). A summary of the consultation is outlined in Table 11.1.
SITE VISIT / OTHER ASSESSMENT
11.4.14
A site walkover was carried out in Autumn 2015 by representatives of the WSP | PB team
undertaking this Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage Chapter.
11.4.15
A topographical survey undertaken by Powers and Tiltman in March 2016 of the Site and
surrounding area has been passed on by the Applicant. This survey has been used to inform the
existing baseline conditions and proposed development constraints.
11.4.16
Southern Water Asset Records, September 2015 have been used to inform the existing baseline
conditions.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
11.4.17
The assessment of potential effects as a result of the Proposed Development has taken into
account both the Demolition and Construction Phase, and Operational phases. The significance
level attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of effect due to the
Proposed Development and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment to
change, as well as a number of other factors that are outlined in more detail in Chapter 4
11-7
Approach to Assessment.
Magnitude of effect and the sensitivity of the affected
receptor/receiving environment are both assessed on a scale of high, medium, low and negligible
(as shown in Chapter 4 Approach to Assessment).
11.4.18
Table 11.2 below indicates the general approach taken in assessing the sensitivity of water
receptors as part of this assessment. The table is an adaptation of the correspondent table in
TAG Unit A3 EIA Impacts on the Water Environment chapter (Ref. 11.42) which provides
guidance for appraising significance on potential environmental effects; the TAG Unit A3 EIA
guidance was developed for assessing transport proposals however its classification is generally
applicable to other development proposals. As part of this assessment Negligible sensitivity has
been removed, as it was deemed irrelevant as no receptor is classed as Negligible.
11.4.19
Some site specific assumptions have been made in relation to sensitivity which will be explained
in Table 11.2 and within the assessment.
Table 11.2 Classification of Sensitivity
SENSITIVITY
High
CRITERIA
An attribute with High quality
and rarity, regional or national
scale and limited potential for
substitution.
EXAMPLES
Aquifer providing potable water to
a large population (groundwater).
Important and notable fish
population (surface water).
Water Framework Directive (WFD)
High status water body acting as a
potable water supply.
Residents (on and off site).
Low
11-8
11.4.20
The TAG Unit A3 guidance includes a very high classification for the sensitivity of receptors. For
the purposes of this assessment, receptors assessed with a very high sensitivity in accordance
to TAG Unit A3 guidance will be assessed as having a high sensitivity; this is in order to ensure
consistency with the classification of the significance matrix used in this ES.
11.4.21
In adapting the table, sensitivity of people to flooding has been assessed taking into account their
intrinsic vulnerability based on several factors such as awareness, in-place practices, operation
times, age, etc.: for example residents are generally considered more vulnerable than commercial
users as the former sleep in the development although in some cases their vulnerability might be
reduced by specific factors (e.g. raised residential finished floor levels). Construction workers
have also normally a lower vulnerability than residents thanks to their awareness of H&S, working
hours arrangements and training.
11.4.22
Based on the relevant table in the same TAG Unit A3 EIA Impacts on the Water Environment
chapter (Ref. 11.42), adapted for this assessment, Table 11.3 classifies the potential magnitude
of effects.
Table 11.3 - Classification of Magnitude
MAGNITUDE
High
CRITERIA
Results in a loss or
major improvement of
feature.
EXAMPLES
Significant flooding which
could potentially cause
major effect (e.g. loss of
life).
Compromise of
employment source.
Pollution of potable source
of abstraction.
Increase of a significant
amount of flow entering
controlled systems.
(Sufficient enough to
cause a change in WFD
classification or loss or
gain of important fishery).
Major reduction in
flooding.
Removal of major existing
polluting.
Medium
Results in a medium
impact on integrity or
improvement of feature
or loss or gain of part of
a feature.
11-9
Low
systems. (Sufficient
enough to cause an
increase in flooding).
Results in a low impact Small increase/decrease
of integrity of feature or in the likelihood of
loss of part of a feature. flooding.
Increase of amount of flow
entering controlled
systems, but would not
cause flooding.
Negligible
Measurable changes in
feature, but of limited size
and/or proportion.
Results in an impact on Change in the likelihood of
measure but insufficient flooding is minimal: for
magnitude to affect
example, the quantity is
attribute.
immeasurable or
insignificant, when
compared to the baseline
condition.
No increase of amount of
flow entering controlled
systems i.e. no impact
when compared to
baseline condition.
No significant impact on
the economic value of the
feature.
11.4.23
The TAG Unit A3 guidance provides classifications of magnitude of effect in Large, Moderate,
and Slight quantities. For the purposes of this assessment, we will consider them as High,
Medium and Low, respectively.
EFFECT SIGNIFICANCE
11.4.24
The following terms have been used to define the significance of the effects identified:
Major effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a very significant
effect (either positive or negative) on flood risk, on drainage and water resources availability
and quality in the area;
Moderate effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a noticeable
effect (either positive or negative) on drainage and water resources availability and quality in
the area;
Minor effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to result in a small, barely
noticeable effect (either positive or negative) on drainage and water resources availability and
quality in the area; and
Negligible: where no discernible effect is expected as a result of the Proposed Development
on drainage and water resources availability and quality in the area.
11.5
BASELINE CONDITIONS
EXISTING BASELINE
11-10
SITE AND TOPOGRAPHY
11.5.1
As discussed in Chapter 1 Introduction, the Site is previously developed and the last use was
as a commercial airport (alongside ancillary employment type uses which have now ceased. The
planning application boundary is presented in Figure 1.3: Planning Application Boundary, the
Site extends to approximately 305 ha. The sites indicative OS Grid Reference is: 633430, 165991
11.5.2
Further details of the Proposed Development, including the anticipated construction methods and
proposed sequence of development are provided in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development.
11.5.3
The sites topography generally falls towards the B2050 Manston Road which bisects the site,
levels from the north to Manston Road vary approximately from 48.00mAOD to 39.00mAOD,
levels from the south vary approximately from 54.00mAOD to 39.00mAOD. There is a high point
approximately along the centre line of the existing runway, from this point the levels tend to fall
north to south from approximately 54.60mAOD to 50.00mAOD.
GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
11.5.4
DISTRIBUTION
AQUIFER
DESIGNATION*
The Upper Chalk beneath the Site is classified as a Principal aquifer meaning that there are rock
or bedrock deposits with high permeability meaning that they have a high level of water storage
and may therefore support water supply.
11.5.6
Based on EA source protection zone mapping, the Site has large areas which are shown to be
located in Zones 1, 2 and 3 Source Protection Zones. This is confirmed by Figure 6 of TDCs
SFRA. See Figure 11.1 below.
11-11
11.5.7
Figure 3 of TDCs SFRA (Ref. 11.35) shows the Site to be in an area where groundwater can be
found between 5m to 10m below ground level.
11.5.8
Information provided by the Environment Agency (EA) indicates that a chalk adit is present
beneath the Site, beginning at the Lord of the Manor groundwater abstraction well running parallel
with and/or beneath the runway. Lord of the Manor abstraction well is operated by Southern
Water and located 350m southeast of the Site. Information subsequently provided by Southern
Water indicates the adit to be approximately 3km in length and present at a depth of
approximately 2.7m AOD, meaning that the adit is approximately 47m below ground level. The
adit is anticipated to be approximately 1.5-2m in height and 0.5-1m wide. The EA reported that
the location of the adit has been interpolated from historic mining records by BGS and therefore
its actual depth, length, dimensions and location are uncertain; those uncertainties have been
confirmed by Southern Water. According to Southern Water, the Lord of the Manor abstraction
well has been inactive since 2006 due to high levels of nitrates which was normally treated at a
denitrification plant. However, Southern Water hope to bring the well back into service in the near
future.
11.5.9
Based on the EAs online Groundwater Vulnerability Zones mapping and Figure 5 of TDCs
SFRA, the Site is located within a Major Aquifer Intermediate Groundwater Vulnerability Zone
(GWVZ). This designation of is based on the ability for the Aquifer to ultimately diffuse pollution,
the intermediate classification indicates the soils have moderate leaching potential or it is possible
that non-adsorbed diffuse source pollutants and liquid discharges could penetrate the soil layer.
SURFACE WATER BODIES
11.5.10
A small balancing pond is located on the Site to the north of the northeastern edge of the runway.
It was constructed below ground level (slightly sunken) and is covered by a grate.
11.5.11
The closest surface water feature to the Site is a pond located approximately 300m to the south of
the Site, adjacent to the southbound carriageway of Hengist Way (A299).
11.5.12
Apart from the above, the closest surface waterbody to the Site is Pegwell Bay, located
approximately 900m to the south-east of the site. Pegwell Bay is classified as a transitional
waterbody and is tidally influenced, flowing into the Kent North coastal waterbody. Under the
WFD, Pegwell Bay is classified as part of the Stour (Kent) waterbody.
11.5.13
The closest river to the Site is the Great Stour, which flows from west to east approximately 3km
to the south of the site. At Richborough Port, the Great Stour flows south before looping back to
11-12
flow north into Pegwell Bay. The section of the Great Stour within the vicinity of the Site boundary
is tidally influenced and is classified as part of the Stour (Kent) waterbody under the WFD.
11.5.14
The watercourse known as the North and South Streams in the Lydden Valley flows from south to
north into the Great Stour approximately 7km to the south-east of the Application Site.
11.5.15
The Kent North coastal waterbody is located approximately 2.2km to the south-east of the
Application Site.
11.5.16
Figure 11.2 illustrates the location of the surface water bodies in relation to the site boundary.
WATER QUALITY
11.5.17
As noted in Section 11.5.8 according to Southern Water, the abstraction well close to the Site has
been inactive since 2006 due to high levels of nitrates. However, it is understood that Southern
Water hope to bring the well back into service in the near future.
11.5.18
The Site currently discharges surface water via a private surface water sewer to Pegwell Bay to
the south east of the site. Pegwell Bay is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Importance
(SSSI), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), RAMSAR and
Wetland of International Importance.
11-13
11.5.19
As mentioned above, under the WFD, Pegwell Bay is classified as part of the Stour (Kent)
waterbody. Refer to Figure 11.3 below (extracted from the River Basin Management Plan
(RBMP)) which details the current status of the Stour (Kent) and Kent North waterbodies within
the vicinity of the Site, as well as the protected area designations and specific objectives for the
watercourses.
11.5.20
The RBMP indicates that the Site is referred to as being Excellent in terms of Bathing Water
(2014 compliance).
11.5.21
In September 2015 KCC released the Kent and Medway Shoreline Pollution Emergency Plan, this
plan was developed to ultimately outline organisational responsibilities for shoreline pollution
planning and response, with the responsibility for Pegwell Bay falling with the Local Authority. The
plan provides an indication of how pollution should be managed in case of a pollution incident and
the importance of Site in terms of national significance as well as international (SSSI, SPA, SAC,
RAMSAR).
11.5.22
An existing drainage survey has been provided which displays some drainage features such as
gullies and oil/petrol interceptors in some areas, the level of treatment however is unknown and
the quality of discharging currently is relatively unknown.
EXISTING SURFACE AND FOUL WATER DRAINAGE
11.5.23
Based on Southern Water Asset Records, there are a number of combined sewers running
through the residential areas to the east of the site, no public surface water sewers are shown on
Southern Waters records.
11.5.24
Existing records of the present on site drainage have been provided by the current landowner.
Based on these records, the majority of the sites surface water appears to drain via gullies,
channel drains and pipework to the eastern side of the B2050 Manston Road. At this point, the
surface water is stored in an attenuation tank before being pumped around the perimeter of the
Site and discharging to a 1050mm diameter sewer to the south east boundary. This sewer
eventually discharges to Pegwell Bay and is privately owned. The Site representative reports a
soakaway may be located adjacent to a balancing pond on the southeast of the Site.
11.5.25
Southern Water have confirmed that there is little to no capacity within their local public foul
drainage network.
11-14
EXISTING WATER SUPPLY
11.5.26
Based on Southern Water Asset Records, there is a 20 inch cast iron trunk water main running
beneath Manston Road and Spitfire Way to the west of the site, this main eventually crosses the
south western area of the Site and runs in a south western direction towards Minster Roundabout.
There is also a 200mm ductile iron trunk main which runs within the north western end of the Site
before crossing beneath Manston Road and runs parallel before running beneath Spitfire Way.
11.5.27
There is also a 6 inch main running through the Site from Bush Farm to the east of the site, this is
noted to be an underground fire union and appears to terminate at what is assumed to be a fire
hydrant. There is also a 7 inch main running to the same fire hydrant from close to Cliffsend
Roundabout to the south eastern end of the site.
11.5.28
Southern Waters Water Resource Management Plan (Ref. 11.37) as well as their Drought Plan
(Ref. 11.38), indicates a clear strategy to ensure water supply is maintained over the next 25
years, however the region is classified as water-stressed. Southern Water has been contacted as
part of the Utilities Assessment (Ref. 11.1) with respect to potable water supply for the
development.
11.5.29
The EAs Stour Abstraction Licensing Strategy (Ref. 11.41) highlights in Map 2 that the water
resource availability is classified as restricted for licensing at the site. Map 3 displays the water
resource reliability in which the Site is shown to be in an area for which water resource is
available less than 30% of the time.
EXISTING SOURCES OF FLOOD RISK
11.5.30
As indicated in Section 11.4.5, and with reference to the FRA, the only existing source of flood
risk that has any significant effect is Surface Water flooding, all other forms have been deemed
insignificant as part of the FRA and therefore are not discussed here.
11-15
SURFACE WATER FLOODING
11.5.31
Based on the EA online surface water flooding map, the area along Manston Road at the bottom
of the valley is considered as being at high risk of flooding due to surface water with a potential
flow route generated at the airport and flowing towards north-west and off site. The flooding would
appear to be due to the topography of the Site which generally falls towards Manston Road which
runs through the site.
11.5.32
According to Figure 5 of KCCs PFRA (Ref. 11.30) it is predicted that between 5-7 dwellings
would be flooded per square kilometre for the 1 in 200 year rain storm event.
11.5.33
According to Figure 20 of TDCs SFRA (Ref. 11.35), the Site lies in an area which has medium
potential for surface water runoff generation.
11.5.34
The Surface Water and Critical Infrastructure map from the KCCs SWMP (Ref. 11.33) for the
Thanet catchment shows localise surface water flooding greater than 0.3m deep for the 1 in 200
year return period, this is in line with that shown on the EA online maps.
11.5.35
As part of KCCs consultation response, they refer to KCCs SWMP (Ref. 11.33) for the Thanet
catchment which states that Manston Court Road to the north-east of the Site has been recorded
as a pathway of flows for surface water. The same has been said of Manston Road which runs
through the site.
11.5.36
Based on the available information and modelling, and consultation with KCC which confirms that
Manston Road acts as a pathway for flooding, surface water flooding within the Site cannot be
excluded and the probability of surface water flooding can be considered as medium.
11.6
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
11.6.1
The following are the sensitive receptors which will be assessed in the following assessment:
Flood Risk from Surface Water
Construction Workers
Water Quantity
Water Quality
RECEPTORS
Flood Risk
Construction
Workers
Medium
11-16
presence only during working hours in teams.
Residents/Users of High
the surrounding
area
Site Occupants
High
(staff, residents and
public)
High
11.7
High
Private Surface
Water Outfall
(Pegwell Bay)
Water Quantity
(Relevant for Pipe
Network)
Medium
Water Quality
(Relevant for
discharge to
Pegwell Bay)
High
Construction Workers
11-17
Residents and occupants of the surrounding area (staff and public) and any
occupants of the initial development phases
Effects on foul public drainage network with reference to Water Quantity (capacity)
Effect on water quality (Pegwell Bay)
Effects on potable water demand/water supply
EFFECTS ON/OF SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
11.7.1
The sites impermeable area will increase as a result of the proposed development meaning that
the volumetric surface water runoff will increase as a consequence. Demolition and construction
activities such as topsoil stripping within existing open space areas will result in soil compaction
and changes in ground levels may cause surface water to naturally flow towards low points on the
site therefore increasing the risk of surface water flooding.
11.7.2
The sensitivity of construction workers to the risk of surface water flooding is considered medium
due to their presence on site only being during working hours, their awareness and training. The
magnitude of effect due to flooding, prior to mitigation is considered to be medium negative due to
the large area being developed and the potential runoff which could be generated.
11.7.3
The sensitivity of construction workers is medium and the magnitude of effect, prior to mitigation,
is medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary long-term effect on construction
workers of moderate negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
11.7.4
11.7.5
The sensitivity of construction workers is medium and the magnitude of effect, following
mitigation, is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary long-term effect on
construction workers of negligible significance following the implementation of mitigation
measures.
RESIDENTS/USERS OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND INITIAL SITE OCCUPANTS
11.7.6
The sites impermeable area will increase meaning that the volumetric surface water runoff will
increase as a consequence of the proposed development. Demolition and construction activities
such as topsoil stripping within existing open space areas will result in soil compaction and
changes in ground levels may cause surface water to be conveyed off site into the surrounding
area and cause flooding.
11.7.7
The sensitivity of residents/users of the surrounding areas and site occupants (assuming a
phased approach development partially occupied) to surface water flooding is considered to be
high. This is because the residents/site occupants live and sleep within their homes on and off
site; they also have no formal awareness of demolition and construction processes and therefore
no inherent warning if surface water becomes a potential hazard on the Site. The magnitude of
effect due to surface water flooding, prior to mitigation, to the site occupants is considered to be
medium negative due to the large area being developed and the potential runoff which could be
11-18
generated. The magnitude of effect due to surface water flooding, prior to mitigation, to the
residents/users of the surrounding area is considered to be low due to the distance from the
construction works and the potential runoff generated.
11.7.8
The sensitivity of residents/users of the surrounding area and the site occupants is considered to
be high and the magnitude of effect, prior to mitigation, is medium (assuming the worst case i.e.
residents). Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, long-term effect on residents and
users of the surrounding area and site occupants of moderate negative up to major negative
significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
11.7.9
As discussed in the previous section, a CEMP (Appendix 2.2) would be incorporated in the
demolition and construction phase which will include the management of surface water ensuring
that the risk of surface water flooding is mitigated.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
11.7.10
The sensitivity of residents and users of the surrounding area is considered to be high and the
magnitude of effect, following mitigation, is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a negligible
significance on the residents/users of the surrounding area following the implementation of
mitigation measures.
EFFECTS UPON WATER SUPPLY
RISK TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY NETWORK
11.7.11
The Site is currently served by Southern Waters water supply network. During the demolition and
construction phases the water supply demand will vary depending on tasks that are being carried
out.
11.7.12
Given the sites location in a water stressed area, the sensitivity of the public water supply is
considered to be high. The magnitude of effect is considered to be medium negative when
considering the likely water supply needs of the construction in a phased approach against the
public water supply network availability. This is a precautionary assessment which might
overestimate the impact of construction works and their significance from a water supply
perspective; the need for mitigation measures before demolition and construction starts therefore
will need to be re-assessed post planning.
11.7.13
The sensitivity of the public water supply is considered to be high and the magnitude of effect,
prior to mitigation, is considered to be medium. This would result in a direct, temporary, long-term
effect on the water supply network of moderate negative up to major negative significance prior
to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
11.7.14
Southern Water have confirmed that off-site reinforcement works will be required to ensure the
development has adequate water supply. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that
those will be undertaken early in the construction stage although the actual detailed phasing will
need to be confirmed. Following the reinforcement works the sensitivity of the water supply
network would reduce to negligible.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
11.7.15
The sensitivity of the public water supply is considered to be negligible and the magnitude of
effect, following mitigation, is considered to be medium. This would result in a negligible
significance on the water supply network following the implementation of mitigation measures.
11-19
EFFECTS UPON SEWERAGE SYSTEM
RISK TO PUBLIC FOUL DRAINAGE NETWORK
11.7.16
The Site currently discharges foul water to Southern Waters Sewerage Network. Foul water
connections will be required during the demolition and construction phases for the workforce on
site.
11.7.17
Given that Southern Water have confirmed that significant improvement works will be required for
the development the sensitivity of the public foul drainage network is considered to be high. The
magnitude of effect is considered to be medium negative based on the anticipated foul discharge
from the Site during the demolition and construction phases. This is a precautionary assessment
which might overestimate the impact of construction works and their significance from a foul water
perspective; the need for mitigation measures before demolition and construction starts therefore
will need to be re-assessed post planning.
11.7.18
The sensitivity of the public foul drainage network is considered to be high and the magnitude of
effect, prior to mitigation, is considered to be medium. This would result in a direct, temporary,
long-term effect on Southern Waters foul drainage network of moderate negative up to major
negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
11.7.19
Southern Water have confirmed that improvement works will be required to ensure that the foul
drainage network can accommodate the proposed development; for the purposes of this
assessment it is assumed that these will be undertaken as needed to serve the development
during the construction stage although the actual development phasing will need to be confirmed.
Following the reinforcement works the sensitivity of the foul water drainage network would reduce
to negligible.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
11.7.20
The sensitivity of the public foul drainage network is considered to be negligible and the
magnitude of effect, following mitigation, is considered to be medium. This would result in a
negligible significance on Southern Waters foul drainage network following the implementation
of mitigation measures.
EFFECTS UPON PRIVATE SURFACE WATER OUTFALL
WATER QUANTITY (RELEVANT FOR PIPE NETWORK)
11.7.21
The sites impermeable area will increase meaning that the volumetric surface water runoff will
increase as a consequence of the proposed development. Demolition and construction activities
such as topsoil stripping within existing open space areas will result in soil compaction therefore
increasing the quantity of water discharged from the site.
11.7.22
Since the existing private surface water sewer network has an associated specific capacity, the
sensitivity is considered medium. The magnitude of effect is also considered to be medium
negative due to the anticipated increase in volumetric/peakflow rates to the surface water pipe
outfall in Pegwell Bay in a theoretical unattenuated scenario with no drainage strategy in place.
11.7.23
The sensitivity of water quantity is considered to be medium and the magnitude of effect is
considered to be medium. This would result in a direct, temporary, long-term effect on water
quantity of moderate negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
11-20
11.7.24
As discussed previously, a CEMP (Appendix 2.2) will be adopted in the demolition and
construction phase which will propose that the pumped surface water discharge rates will not
exceed the existing rates from the site.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
11.7.25
The sensitivity of water quantity is considered to be medium and the magnitude of effect, following
mitigation, is considered to be negligible. This would result in a negligible significance on water
quantity following the implementation of mitigation measures.
WATER QUALITY (RELEVANT FOR DISCHARGE TO PEGWELL BAY)
11.7.26
It is proposed to utilise the existing surface water outfall from the Site which eventually discharges
to Pegwell Bay. Given the nature of demolition and construction, contaminated surface water
might be discharged to the Bay.
11.7.27
Considering that Pegwell Bay is a SSSI, SAC, SPA, RAMSAR and Wetland of International
Importance, the sensitivity of water quality is considered to be high. The magnitude of effect is
considered to be medium negative considering the nature of the demolition and construction
phase when compared to the current sites inactive status.
11.7.28
The sensitivity of water quality is considered to be high and the magnitude of effect is considered
to be medium. This would result in a direct, temporary, long-term effect on water quality of
moderate negative up to major negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation
measures.
MITIGATION
11.7.29
As discussed previously, a CEMP (Appendix 2.2) will be adopted in the demolition and
construction phase which will propose that all surface water be treated appropriately prior to
discharge.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
11.7.30
The sensitivity of water quality is considered to be high and the magnitude of change, following
mitigation, is considered to be negligible. This would result in a negligible significance on water
quality following the implementation of mitigation measures.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
EFFECTS ON/OF SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Effects on/of surface water flooding with reference to:
Effects on foul public drainage network with reference to Water Quantity (capacity)
Effect on water quality (Pegwell Bay)
Effects on potable water demand/water supply
RESIDENTS/USERS OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS
11.7.31
The sites impermeable area will increase meaning that the volumetric surface water runoff would
also increase as a consequence of the proposed development. Altering ground levels may cause
11-21
surface water to be conveyed off site into the surrounding area and cause flooding. However as
part of the FRA (Appendix 11.1), a surface water drainage strategy is being proposed to
sustainably manage surface water runoff generated from the development.
11.7.32
The magnitude of effect is medium positive as the likelihood of surface water flooding generated
at the development and affecting the surrounding will significantly reduce as a consequence of
the drainage strategy proposed for the development. The drainage system will in fact be designed
to manage a rainfall event with a 1:100 year return period including a climate change allowance
(based on the latest EA climate change guidance).
11.7.33
The sensitivity of residents and users of the surrounding areas to surface water flooding is
considered to be high. This is because the residents live and sleep within their homes and often
have limited awareness of any potential flood risk.
11.7.34
The sensitivity of residents/users of the surrounding areas is considered to be high and the
magnitude of effect is considered to be medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct,
permanent, long-term effect on residents and users of the surrounding area of moderate positive
up to major positive significance.
MITIGATION
11.7.35
No additional mitigation is required as mitigation measures are inherent within the design.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
11.7.36
As above.
SITE OCCUPANTS (STAFF, RESIDENTS AND PUBLIC)
11.7.37
The sites impermeable area will increase meaning that the volumetric surface water runoff would
also increase as a consequence of the development. By altering ground levels this may cause
surface water to be conveyed off site into the surrounding area and cause flooding. However a
surface water drainage strategy is being proposed to sustainably manage surface water runoff
generated from the development. The drainage system will be designed to manage a rainfall
event with a 1:100 year return period including a climate change allowance and appropriate
surface water exceedance routes will be provided to increase resilience.
11.7.38
For future residents of the Site the magnitude of effect will be negligible as the proposed drainage
strategy will manage surface water runoff up to high return period flooding events. It is worth
flagging up the difference in this magnitude of effect from that off site where the effect would be
positive reducing an existing risk.
11.7.39
The sensitivity of residents of the Site to surface water flooding is considered to be high. This is
because the residents live and sleep on the Site and often have limited awareness of any
potential flood risk. The magnitude of effect is considered to be low as discussed above.
11.7.40
The sensitivity of the site occupants is considered to be high and the magnitude of effect is
considered to be negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect
on residents and users of the surrounding area of negligible significance.
MITIGATION
11.7.41
No additional mitigation is required as mitigation measures are inherent within the design.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
11.7.42
As above.
11-22
EFFECTS UPON WATER SUPPLY
RISK TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY NETWORK
11.7.43
There will be an increased demand on the Southern Waters public water supply network as a
result of the development. The magnitude of effect of the development on water supply can
therefore be considered high Negative.
11.7.44
Although the sites location in a water stressed area and capacity issues have been identified by
the Southern Water, the sensitivity of the public water supply is considered to be negligible
assuming that the off-site reinforcement works as described in Section 11.7.14 will have been
completed prior to the relevant stage of the operational phase.
11.7.45
The sensitivity of the public water supply is considered to be negligible and the magnitude of
effect, prior to mitigation, is considered to be high. This would result in a negligible significance
on Southern Waters supply network.
MITIGATION
11.7.46
As discussed above, it is assumed that the off-site reinforcements will have taken place prior to
operation of the proposed development and therefore no additional mitigation measures are
necessary.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
11.7.47
As above.
EFFECTS UPON SEWERAGE SYSTEM
RISK TO PUBLIC FOUL DRAINAGE NETWORK
11.7.48
There will be an increased demand on the Southern Waters public foul drainage network as a
result of the development. The magnitude of effect of the development on foul water can therefore
be considered high negative.
11.7.49
Assuming that the significant improvement works as described in Section 11.7.19 will have been
completed prior to the relevant stage of the operational phase the sensitivity of the public foul
water drainage network can be considered negligible.
11.7.50
The sensitivity of the public foul drainage network is considered to be negligible and the
magnitude of effect, prior to mitigation, is considered to be high. This would result in a negligible
significance on Southern Waters foul drainage network.
MITIGATION
11.7.51
As discussed above, it is assumed that the required significant improvement works will have
taken place and therefore no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
11.7.52
As above.
11-23
EFFECTS UPON PRIVATE SURFACE WATER OUTFALL
WATER QUANTITY (RELEVANT FOR PIPE NETWORK)
11.7.53
The proposed sites impermeable area will increase meaning that the volumetric surface water
runoff will increase as a consequence of the development. This will result in an increase in water
quantity discharging to the existing surface water outfall which eventually discharges to Pegwell
Bay.
11.7.54
Since the existing surface water outfall has an associated specific capacity, which might be
exceeded in a theoretical, un-attenuated scenario, the sensitivity is considered medium. The
magnitude of effect is considered to be negligible since the surface water drainage strategy
proposes that the sites discharge will not exceed the existing rates.
11.7.55
The sensitivity of water quantity is considered to be medium and the magnitude of effect is
considered to be negligible. This would result in a negligible significance on water quantity.
MITIGATION
11.7.56
No additional mitigation is required as mitigation measures are formed as part of the design.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
11.7.57
As above.
EFFECTS UPON PRIVATE SURFACE WATER OUTFALL (RELEVANT FOR DISCHARGE TO
PEGWELL BAY)
WATER QUALITY
11.7.58
The proposed development will comprise of open hard paved areas such as footways, roads and
car parking, these all provide likely pollution sources which may contribute to contamination of
surface water which will eventually discharge to Pegwell Bay.
11.7.59
Considering that Pegwell Bay is a SSSI, SAC, SPA, RAMSAR and Wetland of International
Importance, the sensitivity of water quality is considered to be high. As part of the drainage
design, the use of SuDS in the form of attenuation basins, swale and permeable paving are
proposed which will treat the water and therefore mitigate the risk of contamination to Pegwell
Way; it can in fact be argued that the future water discharge from the Site will be of better quality
than the existing one as currently no SuDS are implemented and pollution control measures are
unlikely to be as well maintained as the future ones. With this in mind, the magnitude of effect is
considered to be low positive.
11.7.60
The sensitivity of water quality is considered to be high and the magnitude of effect is considered
to be low. This would result in a permanent, direct, long term minor to moderate positive
significance on water quality.
MITIGATION
11.7.61
No additional mitigation is required as mitigation measures are formed as part of the design.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
11.7.62
As above.
11.8
11-24
11.8.1
It is assumed that all of the principal existing land uses adjoining the site will remain.
11.8.2
11.8.3
It is assumed that a CEMP (Appendix 2.2) will be developed and implemented for the
preparatory and construction phases of the proposed development.
11.8.4
Strategies and principles in the design and maintenance in relation to attenuation basins are set
out within the FRA and surface water drainage strategy submitted at planning.
11.8.5
11.8.6
11.9
SUMMARY
11.9.1
This assessment has been undertaken to determine the potential effect of the Proposed Stone
Hill Park Development on Water Resources and Flood Risk. The results of the assessment are
summarised in Table 11.6.
11.9.2
The only potential flooding risk considered to affect the development is from surface water
flooding; this however, is not deemed significant due to the drainage strategy and mitigation
measures which will be put in place.
11.9.3
All other sources of flooding are not deemed to be significant as detailed in the FRA.
11.9.4
The effect on water supply capacity is not deemed to be significant given that Southern Water
have confirmed they will provide supply subject to off-site reinforcement works being undertaken.
11.9.5
The effect on foul water drainage capacity is not deemed to be significant given that Southern
Water have confirmed that discharge to their network is acceptable subject to improvement
works.
11.9.6
The effect on surface water quantity and quality to Pegwell Bay is not deemed to be significant
given the proposed drainage strategy and the pre-treatment devices such as attenuation basins,
swales and permeable pavements which will be included.
11.9.7
The Proposed Development will meet the requirements of relevant legislation (e.g. in terms of
protection of the environment), policy and guidance on drainage and flood risk relating to
development.
11.9.8
Following the implementation of the drainage strategy and recommended mitigation measures, no
significant residual effects in terms of Water Resources and Flood Risk are anticipated during
construction or operation.
11-25
Table 11.6 - Summary of Effects for Water Resource, Flood Risk and Drainage
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
PRE- MITIGATION
MAJOR /
POSITIV P / D / I
ST /
MODERATE / E /
T
MT /
MINOR /
NEGATI
LT
NEGLIGIBLE VE
SUMMARY OF
MITIGATION /
ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
POST- MITIGATION
MAJOR /
POSITIVE P / D / I ST /
MODERATE / /
T
MT /
MINOR /
NEGATIVE
LT
NEGLIGIBLE
RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y
Construction
Workers
Moderate
Negative T
LT
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
Residents/User Moderate to
s of the
Major
surrounding
area and Initial
Site Occupants
Effects Upon Water Supply
Negative T
LT
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
Risk to Public
Southern
Moderate to
Water Supply
Waters Water Major
Network
Supply Network
Effects Upon Sewerage Systems
Negative T
LT
N/A
N/A
N/A
Risk to Public
Foul Drainage
Network
Southern
Moderate to
Waters Foul
Major
Drainage
Network
Effects Upon Private Surface Water Outfall
Negative T
LT
Improvement works to be
undertaken prior to
construction.
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
Risk to Pegwell
Bay
Negative T
LT
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
Negative T
LT
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
Operation
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement
Chapter 11 Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage
11-26
Effects on/of Surface Water Flood Risk
Surface Water
Flooding
Residents/User Moderate to
s of the
Major
surrounding
area
Positive
N/A
LT
11.9.9
N/A N/A
N/A
11.9.10
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No additional mitigation
required
No additional mitigation
required
Southern
Negligible
Waters Water
Supply Network
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
11.9.11
No additional mitigation
required
Southern
Waters Foul
Drainage
Network
Negligible
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
11.9.12
No additional mitigation
required
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
11.9.13
Water Quality
Minor to
Moderate
Positive
No additional mitigation
required
LT
11.9.14
No additional mitigation
required
Key to table:
P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term
N/A = Not Applicable
11-27
11.10
REFERENCES
Ref. 11.1
Ref. 11.2
Ref. 11.3
Ref. 11.4
Ref. 11.5
Ref. 11.6
Ref. 11.7
Ref. 11.8
Ref. 11.9
Ref. 11.10
Ref. 11.11
Ref. 11.12
Ref. 11.13
Ref. 11.14
Ref. 11.15
Ref. 11.16
Thanet District Council (2006), Thanet District Adopted Local Plan (2006)
Available at
http://thanet.devplan.org.uk/document.aspx?document=15&display=contents
Ref. 11.17
Ref. 11.18
Kent County Council (2015), Kent and Medway Growth and Infrastructure
Framework (2015)
Ref. 11.19
Communities and Local Government, (2015), Flood Risk and Coastal Change Planning Practice Guidance
Ref. 11.20
Ref. 11.21
Ref. 11.22
Ref. 11.23
Ref. 11.24
11-28
Ref. 11.25
Ref. 11.26
Kent County Council (2015), Kent and Medway Shoreline Emergency Plan
Ref. 11.27
Ref. 11.28
Ref. 11.29
Ref. 11.30
Ref. 11.31
Kent County Council (2012), Kent Environment Strategy Rising to the Climate
Change Challenge
Ref. 11.32
Kent Count Council, Water. People. Places. A Guide for Master Planning
Sustainable Drainage into Developments. Available at:
http://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/23578/Masterplanning-forSuDS.pdf
Ref. 11.33
Thanet District Council (2013), Thanet Stage 1 Surface Water Management Plan
Ref. 11.34
Kent County Council (2013), Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan Strategic
Flood Risk Assessment
Ref. 11.35
Thanet District Council (2009), Thanet District Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Ref. 11.36
Ref. 11.37
Ref. 11.38
Ref. 11.39
Environment Agency (2009), Water for life and livelihoods: River Basin
Management Plan South East River Basin District
Ref. 11.40
Ref. 11.41
Ref. 11.42
Ref. 11.43
Ref. 11.44
Ref. 11.45
Ref. 11.46
Ref. 11.47
Ref. 11.48
12-1
12
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
12.1
INTRODUCTION
12.1.1
This Chapter reports the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the Site and
surrounding area in terms of employment, housing supply and changes in local service demand
(including education, healthcare, community facilities and open/recreational space). Where
appropriate, it also identifies proposed mitigation measures to prevent, minimise or control likely
negative socio-economic effects arising from the Proposed Development and the subsequent
anticipated residual effects.
12.1.2
This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) should be read together with the
Introductory Chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 4), as well as Chapter 15 Cumulative Effects.
12.2
12.2.1
Details of the relevant legislation, policy and guidance are provided in Appendix 12.1.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
12.2.2
PLANNING POLICY
12.2.3
Planning policy at the national and local level and its relevance to environmental design and
assessment is confirmed in Chapter 1 Introduction of the ES and the Planning Statement
which accompanies the application and examines the merits of the Proposed Development
against the relevant planning policy.
12.2.4
Appendix 12.1 includes a summary of the relevant policies to the assessment from the following
documents:
LOCAL PLAN OR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
12.2.5
21 Century Kent A Blueprint for the Countys Future (Ref. 12.3); and
Thanet Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies (Ref. 12.4).
GUIDANCE
Department of Communities and Local Government Planning Practice Guidance (online) (Ref.
12.5);
rd
Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Employment Densities Guide 3 Edition (2015) (Ref.
12.6);
th
12-2
Kent County Council Guide to Development Contributions and the Provision of Community
Infrastructure (2007) (Ref. 12.8); and
Highways England (formerly Highways Agency) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
(DMRB) Volume 11 Section 3 Part 8 Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community
Effects (Ref. 12.9);.
12.3
12.3.1
The assessment adopts the approach outlined in Chapter 4 Approach to the Assessment and
is based on the Parameter Plans and detailed Application Plans as described in Chapter 2 The
Proposed Development. The following components of the Proposed Development are relevant
to the assessment of the likely significant effects in relation to Socio-Economics associated with
the Proposed Development:
Site preparation, demolition and construction works;
The Proposed outline land-uses within the Proposed Development, in particular;
12.4
12.4.1
The scope of the socio-economic effects assessment was agreed with TDC through the
submission of an Environmental Scoping Report that was submitted to TDC in January 2016
th
(Appendix 4.1). Their formal Scoping Opinion was received on 8 March (Appendix 4.2a) and a
Scoping Response was issued to clarify a number of matters (Appendix 4.3).
12.4.2
This section provides the scope of the assessment, as was agreed with TDC. This section also
provides an update on insignificant effects identified.
INSIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
12.4.3
The following effects are considered to be insignificant or are considered elsewhere within the ES:
12-3
Potential disturbance to nearby residents in relation to noise and vibration, air quality and
transport effects are presented in Chapter 5 Local Air Quality, Chapter 6 Noise and
Vibration and Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport of this ES;
Effects relating to human health are considered, as appropriate, within Chapter 5 Local Air
Quality, Chapter 6 Noise and Vibration, Chapter 13 Ground Conditions,
Contamination and Hydrogeology;
It is assumed that the majority of direct, indirect and induced employment opportunities will be
made available to economically active individuals that reside in the area local to the Site (e.g.
Thanet) or in the region (Kent). However, certain elements of the demolition and construction
phase will require the employment of specialist contractors and the installation of specialist
plant may not be completed by typical or local construction workforces. Therefore, the
anticipated increase in demand for educational and community facilities and healthcare
services) and accommodation local to the Site is not considered to be significant during the
demolition and construction phase;
As the Proposed Development is not situated within an existing recreational open space, nor
does it incorporate existing community facilities, changes to the amenity value of recreational
resources are considered to be not significant. Changes in views from recreational resources
are considered within Chapter 8 Landscape and Visual and changes in amenity of
recreational routes are considered in Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport; and
Potential for vandalism, burglary and theft of site equipment and the community's perception
of crime is not considered in this Chapter. It is assumed that site security arrangements for
the Proposed Development will be in line with the requirements set out within the
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (Ref. 12.10). It is anticipated that
the Proposed Development will be designed to incorporate the 'Secured by Design' principles
and liaison will be undertaken with the Police Architectural Liaison Officer at the detailed
design stage. Therefore, effects in relation to crime are not considered further.
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
12.4.4
There is potential for significant effects with regards to the following key issues:
Employment and Economy; and
Local residents and community, including capacity of existing facilities (including education,
healthcare, community facilities and open/recreational space).
12.4.5
The likely significant effects that have been identified for inclusion in the assessment are as
follows:
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Generation of direct employment opportunities during the construction phase; and
Generation of indirect and induced employment opportunities during the construction phase.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
Generation of direct employment opportunities during the operational phase;
Generation of indirect and induced employment opportunities during the operational phase;
Increase in the housing stock range and size of units and contribution to affordable housing
needs;
Change in local service demand (primary and secondary education, healthcare and
community facilities and open/recreational space) during the operational phase; and
Increase in spending from the new community in the local economy.
CONSULTATION
12-4
12.4.6
Table 12.1 provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken in support of the
preparation of this Chapter.
Table 12-1: Summary of Consultation
BODY /
INDIVIDUAL / STAT
MEETING DATES AND SUMMARY OF OUTCOME OF
ORGANISATION BODY/ORGANISATION OTHER FORMS OF
DISCUSSIONS
CONSULTATION
KCC
KCC
Marisa White
Marisa White/
Bryan Fitzgerald,
Planning Manager
The geographical extent of the study area for the assessment of the employment effects focuses
on the District in which the Site is located, Thanet; and Kent, the county in which the Site is
located. Data for the region (south-east) and England has been used to provide context.
12.4.8
Based on the recommendations of the KCC Guide to Development Contributions and Provisions
of Community Infrastructure (2007) (Ref. 12.8) a study area of 3.2km has been used for Primary
Schools and 6.3 km for Secondary Schools.
12.4.9
The study area used for effects in relation to healthcare, community, open/recreational facilities
and housing receptors is Thanet District.
12.4.10
Figure 12.1 shows the location of the Site and the study areas.
The baseline information has been compiled from a number of data sources. The sources of data
used include; the Office of National Statistics (ONS), including the Neighbourhood Statistics
website, NOMIS (Ref. 12.11), EduBase, KCC, TDC and the Department for Communities and
Government (DCLG) publications.
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
GENERATION OF DIRECT, INDIRECT AND INDUCED EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
12.4.12
12.4.13
The latest ONS Annual Business Survey Data (updated June 2013) (Ref. 12.12) states that the
average ratio of expenditure (on materials, goods, services and employment) to jobs in the
construction industry is 85,180. The assessment of direct employment opportunities during the
demolition and construction phase has utilised this average ratio against the estimated
construction value of 500,000,000 to estimate the numbers of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs.
12-5
12.4.14
Research undertaken on behalf of the National Housing Federation indicates that the residential
construction industry has an indirect and induced employment multiplier of 2.51 (Ref. 12.13).
12.4.15
These figures have then been evaluated in relation to the existing numbers of individuals
employed in the relevant industry sectors to ascertain the magnitude of change.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
12.4.16
The operational employment effects are calculated based on the number of FTE roles that would
be provided during this phase of the Proposed Development. In order to calculate the net
employment effects during the operational phase of the Proposed Development, this assessment
uses the methodology set out in the Employment Density Guidelines (Ref. 12.6).
12.4.17
12.4.18
The method consists of assessing the net additional effects, i.e. after accounting for leakage,
displacement, substitution and multiplier effects which are defined in Appendix 12.3. The levels
applied for each of are provided in Table 12.2.
Table 12-2 - Additionality Factors
Leakage
Displacement
Substitution
12.4.19
PERCENTAGE APPLIED
25%
25%
0%
JUSTIFICATION
A reasonably high proportion of the benefits will be retained
within the target area/target group.
There are expected to be some displacement effects, although
only to a limited extent
No substitution is anticipated to take place.
The calculation of indirect and induced employment opportunities is based on the Additionality
Guide (Ref. 12.7). Given the nature of the Proposed Development, the ready reckoners multiplier
ratios considered to be the most appropriate is 1:1.5 for direct to indirect and induced employment
opportunities at the local level (Thanet District) and 1:1.7 for the regional level (Kent).
INCREASE IN HOUSING STOCK
12.4.20
A qualitative assessment of effects relating to housing stock has been undertaken by evaluating
the quantum of uses outlined in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development against the housing
need/targets provided in Section 12.5.
CHANGE IN LOCAL SERVICE DEMAND
12.4.21
A qualitative assessment of effects relating to changes in local service demand has been
undertaken by evaluating the quantum of uses outlined in Chapter 2 The Proposed
Development against the capacity of educational, healthcare and community facilities and
open/recreational space, which are outlined in Section 12.5.
INCREASE IN SPENDING
12.4.22
A qualitative assessment of likely significant effects relating to spending from the new community
has been undertaken by evaluating the potential spend associated with the residential quantum of
use outlined in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development against the existing spend within
Thanet District and Kent. This has been based on the national average household spend of
531.30 in 2015/2016 (Ref. 12.14).
12-6
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
12.4.23
The assessment of potential effects as a result of the Proposed Development has taken into
account both the demolition and construction and operational phases. The significance level
attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the
Proposed Development and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment to
change, as well as a number of other factors that are outlined in more detail in Chapter 4
Approach to Assessment. Magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the affected
receptor/receiving environment are both assessed on a scale of high, medium, low and negligible
(as shown in Chapter 4 Approach to Assessment).
12.4.24
The overall significance of an effect will be determined by measuring the magnitude of change
effect against:
The number of receptors affected, which will consider the scale of an effect (i.e. whether it is
local or regional);
The reversibility and duration of the effect;
The type and sensitivity of the receptor affected; and
The type of effect.
EFFECT SIGNIFICANCE
12.4.25
The following terms have been used to define the significance of the effects identified:
Major effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a considerable
effect (either positive or negative) on the existing socio economic conditions and community
in the District of Thanet and Kent;
Moderate effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a noticeable
effect (either positive or negative) on the existing socio economic conditions and community
in the District of Thanet and Kent;
Minor effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to result in a small, barely
noticeable effect (either positive or negative) on the existing socio economic conditions and
community in the District of Thanet and Kent; and
Negligible: where no discernible effect is expected as a result of the Proposed Development
on the existing socio economic conditions and community in the District of Thanet and Kent.
12.5
BASELINE CONDITIONS
POPULATION
12.5.1
The 2014 mid-year population estimates for Thanet was 138,400 and 1,510,400 for Kent as a
whole (excluding Medway Council which is a Unitary Authority) (Ref. 12.15).
12.5.2
Table 12.3 shows the proportion of the resident population aged 16 to 64 in Thanet and Kent
compared with the South East and England as a whole.
Table 12-3 Mid-Year Population Estimates of Individuals Aged 16-64
THANET
81,000
58.5%
KENT
926,500
61.3%
SOUTH EAST
5,537,251
62.4%
ENGLAND
39,410,956
62.8%
12.5.3
Table 12.3 shows that there is a lower proportion of individuals aged 16-64 in Thanet when
compared with the average across Kent. There are a lower proportion of individuals aged 16-64
both in Thanet and Kent compared with the South-East region and England.
12-7
DEPRIVATION
12.5.4
The Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015 (IMB2015) (Ref. 12.16) uses a combination of
information relating to income, employment, education, health, skills and training, barriers to
housing and services and crime to create an overall score of deprivation. A low score indicates
greater deprivation; hence the most deprived area is indicated by a rank of 1.
12.5.5
In the IMD2015, Kent is ranked at 100 out of the 152 Counties and Unitary Authorities in
England. This places Kent within the least deprived 50% counties and unitary authorities in
England.
12.5.6
In 2015, Thanet had a rank of 21 out of 326 local authorities in England. This places Thanet in the
top 10% most deprived local authorities within England. In 2015, Thanet was the most deprived
local authority within Kent. There have been no changes to the ranking of Thanet in comparison
to other local authorities in Thanet. Table 12.4 outlines the Kent local authorities by national and
Kent ranks for the years 2010 and 2015.
th
IMD2015
AUTHORITY
IMD2010
NATIONAL RANK
(OUT OF 326)
KENT (OUT OF
12)
IMD2015
NATIONAL
RANK (OUT OF
KENT (OUT
OF 12)
NATIONAL
POSITION
KENT
POSITION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
21
22
-16
18
1
5
22
-17
19
8
-6
-33
0
1
-1
1
-1
1
1
-2
0
2
0
-2
326)
Thanet
Swale
Shepway
Gravesham
Dover
Dartford
Ashford
Canterbury
Maidstone
Sevenoaks
Tonbridge and Malling
Tunbridge Wells
49
99
97
142
127
175
198
166
217
276
268
249
1
3
2
5
4
7
8
6
9
12
11
10
28
77
113
124
126
170
176
183
198
268
274
282
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
EMPLOYMENT
12.5.7
According to NOMIS (Ref. 12.11) the job density levels in 2013 (i.e. the ratio of jobs available
divided by the resident population aged between 16 and 64) are lower in Thanet (0.64) compared
to the Kent average of 0.74. The job density levels in Thanet and Kent are also substantially lower
South East (0.83) and Great Britain (0.80), indicating less availability of employment and labour
demand.
12.5.8
Table 12.5 outlines economic activity in Thanet, Kent, the South-East and England.
Table 12-5 - Economic Activity by Group (Resident Population Aged 16-64) (2014)
Economically
Active
In Employment
THANET
KENT
SOUTH-EAST
ENGLAND
73.0%
78%
80.3%
77.7%
69.4%
73.6%
76.8%
73.4%
12-8
Employees
Self-Employed
Unemployed*
Economic Inactivity
THANET
61.7%
7.8%
8.2%
27%
KENT
61.1%
12.2%
5.6%
22%
SOUTH-EAST
64.7%
11.9%
4.3%
19.7%
ENGLAND
62.8%
10.2%
5.4%
22.3%
12.5.9
As shown in Table 12.5, there is a lower proportion of individuals in Thanet who are classified as
economically active compared with Kent, South-East and England. Conversely, there is a higher
proportion of people classified as economically inactive in Thanet compared with Kent, SouthEast and England.
12.5.10
This is reinforced by East Kent Homelessness Prevention Strategy (2013 18) (Ref 12.17) which
reported that Thanet suffers from long-term economic and social problems and as a District, it
contains two of the most deprived wards in Kent and as a result, Thanet suffers from the highest
unemployment levels of all the Districts in the south-east. The East Kent Homelessness
Prevention Strategy estimates that the number of job seekers allowance (JSA) claimants within
Thanet in 2014 was 4,275 (5.3% of the 16 64 population), which was higher than the Kent
(2.5%), south-east (1.9%) and Great Britain (3%) averages.
12.5.11
Table 12.6 shows the percentage of the economically active population working in each industry
sector in Thanet, Kent, South-East and England.
