You are on page 1of 571

STONE HILL

PARK

LIVE WORK PLAY

SHP1-13

Environmental
Statement (Volume 1):
Main Text

A brighter future for
Thanet and East Kent

STONE HILL PARK
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
VOLUME 1 - MAIN TEXT AND FIGURES
Stone Hill Park Ltd

V1
Public
Project no: 70009799
Date: May 2016


WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
WSP House
London
WC2A 1AF
UK
Tel: +44 (0) 2073 145 000
Fax: +44 (0) 2073 145111
www.wspgroup.com
www.pbworld.com

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

\uk.wspgroup.com\ukcentral\Environmental\Environmental Planning London\03.
Projects\02. EIA Projects\70009799 - Former Manston Airport EIA\5. Reporting. ES

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

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 – MAIN TEXT AND FIGURES
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1

Background and Context

1-1

1.2

Definition of Environmental Impact Assessment

1-1

1.3

Planning Policy Context

1-1

1.4

The Site and Surrounding Area

1-2

1.5

Legal Framework of the ES

1-4

1.6

Planning Application Documents

1-5

1.7

Project Team

1-6

1.8

Structure of the Environmental Statement

1-7

1.9

References

1-10

2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1

Introduction

2-1

2.2

Description of the Proposed Development

2-1

2.3

Detailed Application and Parameter Plans

2-2

2.4

Development Land-Use and Quantum

2-8

2.5

Residential

2-10

2.6

Tenure Mix

2-11

2.7

Transportation and Access

2-11

2.8

Drainage

2-12

2.9

Sustainability and Energy

2-13

2.10 Waste Management

2-13

2.11 Demolition and Construction Phase

2-13

2.12 Materials

2-14

2.13 References

2-19

3. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
3.1

Legislative Framework

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

3-1

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

iv

3.2

Do Nothing Scenario

3-1

3.3

Alternative Sites for the Proposed Development

3-2

3.4

Alternative Layouts for the Proposed Development

3-2

3.5

References

3-9

4. APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT
4.1

Introduction

4-1

4.2

Basis of the Assessment

4-2

4.3

Quantum of Development

4-4

4.4

The Stages of the Assessment

4-4

4.5

Cumulative Effects

4-26

4.6

Consultation

4-27

4.7

Assumptions and Limitations

4-28

4.8

References

4-30

5. AIR QUALITY
5.1

Introduction

5-1

5.2

Legislation, Policy and Guidance

5-1

5.3

Relevant elements of the Proposed Development

5-2

5.4

Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

5-3

5.5

Baseline Conditions

5-10

5.6

Sensitive Receptors

5-13

5.7

Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

5-14

5.8

Limitations and Assumptions

5-23

5.9

Summary

5-23

5.10 References

5-28

6. NOISE AND VIBRATION
6.1

Introduction

6-1

6.2

Legislation, Policy and Guidance

6-1

6.3

Relevant Elements of the Proposed Development

6-4

6.4

Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

6-4

6.5

Baseline Conditions

6-10

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

v

6.6

Sensitive Receptors

6-11

6.7

Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

6-12

6.8

Site Suitability Assessment

6-31

6.9

Limitations and Assumptions

6-36

6.10 References

6-37

7. ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

1.1

7.1

Introduction

7-1

7.2

Legislation, Policy and Guidance

7-2

7.3

Relevant elements of the Proposed Development

7-3

7.4

Consultation

7-3

7.5

Baseline Conditions

7-10

7.6

Important Ecological Features And Potential Effect Pathways

7-26

7.7

Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

7-30

7.8

Limitations and Assumptions

7-40

7.9

Summary

7-41

7.10 References

7-50

8. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
8.1

Introduction

8-1

8.2

Legislation, Policy and Guidance

8-1

Relevant elements of the Proposed Development

8-2

Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

8-3

Baseline Conditions

8-14

Sensitive Receptors

8-20

Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

8-21

Limitations and Assumptions

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. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT
9.1 Introduction