Table 12-6 - Industry Sector (% of Individuals in Employment Aged 16 to 64) (2014)
INDUSTRY SECTOR
Primary Services (A-B: Agriculture
and Mining)
Energy and Water (D-E)
Manufacturing (C)
Construction (F)
Wholesale and Retail, Including
Motor Trades (G)
Transport, Storage (H)
Accommodation and Food Services
(I)
Information and Communication (J)
Financial and Other Business
Services (K-N)
Public Admin, Education and Health
(O-Q)
Other Services (R-S)
Source: NOMIS (Ref. 12.11)
12.5.12
THANET
KENT
SOUTH-EAST
ENGLAND
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.9
7.7
4.6
1.2
6.4
6.1
1.1
6.2
4.8
1.1
8.5
4.5
19.3
18.3
17.0
15.9
4.5
5.7
4.6
4.5
9.3
7.3
7.4
7.1
1.3
2.5
5.8
4.1
12.7
20.7
22.5
22.2
35.6
27.3
25.6
27.4
4.1
4.2
4.8
4.4
Table 12.6 showed a higher percentage of the workforce is employed in Sector F - Construction
in Kent compared with Thanet, South-East and England. There is also a higher proportion
employed in the Services sector (G to S) in Thanet and England compared to Kent and the SouthEast averages.
HOUSING
EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
12.5.13
Table 12.7 shows the percentage of accommodation types in Thanet compared to Kent, the
south-east and England.
Table 12-7 - Accommodation Types (2011)
ACCOMMODATION TYPE
House / Bungalow Detached
House / Bungalow Semi-Detached
House / Bungalow Terraced
THANET
20.4%
29.7%
23.3%
KENT
25.1%
30.5%
24.8%
SOUTH-EAST
28.2%
28.7%
22.5%
ENGLAND
22.3%
30.7%
24.5%
12-9
ACCOMMODATION TYPE
THANET
Flat / Maisonette / Apartment
17.1%
Purpose Built
Temporary Structure
0.6%
Sources: ONS, Census 2011 (Ref. 12.18)
12.5.14
KENT
SOUTH-EAST
ENGLAND
18.7%
15.8%
16.7%
0.9%
0.6%
0.4%
Table 12.7 shows that Thanet and Kent both have high percentages of semi-detached houses
and bungalows but lower proportion of detached dwellings when compared with the South-East.
There is also a higher proportion of flat/maisonette/apartment in Thanet compared with the SouthEast and England but this percentage is lower than the average across Kent.
HOUSING NEED
12.5.15
The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2016) (Ref. 12.19) produced by GL Hearn
has been produced to assess the current housing need within Thanet. The SHMA identified that
there has been a decline in affordability and younger households ability to form from the 20012011 period. Overcrowding and levels of renting increased with increasing numbers of younger
people living with parents over the decade. The SHMA also identified that the stock mix in the
main towns within Thanet (Margate and Ramsgate) is relatively narrow with over 50% of the
properties 1 or 2 bedroomed.
12.5.16
Based on existing population forecasts, the SHMA identified an annual need for 397 affordable
homes, which represents the provision which would be necessary if all households requiring
financial support to meet their housing needs were allocated a home.
12.5.17
Overall, the assessment reported an Objectively-Assessed Need (OAD) for housing for 785
homes per annum, equivalent to a total of 15,700 homes over the 2011-2031 period.
EDUCATION
EXISTING EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
12.5.18
The existing educational facilities within the study area are outlined in Table 12.8.
Table 12-8 - Existing Primary and Secondary Educational Facilities in the Study Area
SCHOOL
Primary School
St Crispin's Community Primary Infant
School
Ellington Infant School
Priory Infant School
Birchington Church of England Primary
School
Minster Church of England Primary School
Monkton Church of England Primary
School
Garlinge Primary School and Nursery
Newington Community Primary School
Salmestone Primary School
St Laurence in Thanet Church of England
Junior School
Dame Janet Primary Academy
Christ Church CE Junior School,
Ramsgate
St Gregory's Catholic Primary School,
Margate
Chilton Academy Primary School
Primary Capacity:
Secondary Schools
The Charles Dickens School
St George's Church of England Foundation
School
CURRENT
ROLE
CURRENT
CAPACITY*
NET CAPACITY
SURPLUS PLACES
AT 95% CAPACITY
271
270 (257)
14
262
180
416
270 (257)
180 (171)
420 (399)
8
0
4
5
9
17
419
105
420 (399)
105 (100)
-1
0
20
5
559
554
395
250
600 (570)
540 (513)
420 (399)
256 (244)
-41
14
-25
-6
-11
41
-4
-6
559
253
630 (599)
244 (232)
-71
9
-40
21
309
315 (300)
-6
420
420 (399)
1,136
1,066
1,160 (1,102)
1,085 (1,031)
0
21
Over Capacity by 101 Primary Places
-24
34
-19
35
12-10
SCHOOL
Marlowe Academy
Royal Harbour Academy
Chatham & Clarendon Grammar School
Hartsdown Academy
CURRENT
ROLE
384
595
850
782
CURRENT
CAPACITY*
900 (855)
600 (570)
948 (901)
900 (855)
745
861
584
760 (722)
825 (784)
600 (570)
NET CAPACITY
-516
-5
-98
SURPLUS PLACES
AT 95% CAPACITY
-471
25
-51
-118
-73
-15
23
36
77
-16
14
386 Secondary Places Available
TOTAL: 285 school places available (Primary
and Secondary)
Data Provided by KCC. *Numbers in brackets represent 95% capacity.
King Ethelbert School
Dane Court Grammar School
Ursuline College
Secondary Capacity:
12.5.19
Table 12.8 shows that there are 14 primary schools within the 3.2 km study area that are
currently oversubscribed with a deficit of -101 places. There are 9 secondary schools with a
surplus capacity of 386 school places.
HEALTH
HEALTH STATUS OF THE POPULATION
12.5.20
The 2011 Census asked people to describe their health over the preceding 12 months (see Table
12.9).
Table 12-9 - General Health in Thanet, Kent, south-east and England (2011)
HEALTH STATUS
THANET (%)
KENT (%)
SOUTH-EAST (%)
ENGLAND (%)
40.7
46.7
49
47.2
Good Health
35.1
34.9
34.6
34.2
Fair Health
16.7
13.3
12
13.1
Bad Health
5.8
4.0
3.4
4.2
1.7
1.1
1.2
12.5.21
Table 12.9 shows that there is a lower proportion of individuals who would classify themselves as
in Fair to Very Good Health in Thanet (92.5%) compared with the average across Kent, SouthEast and England as a whole. Conversely, there is a higher proportion who considered
themselves to be in Bad or Very Bad health in Thanet.
12.5.22
Health Profile of Thanet (2015) (Ref. 12.20) published by the Department of Health outlines the
following key facts in relation to health matters in the area:
The health of the population in Thanet is generally worse that the England average and
deprivation is higher than average with approximately 26.7% (6,800) children living in poverty;
Both life expectancy for both men and women in Thanet is lower than the England average;
Life expectancy for men is 10.9 years lower and 6.2 years lower for women in the most
deprived areas of Thanet than in the least deprived;
12-11
In year 6, 19.1% (251) of children are classified as obese and the rate of alcohol-specific
hospital stays among the under-18s represented 13-stays per year;
Levels of GCSE attainments, breastfeeding and smoking at the time of delivery are worse
than the England average;
In 2012, 21.4% of adults were classified as obese and the rate of alcohol related harm
hospital stays was worse than the England average at a rate of 420 stays per year;
Estimated levels of adult excess weight, smoking and physical activity are worse than the
England averages; and
The rates of sexually transmitted infections, people killed or seriously injured on roads and
rates of TB are better than average.
12.5.23
The health priorities in Thanet include; reducing early deaths from heart disease and stroke and
from respiratory disease; reducing alcohol and drug misuse; and improving access to mental
health services.
EXISTING HEALTHCARE FACILITIES
12.5.24
The nearest hospital with an accident and emergency (A&E) department is the Queen Elizabeth
the Queen Mother Hospital that is located in Margate, approximately 3.25 km to the north-east of
the Site boundary (Ref. 12.21). Private healthcare is also available at Spencer Private Hospital,
adjacent to the Queen Mother Hospital in Margate.
12.5.25
The Site is located within NHS Eastern and Coastal Kent area which is managed by the Thanet
Clinical Commissioning Group. Within the Thanet area, there are a total of 20 General
Practitioners (GPs) surgeries and Table 12.10 shows the current patient role and capacity of the
GPs located within Thanet.
Table 12-10 - Existing GP's within Thanet
PRACTICE
Newington Road
2.3
Surgery
Dashwood Medical
2.9
Centre
Summerhill Surgery
2.9
Minster Surgery
3.7
Garlinge Surgery
4.2
St Peters Surgery
4.3
The Grange Practice
4.3
East Cliff Practice
4.3
Mocketts Wood
4.3
Surgery
The Wickham
4.5
Surgery
Osborne Road
4.8
The Albion Road
5.0
Surgery
1 Cecil Square
5.1
Union Row Surgery
5.1
Northdowns Surgery
5.5
The Limes Medical
6.0
Centre
Birchington Medical
6.3
Centre
Bethesda Medical
7.7
Centre
Source: NHS Choices (August 2015) (Ref. 12.21)
12.5.26
NO. OF GPS
ACCEPTING
NEW PATIENTS
7,748
Yes
8,163
Yes
6,397
7,920
3,724
4,410
11,739
14,956
1
5
2
2
7
10
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
7,964
Yes
1,912
Yes
2,217
Yes
14,122
11
Yes
2,124
3,636
10,448
3
4
4
Yes
Yes
Yes
10,504
Yes
9,082
12
Yes
15,426
Yes
Within Thanet, there are a total number of 88 GPs with new patients being accepted in all but one
practice (Grange Practice). Based on the total number of GPs, the practices have an average
12-12
patient per GP ratio of 1,803, which is just slightly higher than the national target of 1,800 patients
per GP. In total, there is surplus capacity of 5,494.
12.5.27
The Kent Community Health website (Ref. 12.22) shows that there are 8 dental facilities located
within NHS Eastern and Coastal Kent area, all of which are accepting new patients.
12.5.28
There are 27 pharmacies located within Thanet that are predominantly concentrated within the
urban areas of Ramsgate, Broadstairs, Westwood, Margate and Minster.
12.5.29
There are 11 opticians located within Thanet, all concentrated within the urban areas of
Birchington, Westgate on Sea, Margate, Westwood, Broadstairs and Ramsgate.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
12.5.30
There are a number of community halls within Thanet District which are outlined in Table 12.11.
Table 12-11 - Community Halls within Thanet
NAME
Westgate Community Centre Association
Cliftonville Community Centre
Newington Community Association
Minster Village Hall
Birchington Village Centre
Kearns Hall
Holy Trinity and Resource Centre
St. Johns Church and Community Centre
Cliffsend Village Hall
Ramsgate Youth Centre
Artwise Art Youth Centre
Al-Birr Community Centre and Mosque
12.5.31
There are numerous places of worship within Thanet across a number of religions and
denominations. These facilities are considered to have existing capacity.
12.5.32
There are eight libraries located within the District of Thanet. The closest is located within
Broadstairs (Broadstairs Learning Centre), approximately 2.8km to the north-east of the Site.
These existing facilities are considered to have capacity.
12.5.33
There are numerous restaurants and bars across Thanet which cater for a range of cuisines.
These outlets are clustered in the main town centres of Westwood Cross, Margate, Broadstairs
and Ramsgate. It is considered that these existing facilities have existing capacity.
12.5.34
Within Thanet, there is a large national cinema chain (Vue at Westwood Cross) and three smaller
independent cinemas in Westgate, Broadtails and Ramsgate. Based on the existing population
within Thanet, The Town Centre, Retail, Leisure, Tourism and Culture Assessment (Ref. 12.23)
estimates that only five cinema screens are required to support existing demand. As such, there
is an over-supply of around 14 screens at present and capacity within existing facilities.
The baseline assessment associated with existing sports and recreational facilities has been
informed by the Assessment of Open Space, Sports and recreation (2005) (Ref. 12.2). The 2005
study was undertaken on behalf TDC to inform preparation of the 2006 Local Plan and although
now quite dated, is the most recent study of sports and recreation facilities undertaken in the
District.
12-13
12.5.36
The 2005 study identified and assessed existing provision of several typologies of sports and
recreation space within the District (as set by the now superseded PPG17), and included:
The 2005 study describes parks, formal gardens and recreation grounds as areas which provide
accessible, high quality opportunities for a range of informal recreation, formal sporting
opportunities and community events.
12.5.38
The 2005 study identified 37 local Parks, Formal Gardens and Recreation Grounds within the
District, together delivering a total of 134.68 hectares (ha) of green space. Provision is primarily
concentrated in the urban area of the District, to the south-east, east and north of the Site. The
2005 study identified that the majority of users rated the quality of these facilities as good and
that the parks met the needs of their families for outdoor recreation.
OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES
12.5.39
Outdoor sports facilities comprise playing pitches, bowls and croquet greens, tennis courts and
golf courses.
12.5.40
The 2005 study identified the following facilities within the District:
12.5.41
1 croquet club;
15 bowls greens;
63 tennis courts;
The 2005 study identified there is a need for additional junior football pitches, although there is a
surplus of senior pitches across Thanet. The quality of the outdoor sports facilities varied across
the district but was generally rated good to excellent.
INDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES
12.5.42
12.5.43
The 2005 study identifies the following indoor sports facilities within the District:
The 2005 study identified that the quality of the existing facilities needed to be addressed and that
there was an under-supply of health and fitness stations across Thanet.
12-14
AMENITY GREEN SPACE
12.5.44
The 2005 study defines amenity green space as open space which provides opportunities for
informal activities close to residential areas and improves the visual appearance of residential or
other areas.
12.5.45
The 2005 study identified 149 sites of informal recreational and visual amenity green space within
the District, covering a total of 65.29ha. At the time, this equated to a total provision of
approximately 0.51ha per 1,000 population. The 2005 study identified that there is sufficient
informal open space in their local area and the average quality score for all informal sites was
good.
CHILDRENS PLAYSPACE
12.5.46
The 2005 study identified 33 child play areas across the District which in total, provide areas for
equipped play, ball play, wheeled play and teenage shelters. Provision equated to 0.2ha per
1,000 population. The 2005 study identified that the quality of play areas across the District was
considered to be good.
12.6
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
12.6.1
12.7
12.7.1
No additional design solutions and assumptions have been made in relation to the Proposed
Development above those described in Section 12.3 Relevant Elements of the Proposed
Development.
GENERATION OF DIRECT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION
PHASE
12.7.2
The Proposed Development will deliver a mix of employment space and up to 2,500 new homes.
Spending during the demolition and construction phase will generate new direct employment
opportunities. Table 12.12 sets out the estimate of construction employment for the Proposed
Development. The estimated number of construction jobs is based on an anticipated construction
cost of 500 million, as provided by the applicant. Note that this is an indicative estimate that has
been generated only for the purpose of assisting calculations within the EIA and should not be
relied upon for any other purpose.
Table 12-12 - Estimated Job Creation
CONSTRUCTION STAGE EMPLOYMENT
Estimated Construction Value
Ratio of construction employment to output
12-15
Construction job years (c = a/b)
Construction period
Temporary construction jobs per year (e = c/d)
5,875 (c)
15 years (d)
392 (e)
12.7.3
The population of Thanet District is 138,400. The proportion of the population aged 16 to 64
classified as economically active was estimated to be 73.0% of the total population aged 16 to 64,
which equated to 59,130 individuals. Given the individuals employed in Sector F account for 4.6%
of the economically active population aged 16 to 64, this equates to approximately 2,720
individuals. Based on the assumption that 392 FTE roles will be generated per year, this
represents 14.4% of the economically active population employed in the construction sector in
Thanet District per year. As such, the magnitude of change is considered to be high.
12.7.4
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change, prior to
mitigation, is high. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, temporary on local economic
receptors of moderate to major positive significance.
12.7.5
The population of Kent is 1,510,400. The proportion of the population aged 16 to 64 classified as
economically active was estimated to be 61.3% of the total population aged 16 to 64, which
equated to 926,500 individuals. Given the individuals employed in Sector F account for 6.1% of
the economically active population aged 16 to 64. Therefore, all together, there are 56,516
individuals employed in Sector F within the regional study area. Based on the assumption that
392 FTE roles will be generated per year, this represents 0.7% of the economically active
population employed in the construction sector in Kent per year. As such, the magnitude of
change is considered to be low.
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change, prior to
mitigation, is low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, temporary on regional
economic receptors of minor positive significance.
MITIGATION
12.7.6
12.7.7
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change remains high.
Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, long-term residual effect on local economic
receptors of moderate to major positive significance.
12.7.8
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change remains
low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, temporary on regional economic receptors
of minor positive significance.
GENERATION OF INDIRECT AND INDUCED EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
12.7.9
Activities associated with construction will lead to an increase in spending within the local
economy by contractors and purchases from a range of suppliers who in turn purchase from their
own suppliers via the supply-chain. The relationship between the initial direct spending and total
economic impacts is known as the multiplier effect, which demonstrates that investment can
have much wider economic benefits as this expenditure is diffused through the economy. Such
multiplier effects are anticipated both in terms of the sourcing of local supplies (indirect
employment across wider supply chains) and local spend by onsite workers (induced
employment) prior to, during and after the working day for the duration of this phase.
12.7.10
Research undertaken for the National Housing Federation (Ref. 12.13) has identified that the
construction industry has an indirect and induced employment multiplier of 2.51 across the
industry sectors. Applying the 2.51 multiplier to the 392 temporary construction jobs per year
12-16
identifies that a further 984 indirect jobs could be created in industry sectors throughout the wider
economy.
12.7.11
The population of Thanet District is 138,400. The proportion of the population aged 16 to 64
classified as economically active was estimated to be 73.0% of the total population aged 16 to 64,
which equated to 101,032 individuals. Based on the assumption that 984 FTE roles will be
generated per year, this represents 0.97% of the economically active population employed in the
construction sector in Thanet district per year. As such, the magnitude of change is considered to
be low.
12.7.12
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change, prior to
mitigation, is low. Therefore, the likely to be an indirect, long-term, temporary effect on local
economic receptors of minor positive significance prior to the implementation of mitigation
measures.
12.7.13
12.7.14
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change, prior to
mitigation, is low. Therefore, the likely to be an indirect, long-term, temporary effect on regional
economic receptors of minor positive significance prior to the implementation of mitigation
measures.
MITIGATION
12.7.15
The effect of the Proposed Development in terms of direct and induced employment will be
positive and therefore no mitigation measures are required.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
12.7.16
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change remains low.
Therefore, there is likely to be an indirect, temporary, long-term residual effect on local economic
receptors of minor positive significance.
12.7.17
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change remains
low. Therefore, the likely to be an indirect, long-term, temporary residual effect on regional
economic receptors of minor positive significance.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
DESIGN SOLUTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
12.7.18
The detailed element of the hybrid application includes Phase 1 and the change of use for the
retailed buildings. The remainder of the application is in outline. Both elements of the Proposed
Development is illustrated by within the Parameter Plans (Figures 2.1 2.6) and form the
description of development as outlined in within Chapter 2 The Proposed Development.
12.7.19
12-17
12.7.20
The Village Centre (incorporating the High Street and Primary Schools as shown on Figure 2.3)
is located within the south eastern part of the Site to maximise their accessibility and help
concentrate activity closer to the existing built form with residential/employment development
across the remainder of the Site.
GENERATION OF DIRECT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE OPERATIONAL
PHASE
12.7.21
The Proposed Development incorporates employment uses that will generate direct employment
opportunities once completed.
12.7.22
Based on the quantum of employment floorspace, it is possible to estimate the number of FTE
employees for most types of employment based on each associated floorspace, as outlined in the
rd
Homes and Communities Agency Employment Densities Guide 3 Edition (2015) (Ref. 12.6).
12.7.23
Table 12.13 estimates the jobs created within the Proposed Development. Where the area per
FTE is provided as a range (e.g. 15 20 for A1-A5 (excluding retail warehouse)), we have used
2
the average number of jobs per m . In addition, when converting the Gross Internal Areas (GIA)
figures provided within the Stone Hill Park Development Quantum to Net Internal Areas (NIA), we
have used the benchmark of 20%, which is the worst case scenario as advised within the Homes
rd
and Communities Agency Employment Densities Guide 3 Edition (2015). Furthermore, to
convert the GIA figures to GEA, we have increased the floorspace by an additional 10%, based
on best practice methods.
12.7.24
At this stage it is unknown what specific B class uses will be brought forward. Therefore, to allow
for flexibility in relation to the provision of B1ab and c, B2, and B8 employment floorspace, at this
stage, an estimated breakdown for the quantum of the aforementioned use classes has been
2
used that totals 73,500 m (GIA). When calculating the job creation in relation to B1a-c / B2 / B8
commercial and office space, we have assumed that the Proposed Development will incorporate
2
2
2
2
3,675 m (GIA) of B1(a and b), 11,025 m (GIA) B1(c), 36,750 m (GIA) B2 and 22,050 m (GIA) of
B8 floorspace, and converted them following the above mentioned methods, as the job yield
calculations specific to each use class require a mix of NIA, GIA and GEA to calculate.
12.7.25
To assess the Worst Case Scenario we have assumed that the outline element of the Proposed
2
development will provide a maximum of 11,500 m (GIA) of both D1 and D2 space. In relation to
D2 space, the Employment Densities Guide provides a range of area per FTE per use, and in this
2
instance, we have used 100 m to assess the worst case scenario.
12.7.26
12-18
Table 12-13 - Estimated Job Yield
USE
USE CLASS
MAXIMUM
PROPOSED
FLOORSPACE (M2)
Up to 2,480 (NIA)
Up to 2,940 (NIA)
Up to 8,820 (NIA)
up to 36,750 (GIA)
up to 24,255 (GEA)
EMPLOYEES (FTE)
17.5
12
47
36
70
142
245
188
1,021
347
Up to 11,500 (GIA)
167.5
69
Up to 11,500 (GIA)
100
115
1 per 3 beds (assumed
40
mid-scale)
TOTAL: 2,127
120 bed
Notes to Table 12.13 *Please note that the figures have been rounded up to the nearest whole number. Combined total of B1 (a-c)/B2/B8/D1/D2 floorspace not to
exceed 85,000m2 (GIA) (excluding primary schools). Class D2 restricted to Sports and Recreation only. The Table includes both B1c/B2/B8 floorspace associated
with Phase 1 (up to 10,244m2) and the outline element of up to 66,439m2 of use class B1(a-c)/B2/B8. The commercial floorspace of the change of use element
(Detailed Element) is fixed.
The calculations presented in Table 12.13 do not take into account employment arising from the buildings to be retained with no change of use (as outlined in
Table 2.5) heritage and culture uses or care home facilities as the job generation is considered to be insignificant and will not affect the overall assessment.
12.7.27
The Proposed Development will also include 2 x primary schools (D1 use) with a combined
capacity for up to 4 forms of entry (up-to 840 pupils) that will provide further on-site job
opportunities. Although there is no specific guidance for calculating the provision of jobs
associated with D1 floorspace outlined within the Homes and Communities Agency Employment
rd
Densities Guide 3 Edition (2015), to estimate the number of jobs created, we have used the Kent
average primary school pupil to teacher ratio (Ref. 12.25) of 20.9:1. Based on an overall capacity
of 840 pupils, it is estimated that an additional 40 teacher jobs could be created as a result of the
Proposed Development.
12.7.28
Once completed, the Proposed Development would generate a direct 2,167 FTE jobs from the
Proposed Development, including the anticipated 40 teacher jobs.
Table 12-14 below outlines the net employment generated from the Proposed Development, having
taken into account factors such as displacement and leakage, as outlined in the Additionality
Guidance (2014). Table 12-14 Direct Employment Effects
A
B=Ax25%
C= A-B
D=C*50%
E=C-D
Workspaces
Estimated leakage (25%)
Gross local direct effects
Displacement (25%)
Net local direct effects
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2,167
542
1,625
407
1,218
12.7.29
The population of Thanet District is 138,400. The proportion of the population aged 16 to 64
classified as economically active was estimated to be 73.0% of the total population aged 16 to 64,
which equated to 101,032 individuals. Based on the assumption that 1,218 FTE roles will be
generated per year, this represents approximately 1.2% of the economically active population
employed in the construction sector in Thanet district per year. As such, the magnitude of change
is considered to be low.
12.7.30
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change, prior to mitigation, is considered to be low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, longterm, permanent effect on local economic receptors of minor positive significance prior to the
implementation of mitigation measures.
12.7.31
12-19
12.7.32
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change, prior to
mitigation, is low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent on regional
economic receptors of minor positive significance prior to the implementation of mitigation
measures.
MITIGATION
12.7.33
12.7.34
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change remains low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent residual effect
on local economic receptors of minor positive significance.
12.7.35
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change remains low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent residual effect
on regional economic receptors of minor positive significance.
GENERATION OF INDIRECT AND INDUCED EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE
OPERATIONAL PHASE
12.7.36
Indirect jobs are likely to be created as a result of an increase in spending on goods, suppliers
and services associated with the Proposed Development. This is particularly likely to increase
spending with firms in the surrounding area. The spending of wages by the employees of firms
supplying goods and services to the Proposed Development will also support induced
employment in shops, services and other firms.
12.7.37
Table 12.15 takes the 1,218 jobs created from the Proposed Development and identifies the
indirect employment effects.
Table 12-15 Indirect/Induced Employment Effects (Local Level)
E=C-D
F=Ex(1.15)
1,218
1,401
12.7.38
The population of Thanet District is 138,400. The proportion of the population aged 16 to 64
classified as economically active was estimated to be 73.0% of the total population aged 16 to 64,
which equated to 101,032 individuals. Based on the assumption that 1,401 FTE roles will be
generated per year, this represents 1.4% of the economically active population employed in
Thanet district per year. As such, the magnitude of change is considered to be low.
12.7.39
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change is considered
to be low. Therefore, there is likely to be an indirect, long-term, permanent effect on local
economic receptors of minor positive significance prior to the implementation of mitigation
measures.
Table 12-16 Indirect/Induced Employment Effects (Regional Level)
E=C-D
F=Ex(1.7)
12.7.40
1,218
2,071
12-20
12.7.41
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change is
considered to be low. Therefore, there is likely to be an indirect, long-term, permanent effect on
regional economic receptors of minor positive significance prior to the implementation of
mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
12.7.42
As the effect on indirect job creation is considered to be positive, no mitigation measures are
required.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
12.7.43
The sensitivity of the local economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change remains
low. Therefore, there is likely to be an indirect, long-term, permanent residual effect on local
economic receptors of minor positive significance.
12.7.44
The sensitivity of the regional economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change
remains low. Therefore, there is likely to be an indirect, long-term, permanent residual effect on
regional economic receptors of minor positive significance.
INCREASE IN THE HOUSING STOCK RANGE AND SIZE OF UNITS AND CONTRIBUTION
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS
12.7.45
The Proposed Development will provide a mix of residential units in terms of size (see Table 2.11
of Chapter 2 The Proposed Development and tenure, including lifetime homes and 60
accessible units. Approximately 0 - 30% of the houses provided will be affordable, including both
social rented and intermediate housing, which matches the Thanet Starting Point requirement of
30%.
12.7.46
The provision of up to 2,500 homes will contribute in help to meet the Objectively Assessed Need
of 16,000 over the period of 2011-2031 (or 785 dwellings per annum) and comprises 16% of this
requirement.
12.7.47
The sensitivity of local housing receptors is considered to be medium, due to the identified
shortfall in the availability of housing. The magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is considered
to be low to medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent effect on local
housing receptors of minor to moderate positive significance prior to the implementation of
mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
12.7.48
As the effect on housing supply is considered to be positive, no mitigation measures are required.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
12.7.49
The sensitivity of local housing receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change remains low to medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent
effect on local housing receptors of minor to moderate positive significance.
CHANGE IN LOCAL SERVICE DEMAND (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
FACILITIES, HEALTHCARE SERVICES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND
OPEN/RECREATIONAL SPACE) DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE
12.7.50
New residents help to sustain essential local services, such as those provided by education,
healthcare and community facilities; however they also generate additional demands for local
service provision.
12-21
12.7.51
The Proposed Development will comprise up-to 2,500 residential units. Applying the KCC Guide
to Development Contributions and Provision of Community Infrastructure (2008) (Ref. 12.8) ratios,
the Proposed Development is estimated to yield approximately 5,950 adults and children. Table
12.17 shows the estimated structure of the new residents.
Table 12-17 - Estimated Population Yield
AGE RANGE
Children (3 to 18)
18 to 64
65+
YIELD
1,350
4,175
425
TOTAL: 5,950
It is generally accepted that schools should not operate at 100% capacity, as it is important to
retain some level of surplus capacity to enable parental preference to be exercised.
12.7.53
Surplus places are also required to cover unforeseen fluctuations in the numbers of local children
requiring places due to moves into existing accommodation, including refugees and homeless
children requiring school places.
12.7.54
The Kent County Council (KCC) Guide to Developers Contributions and Provision of Community
Infrastructure (2008) (Ref. 12.8) sets out a Pupil Product Ratios for calculating the child yields
associated with new developments, that works by calculating the child yield for each type of
housing provided as part of the Proposed Development.
12.7.55
Applying the ratios to the Proposed Development results in a child yield as shown in Table 12.18.
This assessment has assumed the maximum number of 2,500 fully occupied homes.
Table 12-18 - Estimated Child Yield
AGE RANGE
YIELD
3 to 4
0.09
225
5 to 11
0.28
625
12 to 18
0.20
500
Total:
1,350
12.7.56
Table 12.18 shows that the Proposed Development will yield a total of 1,350 children of school
age (225 early years, 625 primary school age and 500 secondary school aged).
12.7.57
The baseline assessment identified 14 primary school and 9 secondary schools within the study
area (Thanet District). The primary schools have a deficit of approximately -101 additional pupils,
and the secondary schools have capacity for approximately 386 additional pupils.
12.7.58
Due to the nature of attendance at nursery school (i.e. it is based on the choice of the parent or
guardian whether to send a child); the effect on nursery schools cannot be estimated.
Furthermore, the number of children with special educational needs that may be future residents
of the Proposed Development cannot be estimated from the available data. Therefore, the
demand on nursery and special schools is also considered qualitatively alongside primary
educational facilities.
12.7.59
There is currently insufficient existing primary school capacity to accommodate the children
associated with the Proposed Development. The Proposed Development will include 2x entry
form schools providing school places for up to 840 primary school children, which it is assumed
will provide sufficient capacity for the estimated 625 primary school aged children associated with
the Proposed Development and provide additional capacity.
12-22
12.7.60
The sensitivity of local community receptors (primary educational facilities) is low and the
magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term,
permanent effect on local community receptors (primary educational facilities) of minor positive
significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
12.7.61
As sown in Table 12.8, there is currently some existing capacity which could accommodate a
proportion of the anticipated secondary school pupils, although there would be a deficit of 114
places if the Proposed Development was fully occupied. No secondary provision is anticipated as
part of the Proposed Development. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high.
12.7.62
The sensitivity of local community receptors (secondary educational facilities) is low and the
magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is high. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, longterm, permanent effect on local community receptors (secondary educational facilities) of
moderate negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
EFFECTS ON HEALTHCARE FACILITIES
12.7.63
The Proposed development is located within the NHS Eastern and Coastal Kent area and is well
served by GPs. As identified in Table 12.9, the primary healthcare services located within the
NHS Eastern and Coastal Kent locality and the identified capacity (Ref. 12.22) based on the
number of GPs per practice and the national target of 1,800 patients per GP.
12.7.64
Once completed, the Proposed Development will lead to an increase in the number of patients
registered within the East and Coastal Kent area. At present, there is an estimated available
capacity of 5,494 which could accommodate the majority of the anticipated residents but not all. It
is estimated, based on the overall population yield of the Proposed Development and the existing
healthcare capacity, that there would be a deficit of 456.
12.7.65
The NHS Choices website (Ref. 12.21) shows that there are eight dentists within the East and
Coastal Kent area, all of which are accepting new patients. There are also pharmacists and
opticians present within Thanet. However, the need for these health services cannot be estimated
from the available data. Therefore, the demand on dentists is also considered qualitatively.
12.7.66
The Proposed Development incorporates up to 11,500 m (GIA) D1 uses. It is assumed that such
use could accommodate the additional need in healthcare facilities early in the development.
During the early delivery of housing, it is also anticipated that the existing healthcare facilities
could absorb early healthcare requirements. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to
be low.
12.7.67
The sensitivity of local community receptors (healthcare facilities) is low and the magnitude of
change, prior to mitigation, is low. Therefore, there is a direct, long-term, permanent effect on
local community facilities (healthcare facilities) of minor positive prior to the implementation of
mitigation measures.
The baseline study has established that there are 12 community centres within Thanet and a
number of places of worship, libraries, restaurants and bars and cinemas/theatres. There is no
available data in relation to the need for such community facilities in relation to population.
Therefore the effect is considered qualitatively.
12.7.69
It is considered that the existing community facilities will be able to cope with additional demand
generated by new residents. This will also have the benefit of increasing participation in existing
community groups within Thanet, which will assist with the integration of the new proposed
residential community. Furthermore, the Proposed Development incorporates up to 11,500 sqm
(GIA) of other D1/D2 uses. It is assumed that that the level of new community provision will be
sufficient for the new population generated by the Proposed Development.
12-23
12.7.70
The sensitivity of local community receptors (community facilities) is low given the existing
capacity of community facilities. The magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is low. Therefore,
there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect on local community receptors
(community facilities) of negligible to minor positive significance prior to the implementation of
mitigation measures.
EFFECTS ON ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE
12.7.71
As discussed within Section 12.5, Thanet is rich in publically accessible open space; however it is
currently concentrated within the predominantly urban areas of Thanet, to the north and east of
the Site.
12.7.72
It is anticipated that the residents of the Proposed Development, totalling an estimated 5,950
individuals, including 1,350 children, will likely increase demand on the existing network of
accessible open spaces within Thanet. There is currently no statutory guidance set out within the
Thanet Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies for the provision of new open space associated with
new developments.
12.7.73
As the Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure (Figure 2.5) shows, the Proposed Development
incorporates significant open/recreational space, including structure planting, Heritage Park Open
Space and Infrastructure Zone, Field Open Space Zone and a special Outdoor Water-Based
Recreational Zone (Wave Garden'). It is assumed that these areas of recreational and Public
Open Space will incorporate footpaths and cycling paths which will be connected to the wider
green infrastructure network. It is assumed that that the level of new provision will be sufficient for
the new population generated by the Proposed Development and will help in alleviating existing
demand for green space. Therefore, it is considered the magnitude of change is considered to be
medium.
12.7.74
The sensitivity of local community receptors (open/recreational space) is low given the range of
the existing provision. The magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is medium given the
significant new areas of open/recreational space. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, longterm, permanent effect of minor positive significance prior to the implementation of mitigation
measures.
MITIGATION
12.7.75
The effect of the provision of primary school facilities is considered to be positive as the Proposed
Development will include two primary schools with the capacity for 840 primary school children.
Therefore no mitigation is required.
12.7.76
In relation to the provision of secondary school places, as agreed with KCC, the applicant will
enter into negotiations with the Council as it is expected that the applicant will make a financial
contribution, via a Section 106 agreement, for off-site secondary school places.
12.7.77
The effect of the provision of healthcare services is expected to have a positive impact, and
therefore no mitigation is necessary.
12.7.78
It is anticipated that the existing and new provision of community facilities will be able to
accommodate the new residents of the Proposed Development. However; in addition, it is
anticipated that the applicant will enter in to discussions with the Council over potential financial
contributions via a Section 106 agreement for the provision of community / adult learning and
library facilities.
12.7.79
The effect of the provision of publically accessible open space is expected to have a positive
impact, and therefore no mitigation is necessary.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
12-24
12.7.80
The sensitivity of local community receptors (primary educational facilities) is high and the
magnitude of change is low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual
effect on local community receptors (educational facilities) of minor positive significance.
12.7.81
The sensitivity of local community receptors (secondary educational facilities) is low and the
magnitude of change is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term
residual effect on local community receptors (educational facilities) of negligible significance.
12.7.82
The sensitivity of local community receptors (healthcare facilities) is low and the magnitude of
change is low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual effect on
local community receptors (healthcare facilities) of minor positive significance.
12.7.83
The sensitivity of local community receptors (community facilities) is low and the magnitude of
change is negligible to low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual
effect on local community receptors (community facilities) of negligible to minor positive
significance.
12.7.84
The sensitivity of local community receptors (open/recreational facilities) is low and the magnitude
of change is medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent residual effect
on local community receptors (open/recreational facilities) minor positive significance.
INCREASE IN SPENDING FROM THE NEW COMMUNITY ON THE LOCAL ECONOMY
12.7.85
The Proposed Development is likely to have a significant effect on local businesses and services
due to the increase in population in the area from future residents, employees and site visitors.
The Site's location and the provision of well-designed streets and buildings will provide a place
where people will want to live and visit, which will have a direct effect upon the local economy.
Increased levels of local spending would be expected as a result of the introduction of the new
residential population. This assessment does not take into account residents within the Proposed
Development relocating from within the same area and not all of the household spend would be
incurred within the local area.
12.7.86
Increased levels of local spending would be expected as a result of the introduction of the new
resident population. The latest data from the ONS identifies that the average weekly spend per
household in the south-east is 523.90 (Ref. 12.14). Not taking into account the transient working
population, the local spend as a result of the proposed 2,500 households on Site is expected to
be 68,107,000 per annum. Based on the 59,513 households within Thanet District, the overall
household spend across Thanet is estimated to be 1,621,300,756 per annum. As such, the
Proposed Development represents approximately 4.2% of the total household spend. Therefore,
the magnitude of change is considered to be medium.
12.7.87
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change, prior to mitigation, is considered to be medium. Therefore, there is likely to have a direct,
long-term, permanent effect on local economic receptors of moderate positive significance prior
to the implementation of mitigation measures.
12.7.88
As specified in Paragraph 12.7.86, the anticipated household spend per annum within the
Proposed Development is 68,107,000 per annum. The overall household spend across Kent is
estimated to be 37,778,852,400 per annum. As such, the Proposed Development represents
approximately 0.18% of the total household spend in Kent. Therefore, the magnitude of change is
negligible to low.
12.7.89
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change, prior to mitigation, is considered to be negligible to low. Therefore, there is likely to have
a direct, long-term, permanent effect on regional economic receptors of negligible to minor
positive significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
12-25
12.7.90
As the effect on the local and regional economies is considered to be positive, no mitigation is
required.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
12.7.91
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change remains medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent residual
effect on local economic receptors of moderate positive significance.
12.7.92
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change remains negligible to low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent
residual effect on regional economic receptors of negligible to minor positive significance.
12.8
12.8.1
This assessment has been based on the quantum of the Proposed Development and proposed
uses as described in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development. It has been assumed that the
Site is currently vacant and that no employment or residential uses exist on Site and that the new
public open space and community facilities will be used by the new residents of the Site and
existing residents in the surrounding areas.
12.8.2
It is assumed that one residential unit equates to one household for the purposes of this
assessment.
12.9
SUMMARY
12.9.1
A review of the baseline data found that Thanet and Kent both have an expanding population with
relatively large proportions of working age people within the community, with both Thanet and
Kent well represented by individuals working within public admin, education and health sectors.
12.9.2
In 2015, the Indices of Multiple Deprivation ranked Kent 100th out of the 152 counties and unitary
authorities within England, placing it in the 50% least deprived counties within England. Thanet
st
however remains the most deprived district within Kent, ranking 21 out of the 326 local
authorities within England, placing it within the top 10% most deprived local authorities within
England.
12.9.3
During construction works, it is anticipated that the Proposed Development will provide up to 588
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs and an estimated 392 FTE construction jobs per year of
construction. Additional jobs are also expected to be created through indirect induced
employment, providing an estimated further 984 indirect jobs. In addition, there is anticipated to
be a further 1,095 indirect FTE roles generated in the wider Kent area as a result of the Proposed
Development.
12.9.4
The Proposed Development is likely to have a positive effect on the socio-economics of the area
once it is completed. Depending on the final mix of employment uses developed across the Site,
the number of FTE jobs created will be approximately 2,127 direct FTE jobs with additional jobs
created through the inclusion of on-site schools, healthcare and leisure facilities. Furthermore,
additional employment opportunities will be generated through indirect / induced employment.
12.9.5
The Proposed Development will provide a range of housing (including approximately 0 - 30%
affordable, intermediate and accessible homes) that will help to meet the housing demands in
Thanet, as outlined within the Thanet Local Plan and the Strategic Housing Market Assessment.
In addition the new residents of the Proposed Development will increase the spending in the local
area, providing a positive economic uplift for Thanet.
12.9.6
Once operational, the Proposed Development will help to alleviate the increased demand on
community facilities, specifically educational facilities, with the provision of two primary schools on
12-26
Site that will increase the overall capacity of places within Thanet and help to accommodate the
new child population. In addition, the Proposed Development will have a positive impact on
secondary school provision and community / adult learning and library facilities through financial
contributions to help accommodate the secondary school aged children of the Proposed
Development and the increased demand for services including and community library facilities
from residents of the Proposed development.
12.9.7
At present, there is insufficient capacity within healthcare facilities (GPs) to accommodate the
5,950 new residents, which will result in a deficit of 456. The Proposed Development will include
2
up to 11,500 m of D1 space that will include healthcare facilities and it is anticipated that the
Proposed Development will include healthcare provision to help alleviate the deficit.
12.9.8
The residents of the Proposed Development will likely increase demand on the existing network of
open space. The Proposed Development will incorporate an extensive network of
recreational/open space including structure planting, Heritage Park Open Space and
Infrastructure Zone, Field Open Space Zone and a special Outdoor Water-Based Recreational
Zone (Wave Garden'). It is assumed that these areas of recreational and Public Open Space will
incorporate footpaths and cycling paths which will be connected to the wider green infrastructure
network and that that the level of new provision will be sufficient for the new population generated
by the Proposed Development and will help in alleviating existing demand for green space.
12.9.9
12-27
Table 12-19: Summary of Effects for Socio-Economics
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
MAJOR /
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST / MT / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
MODERATE / NEGATIVE
/ LT
MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Local
economic
receptors
Moderate to
major
Positive
LT
No mitigation required
Moderate to
major
Positive
LT
NPPF
N/A
Regional
economic
receptors
Minor
Positive
LT
No mitigation required
Minor
Positive
NPPF
N/A
Generation of
indirect and
induced
employment
opportunities
during
construction
phase
Operation
Local
economic
receptors
Minor
Positive
LT
No mitigation required
Minor
Positive
LT
NPPF
N/A
Regional
economic
receptors
Minor
Positive
LT
No mitigation required
Minor
Positive
LT
NPPF
N/A
Minor
Positive
LT
No mitigation required
Minor
Positive
LT
NPPF
N/A
Minor
Positive
LT
No mitigation required
Minor
Positive
LT
NPPF
N/A
Minor
Positive
LT
No mitigation required.
Minor
Positive
LT
NPPF
N/A
Minor
Positive
LT
No mitigation required.
Minor
Positive
LT
NPPF
N/A
Minor to
moderate
Positive
LT
No mitigation required.
Minor to
moderate
Positive
LT
NPPF
N/A
Generation of
direct employment
opportunities
during the
operational phase
Local
economic
receptors
Regional
economic
receptors
Generation of
Local
indirect or induced economic
employment
receptors
opportunities
Regional
during the
economic
operational phase
receptors
Increase in the
Local housing
housing stock
receptors
range and size of
units and
12-28
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
contribution to
affordable housing
needs
Change in local
Local
service demand
community
(primary and
receptors
secondary
(primary
education
educational
facilities,
facilities)
healthcare
Local
facilities,
community
community
receptors
facilities and
(secondary
open/recreational
educational
space) during the
operational phase facilities)
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
MAJOR /
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST / MT / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
MODERATE / NEGATIVE
/ LT
MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Minor
Positive
LT
No Mitigation Required.
Minor
The Proposed
Development will include
two primary schools with
the capacity for 840
primary school children.
Positive
Moderate
Negative
LT
N/A
Local
community
receptors
(healthcare
facilities)
Minor
Positive
LT
Local
community
receptors
(community
facilities)
Negligible to
Minor
Positive
LT
Minor
LT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Positive
LT
N/A
N/A
Positive
LT
N/A
N/A
12-29
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
Local
community
receptors
(open/recrea
tional space)
Increase in
spending from the
new community
on the local
economy
Local
economic
receptors
Regional
Economic
Receptors
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
MAJOR /
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST / MT
MODERATE / NEGATIVE
/ LT
MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Minor
Positive
P
D
LT
RELEVA RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
NT
POLICY
N/A
N/A
Moderate
Positive
LT
No mitigation required.
Moderate
Positive
LT
N/A
N/A
Negligible to
Minor
Positive
LT
No mitigation required.
Negligible to
Minor
Positive
LT
N/A
N/A
Key to table: P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term N/A = Not Applicable
12-30
12.10
REFERENCES
Ref. 12.1 - Kent County Council Development and Infrastructure Creating Quality Places:
Accessed Online [04.03.2016]
http://thanet.devplan.org.uk/document.aspx?document=15&display=contents
Ref. 12.2 - Unlocking Kents Potential Kent County Councils Framework for Regeneration:
Accessed Online [04.03.2016]
http://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/13390/Unlocking-kents-potential.pdf
st
Ref. 12.3 - 21 Century Kent A Blueprint for the Countys Future: Accessed Online [04.03.2015]
http://gtgkm.org.uk/documents/21st-century-kent-1265119089.pdf
Ref. 12.4 - Thanet Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies: Accessed Online [04.03.2016]
http://thanet.devplan.org.uk/document.aspx?document=15&display=chapter&id=112
Ref. 12.5 Department of Communities and Local Government: Planning Practice Guidance
(2014): Accessed Online [04.03.2016] http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/
rd
Ref. 12.6 Homes and Communities Agency Employment Densities Guide 3 Edition (2015):
Accessed Online [04.03.2016]
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/484133/employme
nt_density_guide_3rd_edition.pdf
th
Ref.12.7 Homes and Communities Agency: Additionality Guide, 4 Edition (2014): [Accessed
Online]
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/378177/additionalit
y_guide_2014_full.pdf
Ref. 12.8 - Kent County Council Guide to Development Contributions and Provision of Community
Infrastructure (2007): Accessed Online [04.03.2016]
https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/community-andliving/Regeneration/KCCDevelopmentContributionGuideSep2008155k.pdf
Ref.12.9 - Highways England (formerly Highways Agency) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
(DMRB) Volume 11 Section 3 Part 8 Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol11/section3/11s3p08.pdf
Ref.12.10 Managing Health and Safety in Construction: Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations 2015: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l153.htm
Ref.12.11 Office for National Statistics NOMIS Office Labour Market Statistics:
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/
Ref.12.12 Office for National Statistics Annual Business Survey Data (Updt. 2013):
http://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/business/businessservices/bulletins/uknonfinanc
ialbusinesseconomy/2014provisionalresults
Ref. 12.13 National Housing Federation https://www.housing.org.uk/resource-library/
Ref. 12.14 NOS Family Spending 2015 Edition [Accessed Online]:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/familyspending/family-spending/2015-edition/index.html
Ref. 12.15 Kent County Council Business Intelligence Statistical Bulletin (2015) 2014 Mid-Year
Population Estimates [Accessed Online]
https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/14725/Mid-year-population-estimates-ageand-gender-profile-bulletin.pdf
12-31
Ref. 12.16 The English Index of Multiple Deprivation: Headline Findings for Kent [Accessed
Online] http://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/7953/Indices-of-Deprivation-headlinefindings.pdf
Ref. 12.17 East Kent Homelessness Prevention Strategy (2013 2018) [Accessed Online]
https://www.thanet.gov.uk/publications/housing/east-kent-homelessness-prevention-strategy/
Ref. 12.18 ONS Neighbourhood Statistics [Accessed Online]:
https://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6275281&
c=thanet&d=13&e=7&g=6439064&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1460976825578&enc=1&ds
FamilyId=2570
Ref. 12.19 Thanet District Council Thanet Strategic Housing Market Assessment (January
2016) https://www.thanet.gov.uk/media/3228414/Strategic-Housing-Market-Assessment-2016.pdf
Ref. 12.20 Thanet Health Profile (2015) [Accessed Online]
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=171911
Ref. 12.21 NHS Choices Website [Accessed Online]: http://www.nhs.uk/pages/home.aspx
Ref. 12.22 - Kent Community Health: accessed Online [04.03.2016]
http://www.kentcht.nhs.uk/home/#
Ref. 12.23 Town Centre Retail, Leisure, Tourism and Culture Assessment (2012) Thanet
District Council [accessed online] https://www.thanet.gov.uk/media/2326512/Town-Centre-RetailLeisure-Tourism-and-Culture-Assessment-Dec-2012.pdf
Ref. 12.24 - Thanet Assessment of Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2005): Accessed Online
[07.03.2016] https://www.thanet.gov.uk/publications/parks-and-open-spaces/open-space-sportand-recreation-report/
Ref. 12.25 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/218925/local_20au
thority_20tables_20sfr112010.xls
13-1
13
GROUND CONDITIONS,
CONTAMINATION & HYDROGEOLOGY
13.1
INTRODUCTION
13.1.1
This Chapter reports the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the Site and
surrounding area in terms of Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and Contamination. Where
appropriate it also identifies proposed mitigation measures to prevent, minimise or control likely
significant effects for contamination risks as part of the Proposed Development on ground
conditions, and likely subsequent effects on sensitive receptors such as groundwater, site users
and construction workers.
13.1.2
This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) should be read together with the
Introductory Chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 4), as well as Chapter 10 Archaeology and
Heritage, Chapter 11 Water Resource, Flood Risk and Drainage, and Chapter 15
Cumulative Effects.
13.2
13.2.1
Details of the relevant legislation, policy and guidance are provided in Appendix 13.1.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
13.2.2
PLANNING POLICY
13.2.3
Planning policy at the national and local level and its relevance to environmental design and
assessment is discussed in Chapter 1 Introduction of the ES and the GVA (2016) (Ref. 13.11)
Planning Statement which accompanies the application and examines the merits of the Proposed
Development against the relevant planning policy.
13.2.4
Appendix 13.1 includes a summary of the relevant Ground Condition, Hydrogeology and
Contamination policy used for this assessment is based on the following documents:
13-2
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
13.2.5
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref. 13.12) was published on 27 March 2012
and is a key part of the reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible,
to protect the environment and to promote sustainable growth. The NPPF consolidates all of the
previous Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) into
one document. The following paragraphs / policies are considered relevant to this Chapter:
Paragraph 109: The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
environment by:
Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;
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; and,
Remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land,
where appropriate.
Paragraph 110: In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to
minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. Plans
should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with
other policies in this Framework.
Paragraph 120: To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning
policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The
effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general
amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects
from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land
stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or
landowner.
Paragraph 121: Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that:
The site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability,
including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from
previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on
the natural environment arising from that remediation;
Paragraph 122 "In doing so, local planning authorities should focus on whether the
development itself is an acceptable use of the land and the impact of the use, rather than the
control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under
pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will
operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular
development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes
operated by pollution control authorities."
LOCAL PLAN OR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Kent County Council Development and Infrastructure Creating Quality Places
Unlocking Kents Potential Kent County Councils Framework for Regeneration;
st
13-3
GUIDANCE
13.2.6
The following guidance documents have been used during the preparation of this Chapter:
PPG (Ref. 13.13) contains the following sections which are relevant to this Chapter:
Land stability;
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (1991) Guidance Note HS (G) 66, Protection of Workers
and the General Public during the Development of Contaminated Land (Ref. 13.14);
CIRIA C532 (2001) Control of Pollution from Construction Sites (Ref. 13.15);
EA (2004) Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land (CLR11) (Ref.
13.16);
HSE (2006) INDG258 Safe Work in Confined Spaces (Ref. 13.17);
CIRIA C665 (2007) Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Gases to Buildings (Ref. 13.18);
CIRIA C682 (2009) The VOCs Handbook (Ref. 13.19);
BS 10175 (2011) Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites Code of Practice (Ref.
13.20);
DEFRA, Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance April 2012 (Ref. 13.21);
EA (2012) Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3) (Ref. 13.22);
BS 8576 (2013) Guidance on Investigations for Ground Gas Permanent Gases and Volatile
Organic Compounds (Ref. 13.23);
CIRIA C733 (2014) Asbestos in soil and made ground: a guide to understanding and
managing risks (Ref. 13.24);
BS 8485 (2015) Code of Practice for the Characterisation and Remediation from Ground Gas
in Affected Developments (Ref. 13.25);
Thanet District Council, Undated, Contaminated Land Strategy.
https://www.thanet.gov.uk/publications/pollution/contaminated-land-strategy/ (Accessed
11/04/2016) (Ref. 13.26);
Thanet District Council, Undated, Contaminated Land Guide for Developers.
https://www.thanet.gov.uk/publications/pollution/contaminated-land-guide-for-developers/
(Accessed 11/04/2016) (Ref. 13.27);
Thanet Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring report (2014) (Ref.13.28)
Kent County Council Environmental Policy (2012) (Ref. 13.29);
Kent County Council Climate Local Kent (2013) (Ref. 13.30); and
Kent County Council Kent Environment Strategy (2013-2015) (Ref. 13.31).
13.3
13.3.1
The assessment adopts the approach outlined in Chapter 4 Approach to the Assessment and
is based on the Parameter Plans and Application Plans as described in Chapter 2 The
Proposed Development. The following components of the Proposed Development are relevant
to the assessment of the likely significant effects in relation to Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology
and Contamination associated with the proposed mixed use residential led development. The
Proposed Development is a hybrid application with certain elements that seek detailed approval.
However there are no specific elements within the detailed application that require additional
13-4
consideration in relation to this assessment and therefore, both outline and detailed elements are
presented below:
Residential end use (2,500 residential units);
Sensitive proposed site uses such as schools;
Commercial and retail end use;
Wave garden;
Areas of soft landscaping including public open space and amenity and private communal
space;
The surface water drainage features, specifically infiltration features;
The cut and fill earthworks to achieve planned development levels; and
The demolition of buildings and removal of hardstanding.
13.4
13.4.1
An Environmental Scoping Report was submitted to TDC in January 2016 (Appendix 4.1). Their
th
formal Scoping Opinion was received on 8 March (Appendix 4.2) and a Scoping Response was
issued to clarify a number of matters (Appendix 4.3).
13.4.2
TDC generally agreed with the Scoping Opinion TDC and did not indicate any further
requirements to consider within the assessment below. This section provides an update on the
scope of the assessment and re-iterates the evidence base for insignificant effects. This section
provides an update on the scope of the assessment.
INSIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
13.4.3
It is anticipated that any contaminants found during the construction phase will be remediated in
line with the proposed uses. It is assumed that clean cover layers (and any imported material), if
required, will be validated for depth and chemical quality prior to occupation. This negates the
requirement for consideration of potential impacts to future Site users, adjacent site users and
plants during the operational phase of the proposed development. Therefore, the potential
exposure of future Site users, adjacent site users, plants and potable water supply to
contamination during the operational phase will be insignificant and will not be assessed in this
Chapter. However risks to adjacent site users for the construction phase of the proposed
development is considered to be significant and will be considered within this assessment.
13.4.4
It is assumed that any potential affects arising from ground gas (including radon and volatile
vapours) will be appropriately mitigated prior to the completion of the construction phase.
Therefore, the potential for the presence of ground gas to pose an increased risk to future Site
users (explosive and asphyxiant) during the operational phase is considered to be insignificant
and will not be reported in this Chapter.
13.4.5
During the operational phase of the Proposed Development there is potential for localised spillage
of fuel, which may be carried to the underlying aquifers and surface water drainage system.
However, the Proposed Development will implement an appropriate permanent drainage strategy,
outlined in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development. Contaminants from fuel spillages which are
likely to occur on areas of hard-standing (e.g. car parking areas) will be subject to a controlled
drainage scheme and therefore will minimise contaminants reaching groundwater and surface
water features. Therefore, the potential release / migration of contamination from accidental
spillages on groundwater and surface water receptors during the operational phase is considered
to be insignificant and will not be assessed in this Chapter.
13-5
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
13.4.6
Likely significant effects on sensitive receptors that are considered further within the assessment
section are set out below.
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Potential effect on construction workers and adjacent site users from pre-existing
contamination;
Potential for effect on Controlled Waters from pre-existing contamination; and
Potential presence of unstable ground conditions.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
Potential for effect on Controlled Waters.
CONSULTATION
13.4.7
Table 13.1 provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken in support of the
preparation of this Chapter.
Table 13.1: Summary of Consultation
BODY /
INDIVIDUAL / STAT
ORGANISATION BODY/ORGANISATION
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME OF
DISCUSSIONS
Southern Water
(SW)
Environment
Agency (EA)
Jo Beck
th
Meeting on 16
November 2015.
Records from the
meetings are attached
in Appendix 13.1.
13-6
BODY /
INDIVIDUAL / STAT
ORGANISATION BODY/ORGANISATION
Kent County
Council (KCC)
Thanet District
Council (TDC)
Morgan Sproates
Meeting on 16
November 2015 and
technical meeting on
th
18 January 2016.
Records from the
meetings are attached
in Appendix 13.1.
Consultation records
from Environmental
Health Officer (EHO)
provided by TDC on
th
18 November 2015
records are attached in
Appendix 13.1.
th
Should redevelopment or a
change of use take place at the
Site the developer would be
required, as a condition of
planning, to investigate
whether any land
contamination exists and, if
necessary, devise a strategy to
deal with it.
13-7
EXTENT OF THE STUDY AREA
13.4.8
The study area considered for the purpose of the ground conditions, hydrogeology and
contamination assessment consists of the area within the red line application as well as identified
receptors within the vicinity, up to 1.5km distant to include sensitive ecological receptors such as
Pegwell Bay (Figure 1.1).
Data for the baseline conditions at the Site was taken from the Preliminary Environmental Risk
Assessment (PRA) (dated April 2016 (Ref.13.31), included as Appendix 13.1). The desk study
includes an Envirocheck report, referenced 71633861_1_1, the datasheet of which is included as
Appendix 13.1
13.4.10
13.4.11
A Site walkover was carried on 7 October 2015, for the purposes of this assessment it has been
assumed that conditions on-Site are consistent with those observed during the walkover.
13.4.12
Consultations with the statutory consultees and other relevant authorities have been undertaken
and the advice and guidance provided have been used to inform this assessment. Full details of
the consultation are provided within the PRA (Appendix 13.1) and a summary of consultation is
outlined above in Table 13.1.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
13.4.13
The assessment of potential effects as a result of the Proposed Development has taken into
account both the Demolition and Construction Phase, and Operational phases. The significance
level attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the
Proposed Development and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment to
change, as well as a number of other factors that are outlined in more detail in Chapter 4
Approach to Assessment. Magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the affected
receptor/receiving environment are both assessed on a scale of high, medium, low and negligible
(as shown in Chapter 4 Approach to Assessment).
13.4.14
13.4.15
Table 13.1 below indicates the general approach taken in assessing the sensitivity of identified
receptors as part of this assessment. As part of this assessment Negligible sensitivity has been
removed, as it was deemed irrelevant as no receptor (in terms of ground conditions,
contamination & hydrogeology) is classed as Negligible.
13.4.16
Some site specific examples of how sensitivity may be determined for a particular feature are
provided for transparency in .
13.4.17
Table 13.1.
Table 13.1 Classification of Sensitivity
SENSITIVITY CRITERIA
EXAMPLES
13-8
SENSITIVITY CRITERIA
EXAMPLES
High
Attribute has a high
Future site users such as residential, allotments, commercial uses,
quality and/or rarity on school or play areas
local scale
Construction and maintenance workers (where extensive earthworks,
and demolition of buildings are proposed)
Groundwater aquifers currently used, or likely to be suitable for use
as public potable supplies (e.g. Principal Aquifers, Source Protection
Zone for a potable groundwater supply), such as the Principal Aquifer
within the Upper Chalk
Nationally or internationally designated ecological sites, such as
Pegwell Bay
Medium
Attribute has a
Construction and maintenance workers (where limited earthworks,
medium quality and/or are proposed)
rarity on local scale
Groundwater aquifer providing abstraction water for agricultural or
industrial use (groundwater)
Commercial landscaping or open space areas
Buildings, including services and foundations
Low
13.4.18
Table 13.2 indicates the approach taken to classify the risk criteria.
Table 13.2 Risk Criteria
TERM
Very low risk
DESCRIPTION
The presence of an identified hazard does not give rise to the potential to cause
significant harm to a designated receptor.
Low risk
It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard but
it is likely that, at worst, this harm, if realised, would normally be minor.
Moderate risk
It is possible that, without appropriate remedial action, harm could arise to a designated
receptor. It is relatively unlikely that any harm would be high, and if any harm were to
occur it is more likely that such harm would be relatively minor.
Harm is likely to arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard at the site
without appropriate remedial action.
High risk
Very high risk
There is a high likelihood that severe harm could arise to a designated receptor from an
identified hazard at the site without appropriate remedial action.
EFFECT SIGNIFICANCE
13.4.19
The following terms have been used to define the significance of the effects identified:
Major effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a very significant
effect (either positive or negative) on identified receptors;
13-9
Moderate effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a noticeable
effect (either positive or negative) on identified receptors;
Minor effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to result in a small, barely
noticeable effect (either positive or negative) on identified receptors; and
Negligible: where no discernible effect is expected as a result of the Proposed Development
on identified receptors.
13.5
BASELINE CONDITIONS
EXISTING BASELINE
SITE DESCRIPTION AND CURRENT USE
13.5.1
A walkover survey of accessible areas of the Site was carried out on 7 October 2015,
accompanied by a site representative. A photographic record is provided in Appendix 13.1. The
Envirocheck report is provided within Appendix 13.1.
FORMER AIRPORT
13.5.2
The former airport, is roughly rectangular in shape and is surrounded by a fence. It comprises the
runway in the south of the Site which is approximately 2.7km long and 230m wide (not including
the aprons), aprons, taxiways and stands. A number of buildings are present to the north of the
runway and are illustrated in Figure 2.6.
13.5.3
A small structure understood to be a Maritime and Coastguard beacon is located in the centre of
the air side area, north of the runway and is outside the Site boundary.
13.5.4
A large water tank and associated pipe work is located on southeast of the Site, adjacent to the
Jentex site, which is located off-site to the southeast.
NORTHERN GRASSLANDS
13.5.5
The northern grasslands is roughly rectangular in shape and is largely unfenced. The area is
accessed from the east via Manston Court Road. A track runs along the east and north of the
area. A number of other buildings are present and are summarised in Figure 2.6.
13.5.6
An oval shaped area of hardstanding in poor condition is located on the west of the area,
accessed via Manston Road. The site representative reported that this area was used as a
former RAF fuel facility which was decommissioned in the 1990s.
13.5.7
The fuel farm, which was the main bulk fuel storage area when the airport was in operation, is
located on the southeast of the northern area. It is surrounded by palisade fencing and was noted
to be overgrown with vegetation at the time of the site reconnaissance. It comprises a small office
building which was used for storing fuel samples and monitoring the underground storage tanks
(USTs) and was noted to have a strong hydrocarbon odour inside. A vehicle turning circle is
located around the tanks. At the surface the tanks are covered by concrete and gravel and
vegetation and breather pipes and associated pipework were visible at the time of the site visit.
13.5.8
An observation post dating from WWII is located on the southwest of the northern area and
comprises a small brick structure atop an earth covered mound. A number of rooms are
accessed via a staircase beneath the mound.
SITE OBSERVATIONS
13.5.9
Tables 13.4 and 13.5 detail those key observations made during our site reconnaissance.
13-10
Table 13.4: Site Description
DETAILS
Topography
DESCRIPTION
The Sites topography generally falls towards the B2050 Manston Road,
which bisects the site. Levels from the north to Manston Road are
approximately from 48.20mAOD to 39.00mAOD. Levels from the south are
approximately from 54.60mAOD to 39.00mAOD. The runway in the south of
the Site forms a high ridge. From this point the levels tend to fall north to
south from approximately 54.60mAOD to 50.00mAOD.
The Site slopes relatively steeply downwards to the south from the runway.
The Site is wholly located within the administrative area of Thanet District
Council (TDC), is located to the west of Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs
and is bound by the A299 Hengist Way to the south, B2190 Spitfire Way to
the west, arable farmland to the north and Manston Court Road and further
farmland to the east.
The majority of the Site comprises open grassland covering the majority of
the northern area, the areas to the east, west and north of the runway.
Large areas of hardstanding and building cover are also present, in
particular, the runway, the area west of the terminal building, the car parking
on the east of the Site and the taxiways and aprons.
An area of burned waste including metal, wood and office equipment was
noted to be present south of the fire station. A further larger area of land
adjacent to the west of the Thanet Flying Club was noted to be covered by
stockpiles of waste materials.
DESCRIPTION
The Site is currently largely inactive with limited ongoing potentially
contaminating activities. However, Polar Helicopters are still operating in
Building 18 as a helicopter training centre. Based upon information from the
site representative, it is understood that fuel used for the aircraft is brought in
via tanker and is not stored on Site.
Thanet Flying Club is still present on the Site, however no aircraft are
understood to be kept or in use at the Site.
Drainage
It is understood that all surface water run-off from the areas of hardstanding on
the air side area of the Site enter a surface water drain on Manston Road, are
pumped uphill west along the Manston Road to a point near the junction of
Spitfire Way and Columbus Avenue. The drain is then gravity fed along the
west and southern perimeter of the Site before it enters a drain on the
southeast of the Site which discharges to Pegwell Bag.
The site representative reports a soakaway may be located adjacent to a
balancing pond on the southeast of the Site.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
1
(PCBs) in Electrical Plant
A number of electrical substations are located around the Site within fenced
enclosures and appeared to be in reasonable condition. The age of the
substations could not be determined, and therefore there is potential that they
contain Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).
The locations of the substations are shown on the Site Features Plan
Polychlorinated biphenyls have properties that once favoured their use as a coolant, though concerns over their
environmental persistence led to a widespread ban on their use by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants in 2001. Albeit the use of PCBs has been progressively restricted since the 1970s. In 1986 their sale and use in
new plant and equipment was banned in the UK. Upgraded electrical substations now generally use non-toxic, stable
silicone-based oils. Substation transformer oil used to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as intentional oil
contaminants. Older substations should be assessed for PCBs spill and removal.
13-11
DETAILS
DESCRIPTION
contained in Appendix 13.1.
Asbestos Containing
Materials (ACM)
BULK STORAGE
BULK FUEL STORAGE
When in operation, it is understood that aircraft were refuelled using tankers which would
transport fuel from the fuel farm located on the southeast of the northern area to the aircraft
stands. All the tanks are labelled as having contained Jet A-1. Tanks 1 to 5 have a capacity
of 55,183L. Tank 6 has a capacity of 28,500L. All the tanks are labelled as having been last
cleaned in August 2012 and last inspected in May 2013.
The site representative reported that Tanks 1 to 5 have approximate dimensions of 5ft x 30ft x
9ft and date to the 1950s, Tank 6 dates to 1980s. He further reported that all tanks have
been emptied but not decommissioned.
The site representative reported that a 60,000L fuel tank was associated with the Thanet
Flying Club. This area was not accessed during the site reconnaissance and a visual
inspection could not be made. The condition and status of the tank is not known.
Although the former RAF fuel facility located on the west of the northern area was reportedly
decommissioned in the 1990s, it is not known if tanks or interceptors are still present.
INTERCEPTORS
13.5.10
The site representative reported the following interceptors to be present at the Site:
An 800,000L interceptor associated with the site wide drainage system install in the 2000s is
understood to be located on the southwest of the northern area, in the vicinity of the RAF
Museum.
A 40,000L interceptor is understood to be located beneath the hardstanding northeast of the
terminal building.
A 10,000L interceptor tank was installed in the 1990s to intercept any oil spills associated with
the fuel farm. It is located outside the palisade fencing adjacent to the fuel farm. It was
noted to be overgrown with vegetation at surface during the site reconnaissance.
13.5.11
Anecdotal information suggests a number of historic fuel spills are likely to have occurred at the
Site (mostly around the aprons, stands and fuel farm), which was a common occurrence at
historic airfields.
SITE HISTORY
13.5.12
Historical maps indicate that the Site comprised agricultural land from 1873. By 1947 aerial
mapping indicated a runway located across the majority of the south of the Site in a west to east
direction. Aerial mapping also indicates buildings and one large warehouse in the north of the Site
at this time. The runway and associated structures were not marked on the historical maps
between 1951 and 1963. The absence of the airfield on maps pre 1947 and in the 1950s is
thought to relate to the sensitive nature of the airfield at the time.
13-12
13.5.13
By 1963 the site was labelled as Manston Aerodrome with a runway in the south of the site and
roads, airplane parking bays, warehouses and associated buildings in the centre to north of the
site.
13.5.14
By 1991 the site was marked as Kent International Airport representing the current site layout.
13.5.15
Table 13.6 presents a summary of the available mapping information for the Site:
Table 13.6
DATES*
LOCATION ONSITE
Windmill
1873 - 1896
South
Then cleared
1896 - 1963
Then runway
1963 - Present
Chalk pit
1873 1896
1896 1907
1907 1938
Then cleared
1938 1963
1963 Present
1963 1977
Then cleared
1977 Present
Tank
1963 Present
Southeast
Substation
1979 Present
Northwest
Telephone exchange
1981 Present
Northeast
1947 1951
Multiple locations
Then unmarked
1951 1960
1960 1968
East
Southeast
* Denotes the dates the historical maps were published, although the published date given on the maps is often some
years later than the surveyed date.
Table 13.7 presents a summary of the available mapping information for areas surrounding the
Site (within 250m):
Table 13.7
SURROUNDING FEATURES
DISTANCE
DIRECTION
DATES*
Pit
Adjacent
East
1873 1963
1963 Present
Adjacent
East
1964 Present
Adjacent
South-east
1907 1963
1963 Present
Adjacent
South-east
1963 Present
Garage
10m
North
1963 Present
13-13
SURROUNDING FEATURES
DISTANCE
DIRECTION
DATES*
Chalk pit
30m
West
1873 1938
Then disused
1938 1963
1963 1990
1990 Present
Small pits
50m
North
1939 1963
1963 1993
2015 Present
1993 2015
50m
South-west
1989 1907
1907 Present
Then unlabelled
Commercial yard
150m
North
2015 Present
200m
South-west
1908 1968
1968 2015
2015 Present
Cemetery
230m
South-west
1908 1968
1968 2015
2015 Present
250m
North-east
2015 Present
* Denotes the dates the historical maps were published, although the published date given on the maps is often some
years later than the surveyed date.
RAF MANSTON
13.5.17
It is common that during WWII historical mapping was altered to protect sensitive sites and
infrastructure, such as military sites, for national security purposes. In the case of RAF Manston,
many of the maps prior to and following WWII are blank and do not show any details of the
infrastructure of the Site, such as buildings, tanks and hangers that were known to be present
from historical sources. Paragraphs 13.5.20 to 13.5.33 provide a brief summary of the history of
the Site and surrounding area based upon available online sources and records contained within
the National Archives. Current satellite imagery also shows a number of rectangular and circular
features within the grassland area in the centre of the Site north of the runway which may indicate
the historic location of structures which are not shown on historical mapping.
13.5.18
A search was made of the National Archives on 7 April 2016, and performed a search of the
resources available. Historical aerial photography was indicated to be held at Kent History and
Library Centre, Maidstone, with digital copies not available at the National Archive.
13.5.19
It should be noted that RAF Manston covered a wider area than the current Site boundary and
therefore some features and activities may not be located within the current Site.
WORLD WAR I
13.5.20
In 1915 aircrafts started to use the open farmlands at Manston as a site of emergency landings
which lead to the establishment of the Aerodrome at Manston. By 1916 the Operational War
Flight Commend and the Handley Page Training School (pilot training) were stationed at Manston
(Ref.13.32). By 1917 Manston airfield had grown to include four partially underground hangars, its
own railway line, an electric power station and barracks for 3,000 men (Ref. 13.33). Information
from the RAF Manston Museum indicated the power station utilised coal fired generators, the
13-14
waste produced was used to make building blocks. The power station and hangers are not
thought to have been located within the current Site boundary.
13.5.21
According to information at the RAF Manston Museum in 1917 four underground hangers were
planned in the site vicinity (within 250m). Two hangers were finished in 16 week at Alland Grange
Road. Hangers 3 and 4 (located near the current day Drome Garage) were not completed. The
underground hanger sites were sold in the 1920s and did not see military service.
13.5.22
After WWI Manston airfield was utilised for the training of airmen in airframe maintenance and
engine repairs (Ref.13.34).
WORLD WAR II
13.5.23
Manston comprised a grass runway (in a northeast to southwest orientations along the eastern
area of the current Site) until the 1940s when the current runway 2,752 metres long and 61
metres wide was developed. The runway comprised three lanes. The northern and central lanes
were used for flying control whilst the southern lane was utilised for emergency landing.
13.5.24
Given RAF Manstons location near the front line and the long broad runway the airfield was
utilised as a south coast emergency landing ground for bomber crews who had suffered damage
or were running low on fuel. A large number of badly damaged aircrafts landed on the Site to the
extent that the airfield was described as a graveyard for heavy bombers. The runway had a
large number of aprons where the damaged aircraft could quickly be removed from the main
runway onto the aprons.
13.5.25
During the Battle of Britain in 1940 the site was heavily bombed destroying many aircrafts and
buildings. Many unexploded bombs were also left at the Site (Ref.13.32).
13.5.26
It should be noted that luminous paint used on aircraft dials and gauges to allow pilots to fly at
night contained radium 226 (an alpha emitter). Radium paint was used on such devices from
1900s until 1960s. Due to the large numbers of damaged aircraft that landed and were
dismantled/repaired at RAF Manston, it is likely that such devices may be buried at the Site.
13.5.27
A series of correspondence was found at the National Archive discussing the potential for the use
of Manston Airfield as a civilian airfield post WWII (Ref.13.35). The file contained correspondence
between interested parties relating to proposed ongoing use, however it was decided that the
location was not ideal for a civilian airport.
FIDO SYSTEM
13.5.28
Based upon information taken from the a local history groups website (Ref.13.36) the Fog
Intensive Dispersal Operation (FIDO) system was installed at Manston in 1944, soon after the
runway was built and was last used circa 1958. The system entailed burning vaporised petrol
under pressure in channels along both lengths of the runway which would burn off the fog during
conditions of poor visibility and allow aircraft to land.
13.5.29
The fuel was stored within four tanks with a capacity of approximately 250,000 gallons each with
twelve pumps used to pump the fuel located to the south of the southeastern corner of the
runway. The fuel would be pumped to the Valve House before being pumped to the rest of the
system. The fuel used within the FIDO system was contaminated fuel and unusable for aircrafts.
It was pumped from rail delivery tankers on railway sidings located on the Minster to Ramsgate
railway line located between Abbey Farm and Sevenscore (located offsite to the south of the Site)
via buried pipelines across the field to fuel storage tanks for the FIDO system.
13.5.30
No evidence of the FIDO system was observed during the site reconnaissance. Two fuel storage
tanks are present within the Jentex site which are now immediately outside the Site boundary to
the southeast. It is not known if the system was decommissioned, removed or whether the
infrastructure remains within the runway.
13-15
COLD WAR AND ONWARDS
13.5.31
During the 1950s Manston airfield was utilised by the United States Air Force as a strategic air
command base for its fighter and fighter bomber units. The United States Air Force expanded
Manston by extending the runway, building concrete bunkers suitable for nuclear weapons and
upgrading the support facilities for long term use. Manston was operated by the United States Air
Force until the early 1960s when it was returned to the RAF (Ref.13.33).
13.5.32
Following this the airfield became a joint civilian and RAF airport from 1960. Manston was also
designated as one of the UKs MEDAs (Military Emergency Diversion Airfield) for emergency
military and civilian landings and a fire training school was formed. The fire training school is still
active and is located adjacent to the northeast of the Site. The airfield also had a foam carpet
crash landing system, where two tractors would pull tankers laying a metre thick layer of foam
over a strip of runway, for aircraft with landing gear problems. Helicopter search and rescue were
also present at Manston from 1961 to 1994 (Ref.13.34).
13.5.33
The RAF left Manston in 1999 and the remaining civilian airport was named London Manston.
The MOD still operate the fire training school (Ref.13.33).
GEOLOGY
13.5.34
The 1:50,000 British Geological Survey (BGS) Map (Sheet 274 Ramsgate) and BGS Geology of
Britain online viewer have been reviewed. No superficial deposits are mapped for majority of the
Site, however Head Brickearth deposits are mapped as being present in limited areas. The Site
is entirely underlain by Upper Chalk bedrock, which is anticipated to be present at shallow depth.
13.5.35
A summary of the anticipated geology at the Site is presented below in Table 13.8.
Table 13.8 Geological Description
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
DISTRIBUTION
AQUIFER
DESIGNATION*
Unclassified
Unclassified
Site wide.
Principal Aquifer
13.5.36
A number of historic borehole trial pit logs are available from the BGS Geology of Britain online
viewer. Five trial pits were excavated in 1987 (TR36NW76 to TR36NW80) although they all
appear to have been mapped to the same coordinates north of the runway and therefore their
actual location on the Site is uncertain. In general they indicate geology comprising brown and
white chalky Made Ground overlying, Head deposits comprising brown sandy silty clay
encountered from a depths of 0.2-0.5m bgl with Upper Chalk present from depths of around 1m
bgl.
13.5.37
A borehole was progressed to a depth of approximately 53m depth in 1935 (TR36NW3) on the
southeast boundary of the Site and indicates chalk from a depth of approximately 1.2m bgl. A
handwritten note dated 13 February 1940 states that This is a shaft made in connection with the
driving of the adit of the main scheme. This may relate to chalk adit, discussed in more detail in
Paragraph 13.5.42.
13-16
MADE GROUND
13.5.38
The runway is the dominant feature at the Site extending for 2.7km in length and 230m wide. The
site representative reported that the runway was cored a number of years ago to determine its
thickness and was found to be between 6m and 9m thick.
13.5.39
The significant historic development and site usage is likely to have resulted in large quantities of
Made Ground being deposited across the Site. Based upon the surrounding area, the Site was
likely to have been relatively flat and level prior to WWII making it a suitable location for the grass
runway used until the construction of the current runway in the 1943. As the current runway
represents a high ridge along the Site, it is likely that land either side has been infilled to re-profile
the Site.
13.5.40
Furthermore, it is understood the Site was heavily bombed during WWII and numerous
subterranean structures, service channels and tunnels are likely to have been constructed across
the Site whilst under ownership of the RAF/MOD. Bomb craters are likely to have been infilled
with rubble or waste with haste to bring the airport back into operation. Some of the subsurface
features may still be present whilst others may have been infilled over time.
MINING
13.5.41
The entire Site is underlain by Upper Chalk, present at shallow depths (approximately 1m bgl).
The BGS Mineral Resource Map for Kent 1:100,000 indicates a number of historic chalk pits
within the vicinity of the Site including Spratling Court Chalk Pit located immediately east of the
Site boundary east of the runway. Based upon information from Kent Archaeology Society
(Ref.13.37) who undertook an archaeological investigation of the chalk pit (as a Roman cave was
encountered in 1996 during extraction processes), extraction of chalk at Spratling Court began in
1992 to provide landfill for road improvements at the Lord of the Manor intersection.
13.5.42
Information provided by the Environment Agency (EA) (during correspondence detailed in Table
13.1) indicates that a chalk adit is present beneath the Site, beginning at the Lord of the Manor
groundwater abstraction well running parallel with and/or beneath the runway. Lord of the Manor
abstraction well is operated by Southern Water and located 350m southeast of the Site.
Information subsequently provided by Southern Water indicates the adit (referred to as the
western adit) was constructed circa 1923 (likely hand dug) and is anticipated to be approximately
3km in length (3315 yards) and present at a depth of approximately 2.7m AOD, approximately
30m to 45m beneath the Site. The adit is anticipated to be approximately 1.5-2m in height and
0.5-1m wide. The EA reported that the location of the adit has been interpolated from historic
mining records by BGS and therefore its actual depth, length, dimensions and location are
uncertain.
HYDROLOGY
13.5.43
A small balancing pond is located on the Site to the north of the northeastern edge of the runway.
It was constructed below ground level (slightly sunken) and covered by a grate.
13.5.44
The closest surface water feature to the site is a pond located approximately 300m to the south of
the Site, adjacent to the southbound carriageway of Hengist Way (A299).
13.5.45
According to the EA Online River Basin District maps the southern end of the site falls within the
Monkton and Minster Marshes catchment, with the nearest ditch being approximately 1km south
of the site. The River Stour is approximately 3.1km to the south of the site, both the River Stour
and Monkton and Minster Marshes are classed as main rivers and are managed by the EA.
13.5.46
The Site is situated approximately 900m north west of the coast of Pegwell Bay.
13-17
HYDROGEOLOGY
13.5.47
The Upper Chalk beneath the Site is classified as a Principal Aquifer. The entire Site is also
located within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ) for public water supply. The site is
located within a Major Aquifer Intermediate Groundwater Vulnerability Zone (GWVZ).
13.5.48
As previously discussed in Section 13.5.42 a major groundwater abstraction well, named Lord of
the Manor, is located approximately 350m southeast of the Site and is operated by Southern
Water. A chalk adit extends from the abstraction point beneath the runway for approximately 3km.
2
Therefore, the adit and a buffer zone either side have been classified as an SPZ1 , with a further
3
buffer zone being classified as an SPZII . The remainder, and majority, of the Site is classified as
4
an SPZ III . A map showing the SPZs and interpolated location of the adit is provided in
Appendix 13.1.
13.5.49
The adit is understood to be below the groundwater table, however during times of drought the
groundwater table can drop below the roof of the adit. Groundwater levels within the Upper Chalk
beneath the Site are anticipated to be between 30m and 45m bgl.
LORD OF THE MANOR ABSTRACTION
13.5.50
According to information from Southern Water (during correspondence detailed in Table 13.1), the
Lord of the Manor abstraction well has been inactive since 2006 due to high levels of nitrates
which was normally treated at a denitrification plant. However Southern Water hope to bring the
well back into service in the near future.
13.5.51
The well was constructed in 1933 and modernised in 1967. It is understood to be brick lined for at
least part of its depth. It has a diameter of 304.8mm and a depth of 40.9m and has a datum of
33.01m AOD. It is licensed to abstract 22MI/d and 4091.49Ml/year.
13.5.52
A CCTV Survey of the Lord of the Manor pumping station was undertaken in 1994. It was noted
that the chalk forming the walls of the well was in fairly good condition. There are two pumps,
both installed in 1990s present at depths of -2.77m AOD (Pump 1) and -3.31m AOD (Pump 2).
Both pumps cut out when the groundwater drops below 0.27m AOD.
13.5.53
Groundwater level data at the Lord of the Manor provided by Southern Water between 1996 to
2006 indicates an approximate range of groundwater levels of 0.5m AOD to 4mAOD.
13.5.54
A major pollution incident occurred on 8 June 1999 at Way Hill, within the SPZ surrounding the
Lord of the Manor source, and in the proximity of the end of the western adit. A 400-gallon
domestic fuel tank was filled with 200 litres of domestic fuel oil and within 72 hours, was observed
to be empty by the householder. A Preliminary Risk Assessment was undertaken in which it was
recommended that pumping from Lord of the Manor abstraction could take place, subject to a
number of constraints one of which was that it was deemed essential that the water table was not
drawn beneath the level of the top of the adit, due to the risk of free product being drawn into the
adit system and rapidly transferring along its length. This recommendation was based on the
assumption that the westerly adit slopes towards the shaft, allowing natural draining of the adit.
Defined as the 50 day travel time from any point below the water table to the source. This zone has a
minimum radius of 50m.
3
Defined by a 400 day travel time from a point below the water table. This zone has a minimum radius of
250m or 500m around the source, depending on the size of the abstraction
4
Defined as the area around a source within which all groundwater recharge is presumed to be discharged
at the source.
13-18
13.5.55
Two other adits are recorded at the Lord of the Manor, the south-western adit extends for
approximately 450m under Canterbury Road, and the eastern adit for approximately 2.4km to
Whitehall pumping station (which is also in active at present).
PRELIMINARY HYDROGEOLOGICAL MODEL
13.5.56
The superficial geology underlying the Site is likely to consist of potentially large and sporadic
areas of Made Ground, with possible areas of Brickearth mostly in the north, east and west of the
Site. Both of these units are unclassified by the EA. The entire Site is underlain by the Upper
Chalk which is a Principal Aquifer and SPZ I, II and III and is a major groundwater source of
regional importance, as discussed above.
13.5.57
Based upon information from the EA and Southern Water groundwater within the Upper Chalk is
unconfined and is anticipated to be present at a minimum depth of approximately 4mAOD
equivalent to 35m bgl to 50m bgl (based upon maximum and minimum Site levels). Groundwater
flow is anticipated to be towards southeast towards Pegwell Bay.
13.5.58
Groundwater is likely to be present within the Made Ground and Brickearth. However due to the
high permeability of the underlying Upper Chalk, it may not be a continuous groundwater unit, but
rather perched isolated pockets of water associated with permeable lenses that will be recharged
by surface water infiltration. The runway, at 6-9m in thickness and 3km in length presents a major
obstruction to groundwater flow. Although the site topography at the surface slopes away from the
runway, down to the north, it may be that groundwater is mounded on the north side of the
runway.
13.5.59
Pegwell Bay is located 1.2km southeast of the Site and is classified as an SSSI , SPA ,
7
8
RAMSAR and SAC . It is likely to be a major recipient of groundwater discharge from the Site
due to the high transmissivity of the Upper Chalk and therefore Pegwell Bay is considered to be
Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) as defined by the Water Framework
Directive 2000.
RADON
The Site is reported by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) to be located within an area where
9
between 1% and 3% of homes are above the Action Level .
REGULATORY DATABASE
13.5.60
Reference was made to the Landmark Information Group data provision service. This includes
information and data collated from several organisations, including the Environment Agency (EA),
the Local Authority, the British Geological Survey (BGS), and Department for Environment, Food
& Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Health & Safety Executive (HSE), and the National Radiological
Protection Board (NRPB). Table 13.9 below presents the entries which are considered to
represent off-site contamination sources.
A site in the UK which is of particular importance because of its geology, topography, or ecology. SSSIs are graded in
terms of importance from 1 to 4.
A special protection area (SPA) is a designation under the European Union Directive on the Conservation
of Wild Birds.
Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention.
A Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is defined in the European Union's Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), also known as
the Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora.
9
Public Health England defines radon Affected Areas as those with 1% chance or more of a house having a radon
concentration at or above the Action Level of 200 Bq m-3
8
13-19
Table 13.9: Summary of Database Searches (all distances are approximate)
DESCRIPTOR
Waste Management
Facilities
Release Incidents
11
Discharge Consents
Local Authority
Pollution Prevention
and Controls (LAPPC)
13.5.61
The Contemporary Trade Entries data provided by Envirocheck has been reviewed and notes the
following uses which may represent off-site contamination sources. Four active and three inactive
trade entries for vehicle services including a road haulage service and MOT testing centre are
recorded within 35m of the Site.
13.5.62
Whilst Envirocheck reporting includes data from a number of environmental regulatory databases,
it is considered that those databases listed in Tables 13.9 above represent those of potential
contaminant concern in relation to the site. Additional databases included by Envirocheck (e.g.
10
11
13-20
authorised industrial processes, discharge consents, licensed radioactive substances, registered
transfer stations/treatment facilities, and closed transfer stations/ treatment facilities, and Planning
(Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 consents) have not been listed unless located within, or
immediately adjacent to, the Site.
13.5.64
The report contains a number of aerial photos of the Site including a photo of an aerial attack of
RAF Manston in 1940. Defensive zig-zag trenches are shown on the area immediately south of
the current runway. A summary of the information and conclusions of the assessment is provided
below:
Manston was primarily a fighter base however due to the Coastal Command and ground
attack missions also flown out of Manston during WWII, the bomb stores (situated just west of
the site boundary) contained a wide variety of ordnance including High Explosives (HE)
bombs, rockets, depth charges, torpedoes, anti-aircraft shells. Note however the larger
weapons (depth charges and torpedoes) are highly unlikely to remain at former airfield sites
today.
Defective munitions would often be discarded on the ground at RAF bases during WWII and
over time could have become buried in the soft ground.
The airfield was heavily fortified with pillboxes and a battalion of Army soldiers were stationed
at Manston. These armed troops would have manned the defences, whilst also carrying out
regular anti-invasion training at the airfield. Such activities often involved the use of live
ammunition and pyrotechnic battle simulants and therefore the possibility of Low Specific
Activity (LSA) / Small Arms Ammunition (SAA) contamination associated with such
activities is elevated.
As a German invasion defensive measure, RAF Manston was pipe mined. Explosive filled
steel pipes were laid in a criss-cross pattern under the flying field to ~6ft depth. Manston was
given a Class I Clearance Certificate after WWII, confirming that all mines were
accounted for during the 1940s. However in 1981 an Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal
(EOD) unit cleared 34 mines from Manston. Furthermore, between April and August 2001, 4 x
filled pipe mines and 3 x empty pipe mines were also recovered during two separate Army
EOD tasks at Manston. Anecdotal information from an ex RAF EOD engineer that one of his
first jobs was a de-mining job at RAF Manston, this was to remove WWII pipe bombs laid
under the runway and grass surfaces. He notes that some pipe mines were destroyed in situ
as they were leaking Nitro Glycerine.
RAF Manston was bombed on at least 22 occasions, including some large scale attacks, one
of which resulted in >100 High Explosive (HE) bomb craters on Site and the identification of
multiple UXOs. Although Manstons anti-aircraft gunners would have observed the air raids,
the airfield was all but evacuated for much of the Battle of Britain and therefore, during the
heavy raids and the chaos that ensued with bombs exploding all over the study area, it is
possible that that a UXO strike could have been missed and gone unrecorded. A German
50kg HE UXO was discovered at Site in April 2001.
A number of publications including detailed biographies of RAF Manston were reviewed as
part of the Threat Assessment study. No mention of Mustard Gas storage has been located,
however due to the secrecy and sensitivity relating to chemical warfare during WWII,
information relating to such matters was not always put on public record. Although the
possibly of Mustard Gas storage at RAF Manston cannot be completely ruled out, the
likelihood of Mustard Gas remaining on Site is considered to be unlikely.
Overall the UXO Risk is considered to be High.
13-21
SURROUNDING AREA: PLANNING HISTORY
13.5.65
An outline planning application (Ref. OL/TH/15/0020) was identified for the Jentex site located to
the south of the Site. The application included for demolition of existing buildings and structures
and the erection of 56no. care units and 56no. dwellings and community use building with a retail
th
unit and was granted planning permission in 16 January 2016. This scheme has been included
in this Chapter on the basis that it is relevant to this Chapter and assessment, however, it is has
not been considered as a committed development (the list of developments was agreed with
TDC) for cumulative assessment and has not been included in Chapter 15 Cumulative Effects.
A Geo-Environmental Assessment was undertaken to support the application. The Jentex site
was formerly part of RAF Manston and was the site of the four fuel storage tanks used to supply
the FIDO system. Pertinent information is provided below:
GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, JENTEX PETROLEUM, CLIFFSEND, KENT. IDOM
MEREBROOK LTD, MAY 2015. (REF. GEA-18996-15-134) (Ref. 13.38)
The site was predominantly occupied by concrete hardstanding with small areas of
landscaping. It comprised petrol filling pumps associated with two large bunded fuel tanks
and a small disused breeze block building. There are two below ground fuel storage tanks on
the east of the site. There are two maintenance buildings used to maintain and store
company equipment and vehicles.
The two current tanks were constructed circa 2002. The three of the four historical tanks
were removed by 2010 (which the report mistaken identified as sewage tanks).
The site investigation comprised three cable percussion borehole to a maximum depth of
10.85m bgl and fifteen trail pits to a maximum depth of 4m bgl.
IDOM report ground conditions to comprise Made Ground to a depth of approximately 3m bgl
underlain by chalk. IDOM do not report any evidence of contamination within the natural
deposits or encounter any groundwater.
25no. soil samples were submitted for chemical analysis, 15no. from natural ground and
11no. from Made Ground. Samples were submitted for a chemical suite including, metals,
pH, asbestos screening, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), and Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and screened against values published in LQM/CIEH 2015.
IDOM reported that three samples exceeded the thresholds of PAHs for human health.
Asbestos was identified within two of the three samples analysed from Made Ground.
No groundwater was observed and no samples were retrieved.
Table 13.10 provides a summary of the potential sources of contamination that may be present
on the Site as well as the likely nature of such sources.
Table 13.10 Potential Sources of Contamination
POTENTIAL SOURCE
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF
CONCERN
LIKELY / ANTICIPATED
DISTRIBUTION
Made Ground
Site wide.
ON-SITE
13-22
POTENTIAL SOURCE
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF
CONCERN
Hydrocarbons and metals
LIKELY / ANTICIPATED
DISTRIBUTION
In the vicinity of the bulk fuel
stores and potentially over a
wider area.
Fire Station
Substations
Historic Landfills
Interceptors:
OFF-SITE
13.5.67
The Jentex site is located down hydraulic gradient of the Site and therefore will not be considered
further as a potential source of contamination.
13.6
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
13.6.1
Based on the reviewed baseline information and the insignificant effects identified above, the
following sensitive receptors will be considered in the assessment:
Construction workers involved in the Proposed Development;
Adjacent site users;
Controlled Waters specifically the Principal Aquifer, (including the SPZ I, II and III and the
chalk adit present beneath the Site which relate to the Lord of the Manor groundwater
abstraction well), and Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystem (GWDTE): Pegwell
Bay.
13.7
13-23
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
DESIGN SOLUTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
13.7.1
As detailed in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development, the temporary and permanent drainage
strategies would incorporate a sediment control system and oil separator as part of the temporary
on-site drainage system that would ensure no sediments and contaminants enter the on-site
surface water features. Further information is provided in Chapter 2 The Proposed
Development.
13.7.2
Should additional material be imported onto Site during the construction phase, this material will
have been subject to chemical testing and will therefore not present a risk to human health or
controlled waters (e.g. via leaching of contaminants).
13.7.3
As detailed in Chapter 4 The Proposed Development, an outline CEMP has been developed
for the Proposed Development, which details the controls and measures to be adopted during
construction. The CEMP takes into account any further requirements following a ground
investigation and risk assessment, and should be agreed with TDC/KCC. The CEMP
demonstrates compliance with the EAs Pollution Prevention Guidelines (Ref. 13.39 Ref. 13.46).
13.7.4
The construction works would be managed in accordance with CIRIA guidance C532 Control of
Pollution from Construction Sites (Ref. 13.47) to help ensure a well-managed operation which
minimises potential environmental risks.
POTENTIAL EFFECT ON CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND ADJACENT SITE USERS FROM
PRE-EXISTING CONTAMINATION
13.7.5
Potential sources of contamination have been identified on the Site as part of the desk study
(Appendix 13.1) that includes former use as an airfield since WWI including military and
commercial use, the presence of bulk fuel storage and multiple fuel spills. Based on the historical
use of the Site, there is potential for other contaminants to be present including metals,
hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds and radiological materials.
13.7.6
Excavation of potentially contaminated material could pose a health risk to construction workers
through dermal contact (i.e. direct skin contact with contamination soils and groundwater),
ingestion (i.e. via the transfer of contaminated soils from unwashed hands during eating),
inhalation of dusts or fibres (i.e. breathing in contaminated dusts and particulate matter generated
by excavation activities, potentially include asbestos / ACM). Excavation of potentially
contaminated soils could also pose a health risk to the general public in the immediate vicinity of
the phase being constructed, through inhalation of contaminated dusts and particulate matter
generated by excavation activities.
13.7.7
The potential risk to construction workers and adjacent site users would be dependent on the type
and nature of contamination, if present, and the characteristics of receptor and duration of
exposure. If these receptors are exposed to contaminants above threshold concentrations there is
potential for both temporary and permanent health problems to arise.
13.7.8
The length of exposure will depend on the amount of time workers spend on the Site. Given the
Proposed Development timescales, the maximum length of exposure will be over the long-term,
as the construction phase is expected to last 15 years.
13.7.9
The sensitivity of construction workers, and the adjacent site users is high and the magnitude of
change, prior to mitigation, is considered to be medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct,
temporary and / or permanent, long-term effect on construction workers, and adjacent site users
of moderate to major negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
13-24
13.7.10
A targeted ground investigation will be undertaken to inform the detailed design of the Proposed
Development associated with the outline elements of the hybrid application as shown on the
parameter plans submitted for approval, and will be undertaken at the start of the construction
phase. The ground investigation should be completed post consent in response to planning
conditions in line with the Scoping Report and Scoping Response. The ground investigation will
provide certainty regarding the presence or absence of contamination. The ground investigation
will consider contamination within shallow soils and groundwater. Should contamination be
encountered during the ground investigation, any required remediation and / or mitigation
identified will be undertaken.
13.7.11
The process of ground investigation, risk assessment, and obtaining regulatory approval will
ensure that the Site is in a condition that is suitable for the proposed use and that the Site does
not fall under the definition of Contaminated Land as defined by the Contaminated Land
Regulations 2012 (Ref. 13.1) as:
any land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a
condition, by reason of substances in, on, or under the land that:
(a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused;
or
(b) pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be caused.
13.7.12
It is understood that the Proposed Development will be phased. The following measures should
also be implemented, where appropriate:
Working areas clearly defined to ensure minimal disturbance of soils. The contractor shall
appraise the suitability of working areas in this respect as part of working method statements;
Construction vehicles would be regularly maintained to reduce the risk of hydrocarbon
contamination associated with leaks and spillage and will only be active when required;
Designated areas for the storage of hazardous materials, fuels, oils and chemicals. All
designated areas will be of hard-standing within bunds (110% the volume of the vessel) and
all filling points / valves will be located within the extent of said bund or appropriate drip trays
will be provided;
Provision of temporary welfare facilities which are to be maintained and undergo regular
checks sufficient for the number of construction workers. These units should be regularly
emptied under a management contract;
Controlled and covered waste storage areas;
Provision of fuel emergency spill kits, located at strategic points; and
Provision of environmental awareness training for construction workers.
13.7.13
13-25
13.7.14
In addition, a UXO Threat Assessment (see Appendix 13.1) has been undertaken for the Site
which has indicated there is a high risk of unexploded ordnance being present at the Site.
Therefore the following mitigation measure may be required:
Explosive Ordnance Safety and Awareness Briefings to any personnel conducting intrusive
works and the provision of Unexploded Ordnance Site Safety Instructions;
An UXO survey be completed by a competent party of all buildings used during the RAF
operation of the Site prior to demolition;
EOD Engineer to monitor open excavations;
Intrusive Magnetometer Survey of any borehole/pile location down to the maximum bomb
penetration.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
13.7.15
The sensitivity of construction workers and adjacent site users is high and the magnitude of
change, following mitigation, is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, longterm residual effect on construction workers and the general public of negligible significance
following the implementation of mitigation measures.
POTENTIAL EFFECT ON CONTROLLED WATERS FROM PRE-EXISTING CONTAMINATION
13.7.16
Potential sources of contamination have been identified on the Site as part of the desk study
(Appendix 13.1) primarily associated with the former use as an airfield and airport, as detailed
above in Table 13.10.
13.7.17
Disturbing the soil during the construction phase and piling foundations (should piled foundations
be required within the final foundation design) could create pathways which could potentially
expose the underlying principal aquifer to contamination.
13.7.18
The use of machinery and plant associated with construction activities (including the
establishment of a Site construction compound and storage of chemicals or fuels) could give rise
to a localised contamination that may represent a risk to groundwater and surface water features
through accidental fuel / oil and chemical spills and leaks. There could also be a risk of
contaminated runoff, including hydrocarbon contamination, associated with the operation of
vehicles. This has the potential to create overland migration pathways. However, the temporary
drainage strategy (as outlined in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development) will be designed to
reduce the risk of mobilisation of contamination to Controlled Waters during construction.
13.7.19
Following the implementation of the temporary drainage strategy, the potential contaminant
pathways include leaching from soils in the unsaturated zone to groundwater and vertical and
lateral migration within soils and groundwater resources off-site.