9-1

9.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance

9-1

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

vi

9.3 Relevant elements of the proposed development

9-3

9.4 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

9-3

9.5 Baseline Conditions

9-11

9.6 Sensitive Receptors

9-16

9.7 Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

9-19

9.8 Limitations and Assumptions

9-49

9.9 Summary

9-50

9.10 References

9-57

10. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
10.1 Introduction

10-1

10.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance

10-1

10.3 Relevant elements of the proposed development

10-3

10.4 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

10-3

10.5 Baseline Conditions

10-8

10.6 Sensitive Receptors

10-21

10.7 Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

10-21

10.8 Limitations and Assumptions

10-28

10.9 Summary

10-28

10.10 References

10-34

11. WATER RESOURCES, FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE

1.3

11.1 Introduction

11-1

11.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance

11-1

11.3 Relevant elements of the Proposed Development

11-3

11.4 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

11-4

11.5 Baseline Conditions

11-5

11.6 Sensitive Receptors

11-16

11.7 Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

11-18

11.8 Limitations and Assumptions

11-25

11.9 Summary

11-25

11.10 References

11-30

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

vii

12. SOCIO-ECONOMICS

1.4

12.1 Introduction

12-1

12.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance

12-1

12.3 Relevant elements of the Proposed Development

12-2

12.4 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

12-2

12.5 Baseline Conditions

12-6

12.6 Sensitive Receptors

12-14

12.7 Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

12-14

12.8 Limitations and Assumptions

12-24

12.9 Summary

12-25

12.10 References

12-30

13. GROUND CONDITIONS, HYDROGEOLOGY AND CONTAMINATION

1.5

13.1 Introduction

13-1

13.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance

13-1

13.3 Relevant elements of the Proposed Development

13-4

13.4 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

13-4

13.5 Baseline Conditions

13-9

13.6 Sensitive Receptors

13-24

13.7 Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

13-24

13.8 Limitations and Assumptions

13-29

13.9 Summary

13-30

13.10 References

13-32

14. ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING

1.6

14.1 Introduction

14-1

14.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance

14-1

14.3 Relevant elements of the Proposed Development

14-2

14.4 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

14-3

14.5 Baseline Conditions

14-8

14.6 Sensitive Receptors

14-13

14.7 Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

14-16

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

viii

14.8 Limitations and Assumptions

14-27

14.9 Summary

14-28

14.10 References

14-34

15. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
15.1 Introduction

15-1

15.2 Assessment of Inter-Project Effects

15-6

15.3 Summary

15-10

15.4 References

15-12

16. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
16.1 Introduction

16-1

16.2 Demolition and Construction Phase

16-1

16.3 Operational Phase

16-1

17. SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND CONCLUSIONS
17.1 Introduction

17-1

17.2 Residual Effects

17-1

17. Conclusion

17-11

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

ix

LIST OF TABLES
1. INTRODUCTION
Table 1.1

Location of Required Information within this ES

1-5

Table 1.2

Planning Application Documents

1-5

Table 1.3

Project Team

1-6

Table 1.4

Structure of Volume 1: Main Text and Figures

1-7

2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Table 2.1

Phase 1

2-3

Table 2.2

Parameter Plans

2-3

Table 2.3

Buildings to be Demolished

2-5

Table 2.4

Buildings to be Retained with a Change of Use Proposed

2-7

Table 2.5

Buildings to be Retained with no Change of Proposed Use

2-7

Table 2.6

Total Existing Buildings

2-8

Table 2.7

Detailed and Outline Elements: Hybrid Planning Application Total

2-8

Table 2.8

Detailed Element: Change of Use of Retained Existing Buildings

2-9

Table 2.9

Detailed Element: Phase 1

2-10

Table 2.10

Outline Element

2-10

Table 2.11

Indicative Unit Size Mix

2-11

Table 2.12

Assumed Construction Plant and Equipment

2-14

Design Evolution

3-4

3. ALTERNATIVES
Table 3.1

4. APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT
Table 4.1

Summary of ES Scoping Opinion