13.7.20
The Upper Chalk (Principal Aquifer) is anticipated to be present at shallow depth (<1m bgl) in
some places and is highly permeable. The majority of the Site is currently covered by grassland
which is likely underlain by significant quantities of Made Ground. Any contaminants present
within the Made Ground have the potential to leach via surface water infiltration which is likely to
freely drain vertically to the underlying unconfined Principal Aquifer.
13.7.21
The Principal Aquifer is classified as a SPZ I, II and III beneath the Site which relates to the Lord
of the Manor groundwater abstraction well (located 350m southeast) which is a regionally
significant resource. Any impacted groundwater beneath the Site has the potential to migrate
laterally, particularly within the chalk adit (SPZ I) running beneath the Site and impact upon the
abstraction well. Therefore the underlying Upper Chalk Aquifer is considered to have a high
sensitivity.
13-26
13.7.22
Groundwater beneath the Site is also anticipated to flow to the southeast and discharge to a
GWDTE (Pegwell Bay). Therefore any contamination within groundwater beneath the Site has the
potential to impact upon Pegwell Bay which is a designated ecological site (SSSI etc.).
13.7.23
The sensitivity of Controlled Waters is high and the magnitude of change prior to mitigation is
medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, long-term effect on Controlled Water
receptors of moderate to major negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation
measures.
MITIGATION
13.7.24
A targeted ground investigation will be undertaken (in response to planning conditions, see
agreement with TDC in consultation Table 13.1 above) with any necessary remediation or
mitigation also completed during the construction phase, as set out above (Paragraphs 13.7.10 13.7.13).
13.7.25
If piling is required, a piling method which does not allow the dragging down of contaminants
and does not create pathways from the near-surface soils to the aquifers shall be adopted. A
Pilling Risk Assessment should be prepared in accordance with EA guidance in advance of the
approval of any piling works.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
13.7.26
The sensitivity of Controlled Waters is high and the magnitude of change, following mitigation is
negligible. Therefore, there is a likely to be direct, temporary long-term effect on Controlled
Waters of negligible significance following the implementation of measures.
POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF UNSTABLE GROUND CONDITIONS
13.7.27
It is not anticipated that the Brickearth will result in instability during the construction phase.
Significant historical ground disturbance, due to heavy bombing of the Site during WWII which
may have resulted in unconsolidated filling of craters etc and potential subsurface structures and
significant thicknesses of variable Made ground may represent potential risks of ground instability.
13.7.28
The chalk adit is considered to be present at a depth of approximately 45m beneath the runway.
The majority of the runway is likely to remain insitu and therefore is unlikely to be encountered by
construction workers. However, as chalk underlies the entire Site there is the potential for
solution features to be present.
13.7.29
During the earthworks and formation level activities during the construction phase, the likelihood
that constructions workers will be affected by unstable ground is considered to be low as the
construction workers will be above ground. However, where below ground works are required
such as foundation installation, the likelihood of construction workers encountering unstable
ground conditions may be increased. The potential stability risks include the collapse of
excavations, differential settlement and ground compression from heavy machinery. As such,
although the magnitude of change could be large if construction workers were affected by
unstable ground conditions, the low likelihood of an effect occurring during the construction phase
means that the magnitude of change is considered to be small.
13.7.30
The sensitivity of construction workers is high and the magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is
small. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, long-term effect on construction workers
of minor to moderate negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
13.7.31
A targeted ground investigation will be undertaken, as set out above (Paragraphs 13.7.10 13.7.1).This will confirm the underlying ground conditions and target any areas of suspected
deeper Made Ground or potential ground instability.
13-27
13.7.32
Should any potentially shallow unstable ground be encountered, it is likely to be localised and will
be managed during preparatory earthworks. This may include the removal of potentially unstable
(soft or loose) materials which will be replaced with engineered backfill, or ground improvement.
Deeper instability may be mitigated via building specific foundation design or ground
improvement.
13.7.33
The exact mitigation requirements will be dependent on the location on-site, the proposed land
use and extent of the instability identified as part of the ground investigation.
13.7.34
The mitigation measures are proposed to provide compliance with the Construction (Design &
Management) Regulations 2007 (Ref. 13.10).
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
13.7.35
The sensitivity of construction workers is high and the magnitude of change, following mitigation,
is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, long-term residual effect on
construction workers of negligible significance following the implementation of mitigation
measures.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
POTENTIAL EFFECT ON CONTROLLED WATERS
13.7.36
As described in Section 13.7.5, the Upper Chalk (Principal Aquifer) is anticipated to be present at
shallow depth (<1m bgl) in some places and is highly permeable. Any contamination present
within materials within the unsaturated zone has the potential to leach via infiltration which is likely
to migrate vertically and laterally to the underlying unconfined Principal Aquifer and further
migrate towards the chalk adit.
13.7.37
The final drainage strategy will include Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) such as attenuation
ponds, swales permeable paving and soakaways and therefore there is the potential for
concentrated and sustained surface water infiltration to mobilise contaminants within the materials
overlying or within the Upper Chalk and impact upon the Controlled Waters. Due to the high
permeability of the Upper Chalk it is likely that the contaminants would not accumulate within the
Upper Chalk but rather diffuse quickly through the aquifer.
13.7.38
The sensitivity of Controlled Waters is high and the magnitude of change prior to mitigation is low.
Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, short term effect on Controlled Water receptors
of minor to moderate negative significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
13.7.39
A targeted ground investigation will be undertaken (in response to planning conditions) prior to
design and construction of the SuDS features with any necessary remediation or mitigation also
completed during the construction phase, as set out above (Paragraphs 13.7.10 - 13.7.13).
13.7.40
The ground investigation must include soil leachate testing at the specific location of the planned
SuDS features to allow assessment of potential risks to Controlled Waters.
RESIDUAL EFFECT
13.7.41
The sensitivity of Controlled Waters is high and the magnitude of change, following mitigation is
negligible. Therefore, there is a likely to be direct, temporary short term effect on Controlled
Waters of negligible significance following the implementation of measures.
13.8
13-28
13.8.1
The assessment has been based on the interpretation and assessment of some data provided by
third parties, and the conclusions and findings of the assessment may change if the data is
amended or updated after the date of consultation.
13.8.2
The findings of the ground investigation and any supplementary works required as part of any
planning conditions would be incorporated into the CEMP to ensure that an appropriate level of
mitigation is provided.
13.9
SUMMARY
13.9.1
The ground conditions across the Site are likely to comprise superficial geology likely to consist of
potentially large and sporadic areas of Made Ground, with possible areas of Brickearth mostly in
the north, east and west of the Site. The entire Site is underlain by the Upper Chalk which is a
Principal Aquifer and SPZ I, II and II and is a major groundwater source of regional importance.
Groundwater within the Upper Chalk is unconfined and is anticipated to be present at a minimum
depth of approximately 4mAOD equivalent to 35m bgl to 50m bgl (based upon maximum and
minimum Site levels). Groundwater flow is anticipated to be towards southeast towards Pegwell
Bay.
13.9.2
Sensitive receptors comprise construction workers and adjacent site users. Sensitive Controlled
Water receptors include the underlying Principal Aquifer, (including the SPZ I, II and III and the
chalk adit present beneath the Site which relate to the Lord of the Manor groundwater abstraction
well), and Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystem (GWDTE): Pegwell Bay.
13.9.3
Potential sources of contamination have been identified across the Site associated with its former
use as an airfield although no ground investigation has been completed on the Site. Based on the
available baseline data, it is considered that the following significant risks may be associated with
the Proposed Development during the demolition and construction phase (and also operational
phase with regards to potential effect on Controlled Waters only) prior to the implementation of
mitigation measures:
Potential effect on construction workers and adjacent site users from pre-existing
contamination;
Potential for effect on Controlled Waters from pre-existing contamination;
Potential presence of unstable ground conditions; and
Potential for effect on Controlled Waters.
13.9.4
Mitigation measures include ground investigation works to fully characterise the shallow ground
and groundwater conditions (including ground gas and radon), and development of appropriate
remedial / mitigation measures which would be implemented through the CEMP to ensure the
adoption of safe working systems and good environmental practices during this phase.
13.9.5
Following incorporation of mitigation measures in accordance with current best practice and
relevant guidance, it is considered that residual effects associated with demolition and
construction and operational phase of the Proposed Development would be of negligible
significance.
13.9.6
The mitigation measures are proposed to provide compliance with the Construction (Design &
Management) Regulations 2015 (Ref. 13.10). The process of ground investigation, risk
assessment, and obtaining regulatory approval will ensure that the Site is in a condition that is
suitable for the proposed use and that the Site does not fall under the definition of Contaminated
Land as defined by the Contaminated Land Regulations 2012 (Ref. 13.9).
13.9.7
This process would also provide enhanced protection for controlled waters in compliance with the
Environmental Permitting Regulations, 2010 and the Water Environment (WFD) Regulations,
2003 (Ref. 13.4), and NPPF (Ref. 13.11), to prevent degradation of the identified controlled water
bodies WFD quality statuses.
13-29
Table 13.11: Summary of Effects for Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and Contamination
13-30
DESCRIPTIO RECEPTO
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
R
N OF
MAJOR /
POSITIVE P / D ST
SIGNIFICANT
MODERATE /
T / /
EFFECTS
/ MINOR /
NEGATIV
I MT
NEGLIGIBL E
/
E
LT
Demolition and Construction
Potential
effect on
construction
workers and
adjacent site
users from
pre-existing
contamination
SUMMARY OF
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS
MITIGATION /
MAJOR /
POSITIVE /
P/T
D/I
ENHANCEMENT MODERATE /
NEGATIVE
MEASURES
MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
T/ D LT
Undertake
ground
investigation.
Remediation
/ mitigation of
any gross
contaminatio
n
encountered.
Clearly
defined
working
areas.
Maintenance
of
construction
vehicles.
Designated
areas for the
storage of
hazardous
materials.
Provision of
temporary
welfare
facilities.
Covered
waste
storage
areas.
Emergency
Negligible
N/A
RELEVAN RELEVANT
ST / T POLICY LEGISLATIO
N
MT /
LT
LT
NPPF
13-31
spill kits;
Environment
al awareness
for training.
Adherence to
generic safe
working
practices.
Explosive
Ordnance
Safety and
Awareness
Briefings to
any
personnel
conducting
intrusive
works and
the provision
of
Unexploded
Ordnance
Site Safety
Instructions;
An UXO
survey be
completed by
a competent
party of all
buildings
used during
the RAF
operation of
the Site prior
to demolition;
Intrusive
Magnetomet
er Survey of
any
borehole/pile
location
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016
13-32
down to the
maximum
bomb
penetration.
13-33
Potential
Controlled
effect on
Waters
controlled
waters from
pre-existing
contamination
Potential
presence of
unstable
Constructio Minor to
n workers moderate
Negative
As above.
Piling Risk
Assessment
P / D ST
T
-LT
Undertake
ground
Negligible
N/A
LT
NPPF
Negligible
N/A
LT
13-34
ground
conditions
investigation.
Incorporation
of mitigation
measures
into building
and
earthworks
design if risks
identified
Control under
Construction
Regulations
2015
Potential effect on construction workers and adjacent site users from pre-existing contamination
Potential
Controlled
effect on
Waters
controlled
waters from
pre-existing
contamination
Minor to
Moderate
Negative
D ST
Undertake
ground
investigation.
Remediation
/ mitigation of
any gross
contaminatio
n
encountered.
Negligible
N/A
ST
13-35
Regulations
2009
The
Environmenta
l Permitting
Regulations,
2010,
Contaminated
Land
(England)
(Amendment)
Regulations,
2012.
Key to table:
P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term
N/A = Not Applicable
13-36
13.10
REFERENCES
Ref. 13.1 HMSO (1990) Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990
Ref. 13.2 HMSO (1995) Environment Act, 1995
Ref. 13.3 HMSO (2002) Control of Substances Hazardous to Human Health Regulations, 2002
(as amended)
Ref. 13.4 HMSO (2003) The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England & Wales)
Regulations, 2003
Ref. 13.5 HMSO (2006) Dangerous Substances Directive (Amendment) Regulations, 2006
Ref. 13.6 HMSO (2009) Environmental Damage and Liability (Prevention and Remediation)
Regulations, 2009
Ref. 13.7 HMSO (2010) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations, 2010
Ref. 13.8 HMSO (2012) The Control of Asbestos Regulations
Ref. 13.9 HMSO (2012) The Contaminated Land (England) (Amendment) Regulations
Ref. 13.10 HMSO (2015) Construction (Design & Management) Regulations
Ref. 13.11 GVA (2016) Planning Statement
Ref. 13.12 Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy
Framework
Ref. 13.13 Department for Communities and Local Government Planning Practice Guidance
(online) Available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
Ref. 13.14 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (1991) Guidance Note HS (G) 66, Protection of
Workers and the General Public during the Development of Contaminated Land
Ref. 13.15 Construction Industry Research and Information Association (2001) C532 Control of
Pollution from Construction Sites
Ref. 13.16 Health and Safety Executive (2006) INDG258 Safe Work in Confined Spaces
Ref. 13.17 Construction Industry Research and Information Association (2007) C665
Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Gases to Buildings, Wilson, Oliver, Hutchings and Card
Ref. 13.18 Construction Industry Research and Information Association (2009) C682 The
VOCs Handbook
Ref. 13.19 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Contaminated Land Statutory
Guidance, April 2012
Ref. 13.20 Environment Agency (2012) Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3)
Ref. 13.21 BS 8576 (2013) Guidance on investigations for Ground Gas Permanent Gases and
Volatile Organic Compounds
Ref. 13.22 CIRIA (2014) C733 Asbestos in soil and made ground: a guide to understanding and
managing risks
13-37
Ref. 13.23 BS 8485 (2015) Code of Practice for the Characterisation and Remediation from
Ground Gas in Affected Developments
Ref. 13.24 British Standards Institution BS10175 (2011) Investigation of Potentially
Contaminated Sites Code of Practice
Ref. 13.25 Environment Agency (2004) Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated
Land (CLR11)
Ref. 13.26 Thanet District Council, Undated, Contaminated Land Strategy.
https://www.thanet.gov.uk/publications/pollution/contaminated-land-strategy/ (Accessed
11/04/2016)
Ref. 13.27 Thanet District Council, Undated, Contaminated Land Guide for Developers.
https://www.thanet.gov.uk/publications/pollution/contaminated-land-guide-for-developers/
(Accessed 11/04/2016)
Ref. 13.28 Kent County Council Environmental Policy (2012)
Ref. 13.29 Kent County Council Climate Local Kent (2013)
Ref. 13.30 Kent County Council Kent Environment Strategy (2013-2015)
Ref. 13.31 Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment, Stone Hill Park, WSP | Parsons
Brinckerhoff April 2016 (Ref.70009799-011)
Ref. 13.32 http://www.spitfiremuseum.org.uk/rafmanston (accessed 8th April 2016)
Ref. 13.33 http://www.rafmanston.co.uk/index.shtml (accessed 8th April 2016)
Ref. 13.34 http://www.spitfiremuseum.org.uk/rafmanston (accessed 8th April 2016)
Ref. 13.35 AVIA 2/2679: Manston Aerodrome Use Post War
Ref. 13.36 http://www.ramsgatehistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=81.0 (accessed 5th April
2016)
Ref. 13.37 http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/10/023.pdf (accessed 8th April 2016)
Ref. 13.38 Geo-Environmental Assessment, Jentex Petroleum, Cliffsend, Kent. IDOM Merebrook
Ltd, May 2015. (Ref. gea-18996-15-134)
Ref. 13.39 Environment Agency (2013) PPG 1 Understanding Your Environmental
Responsibilities - Good Environmental Practices
Ref. 13.40 Environment Agency (2011) PPG 2 Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks
Ref. 13.41 Environment Agency (2006) PPG 3 Use and Design of Oil Separators in Surface
Water Drainage Systems
Ref. 13.42 Environment Agency (2007) PPG 5 Works and Maintenance in or Near Water
Ref. 13.43 Environment Agency (2012) PPG 6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites
Ref. 13.44 Environment Agency (2004) PPG 8 Safe Storage and Disposal of Used Oils
Ref. 13.45 Environment Agency (2009) PPG 21 Incident Response Planning
Ref. 13.46 Environment Agency (2011) PPG 22 Dealing with Spills
13-38
Ref. 13.47 CIRIA (2001) C352 Control of water pollution from construction sites. Guidance for
consultants and contractors
14-1
14
ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING
14.1
INTRODUCTION
14.1.1
This Chapter reports the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the Site and
surrounding area in terms of artificial lighting. Where appropriate it also identifies proposed
mitigation measures to prevent, minimise or control likely negative effects arising from the
Proposed Development and the subsequent anticipated residual effects.
14.1.2
This Chapter is necessarily technical in nature and contains terminology relating to artificial
lighting. The terminology used in this Chapter is defined and explained in Appendix 14.1.
14.1.3
This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) should be read together with the
Introductory Chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 4), as well as Chapter 7 Ecology and Nature
Conservation, Chapter 8 Landscape and Visual, Chapter 10 'Archaeology and Cultural
Heritage' and Chapter 15 Cumulative Effects.
14.2
14.2.1
Details of the relevant legislation, policy and guidance are provided in Appendix 14.2.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
14.2.2
PLANNING POLICY
14.2.3
Planning policy at the national and local level and its relevance to environmental design and
assessment is confirmed in Chapter 1 Introduction of the ES and the Planning Statement
(GVA, 2016) which accompanies the application and examines the merits of the Proposed
Development against the relevant planning policy.
14.2.4
A summary of legislation and planning policy relevant to the Proposed Development is provided
below, with further details provided within Appendix 14.2.
14-2
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
14.2.5
The following paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref 14.10) are
considered relevant to this assessment:
Paragraph 120; and
Paragraph 125.
REGIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY
14.2.6
21 Century Kent A Blueprint for the Countys Future (Ref 14.13); and
Thanet Local Plan (2006) Saved Policy EP9: Lighting (Ref 14.14).
GUIDANCE
14.2.7
The following guidance documents have been used during the preparation of this Chapter:
Department for Communities and Local Government Planning Practice Guidance (online)
(Ref 14.15);
Commission Internationale De LEclairage (CIE) (2003) 150: Guide on the Limitation of the
Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations (Ref 14.16);
CIE (1997) 126: Guidelines for Minimising Sky (Ref 14.17);
Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) (2013) Guidance for undertaking Environmental
Lighting Impact Assessments (Ref 14.18); and
ILP GN01:2011 Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light (hereafter referred to as
the Guidance Notes) (Appendix 14.3).
14.3
14.3.1
The assessment adopts the approach outlined in Chapter 4 Approach to the Assessment and
is based on the Parameter Plans (Figures 2.1 2.6) and detailed Application Plans (Figures 2.8
2.13) as described in Chapter 2 The Proposed Development. At this stage, no detailed
lighting design/strategy/specification for the Proposed Development has been prepared. As such,
in order to undertake an assessment of likely effects associated with artificial lighting (especially
during the operational phase) it has been necessary to make a number of assumptions in terms of
lighting installations to be used within the Site, which have been outlined in Section 14.7.
14.3.2
The following components of the Proposed Development, as detailed within Parameter Plans 1
6 (Figures 2.1 2.6), are relevant to the assessment of the likely significant effects in relation to
artificial lighting:
The likely temporary lighting installed during the demolition and construction phase;
Access and circulation routes, including internal access roads, junctions, upgraded roads, car
parks and proposed accesses and PRoW/cycle routes through within the Site;
Proposed recreational/sports facilities, outdoor pitches and special outdoor water-based
recreation zone; and
14-3
Commercial, employment, educational, cultural and heritage uses across the Proposed
Development (including the detailed elements in relation to the change of use of existing
buildings to be retained and the buildings within Phase 1 as outlined within Parameter Plan
3: Land Use (Figure 2.3)).
14.4
14.4.1
An Environmental Scoping Report was submitted to TDC in January 2016 (Appendix 4.1). Their
th
formal Scoping Opinion was received on 8 March (Appendix 4.2) and a Scoping Response was
issued to clarify a number of matters (Appendix 4.3).
14.4.2
The Scoping Response confirmed agreement with the methodology and assessment approach
included within the Environmental Scoping Report. This section provides an update on the scope
of the assessment and re-iterates the evidence base for insignificant effects.
INSIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
14.4.3
The following effects have been considered insignificant or are dealt with elsewhere within the ES
and will not be reported within this Chapter:
The effects of light spill and glare during the operational phase (i.e. once the Proposed
Development has been fully completed) on future residential receptors have not been
considered. It is anticipated that the operational lighting installations will be designed to best
practice guidance, including British Standard (BS) 5489-1:2013 Code of Practice for the
design of road lighting: Lighting of roads and public amenity areas Part 1 (Ref 14.19),
EN12193:2007 Light and Lighting: Sports Lighting (Ref 14.20), Sport England Design
Guidance Note (Ref 14.20), BS EN12464-2:2014 Lighting Lighting of Work Places, Outdoor
Works (Ref 14.21), Charted Institution Building Service Engineers (CIBSE) Lighting
Guidance 4 Sports Lighting (Ref 14.22) and Lighting Guide 6 The Exterior Environment
(Ref 14.23). Adherence to these guidance documents and standards will ensure that any
nuisance or disturbance associated with operational lighting installations will be minimised as
far as is practicable. Furthermore, during the baseline lighting survey no existing sources of
lighting were identified which have the potential to cause likely significant effects on future
residential receptors. Therefore, disturbance and/or nuisance to future residential receptors
within the Proposed Development during the operational phase is not reported within this
Chapter;
There are a number of commercial/industrial premises and Ministry of Defence (MOD)
facilities within the vicinity of the Site. However, due to the nature of these premises and low
levels of use during night-time, it is judged that such receptors are not deemed to be sensitive
to the introduction of artificial lighting. Therefore, effects on these receptors are not
considered further within this Chapter;
Changes in sky glow are not considered as it is assumed that all lighting installations will be
designed to best practice guidance which includes the requirement to minimise upwards light
emitted and contribution towards sky glow. In addition, the Proposed Development is not
considered likely to contribute significantly to sky glow due to the elevated levels of existing
sky glow noted during the baseline lighting survey primarily associated with Ramsgate,
Sandwich and Margate. Therefore, changes in sky glow have not been considered within this
Chapter;
There are a number of heritage assets located close to the Site (including listed buildings and
Scheduled Monuments). The consideration of the change in setting of these assets and/or
views due to the Proposed Development is considered within Chapter 10 Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage;
14-4
The assessment of effects associated with disturbance on ecological species due to the
Proposed Development (including lighting) is reported within Chapter 7 Ecology and
Nature Conservation; and
This assessment of lighting effects does not take into account medium or long distance views
into the Site, as the focus of this assessment is to ensure that statutory nuisance issues from
lighting associated with the Proposed Development towards identified receptors are
effectively mitigated. All views are discussed within Chapter 8 'Landscape and Visual
Effects' where applicable. However, changes in the night-time scene as viewed by residential
receptors with short-distance direct and partial views of the Site are considered qualitatively
for the demolition and construction and operational phases.
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
14.4.4
Likely significant effects on sensitive receptors that are considered further within the assessment
section are set out below.
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Disturbance and nuisance to residential receptors from light spill and glare from artificial
lighting installations;
Disturbance and nuisance to users of the local road and Public Rights of Way (PRoW)
associated with light spill and glare from artificial lighting installations; and
Changes in night-time scene.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
Disturbance and nuisance to residential receptors from light spill and glare from artificial
lighting installations;
Disturbance and nuisance to users of the local road and PRoW associated with light spill and
glare from artificial lighting installations; and
Changes in night-time scene.
CONSULTATION
14.4.5
Table 14.1 provides a summary of the consultation activities undertaken in support of the
preparation of this Chapter. A copy of correspondence associated with the consultation
undertaken as part of this assessment is included in Appendix 14.4.
Table 14.1: Summary of Consultation
BODY /
ORGANISATION
INDIVIDUAL / STAT
MEETING DATES AND
BODY/ORGANISATION OTHER FORMS OF
CONSULTATION
Thanet District Council Chris Brown
Telephone conversation
(TDC)
Environmental Health
26/02/16 and email
correspondence.
KCC
Luke Mockeridge
Lighting Designer
Street Lighting Team
Telephone conversation
07/03/16
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME
OF DISCUSSIONS
Agreement of
assessment and survey
methodology; and
Provision of baseline
lighting conditions and
indicative Environmental
Zones.
Confirmation of KCC
lighting requirements for
various aspects of the
Proposed Development.
14-5
EXTENT OF THE STUDY AREA
14.4.6
The study area was established during the desk study, taking into consideration the extent of the
Site and the nature of the surrounding area (i.e. level of inter-visibility across the wider area), as
well as a review of the potential key sensitive receptors which may be subject to likely significance
effects. The study area does not take into account medium or long distance views. Such views
are discussed within Chapter 8 Landscape and Visual Effects.
A desk study was undertaken to identify relevant legislation, planning policy and guidance. The
results of this study were used to complete Section 14.2 of this Chapter. Furthermore, the desk
study was used to identify suitable measurement locations and sensitive receptors to be
considered within the assessment. These were then confirmed by the baseline lighting survey.
BASELINE LIGHTING SURVEY
14.4.8
A day-time and night-time visit (covering the study area) was undertaken on the 28 January 2016.
The weather conditions for the duration of the day and night-time surveys were dry with cloud
cover of approximately 30%. The lunar phase during the survey was noted as Waning Gibbous
(Ref 14.24). The moon was visible during the night-time survey and towards the end of the survey
was noted as appearing relatively large. As such, it is considered that the illuminance readings
recorded during the night-time survey are likely to have been slightly elevated due to the influence
of the moonlight.
14.4.9
Readings of illuminance (light spill measured in lux) were recorded at 41 measurement locations
(A-O1) between the hours of 17:50 and 21:45 on the 28 January 2016. As noted above each of
these measurement locations were identified through the desk study and subsequently confirmed
during the baseline lighting survey. At each of the measurement locations, vertical illuminance
was recorded facing north, south, east and west at approximately 1.5m high. A reading of
horizontal illuminance was also made at each measurement location to benchmark the lit surface
at approximately 1m high. Illuminance was recorded using a Minolta T10 hand held meter (serial
number 60031036). The position of the measurement locations are illustrated in Figure 14.1. A
summary of the illuminance measurements are outlined below and the detailed recordings are
provided in Appendix 14.5.
14.4.10
During the survey, observations were made in relation to the following at each of the
measurement locations:
Topography and screening (including existing vegetation and built form);
Presence and visibility of lighting installations;
Type, height and spacing of lighting installations;
The presence of sky glow; and
Levels of night-time activity.
14.4.11
A summary of the observations noted during the baseline survey are provided below and the
detailed observations are provided in Appendix 14.5.
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
14.4.12
Readings of illuminance and observations collected during the baseline lighting survey have been
used to determine the existing lighting environment within the study area. The lighting
environment at each of the measurement locations has been classified into Environment Zones,
14-6
which are based on those outlined in the Guidance Notes (Appendix 14.3). A description of
Environmental Zones alongside their respective threshold values are detailed below in Table
14.2.
Table 14.2: Environmental Zones for Exterior Lighting Control
ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE
SKY
LIGHT INTRUSION
GLOW
(INTO WINDOWS) EV
ULR
(LUX)
(MAX) %
PreCurfew
PostCurfew
PreCurfew
PostCurfew
Pre-Curfew
E1 - Intrinsically dark
landscapes (e.g. National
Parks and Areas of
Outstanding Natural
Beauty)
0 (1*)
2,500
7,500
500
E3 - Medium district
5
brightness (e.g. small town
centres or suburban
locations)
10
10,000
1,000
10
25
25,000
2,500
25
14-7
14.4.13
The assessment is qualitative in nature and ILP Guidance on Undertaking Artificial Lighting
Assessment (Ref 14.18) and Guidance Notes (Appendix 14.3) have been used in order to
provide suitable assessment criteria against which to assess the effects of artificial lighting
alongside professional judgement
14.4.14
The assessment has evaluated the effects on existing residential receptors (including caravan
parks were relevant) and users of the local roads and PRoW based on the anticipated deviation
from the baseline conditions based on the following factors:
Anticipated sources of lighting, including type, purpose, number and lamp fittings;
Distance from receptor to light source(s);
Screening (both existing and proposed) between light source(s) and receptor(s); and
Direction of window(s)/observer in relation to the Site.
14.4.15
Due to the anticipated duration of the construction phase (15 years), there is potential for
concurrent phasing of activities during the demolition and construction whilst adjacent parts of the
Site may be operational (i.e. occupied by residents). Therefore, consideration of such effects on
future residential receptors has been provided in the assessment of effects during the demolition
and construction phase.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
14.4.16
The assessment of potential effects as a result of the Proposed Development has taken into
account both the demolition and construction and operational phases. The significance level
attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the
Proposed Development and the sensitivity of the affected receptor, as well as a number of other
factors that are outlined in more detail in Chapter 4 Approach to Assessment. Magnitude of
change and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/receiving environment are both assessed on a
scale of high, medium, low and negligible (as shown in Chapter 4 Approach to Assessment).
14.4.17
Whilst the significance ratings in Table 4.3 have been used, it is not prescriptive and professional
judgement has been applied, where appropriate.
EFFECT SIGNIFICANCE
14.4.18
The following terms have been used to define the significance of the effects identified:
Major effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a considerable
effect (either positive or negative) on the level of light spill and glare, resulting in a major
improvement/deterioration in baseline conditions or change in night-time scene as observed
by residential receptors with direct and partial view of the Site;
Moderate effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to have a noticeable
effect (either positive or negative) on the level of light spill and glare, resulting in a moderate
improvement/deterioration in the current baseline conditions or change in night-time scene as
observed by residential receptors with direct and partial view of the Site;
Minor effect: where the Proposed Development could be expected to result in a small, barely
noticeable effect (either positive or negative) on the level of light spill and glare resulting in a
perceptible improvement/deterioration in baseline conditions or change in night-time scene as
observed by residential receptors with direct and partial view of the Site; and
Negligible: where no discernible effect is expected as a result of the Proposed Development
on baseline levels of light spill and glare or change in the night-time scene.
14.5
BASELINE CONDITIONS
EXISTING LIGHTING ENVIRONMENT
14-8
14.5.1
Lighting installations were present within the Site, in the vicinity of the existing buildings. These
lighting installations principally comprised of floodlights and bulkheads mounted on the faade of
the existing passenger terminal buildings, as well as a small number of street lights along the
access road to the terminal building (as noted at measurement locations I1). Operational
aerodrome safety lighting was also present on taller structures (i.e. radar towers) across the Site.
Runway and approach lighting was also noted, although these installations were not operational.
The remainder of the Site was generally unlit. However lighting installations present adjacent to
the Site (i.e. installations on the B2190 and A299) resulted in an element of light spill within the
parts of the Site near to these lit areas (as noted at measurement location F, G and M1).
14.5.2
The surrounding area comprised of a mixture of agricultural land, commercial business parks
(including services), MOD facility, small villages, individual residential properties and caravan
parks. The diverse structure of the surrounding landscape results in a varied lighting environment.
The surrounding settlements (Manston, Cliffs End and Minster) were illuminated by a combination
of street lighting and security/decorative faade lighting associated with the residential properties
(as noted at measurement location I, J and O W). Outside of the settlements, street lighting was
less prolific and the lighting environment was generally dictated by security/decorative faade
lighting associated with individual residential properties and inter-visibility with lit areas (i.e.
surrounding settlements and commercial business parks). The commercial business parks and
services were lit by a mix of street lighting, highways lighting and floodlighting (as noted at
measurement location E). The road network was not uniformly illuminated with installations
largely confined to key junctions and commercial/residential areas. The surrounding PRoW
network was unlit, however, a number passed in close proximity to built up area that were lit areas
and therefore experienced a level of light spill associated with the lighting installations.
14.5.3
A summary of the existing lighting environment and indicative Environmental Zones are provided
in Table 14.3. The illuminance measurements and detailed observations are provided in
Appendix 14.5.
Table 14.3 Summary Description of Measurement Locations (Based on Baseline Lighting Survey (28
Jan 2016))
LOCATION
Measurement locations F1, I1, J1, K1, L1 and M1 were all situated
within the Site. F1 - L1 were located with the outline element of the
application whereas M1 was located on the western boundary of
the detailed element of the application. The Site was comparatively
open with a gentle positive gradient to the south, before reaching a
topographical high point just before the southern Site boundary,
resulting in direct views across much of the Site as well as out to
the wider landscape.
The varying lighting conditions across the Site were reflected in the
illuminance levels recorded, which ranged from 0.00 lux up to 3.40
lux, with the highest illuminance levels observed near the terminal
INDICATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL
ZONE
E2 E2/E3
14-9
buildings.
Manston
Business Park,
Minster
Services and
Minster (E, F,
G, H, I and J)
Landscape to
the south of
the Site (K, L,
M and N)
E3
E1/E2 E2
14-10
A moderate to considerable level of sky glow was noted to the
north, west and east, likely associated with the surrounding urban
areas including Manston, Minister and Ramsgate.
Manston (S, T,
U, V, W and X)
E2/E3 E3
E2/E3 E3
14-11
and partial views toward the Site.
Manston Court
Road and rural
area to the
north of the
Site (Y, Z, A1,
B1, C1, D1, G1
and H1)
E2 E2/E3
14-12
lighting installations and levels of night-time activity.
Spitfire
Way/Manston
Road (A, B, C,
D, E1 and N1)
Ramsgate (O1)
E2 E2/E3
E3
14-13
14.6
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
14.6.1
The residential properties and local roads and PRoW with direct or partial views for the Site have
been considered within the assessment, as the lighting conditions at such receptors may change
due to the lighting introduced during the demolition and construction and operational phases.
14.6.2
The following sensitive receptors have been assessed and reported within this Chapter:
Existing residential properties as noted in Table 14.4;
Future residential receptors (within the Site); and
Existing and future users of the local roads and PRoW (including pedestrians, cyclists and
motorists), including the A299, A256, B2050, Spitfire Way, Manston Road, Manston Court
Road and Canterbury Road West, and users of bridleways TR8, TR9 and TR10 and footpaths
TE18, TR22, TR23, TR31 and TR32 (summarised in Table 14.4).
14.6.3
Certain receptors are only anticipated to be affected by the Proposed Development during the
demolition and construction phase (e.g. the future residential receptors (within the Site)). Further
details are provided in Table 14.4.
14.6.4
The location of the sensitive receptors considered within the assessment is provided on Figure
14.2. It should be noted that not all of the receptors on the identified streets are anticipated to be
affected by artificial lighting installations and the effects are most likely to be limited to receptors
with direct and partial views of the Site.
14.6.5
As the exact location of future residential receptors is unknown at this stage, it has been assumed
that they will be situated adjacent to the boundary of the concurrent demolition and construction
activities.
14.6.6
The following residential receptors have been excluded from this assessment due to the lack of
inter-visibility between the receptors and the Site, predominantly as a result of intervening built
form, vegetation and topographic variations;
Residential properties within Minster to the south of Hill House Drive;
Residential properties on or to the south of the Lanes, Grinsell Hill, Cottington Road;
Residential properties to the south or east of the A256;
Residential properties to the north of Spratling Street and Vincent Road; and
Residential properties to the west of Manston Road, Spitfire Way and the B2190, including
Mount Pleasant Caravan Park.
Table 14.4 Summary of Sensitive Receptors and Corresponding Figure Key ID
PHASE ASSESSED
RECEPTOR
NAME
Residential properties
The west of the Site
14-14
Dieudonne; Newlands; Northpole; The
Chippings; The Connifers; Glenstone; Shankin
and The Coach House
Alland Grange Lane
Village of Minster
Cliffs End
Village of Manston
11
12
Unlit roads and PRoW Alland Grange Lane, Loop Road, Merlin Way,
adjacent to the Site
TR8, TR9, TR10
13
14
14-15
14.7
14.7.1
14.7.2
Working hours are anticipated to be restricted to the hours of 07:00 to 17:00 Monday to Friday
and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. It is expected that there will be no workings on Sundays or
Bank Holidays. It is likely that sources of light will be predominant during the winter months when
working hours fall within the hours of darkness. However, it is assumed that some level of security
lighting will be required at all times (during the hours of darkness).
14.7.3
The exact location of the construction compound is currently unknown. As such, it has been
assumed that the compound will be located at the closest point to the Site boundary to the
receptor being considered.
DISTURBANCE AND NUISANCE TO RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS FROM LIGHT SPILL AND
GLARE FROM ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING INSTALLATIONS
14.7.4
Temporary artificial lighting installations associated with the demolition and construction phase
have the potential to increase light spill and glare experienced by residential receptors with
direct/partial views of the Site. The sensitivity of residential properties is considered to be high
due to the potential statutory nuisance and negative effects to health (including disruption to
circadian rhythms and hormonal systems).
14.7.5
14.7.6
The existing and future residential receptors are located both within and around the Site at up to a
distance of 0.5km from the Site boundary. Given the predominantly agricultural nature of the
surrounding environment, vegetation is contained to a number of wooded areas, small number of
field boundaries and within the grounds of residential properties. Views from residential receptors
within the settlements of Manston, Cliffs End and Minster are also restricted in some cases by an
element of intervening built form associated with other buildings within these villages. In addition
the properties are not uniformly orientated, with a number orientated east to west and others north
south. Given the varied levels of intervening built form and vegetation, the residential receptors
experience a mix of direct and partial views. The more direct views are often associated with
those properties within, adjacent or in close proximity to the Site.
14.7.7
The existing lighting environment experienced by the sensitive residential receptors is varied and
ranges from E2 Environmental Zone (low district brightness) up to E3 Environmental Zone
(medium district brightness). The areas classified as E3 are situated within the villages of
Manston, Cliffs End and Minster or near well illuminated areas, such as the MOD facility.
Receptors within or in close proximity to these areas generally experience lighting conditions
indicative E2/E3 or E3 Environmental Zone. The areas classified as E2 are situated towards the
periphery of the lit areas (i.e. towards the edges of the villages) or in the rural landscape. A single
receptor, Thorne Farm, experiences lighting conditions indicative of E1/E2 Environmental Zones
14-16
(intrinsically dark/low district brightness) due to the limited number of lighting installations visible
in the vicinity.
14.7.8
The introduction of temporary lighting associated with the Proposed Development has the
potential to increase the levels of light spill and glare experienced at these residential receptors.
The magnitude of change experienced by the residential receptors is varied, with the receptors
located within the Site and adjacent to the Site expected to experience a greater magnitude of
change (including the future residential receptors within the Site and residential properties off
Manston Court Road). The receptors to the west of the Site are considered to experience a larger
deviation from the baseline conditions given their proximity to the Site and variable lighting
environment. However, some adjacent residential receptors are afforded screening due to
intervening vegetation/built form/orientation (i.e. Cliffs End), which helps to partially reduce the
magnitude of change. Residential receptors within the settlements of Manston, Minster and Cliffs
End are considered to experience varied effects, with those towards the centre afforded a higher
level of screening and currently experiencing elevated lighting conditions than those towards the
periphery.
14.7.9
14.7.10
The sensitivity of future and existing residential receptors is high and the magnitude of change
range from negligible to low up to medium to high. Therefore, there is likely to be direct,
temporary, long-term effect on residential receptors of negligible to minor negative up to major
negative significance, prior to mitigation.
MITIGATION
14.7.11
14.7.12
14.7.13
The sensitivity of future and existing residential receptors is high and the magnitude of change,
following mitigation, ranges from negligible up to low to medium. Therefore, there is likely to be
direct, temporary, long-term residual effect on residential receptors of negligible up to moderate
negative significance, following the implementation of mitigation measures.
14.7.14
Table 14.5 below provides a summary of the effects on the sensitive residential receptors.
14-17
Table 14.5 Summary of Effects on Residential Receptors during the Construction Phase
RECEPTOR
SENSITIVITY
EFFECT (PRIOR TO
MITIGATION)
RESIDUAL EFFECT
(FOLLOWING
MITIGATION)
Major negative
Minor negative
Minor negative
Negligible
Moderate to major
negative
Minor to moderate
negative
Minor negative
Negligible
Negligible to minor
negative
Negligible
Minor negative
Negligible
Moderate negative
Negligible to minor
negative
Negligible to moderate
negative
Negligible to minor
negative
Minor negative
Negligible
Major negative
Moderate negative
The existing and future users of the local roads and PRoW may be sensitive to changes in
ambient lighting levels (in particular glare) associated with the temporary lighting installations
introduced during the demolition and construction phase. The sensitivity of the users of the local
roads and PRoW is considered to be medium due to their transient nature.
14.7.16
14.7.17
There are a number of local roads and PRoW within the Site, adjacent and in close proximity to
the Site boundary. The surrounding land uses varies along the length of these roads and PRoW,
which includes both developed areas (e.g. villages, commercial business parks) and
rural/agricultural areas. Given the predominantly agricultural nature of the majority of the
surrounding environment, vegetation is contained to a number of wooded areas, small number of
field boundaries and within the grounds of residential properties. Receptors located closer to the
Site generally experience direct views, whilst those further away generally experience a high
degree of intervening screening provided by vegetation and built form. As such, across all
receptors there is a mixture of direct and partial views from these receptors.
14.7.18
The local road network is not uniformly lit with lighting installations confined to key junctions and
residential/commercial areas. The PRoW network is unlit, however, a number experience a
degree of light spill as a result of lighting installations located in close proximity to the PRoWs. In
general there are high levels of inter-visibility from the roads and PRoW with illuminated areas.
Those stretches of roads that are illuminated by highways/street lighting luminaires are generally
consisted to be indicative of an E3 Environmental Zone (medium district brightness). The parts of
the roads and PRoW network which are unlit are generally considered to be indicative of E2
Environmental Zone (low district brightness) or on the border of E2/E3 Environmental Zones
14-18
(low/medium district brightness) due to limited lighting installations in close proximity but intervisibility with illuminated areas.
14.7.19
Temporary construction lighting installations have the potential to result in increased light spill and
glare experienced by users of the local road and PRoW network. The magnitude of change
experienced by the receptors is considered to be varied given the mix of partial and direct views,
orientation and the varying distances between receptors and the nearest potential source of
lighting. Generally unlit roads and PRoW receptors in close proximity to the Site are considered to
experience a larger deviation in baseline lighting conditions whereas those routes which are lit are
anticipated to experience less deviation. Those receptors further from the Site are considered to
experience a barely noticeable deviation from the baseline lighting environment, given the
distance and the greater likelihood of partial views. Therefore, the magnitude of change is
considered to range from low up to medium to high.
14.7.20
The sensitivity of the existing and future users of the local road and PRoW network is medium
and the magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is considered to be low up to medium to high.
Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, long-term effect on existing and future users of
the local road and PRoW network of minor up to moderate negative significance, prior to
mitigation.
MITIGATION
14.7.21
14.7.22
The sensitivity of the existing and future users of the local road and PRoW network is medium
and the magnitude of change, following mitigation, is considered to be negligible up to low to
medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, long-term residual effect on existing
and future users of the local road and PRoW of negligible up to minor to moderate negative
significance, following the implementation of mitigation.
14.7.23
Table 14.6 below provides a summary of the effects on the residential receptors identified.
Table 14.6 Summary of Effects on Users of the Local Road and PRoW network during the
Construction Phase
RECEPTOR
EFFECT (PRIOR TO
MITIGATION)
RESIDUAL EFFECT
(FOLLOWING
MITIGATION)
Moderate negative
Minor to moderate
negative
Minor to moderate
Negative
Negligible to minor
negative
Moderate negative
Minor negative
Minor negative
Negligible
SENSITIVITY
Medium
14-19
adjacent to the Site
The introduction of temporary lighting sources outlined above have the potential to change the
night-time scene as viewed by residential receptors with direct and partial views of the Site. It is
assumed for the purpose of this assessment that additional lighting is viewed negatively by
residents.
14.7.25
The Site is largely unlit. However, a number of the buildings located within the Site are illuminated
by a series of floodlights and bulkheads mounted on their faades as well as aerodrome red
safety lighting on top of a number of structures on-site. In addition, lighting installations present
adjacent to the Site (i.e. installations on the B2190 and A299) result in an element of light spill
within the Site. Given the size of the Site, the illuminated areas are interspersed with darker
environment resulting in a mixed lighting environment across the Site, ranging from E2
Environmental Zone (low district brightness) and E2/E3 Environmental Zone (low/medium
district brightness).
14.7.26
There are a number of observers of the night-time scene within the Site (including future
residential properties), immediately adjacent to the Site (Spitfire Way, Manston Road, Manston
Court Road and within Cliffs End and Manston) or within close proximity to the Site (Vincent
Road, Preston Road, within Minster and individual properties to the south of the Site). These
receptors experience varied lighting environments, with a number located in more developed
areas which are indicative of an E2/E3 Environmental Zones (low/medium district brightness) up
to an E3 Environmental Zone (medium district brightness). However, the residential receptors
located in a more rural environment experience a lighting environment indicative of an E2
Environmental Zones (low district brightness). Nevertheless, for almost all of the receptors
lighting is present within views.
14.7.27
There is a mixture of partial and direct views from the receptors towards the Site and given the
size of the Site, views are not always inclusive of the whole Site. The residential properties are
not uniformly orientated, with a number of properties orientated north to south and others east to
west.
14.7.28
All of the receptors identified will experience a temporary change to the night-time scene as a
result of the temporary lighting introduced during the demolition and construction phase of the
Proposed Development. The anticipated magnitude of change experienced by the receptors is
varied and dependent on distance to the Site, the level of lighting between the receptors and the
Site and the portion of the field of views occupied by the Site. The residential receptors which are
adjacent and have direct/partial views are anticipated to experience a larger deviation in the
baseline conditions compared with those within the settlements/at a distance. As a worst case
scenario the magnitude of change is considered to be medium for the duration of the construction
phase.
14.7.29
The sensitivity of local residential receptors with partial/direct views of the existing night-time
scene within the Site is medium and the magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is considered to
be medium. Therefore, there is likely to be direct, temporary, long-term effect of moderate
negative significance, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
14.7.30
14.7.31
The sensitivity of local residential receptors with partial/direct views of the existing night-time
scene within the Site is medium and the magnitude of change, following mitigation, is considered
14-20
to be low. Therefore, there is likely to be direct, temporary, long-term residual effect of minor
negative significance, following the implementation of mitigation measures.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
DESIGN SOLUTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
14.7.32
As outlined within Chapter 2 The Proposed Development it is assumed that once completed
the Proposed Development will incorporate new lighting installations. This will result in an
increase in artificial lighting installations on-site compared to the baseline conditions (i.e. a
general absence of lighting installations within the Site).
14.7.33
At this stage, no detailed lighting design/strategy/specification for the Proposed Development has
been prepared. As such, in order to undertake an assessment of likely lighting effects during the
operational phase it has been necessary to make a number of assumptions in terms of lighting
installations to be used within the Site. The assumptions outlined below have also been used to
inform the assessment of effects associated with the detailed element of the application (Phase 1
and change of use of retained existing buildings).
14.7.34
14.7.35
It is expected that street lighting across the Site will comprise Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamps in
line with KCC highways lighting requirements (Ref 14.26). Minor residential (tertiary) roads are
expected to be lit to P4 lighting levels whilst primary and secondary roads will be lit to B3 lighting
levels or higher, depending on the potential traffic composition (Ref 14.26). There are three new
proposed accesses as part of the Proposed Development, as well as a two upgrades to existing
access junctions, which connects onto the existing road network and localised upgrades to the
existing road network, as illustrated in Parameter Plan 2: Access and Movement Plan (Figure
2.2). For the assessment it has been assumed that all access junctions (as illustrated on
Parameter Plan 2 : Access and Movement Plan (Figure 2.2)) will be lit by new artificial lighting
installations, where currently there is no lighting installed, or existing lighting will be upgraded in
line with KCC specifications. It has also been assumed that new lighting installations will be
installed along the entirety of the lengths of upgraded roads. It is expected that all street lighting
installations associated with the Proposed Development will be designed to BS 5489-1: 2013
Code of practice for the design of road lighting: Lighting of roads and public amenity areas (Ref
14.19) and meet KCC highways lighting specification requirements (Ref 14.26),
14.7.36
In addition to the above, it is expected that the buildings within the commercial, employment,
educational and cultural heritage use areas will incorporate architectural/security lighting on their
faade and in their grounds alongside illuminated signs. Furthermore, it has been assumed that
within the areas of Structural Open Space and Infrastructure Zone (Parameter Plan 1:
Development Zones (Figure 2.1)) low level bollard lighting will be installed along access
routes/footpaths. It is assumed that lighting within these areas will be designed to BS EN 124642:2014 Light and lighting - lighting of work places, outdoor work places (Ref 14.21) and Lighting
Guide 6 The Exterior Environment (Ref. 14.23).
14.7.37
Outdoor sports and recreational facilities (including playing fields, sports courts, play areas and
associated small scale built facilities) are included as part of the Proposed Development, as noted
within Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones (Figures 2.1). It is anticipated that these areas
will be lit by permanent lighting installations, including floodlighting. The Proposed Development
also includes a recreational surface water body (wave garden) in the south-eastern element of the
Site (Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones (Figures 2.1)). It is assumed that this area will
also include an element of floodlighting. It is assumed that all lighting associated with the
sports/recreational use areas will be designed to Sport Englands Design Guidance Note (Ref.
14-21
14.27), CIBSE Lighting Guide 4: Sports Lighting (Ref 14.22) and Lighting Guide 6 - The Exterior
Environment (Ref 14.23).
14.7.38
Parameter Plan 3: Land Use Plan (Figures 2.3) shows an area of cultural and heritage uses to
the north of the B2050 Manston Road, which will include a heritage runway. It has been assumed
that this heritage runway would operate as a non-instrument runway and there would be no nighttime flights. As such, it has been assumed that there would be no requirement for approach
lighting or other aviation lighting beyond aerodrome safety lighting.
14.7.39
The Field Open Space Zone and Habitat Open Space Zone shown on Parameter Plan 5: Green
Infrastructure (Figures 2.5) are to be retained for ecological mitigation purposes i.e. retained for
agricultural use and purpose built habitat to support ecological diversity respectively. It has been
assumed that there would be no artificial lighting installations within these areas.