4-6

Table 4.2

Identified Sensitive Receptors

4-20

Table 4.3

Matrix for Determining the Significance of Effects

4-24

Table 4.4

Developments Considered in the Assessment of Cumulative Effects

4-26

Table 5.1

Summary of Consultation

5-4

Table 5.2

Monitored ambient NO2 concentrations in TDC area

5-10

5. AIR QUALITY

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

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

Monitored ambient PM10 concentrations in TDC area

5-12

NO2 diffusion tube monitoring locations in TDC

5-11

Background annual mean pollutant concentrations in 2015

5-12

Examples of where the air quality objectives should/should not apply

5-14

Dust and PM10 Emission Magnitude for Each Activity

5-16

Summary Dust Risk Table to Define Site-Specific Mitigation

5-17

Summary of NO2 Impacts at Existing Receptor Locations

5-19

Summary of PM10 Impacts at Existing Receptor Locations

5-20

Summary of PM2.5 Impacts at Existing Receptor Locations

5-21

Summary of Effects for Local Air Quality

5-25

6. NOISE AND VIBRATION
Table 6.1

Summary of Consultation

6-6

Table 6.2

Construction Noise Criteria, Façade, dB

6-9

Table 6.3

Construction Vibration Criteria

6-9

Table 6.4

Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment Criteria

6-9

Table 6.5

Summary of Measured Noise Levels at Unattended Locations, dB(A) free
field

6-10

Table 6.6

Summary of Measured Noise Levels at Attended Locations dB(A) free field

6-10

Table 6.7

Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Existing Receptors, Façade, dB
LAeq,T

6-14

Table 6.8

Construction Traffic Noise Assessment, dB LA10,18hour

6-17

Table 6.9

Noise Limits for Phase 1 Employment Area and Change of Use Retained
Buildings , dB

6-20

Table 6.10

Noise Limits for Outline Element, dB

6-21

Table 6.11

Phase 1 Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment Scenario [1], dB
LA10,18hour

6-23

Table 6.12

Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment Scenario [2], dB LA10,18hour

6-25

Table 6.13

Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment Scenario [3], dB LA10,18hour

6-27

Table 6.14

Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment Scenario [4], dB LA10,18hour

6-29

Table 6.15

Sound Reduction Requirements for Proposed Facades, dB

6-34

Table 6.16

Range of Measured Sound Reduction Performance Values for Passive
Ventilators with Open Vents, dB

6-34

Table 6.17

Summary of Effects for Noise and Vibration

6-41

7. ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION
Table 7.1

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

Figure and Appendices

7-1

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

xi

Table 7.2

Summary of Consultation

7-4

Table 7.3

Search Radii and Data Sources for Potential Ecological Features

7-5

Table 7.4

Summary of Ecological Survey Methods and Dates of Survey

7-6

Table 7.5

Relating Geographic Scale to Significance

7-9

Table 7.6

European/Internationally Designated Sites within 10km of the Proposed
Development

7-10

Table 7.7

UK Statutory Designated Sites within 2km of the Proposed Development

7-15

Table 7.8

Summary of Habitats Present within the Site and their Conservation Value

7-17

Table 7.9

Scoping of Ecological Features for Inclusion in EcIA

7-26

Table 7.10

Summary of Effects for Ecology and Nature Conservation

7-45

8. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL
Table 8.1

Summary of Consultation

8-5

Table 8.2

Landscape Designations

8-7

Table 8.3

Criteria for Assessing the Value of Non-Designated Landscapes

8-8

Table 8.4

Landscape Receptor Susceptibility to Change

8-9

Table 8.5

Value attached to Views

8-10

Table 8.6

Visual Receptor Susceptibility to Change

8-10

Table 8.7

Matrix for Determining the Significance of Effects

8-12

Table 8.8

Summary of Significant Effects

8-25

9. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT
Table 9.1

Summary Of Consultation

9-3

Table 9.2

Scope Of Impact Of Assessment Criteria

9-7

Table 9.3

Magnitude And Impact Criteria

9-9

Table 9.4

Matrix For Determining Impact Significance

9-10

Table 9.5

Bus Services, Frequencies And Routes In The Vicinity Of The Site

9-14

Table 9.6

Access To Facilities And Amenities

9-15

Table 9.7

Receptors For Assessment Of Impacts On Pedestrians And Cyclists And
Sensitivity

9-17

Table 9.8

Receptors For Assessment Of Impacts On Highway Network And Sensitivity

9-18

Table 9.9

Daily Total Application Site Construction Traffic Trip Generation

9-20

Table 9.10

Total Application Site Multi-Modal Trip Generation (Including Internalisation)