DISTURBANCE AND NUISANCE TO RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS FROM LIGHT SPILL AND
GLARE FROM ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING INSTALLATIONS
14.7.40
The lighting installations outlined above have the potential to cause light spill which may affect
residential receptors. In addition, poorly controlled operational lighting has the potential for glare
effects which could result in dazzle and cause discomfort. As in the demolition and construction
phase, the sensitivity of residential properties is considered to be high.
14.7.41
14.7.42
The existing residential receptors are located around the Site at up to a distance of 0.5km from
the Site boundary. Given the predominantly agricultural nature of the surrounding environment,
vegetation is contained to a number of wooded areas, small number of field boundaries and within
the grounds of residential properties. Views from residential receptors within the settlements of
Manston, Cliffs End and Minister are also restricted in some cases by either located along Spitfire
Way and Manston Road, or just off of these roads, with the exception an element of intervening
built form associated with other buildings within these villages. In addition the properties are not
uniformly orientated, with a number orientated east to west and others north south. Given the
varied levels of intervening built form and vegetation, the residential receptors experience a mix of
both direct and partial views. The more direct views are often associated with those properties
adjacent or in close proximity to the Site.
14.7.43
The existing lighting environment experienced by the residential receptors is varied and ranges
from E2 Environmental Zone (low district brightness) up to E3 Environmental Zone (medium
district brightness). The areas classified as E3 are situated within Cliffs End and near well
illuminated areas, such as the MOD facility. Receptors within or in close proximity to these areas
generally experience lighting conditions indicative E2/E3 or E3 Environmental Zone. The areas
classified as E2 are situated towards the periphery of the lit areas (i.e. towards the edges of the
villages) or in the rural landscape).
14.7.44
The introduction of permanent lighting associated with the Proposed Development has the
potential to increase the levels of light spill and glare experienced at the residential receptors. The
magnitude of change experienced by the residential receptors is considered to be varied, with the
receptors adjacent to the Site considered to experience a greater magnitude of change (i.e.
residential properties off Manston Court Road). In addition, the receptors to the west of the Site
are considered to experience a larger deviation from the baseline conditions given their proximity
to the localised road upgrades proposed along Spitfire Way and Manston Road and new access
junctions (Parameter Plan 2: Access and Movement (Figures 2.2)), in conjunction with
operational lighting within the employment and cultural and heritage development zones
(Parameter Plan 3: Land Use (Figures 2.3)) proposed along the western part of the Site. Those
receptors that are afforded a degree of screening due to intervening vegetation/built
form/orientation are considered to experience a lower magnitude of change. For instance, the
receptors within Cliffs End will generally experience views of structural open space and elements
of habitat open space (Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure (Figures 2.5)) and are not
14-22
orientated towards the Site. Residential receptors within the settlements of Manston, Minster and
Cliffs End are considered to experience varied effects, with those towards the centre afforded a
high level of screening and currently experiencing elevated lighting conditions than those towards
the periphery.
14.7.45
14.7.46
The sensitivity of residential receptors is high and the magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is
considered to range from negligible to low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent,
long-term effect on residential receptors of negligible to minor up to minor negative
significance, prior to mitigation.
MITIGATION
14.7.47
Care should be taken to minimise light spill and glare from any lighting installations by ensuring
the correct luminaire is selected and installed correctly, in line with the lighting
design/strategy/specification and the recommendations detailed within the Guidance Notes
(Appendix 14.3).
14.7.48
During the detailed site layout design stage, care should be taken to located lighting installations
associated with outdoor sports and recreational facilities/areas proposed within the public open
space away from sensitive receptors, where possible.
14.7.49
Where possible the hard and/or soft landscaping schemes should aim to provide a sufficient level
of screening between the sensitive receptors and lighting installations to minimise potential
effects.
14.7.50
14.7.51
The sensitivity of residential receptors is high and the magnitude of change, following mitigation,
is considered to range from negligible up to negligible to low. Therefore, there is likely to be a
direct, permanent, long-term effect on residential receptors of negligible up to negligible to minor
negative significance, following the implementation of mitigation measures.
14.7.52
Table 14.7 below provides a summary of the effects on the residential receptors identified.
Table 14.7 Significance of Effects on Residential Receptors during the Operational Phase
RECEPTOR
SENSITIVITY OF
RECEPTORS
EFFECT (PRIOR TO
MITIGATION)
RESIDUAL EFFECT
(FOLLOWING
MITIGATION)
Negligible to minor
negative
Negligible
High
Minor negative
Negligible to minor
14-23
negative
Alland Grange Lane
Cliffs End
Minor negative
Negligible to minor
negative
Negligible to minor
negative
Negligible
The existing and future users of the local roads and footpaths may be sensitive to changes in
ambient lighting levels (in particular glare) associated with the operational lighting installations. As
in the demolition and construction phase, the sensitivity of the users of the local roads and PRoW
is considered to be medium.
14.7.54
14.7.55
There are a number of local roads and PRoW within the Site, adjacent and in close proximity to
the Site boundary. The surrounding land uses varies along the length of these roads and PRoW,
which includes both developed areas (e.g. villages, commercial business parks) and
rural/agricultural areas. Given the predominantly agricultural nature of the majority of the
surrounding environment, vegetation is contained to a number of wooded areas, small number of
field boundaries and within the grounds of residential properties. Receptors located closer to the
Site generally experience direct views, whilst those further away generally experience a high
degree of intervening screening provided by vegetation and built form. As such, across all
receptors there is a mixture of direct and partial views from these receptors.
14.7.56
The local road network is not uniformly lit with lighting installations confined to key junctions and
residential/commercial areas. The PRoW network is unlit, however, a number experience a
degree of light spill as a result of lighting installations located in close proximity to the PRoWs. In
general there are high levels of inter-visibility from the roads and PRoW with illuminated areas.
Those stretches of roads that are illuminated by highways/street lighting luminaires are generally
consisted to be indicative of an E3 Environmental Zone (medium district brightness). The parts of
the roads and PRoW network which are unlit are generally considered to be indicative of an E2
Environmental Zone (low district brightness) or on the border of E2/E3 Environmental Zones
(low/medium district brightness) due to limited lighting installations in close proximity but intervisibility with illuminated areas.
14.7.57
The permanent lighting installations have the potential to result in increased light and glare
experienced by users of the local roads and PRoW network. The magnitude of change is
considered to be varied given the mix of partial and direct views, orientation varying distances
between the receptors and the nearest potential source of lighting. As illustrated within Parameter
Plan 2: Access and Movement (Figures 2.2), Spitfire Way and Manston Road will be upgraded
works, which will result in consistently lit roads. In addition, the proximity of these roads to other
operational lighting within various development zones and structural open space (Parameter
Plan 3: Land Use (Figures 2.3)) will result in a deviation from the baseline conditions. The
provision of a consistently lit road would minimise potential negative effects associated with glare
experienced by users of the roads, thereby partially reducing the magnitude of change
experienced by these receptors.
14.7.58
Other roads and PRoW will principally experience views of operational lighting through the
proposed green spaces, including the structural open space, habitat open zone and field open
zone as shown on Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure (Figures 2.5). Planting in these
areas will provide a visual screen between a number of these receptors and operational lighting
within the Site. Generally unlit roads and PRoW receptors in close proximity to the Site are
anticipated to experience a larger deviation in baseline lighting conditions whereas those routes
which are lit or are afforded screening or buffers will experience less deviations in lighting
14-24
environment as a result of operational lighting. Those receptors further away from the Site are
considered to experience a barely noticeable deviation from the baseline lighting environment.
Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to range from negligible to low up to low to
medium.
14.7.59
The sensitivity of users of the local road and PRoW network is medium and the magnitude of
change, prior to mitigation, is considered to be negligible to low up to low to medium. Therefore,
there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect of negligible to minor up to minor to
moderate negative significance, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
14.7.60
14.7.61
The sensitivity of users of the local road and PRoW network is medium and the magnitude of
change, following mitigation, is considered to be negligible up to negligible to low. Therefore,
there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual effect of negligible up to negligible to
minor negative significance, following the implementation of mitigation measures.
14.7.62
Table 14.7 below provides a summary of the effects on the roads and PRoW receptors identified.
Table 14.7 Summary of Effects on Users of the local road and PRoW network during the Operational
Phase
RECEPTOR
SENSITIVITY OF
RECEPTOR
EFFECT (PRIOR TO
MITIGATION)
RESIDUAL EFFECT
(FOLLOWING
MITIGATION)
Minor to moderate
negative
Negligible to minor
negative
Minor to moderate
negative
Negligible to minor
negative
Minor negative
Negligible
Negligible to minor
negative
Negligible
Medium
The operational lighting installations outlined above have the potential to change the night-time
scene as viewed by residential receptors with direct and partial views of the Site. It is assumed for
the purpose of this assessment that additional lighting is viewed negatively by residents.
14.7.64
The Site is largely unlit. However, a number of the buildings located within the Site are illuminated
by a series of floodlights and bulkheads mounted on their faades as well as aerodrome safety
lighting on top of a number of structures on-site. In addition, lighting installations present adjacent
to the Site (i.e. installations on the B2190 and A299) result in an element of light spill within the
Site. Given the size of the Site, the illuminated areas are interspersed with darker environment
resulting in a mixed lighting environment across the Site, ranging from E2 Environmental Zones
(low district brightness) and E2/E3 Environmental Zones (low/medium district brightness).
14-25
14.7.65
There are a number of observers of the night-time scene, immediately adjacent to the Site
(Spitfire Way, Manston Road, Manston Court Road and within Cliffs End and Manston) or within
close proximity to the Site (Vincent Road, Preston Road, within Minster and individual properties
to the south of the Site). These receptors experience varied lighting environments, with a number
located in more developed areas which are E2/E3 Environmental Zones (low/medium district
brightness) up to an E3 Environmental Zone (medium district brightness). However, the
residential receptors located in a more rural environment experience a lighting environment
indicative of an E2 Environmental Zone (low district brightness). Nevertheless, for almost all of
the receptors lighting is present within views.
14.7.66
There is a mixture of partial and direct views from the receptors towards the Site and given the
size of the Site, views are not always inclusive of the whole area. The residential properties are
not uniformly orientated, with a number of properties orientated north to south and others east to
west.
14.7.67
All of the receptors identified will experience a permanent change to the night-time scene as a
result of the Proposed Development. The magnitude of change is varied across the receptors,
depending on distance to the Site, the level of lighting between the receptors and the Site and the
portion of the field of view occupied by the Site. The residential receptors which are adjacent and
have direct/partial views are anticipated to experience a larger deviation in the baseline conditions
compared with those within the settlements/at a distance. As a worst case scenario the
magnitude of change is considered to be medium.
14.7.68
The sensitivity of the local residential receptors with views of the existing night-time scene with
partial and direct views of the Site is medium and the magnitude of change, prior to mitigation is
considered to be medium. Therefore, there is likely to be direct, permanent, long-term effect of
moderate negative significance, prior to the implementation of mitigation measures.
MITIGATION
14.7.69
14.7.70
The sensitivity of the local residential receptors with views of the existing night-time scene with
partial and direct views of the Site is medium and the magnitude of change, following mitigation is
considered to be low. Therefore, there is likely to be direct, permanent, long-term residual effect
of minor negative significance, following the implementation of mitigation measures.
14.8
14.8.1
In the absence of statutory guidance, the Guidance Notes (Appendix 14.3) has been used as
criteria against which to assess the effects of artificial lighting. The guidance levels for light
nuisance into windows have been used as the principal criteria for assessing the likely effects of
artificial lighting associated with the Proposed Development. However, given the subjective nature
of glare, it is difficult to quantify the likely effects due to a number of variables including the type
and distance from the light source and the angle from which it is viewed. As such, the assessment
has considered the effects qualitatively.
14.8.2
Given the predominantly outline nature of the majority of the Application, a detailed lighting
design/strategy/specification for the Proposed Development will be prepared by a specialist
lighting contractor at the detailed design stage and agreed with TDC. It is assumed that a lighting
design will have regard to all relevant guidance, including the Guidance Notes (Appendix 14.3).
In the absence of a lighting strategy is has been necessary to make a number of assumptions in
terms of lighting specifications to be used within the Site. These assumptions have been based
upon professional judgement and reference to KCC highways lighting requirements (Ref 14.24).
14-26
14.8.3
Whilst the illuminance measurements obtained during the baseline lighting survey were taken
during a calibrated illuminance meter, the readings are considered to be approximately 95%
accurate because of variations in weather conditions etc. However, in-combination with the
detailed observations taken, these are considered to provide a robust baseline for the
assessment of lighting effects.
14.8.4
All lighting identified during the baseline lighting survey is assumed to be operational throughout
the night-time period, i.e. the lighting is operational post curfew hours.
14.9
SUMMARY
14.9.1
An assessment of the external artificial lighting environment was undertaken to ascertain the
baseline lighting conditions on Site and in the immediate surrounding area. Day-time and nighttime lighting surveys have been carried out at the Site and surrounding area which included
taking readings of illuminance (light spill) and detailed observations at measurement locations.
14.9.2
The existing lighting conditions within the Site are heterogeneous, with areas adjacent to existing
buildings illuminated and indicative of an E2/E3 Environmental Zone (low to medium district
brightness), with the remainder of the Site being generally unlit and more indicative of an E2
Environmental Zone (low district brightness).In some locations of the Site, an element of light
spill is apparent as a result of lighting installations located adjacent to the Site. The surrounding
environment is a mix of agricultural land, small villages, commercial parks and small individual or
assemblages of residential properties. Given the varied nature of the surrounding land use, there
is a mix of Environmental Zones, ranging from E1/E2 (intrinsically dark/low district brightness) to
the south of the Site up to E3 Environmental Zone (medium district brightness) within
commercial areas and the settlements of Manston and Minister.
14.9.3
During the demolition and construction phase, the principal lighting effects expected to arise from
the Proposed Development are likely to be from temporary lighting associated with the
illumination of contractors activities and compounds, construction activities and work tasks for
safety and security reasons. A number of sensitive receptors have been identified that are
considered to be susceptible to light spill and glare, including residential properties, local roads
and PRoW. In order to mitigate temporary lighting effects, it is assumed that the lighting
requirements at Site will be managed as part of a CEMP. Overall the residual effects for all
receptors range from negligible up to minor to moderate negative significance. Although there are
residual effects of negative significance associated with the construction phase of the Proposed
Development the effects are only considered to be temporary in nature.
14.9.4
Once completed, there will be a range of lighting installations associated with the operation
Proposed Development including street and highways lighting, architectural/security lighting,
illuminated signs, low level bollard lighting and artificial lighting, installations (including
floodlighting) in the recreational/sports facilities/areas. It has been assumed that lighting would be
designed in accordance with BS, best practice and to KCC specifications. Mitigation has been
proposed to minimise effects of light spill and glare at sensitive receptors, including careful
installation and layout of sports/recreational lighting and maintenance/monitoring of new lighting
installations by suitably qualified lighting contractors. As such, the residual effects range from
negligible up to negligible to minor negative significance for all receptors.
14.9.5
Temporary and permanent changes to the night-time scene have also been considered. There
are a number of observers of the night-time scene within the Site (future residential properties),
immediately adjacent to the Site (Spitfire Way, Manston Road, Manston Court Road and within
Cliffs End and Manston) or within close proximity to the Site (Vincent Road, Preston Road within
Minster and individual properties to the south of the Site). All of the receptors identified were
considered to experience temporary and permanent changes to the night-time scene as a result
of the lighting associated with the Proposed Development. Following the implementation of
mitigation, the receptors were considered to experience a residual effect of minor negative
residual significance.
14-27
Table 14.8: Summary of Effects for Artificial Lighting
DESCRIPTION RECEPTOR
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
OF
SIGNIFICANT
MAJOR /
POSITIVE P D / I
EFFECTS
MODERATE /
/
/
MINOR /
NEGATIVE T
NEGLIGIBLE
Demolition and Construction
SUMMARY OF
MITIGATION /
ST / ENHANCEMENT
MT / MEASURES
LT
Disturbance and
nuisance to
residential
receptors form
light spill and
glare from
artificial lighting
installations
Future
Major
residential
receptors
within the
Site
The west of Minor
the Site
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL
EFFECTS
MAJOR /
POSITIVE P D
MODERATE /
/
/ /I
MINOR /
NEGATIVE T
NEGLIGIBLE
Development and
Minor
Negative
implementation of CEMP
and adherence to lighting
specific management
procedures.
Negligible
N/A
Post installation checks
and monitoring should be
undertaken throughout
Minor to Moderate Negative
the construction period.
RELEVANT RELEVANT
POLICY
LEGISLATION
ST /
MT
/
LT
Negative
TD
LT
T D LT
Negative
TD
LT
Manston
Moderate to Major Negative
Road and
Spitfire Way
TD
LT
Alland
Grange
Lane
Minor
Negative
TD
LT
Negligible
N/A
T D LT
Village of
Minster
TD
LT
Negligible
N/A
T D LT
N/A
T D LT
T D LT
T D LT
Negative
TD
LT
Negligible
Cliffs End
Moderate
Negative
TD
LT
T D LT
Village of
Manston
Negligible to
Moderate
Negative
TD
LT
T D LT
Negative
TD
LT
Negligible
T D LT
Residential Minor
properties to
the north of
Manston
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement
Chapter 14 Artificial Lighting
N/A
NPPF
CNEA
14-28
Disturbance and
nuisance to
users of the
local road and
PRoW
associated with
light spill and
glare from
artificial lighting
installations
Changes in
night-time
scene
Residential Major
properties
off Manston
Court Road
Negative
TD
LT
Unlit/partially
lit strategic
and minor
residential
roads and
PRoW
adjacent to
the Site
Lit minor
residential
roads and
PRoW
adjacent to
the Site
Unlit minor
residential
roads and
PRoW
adjacent to
the Site
Lit strategic
and minor
residential
roads and
PRoW not
adjacent to
the Site
Local
residential
receptors
with
partial/direct
views of
existing
night-time
scene within
the Site
Negative
TD
LT
Moderate
TD
LT
Moderate
Negative
TD
LT
Minor
Negative
TD
LT
Moderate
Negative
TD
LT
Moderate
Negative
T D LT
Development and
Minor to moderate Negative
implementation of CEMP
and adherence to lighting
specific management
procedures.
T D LT
Development and
Minor
implementation of CEMP
and adherence to lighting
specific management
procedures.
Post installation checks
and monitoring should be
undertaken throughout
the construction period.
Operation
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement
Chapter 14 Artificial Lighting
Negative
T D LT
T D LT
T D LT
T D LT
14-29
Disturbance and
nuisance to
residential
receptors from
light spill and
glare from
artificial lighting
installations
Disturbance and
nuisance to
users of the
local road and
PRoW
associated with
light spill and
glare from
artificial lighting
installations
Changes in
night-time
PD
LT
Manston
Minor
Road and
Spitfire Way
Negative
PD
LT
Alland
Grange
Lane
Minor
Negative
PD
LT
Cliffs End
PD
LT
Unlit/partially
lit strategic
and minor
residential
roads and
PRoW
adjacent to
the Site
Lit minor
residential
roads and
PRoW
adjacent to
the Site
Unlit minor
residential
roads and
PRoW
adjacent to
the Site
Lit strategic
and minor
residential
roads and
PRoW not
adjacent to
the Site
Local
residential
PD
LT
Negligible
N/A
P D LT
P D LT
P D LT
P D LT
P D LT
PD
LT
Minor
Negative
PD
LT
Negligible
Negative
P D LT
PD
LT
Negligible
N/A
P D LT
Moderate
PD
LT
Minor
Negative
P D LT
Negative
P D LT
NPPF
CNEA 2005
14-30
scene
receptors
with
partial/direct
views of the
existing
night-time
scene within
the Site
Key to table:
P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term
N/A = Not Applicable
14-31
14.10
REFERENCES
Ref 14.1
Ref 14.2
Ref 14.3
Ref 14.4
Ref 14.5
Ref 14.6
Ref 14.7
Ref 14.8
Ref 14.9
Ref 14.10
Ref 14.11
Kent County Council (), Kent County Council Development and Infrastructure Creating
Quality Places [Online] ;
Ref 14.12
Kent County Council (), Unlocking Kents Potential Kent County Councils Framework for
Regeneration [Online] ;
Ref 14.13
Kent County Council (), 21st Century Kent A Blueprint for the Countys Future [Online] ;
Ref 14.14
Thanet District Council (2006), Thanet Local Plan 2006 Saved Policies (Adopted June
2006) [Online] https://www.thanet.gov.uk/your-services/planning-policy/thanets-currentplanning-policy/thanet-local-plan-2006/ [accessed 25 Feb 2016].
Ref 14.15
Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Practice Guidance [Online]
http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ [accessed 25 Feb 2016].
Ref 14.16
Commission Internationale De Eclairage (2003) 150: Guide on the Limitation of the Effects
of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations
Ref 14.17
Ref 14.18
Ref 14.19
British Standard (BS) 5489-1:2013, Code of Practice for the Design of Road Lighting:
Lighting of Roads and Public Amenity Areas
Ref 14.20
Ref 14.21
British Standard (BS) 12464-2:2014, Lighting and Lighting. Lighting of work places.
Outdoor work places
Ref 14.22
Charted Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) (2006 amended 2014) Lighting
Guide 4: Sports Lighting (SLL LG4)
Ref 14.23
CIBSE (2016) Lighting Guide 6: The Exterior Environment (SLL LG6, LG06)
Ref 14.24
Ref 14.25
Ref 14.26
Ref 14.27
15
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
15.1
INTRODUCTION
15.1.1
This Chapter reports the likely significant environmental cumulative effects of the Proposed
Development. Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations requires that the cumulative effects of a
development are considered within an ES, namely:
The combined effect of the development together with other reasonably foreseeable
developments (taking into consideration effects at both the construction and operational phases);
and
The combined or synergistic effects caused by the combination of a number of effects on a
particular receptor (taking into consideration effects at both the construction and operation
phases), which may collectively cause a move significant effect than individually. An example
could be the culmination of disturbance from dust, noise, vibration, artificial light, human presence
and visual intrusion on sensitive fauna (e.g. certain bat species) adjacent to a construction site.
15.1.2
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published a consultation draft
of Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice and Procedures in June 2006
(Ref. 15.1), which identified two types of cumulative effects that require consideration within EIA:
Inter-Project effects: The interaction and combination of environmental effects of the
proposed development with committed projects and activities affecting the same receptor.
Committed development is defined as development for which planning consent has been
granted; and
Intra-Project effects: The interaction and combination of environmental effects, and indirect
environmental effects of the proposed development affecting the same receptor, either within
the Site or in the local area.
15.1.3
The assessment of in-combination effects and effect interactions are discussed separately below.
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
15.1.4
The approach adopted for the assessment of cumulative effects is based on professional
experience, the types of receptors being assessed, the nature of the development and the
identified committed developments. The assessment methodology comprises:
A desk based assessment of effect interaction based on predicted changes in baseline
conditions at specific sensitive receptors, informed by the results of assessment presented
within the technical chapter of this ES (Chapters 5 14); and
Desk based assessment of each technical topic in turn, generally qualitative, using
professional expertise to make a judgement as to the likely significance of changes in
baseline conditions in the area surrounding the Site arising from the Proposed Development
together with committed developments which have been identified in consultation with TDC.
15.1.5
Where appropriate, and for the relevant technical disciplines, the consideration of cumulative
effects arising from the committed development is discussed below.
SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT
IDENTIFICATION OF SCHEMES CONSIDERED
15.1.6
15.1.7
The EIA Scoping Report submitted to TDC in January 2016 (Appendix 4.1) identified
developments to be considered in the assessment of cumulative effects and sought confirmation
from TDC. This included schemes that are identified on the TDC planning application register as
approved, but not completed or implemented.
15.1.8
In their EIA Scoping Opinion (Appendix 4.2) TDC identified the following additional committed
development requiring consideration:
OL/TH/15/0187: Flambeau Europlast (Decision Pending).
15.1.9
The committed developments were further qualified in the EIA Scoping Opinion Response
(Appendix 4.3) and included:
OL/TH/11/0910: EuroKent (Permission Granted);
OL/TH/14/0050: Manston Green (Permission Granted);
OL/TH/06/0650 and F/TH/10/0726: Westwood Housing (Permission Granted); and
OL/TH/15/0187: Flambeau Europlast (Decision Pending).
15.1.10
APPLICATION
NUMBER
STATUS
DETAILS
EIA DEVELOPMENT
SCHEME
APPLICATION
NUMBER
F/TH/10/0726
STATUS
Approved
(2012)
Flambeau
Pending
OL/TH/15/0187
Europlast
Decision
DETAILS
EIA DEVELOPMENT
15.1.11
The Transport Assessment (TA) (Ref. 15.3) which is submitted as an Application Report has
considered the effect of the Proposed Development on the highway network, taking account of
the above committed developments in Table 15.1. The baseline and with development traffic data
used in the assessment presented in Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport therefore comprises an
inherent assessment of cumulative traffic effects on the highway network. Chapter 5 Air
Quality and Chapter 6 Noise and Vibration, have used the same traffic data for the
assessment of the effects and therefore also include an inherent cumulative assessment.
15.1.12
The TA has also considered Discovery Park (DOV/14/00058), which was not explicitly requested
by TDC but was requested as a committed development by KCC. As a result this additional
committed development has also been included in Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport, Chapter 5
Air Quality and Chapter 6 Noise and Vibration, but scoped out of the other disciplines based
on the distance from the Proposed Development.
15.1.13
The Jentex site located to the south of the Site (Ref.OL/TH/15/0020) has been considered in
Chapter 13 Ground Conditions, Contamination and Hydrogeology on the basis that it is
relevant to the Chapter and assessment. The scheme is not considered as a committed
development and is not considered further within this Chapter.
15.1.14
A review of these committed developments was undertaken and only those relevant effects of the
schemes which have potential to result in likely significant cumulative effects together with the
Proposed Development have been taken forward for further consideration in the assessment for
each technical topic. This was determined based on consideration of the following:
The nature and scale of the committed development;
The distance of the committed development from the Proposed Development; and
The likelihood for significant residual environmental effects to arise from the committed
development on relevant receptors (assuming that mitigation measures have been
implemented in accordance with good practice and legal requirements).
Table 15.2 summarises the potential for cumulative effects from each committed development
together with the Proposed Development in relation to each technical discipline. For certain
disciplines it is appropriate to exclude (or scope out) the potential for cumulative effects based on
distance from the Proposed Development or where significant effects are unlikely (for example
due to the limited size of the committed development or the nature of effects being limited to
within the Site boundary).
Table 15.2 - Scope of In Combination Effects (including both Construction and Operation) Associated with Committed Developments
GROUND
CONDITIONS
ARTIFICIAL
LIGHTING
Manston Green
Westwood
Housing
Flambeau
Europlast
Discovery Park
LVIA
NOISE
ECOLOGY
EuroKent
COMMITTED
SCHEME
LOCAL AIR
QUALITY
SOCIOECONOMICS
WATER
RESOURCES
AND FLOOD
RISK
ARCHAEOLOG
Y AND
CULTURAL
HERITAGE
TRAFFIC AND
TRANSPORT
15-6
ASSUMPTIONS
15.1.16
The following assumptions have been made in the assessment of cumulative effects:
The same receptors have been relied upon for the assessment of likely significance effects, in
line with the significance criteria as set out in Chapter 4 Approach to Assessment.
It is anticipated that for the Proposed Development, the other proposed / committed
developments will implement appropriate mitigation measures during their respective
construction phases (such as through a Construction Environmental Management Plan
(CEMP)), which will help to prevent / minimise adverse effects during construction and avoid
potential cumulative effects should construction periods overlap with that of the Proposed
Development.
The assessment has been completed based on information relating to the committed
developments which is available within the public domain.
It is assumed for the purposes of this assessment that the committed developments will be at
least partly operational by the time the Proposed Development is fully operational in 2032.
Mitigation measures required to minimise or avoid likely significant negative environmental
effects arising from the committed developments will be adopted as part of the
implementation of those schemes.
Archaeology & Cultural Heritage, Water Resources and Ground conditions all scoped out
from the cumulative assessment due to the distance of the committed developments from the
Proposed Development.
The precise construction phasing information is not available for the schemes which have
been scoped into this cumulative assessment, therefore as a worst case, and due to the
predicted long time frame of the predicted phasing operations, it has been assumed that
construction is likely to overlap with the Proposed Development.
Consideration of potential cumulative landscape effects allows a number of potential effects to
be scoped out of the cumulative assessment. These include; landscape character as
defined at the national level, and all site level considerations. It has been identified that
landscape character as defined at the regional level and townscape character have the
potential to be impacted upon cumulatively during the demolition and construction phase.
The potential effects of the Proposed Development in conjunction with the committed
developments listed and described above are discussed below in relation to each of the technical
topics covered in this ES.
AIR QUALITY
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
15.1.18
During the construction phase of a development, activities undertaken on-site are likely to occur
within close proximity to the point of generation. As outlined in the IAQM guidance, consideration
should be given up to a distance of 350m from the development site boundary. Where one or
more development sites are located in close proximity (i.e. within 700m of each other) and their
construction periods may overlap and cumulative effects may arise at those receptors located
within a 350m radius of each Site.
15.1.19
Manston Green is located to the east of the Application Site and is the only committed
development within 350m (see Figure 15.1). There is potential for cumulative effects associated
with the construction phase, however it is considered likely that such effects will be associated
with construction traffic, where construction traffic associated with each site travels along the
15-7
same route on the local road network. Where sensitive receptors are located along routes shared
by construction traffic they may be exposed to temporary increase in pollutants associated with
the exhaust emissions.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
15.1.20
The effect of the Proposed Development in-combination with other committed schemes in the
area and the MOD Fire Training Facility has been considered in the assessment.
15.1.21
The air quality assessment indicated that in 2026 with the Proposed Development operational,
taking into consideration the traffic generation from committed schemes and the MOD Fire
Training Facility the effect on local air quality in respect of NO 2, PM10 and PM2.5 at existing and
future receptors was considered range from negligible to major positive, and therefore
insignificant.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
15.1.22
With the exception of the cumulative operational road traffic noise assessment set out below, an
assessment of the committed schemes has been scoped out for the following reasons:
Flambeau Europlast: located approximately 1 kilometre to the east of the Proposed
Development. The separation distance between the sites means , it is unlikely that there will
be any significant cumulative effects;
Manston Green: located approximately 300 metres to the east of the Proposed Development.
The closest receptors where a cumulative effect may be experienced are approximately
400 metres from the Manston Green site at Windsor Road. On this basis, it is unlikely that
there will be any significant cumulative effects; and
Eurokent and Westwood Housing: respectively located approximately 1.5 kilometres and
2 kilometres north-west of the Proposed Development. Due to the significance separation
distance alone, it is unlikely that there will be any significant cumulative effects.
OPERATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE
15.1.23
An assessment has been undertaken to assess the noise effects associated with operational road
traffic generated by the Proposed Development in combination with the committed developments
(as shown in Figure 15.1).
15.1.24
Table 15.3 sets out the assessment which compares the 2016 baseline and 2026 baseline
including the Proposed Development and committed developments (As listed in Table 15.1).
Table 15.3 - Cumulative Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment, dB LA10,18hour
ROAD LINK
Site 1
Site 2
Site 4
Site 5
2016
BASELINE
EFFECT
73.4
73.9
+0.5
Negligible
66.5
67.7
+1.2
Minor negative
66.9
67.8
+0.9
Negligible
65.1
66.1
+1.0
Minor negative
15-8
ROAD LINK
2016
BASELINE
EFFECT
Site 6
76.8
77.7
+0.9
Negligible
Site 8
64.2
64.7
+0.5
Negligible
Site 9
71.8
72.5
+0.7
Negligible
68.7
69.3
+0.6
Negligible
70.5
71.1
+0.6
Negligible
67.3
67.9
+0.6
Negligible
79.1
80.0
+0.9
Negligible
67.9
69.4
+1.5
Minor negative
65.3
66.8
+1.5
Minor negative
65.9
66.6
+0.7
Negligible
65.0
65.9
+0.9
Negligible
67.3
68.0
+0.7
Negligible
62.4
63.2
+0.8
Negligible
67.6
68.2
+0.6
Negligible
64.3
65.0
+0.7
Negligible
64.0
64.0
Negligible
72.0
72.8
+0.8
Negligible
76.0
76.8
+0.8
Negligible
72.1
72.9
+0.8
Negligible
80.4
81.1
+0.7
Negligible
68.3
69.1
+0.8
Negligible
61.5
62.1
+0.6
Negligible
15-9
ROAD LINK
15.1.25
2016
BASELINE
EFFECT
65.4
66.5
+1.1
Minor negative
62.8
63.6
+0.8
Negligible
66.7
67.3
+0.6
Negligible
69.3
70.0
+0.7
Negligible
70.1
70.7
+0.6
Negligible
68.9
69.4
+0.5
Negligible
71.2
72.1
+0.9
Negligible
71.0
71.9
+0.9
Negligible
68.3
69.2
+0.9
Negligible
67.4
68.1
+0.7
Negligible
67.7
68.3
+0.6
Negligible
68.5
69.0
+0.5
Negligible
66.6
67.3
+0.7
Negligible
It can be seen from the table above that there will be a direct, permanent, long-term negligible
effect on all road links with the exception of the following:
Shottendane Road (between Park Road and Minster Road);
Canterbury Road West (east of Windsor Road and west of A256 roundabout);
Spitfire Way (east of Columbus Avenue); and
Manston Road (both east of Shottendane Road and between Vincent Road and Fleet Road).
15.1.26
On Spitfire Way and Manston Road there will be a direct, permanent, long-term minor negative
(insignificant) effect.
MITIGATION
15.1.27
With the exception of four road links, the effect of the committed developments in combination
with the Proposed Development will be direct, permanent, long-term negligible. On four road links
there will be a permanent, long-term minor negative (insignificant). As such, no specific mitigation
measures are considered necessary.
15-10
15.1.28
Furthermore, the minor negative (insignificant) effects do not result on any of the links which are
designated Noise Important Areas (NIAs) as designated by Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs under the Environmental Noise Directive.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
15.1.29
The residual effects remain as set out above. With the exception of Shottendane Road (between
Park Road and Minster Road), Canterbury Road West (east of Windsor Road and west of A256
roundabout), Spitfire Way (east of Columbus Avenue) and Manston Road (both east of
Shottendane Road and between Vincent Road and Fleet Road), there will be a direct, permanent,
long-term negligible effect on all road links. On Shottendane Road, Canterbury Road West,
Spitfire Way and Manston Road there will be a direct, permanent, long-term minor negative
(insignificant) effect.
ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION
15.1.30
15.1.31
An Ecological Appraisal submitted by Lloyd Bore Ltd in relation the Flambeau Europlast
(OL/TH/15/0187) proposed development identifies that without mitigation, the scheme has the
potential to contribute towards factors that could affect the ecological features associated with the
Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar Site and Thanet Coast SPA (Ref. 7.43). No other
significant important ecological features are identified as part of the Appraisal and no further
documents relating to ecological considerations at the Proposed Development were submitted.
15.1.32
In combination, it is possible that the assessed proposed developments in the local area have the
potential to result in cumulative effects upon the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA, SAC and
Ramsar site. This is reported further in Appendix 7.1 of this ES Information for Habitat
Regulations Assessment.
15.1.33
The cumulative effect of the proposed developments in combination with the effects anticipated as
a result of the Proposed Development is reported below.
ON-SITE HABITAT (GOOD AND POOR SEMI-IMPROVED GRASSLAND)
15.1.34
As outlined in Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure (Figure 2.5), the Proposed Development
includes the retention of significant parcels of semi-improved neutral grassland habitat on the Site.
Although habitat fragmentation will occur, the landscaping strategy (Ref. 7.34) will seek to
reconnect semi-natural habitats through grassed verges and borders where possible.
15.1.35
Both the Manston Green and Flambeau Europlast sites do not support habitat of this type; the
Westwood Housing Site supports some areas of improved grassland (along boundaries and
verges) but this habitat is considered to have limited potential to develop naturally into more
ecologically valuable habitats (Ref. 7.44).
15.1.36
The proposed Eurokent site supports two parcels of rough grassland and tall ruderal (Ref. 7.45);
however, the habitat itself was not assessed as intrinsically valuable. Cumulatively, these
proposed developments in combination with the effects of the Proposed Development on good
and poor semi-improved grassland in terms of habitat loss and fragmentation are not anticipated
to be elevated above the local scale during the construction or operational phase of the Proposed
Development.
15-11
PROTECTED SPECIES / SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN
15.1.37
15.1.38
The Manston Green site has limited potential to support significant populations of birds, although
it is possible that skylark utilise the arable fields on and around the site (Ref. 7.46). Despite the
potential for the arable land on the Westwood House site to provide suitable winter foraging
habitat for birds, a significant wintering bird community was not recorded and it was concluded
that the site does not provide important habitat to wintering birds (Ref. 7.44). The Flambeau
Europlast site provides suitable bird nesting habitat, but does not provide valuable wintering bird
habitat (Ref. 7.43). Potential foraging in rough grassland habitat at the Eurokent site (Ref. 7. 45)
was identified; however, it was not considered to be of significance.
15.1.39
In isolation these proposed developments have concluded negligible residual effects on wintering
birds after the implementation of mitigation. In addition, the duration of the construction phase of
the Proposed Development is 15 years, it is therefore unlikely that all developments will be
constructed in parallel, reducing the potential cumulative impact of habitat loss and fragmentation
during the construction phase. It is therefore anticipated that the cumulative effect of habitat loss
and fragmentation will not have a detrimental effect on the direct permanent (long term) residual
effect of positive significance at the site scale anticipated from the Proposed Development during
construction.
15.1.40
During the operational phase, the Proposed Development is anticipated to result in residual
effects of negative significance at both the local and district scale on wintering birds through cat
predation (including prey reduction), direct loss (short eared owl in particular) and disturbance
from dog walking on the Site. These effects are associated with residential developments in
particular; the assessed proposed developments all have significant residential elements (totalling
approximately 1500 dwellings) and are therefore likely to result in similar effects. Despite the lack
of suitable wintering bird habitat at the proposed developments, the mobile nature of cats (and
birds), increased vehicle trips and increased dog walking within the area is likely to add to the
effects of the Proposed Development on the wintering bird community in the area but not to such
an extent that the cumulative residual effect level is raised above direct (long term) negative
significance at the local/district scale when all developments are operational.
15.1.41
Suitable habitat for brown hare was recorded at the Westwood Housing site (Ref. 7. 44) and
arable land was the dominant habitat at the Eurokent site. No significant habitat for brown hare
was recorded at the Manston Green or the Flambeau Europlast site. The residual effect of habitat
loss and fragmentation on brown hare during the construction phase of the Proposed
Development in isolation is considered to be of direct permanent (long term) negative significance
at the site scale. Taking into consideration the duration of the construction phase of the Proposed
Development (15 years), it is unlikely that all developments will be constructed in parallel;
therefore the cumulative effect of habitat loss and fragmentation across all developments is not
considered to be of elevated significance.
15.1.42
The residual effect of the Proposed Development upon the brown hare population during the
operational phase is assessed to be of direct permanent (long term) negative significance at the
local scale, the cumulative effect of all five developments is considered unlikely to be any greater
considering the limited value of the brown hare habitat at the proposed developments and the
availability of habitat suitable for this species in the wider landscape.
15-12
LANDSCAPE EFFECTS
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
15.1.43
Three out of the four sites (excluding the Flambeau Europlast site) are located within the same
landscape character area as defined at the regional level. The Thanet landscape character area,
as defined by the county level landscape assessment of Kent, has been identified as an area as
being of poor condition and very high sensitivity, resulting in a need for restoration. The
demolition and construction phase works when considered cumulatively are likely to result in an
overall moderate negative effect on landscape character as defined at the county level.
15.1.44
The demolition and construction phases are also predicted to result in an overall moderate
negative effect on townscape character.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
15.1.45
15.1.46
15.1.47
The site, has been assessed as making a positive contribution to restoring landscape character
due to the nature of the landscape proposals as defined by the landscape parameter plan.
However, when assessing the predicted effects of all committed schemes, including the nature
and scale of development proposed, it has been determined that the cumulative effects cannot
constitute a restoration of landscape character. The overall cumulative effects has therefore
been assessed as minor negative.
As with the predicted cumulative landscape effects described above, the precise construction
phasing information is not available for the schemes which have been scoped into this cumulative
assessment, therefore as a worst case, and due to the predicted long time frame of the predicted
phasing operations, it has been assumed that construction is likely to overlap with the Proposed
Development.
15.1.49
The majority of principal viewpoints will be unaffected by cumulative effects. The site is physically
separate from the main area of the settlement, and therefore visually disconnected. Viewpoint 20
(A256 Westwood Shopping Centre) is the only mid-range view with the potential to result in
cumulative construction phase effects. Longer range views from the south with the potential to be
impacted on include; viewpoint 6 (Saxon Shore Way, River Stour/Abbots Wall), viewpoint 9
15-13
(Richborough Roman Fort/Saxon Shore Way), and viewpoints 16 and 16B (Richborough Road
and the Stour Valley Walk). The remaining viewpoints have been scoped out of the visual
assessment.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
15.1.50
The Westwood Housing development is currently under construction and does not feature in the
photograph taken at the location of viewpoint 20, due to the direction of view. There will therefore
be no cumulative construction phase effects.
15.1.51
Construction works within the four identified cumulative developments have the potential to be
visually discernible from the longer-range viewpoints identified above.
However, where
discernible, the construction works will be visually distinct from the site, located against the
backdrop of the existing urban edge. The overall cumulative visual effect for the construction
phase has therefore been assessed as negative and low in terms of magnitude. This does not
result in any additional impacts to the relevant views, which all have an assessment of low or
medium adverse for the construction phase.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
15.1.52
An individual assessment of operational effects associated with each committed development has
not been undertaken. The cumulative assessment has been undertaken based on available
information on the TDC planning portal, combined with professional judgement.
15.1.53
The viewpoints considered for the cumulative operational phase are as identified above. The
majority of principal viewpoints will be unaffected by cumulative impacts due to the physical and
visual separation of the Proposed Development site from the main area of the settlement area
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
15.1.54
The Westwood Housing development is currently under construction and does not feature in the
photograph taken at the location of viewpoint 20, due to the direction of view. There will therefore
be no cumulative operational phase impacts.
15.1.55
The sites cumulatively have the potential to be visible from long-range views to the south.
However, the cumulative sites will appear as part of, or against the backdrop of the existing
settlement edge. The Proposed Development site will appear visually separate from the main
conurbation, and therefore there are not predicted to be any cumulative visual impacts throughout
the operational stage.
TRANSPORT & ACCESS
15.1.56
The committed development effects on the transport network are supported by a series of
infrastructure improvements that have been secured through their respective S106 agreements.
As such, the effects of these developments are committed. The assessment has included the
effects of these committed developments within the assessment presented in the Chapter 9
Traffic and Transport. The results of the assessment therefore already consider cumulative
effects.
15.1.57
The completion of other committed developments in the vicinity of the site will effect upon the
proportional change and therefore effect of the proposed development on the transport network.
In accordance with scoping discussions certain assumptions were made with respect to
committed/cumulative schemes and these have formed the basis of the assessment presented.
15-14
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
CONSTRUCTION
15.1.58
The Proposed Development in combination with the other committed developments as highlighted
within Figure 15.1, are likely to have a direct, temporary, long-term moderate positive
cumulative effect on employment within Thanet, and potentially the wider Kent area. It is
anticipated that in combination, the committed developments will have a direct, temporary, longterm minor positive cumulative effect on local spend within the area.
OPERATION
15.1.59
There is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term minor positive cumulative effect as a result of
the Proposed Development in conjunction with the committed developments due to the provision
of new housing and amenities, increased local spend, and the potential contributions to
educational facilities that these schemes will provide. The Proposed Development in conjunction
with the committed developments are also likely to have a direct, permanent, long-term minor
positive cumulative effect on employment in the area and the local economy once operational.
ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING
15.1.60
There are a number of shared common receptors between the Proposed Development and the
identified Committed Developments (Table 15.4). During the construction phase, it is anticipated
that the identified Committed Developments similar measures as those identified for the Proposed
Development, to help reduce any potential effects from light spill and glare, will be incorporated at
the identified Committed Developments. As such it is considered that the in-combination effect
during the construction phase would not be of greater significance than reported for the Proposed
Development (i.e. moderate negative significance).
15.1.61
During the operational phase, there is the potential for in-combination light spill and glare effects
resulting from installation of artificial lighting resulting in increased nuisance as a result of light
spill and glare. It is expected that the Committed Developments will adopt similar mitigation
measures as those considered as part of the Proposed Development to help reduce potential light
spill or glare upon common receptors. Changes in night-time view as a result of the Proposed
Development in-combination with identified committed developments is likely to be permanently
altered for common receptors, given the increased presence of lighting within areas which are
currently unlit or limited numbers of lighting installations are present. As such it is considered that
the in-combination effect during the operational phase would be of negligible to minor negative
significance.
Table 15.4 Common Sensitive Receptors
COMMON SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
RESIDENTIAL
n/a
Manston Green
EuroKent
COMMITTED
DEVELOPMENT
Flambeau Europlast
Westwood Housing
15-15
15.2
15.2.1
This section provides an assessment of potential effect interactions between the relevant
environmental topics on identified sensitive receptors during construction and operation of the
Proposed Development. Effect interactions are discussed in some of the technical chapters
(Chapters 5- 14) and these should be referred to for further detail; however this section provides
a summary of the potential effect interactions as considered within this ES. The results of the
assessment presented in this section are following implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures, as described with Chapters 5 14.
15.2.2
The effect interactions presented in Tables 15.5 and 15.6 below are based on professional
judgements made by technical specialists who have completed the technical assessments within
Chapters 5 14, taking into account the baseline conditions at the Site and in the surrounding
area together with the findings from the various technical studies.
15.2.3
In terms of effect interactions, the following sensitive receptors have been identified due to their
sensitivity as assessed in this ES:
Existing residential properties near the Sites;
Future residential properties occupied during early phases of the Proposed Development
which may be affected by ongoing construction works elsewhere within the Sites;
Users of the local highway network; and
Views from key designated heritage assets.
Table 15.5 comprises a summary matric for the construction works, showing the potential effect
interactions following implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, based on the
assessments presented within Chapter 5 14.
Table 15.5: Matrix of Residual Effect Interactions - Construction Phase
LIKELY
SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
EXISTING AND
USERS OF THE
FUTURE
LOCAL HIGHWAY
RESIDENTIAL
NETWORK
PROPERTIES
NEAR TO THE SITE
SENSITIVE
LANDSCAPE AND
DESIGNATED
HERITAGE
ASSETS
ECOLOGICALLY
DESIGNATED
SITES NEAR TO
THE SITE
Negligible Negative
Negligible Negative
N/A
N/A
Negligible Negative
N/A
N/A
Construction noise
Negligible to
at existing
Moderate Negative
sensitive receptors
N/A
N/A
N/A
Construction
Traffic
15-16
LIKELY
SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
EXISTING AND
USERS OF THE
FUTURE
LOCAL HIGHWAY
RESIDENTIAL
NETWORK
PROPERTIES
NEAR TO THE SITE
SENSITIVE
LANDSCAPE AND
DESIGNATED
HERITAGE
ASSETS
ECOLOGICALLY
DESIGNATED
SITES NEAR TO
THE SITE
Negligible to Minor
Negative
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Emissions to air of
NO2 and PM10 from
construction
Minor Negative
vehicles and site
plant
N/A
N/A
Minor Negative
Construction
vibration at
existing sensitive
receptors
Changes in views
from identified
visual receptors
Negligible to
Moderate Negative N/A
to Moderate Positive
Minor Negative to
Moderate Positive
N/A
Changes in
landscape
character
Negligible to
Moderate Negative
N/A
Minor Negative
N/A
Loss of potential
buried / surface
archaeological
remains
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Changes to the
setting of
N/A
conservation areas
N/A
N/A
N/A
Changes to the
setting of
designated
heritage assets
N/A
N/A
Minor Negative
N/A
OVERALL
INTERACTION OF
EFFECTS
Negligible to
Moderate
Negative to
Negligible to
Negligible
Negative
15-17
LIKELY
SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
EXISTING AND
USERS OF THE
FUTURE
LOCAL HIGHWAY
RESIDENTIAL
NETWORK
PROPERTIES
NEAR TO THE SITE
SENSITIVE
LANDSCAPE AND
DESIGNATED
HERITAGE
ASSETS
ECOLOGICALLY
DESIGNATED
SITES NEAR TO
THE SITE
Moderate Positive
15.2.5
During the site enabling and construction works, the majority of the potential effect interactions
relate to nearby properties and residents where temporary effects are predicted in terms of noise
and vibration from construction equipment and alterations to views into the Site. These residual
effects range in significance from Negligible to Moderate Negative to Moderate Positive.
15.2.6
Many of the residual effects related to the construction phase will be temporary, short-term (albeit
over a long period) and intermittent during the construction works. The CEMP which will be
implemented during construction will minimise and control any negative effects on the existing
environment, including properties near the Site, retained habitats and any protected species.
Table 15.6 comprises a summary matrix for the operation of the Proposed Development, showing
effect interactions between the relevant environmental topics assessed following implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures, based on the assessment presented with Chapters 5
14.
15.2.8
Once the Proposed Development is complete, the long-term effects on nearby residential
properties and future residential properties within the Proposed Development are expected to
arise from changes in road traffic noise and changes in views. Effects are predicted to range from
major negative to moderate positive.