9-21

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

xii

Table 9.11

Proportional Impact Of Development On 2021 Future Link Flows AAWT

9-22

Table 9.12

Proportional Impact Of Development On 2021 Future Link Flows AADT

9-23

Table 9.13

Proportional Impact Of Development On 2026 Future Link Flows AAWT

9-24

Table 9.14

Proportional Impact Of Development On 2026 Future Link Flows AADT

9-26

Table 9.15

Predicted Impact Of The Development On Driver Delay In 2021 Scenario

9-26

Table 9.16

Predicted Impact Of The Development On Driver Delay In 2026 Scenario

9-28

Table 9.17

Predicted Impact Of The Development On Accidents And Safety

9-29

Table 9.18

Significance Of Effect On Severance

9-30

Table 9.19

Significance Of Effect On Driver Delay 2021

9-32

Table 9.20

Significance Of Effect On Driver Delay 2026

9-33

Table 9.21

Significance Of Impact On Pedestrian Delay

9-34

Table 9.22

Significance Of Impact On Pedestrian / Cycle Amenity

9-36

Table 9.23

Significance Of Impact On Fear And Intimidation

9-37

Table 9.24

Significance Of Impact On Accidents And Safety

9-39

Table 9.25

Magnitude Of Impact On Driver Delay Following Mitigation In 2021

9-44

Table 9.26

Magnitude Of Impact On Driver Delay Following Mitigation In 2026

9-44

Table 9.27

Significance Of Impact On Driver Delay Following Mitigation

9-45

Table 9.28

Significance Of Impact On Fear And Intimidation, Mitigation And Residual
Impact

9-46

Table 9.29

Summary Of Effects For Traffic And Transport

9-51

10. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
Table 10.1

Summary of Consultation

10-4

Table 10.2

Criteria Used to Determine Value of all elements of the Historic Environment

10-7

Table 10.3

Criteria Used to Determine the Magnitude of Change

10-7

Table 10.4

Archaeological and Historical Timeline

10-8

Table 10.5

Summary of Designated and Non-Designated Heritage Assets Considered
within the Assessment

10-15

Table 10.6

Summary of Effects for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

10-29

11. WATER RESOURCES, FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

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

Sensitivity Receptor Summary

11-17

Table 11.6

Summary of Effects for Water Resource, Flood Risk and Drainage

11-26

Table 12.1

Summary of Consultation

12-4

Table 12.2

Additionality Factors

12-5

Table 12.3

Mid-Year Population Estimates of Individuals Aged 16-64

12-6

Table 12.4

Kent Deprivation 2010 and 2015

12-7

Table 12.5

Economic Activity by Group (Resident Population Aged 16-64) (2014)

12-7

Table 12.6

Industry Sector (% of Individuals in Employment Aged 16 to 64) (2014)

12-8

Table 12.7

Accommodation Types (2011)

12-8

Existing Primary and Secondary Educational Facilities in the Study Area

12-9

General Health in Thanet, Kent, south-east and England (2011)

12-10

Existing GP's within Thanet

12-11

Community Halls within Thanet

12-12

Estimated Job Creation

12-15

Estimated Job Yield

12-17

Direct Employment Effects

12-18

Indirect/Induced Employment Effects (Local Level)

12-19

Indirect/Induced Employment Effects (Regional Level)

12-19

Estimated Population Yield

12-20

Estimated Child Yield

12-21

Summary of Effects for Socio-Economics

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

13. GROUND CONDITIONS, HYDROGEOLOGY AND CONTAMINATION
Table 13.1

Summary of Consultation

13-5

Table 13.2

Classification of Sensitivity

13-8

Table 13.3

Risk Criteria

13-9

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

xiv

Table 13.4

Site Description

13-10

Table 13.5

Summary of Potential Contaminative Uses / Storage

13-11

Table 13.6

Summary of Pertinent Site History

13-13

Table 13.7

Summary of Pertinent History of Area Surrounding the Site

13-13

Table 13.8

Geological Description

13-16

Table 13.9

Summary of Database Searches (all distances are approximate)

13-20

Potential Sources of Contamination

13-23

Summary of Effects for Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and Contamination

13-31

Table 13.10
Table 13.11

14. ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING
Table 14.1

Summary of Consultation

14-3

Table 14.2

Environmental Zones for Exterior Lighting Control

14-6

Table 14,3

Summary Description of Measurement Locations (Based on Baseline
Lighting Survey (28 Jan 2016))