Table 15.6:
LIKELY
SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
EXISTING AND
USERS OF THE
FUTURE
LOCAL HIGHWAY
RESIDENTIAL
NETWORK
PROPERTIES
NEAR TO THE SITE
SENSITIVE
LANDSCAPE AND
DESIGNATED
HERITAGE
ASSETS
ECOLOGICALLY
DESIGNATED
SITES NEAR TO
THE SITE
Negligible Negative
Negligible Negative
N/A
N/A
Negligible Negative
N/A
N/A
Noise from
operational road
N/A
N/A
N/A
Traffic generated
during operation
Negligible to Minor
Negative
15-18
LIKELY
SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
EXISTING AND
USERS OF THE
FUTURE
LOCAL HIGHWAY
RESIDENTIAL
NETWORK
PROPERTIES
NEAR TO THE SITE
SENSITIVE
LANDSCAPE AND
DESIGNATED
HERITAGE
ASSETS
ECOLOGICALLY
DESIGNATED
SITES NEAR TO
THE SITE
traffic
Noise from
commercial/
industrial sources
associated with the Negligible
proposed
employment and
mixed use areas
N/A
N/A
N/A
Emissions to air of
NO2 and PM10 from
vehicle movements
Negligible
associated with the
Proposed
Development
N/A
Negligible
Negligible
Changes in
landscape
character
Moderate Positive
N/A
Moderate Positive
N/A
Provision of
community
facilities (schools, Negligible to Minor
health facilities and Positive
recreational
facilities)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Minor to Moderate
Positive
N/A
N/A
N/A
Changes to the
setting of
designated
heritage assets
N/A
N/A
Moderate Positive
N/A
Increased
recreation light
Negligible to Minor
Negative
Negligible to Minor
Negative
N/A
N/A
OVERALL
INTERACTION OF
Minor Negative to
Moderate Positive
Negligible to Major
Negative
Negligible to
Moderate Positive
Negligible
Housing demand
15-19
LIKELY
SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
EXISTING AND
USERS OF THE
FUTURE
LOCAL HIGHWAY
RESIDENTIAL
NETWORK
PROPERTIES
NEAR TO THE SITE
SENSITIVE
LANDSCAPE AND
DESIGNATED
HERITAGE
ASSETS
ECOLOGICALLY
DESIGNATED
SITES NEAR TO
THE SITE
EFFECTS
15.2.9
During the operation of the Proposed Development, the majority of the effect interactions relate to
Operational Traffic and changes to the visual character of the Site. The residual effects range in
significance from Minor Negative to Moderate Positive.
15.3
SUMMARY
15.3.1
The potential effects of the Proposed Development together with the committed developments
have been assessed. The construction works may result in negative effects should the committed
developments be constructed at the same time as the Proposed Development. Resulting in an
increase in disturbance from construction activities and an increase in noise and dust as a result
of construction activities.
15.3.2
During site preparation and construction of the Proposed Development, the majority of potential
effect interaction relate to nearby residents where temporary effects are expected in terms of
noise and vibration, dust generation, townscape views and character of the Site.
15.3.3
It is important to note that these effects will be temporary and intermittent during the construction
works. The CEMP for the Proposed Development will reduce and control any negative effects on
the existing environment, including effects on existing residential properties near the Sites.
15.3.4
Once the Proposed Development is complete, long-term in-combination effects of the Proposed
Development on existing and future residents (within the Site) are expected to arise from changes
in road traffic, changes in views, an increase in housing numbers and local facilities.
15-20
15.4
REFERENCES
Ref. 15.1
Department of Communities and Local Government (2006), Environmental Impact
Assessment: A Guide to Good practice procedures - available at:
http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
Ref. 15.2
European Community (1991), Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions.
Ref. 15.3
Ref. 7.43
Lloyd Bore Ltd, (2014) Ecological Appraisal, Flambeau Europlast Ltd, Manston
Road, Ramsgate.
Ref. 7.44
Ref. 7.45
Lloyd Bore Ltd, (2013) Ecological Appraisal: Est Kent Opportunities, Eurokent,
Ramsgate, Kent (Ref No. 2883_RP_001).
Ref. 7.46
16-1
16
16.1
INTRODUCTION
16.1.1
This EIA process has involved an iterative approach to inform the parameters which control the
proposed development, which is the subject of the hybrid planning application. Such an approach
involved consideration of measures to avoid, reduce or offset likely significant environmental
effects in the layout, scale and massing of the Proposed Development, as shown on the
Application Plans submitted for approval, and measures identified in the Development
Specification.
16.1.2
Where the assessment undertaken and reported in the ES has resulted in likely significant
negative effects, mitigation has been identified to:
Control and manage the demolition and construction activities; and
Control the operation of the final completed Proposed Development.
16.1.3
Table 16.1 provides a summary of the effects and mitigation measures identified within each of
the technical chapters of this ES (Chapters 5 14), whilst general commitments are set out
below.
16.1.4
It is expected that the proposed mitigation measures will be secured by appropriately worded
planning conditions to be discharged and implemented through the development process and
subsequent reserved matters applications or through the mechanisms of a Section 106
Agreement.
16.2
16.2.1
The mitigation measures proposed during demolition and construction have been selected for
their practicality and effectiveness. An Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan
(CEMP) is appended to the ES (Appendix 2.2) and provides a framework for the proposed
mitigation measures to be implemented to control and offset any negative effects on the
environment.
16.2.2
A detailed site specific CEMP will be prepared and submitted to TDC for approval prior to
commencement of demolition and construction works on Site. It will provide the details of the
matters set out in the outline CEMP and will be informed by relevant contractors. The CEMP will
provide details to manage and control the proposed demolition and construction works associated
with groundworks, materials, wastewater, storage of fuels and construction plant as well as
procedures and methods to be followed to minimise any potential adverse effects of construction
on the local environment, relating to local air quality, noise and vibration levels, lighting, visual
amenity, ground conditions, traffic routes, construction access and the location of construction
compounds. Once the CEMP is approved, contractors working on the Site would be required to
comply with the requirements of the CEMP through the provision of detailed method statements.
16.3
OPERATIONAL PHASE
16.3.1
Many of the identified mitigation measures rely on effective implementation through the
development process and will either be inherent in the detailed design to form part of the future
reserved matters applications, or controlled by compliance with planning conditions. The precise
16-2
management structures for controlling these activities, to ensure that effects are minimised and
the design objectives are achieved will be subject to approval by TDC.
16.3.2
Specific mitigation measures identified for the construction and operational phase within the
technical ES chapters are summarised in Table 16.1.
16-3
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Impacts of Demolition,
Earthworks, Construction &
Trackout on Dust and PM10 & Minor
PM2.5 Concentrations on
nearby residential dwellings.
Air Quality
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
Negative
Demolition and
Construction
Impacts of Construction
Vehicles on NO2 PM10, PM2.5
Concentrations on Sensitive
receptors within 200m of
affected roads.
Moderate (NO2)
Negligible (PM10
PM2.5)
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
Implementation of a Construction
Environmental Management Plan.
Implementation of a Construction
Environmental Management Plan.
Negative (NO2)
N/A (PM10, PM2.5)
16-4
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
where possible.
Demolition and
Construction
Negligible
Implementation of a CEMP.
Implementation of a CEMP.
No Mitigation Required.
N/A
Negligible
N/A
Negligible to major
Negative
Negligible to minor
Negative
Negligible
N/A
Negative
Operation
16-5
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
Chapter 6 Noise and Vibration.
areas
Operational road traffic
Use of Spitfire Park
Degradati
on through
air borne
pollution
and
hydrologic
al
changes.
On-site
semi
improved
grassland
Negligible to minor
Negative
Negligible
N/A
No mitigation required
No mitigation required
Statutory Sites:
Thanet Coast and
Sandwich Bay
SPA, SAC and
Ramsar site,
See Information for Habitats Regulation Assessment report contained in Appendix 7.1.
Sandwich Bay to
Hacklinge
Marshes SSSI and
Sandwich and
Pegwell Bay NNR.
Retention of significant areas of
existing grassland; sensitive
management to improve diversity and
quality.
Direct habitat loss District
Negative
Landscaping strategy to retain
and fragmentation
connections between retained
grassland and new landscaping with
inter-connecting grassed borders and
verges.
Degradation by
water borne
pollution.
Site
Negative
Changes in
management
regime.
Negligible
N/A
16-6
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
Birds
(wintering)
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
District
Local
Negative
Changes in
management
regime.
Negligible
N/A
Direct loss.
District
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
Negative
Disturbance.
Degradation of
supporting habitat
Local
through
hydrological
changes.
Barn owl
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
Negative
Negative
District
Negative
Disturbance.
Local
Negative
16-7
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
management (CEMP).
Changes in
management
regime.
Direct loss.
Negligible
Site
Local
Operation
Negative
Disturbance.
Local
Negative
Changes in
management
regime.
Negligible
N/A
Statutory Sites:
Thanet Coast and
Sandwich Bay
SPA, SAC and
Ramsar site,
Sandwich Bay to
Hacklinge
Marshes SSSI and
Sandwich and
Pegwell Bay NNR.
Negative
Brown
Hare
Degradatio
n through
air borne
pollution,
hydrological
changes
and
increased
recreational
pressure.
N/A
See Information for Habitats Regulation Assessment report contained in Appendix 7.1.
16-8
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
Hydrological
On-site
changes.
semi
improved Changes in
grassland management
regime.
Direct loss.
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Local
Negative
Local
Barn owl
Disturbance.
Local
District
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
Implementation of SuDS.
Continued implementation of
sensitive grassland management
regime.
Implementation of SuDS.
Continued implementation of
sensitive grassland management
regime.
Positive
Negative
Birds
(wintering)
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
Negative
Negative
Degradation of
supporting habitat
Local
through
hydrological
changes.
Negative
Changes in
management
regime.
Local
Positive
Direct loss.
District
Negative
Habitat
fragmentation.
District
Negative
Disturbance.
Local
Negative
16-9
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
disturbance.
Brown
Hare
Landscape and
Visual
Changes in
management
regime.
Local
Positive
Direct loss.
Local
Negative
Disturbance.
Local
Negative
Changes in
management
regime.
Local
Positive
Continued implementation of
sensitive grassland management
regime.
Continued implementation of
sensitive grassland management
regime.
Please Cross Refer to Appendix 8.3 and Appendix 8.4 for Mitigation Measures Associated With Landscape and Visual Effects
Severance
Traffic and
Transportation
Negligible
Negligible
Negative
Demolition and
Construction
Driver Delay
Negative
16-10
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Negligible
Severance
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
Major
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Operation
Driver Delay
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
Negative
16-11
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
Negligible
Negative
Major
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
Negative
Negative
Moderate
Negative
16-12
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
be exacerbated by the traffic resulting
from the development and therefore
no supplementary mitigation
measures have been considered.
Negligible
Severance
Negligible
Negative
Negative
Richborough
Castle
Scheduled
Monument. A
Roman
(Saxon) Shore
Fort.
Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage
Demolition and
Construction
Changes to
the Fabric of
nondesignated
heritage
assets.
Negligible
The former
Prospect Inn.
Grade II Listed
Building.
The former
Manston
military airfield
and
Negligible to Minor
associated
historic
buildings.
Negative
Negative
16-13
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
Disturbance or
loss of
potential
buried/surface
archaeological
remains.
Operation
Water Resources
and Flood Risk
Demolition and
Construction
Historic
Landscape
Character
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Prehistoric
and Early
Moderate to Major
Medieval
Remains
Roman,
Medieval, Post
Medieval and Moderate
Modern
remains,
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
Negative
Negative
Historic
Manston
Airfield
Minor
Negative
HLC Units
Negligible
Negative
Construction
Workers
Moderate
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
16-14
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
Network
Operation
Water
Quantity
Effects Upon (Relevant for
Pipe Network)
Private
Surface Water Water Quality
Outfall
(Relevant for
Discharge to
Pegwell Bay)
Residents/Use
rs of the
surrounding
area
Surface Water
Site
Flooding
Occupants
(staff,
residents and
public)
Southern
Effects Upon Waters Water
Water Supply Supply
Network
Southern
Effects Upon
Waters Foul
Sewerage
Drainage
Systems
Network
Moderate
Negative
Moderate to Major
Negative
Moderate to Major
Negative
Negligible
Negative
Negligible
N/A
No Mitigation Required
Negligible
N/A
No mitigation required
Demolition and
Construction
Generation of Local
direct
economic
Moderate to major
N/A
Positive
Positive
16-15
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
Operation
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
employment
opportunities
during
construction
phase
receptors
Regional
economic
receptors
Minor
Positive
Generation of
indirect and
induced
employment
opportunities
during
construction
phase
Local
economic
receptors
Minor
Positive
Generation
direct
employment
opportunities
during the
operational
phase
Generation of
indirect or
induced
employment
opportunities
during the
operational
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement
Chapter 16 Summary of Effects and Mitigation
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Regional
economic
receptors
Local
economic
receptors
Minor
Minor
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
No mitigation required
No mitigation required
No mitigation required
No mitigation required
Positive
Positive
Moderate
economic
receptors
Minor
Positive
Local
economic
receptors
Minor
Positive
Moderate
economic
receptors
Minor
Positive
16-16
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
phase
Change in
local service
demand
(primary and
secondary
facilities,
healthcare
facilities,
community
facilities and
open/recreatio
nal space)
during the
operational
phase
Local
community
receptors
(primary
educational
facilities)
Local
community
receptors
(secondary
educational
facilities)
Local
community
receptors
(healthcare
facilities)
Local
community
receptors
(community
facilities)
Minor
No mitigation required
Positive
Positive
Moderate
Minor
Negative
Positive
Negligible to Minor
Positive
16-17
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Local
community
Minor
receptors
(open/recreati
onal space)
Increase in
spending from
Local
the new
economic
community on
receptors
the local
economy
Ground Conditions,
Demolition and
Hydrogeology and
Construction
Contamination
Potential effect
on
construction
workers and
adjacent site
users from
pre-existing
contamination
Construction
workers and
adjacent site
users
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
No mitigation Required.
Positive
Minor
Positive
Moderate to Major
Negative
16-18
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
Controlled
Waters
Potential
presence of
unstable
ground
conditions
Construction
workers
Potential effect
on controlled
Controlled
waters from
Waters
pre-existing
contamination
Operation
Minor to moderate
Minor to Moderate
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
Negative
Negative
N/A
16-19
Artificial Lighting
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
Demolition and
Construction
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
Disturbance
and nuisance
to residential
receptors form
light spill and
glare from
artificial
lighting
installations
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Future
residential
Major
receptors
within the Site
Negative
The west of
the Site
Negative
Minor
Manston Road
Moderate to Major
and Spitfire
Way
Negative
Negative
Village of
Minster
Negligible to Minor
Negative
South of the
Site
Minor
Negative
Cliffs End
Moderate
Negative
Village of
Manston
Negligible to
Moderate
Negative
Residential
properties to Minor
the north of
Manston
Residential
properties off Major
Manston Court
Road
Disturbance
Unlit/partially
and nuisance lit strategic
Moderate
to users of the and minor
local road and residential
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement
Chapter 16 Summary of Effects and Mitigation
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
Negative
Negative
Negative
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
16-20
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
PRoW )
associated
with light spill
and glare from
artificial
lighting
installations
Changes in
night-time
scene
Operation
Disturbance
and nuisance
roads and
PRoW
adjacent to the
Site
Lit minor
residential
roads and
PRoW
adjacent to the
Site
Unlit minor
residential
roads and
PRoW
adjacent to the
Site
Lit strategic
and minor
residential
roads and
PRoW not
adjacent to the
Site
Local
residential
receptors with
partial/direct
views of
existing nighttime scene
within the Site
The west of
the Site
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
Minor to moderate
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Minor
Negative
Moderate
Negative
Negligible to minor
Negative
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
16-21
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
to residential
receptors from
light spill and
glare from
artificial
lighting
installations
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
Manston Road
Minor
and Spitfire
Way
Negative
Alland Grange
Lane
Cliffs End
Unlit/partially
lit strategic
and minor
residential
roads and
PRoW
adjacent to the
Site
Lit minor
Disturbance
and nuisance residential
to users of the roads and
local road and PRoW
adjacent to the
PRoW
Site
associated
with light spill Unlit minor
and glare from residential
artificial
roads and
lighting
PRoW
installations
adjacent to the
Site
Lit strategic
and minor
residential
roads and
PRoW not
adjacent to the
Site
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement
Chapter 16 Summary of Effects and Mitigation
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Minor
Negligible to minor
Negative
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
installations, in line with the detailed
design and the recommendations
detailed within the Guidance Notes
Negative
Minor to moderate
Negative
Minor to moderate
Negative
Minor
Negative
Negligible to Minor
Negative
16-22
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
Changes in
night-time
scene
MAJOR / MODERATE
/ MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE
Local
residential
receptors with
partial/direct
Moderate
views of the
existing nighttime scene
within the Site
POSITIVE / NEGATIVE
Negative
MITIGATION / ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES
17-1
17
17.1
INTRODUCTION
17.1.1
The likely significant residual effects of the demolition / construction and operational phase of the
Proposed Development. Following the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures,
have been assessed and are summarised below based on the technical chapters (Chapter 5 14).
17.1.2
Residual effects of the operation of the completed development are generally permanent in nature
whereas demolition and construction effects are often less significant due to their temporary
nature (albeit potentially for a long period). A summary of residual effects are outlined below, and
focus on the operational phase of the Proposed Development.
17.1.3
Given the hybrid nature of the application a significant area of the Site is subject to the outline
element of the scheme with all matters reserved and therefore reserved matters applications will
be submitted for the detailed design. The proposed mitigation measures would therefore be
inherent in the design moving forward and can be adapted as part of that design.
17.2
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
AIR QUALITY
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
17.2.1
The residual effect in relation to PM10 and PM2.5 due to activities in the construction phase
following the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures is likely to be insignificant.
17.2.2
17.2.3
17.2.4
17.2.5
17.2.6
With the recommended mitigation measures it is anticipated that the majority of the construction
phase will result in a direct, temporary, long-term negligible to minor negative (insignificant)
effect. However, it is likely that there will be a direct, temporary, short-term moderate negative
(insignificant) effect at dwellings to the north-west of the site during periods of the demolition and
site clearance phase.
17.2.7
With careful planning and consideration of the proposed mitigation measures, the future dwellings
on the site should be exposed to a direct, temporary, medium-term negligible to minor negative
(insignificant) effect.
17-2
VIBRATION
17.2.8
During a worst-case scenario where plant are working close to the site boundary there will be a
direct, temporary, short-term minor negative (insignificant) effect. However, more of the time
when plant are working in a more central location of the site there will be a direct, temporary,
short-term negligible effect.
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
17.2.9
There will be a direct, temporary, short-term negligible effect on all road links as a result of the
construction traffic.
EXTERNAL BUILDING SERVICES PLANT AND EMPLOYMENT SPACE
17.2.10
Assuming that all plant and relevant activities comply with the noise limits set out in Error!
Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found. in the Noise and
Vibration Chapter, there will be a permanent, long-term negligible residual effect.
OPERATION
OPERATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE
17.2.11
With the exception of Spitfire Way (east of Columbus Avenue) and Manston Road (east of
Shottendane Road), there will be a direct, permanent, long-term negligible effect on all road
links. On Spitfire Way and Manston Road there will be a direct, permanent, long-term minor
negative (insignificant) effect.
USE OF SPITFIRE PARK
17.2.12
There will be a direct, permanent (in the context of the infrequent use), long-term negligible
effect.
ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
ON-SITE HABITAT (GOOD AND POOR SEMI-IMPROVED GRASSLAND)
17.2.13
The residual effect upon this ecological feature will comprise a combination of permanent loss of
habitat within the development zone and some fragmentation of the retained habitat. However,
retained habitat will be improved for biodiversity and connections between habitat parcels
replaced. Consequently it is probable that the residual effect upon semi-natural grassland habitat
on the Site will be a direct temporary (medium term) effect of negative significance at the
local scale.
17.2.14
It is near certain that following the implementation of standard mitigation measures and good
environmental site practices the effect upon the semi-natural grassland habitat on the Site as a
consequence of pollution events, should these occur, would be limited to the site scale only and
would constitute a direct temporary (short term) effect of negative significance.
BIRDS (WINTERING)
17.2.15
The residual effect upon wintering birds will comprise a combination of permanent loss of
approximately 47% of the wintering bird habitat within the Development Zone, Phase 1 Detailed
Application area and Special Outdoor Water-Based Recreation Zone and some fragmentation of
the retained habitat; however, approximately 100ha of retained habitat will be enhanced for
wintering birds during the construction phase. Consequently it is probable that the residual effect
17-3
upon wintering birds on the Site during the construction phase will be a direct permanent (long
term) effect of positive significance at the site scale.
17.2.16
It is probable that following the implementation of standard mitigation measures and good
environmental site practices through the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
the effect of changes in hydrology upon supporting habitat for wintering birds is likely to be of
negligible significance. Effects on wintering birds on the Site following the implementation of the
CEMP as a consequence of disturbance during the construction phase would likely be a
temporary direct (medium term) effect of negative significance at the local scale.
BARN OWL
17.2.17
It is probable that following implementation of the CEMP, the likelihood of a barn owl fatality
arising from traffic collision will be reduced, however should this event occur, a residual effect
upon barn owls during the construction phase will be a direct permanent (long term) effect of
negative significance at the district scale.
17.2.18
It is possible that following the implementation of mitigation measures (including the replacement
roost in B8) and the CEMP the residual effect upon barn owls on the Site as a consequence of
disturbance during the construction phase will be a temporary direct (medium term) effect of
negative significance at the local scale.
17.2.19
17.2.20
17.2.21
Following implementation of mitigation, there will be a loss of approximately 90ha of brown hare
habitat and the retention and sensitive management of approximately 100ha of brown hare
habitat during the construction phase. It is considered that the resulting residual effect upon
brown hare at the Site as a result of the construction phase will likely be a direct permanent
(long term) effect of negative significance at the site scale.
OPERATION
ON-SITE HABITAT (GOOD AND POOR SEMI-IMPROVED GRASSLAND)
17.2.22
The implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDS) on the Site will likely result in a
negligible residual effect on the semi-improved grassland habitat on the Site.
17.2.23
The continued implementation of a sensitive management regime will likely result in a smaller
area of more structurally and botanically diverse neutral grassland (c. 100ha) on the Site. It is
therefore considered likely that a direct permanent (long term) effect of positive significance
at the local scale will occur.
BIRDS (WINTERING)
17.2.24
The control of cat predation of birds and small mammals is impractical to mitigate on a large
scale. The residual effect on the wintering bird community (including short eared owl) is likely to
be a direct/indirect permanent (long term) effect of negative significance at the local scale.
17-4
17.2.25
Following implementation of mitigation traffic collision with a short eared owl is unlikely; however,
if it a fatality did occur it would result in a near certain direct permanent (long term) residual
effect upon the short eared population on site of negative significance at the district scale.
17.2.26
The provision of alternative dog walking areas, accompanied by signage and awareness-raising
amongst Site residents, is likely to contribute towards a reduction in the disturbance caused to
wintering birds by dog walkers on the Site and is therefore considered to result in a direct
permanent (long term) residual effect of negative significance at the local scale.
17.2.27
The implementation of SuDS on the Site will likely result in a negligible residual effect on the
wintering bird community as a result of changes in the hydrological regime.
BARN OWL
17.2.28
Following implementation of mitigation, the risk of a traffic collision event killing a barn owl will be
reduced; however, if a fatality did occur, the residual effect upon barn owl as a result of direct loss
through traffic collisions on the Site during the operational phase will be a direct permanent
(long term) effect of negative significance at the district scale.
17.2.29
Sensitive lighting management directly around the roost and across suitable foraging habitat
within the Site and prevention of excessive disturbance by the occupiers of B8 will result in a
negligible residual effect upon the barn owl population.
BROWN HARE
17.2.30
The prevention of hares from accessing the roads within and around the Proposed Development
is impractical and would significantly alter the open green space character of the Site. It is
therefore probable that the residual effect of increased traffic on the brown hare population at the
Site during the operational phase will be a direct permanent (long term) effect of negative
significance at a local scale.
17.2.31
Disturbance to brown hare caused during the operational phase of the Proposed Development is
manageable to a certain extent through responsible dog walking on the Site. This relies heavily on
the good will of residents, and whilst it minimises the probability of negative effects upon hares
on Site, it may not remove effects to a negligible level. It is therefore concluded likely that
disturbance during the operational phase will still have a direct permanent (long term) effect of
negative significance at the local scale on the brown hare population.
LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
17.2.32
The implementation of good site management, maintenance and housekeeping would ensure that
temporary deterioration to landscape resources, character and visual amenity will be kept to a
practicable minimum. Despite these better practice measures, there would still remain inevitable
adverse effects during construction works. However in overall terms the residual effects upon
landscape resources, landscape character and the visual envelope are not anticipated to be
significant and the majority of which are predicted to be short term, temporary and local.
17.2.33
The residual effects assessment assumes that all mitigation has been implemented. The
predicted construction phase landscape and visual effects are set out in Appendices 8.2 and 8.3,
and are summarised below:
Effects on site level landscape character are of negligible significance (direct effect).
17-5
Effects on townscape at all levels result in no change (direct and indirect effects).
Effects on topography, tree cover/vegetation and ecology and habitats are of negligible
significance (direct effects).
Effects on public rights of way and open space and listed buildings and scheduled
monuments result in no change (direct effects)
Effects on locally identified heritage features are of minor negative significance (direct
effects).
OPERATION
LANDSCAPE EFFECTS
17.2.34
As the key mitigation measures are inherent in the parameters which control the design of the
Proposed Development, the residual effects are likely to remain as set out in Chapter 8
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and summarised in Appendix 8.3. As this is a
hybrid application, it is acknowledged that some aspects of the detailed design may change from
the illustrative masterplan (Figure 2.8) which shows how the development could be laid out
compliant with the parameters. However, the principles set within the parameter plans and
defined within the Design and Access statement (SHP1-3) (Ref. 17.1) will ensure no greater
landscape effects than those predicted in this assessment.
VISUAL EFFECTS
17.2.35
The illustrative masterplan accords with the principles set within the parameter plans (Figure 2.1
2.6), and the design approach outlined within the Design and Access Statement which
accompanies this application. The photomontages of the illustrative masterplan demonstrate how
the parameter plans and design principles can be employed to minimise, reduce or offset any
potential adverse impacts on identified key views. In addition the layout of the site can be used to
create and enhance existing views, including the creation of visual linkages between key site
heritage assets, and orientation of streets to allow views out towards Pegwell Bay.
17.2.36
The residual visual effects are summarised in Appendix 8.4. Refer to Appendix 8.2 for the
photographs and photomontages. As this is a hybrid application, it is acknowledged that some
aspects of the detailed design may change from the illustrative masterplan. However, the
principles of the maximum height and disposition of built development across the site as
controlled by the parameter plans and defined more fully within the Design and Access Statement
will ensure no greater landscape and visual effects, than those predicted in this assessment.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
17.2.37
The assessment indicates that the environmental effects during the construction phase are
anticipated to be negligible.
OPERATION
17.2.38
The assessment indicates that the proposed scheme would have a Moderate to Major Negative
effect in terms of Driver Delay at a number of junctions located within the study area without
mitigation. Each of the junctions identified currently operate over capacity, as such the model
used is not expected to accurately reflect the delay experienced by each driver. In reality, the
driver delay at each of these junctions is expected to be considerably less.
17.2.39
A number of mitigation measures have been considered and these are discussed in detail within
the Transport Assessment (SHP1-7) (Ref. 17.2). These will aid in providing additional capacity to
accommodate traffic associated with the development. Several junctions show a minor or
17-6
moderate negative effect in terms of driver delay following mitigation. However, in junction delay
terms these effects are minor and are unlikely to be material on a day to day basis. The only
junction that shows a major negative effect following mitigation is the A256/A257 Ash Road. The
effects at this junction will be discussed with KCC as the highway authority post-application with
the intention of bringing effects down within an acceptable level.
17.2.40
The Proposed Development would have a Moderate to Major Effect in terms of Fear and
Intimidation on a number of links within the study area without mitigation. However, a number of
these links are not expected to carry pedestrians and cyclists and improvements are proposed
where appropriate to mitigate the effects of the development. Overall it is not considered that
there are any residual effects as a result of the Proposed Development.
17.2.41
The Proposed Development would have a Moderate Negative effect upon Accidents and Safety
at a number of junctions located on the local highway network in the vicinity of the site. It is not
considered that there are any significant existing safety issues at any of these junctions, which
could be exacerbated by the traffic resulting from the development.
ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
DISTURBANCE OR LOSS OF POTENTIAL BURIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS
17.2.42
Archaeological recording will ensure that any archaeology that does survive is either preserved 'in
situ' or preserved 'by record' and will add further to our knowledge of the history and development
of this area of Thanet, East Kent. This will in part reduce the overall magnitude of change.
However, as a result of the potential loss of archaeological remains in situ, the effect for all time
periods is considered to be negative.
17.2.43
The value of potential buried archaeological remains from the Prehistoric and Early medieval
periods is medium to high and the magnitude of change, following mitigation, is medium.
Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual effect on potential buried
archaeological remains from the Prehistoric and Early medieval periods of moderate negative
significance following the implementation of mitigation measures.
17.2.44
The value of potential buried archaeological remains from the Roman, Post Medieval, Medieval,
and Modern periods is medium and medium to low and the magnitude of change, following
mitigation, is low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual effect on
potential buried archaeological remains from the Roman, Early medieval, Medieval, and Modern
periods of minor negative significance following the implementation of mitigation measures.
CHANGE TO THE FABRIC OF NON-DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS
17.2.45
The value of the historic buildings is considered low to medium and the magnitude of change,
following mitigation, is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term
residual effect on the airfields historic buildings of negligible negative significance following the
implementation of mitigation measures.
CHANGES TO THE SETTING OF DESIGNATED AND NON-DESIGNATED
HERITAGE ASSETS
17.2.45.1
The value of Richborough Castle SM is high and the magnitude of change remains negligible.
Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, medium-term residual effect on the SM of
negligible significance.
17-7
17.2.45.2
The value of the former Prospect Inn Listed Building is medium and the magnitude of change
remains negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, medium-term residual
effect on the Listed Building of negligible negative significance.
17.2.45.3
The value of the former Manston Airfield and associated historic buildings is low to medium and
the magnitude of change remains low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary,
medium-term residual effect on this asset of minor to negligible negative significance following
the implementation of mitigation measures.
CHANGES TO THE HISTORIC LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
17.2.45.4
The value of the former airfield and associated historic buildings within the Site is low to medium
and the magnitude of change is considered low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct,
permanent, long-term residual effect on the historic character of the airfield and associated
buildings within the Site of minor to negligible negative significance.
17.2.45.5
The value of the wider historic townscape character within the Site is low to medium and the
magnitude of change is considered to be low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent,
long-term residual effect on the historic townscape character within the Site of minor negative
significance.
OPERATION
CHANGES IN THE SETTING OF DESIGNATED AND NON-DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS
17.2.45.6
The value of Richborough Castle SM is high and the magnitude of change remains negligible.
Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, medium-term residual effect on the SM of
negligible negative significance.
17.2.45.7
The value of the former Prospect Inn Listed Building is medium and the magnitude of change
remains negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, medium-term residual
effect on the Listed Building of negligible negative significance.
17.2.45.8
The value of the former Manston Airfield and associated historic buildings is low to medium and
the magnitude of change remains low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary,
medium-term residual effect on this asset of minor negligible negative significance following the
implementation of mitigation measures.
WATER RESOURCES, FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
EFFECTS ON/OF SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
17.2.46
The sensitivity of construction workers is medium and the magnitude of effect, following
mitigation, is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary long-term effect on
construction workers of negligible significance following the implementation of mitigation
measures.
RESIDENTS/USERS OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND INITIAL SITE OCCUPANTS
17.2.47
The sensitivity of residents and users of the surrounding area is considered to be high and the
magnitude of effect, following mitigation, is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a negligible
significance on the residents/users of the surrounding area following the implementation of
mitigation measures.
17-8
EFFECTS UPON WATER SUPPLY
RISK TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY NETWORK
17.2.48
The sensitivity of the public water supply is considered to be negligible and the magnitude of
effect, following mitigation, is considered to be medium. This would result in a negligible
significance on the water supply network following the implementation of mitigation measures.
EFFECTS UPON SEWERAGE SYSTEM
RISK TO PUBLIC FOUL DRAINAGE NETWORK
17.2.49
The sensitivity of the public foul drainage network is considered to be negligible and the
magnitude of effect, following mitigation, is considered to be medium. This would result in a direct,
temporary, long-term effect of negligible significance on Southern Waters foul drainage network
following the implementation of mitigation measures.
EFFECTS UPON PRIVATE SURFACE WATER OUTFALL
WATER QUANTITY (RELEVANT FOR PIPE NETWORK)
17.2.50
The sensitivity of water quantity is considered to be medium and the magnitude of effect, following
mitigation, is considered to be negligible. This would result in a direct, temporary, long-term effect
on water quantity of negligible significance following the implementation of mitigation measures.
WATER QUALITY (RELEVANT FOR DISCHARGE TO PEGWELL BAY)
17.2.51
The sensitivity of water quality is considered to be high and the magnitude of change, following
mitigation, is considered to be negligible. This would result in a direct, temporary, long-term
effect negligible significance, on water quality.
OPERATION
EFFECTS ON/OF SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK
RESIDENTS/USERS OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS
17.2.52
The sensitivity of residents/users of the surrounding areas is considered to be high and the
magnitude of effect is considered to be medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct,
permanent, long-term effect on residents and users of the surrounding area of moderate positive
up to major positive significance.
SITE OCCUPANTS (STAFF, RESIDENTS AND PUBLIC)
17.2.53
The sensitivity of the site occupants is considered to be high and the magnitude of effect is
considered to be negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term effect
on residents and users of the surrounding area of negligible significance.
EFFECTS UPON WATER SUPPLY
RISK TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY NETWORK
17.2.54
The sensitivity of the public water supply is considered to be negligible and the magnitude of
effect, prior to mitigation, is considered to be high. This would result in a direct, permanent, longterm effect of negligible significance on Southern Waters supply network.
17-9
EFFECTS UPON SEWERAGE SYSTEM
RISK TO PUBLIC FOUL DRAINAGE NETWORK
17.2.55
The sensitivity of the public foul drainage network is considered to be negligible and the
magnitude of effect, prior to mitigation, is considered to be high. This would result in a direct,
permanent, long-term effect of negligible significance on Southern Waters foul drainage
network.
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
GENERATION OF DIRECT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION
PHASE
17.2.56
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change remains high.
Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, long-term residual effect on local economic
receptors of moderate to major positive significance.
17.2.57
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change remains
low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, temporary on regional economic receptors
of minor positive significance.
GENERATION OF INDIRECT AND INDUCED EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
17.2.58
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change remains low.
Therefore, there is likely to be an indirect, temporary, long-term residual effect on local economic
receptors of minor positive significance.
17.2.59
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change remains
low. Therefore, the likely to be an indirect, long-term, temporary residual effect on regional
economic receptors of minor positive significance.
OPERATION
GENERATION OF DIRECT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE OPERATIONAL
PHASE
17.2.60
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change remains low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent residual effect
on local economic receptors of minor positive significance.
17.2.61
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change remains low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent residual effect
on regional economic receptors of minor positive significance.
GENERATION OF INDIRECT AND INDUCED EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE
OPERATIONAL PHASE
17.2.62
The sensitivity of the local economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change remains
low. Therefore, there is likely to be an indirect, long-term, permanent residual effect on local
economic receptors of minor positive significance.
17-10
17.2.63
The sensitivity of the regional economic receptors is medium and the magnitude of change
remains low. Therefore, there is likely to be an indirect, long-term, permanent residual effect on
regional economic receptors of minor positive significance.
INCREASE IN THE HOUSING STOCK RANGE AND SIZE OF UNITS AND CONTRIBUTION
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS
17.2.64
The sensitivity of local housing receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change remains low to medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent
effect on local housing receptors of minor to moderate positive significance.
CHANGE IN LOCAL SERVICE DEMAND (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
FACILITIES, HEALTHCARE SERVICES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND
OPEN/RECREATIONAL SPACE) DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE
17.2.65
The sensitivity of local community receptors (primary educational facilities) is high and the
magnitude of change is low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual
effect on local community receptors (educational facilities) of minor positive significance.
17.2.66
The sensitivity of local community receptors (secondary educational facilities) is low and the
magnitude of change is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term
residual effect on local community receptors (educational facilities) of negligible significance.
17.2.67
The sensitivity of local community receptors (healthcare facilities) is low and the magnitude of
change is low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual effect on
local community receptors (healthcare facilities) of minor positive significance.
17.2.68
The sensitivity of local community receptors (community facilities) is low and the magnitude of
change is negligible to low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual
effect on local community receptors (community facilities) of negligible to minor positive
significance.
17.2.69
The sensitivity of local community receptors (open/recreational facilities) is low and the magnitude
of change is medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent residual effect
on local community receptors (open/recreational facilities) minor positive significance.
INCREASE IN SPENDING FROM THE NEW COMMUNITY ON THE LOCAL ECONOMY
17.2.70
The sensitivity of local economic receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change remains medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent residual
effect on local economic receptors of moderate positive significance.
17.2.71
The sensitivity of regional economic receptors is considered to be medium and the magnitude of
change remains negligible to low. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, long-term, permanent
residual effect on regional economic receptors of negligible to minor positive significance.
GROUND CONDITIONS, HYDROGEOLOGY AND CONTAMINATION
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
POTENTIAL EFFECT ON CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND ADJACENT SITE USERS FROM
PRE-EXISTING CONTAMINATION
17.2.72
The sensitivity of construction workers and adjacent site users is high and the magnitude of
change, following mitigation, is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, longterm residual effect on construction workers and the general public of negligible significance
following the implementation of mitigation measures.
17-11
POTENTIAL EFFECT ON CONTROLLED WATERS FROM PRE-EXISTING CONTAMINATION
17.2.73
The sensitivity of Controlled Waters is high and the magnitude of change, following mitigation is
negligible. Therefore, there is a likely to be direct, temporary long-term effect on Controlled
Waters of negligible significance following the implementation of measures.
POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF UNSTABLE GROUND CONDITIONS
17.2.74
The sensitivity of construction workers is high and the magnitude of change, prior to mitigation, is
negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, long-term residual effect on
construction workers of negligible significance following the implementation of mitigation
measures.
OPERATION
POTENTIAL EFFECT ON TO CONTROLLED WATERS
17.2.75
The sensitivity of Controlled Waters is high and the magnitude of change, following mitigation is
negligible. Therefore, there is a likely to be direct, temporary short term effect on Controlled
Waters of negligible significance following the implementation of measures.
ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
DISTURBANCE AND NUISANCE TO RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS FROM LIGHT SPILL AND
GLARE FROM ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING INSTALLATIONS
The sensitivity of future and existing residential receptors is high and the magnitude of change,
following mitigation, ranges from negligible up to low to medium. Therefore, there is likely to be
direct, temporary, long-term residual effect on residential receptors of negligible up to moderate
negative significance, following the implementation of mitigation measures.
DISTURBANCE AND NUISANCE TO USERS OF THE LOCAL ROAD AND PROW
ASSOCIATED WITH LIGHT SPILL AND GLARE FROM ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING
INSTALLATIONS
17.2.76
The sensitivity of the existing and future users of the local road and PRoW network is medium
and the magnitude of change, following mitigation, is considered to be negligible up to low to
medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, temporary, long-term residual effect on existing
and future users of the local road and PRoW of negligible up to minor to moderate negative
significance, following the implementation of mitigation.
CHANGES IN NIGHT-TIME SCENE
17.2.77
The sensitivity of local residential receptors with partial/direct views of the existing night-time
scene within the Site is medium and the magnitude of change, following mitigation, is considered
to be low. Therefore, there is likely to be direct, temporary, long-term residual effect of minor
negative significance, following the implementation of mitigation measures.
OPERATION
DISTURBANCE AND NUISANCE TO RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS FROM LIGHT SPILL AND
GLARE FROM ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING INSTALLATIONS
17.2.78
The sensitivity of residential receptors is high and the magnitude of change, following mitigation,
is considered to range from negligible up to negligible to low. Therefore, there is likely to be a
17-12
direct, permanent, long-term effect on residential receptors of negligible up to negligible to minor
negative significance, following the implementation of mitigation measures.
DISTURBANCE AND NUISANCE TO USERS OF THE LOCAL ROAD AND PROW
ASSOCIATED WITH LIGHT SPILL AND GLARE FROM ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING
INSTALLATIONS
17.2.79
The sensitivity of users of the local road and PRoW network is medium and the magnitude of
change, following mitigation, is considered to be negligible up to negligible to low. Therefore,
there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term residual effect of negligible up to negligible to
minor negative significance, following the implementation of mitigation measures.
CHANGE IN NIGHT-TIME SCENE
17.2.80
The sensitivity of the local residential receptors with views of the existing night-time scene with
partial and direct views of the Site is medium and the magnitude of change, following mitigation is
considered to be low. Therefore, there is likely to be direct, permanent, long-term residual effect
of minor negative significance, following the implementation of mitigation measures.
17.3
CONCLUSIONS
17.3.1
The Proposed Development is for a new employment-led residential community with planning
permission being sought for the delivery of up-to 2,500 homes and the provision of:
Car parking
17.3.2
The Proposed Development is considered to be appropriate in terms of its location and viability
including links to public transport services and will provide a range of dwellings as well as retail
and commercial facilities. It will also provide areas of open space which will deliver benefits to the
local and wider community, along with community leisure, learning and recreational facilities.
17.3.3
The design of the Proposed Development and commitments that have been made to the
proposed management practices during construction and operation incorporate a range of
enhancement and mitigation measures. These measures will minimise any significant
environmental effects and ensure that the sustainability and environmental performance of the
Proposed Development is optimised.
17.3.4
Planning conditions, obligations or other means may be used to secure the delivery of the
mitigation and enhancement measures set out in this ES and in other documents submitted in
support of the Planning Application.
17-13
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
Demolition and
Construction
Air Quality (Chapter
5)
Operation
Demolition and
Construction
Operation
POSITIVE /
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Negligible (overall)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Negligible (overall)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Negligible to moderate
Negative
MT
Negligible to minor
Negative
ST
Construction traffic
Negligible
N/A
ST
N/A
LT
Negative
LT
N/A
LT
national/regional/county/district/local/sit POSITIVE /
e/negligible
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
Local
MT
Negligible
Negative
17-14
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
Birds (wintering)
Barn owl
Brown hare
POSITIVE /
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
Site
Negative
ST
Site
Positive
LT
Local
Negative
LT
Disturbance.
Local
Negative
MT
Site
Positive
LT
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Direct loss.
District
Negative
LT
Local
Negative
LT
Disturbance.
Local
Negative
MT
Site
Positive
LT
Direct loss.
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Site
Negative
LT
17-15
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
POSITIVE /
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
Disturbance.
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Site
Positive
LT
national/regional/county/district/local/sit POSITIVE /
e/negligible
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Local
Positive
LT
Local
Negative
LT
Disturbance.
District
Negative
LT
Local
Negative
LT
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Direct loss.
District
Negative
LT
Habitat fragmentation.
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Disturbance.
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Operation
Hydrological changes.
On-site semi
improved grassland Changes in management regime.
Direct loss.
Birds (wintering)
Barn owl
17-16
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
POSITIVE /
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
Local
Positive
LT
Direct loss.
Local
Negative
LT
Disturbance.
Local
Negative
LT
Local
Positive
LT
Brown hare
Landscape and
Visual Impact
Assessment
(Chapter 8)
Traffic and
Transport (Chapter
9)
Please Cross-Refer to Appendix 8.3 (Landscape Effects) and Appendix 8.4 (Visual Baseline and Effects)
Demolition and
Construction
Severance
Negligible
Negative
MT
Driver Delay
Negligible
Negative
MT
Pedestrian delay
Negligible
Negative
MT
Negligible
Negative
MT
Negligible
Negative
MT
Negligible
Negative
MT
Severance
Negligible
Negligible
Negative
Operation
17-17
Archaeology
(Chapter 10)
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
Demolition and
Construction
Operation
Water Resources,
Flood Risk and
Drainage (Chapter
11)
Demolition and
Construction
POSITIVE /
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
Driver Delay
Major Negative
Major
Negative
Negative
Negligible
Negligible
Negative
Negligible
Negligible
Negative
Negligible
Negligible
Negative
Negligible
Negligible
Negative
Negative
MT
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Minor
Negative
LT
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17-18
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
Operation
Demolition and
Construction
Socio-Economics
(Chapter 12)
Operation
POSITIVE /
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Positive
LT
Positive
Minor
Positive
LT
Minor
Positive
LT
Minor
Positive
LT
Minor
Positive
LT
Minor
Positive
LT
17-19
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
POSITIVE /
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
Minor
Positive
LT
Positive
LT
Positive
LT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Positive
LT
Negligible to Minor
Positive
LT
Minor
Positive
LT
Positive
LT
Negligible
N/A
LT
Negligible
N/A
LT
Negligible
N/A
LT
Negligible
N/A
ST
Minor
17-20
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
POSITIVE /
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
Future residential
Disturbance and nuisance to residential
receptors within the receptors form light spill and glare from
Site
artificial lighting installations
The west of the Site
Minor
Negative
LT
Negligible
N/A
LT
Minor to Moderate
Negative
LT
Negligible
N/A
LT
Village of Minster
Negligible
N/A
LT
Negligible
N/A
LT
Cliffs End
Negligible to Minor
Negative
LT
Village of Manston
Negligible to Minor
Negative
LT
Residential
properties to the
north of Manston
Negligible
N/A
LT
Residential
properties off
Manston Court
Road
Moderate
Negative
LT
Artificial Lighting
(Chapter 14)
17-21
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
POSITIVE /
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
Negative
LT
Negligible to minor
Negative
LT
Minor
Negative
LT
Negligible
N/A
LT
Minor
Negative
LT
Negligible
N/A
LT
Negligible to minor
Negative
LT
Negligible to minor
Negative
LT
Unlit/partially lit
strategic and minor
residential roads
and PRoW adjacent
to the Site
Lit minor residential
roads and PRoW
adjacent to the Site
Unlit minor
residential roads
and PRoW adjacent
to the Site
Lit strategic and
minor residential
roads and PRoW
not adjacent to the
Site
Local residential
receptors with
partial/direct views
of existing nighttime scene within
the Site
Operation
17-22
STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT
POSITIVE /
NEGATIVE
P/T
D/I
ST / MT /
LT
Negligible
N/A
LT
Negative
LT
Negligible to Minor
Negative
LT
Negligible
Negative
LT
Negligible
N/A
LT
Minor
Negative
LT
Cliffs End
Unlit/partially lit
strategic and minor
residential roads
and PRoW adjacent
to the Site
Lit minor residential
roads and PRoW
adjacent to the Site
Unlit minor
residential roads
and PRoW adjacent
to the Site
Lit strategic and
minor residential
roads and PRoW
not adjacent to the
Site
Local residential
receptors with
partial/direct views
of the existing nighttime scene within
the Site
Key to table: P / T = Permanent or Temporary, D / I = Direct or Indirect, ST / MT / LT = Short Term, Medium Term or Long Term N/A = Not Applicable
17-23
17.4
REFERENCES
Ref. 17.1
Ref. 17.2
Scale @ A3 : 26,721
Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2015
PROJECT:
PROJECT No:
Client:
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
MH
TS
TS
B
May 2016
Figure 1.1
Scale @ A3 : 4,175
Figure 1.2
Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2015
PROJECT:
PROJECT No:
Client:
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
MH
TS
TS
B
May 2016
Scale @ A3 : 12,000
Figure 1.3
Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2015
PROJECT:
PROJECT No:
Client:
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
MH
TS
TS
B
May 2016
C
Figure 2.1
VINC
ENT
ROA
MANSTON
ROAD
Track
LB
Stone
ENT
ROA
Track
Stone
C
C
PLANNING APPLICATION
SITE BOUNDARY
DO NOT SCALE OFF THIS DRAWING
VINC
W
B
Stone
ROAD
G
P
MANSTON
T
UR
Mast
N
RO
CO
TO
NS
MA
Stone
W
B
Reservoir
(covered)
in
Stone
Dra
Stone
Stone
G
P
Reservoir
(covered)
Stone
DEVELOPMENT
EXTENT OF PHASEZONES
1 (DETAILED APPLICATION)
AD
T
UR
Mast
N
RO
CO
TO
NS
MA
Letter
Box
Tra
VINC
ENT
ROA
Track
in
Dra
Stone
Reservoir
(covered)
Stone
ck
Stone
PR
ES
Stone
TO
Reservoir
(covered)
RO
AD
Stone
Stones
Stone
Pylon
LB
Letter
Box
Tra
PR
ES
Stone
ck
Stone
TO
Stone
RO
PR
AD
ES
TO
RO
AD
Pylon
Stones
Stone
Stone
Court
G
P
Stone
AD
T
UR
Mast
N
RO
CO
TO
NS
MA
El
Sub Sta
PR
ES
TO
RO
AD
Pylon
Silo
Stone
Reservoir
(covered)
Tennis
El
Court
Sub Sta
Reservoir
(covered)
DEVELOPMENT ZONES
STO
MAN
ROA
D
El
Sub Sta
Stone
Letter
Box
Wind
Sock
MUSGRAVE
El
Sub Sta
50
Stone
MUSGRAVE
GRANGE
ZONE 9
El Sub
Sta
CLOSE
unica
Pond
90
AVEN
UE
SPRAT
LING
PRE
0
ROA
D
MINSTER
D
N ROA
B 2190
STO
PRE
Telegraph Hill
E
GR
'S
INE
ER
CA
TH
ST
ET
RE
ST
ck
HI
GH
Tra
E
OV
GR
INE
'S
50
ER
ELM GROVE
CA
TH
ST
RE
ET
HI
GH
Tra
ST
ck
20
NE
ST
OR
LA
IG
DA
ZONE 6
20
50
Sports Ground
(private)
Track
ZONE 2
Sports Ground
(private)
ZONE 3
ROA
D
MINSTER
Mast (Telecommunication)
ET
RE
ST
HIG
No Development
ZONE 7
Stones
Wind Sock
OV
GR
Track
INE
ELM GROVE
CA
TH
ST
RE
ET
ZONE 3
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
ST
HI
GH
A299
NE
OR
M 12.05.16
L 05.05.16
K 29.04.16
Track
ER
TCB
ck
Sports Ground
TCB
(private)
ET
RE
'S
EE
GR
G
War Meml
P
Tra
ZONE 8
G
War Meml
P
Track
Telegraph Hill
(private)
A29
TCB
TH
TH
Sports Ground
HIG
Wind Sock
The Leys
Mast
TCB
Lighting Tower
Lighting Tower
No Development
SPECIAL OUTDOOR
WATER-BASED RECREATION
ZONE
LA
DA
ZONE 6
ZONE 4
B 2190
The Leys
NE
OR
IG
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
TCB
EE
IRE WAY
ROAD
A299
Lighting Tower
GR
WAY
ZONE 2
SPITF
G
War Meml
P
Track
LIN
B 2190
MER
ZONE 1
SPRAT
Path
ROAD
Ruin
ZONE 10
RE WAY
SPITFI
B 2190
MANSTON
B 2190
EE
WAY
ZONE 4
El Sub Sta
OV
Lighting Tower
IRE WAY
(disused)
STREE
TH
MANSTON
SPITF
Icehouse
LING
Path
B 2050
ZONE 8
ELM GROVE
Lighting Tower
ZONE 5
GR
ZONE 10
RE WAY
SPITFI
B 219
Pond
Stone
Mast
VE
TCB
B 2190
N ROA
Ruin
TFI
SPI
STO
DRI
RE
Y
WA
Stone
STREE
Track
WAY
LIN
Box
The Leys
Lighting Tower
LL
MER
Stone
Letter
ROAD
s
ve
Ca
R ROAD
MINSTE
(disused)
MANSTON
BE
El Sub Sta
IES
AV
ICTA
Icehouse
21
-D
INV
Tank
Path
El Sub Sta
B 2050
ZONE 5
tion)
COLU
MBUS
Stone
STREE
ROA
D
RT
AD
RO
Court
STO
TO
Tennis
CL
N COU
NS
SPI
VE
TOLLEMACHE
s
B 219
MON
Stone
MAN
COLU
LING
BEA
(Telec
omm
SPRAT
Y
WA
TFI
DRI
Manston Park
RE
MA
Track
WAY
21
DRIVE
ve
Mast
D
E
Ca
R ROAD
MINSTE
Tank
Stone
90
LL
ESMON
IES
ICTA
Box
50
AV
-D
20
BE
ALLAND
MBUS
AD
Stone
Letter
El Sub Sta
FS
PRE
STO
N ROA
D
UE
AVEN
RO
STO
MAN
Stone
Wind
Sock
B
El Sub Sta
E
CLOS
ZONE 9
CLOSE
TO
Court
ROA
D
LB
tion)
ES
Tennis
CL
unica
N COU
RT
ROA
MON
AD
RO
BEA
(Telec
omm
PR
N
TO
Manston Park
El Sub
Sta
MAN
STO
DRIVE
NS
D
E
MA
ESMON
Stone
Mast
Stone
FS
20
Track
AD
El Sub Sta
E
CLOS
RO
GRANGE
ALLAND
Stone
TO
LB
TOLLEMACHE
PR
ES
Silo
A29
LA
Mast (Telecommunication)
Dunstrete
IG
DA
20
50
Sports Ground
SEMPL
CLO
SE
LL
SEMPL
L
HIL
GE
TTA
CO
Gas Govn
04.03.16
I 20.04.16
29.02.16
H 06.04.16
B 09.02.16
G 05.04.16
A 04.02.16
F 22.03.16
00 21.01.16
E 18.03.16
C
HENGIST WAY
Y
WA
HIL
G
P
Dunstrete
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
A29
L
HIL
CO
TT
AG
E
ROAD
Tank
Rev
LAUN
IVY
DRY
IVE
DR
LL
STREET
HI
HILL
NE
OR
TH
Mast (Telecommunication)
US
HO
Mast
JW
Fifth Issue
MP
JW
29.02.16
Fourth Issue
MP
JW
09.02.16
A 04.02.16
00 21.01.16
Tank
JW
JW
JW
El Sub
Sta
Tunnel
A299
A25
CLIVE ROAD
PROJECT NO:
1:5500@A1
Date:
Planning
Revision
12.05.16
N
DRIVE
Client
Drg title
JW
JW
El Sub Sta
MP
WINDSOR ROAD
Status
Planning
Revision N
Checked JW
Drg title Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones
Drg nr
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
70009799
Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
PL1436-VW-011
Status
MP
DRIVE
Scale
JW
JW
JW
Project
Tunnel
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
Drg title
CLIENT:
SL
Drg nr
Cliffsend Crossing
A299
El Sub Sta
JW
MP 84.25
MP 84
Client
Tunnel
Fifth Issue
Project
El Sub Sta
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
A25
FOADS HILL
SEA VIEW
ROAD
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
PROJECT:
Cliffsend Crossing
WINDSOR ROAD
ROAD
A299
Cliffsend Crossing
CLIVE ROAD
MP 84
JW
Project
JW
JW
JW
CLIVE ROAD
Planit - IE LLP
SL
SL
Reservoir
MP 84
MP 84.25
El Sub
Sta
MP 84.25
DRIVE
LB
TCB
LB
A299
TCB
Date
MP
MP
MP
NOTE:
1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
WINDSOR ROAD
ARUNDEL ROAD
KING ARTHUR
ROAD
Rev
Third Issue
Second Issue
First Issue
Reservoir
FOADS HILL
18.03.16
ROAD
MP
04.03.16
04.03.16
SEA VIEW
Sixth Issue
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
ARUNDEL ROAD
JW
JW
JW
ARUNDEL ROAD
MP
MP
MP
El Sub
Sta
ROAD
For Approval
Design Issue
Seventh Issue
H 06.04.16
G 05.04.16
F 22.03.16
TCB
LB
SEA VIEW
JW
Tank
ROAD
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
KING ARTHUR
20.04.16
FOADS HILL
KING ARTHUR
25.04.16
A29
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
JW
G
P
LL
JW
JW
JW
Boundary Amends MP
Planning
MP
Planning
MP
Dev Area Amend MP
HIL
HI
M 12.05.16
L 05.05.16
K 29.04.16
Y
WA
NE
JW
OR
MP
TH
Boundary Amends
Fifth Red
IssueLine Amend
MP ASJW
Fourth
JW
ForIssue
Approval MP MP
ThirdDesign
Issue Issue MP MP
JW
Second
Issue IssueMP MP
JW
Seventh
First Issue
MP JW
Sixth Issue
MP
JW
Date
JW
JW
JW
NOTE:
Fourth Issue
C 29.02.16
MP JW
1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning
Third Issue
B 09.02.16
MP JW
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
Secondon
Issue
A materials
04.02.16
MP JW
3. The dimensions of all
must be checked
site
before being laid out.
First Issue
00 21.01.16
MP JW
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
Status and Description Drawn Apprvd.
Rev
Date
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
NOTE:
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
Planit
- IE out
LLP
5. Order of construction
and setting
to be agreed on site.
6. This drawing is copyright
protected
may not be
2 Back Grafton
Stand
Altrincham
WA14 1DY
reproduced in whole
or928
part9281
without written authority.
0161
7. All Dimensions are18in Bowling
millimetres
unless
Stated
Green LaneOtherwise
London EC1R
0BW
Stone
N 23.05.16
JW
MP
JW
MP
JW
MP
JW
MP
JW
MP
Stone
E CLOSE
LB
Dunstrete
Mast
Masts (Telecommunication)
SOU
THA
Track
Track
IVY
DR
IVE
STREET
US
HO
HILL
ROAD
ET
RE
ST
JW
20.04.16
N 23.05.16
H 06.04.16
M 12.05.16
G 05.04.16
L 05.05.16
F 22.03.16
K 29.04.16
E 18.03.16
J 25.04.16
Dunstrete
25.04.16
HENGIST WAY
DRY
LB
Gas Govn
E CLOSE
Sports Ground
(private)
HIG
ZONE 7
Masts (Telecommunication)
SOU
THA
LL
CLO
SE
(private)
Stones
SPECIAL OUTDOOR
WATER-BASED RECREATION
ZONE
LAUN
Boundary Amends MP
Planning
MP
Planning
MP
Dev Area Amend MP
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
PL1436-VW-011
Scale
1:5500@A1
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
12.05.16
N
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
C
Figure 2.2
2
1
45.8m
Flete Farm
Cottages
VINC
ENT
ROA
ROAD
Track
MANSTON
42 .1m
Caravan Site
KEY:
LB
Flete Farm
47.1m
43.3m
2
1
Fleet Farm
Bungalow
45.8m
47.2m
PLANNING APPLICATION
SITEWRITTEN
BOUNDARY
WHOLE OR PART WITHOUT
AUTHORITY.
Flete Lodge
Stone
Flete Farm
Cottages
VINC
ENT
ROA
W
B
Track
45.7m
Stone
Stone
G
P
ROAD
Brooklands
MANSTON
KEY:
47.0m
Caravan Site
LB
AD
MastFlete Farm
Tank
RO
T
UR
47.1m
CO
43.3m
TO
Mushroom Farm
NS
C
C
42 .1m
Cottage
Nurseries
MA
Fleet Farm
Bungalow
Pumping Station
47.2m
Flete Lodge
Stone
50.6m
in
Dra
Stone
FF
45.7m
Reservoir
(covered)
Stone
Stone
Stone
Nursery
in Vie
47.0m
Ta
nk
Ho
pp
er
Garage
De
f
D
in
Dra
ue
udo
nne
nd
De
Small
Acres
De
Coal Yard
Hoppers
ifers
thco
te
PR
ES
Stone
TO
Reservoir
(covered)
RO
AD
Stone
Pen
The
Chippings
stone
in Vie
Fai
rwa
Ros
ys
em
ary
46.6m
Nor
BP
Pla
SR
Stone
Nursery
wla
FF
Track
49.4m
47.5m
erq
Die
Ne
Con
ROA
nz
ink
FF
Stones
The
ENT
Reservoir
(covered)
side
Sa
Ste
El Sub Sta
FF
VINC
50.6m
Box
me
Stone
Stone
Un
Letter
Dro
ck
Pumping Station
Depot
De
47.0m
Tra
CO
TO
NS
MA
elop
Ard
ua
Stone
RO
T
UR
Mast
Tank
Pen
Per
AD
Fai
rwa
Ros
ys
em
ary
Mushroom Farm
Coal Yard
Hoppers
Acres
BP
Pla
Small
G
P
Brooklands
Reservoir
(covered)
Cottage
Nurseries
elop
Per
Ard
Glen
ua
Stone
Depot
De
47.0m
Ta
nk
Garage
The
Coach
House
De
f
LB
Ho
pp
er
Shanklin
Pylon
Tra
ck
Stone
Box
me
De
side
ES
Stone
Sa
nz
Ste
FF
El Sub Sta
ink
ue
RO
AD
49.4m
47.5m
erq
PR
ES
TO
Die
ifers
te
stone
Stone
Barn Owls
CO
TO
NS
48.0m
Shanklin
Pylon
Leo Cottage
45.8m
MA
The
Chippings
Glen
Stone
thco
The
Court
46.6m
Nor
Con
Tennis
G
P
RO
SR
AD
Solar Power
Generating Station
wla
The
Coach
House
AD
T
UR
nne
Ne
De
De
FF
Stone
Stones
nd
RO
udo
Pylon
Stone
PR
TO
De
Un
Stone
Letter
Dro
De
Preston
Farm Cottages
De
PR
El
Sub Sta
BP
ES
TO
RO
AD
Pylon
Solar Power
Generating Station
Silo
Pouces
Nursery
Stone
Reservoir
(covered)
Tennis
Court
El
Reservoir
(covered)
Sub Sta
6
48.0m
Barn Owls
45.0m
2
Leo Cottage
Shelter
40.2m
STO
MAN
El
Sub Sta
BP
45.8m
El Sub Sta
18
40.3m
Spitfire and
Hurricane
Memorials Museum
38
The
House
12a
s
rfield
The
N ROA
PRE
49.0
m
13
11
12
s
rfield
The
D
STO
PRE
49.0
m
10
13
14
15
E
OV
GR
'S
11
12
CA
TH
Hedger
ow
Farthings
ELM GROVE
6
HIGHLANDS GLADE
ve
Lyngro
Cheviots
The
10
3
E
OV
'S
ow
6
Farthings
ELM GROVE
1
Hedger
ET
RE
ST
GH
HIGHLANDS GLADE
Lyngro
ve
The
Cheviots
HI
18
15
17
32
B 2190
Wo
Co odb
ttag ine
e
3
5
38
ck
Tra
36
50 .7m
f
De
Track
Sports Ground
(private)
Tall Trees
Rowan
Cottage
Chapel Farm
No Development
Pleasant
26
37
39
Willowbank
Und
31
31a
49.5m
2
Smugglers Leap
Caravan Park
12
12a
Track
6a
6
Boundary Stone
49.1m
Minster Services
Bush Farm
Track
INE
38
The
House
ER
Wind Sock
De
Willow Bank
Nursery
Stones
Telegraph Hill
28
Filling Station
36
'S
EE
GR
GR
OV
53.7m
40
12b
ELM GROVE
Whitebeams
32
11
CA
TH
Manston
Methodist
Church
ET
9Mount
25
ST
Bush Farm
HIG
A29
24
35
Mast (Telecommunication)
Sun
Villa
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
Smugglers
Retreat
(PH)
A29
53.7m
49.6m
Stones
1 to 9
33
L
HIL
E
TT
AG
CO
ROAD
LAUN
12
HENGIST WAY
SOU
10
El Sub
E CLOSE
Y
WA
HIL
Boundary Stone
Dunstrete
Und
Tank
28
San Remo
te
ga
San Remo
ad
21
Cedar
12
14
15
Nursery
14
21
17
26
2
30
26
ROAD
14
31
15
12
27
11
SEA VIEW
10
28
37
6
8
39
14
38
10
FOADS HILL
21
17
22
39
47
49
26
1
ROAD
SEA VIEW
34
26
10
37
31
50
14
30
28
24
24a
11
El Sub Sta
51
5a
24
14
50
24a
56
26
10
Drg title
ProjectParameter Plan 2: Access and Movement
A25
55
56
11
DRIVE
Def
18
63
58
Tank
60
17
15
Cliffsend Crossing
Tunnel
A299
El Sub Sta
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
MP 84
El Sub Sta
ROAD
SEA VIEW
FOADS HILL
PROJECT:
Cliffsend Crossing
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
Client
Tunnel
El Sub Sta
PROJECT NO:
MP 84
70009799
Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
PL1436-VW-011
DRIVE
Drg title
CLIENT:
Drg nr
Scale
1:5500@A1
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
12.05.16
N
18
11
DRIVE
Def
15
CLIVE ROAD
Project
Tank
12.05.16 Drawn
Scale
Date:
MP
1:5500@A1
Drg title Parameter Plan 2: Access and Movement
Status
Planning
Revision N
Checked JW
17
SL
12
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
A25
24
17
Planit - IE LLP
22.3m
El Sub Sta
19.8m CLIVE ROAD
24.4m
Client
46
49
13
MP 84
SL
48
17
46
Tunnel
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
31
47
39
Cliffsend Crossing
A299
Planit - IE LLP
Project
39
MP 84.25
43
38
63
60
41
A299
FOADS HILL
58
56
Und
37a
19.8m
MP 84.25
SL
22
A299
ARUNDEL ROAD
WINDSOR ROAD
ROAD
KING ARTHUR
5a
28
26
12
El Sub
Sta
51
22.3m
CLIVE ROAD
55
Nursery
48
7
24.4m
17
LB
22
22
28
41
17
17a
19
Reservoir
NOTE:
1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
MP 84.25
46
11
24
TCB
5
9
31
27
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
11
36
Und
13
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
Date
17
27
Rev
37a
36
Tank
El Sub
Sta
46
JW
JW
JW
10
25
MP
MP
MP
LB
Fourth Issue
C 29.02.16
MP JW
NOTE:
Third Issue
B drawing
09.02.16
MP JW
1. Do not scale from this
unless for planning
Second
MP JW
2. All setting out, levelsAand04.02.16
dimensions to be
agreed Issue
on site.
3. The dimensions of all00materials
must be checked
on site
First Issue
21.01.16
MP JW
before being laid out.
Status and Description Drawn Apprvd.
Rev
Date
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
NOTE:
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
Planitprotected
- IE LLP
6. This drawing is copyright
and may not be
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
2 Back Grafton St Altrincham WA14 1DY
7. All Dimensions are0161
in millimetres
928 9281 unless Otherwise Stated
56
Third Issue
Second Issue
First Issue
14
Cliff
House
27
09.02.16
39.3m
18
20
A 04.02.16
00 21.01.16
TCB
25
Nursery
22
Reservoir
JW
C
R
Shelter
43
JW
MP
Garage
22
MP
Fourth Issue
18.03.16
38.0m
Katrina
17
JW
Fifth Issue
29.02.16
Mansfield Villas
te
ad
Br
17a
MP
04.03.16
Martrice
The Homestead
ga
8
44
19
Sixth Issue
Patrol
8a
9
54
40
El Sub
Sta
12
4
Nursery
House
4
2
Parkville
Ronalds
Way
40.2m
Boundary Stone
Bayview
CANTERBURY ROAD WEST
39.3m
ARUNDEL
3
1 ROAD
Cliff
House
C
R
Chez Nous
6
10
The
Bungalow
11
LB
ROAD
rd Bdy
JW
JW
JW
Top
White-Walls
Lamorna
14
10
18
Tanks
Bayview
Shelter
Miltom
KING ARTHUR
& Wa
Ohio
Billion
TCB
11
st, ED
Nursery
Casa
Mia
Garage
20
C
R
Con
Heimetli
FF
26
24
Katrina
38.0m
22
WINDSOR ROAD
28
Br
40 Storage Depot
Oil
Co Const, ED &
Ward Bdy
Tank
44
42.6m
Co
Mansfield Villas
8a
The Homestead
Und
54
Patrol
Nursery
House
Boundary Stone
ROAD
Ronalds
Way
ARUNDEL ROAD
40.2m
Co Const, ED &
Ward Bdy
WINDSOR
11
ROAD
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
Parkville
Martrice
KING ARTHUR
12
G
P
A29
The
Bungalow
11
MP
MP
MP
rd Bdy
For Approval
Design Issue
Seventh Issue
H 06.04.16
G 05.04.16
F 22.03.16
JW
& Wa
Boundary Stone
Bayview
Chez Nous
Lamorna
Tanks
LL
HIL
st, ED
HI
20.04.16
Y
WA
C
R
Con
NE
JW
White-Walls
Miltom
Co
OR
25.04.16
JW
JW
JW
Bayview
Ohio
Billion
46.6m
Primrose Cottage
TH
Boundary Amends MP
Planning
MP
Planning
MP
Dev Area Amend MP
M 12.05.16
L 05.05.16
K 29.04.16
JW
Casa
Mia
Stone
10
MP
Cedar
Top
26
28 to 32
105
N 23.05.16
Heimetli
FF
21
Mast
Larksfield
42.6m
Depot
Boundary Amends
22
LAUN
LL
22
DRY
ROAD
14 to 27
35
IVE
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
HI
DR
NE
A29
OR
STREET
Mill
Cottage
TH
US
HO
INDUSTRIAL PARK
34
109
TELEGRAPH HILL
14
HILL
G
P
Tank
27
19
21b
21
11
HIL
1 3
CO
TT
AG
E
21a
Mast (Telecommunication)
IVY
111
11
50.6m
JW
JW
JW JW
MP
JW JW
MP
JW JW
MP
JW JW
MP
C
B
A
00
46.6m
Sta
JW
Issue
18.03.16
MP MP
JW JW
Area Amend
J 25.04.16 SixthDev
IssueLine Amend
04.03.16
MP ASJW JW
I 20.04.16 Fifth Red
ForIssue
Approval MP MP
29.02.16
JW JW
H 06.04.16 Fourth
Issue Issue MP MP
09.02.16
JW JW
G 05.04.16 ThirdDesign
Second Issue
04.02.16
MP JW
Seventh Issue
F 22.03.16
MP JW
First Issue
21.01.16
MP JW
Sixth Issue
E 18.03.16
MP JW
Status and Description Drawn Apprvd.
Rev
Date
Fifth Issue
D 04.03.16
MP JW
49.3m
Dellside
Primrose Cottage
33
THA
LL
3
1
19
SEMPL
15
115
LB
Gas Govn
Stone
Depot
MP
Planning
MP
Dev Area Amend MP
Red
Line Amend
AS
Boundary
Amends
For
ApprovalAmends
MP
Boundary
Design
Issue
MP
Planning
Seventh
Issue
MP
Planning
E
D
Boundary Stone
Larksfield
Track
Track
Mast
Ashenmeade
39.7m
Masts (Telecommunication)
15
CLO
SE
11
Dunstrete
Mill
Cottage
Def
105
Shelter
Dunstrete
28 to 32
US
HO
HILL
50.6m
49.6m
INDUSTRIAL PARK
IVY
14
TELEGRAPH HILL
22
19
Sta
Tank
35
DR
11
IVE
Hotel
1 3
DRY
27
109
STREET
Chapel
El Sub
10
35
21
49.3m
Dellside
34
8
21b
ST
HIG
14 to 27
11
111
21a
HENGIST WAY
35
SE
CLO
LL
THA
19
SOU
E CLOSE
15
115
SEMPL
Smugglers
Retreat
3
1
(PH)
Ashenmeade
LB
49.1m
Gas Govn
1
39.7m
Sports Ground
(private)
ET
RE
Masts (Telecommunication)
Minster Services
15
12
11
1 to 9
Shelter
Planning
05.05.16
K 29.04.16
J 25.04.16
I 20.04.16
N 23.05.16
H 06.04.16
M 12.05.16
G 05.04.16
L 05.05.16
F 22.03.16
K 29.04.16
Boundary Stone
Boundary Stone
49.5m
Def
50
Sports Ground
(private)
Dunstrete
SPECIAL OUTDOOR
WATER-BASED RECREATION
ZONE
20
34
Filling Station
Hotel
Chapel
Und
LA
Und
HI
GH
Tra
ST
ck
RE
ET
5a
A299
NE
OR
IG
DA
50
RE
22
17
TCB
20
ST
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
Tan-Et
Lodge
G
War Meml
P
Club
(private)
H
Mast (Telecommunication)
Sun
Villa
21
10
Cedarwood
5a
TCB
TH
Oaklands
Grove House
Sports Ground
Mast
Grosvenor
LA
Whitebeams
Willowbank
ROA
D
A299
MINSTER
6a
Chapel Farm
Willow Bank
Nursery
Tre-Hern
50 .7m
49.6m
Und
Track
2
50
NE
OR
IG
DA
ST
Wind Sock
31
31a
20
HIG
Smugglers Leap
Caravan Park
12
INE
Fa
) rmer
36
36
12b
The Leys
38
Def
ROA
D
MINSTER
D
N ROA
STO
PRE
ROAD
INE
32
Track
stli
Ru
32
11
MANSTON
Cedarwood
B 2190
Telegraph Hill
28
Sports Ground
(private)
Tall Trees
26
40
ng
25
39
elte
Mount Pleasant
24
Ho
Sh
22
37
G
War Meml
P
RE
rge
Fo
ER
21
35
Manston
Methodist
Church
Rowan
Cottage
ET
Old
GR
EE
TCB
ET
RE
ST
GH
HI
18
15
GR
WAY
Lighting Tower
46.9m
17
urc
Ch
47.9m
Club
Sports Ground
(private)
IRE WAY
Tan-Et
Lodge
ER
ck
Tra
C Tk
LIN
Jo
lly
(PH
Def
17
49.6m
Grenham
Lodge
NOTES:
18
us
TH
44.3m
10
MER
Works
15
44.8m
RE WAY
SPITF
Path
Oaklands
Hall
Grove House
Manston
Green Farm
TCB
LA
B 2190
Mast
T
Grosvenor
OR
IG
DA
SPITFI
STREE
Tre-Hern
Lighting Tower
Pouces Cottages
The Leys
7
Works
TCB
Jubilee
Cottages
ST
Fa
) rmer
Jo
lly
(PH
C
R
Track
Rose Farm
B 2190
B 2190
elte
Sh
LING
rge
Fo
ng
stli
Ru
NE
Stone
10
EE
G
War Meml
P
Ruin
SPRAT
Old
Ho
47.9m
Grenham
Lodge
Lighting Tower
us
urc
Ch
46.9m
(disused)
C Tk
N ROA
14
C Tk
ROAD
El Sub Sta
IRE WAY
2
1
19
20
16
17
Garden Cottage
Icehouse
18
GR
WAY
MANSTON
Lighting Tower
46.9m
SPITF
Stone
STREE
44.3m
Grange
LING
1a
18
TH
45.4m
Alland
SPRAT
Magpies
15
44.8mTelephone Exchange
SPITFI
Pond
TCB
44.8m
The Leys
Hall
48.1m
Lighting Tower
Pouces Cottages
Co 2
urt
Caravan Park
Path
Manston
Green Farm
RE WAY
Works
Jubilee
Cottages
VE
DRI
Rose Farm
ard
tt
Works
Wood Farm
Wood Farm
Cottage
Ruin
44.7m
B 2050
sto
ch
Co
25
26
Y
WA
Wo
Co odb
ttag ine
e
IES
AV
RE
B 219
8
1
Ferndale Lodge
Pre
Or
46.9m
TFI
SPI
STO
ROAD
12
C
R
7
12
n Vill
D
MANSTON
-D
El Sub Sta
Track
sto
Caravan
Park
19
20
Lighting Tower
AVEN
UE
COLU
MBUS
Silos
16
17
14
15
45.4m
21
41.3m
Silos
WAY
STREE
18
90
Shelter
LL
LING
1a
Telephone Exchange
RAF Manston
History Museum
SPRAT
Magpies
CA
TH
15
10
48.1m
Path
44.8m
BE
LIN
B 2190
N COU
RT
CL
Caravan Park
48.0m
B 2050
Centre
MER
Cleve Court
C Tk
Stone
Box
18
RT
1
Wood Farm
Wood Farm
Cottage
44.7m
Cleve Cottage
Lodg
urt
Pre
STO
El Sub
Sta
12
39.4m
Grange
Co
25
26
Stone
N COU
AD
Court
Holmecroft
El Sub Sta
Riding
Alland
Caravan Park
Pond
sto
Stone
47.5m
The Courtyard
MAN
RO
Tennis
13
Y
WA
19VE
DRI
TO
NS
TOLLEMACHE
IES
AV
14
MA
-D
RE
TFI
SPI
14
s
ve
Ca
R ROAD
MINSTE
Cleve
ROA
D
13
C
R
MUSGRAVE
ALLAND
GRANGE
AVEN
UE
COLU
MBUS
AD
RO
Ferndale Lodge
Pre
B 219
CLOSE
ICTA
The
Coach
House
Caravan Park
39.3m
Garden Cottage
(disused)
n Vill
ard
tt
12
INV
Tank
Icehouse
Letter
19
Spitfire and
Hurricane
Memorials Museum
41.3m
Sta
sto
ch
Co
Manston
Court
21
Stone
El Sub Sta
Cleve Court
LL
tion)
El Sub
BE
3
MON
12
38.6m
BEA
14
39.3m
39.4m
DRIVE
Pre
Or
Caravan Park
90
17
Cleve Cottage
Lodg
D
E
Track
unica
20
50
23
Silos
(Telec
omm
40.3m
FS
RAF Manston
History Museum
ESMON
7
Silos
Manston Park
WAY
Wind
Sock
Shelter
s
ve
Ca
R ROAD
MINSTE
Mast
10
Cleve
48.0m
Caravan
Park
Stone
Letter
Box
17
ICTA
The
Coach
House
14
Riding
Centre
Stone
Manston Court
Cottages
Park
Lodge
Annies Cottage
Well
House
47.2m
14
12
Tank
El Sub Sta
15
El Sub Sta
12
El Sub Sta
E
CLOS
AD
RO
Sta
ROA
D
El Sub Sta
38.6m14
12
12
TO
CL
14
CLOSE
ES
Court
STO
MAN
El Sub
Sta
Tennis
Holmecroft
LB
tion)
PR
TO
NS
19
unica
El Sub
47.5m
The Courtyard
STO
MA
TOLLEMACHE
17
MON
ROA
D
23
DRIVE 40.2m
(Telec
omm
D
E
BEA
Mast
10
Stone
45.0m
38.6m
ESMON
7
Manston Park
Stone
Caravan Park
50
Shelter
17
Manston
Court
FS
20
C
R
19
GRANGE
14
El Sub Sta
E
CLOS
12
MAN
Sub Sta
Wind
Sock
38.6m
MUSGRAVE
El
ALLAND
AD
RO
14
Stone
12
Stone
TO
Stone
Letter
Box
LB
12
ES
Park
Lodge
Annies Cottage
Well
House
47.2m
PR
Manston Court
Cottages
Silo
Pouces
Nursery
Preston
Farm Cottages
ROA
D
ST
DEVELOPMENT ZONES
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
Drg nr
PL1436-VW-012
Scale
1:5500@A1
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
12.05.16
N
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
C
Figure 2.3
VINC
ENT
ROA
MANSTON
ROAD
Track
LB
Stone
W
B
PLANNING APPLICATION
SITEWRITTEN
BOUNDARY
WHOLE OR PART WITHOUT
AUTHORITY.
VINC
ENT
ROA
Stone
Stone
Track
G
P
ROAD
MANSTON
LB
N
RO
CO
TO
NS
MA
Stone
in
Reservoir
(covered)
Dra
W
B
Stone
AD
T
UR
Mast
Stone
Reservoir
(covered)
Stone
G
P
Stone
AD
RO
T
UR
Mast
CO
TO
NS
MA
Letter
Box
Tra
PR
ES
Stone
ck
in
Stone
Dra
Stone
Stone
TO
Reservoir
(covered)
RO
AD
Reservoir
(covered)
Stones
VINC
ENT
ROA
Track
Stone
C
C
Stone
Residential
Use Classes: C2, C3, D1 (Primary
School)
Pylon
Letter
LB
Box
Tra
PR
ES
Stone
ck
Stone
TO
Stone
PR
ES
RO
TO
AD
Pylon
RO
AD
Stones
Stone
Local Centre
Use Classes: A1-5, B1(a), C1, C2, C3, D1,
D2 Residential
Use Classes: C2, C3, D1 (Primary
HighSchool)
Street
Predominant ground floor use to
Local Centre
comprise
use classes: A1-5, C1, D1
Use Classes: A1-5, B1(a), C1, C2, C3, D1,
D2
Employment
UseHigh
Classes:
StreetB1(B-C), B2, B8, D1
(Higher
/ Further ground
Education)
Predominant
floor use to
comprise use classes: A1-5, C1, D1
Cultural & Heritage
Use Classes: D1
Employment
Use Classes: B1(B-C), B2, B8, D1
Mixed-Use
(Higher / Further Education)
Use Classes: C1, C2, C3, B1, D1
(Higher
/ Further
Education)
Cultural
& Heritage
Use Classes: D1
Tennis
Court
Stone
G
P
Stone
Pylon
AD
T
UR
Mast
N
RO
CO
TO
NS
MA
El
Sub Sta
PR
ES
TO
Silo
RO
AD
Pylon
Stone
El
Reservoir
(covered)
Tennis
Sub Sta
Court
Reservoir
(covered)
DEVELOPMENT ZONES
MUSGRAVE
El
Sub Sta
Stone
ROA
D
RT
MUSGRAVE
STREE
ROA
D
RT
El Sub
Sta
D
STO
AD
RO
Court
N ROA
N COU
Tennis
PRE
ALLAND
Stone
CL
TO
MON
NS
B 219
BEA
Y
WA
MA
VE
omm
LING
RE
TFI
SPI
TOLLEMACHE
Manston Park
(Telec
Stone
SPRAT
LL
DRIVE
CLOSE
Mast
21
BE
D
E
s
ve
Ca
R ROAD
MINSTE
Tank
90
ESMON
Track
WAY
20
50
DRI
Box
FS
-D
INV
Stone
Letter
Wind
Sock
B
IES
AV
COLU
MBUS
AD
GRANGE
AVEN
UE
RO
STO
LB
El Sub Sta
E
CLOS
TO
tion)
ES
MAN
ROA
D
El Sub Sta
unica
STO
CLOSE
omm
PR
Court
El Sub
Sta
CL
AD
MON
RO
BEA
Tennis
MAN
TO
TOLLEMACHE
Manston Park
(Telec
Stone
N COU
DRIVE
NS
D
E
MA
ESMON
Stone
Mast
Stone
STO
AD
Box
50
MAN
RO
GRANGE
Stone
Letter
FS
20
El Sub Sta
E
CLOS
Stone
TO
ALLAND
ES
ROA
D
Wind
Sock
B
PR
STO
MAN
El
Sub Sta
LB
Silo
Path
El Sub Sta
B 2050
unica
tion)
MANSTON
AVEN
UE
TFI
SPI
D
N ROA
RE
Ruin
VE
TCB
STO
DRI
Track
WAY
PRE
0
B 219
Path
B 2050
TH
INE
CA
TH
G
War Meml
P
ST
Track
Pond
Lighting Tower
TCB
RE
GH
IRE WAY
ST
ck
Tra
SPITF
The Leys
ET
Lighting Tower
ELM GROVE
ROAD
ER
MANSTON
'S
EE
GR
WAY
GR
OV
SPITFI
Lighting Tower
RE WAY
LIN
El Sub Sta
HI
B 2190
STREE
MER
Box
LING
Y
WA
s
ve
Ca
R ROAD
MINSTE
Stone
Letter
SPRAT
Lighting Tower
LL
El Sub Sta
IES
AV
ICTA
(disused)
21
BE
-D
INV
Tank
Icehouse
Mixed-Use
Use Classes: C1, C2, C3, B1, D1
(Higher / Further Education)
The Leys
90
COLU
MBUS
Stone
ROAD
Pond
NE
Ruin
Stone
OR
LA
IG
TCB
DA
Icehouse
(disused)
B 2190
Lighting Tower
E
20
50
INE
'S
EE
GR
(private)
G
War Meml
P
Track
ST
ELM GROVE
WAY
GR
OV
Sports Ground
ER
LIN
B 2190
TH
RE WAY
SPITFI
CA
TH
MER
Stone
B 2190
RE
ST
ck
GH
HI
NE
ET
LING
RE
STREE
ROA
D
MINSTER
D
N ROA
B 2190
STO
PRE
OR
ST
LA
IG
DA
HIG
B 2190
20
50
Sports Ground
Telegraph Hill
Path
MANSTON
Tra
IRE WAY
ET
Lighting Tower
SPITF
Mast
SPRAT
(private)
Wind Sock
Track
Track
ROAD
Sports Ground
(private)
The Leys
Runway Approach Lights
Mast
Mast (Telecommunication)
ET
RE
ROA
D
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
No Development
A29
TCB
Stones
Telegraph Hill
Wind Sock
TH
ST
HIG
MINSTER
A299
OV
GR
Track
Track
ER
INE
'S
EE
GR
ST
ELM GROVE
CA
TH
G
War Meml
P
of Development
Boundary Amends
N Indicative
23.05.16 Boundary
MP JW
with exact
location
follow
Boundary
Amends to MP
MZone
12.05.16
JWLimit
Deviation tolerance
Planning of proposed
L of05.05.16
MP JW road
by Parameter
Plan 2 MP JW
Planning
K set
29.04.16
Dev Area Amend MP JW
J 25.04.16
Red Line Amend AS
I 20.04.16
JW
Boundary
N 23.05.16 For
ApprovalAmends
H 06.04.16
MP MP
JW JW
Boundary
Amends
M
12.05.16
MP
Design Issue
G 05.04.16
MP JW JW
Planning
L 05.05.16 Seventh
Issue
F 22.03.16
MP MP
JW JW
K 29.04.16 SixthPlanning
Issue
E 18.03.16
MP MP
JW JW
J 25.04.16 Fifth Dev
IssueArea Amend
D 04.03.16
MP MP
JW JW
Red
Line Amend
I 20.04.16 Fourth
Issue
C 29.02.16
MP ASJW JW
For
Approval
H
06.04.16
MP
Third Issue
B 09.02.16
MP JW JW
A299
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
HI
GH
Tra
ST
ck
RE
ET
TCB
Mast (Telecommunication)
A29
NE
OR
LA
Dunstrete
IG
DA
Stones
SPECIAL OUTDOOR
WATER-BASED RECREATION
ZONE
20
50
Sports Ground
Masts (Telecommunication)
Gas Govn
HENGIST WAY
SOU
THA
LL
CLO
SE
(private)
SEMPL
Dunstrete
US
HO
THA
LL
CLO
SE
HILL
SEMPL
HIL
E
TT
AG
CO
ROAD
IVY
Mast
Masts (Telecommunication)
Stone
Gas Govn
HENGIST WAY
Y
WA
HIL
Dunstrete
E CLOSE
LB
Dunstrete
SOU
Track
Track
DRY
DR
IVE
STREET
ST
LAUN
ET
RE
HIG
E CLOSE
LB
Sports Ground
(private)
A29
HIL
CO
TT
AG
E
ROAD
LL
Tank
LAUN
IVY
DRY
HI
IVE
NE
DR
OR
STREET
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
TH
Mast (Telecommunication)
HILL
IssueIssue MP MP
A 04.02.16
JW JW
Design
G 05.04.16 Second
Seventh IssueMP MP
F 22.03.16 First Issue
00 21.01.16
JW JW
Status andSixth
Description
Issue Drawn Apprvd.
EDate18.03.16
MP JW
Fifth Issue
D 04.03.16
MP JW
NOTE:
Fourth Issue
C 29.02.16
MP JW
1. Do not scale from this
unless for planning
Third Issue
B drawing
09.02.16
MP JW
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
Second Issue
A 04.02.16
MP JW
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
First Issue
MP JW
before being laid out.00 21.01.16
G
P
US
HO
Rev
Mast
04.03.16
Fifth Issue
MP
JW
29.02.16
Fourth Issue
MP
JW
09.02.16
A 04.02.16
00 21.01.16
LB
A299
Cliffsend Crossing
Tunnel
A299
El Sub Sta
PROJECT NO:
6
A25
Tunnel
Scale
Drg nr
1:5500@A1
Date:
Planning
Revision
12.05.16
N
DRIVE
1:5500@A1
Date:
12.05.16
Drawn
Drg title
Parameter Plan
3: Land
Status
Planning
Revision
N Use Checked
Drg nr
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
70009799
Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
PL1436-VW-011
Status
MP
JW
DRIVE
Scale
El Sub Sta
MP 84
Drg title
CLIENT:
Drg nr
PL1436-VW-013
Stone Hill Park Limited
Client
Cliffsend Crossing
A299
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
Client
Tunnel
Client
A25
FOADS HILL
SEA VIEW
ROAD
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
PROJECT:
Cliffsend Crossing
MP 84
CLIVE ROAD
CLIVE ROAD
Project
Planit - IE LLP
Project
SL
MP 84
SL
MP 84.25
El Sub Sta
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
Planit - IE LLP
MP 84.25
SL
CLIVE ROAD
Reservoir
El Sub
Sta
El Sub
Sta
MP 84.25
DRIVE
LB
A299
TCB
Date
JW
JW
JW
NOTE:
1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
WINDSOR ROAD
ARUNDEL ROAD
KING ARTHUR
ROAD
Rev
MP
MP
MP
7.
TCB
Reservoir
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
Tank
Third Issue
Second Issue
First Issue
WINDSOR ROAD
JW
WINDSOR ROAD
MP
ROAD
Sixth Issue
18.03.16
5.
6.
SEA VIEW
ARUNDEL ROAD
JW
JW
JW
ARUNDEL ROAD
MP
MP
MP
El Sub
Sta
ROAD
For Approval
Design Issue
Seventh Issue
Status and
Description Drawn Apprvd.
Revread Date
This drawing must be
with the relevant
specification
clauses and detail drawings
Order
NOTE:of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
This
is copyright
protected
mayfornot
be
1. drawing
Do not scale
from this
drawingand
unless
planning
reproduced
in whole
or part
without
writtentoauthority.
2. All setting
out, levels
and
dimensions
be agreed on site.
All
are in millimetres
unless
Otherwise
Stated
3. Dimensions
The dimensions
of all materials
must
be checked
on site
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction
and setting
to be agreed on site.
Planit
- IE out
LLP
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
2 Back
Grafton
St written
Altrincham
WA14 1DY
reproduced in whole
or part
without
authority.
928 9281 unless Otherwise Stated
7. All Dimensions are0161
in millimetres
18 Bowling Green Lane London EC1R 0BW
020 7430 0754
4.
TCB
LB
SEA VIEW
H 06.04.16
G 05.04.16
F 22.03.16
KING ARTHUR
JW
ROAD
KING ARTHUR
20.04.16
Tank
FOADS HILL
FOADS HILL
25.04.16
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
A29
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
JW
G
P
LL
JW
JW
JW
Boundary Amends MP
Planning
MP
Planning
MP
Dev Area Amend MP
HIL
HI
M 12.05.16
L 05.05.16
K 29.04.16
Y
WA
NE
JW
OR
MP
TH
Boundary Amends
ROAD
Stone
N 23.05.16
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
PL1436-VW-013
Scale
1:5500@A1
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
12.05.16
N
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
Figure 2.4
VINC
ENT
ROA
C
C
MANSTON
ROAD
Track
LB
ENT
ROA
ROAD
Stone
Track
Stone
MANSTON
W
B
PLANNING APPLICATION
SITEWRITTEN
BOUNDARY
WHOLE OR PART WITHOUT
AUTHORITY.
VINC
LB
Stone
G
P
PLANNING
APPLICATION
BOUNDARY
EXTENT
OF PHASE
1 (DETAILEDSITE
APPLICATION)
OTHER LAND OWNED BY APPLICANT
AD
Stone
Mast
T
UR
RO
CO
TO
NS
MA
W
B
Stone
Stone
in
Reservoir
(covered)
Dra
Stone
G
P
AD
Reservoir
(covered)
Mast
RO
T
UR
CO
TO
NS
MA
Stone
VINC
ENT
ROA
Track
in
Letter
Box
Tra
Reservoir
(covered)
Stone
PR
ES
Stone
ck
Reservoir
(covered)
Dra
Stone
Stone
TO
Stone
RO
AD
Stones
LB
Letter
Box
Tra
Stone
PR
ES
Stone
ck
Stone
TO
Stone
RO
AD
Pylon
Stone
Stones
PR
ES
G
P
TO
Pylon
RO
AD
Stone
AD
T
UR
Mast
N
RO
CO
TO
NS
MA
PR
ES
TO
RO
AD
Pylon
El
Sub Sta
Reservoir
(covered)
Tennis
Reservoir
(covered)
Court
Silo
Stone
DEVELOPMENT ZONES
Silo
ROA
D
RT
N COU
Stone
N COU
El Sub
Sta
SPRAT
LING
El Sub Sta
D
Y
WA
N ROA
RE
TFI
SPI
STO
PRE
90
AVEN
UE
21
Path
B 2050
SPRAT
LING
COLU
MBUS
MANSTON
LL
ROAD
DRI
RE
The Leys
Y
WA
N ROA
IES
AV
-D
TFI
SPI
STO
VE
Track
PRE
Lighting Tower
B 219
Path
B 2050
El Sub Sta
Ruin
MANSTON
TCB
ROAD
The Leys
Pond
Lighting Tower
E
ER
INE
'S
EE
GR
WAY
GR
LIN
OV
Lighting Tower
ST
El Sub Sta
CA
TH
G
War Meml
P
Ruin
Track
ELM GROVE
MER
TH
RE WAY
SPITFI
TCB
B 2190
(disused)
Lighting Tower
RE
ST
ck
HI
MER
GH
Lighting Tower
IRE WAY
OV
THNE
E
LA
ER
INE
'S
EE
IG
DA
CA
TH
G
War Meml
P
ST
Track
B 2190
ELM GROVE
OR
GR
WAY
SPITFI
GR
RE WAY
LIN
Tra
SPITF
ET
TCB
Stone
B 2190
50
RE
HI
GH
Tra
(private)
NE
SPRAT
STREE
N ROA
STO
ROA
D
B 2190
PRE
MINSTER
OR
LA
IG
DA
Sports Ground
(private)
B 2190
Mast
Path
MANSTON
20
ET
TCB
ST
Sports Ground
ck
B 2190
Lighting Tower
SPITF
IRE WAY
LING
STREE
BE
Pond
WAY
Stone
Icehouse
STREE
B 219
ve
Ca
(disused)
Box
Court
VE
Track
R ROAD
MINSTE
Icehouse
Stone
Letter
STO
ROA
D
LL
DRI
ICTA
Tennis
STO
ALLAND
RT
AD
RO
BE
IES
AV
COLU
MBUS
MON
21
-D
INV
Tank
MAN
ALLAND
GRANGE
TO
BEA
90
s
ve
Ca
R ROAD
MINSTE
Stone
Stone
NS
DRIVE
Manston Park
AVEN
UE
FS
MA
D
E
unica
tion)
Wind
Sock
El Sub
Sta
Stone
CL
omm
Box
50
ESMON
(Telec
WAY
Court
20
TOLLEMACHE
ICTA
Stone
Letter
El Sub Sta
CLOSE
Mast
INV
AD
Tennis
RO
MON
TO
BEA
tion)
NS
LB
Manston Park
unica
Stone
ROA
D
MA
DRIVE
(Telec
omm
Tank
D
E
CL
AD
STO
MAN
ESMON
TOLLEMACHE
Mast
RO
20
El Sub Sta
E
CLOS
FS
50
CLOSE
TO
Stone
Box
Wind
Sock
B
El Sub Sta
E
CLOS
ES
Stone
Letter
LB
PR
ROA
D
Sub Sta
Stone
STO
MAN
El
GRANGE
AD
MAN
RO
MUSGRAVE
El
Sub Sta
MUSGRAVE
Stone
TO
Sub Sta
PR
ES
El
ET
RE
20
50
ST
Sports Ground
HIG
(private)
ROAD
Sports Ground
(private)
The Leys
Telegraph Hill
Wind Sock
Mast
ET
RE
ROA
D
MINSTER
No Development
TCB
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
Wind Sock
A29
Track
ER
INE
'S
EE
GR
GR
OV
Track
Mast (Telecommunication)
Telegraph Hill
A299
TH
ST
HIG
Track
Track
Stones
ST
ELM GROVE
CA
TH
G
War Meml
P
Mast (Telecommunication)
GH
Tra
ST
ck
RE
ET
TCB
HI
A299
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
NE
OR
LA
A29
IG
DA
DR
IVE
STREET
US
SE
HO
CLO
HILL
Masts (Telecommunication)
Gas Govn
HENGIST WAY
Dunstrete
Dunstrete
Masts (Telecommunication)
Gas Govn
HENGIST WAY
Mast
THA
LL
Track
E CLOSE
HIL
LL
THA
SOU
SEMPL
LB
CO
TT
AG
E
SE
CLO
ST
IVY
Sports Ground
(private)
ET
RE
HIG
SOU
Track
SEMPL
Dunstrete
E CLOSE
LB
Planning
05.05.16
MP JW
Planning
29.04.16
MP JW
Boundary
Amends MP JW
N
23.05.16
Dev
Area
Amend
25.04.16
MP JW
Boundary Amends
M 12.05.16
JW
Red Line Amend AS MP
20.04.16
JW
Planning
L 05.05.16
MP JW
For Approval
06.04.16
MP JW
Planning
K 29.04.16
MP JW
Design Issue
05.04.16
MP JW
Dev Area Amend MP JW
J 25.04.16
Seventh Issue
F 22.03.16
MP JW
Red Line Amend AS
I 20.04.16
JW
Sixth Issue
E 18.03.16
MP JW
For Approval
H 06.04.16
MP JW
Fifth Design
Issue Issue MP JW
D 04.03.16
G 05.04.16
MP JW
Fourth Issue
C 29.02.16
MP JW
Seventh Issue
F 22.03.16
MP JW
Third Issue
B 09.02.16
MP JW
Sixth
Issue MP MP
E 18.03.16 Second
Issue
A 04.02.16
JW JW
Fifth Issue MP MP
D 04.03.16 First Issue
00 21.01.16
JW JW
Fourth
Issue
C
29.02.16
MP
Status and Description Drawn Apprvd. JW
Rev
Date
Third Issue
B 09.02.16
MP JW
Second Issue
A 04.02.16
MP JW
NOTE:
First Issue
1. Do not scale from this
unless for planning
00drawing
21.01.16
MP JW
L
K
J
I
H
G
Dunstrete
ROAD
50
(private)
DRY
20
Sports Ground
LAUN
Stones
SPECIAL OUTDOOR
WATER-BASED RECREATION
ZONE
Stone
HIL
Mast (Telecommunication)
LAUN
HIL
IVY
DR
US
HO
CO
TT
AG
ROAD
Y
WA
DRY
IVE
STREET
HILL
G
P
A29
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
TH
Mast
OR
NE
HI
LL
Stone
04.03.16
Fifth Issue
MP
JW
29.02.16
Fourth Issue
MP
JW
09.02.16
A 04.02.16
00 21.01.16
Second Issue
First Issue
MP
MP
JW
JW
Reservoir
A299
FOADS HILL
CLIVE ROAD
Cliffsend Crossing
El Sub Sta
Cliffsend Crossing
El Sub Sta
PROJECT NO:
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
70009799
Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
PL1436-VW-011
DRIVE
Drg title
CLIENT:
Drg nr
Scale
1:5500@A1
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
12.05.16
N
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
Client
WINDSOR ROAD
Drg nr
PL1436-VW-014
Parameter Plan 4: Density and Height
12.05.16 Drawn
Date:
MP
1:5500@A1
Drg title
DRIVE
Tunnel
El Sub Sta
PROJECT:
Cliffsend Crossing
MP 84
Project
Client
Tunnel
A25
FOADS HILL
SEA VIEW
ROAD
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
CLIVE ROAD
Project
SL
Scale
Status
Revision
Drg nrPlanning
PL1436-VW-014
SL
MP 84.25
Drg title
A299
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
Planit - IE LLP
SL
Project
MP 84
MP 84
MP 84.25
CLIVE ROAD
Tunnel
A299
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
El Sub
Sta
7.
MP 84.25
A25
LB
5.
6.
El Sub
Sta
A299
TCB
Date
JW
LB
NOTE:
1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
WINDSOR ROAD
ARUNDEL ROAD
KING ARTHUR
ROAD
Rev
MP
5.
6.
7.
Reservoir
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
Tank
Third Issue
TCB
DRIVE
WINDSOR ROAD
JW
El Sub
Sta
ROAD
MP
4.
SEA VIEW
Sixth Issue
18.03.16
ARUNDEL ROAD
TCB
LB
ARUNDEL ROAD
JW
JW
JW
2.
3.