14-8

Table 14.4

Summary of Sensitive Receptors and Corresponding Figure Key ID

14-12

Table 14.5

Summary of Effects on Residential Receptors during the Construction Phase

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

Common Sensitive Receptors

14-28

Table 14.10

Summary of Effects for Artificial Lighting

14-30

15. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Table 15.1

Cumulative Developments

15-2

Table 15.2

Scope of In Combination Effects (including both Construction and Operation)
Associated with Committed Developments

15-4

Table 15.3

Cumulative Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment, dB LA10,18hour

15-9

Table 15.4

Common Sensitive Receptors

15-14

Table 15.5

Matrix of Residual Effect Interactions - Construction Phase

15-15

Table 15.6

Matrix of Residual Effect Interactions – Operation Phase

15-17

16. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 16.1

Summary of Effects and Mitigation Measures

16-3

17. SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Table 17.1

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

Summary of Residual Effects

17-13

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

xv

LIST OF FIGURES
1. INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1

Site Location Plan

Figure 1.2

Stone Hill Park Aerial View

Figure 1.3

Site Boundary Plan

2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Figure 2.1

Stone Hill Park Parameter Plan 1: Development Zones

Figure 2.2

Stone Hill Park Parameter Plan 2: Access and Movement

Figure 2.3

Stone Hill Park Parameter Plan 3: Land Use

Figure 2.4

Stone Hill Park Parameter Plan 4: Density and Height

Figure 2.5

Stone Hill Park Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure

Figure 2.6

Stone Hill Park Parameter Plan 6: Demolition and Retention

Figure 2.7

Stone Hill Park Illustrative Masterplan

Figure 2.8

Stone Hill Park Phase 1 Industrial Scheme

Figure 2.9

Stone Hill Park Unit 1 Floor Plans and Elevations

Figure 2.10

Stone Hill Park Unit 2 Floor Plans and Elevations

Figure 2.11

Stone Hill Park Unit 3 Floor Plans and Elevations

Figure 2.12

Stone Hill Park Unit 4 Floor Plans and Elevations

Figure 12.13

Stone Hill Park Soft Works

3. ALTERNATIVES
Figure 3.1

The Emerging Concept Masterplan

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

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

xvi

5. AIR QUALITY
Figure 5.1

Site Boundary Modelled Road and MOD Training Facility

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

Existing Receptors, New Receptors, Site Boundary and Modelled Roads

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

Ecological Transects, SPA, SAC, SSSI and Site Boundary

6. NOISE AND VIBRATION
Figure 6.1

Existing Noise-Sensitive Receptors

Figure 6.2

Location of Noise Important Areas (NIA)

Figure 6.3

Noise Contour Plots (Daytime)

Figure 6.4

Noise Contour Plots (night time)

7. ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION
Figure 7.1

Results of Building Surveys

8. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
No Figures
9. TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
Figure 9.1

Study Area

Figure 9.2

Saturn Study Area

Figure 9.3

Highway Network

Figure 9.4

Pedestrian Isochrones

Figure 9.5

Cycle Isochrones

Figure 9.6

Public Transport Plan

Figure 9.7

Local Amenities

Figure 9.8

Accident Data

10. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
No Figures
11. WATER RESOURCES, FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

xvii

Figure 11.1

Source Protection Zones

Figure 11.2

Pegwell Bay Surface Water Bodies

12. SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Figure 12.1

Stone Hill Park Site Location

13. GROUND CONDITIONS, HYDROGEOLOGY AND CONTAMINATION
No Figures
14. ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING
Figure 14.1

Measurement Locations and Baseline Lighting Environmental Zones

Figure 14.2

Location of Sensitive Receptors

15. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Figure 15.1

Stone Hill Park Committed Developments for Cumulative Assessment

16. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
No Figures
17. SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND CONCLUSIONS
No Figures

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

xviii

VOLUME 2 – TECHNICAL
APPENDICES
1. INTRODUCTION
Appendix 1.1

National and Local Planning Policies and Guidance

2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Appendix 2.1

Development Specification

Appendix 2.2

Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

3. ALTERNATIVES
No Appendices
4. APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT
Appendix 4.1

Request for Scoping Opinion

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 Air Quality Terms
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
Traffic Data
Summary of IAQM Construction phase Impact Assessment Procedure and the WCC
Code of Construction Practice
Wind Rose for Manston Airport (2015)
Roads Model Verification
Details of the MoD fire training facility Modelling
Summary of EPUK & IAQM Impact Descriptors for Individual Receptors
Assessment Results