ROAD
MP
MP
MP
Tank
SEA VIEW
For Approval
Design Issue
Seventh Issue
ROAD
H 06.04.16
G 05.04.16
F 22.03.16
KING ARTHUR
JW
ROAD
KING ARTHUR
20.04.16
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
A29
FOADS HILL
25.04.16
HIL
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
JW
Tank
Y
WA
G
P
LL
JW
JW
JW
HI
JW
NE
MP
Boundary Amends MP
Planning
MP
Planning
MP
Dev Area Amend MP
OR
Boundary Amends
M 12.05.16
L 05.05.16
K 29.04.16
TH
N 23.05.16
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
Scale
1:5500@A1
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
Checked
12.05.16
N
JW
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
Figure 2.5
VINC
ENT
ROA
Track
ROAD
MANSTON
ENT
OR PART
WITHOUT
WRITTEN AUTHORITY.
OTHER LAND WHOLE
OWNED
BY
APPLICANT
ROA
ROAD
Track
MANSTON
LB
Stone
G
P
T
UR
RO
CO
TO
NS
MA
W
B
Stone
G
P
in
Reservoir
(covered)
Dra
Reservoir
(covered)
Mast
AD
T
UR
RO
CO
TO
NS
MA
Stone
ENT
ROA
Track
in
Reservoir
(covered)
Dra
Stone
VINC
Reservoir
(covered)
Letter
Stone
Box
Tra
PR
ES
Stone
ck
Stone
TO
Stone
RO
AD
Stones
LB
Letter
Box
Tra
Stone
PR
ES
Stone
ck
Stone
TO
Stone
RO
AD
Pylon
Stone
Stones
Stone
PR
ES
G
P
TO
RO
AD
Pylon
Stone
Tennis
Court
AD
T
UR
Mast
N
RO
CO
TO
NS
MA
PR
ES
TO
RO
AD
Pylon
El
Sub Sta
Reservoir
(covered)
Tennis
Court
Silo
Reservoir
(covered)
Stone
El
DEVELOPMENT ZONES
El
Sub Sta
Stone
Box
50
Stone
CL
UE
COLU
AD
LL
MON
IES
Y
WA
RE
SPI
LING
VE
Path
B 2050
90
AVEN
UE
21
SPRAT
LING
COLU
MBUS
ROAD
The Leys
LL
-D
Y
WA
VE
STO
TFI
SPI
Lighting Tower
PRE
DRI
RE
N ROA
IES
AV
Track
B 219
El Sub Sta
Path
Ruin
B 2050
TCB
MANSTON
ROAD
Lighting Tower
ER
INE
'S
EE
GR
WAY
GR
LIN
OV
RE WAY
SPITFI
CA
TH
G
War Meml
P
ST
Track
El Sub Sta
Ruin
B 2190
TCB
Lighting Tower
RE
ST
ck
HI
IRE WAY
GH
Tra
SPITF
ET
TCB
(disused)
NE
E
ST
Track
20
50
Sports Ground
Lighting Tower
(private)
RE
ST
ck
HI
GH
Tra
IRE WAY
ET
TCB
SPITF
NE
STREE
ROA
D
MINSTER
B 2190
N ROA
Path
OR
LA
IG
DA
Sports Ground
(private)
B 2190
Mast
STO
CA
TH
G
War Meml
P
B 2190
ATTENUATION
AREA
Area of land to
be managed to
promote a range of new habitats
Area
of
open
space
and
and ecological areas.
infrastructure for sustainable urban
drainage
features. AREA
ATTENUATION
ER
INE
'S
EE
GR
WAY
B 2190
ELM GROVE
LIN
B 2190
LA
OV
MER
OR
THIG
DA E
RE WAY
SPITFI
GR
Lighting Tower
PRE
ELM GROVE
MER
TH
Icehouse
MANSTON
HABITAT
SPACE
Area ofOPEN
existing
fields ZONE
where
agricultural uses will be maintained.
Area of land to be managed to
promote a range of new habitats
andHABITAT
ecological
areas.
OPEN
SPACE ZONE
The Leys
Lighting Tower
Pond
Stone
LING
STREE
MANSTON
BE
Pond
WAY
Stone
SPRAT
STREE
ve
Ca
(disused)
Box
SPRAT
B 219
R ROAD
MINSTE
Icehouse
Stone
Letter
Stone
El Sub Sta
TFI
DRI
ICTA
El Sub
Sta
INV
Tank
Court
ve
Stone
Tennis
RO
BE
BEA
Track
21
AVEN
TO
MBUS
90
NS
DRIVE
PRE
STO
N ROA
D
D
E
Manston Park
WAY
tion)
Stone
RT
ALLAND
ESMON
Ca
R ROAD
MINSTE
unica
El Sub Sta
CLAV
TOLLEMACHE -D
ICTA
omm
Wind
Sock
Stone
Stone
Box
FS
50
MA
INV
(Telec
Court
20
CLOSE
Mast
Tank
Letter
ROA
D
GRANGE
tion)
ROA
MUSGRAVE
MON
El Sub
Sta
Tennis
AD
RO
BEA
TOLLEMACHE
Manston Park
N
TO
LB
unica
AD
N COU
RT
DRIVE
NS
D
E
MAN
STO
ALLAND
ESMON
(Telec
omm
RO
STO
MAN
ROA
D
MA
FS
20
Sta
CLOSE El Sub
E
CLOS
TO
Wind
Sock
B
El Sub Sta
E
CLOS
ES
Stone
Letter
STO
MAN
LB
Sub Sta
Stone
PR
ROA
D
Silo
El
N COU
AD
STO
RO
MAN
MUSGRAVE
Stone
TO
GRANGE
ES
Sub Sta
PR
ET
RE
ST
HIG
20
50
No Development
Area of open space and
infrastructure for sustainable urban
SPECIAL
OUTDOOR
drainage
features.
WATER-BASED RECREATION
No Development
ZONE
As per Structural Open Space and
infrastructure
Zone but also
SPECIAL OUTDOOR
where
recreational surface
water
WATER-BASED
RECREATION
body
and associated built facilities
ZONE
allowed
(wave
garden)
As per
Structural
Open Space and
Boundary
N infrastructure
23.05.16
MP JW
ZoneAmends
but also
Boundary Amends
M where
12.05.16recreational
JW
surfaceMPwater
Planning
L 05.05.16
JW
body and associated
built MP
facilities
Planning
K 29.04.16
MP JW
allowed (wave
garden)
Dev Area Amend MP JW
J 25.04.16
Sports Ground
(private)
ROAD
Telegraph Hill
Wind Sock
Sports Ground
(private)
The Leys
Runway Approach Lights
Mast
RE
Track
ST
ROA
D
HIG
MINSTER
A299
Track
ET
No Development
TCB
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
Mast (Telecommunication)
Telegraph Hill
A29
Wind Sock
TH
Stones
Track
Track
ER
INE
'S
EE
GR
GR
OV
ST
ELM GROVE
CA
TH
G
War Meml
P
Mast (Telecommunication)
GH
Tra
ST
ck
RE
ET
TCB
HI
A299
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
NE
OR
LA
A29
IG
DA
Stones
SPECIAL OUTDOOR
WATER-BASED RECREATION
ZONE
20
50
Sports Ground
(private)
Dunstrete
Masts (Telecommunication)
Gas Govn
DR
IVE
STREET
US
HO
CLO
SE
HILL
THA
LL
Track
SEMPL
HIL
L
GE
Gas Govn
HENGIST WAY
Mast
Stone
Dunstrete
E CLOSE
HIL
Y
WA
US
CO
TT
AG
IVY
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
A29
NE
OR
HO
TH
HILL
G
P
LAUN
DR
DRY
IVE
STREET
ROAD
Mast (Telecommunication)
HIL
LB
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
00
Dunstrete
SOU
Track
Masts (Telecommunication)
Boundary
Amends
N 23.05.16 Red
Line Amend
20.04.16
AS MP
JW JW
Boundary
M 12.05.16 For
ApprovalAmends
06.04.16
MP MPJW JW
Planning
L05.04.16
05.05.16 Design
MP
Issue
MP JW JW
Planning
K 29.04.16 Seventh
Issue
22.03.16
MP MP
JW JW
Dev Area Amend MP JW
J 25.04.16
Sixth Issue
18.03.16
MP JW
Red Line Amend AS
I 20.04.16
JW
Fifth Issue
04.03.16
For Approval MP MPJW JW
H 06.04.16
Fourth Issue
29.02.16
MP JW
Design Issue
G 05.04.16
MP JW
Third Issue
09.02.16
Seventh Issue MP MPJW JW
F 22.03.16
Second Issue
04.02.16
MP JW
E21.01.16
18.03.16 FirstSixth
IssueIssue MP MPJW JW
Issue Drawn Apprvd.
04.03.16Status andFifth
MP JW
Description
Rev D Date
Fourth Issue
C 29.02.16
MP JW
NOTE:
Third Issue
B 09.02.16
MP JW
1. Do not scale from this
unless for Second
planningIssue
A drawing
04.02.16
MP JW
First
Issueon site. MP JW
2. All setting out, levels00and21.01.16
dimensions to be
agreed
HENGIST WAY
Dunstrete
TTA
CO
E CLOSE
IVY
SEMPL
LB
ROAD
SOU
ST
LAUN
DRY
THA
LL
CLO
SE
Sports Ground
(private)
ET
RE
HIG
LL
HI
Mast
Tank
Stone
JW
29.02.16
Fourth Issue
MP
JW
09.02.16
Third Issue
MP
JW
Second Issue
First Issue
MP
MP
JW
JW
A 04.02.16
00 21.01.16
Reservoir
SL
CLIVE ROAD
Planit - IE LLP
FOADS HILL
SL
Cliffsend Crossing
Tunnel
A299
Client
El Sub
Sta
CLIVE
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
ROAD
MP 84
Project
Stone Hill
Park
Drg title Parameter
Plan
5: Green Infrastructure
Cliffsend Crossing
Tunnel
A299
El Sub Sta
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
Client
Drg nr
MP 84
12.05.16
Scale
Date:5: Green
Drawn
MP
1:5500@A1
Drg title
Parameter Plan
Infrastructure
A25
FOADS HILL
SEA VIEW
ROAD
DRIVE
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
Planit - IE LLP
MP 84.25
CLIVE ROAD
Project
PROJECT:
Cliffsend Crossing
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
Client
Tunnel
El Sub Sta
PROJECT NO:
MP 84
70009799
Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
PL1436-VW-011
DRIVE
Drg title
CLIENT:
Drg nr
Scale
1:5500@A1
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
12.05.16
N
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
Status
Planning
Revision N
PL1436-VW-015
Checked
JW
Drg nr
SL
Project
A299
MP 84.25
DRIVE
El Sub
Sta
MP 84.25
Reservoir
A25
LB
El Sub
Sta
A299
TCB
Date
7.
TCB
NOTE:
1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
WINDSOR ROAD
ARUNDEL ROAD
KING ARTHUR
ROAD
Rev
5.
6.
LB
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
Tank
WINDSOR ROAD
JW
MP
WINDSOR ROAD
MP
Fifth Issue
ARUNDEL ROAD
Sixth Issue
04.03.16
ARUNDEL ROAD
18.03.16
El Sub
Sta
ROAD
TCB
LB
SEA VIEW
JW
JW
JW
4.
ROAD
MP
MP
MP
3.
SEA VIEW
For Approval
Design Issue
Seventh Issue
ROAD
H 06.04.16
G 05.04.16
F 22.03.16
Tank
ROAD
JW
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
KING ARTHUR
FOADS HILL
20.04.16
A29
KING ARTHUR
25.04.16
HIL
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
JW
Y
WA
G
P
LL
JW
JW
JW
HI
JW
NE
MP
Boundary Amends MP
Planning
MP
Planning
MP
Dev Area Amend MP
OR
Boundary Amends
M 12.05.16
L 05.05.16
K 29.04.16
TH
N 23.05.16
STRUCTURAL
OPEN
SPACE
AND
EXTENT OF PHASE
1 (DETAILED
APPLICATION)
INFRASTRUCTURE ZONE
AD
Stone
Mast
Stone
PLANNING
APPLICATION
SITE
BOUNDARY
EXTENT
OF PHASE
1 (DETAILED
APPLICATION)
Stone
Stone
Stone
LB
VINC
W
B
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
Scale
1:5500@A1
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
12.05.16
N
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
Figure 2.6
THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHT AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN
WHOLE OR PART WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORITY.
DO NOT SCALE OFF THIS DRAWING
VINC
ENT
ROA
C
C
MANSTON
ROAD
Track
LB
ENT
ROA
MANSTON
ROAD
Track
Stone
LB
W
B
Stone
VINC
Stone
G
P
Stone
AD
T
UR
Mast
N
W
B
RO
CO
TO
NS
Stone
MA
Stone
in
Reservoir
(covered)
Dra
Stone
G
P
AD
RO
T
UR
Mast
Reservoir
(covered)
CO
TO
NS
MA
Stone
VINC
ENT
ROA
Track
in
Reservoir
(covered)
Dra
Stone
Reservoir
(covered)
Stone
Letter
Box
Tra
PR
ES
Stone
ck
Stone
TO
Stone
RO
AD
Stones
LB
Letter
Box
Tra
Stone
ES
ES
RO
Tennis
CO
TO
NS
MA
TO
Stone
Pylon
EXISTING
AREAS
OF HARDSTANDING
TO BE
EXISTING
BUILDINGS
TO BE DEMOLISHED
REMOVED
PR
Pylon
B39
Court
RO
AD
B40
AD
T
UR
Stone
RO
Pylon
Stones
G
P
Mast
Stone
TO
AD
Stone
PR
Stone
ck
Stone
Reservoir
(covered)
Tennis
Reservoir
(covered)
ES
TO
RO
AD
El
Sub Sta
Court
PR
B40
B39
Silo
Stone
DEVELOPMENT ZONES
El
Sub Sta
El
Sub Sta
21
El Sub
Sta
B18
VE
B2
B61
ROA
D
RT
N COU
STO
D
N ROA
PRE
B26
B18
B43
Lighting Tower
B 2050
B6
B60
Path
Ruin
MANSTON
ROAD
TCB
The Leys
B23
B 2190
ROA
D
MINSTER
GR
'S
INE
RE
E
OV
GR
'S
INE
ER
CA
TH
ELM GROVE
ST
HI
ST
ET
RE
ST
ck
50
LA
B 2190
B10
B1
B45
B53
Sports Ground
(private)
20
50
Sports Ground
ET
RE
ST
(private)
HIG
B8
B51
B52
Telegraph Hill
Sports Ground
(private)
B10
B45
B47
Wind Sock
ET
RE
ST
MINSTER
ROA
D
HIG
B9
No Development
TCB
B51
B52
Telegraph Hill
Track
B30
B8
B48
B46
B47
Wind Sock
Track
Mast (Telecommunication)
E
OV
GR
A299
INE
B9
A29
ER
ELM GROVE
CA
TH
ST
Stones
Track
B30
B48
Track
B46
Mast (Telecommunication)
HI
GH
Tra
ST
ck
RE
ET
TCB
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
'S
EE
GR
G
War Meml
P
A299
MINSTER
ROUNDABOUT
NE
LA
A29
SPECIAL OUTDOOR
WATER-BASED RECREATION
ZONE
E CLOSE
CLO
SE
DR
IVE
STREET
US
G
Dunstrete
Masts (Telecommunication)
SEMPL
Gas Govn
F
Runway Approach Lights
B50
Dunstrete
Mast
HIL
Stone
US
HO
HIL
CO
TT
AG
IVY
ROAD
Y
WA
LAUN
DR
DRY
IVE
STREET
HILL
E
D
C
HENGIST WAY
E CLOSE
LB
Mast (Telecommunication)
Boundary Amends MP
12.05.16
Planning
05.05.16
MP
AS
Boundary Amends
L 23.05.16 Planning
29.04.16
structuresAmends
AS
28.04.16
K 12.05.16 AddBoundary
Planning
J
05.05.16
Red Line Amend
AS
20.04.16
Planning
I 29.04.16 Number
amend
MP
13.04.16
Add structures
H 28.04.16
Structure
added
MP
11.04.16
Red Line Amend
G 20.04.16 For Approval
MP
06.04.16
Number
amendMP
F 13.04.16 Number
amend
04.04.16
Structure
Issue addedMP
E 11.04.16 Third
22.03.16
For Approval
D 06.04.16 Second
Issue
MP
18.03.16
amend
C 04.04.16 FirstNumber
Issue
MP
07.02.16
Third Issue
B 22.03.16
Status and Description
HENGIST WAY
Dunstrete
LL
HO
Gas Govn
23.05.16
K
J
I
Masts (Telecommunication)
THA
HILL
SOU
Track
Track
B49
A29
B50
G
P
Mast
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
OR
TH
MP
JW
Fourth Issue
MP
JW
09.02.16
JW
JW
JW
WINDSOR ROAD
ARUNDEL ROAD
WINDSOR ROAD
ARUNDEL ROAD
ROAD
SL
FOADS HILL
CLIVE ROAD
JW
MP 84.25
SL
A299
CLIVE ROAD
Cliffsend Crossing
Tunnel
A299
El Sub Sta
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
MP 84
El Sub
Sta
MP
Planit - IE LLP
MP 84.25
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
Reservoir
A25
LB
ROAD
KING ARTHUR
ROAD
KING ARTHUR
Reservoir
A299
TCB
Date
MP
MP
MP
NOTE:
1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
WINDSOR ROAD
ARUNDEL ROAD
KING ARTHUR
ROAD
Rev
Third Issue
Second Issue
First Issue
El Sub
Sta
SEA VIEW
A 04.02.16
00 21.01.16
Tank
TCB
LB
Cliffsend Crossing
A299
SEVENSCORE
ROUNDABOUT
Tunnel
DRIVE
18.03.16
ROAD
JW
Fifth Issue
29.02.16
El Sub
Sta
SEA VIEW
MP
04.03.16
TCB
Second Issue
18.03.16
NOTE:
First Issue
MP JW
07.02.16
00drawing
1. Do not scale from this
unless for planning
Status
and Description
Rev
Date
2. All setting out, levels
and dimensions
to be agreed
on site. Drawn Apprvd.
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
NOTE: being laid out.
before
1. drawing
Do not scale
thiswith
drawing
unless for
planning
4. This
mustfrom
be read
the relevant
specification
2. All and
setting
out,
levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
clauses
detail
drawings
3. The
dimensions and
of allsetting
materials
checked
on site
5. Order
of construction
out must
to be be
agreed
on site.
before being
laid out.
6. This drawing
is copyright
protected and may not be
4. This drawing
must
be read
withwritten
the relevant
specification
reproduced
in whole
or part
without
authority.
clauses and
drawings unless Otherwise Stated
7. All Dimensions
aredetail
in millimetres
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
LB
FOADS HILL
Sixth Issue
Tank
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
JW
JW
JW
LL
JW
MP
MP
MP
HI
CLIFFSEND
ROUNDABOUT
A29
JW
MP
JW
JW
JW JW
MP
JW JW
MP
MP
JW JW
AS
JW
JW
AS
JW
JW
AS
JW
JW
MP
JW JW
MP
JW JW
MP
JW JW
MP JW
JW
MP JW
Drawn Apprvd.
Date
G
P
NE
20.04.16
H 06.04.16
G 05.04.16
F 22.03.16
Rev
HIL
OR
JW
JW
JW
JW
Tank
Y
WA
TH
25.04.16
Boundary Amends MP
Planning
MP
Planning
MP
Dev Area Amend MP
00
LL
JW
HI
M 12.05.16
L 05.05.16
K 29.04.16
MP
NE
Boundary Amends
N 23.05.16
Stone
Boundary Amends
SE
CLO
LL
THA
SOU
SEMPL
LB
Dunstrete
HIL
Sports Ground
(private)
ET
RE
ST
HIG
B49
Stones
(private)
TT
AG
Sports Ground
CO
50
IVY
20
ROAD
LAUN
DRY
OR
IG
DA
20
NE
OR
TH
(private)
IG
The Leys
Mast
Sports Ground
DA
Mast
G
War Meml
P
TCB
Tra
B 2190
D
N ROA
STO
PRE
Path
ROAD
OR
IG
DA
B11
B1
B53
B55
B56
SPRAT
GH
Tra
B12
B17
Lighting Tower
IRE WAY
EE
B16
B54
B 2190
SPITF
NE
GR
WAY
B56
B 2190
TCB
TH
LA
Track
LIN
ER
ST
TCB
B63 B3
RE WAY
SPITFI
B55
CA
TH
B6
B11
Lighting Tower
ck
MER
IRE WAY
ET
B2
B4
G
War Meml
P
Ruin
ELM GROVE
B12
El Sub Sta
OV
Lighting Tower
SPITF
TH
EE
B17
B32
Lighting Tower
B62
GR
WAY
B 2190
GH
LIN
B16
B54
(disused)
STREE
STREE
The Leys
HI
MER
Icehouse
Stone
LING
LING
ROAD
Lighting Tower
B63 B3
RE WAY
SPITFI
Stone
MANSTON
SPRAT
Path
MANSTON
B60
B35
B21 B34
El Sub Sta
B32
DRI
B 219
B62
B4
B43
B31
B 2050
Y
WA
N ROA
IES
AV
RE
TFI
STREE
21
B25
-D
B23
Pond
LING
B26
90
LL
SPI
SPRAT
El Sub Sta
B13
STO
B21 B34
MAN
B57
B64 B35
PRE
AVEN
UE
COLU
MBUS
B61
Stone
Stone
STO
B24
BE
Pond
B42
B58
B31
B25
Y
WA
Stone
ROA
D
GRANGE
ALLAND
AVEN
UE
COLU
MBUS
AD
90
RE
TFI
SPI
Box
El Sub Sta
B13
B36
LL
ve
Ca
(disused)
Box
Court
B59
Wind
Sock
B57
B19
B20
BE
B 219
Track
WAY
R ROAD
MINSTE
Icehouse
Stone
Letter
RO
Tennis
VE
ICTA
TO
MON
DRI
INV
Tank
B14
NS
BEA
Track
s
ve
Ca
R ROAD
MINSTE
Stone
B27
Stone
Stone
Letter
B58
FS
B64
MA
Manston Park
WAY
B19
B37
B42
B38
B20B22B36
B14a
IES
AV
tion)
Court
-D
unica
Tennis
ROA
D
CL
(Telec
omm
ICTA
50
B24
CLOSE
Mast
INV
Tank
20
DRIVE
TOLLEMACHE
ESMON
D
E
Box
B41
RT
GRANGE
ALLAND
AD
MON
tion)
RO
BEA
unica
TO
omm
NS
Manston Park
(Telec
MAN
B14
MA
Mast
CLOSE
AD
El Sub
Sta
STO
B14a
B27
LB
DRIVE
CL
RO
50
El Sub Sta
E
CLOS
Stone
Letter
B59
Wind
Sock
FS
20
TOLLEMACHE
TO
ESMON
D
E
Stone
B38
B22
El Sub Sta
E
CLOS
ES
ROA
D
B37
LB
PR
STO
MAN
Sub Sta
Stone
B41
Silo
El
N COU
AD
STO
RO
MAN
Track
Stone
TO
MUSGRAVE
ES
MUSGRAVE
PR
El Sub Sta
MP 84
Drg nr PL1436-VW-016
Drg title Parameter Plan 6: Demolition and Retention
A25
FOADS HILL
SEA VIEW
ROAD
MP 84.25
DRIVE
CLIFF VIEW
ROAD
Planit - IE LLP
CLIVE ROAD
Project
PROJECT:
Cliffsend Crossing
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
Client
Tunnel
El Sub Sta
PROJECT NO:
MP 84
70009799
Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
PL1436-VW-011
DRIVE
Drg title
CLIENT:
Drg nr
Scale
1:5500@A1
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
12.05.16
N
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
1:5500@A1
Date:
12.05.16
Drg nr PL1436-VW-016
Status Planning
Revision
SL
Scale
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
Scale
1:5500@A1
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
12.05.16
L
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
Figure 2.7
C
C
Ru
nw
ay
PA
RK
He
rit
ag
e
MOD site
Spitfire
Museum
Heritage
Center
Meadow Edge
Park
Managed entrance
Pocket
Park
New
Entrance
EMPLOYMENT
Woodland
Walks
Allotments
New
Entrance
EMPLOYMENT
PHASE 1
Grassland
Meadow
A
LT
DE
Play
Sports
fields
EMPLOYMENT
Hi
gh
Pocket
Park
He
rit
ag
e
Pocket
Park
RK
PA
St
re
et
MANSTON ROAD
The Me
adow
Edge
Pocket
Park
Pocket
Park
Pocket
Park
Pocket
Park
Telegraph
Hill Park
Pocket
Park
Grassland/
Ecology Pa
rk
Manston
Village
Sports
fields
Sports
Village
Swimming pool
Control
Tower Park
Entrance
Square
Pocket
Park
Pocket
Park
The Taxi
ways
Grassland
/ Ecolog
y Park
Way
Hotel
Courts
Pedestrian
entrance
Wavegarden
Sports
fields
RUNWA
Y PARK
Grassland
Meadow
A299 Heng
ist
Primary
School
Firehouse
Square
Pedestrian
entrance
Play
Pocket
Park
Food Store
Pocket
Park
Pedestrian
entrance
lake
Shops
s
nue
Ave
eld
Airfi
New
Entrance
Pedestrian
entrance
ed
in
ta
Re
Meadow Edge
Park
gs
in
ild
Bu
Pocket
Park
Primary
School
EMPLOYMENT
Ga
rd
en
s
radar
Woodla
nd Edg
e
Control
Tower
Park
Improved
Spitfire Way
Junction
Woodla
nd Edg
e
Park
SP
IT
FI
RE
Pedestrian
entrance
Woo
dland
Edge
Park
Hub
Entrance
Square
Play
Lookout
New
Entrance
Minster Village
Gras
sland
/ Eco
logy
Park
Outfall
Planit - IE LLP
00 05.05.16
Rev
Date
First Issue
MP
JW
NOTE:
1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
Project
Client
Drg title
Illustrative MasterPlan
Drg nr
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
CLIENT:
70009799
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
PL1436-VW-020
Scale
n.t.s
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
05.05.16
00
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
CLIENT:
70009799
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Figure 2.8
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
CLIENT:
70009799
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Figure 2.9
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
CLIENT:
70009799
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Figure 2.10
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
CLIENT:
70009799
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Figure 2.11
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
CLIENT:
70009799
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Figure 2.12
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
Figure 2.13
THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHT AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN
WHOLE OR PART WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORITY.
DO NOT SCALE OFF THIS DRAWING
PLANT SCHEDULE
Species
Common name
Pot
Density (m2)
ARRIVAL LANDSCAPE
Plants
Track
C
C
Grasses
Hedge
Cow parsley
3LPG
200-300mm
Escallonia
5LPG
300-400mm
5LPG
300-400mm
Geranium sanguineum
Bloody cranezbill
3LPG
200-300mm
Viburnum davidii
David viburnum
3LPG
200-300mm
Geranium phaeum
Black widow
3LPG
200-300mm
3LPG
200-300mm
Hebe
5LPG
300-400mm
3LPG
200-300mm
Hebe rakaiensis
Rakai hebe
5LPG
300-400mm
Hippophae rhamnoides
Sea buckthron
5LPG
300-400mm
Anemanthele lessoniana
5LPG
300-400mm
Russian sage
5LPG
300-400mm
Festuca amethystina
Tufted fescue
3LPG
200-300mm
5LPG
300-400mm
Helictotrichon sempervirens
3LPG
200-300mm
Sanguisorba officinalis
Great Burnet
5LPG
FULL POT
Miscanthus nepalensis
5LPG
300-400mm
3LPG
200-300mm
5LPG
FULL POT
Tamarix
10LPG
FULL POT
Nassella tenuissima
5LPG
FULL POT
Lavandula officinalis
English Lavender
3LPG
200-300mm
Hedera helix
Common Ivy
3LPG
200-300mm
Lonicera pilata
Honeysuckle
3LPG
200-300mm
Calamagrostis brachytricha
5LPG
FULL POT
Deschampsia cespitosa
5LPG
300-400mm
5LPG
FULL POT
Crataegus monogyna
Common hawthorn
Rootballed
Griselinia littoralis
Broadleaf
Rootballed
Rootballed
Instant hedge. To
be clipped to
1000mm height
Ilex aquifolium
Common holly
Rootballed
Griselinia littoralis
Broadleaf
TREE SCHEDULE
CO
Species
Common name
Instant hedge. To
be clipped to
1000mm height
Instant hedge. To
be clipped to
600mm height
Instant hedge. To
be clipped to
600mm height
Girth
Height
Pot Size
Habit
TREES
AD
T
UR
TO
NS
MA
Bulbs
Plants
Hedge
Reservoir
(covered)
Betula pendula
Silver birch
18-20cm
4.5-5m
Rootballed
Betula nigra
River birch
18-20cm
4.5-5m
Rootballed
Cercis siliquastrum
Judas tree
Multi-stem
4-4.5m
Rootballed
Prunus avium
Bird cherry
18-20cm
4.5-5m
Rootballed
Pinus sylvestris
Scots pine
3.5-4m
Rootballed
18-20cm
4.5-5m
Rootballed
Sorbus aucuparia
Mountain ash
18-20cm
4.5-5m
Rootballed
2m clear stem
2m clear stem
Multi-stem
2m clear stem
2m clear stem
2m clear stem
ES
Stone
TO
RO
AD
7. Carry out all work when soil and weather conditions are suitable:
i) Do not plant during periods of frost or strong winds. Plant only during
the following periods
- Container grown plants: At any time if ground water and weather
conditions are favourable.
Ensure that adequate watering and weed control is available.
- Bulbs- Autumn.
Stone
PR
ES
TO
RO
AD
Stone
Stone
Stone
LING
STREE
PRE
STO
N ROA
Path
Maintenance:
BS 7370:part1: 1991 Grounds maintenance (part 1. Recommendations for
establishing and managing grounds maintenance organisations and design
considerations
The Leys
No Development
TCB
TH
ER
INE
'S
EE
GR
GR
OV
ST
ELM GROVE
CA
TH
G
War Meml
P
HI
GH
ST
RE
ET
TCB
NE
OR
LA
IG
DA
SPECIAL OUTDOOR
WATER-BASED RECREATION
ZONE
20
50
Sports Ground
(private)
Sports Ground
(private)
N 23.05.16
Boundary Amends
MP
JW
M 12.05.16
L 05.05.16
K 29.04.16
JW
JW
JW
25.04.16
Boundary Amends MP
Planning
MP
Planning
MP
Dev Area Amend MP
JW
29.04.16
20.04.16
JW
Rev
Date
For Approval
Design Issue
Seventh Issue
MP
MP
MP
JW
JW
JW
JW
H 06.04.16
G 05.04.16
F 22.03.16
Runway Approach Lights
Sixth Issue
MP
04.03.16
Fifth Issue
MP
29.02.16
Fourth Issue
MP
JW
09.02.16
Third Issue
MP
JW
Second Issue
First Issue
MP
MP
JW
JW
18.03.16
A 04.02.16
00 21.01.16
Rev
Date
Key
B
El Sub
Sta
Meadow Landscape
ROAD
SEA VIEW
MP 84.25
SL
Project
PROJECT:
Client
PROJECT NO:
Drg title
CLIENT:
Drg nr
Stone
Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Limited
70009799
Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones
Stone
Hill Park Ltd.
PL1436-VW-011
Scale
1:5500@A1
Date:
Status
Planning
Revision
12.05.16
N
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
GH
TS
TS
A
May 2015
Arrival Landscape
Planit - IE LLP
Planit - IE LLP
For Planning
NOTE:
1. Do not scale from this drawing
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
JW
NOTE:
1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning
2. All setting out, levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.
3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site
before being laid out.
4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification
clauses and detail drawings
5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.
6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be
reproduced in whole or part without written authority.
7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated
WINDSOR ROAD
ARUNDEL ROAD
Track
TCB
DEVELOPMENT ZONES
PR
PLANTING NOTES
Grasses
Gateway Landscape
Project
Native Hedge
Client
Manston Consortium
Ornamental Hedge
Drg title
Trees
Drg nr
PL1436-VW-019
Scale
1:500@A1
Date:
Status
for info
Revision
29.04.16
-
Drawn
MP
Checked
JW
Key
South Channel
S ite B o u n d a ry
M o d e lle d R o a d s
South Channel
M O D T ra in in g F a c ility
A Q MCliftonville
A
MARGATE
Birchington
E
St Nicholas at Wade
Thanet District
A28
A299
RAMSGATE
A253
Minster
Cliffs End
A256
T IT L E :
S T OP RNOEJEHCILT LT ITPA
L ER K
Dover District
File:
0.375 0.75
1.5
2.25
Kilometres
F IG U R E N o :
F IG U R EBay
5 .1 S IT E B O U N D A R Y,
Sandwich
M O D E L LF E
IGDU RREOX A D A N D
M O D T R A IN IN G FA C IL IT Y
Hartsdown
B2052
A28
Key
##
Westgate-on-Sea
Garlinge
B2051
B2052
C o n tin u o u s M o n ito rs
#
#
D iffu s io n T u b e M o n ito rs
AQM A
Twenties Cottages
Reading Street
S ite B o u n d a ry
##
##
The Nor'ard
M o d e lle d R o a d s
B2053
Mocketts Wood
A255
Shottendane Copse
Vincent Farm
A256
Upton
Bromstone
Lydden
Woodchurch
A254
Acol
Pouces Nursery
Northwood
Cheesemans Farmhouse
Westwood
Fairfield
Flete
B2050
St Peter's
Coldswood House
A255
Haine
Thanet District
Dumpton
West Dumpton
Alland Grange
#
Refer to Figure
A2565.2B
B2050
Mount Pleasant
Laurensfield
Ozengell Farmhouse
A299
Mill Cottage
A254
B2014
Ozengell Grange
#
#
#
##
Nethercourt
#
#
#
RAMSGATE
Way
The Freehold
Newington
Manston
B2190
Whitehall
The Leys
Thorne Farm
Chilton
Minster
Durlock
B2054
Sevenscore
#
Marshside Scout Camp
Cliffs End
Ramsgate Sands
Pegwell
Government Acre
T IT L E :
S T OP RNOEJEHCILT LT ITPA
L ER K
F IG U R E N o :
File:
Marsh Farm
0.25
Minster
0.5 Marshes
1.5
A256
Kilometres
Dover District
F IG U R E 5 .2 A C O N T IN U O U S M O N IT O R S ,
D IF F U S IO N T U B E M O N IT O R S ,
A Q M A , S FITIGE UBROEU XN D A R Y &
M O D E LLE D R O A D S
##
Key
Garlinge
Twenties Cottages
TH48
ZH5
TH49
# #
#
#
TH13,46,47
C o n tin u o u s M o n ito rs
#
#
A254
D iffu s io n T u b e M o n ito rs
S ite B o u n d a ry
M o d e lle d R o a d s
TH48
St
n
io
at
a
Ro
Th
Westgate-on-Sea
eS
Shottendane Copse
ZH5
TH13,46,47#
A28
A28
TH49
Lydden
Woodchurch
La
Vincent Farm
rk
Pa
Flete
B2050
ne
A256
Acol
Thanet District
Cheesemans Farmhouse
Pouces Nursery
TH32
Haine
Coldswood House
Alland Grange
The Leys
TH31
B2190
Manston
B2050
Mount Pleasant
TH33
A253
Monkton
A299
Mill Cottage
ZH3
T IT L E :
Hoo
Way
The Freehold
S T OP RNOEJEHCILT LT ITPA
L ER K
A256
Thorne Farm
Minster
F IG U R E N o :
Durlock
File:
TH37,38,45
0 0.1250.25
0.5
0.75
Sherriffs Court
Kilometres
Sevenscore
TH16
Cliffs End
F IG U R E 5 .2 B C O N T IN U O U S M O N IT O R S ,
XO N IT O Farm
D IF F U S IO NF TIGUULittle
BREEMCliffsend
RS,
S IT E B O U N D A R Y &
M O D E LLE D R O A D S
Key
B2053
TH36
B2052
#
#
Westwood
Fairfield
TH34
A255
TH05
C o n tin u o u s M o n ito rs
D iffu s io n Tu b e M o n ito rs
S ite B o u n d a ry
M o d e lle d R o a d s
BROADSTAIRS
A256
Upton
Bromstone
A254
TH55
Northwood
A255
Haine
TH50,60,62
West Dumpton
He
Whitehall
d re
sR
o ad
re
so
n
Ro
a
Thanet District
Dumpton
TH67,68,69
Har
Newington
TH51,52,53
## TH73,74,75
#
ZH4 TH26 Vi
ct o
ri a
#
Ro
A256
TH37,38,45
TH50,60,62
B2014
TH67,68,69
TH26
#
#
#
##
ZH4
TH73,74,75
TH66
###TH54,64,65
TH70,71,72
Nethercourt
ZH3
ad
A254
B2050
TH27
File:
A299
0.125 0.25
0.5
0.75
Kilometres
S T OP RNOEJEHCILT LT ITPA
L ER K
F IG U R E N o :
RAMSGATE
Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown
copyright and database right 2016.
T IT L E :
B2054
F IG U R E 5 .2 C C O N T IN U O U S M O N IT O R S ,
D IF F U S IO N T U B E M O N IT O R S ,
F IG U R E X
S IT E B O U N D A R Y &
M O D E LLE D R O A D S
Key
South Channel
!
(
Birchington
R23
R21
R26
R25
(
(!
R24 !
!
(
R27 R28
!
(
R38
R22
!
(
R29
!
(
R19
!
!
(
!
(
R37
!
(
R40
N e w re c e p toCliftonville
rs
S ite B o u n d a ry
M o d e lle d R o a d s
R33(
R63
R35
!
(
!
(
(R18
R20 !
!
(!
(
!
(
R32!
(
( R62
R64!
!
(
!
(
E x is tin g re c e p to rs
MARGATE
R31
R30
!
(
R36
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
R34 !
!
(
!
(
R65
R15
R14
R4
!
(
!
(
R41
R46
!
(
R44
!
(
Thanet District
St Nicholas at Wade
R3
R39
!
(
R43
R42
!
(
R6
R2
R5
!
(
(
R1 !
!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
A28
Cheesemans Farmhouse
!
(
!
(
Minster
!
(!
(
N1
N11
N8
!
(
Dover District
File:
0.25 0.5
1.5
Mill Cottage
Kilometres
N3
N9
B2190
!
(
!
(
N10
!
(
N7
!
(
R61
R45
!
(!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
R53
R51
!
(
!
(
R68
!
(
R55
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
R67
!
(
R9
R52
!
(
R10
!
( (
N5 !
!
(
R12
!
(
R11
N2
!
(
!
(
!
((!
(
!
( R47 !
R48
!
(
N4 N12
!
(
R49
R60
A299
Pouces Nursery
A253
Alland Grange
!
(!
(
!
(
R8 R7
!
(
R50
!
(
!
(
R56
!
(
R58
!
( R57
!
(
!
(
!
(
R59
!
(
R66 R54
!
(!
(
!
(
RAMSGATE
!
(
T IT L E :
S T OP RNOEJEHCILT LT ITPA
L ER K
!
(
N6
!
(
A299
A256
F IG U R E N o :
F IG U R E 5 .3 E X IS T IN G R E C E P T O R S ,
N E W FRIGEUCREEP XT O R S ,
S IT E B O U N D A R Y &
M O D E LLE D R O A D S
Key
South Channel
!
(
Birchington
R23
R21
R26
R25
(
(!
R24 !
!
(
R27 R28
!
(
R38
R22
!
(
R29
!
(
R19
!
!
(
!
(
R37
!
(
R40
N e w re c e p toCliftonville
rs
S ite B o u n d a ry
M o d e lle d R o a d s
R33(
R63
R35
!
(
!
(
(R18
R20 !
!
(!
(
!
(
R32!
(
( R62
R64!
!
(
!
(
E x is tin g re c e p to rs
MARGATE
R31
R30
!
(
R36
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
R34 !
!
(
!
(
R65
R15
R14
R4
!
(
!
(
R41
R46
!
(
R44
!
(
Thanet District
St Nicholas at Wade
R3
R39
!
(
R43
R42
!
(
R6
R2
R5
!
(
(
R1 !
!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
A28
Cheesemans Farmhouse
!
(
!
(
Minster
!
(!
(
N1
N11
N8
!
(
Dover District
File:
0.25 0.5
1.5
Mill Cottage
Kilometres
N3
N9
B2190
!
(
!
(
N10
!
(
N7
!
(
R61
R45
!
(!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
R53
R51
!
(
!
(
R68
!
(
R55
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
R67
!
(
R9
R52
!
(
R10
!
( (
N5 !
!
(
R12
!
(
R11
N2
!
(
!
(
!
((!
(
!
( R47 !
R48
!
(
N4 N12
!
(
R49
R60
A299
Pouces Nursery
A253
Alland Grange
!
(!
(
!
(
R8 R7
!
(
R50
!
(
!
(
R56
!
(
R58
!
( R57
!
(
!
(
!
(
R59
!
(
R66 R54
!
(!
(
!
(
RAMSGATE
!
(
T IT L E :
S T OP RNOEJEHCILT LT ITPA
L ER K
!
(
N6
!
(
A299
A256
F IG U R E N o :
F IG U R E 5 .3 E X IS T IN G R E C E P T O R S ,
N E W FRIGEUCREEP XT O R S ,
S IT E B O U N D A R Y &
M O D E LLE D R O A D S
Key
R23
R21
Birchington
!
(
!
(
R20 R22
!
(
!
(
( R17
R19 !
!
(!
(
!
( R16
R18
R40
R27 !
(
!
( Westgate-on-Sea
R25
( E x is tin g re c e p to rs
(
!
(!
R24!
!
(
Plum Pudding Equestrian Centre
R26
N e w re c e p to rs
R38
!
(
S ite B o u n d a ry
M o d e lle d R o a d s
AQ M A
!
(
Shottendane Copse
R15
Wade Marsh
R14
Ballards Cottage
Wade Farm
Bartletts
!
(
!
(
R41
College Farm Cottages
!
(
R39
B2050
!
(
Potten Street
R4
Thanet District
Acol
!
(
Cheesemans Farmhouse
Belle Isle
St Nicholas at Wade
R3
Down Barton Cottages
!
(
Alland Grange
R42
A299
Prospect Place
B2190
R8 R7
(
!!
(
A28
R6
A253
!
(
Gore Street
File:
0.25
0.5
1.5
Kilometres
S T OP RNOEJEHCILT LT ITPA
L ER K
Laurensfield
Hoo
Sarre
Mount Pleasant
T IT L E :
Monkton
R2
R5
!
(!
!
(
(
R1
!
(
The Freehold
Minster
F IG U R E N o :
Way
Mill Cottage
F IG U R E 5 .3 B E X IS T IN G
R E C E P T O R SF,N
IG UERWE XR E C E P T O R S ,
S IT E B O U N D A R Y,
M O D ELLED R O AD S AN D AQ M A
Woodchurch
Lydden
A254
Pouces Nursery
Cheesemans Farmhouse
Northwood
Acol
S PA
Coldswood House
SAC
SSSI
S ite B o u n d a ry West Dumpton
Alland Grange
B2050
Whitehall
The Leys
Newington
Manston
B2190
A254
Mount Pleasant
B2050
A299
Mill Cottage
B2014
Ozengell Grange
B2054
Nethercourt
RAMSGATE
Way
The Freehold
A255
Thorne Farm
T2_9
(
!
(
T2_8 !
Minster
Durlock
Chilton
B2054
Sevenscore
Cliffs End
Marsh Farm
!
(
T1_8
( T1_7
!
(
!
T1_6 !
T1_5
(
( T1_4
!
(
!
T1_3 !
(T 1 _ 2
Minster Marshes
( T1_1
!
(
!
Government Acre
A256
Ebbsfleet Farm Cottages St Augustine's Golf Course
River Stour
Pegwell
A256
Stonelees
S T OP RNOEJEHCILT LT ITPA
L ER K
(
!!
(
!!
(
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
(
File:
E c o lo g ic a l Tra n s e c ts
(
!
Haine
T1_9
Bromstone
Key
0.225
0.45
0.9
1.35
1.8
Kilometres
Sandwich Bay
Richborough Port
Sandwich Flats
F IG U R E N o :
F IG U R E 5 .4 E C O L O G IC A L
IGTUSR, ESXPA , S A C ,
T R A N S EF C
S S S I A N D S IT E B O U N D A R Y
Key
Road
Site Boundary
TITLE:
Noise Sensitive
Receptors
FIGURE No:
Figure 6.1
Ref: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/noise-action-planning-important-areas-round-2-england
Figure 7.1
Scale @ A3 : 8,314
Key
Site Boundary
Other land owned by applicant
B40
B39
B27
B25
B32
B56a
B56c
B18a
B61
B16
B63
B62
B17 B3
B2a
B21
B19a B22
B19b
B14a
B14 B20
B24
B56b
B41
B37 B38
B42
B36
B57
B58
B13
B64
B35
B31
B44
B26
B18b
B23 B34
B65
B59
B43
B6
B66
B2b
B12
B69
B1
B10
B45
B8
B52
B47
B9
B48
B46
B30
B49
B50
B67
Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2015
PROJECT:
PROJECT No:
Client:
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
JT
AM
HS
B
April 2016
14
AECOM
MidCity Place
71 High Holborn
London, WC1V 6QS
+44 (0)20 7061 7000
www.aecom.com
15
13
10
PROJECT
12
16
19
11
17
20
18
21
KEY
22
8
Junctions to be considered
weekends
23
Junctions to be considered
weekdays
Study Area
24
26
Site Boundary
6
5
25
2
31
33
30
4
27
32
34
28
29
ISSUE/REVISION
35
I/R
DATE
PROJECT NUMBER
36
60430453
SHEET TITLE
37
SHEET NUMBER
60340453-M001-SKE-0040
APP'D
AECOM
MidCity Place
71 High Holborn
London, WC1V 6QS
+44 (0)20 7061 7000
www.aecom.com
PROJECT
KEY
Site Boundary
ISSUE/REVISION
I/R
DATE
APP'D
PROJECT NUMBER
60430453
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NUMBER
60430453-M001-SKE-0041
KEY
XX
Site Boundary
Railway Station
Junction Name
Birchington
Rail Station
Monkton
Roundabout
Minster
Roundabout
Minster Rail
Station
Ebbsfleet
Roundabout
Spitfire
Junction
Cliffsend
Roundabout
Sevenscore
Roundabout
Coffin
House
Corner
Stanner
Hill
Lord of
the Manor
Ramsgate
Rail Station
AECOM
MidCity Place
71 High Holborn
London, WC1V 6QS
+44 (0)20 7061 7000
www.aecom.com
PROJECT
APP'D
DATE
ISSUE/REVISION
I/R
PROJECT NUMBER
60340453
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NUMBER
60430453-M001-SKE-0042
AECOM
MidCity Place
71 High Holborn
London, WC1V 6QS
+44 (0)20 7061 7000
www.aecom.com
PROJECT
KEY
Site Boundary
400m Isochrone
800m Isochrone
1200m Isochrone
Existing Access Point
Public Footpath
Public Bridleway
ISSUE/REVISION
I/R
DATE
APP'D
PROJECT NUMBER
60430453
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NUMBER
60430453-M001-SKE-0043
AECOM
MidCity Place
71 High Holborn
London, WC1V 6QS
+44 (0)20 7061 7000
www.aecom.com
PROJECT
KEY
Site Boundary
Traffic free cycle route
On-road cycle route
2500m Isochrone
Vikin
g Tra
il
and database right 2016
ISSUE/REVISION
15
15 -
ou
te
oute
lR
nal R
na
Regio
Re
gio
5000m Isochrone
I/R
DATE
APP'D
PROJECT NUMBER
60430453
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NUMBER
60430453-M001-SKE-0044
AECOM
MidCity Place
71 High Holborn
London, WC1V 6QS
+44 (0)20 7061 7000
www.aecom.com
Birchington
Rail Station
PROJECT
KEY
Site Location
Route 11
Route 38
Route 38(A)
Route 9(9X)
Existing Bus Stop
Ramsgate Rail
Station
ISSUE/REVISION
I/R
DATE
APP'D
PROJECT NUMBER
60430453
Minster Rail
Station
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NUMBER
60430453-M001-SKE-0045
AECOM
MidCity Place
71 High Holborn
London, WC1V 6QS
+44 (0)20 7061 7000
www.aecom.com
PROJECT
KEY
Site Boundary
Doctor
Dentist
Preschool/Nursery
Primary,Secondary
School and College
Food Retail
Public House
Leisure Centre
Library
ISSUE/REVISION
I/R
DATE
PROJECT NUMBER
60430453
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NUMBER
60430453-M001-SKE-0046
APP'D
AECOM
MidCity Place
71 High Holborn
London, WC1V 6QS
+44 (0)20 7061 7000
www.aecom.com
PROJECT
ISSUE/REVISION
I/R
DATE
PROJECT NUMBER
60430453
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NUMBER
60430453-M001-SKE-0048
APP'D
Scale @ A3 : 51,533
Figure 12.1
Thanet District
Dover District
Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2015
PROJECT:
PROJECT No:
Client:
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
MH
TS
TS
B
April 2016
Figure 14.1
Scale @ A3 : 17,500
Site Boundary
Measurement Locations
Env. Zones
E1/E2
E2
A1
E2/E3
E3
B1
C1
D1
E1
B
D
F1
H1
G1
A
C
N1
I1
M1
O1
H
I
L
K
J1
K1 L1
P
Q
N
Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2016
PROJECT:
PROJECT No:
Client:
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
MB
KW
KW
B
April 2016
Figure 14.2
Scale @ A3 : 15,000
Site Boundary
14
8
Road
Footpath
11
2
14
11
13
12
12
12
14
11
13
12
13
11
12
13
2
9
11
11
11
11
7
14
14
11
13
13
11
5
14
11
5
11
11
12
6
12
6
12 12 12
6
6
6
6
11
Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2016
11
13
Client:
14
11
PROJECT No:
14
7
7
11
13
13
PROJECT:
11
11
14
11
11
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
MB
KW
KW
A
April 2016
12
12
11
11
Scale @ A3 : 16,994
Key
Site Boundary
Flambeau Europlast
ManstonGreen
EuroKent
Westwood Housing
Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2015
PROJECT:
PROJECT No:
Client:
Figure 15.1
Drawn:
Checked:
Approved:
Revision:
Date:
MH
TS
TS
B
May 2016