6. NOISE AND VIBRATION
Appendix 6.1

Glossary of Terminology

Appendix 6.2

Legislation, Policy and Guidance

Appendix 6.3

Summary of Consultation

Appendix 6.4

Noise Survey Equipment

Appendix 6.5

Measured Daytime And Night-Time Noise Levels For The Unattended Monitoring
Locations

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

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)

7. ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION
Appendix 7.1
Appendix 7.2
Appendix 7.3
Appendix 7.4
Appendix 7.5
Appendix 7.6
Appendix 7.7
Appendix 7.8
Appendix 7.9
Appendix 7.10

Stone Hill Park HRA
Planning Policy Detail
Stone Hill Park Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Stone Hill Park Ecological Desk Study
Stone Hill Park Further Building Inspections for Bats
Stone Hill Park Bat Activity Surveys
Stone Hill Park Wintering Birds Survey
Stone Hill Park Bat Hibernation Survey
Meeting Notes
Stone Hill Park outline Ecological Mitigation and Management Strategy

8. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Appendix 8.1

Planning Policy

Appendix 8.2

Figures, photographs of key views and photomontages

Appendix 8.3

Landscape Baseline Assessment and Effects

Appendix 8.4

Visual Baseline Assessment and Effects

9. TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
Appendix 9.1a
Appendix 9.2a
Appendix 9.3a

Baseline Scenarios
18 Hour Average Weekday Flow
24 Hour Average Day Flow

10. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Appendix 10.1

Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment

11. WATER RESOURCES, FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE
Appendix 11.1
Appendix 11.2
Appendix 11.3
Appendix 11.4

Flood Risk Assessment and Foul Water Strategy
Utilities Statement
Water Framework Directive Assessment – Screening Report
Legislation, Policy And Guidance

12. SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Appendix 12.1

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

Legislation, Policy and Guidance

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

xx

Appendix 12.2

Consultation

13. GROUND CONDITIONS, HYDROGEOLOGY AND CONTAMINATION
Appendix 13.1

Record of Consultation

Appendix 13.2

Legislation, Policy And Guidance

Appendix 13.3

Preliminary Risk Assessment

14. ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING
Appendix 14.1

Glossary of Lighting Terminology

Appendix 14.2

Legislation, Policy and Guidance

Appendix 14.3

Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light

Appendix 14.4

Consultation

Appendix 14.5

Summary of Measurement Locations

15. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
No Appendices
16. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
No Appendices
17. SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND CONCLUSIONS
No Appendices

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

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

Stone Hill Park
Stone Hill Park Ltd.
Public

Area Action Plan
Above Ordnance Datum
Air Quality Action Plan
Air Quality Information Archive
Air Quality Management Area
Air Quality Strategy
Biodiversity Action Plan
British Geological Survey
Building Research Establishment
Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology
British Standards
Construction Environmental Management Plan
Construction Logistics Plan
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise
Decibel
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Department for Transport
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
Department for the Environment
Development Plan Documents
Environment Agency
European Commission
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Statement
European Union
Flood Risk Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Project No 70009799
April 2016

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

Heavy Goods Vehicle
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
Institute of Acoustics
Kent County Council
Local Air Quality Management Plan
Local Biodiversity Action Plan
Local Development Framework
Local Nature Reserve
Local Planning Authority
Noise Exposure Category
National Grid Reference
Nitrogen Dioxide
National Planning Policy Framework
Office of Communication
Ordnance Survey
Particular Matter
Public Rights of Way
Quality of Urban Air Review
Special Area of Conservation
Scheduled Ancient Monument
Site of Importance for Nature Conservation
Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation
Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation
Sites and Monuments Record
Site of Nature Conservation Importance
Special Protection Area
Supplementary Planning Document
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Source Protection Zone
Site of Special Scientific Interest
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
Transport Assessment
Transport Assessment Report
Thanet District Council
Target Note
Unitary Development Plan
UK Biodiversity Action Plan
Unexploded Ordnance
Vibration Dose Value
Visual Receptor
Wildlife and Countryside Act
World Health Organisation

1-1

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

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

DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

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 project’s 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

PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement Text and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 Kent’s Potential – Kent County Council’s 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

THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
OVERVIEW OF THE SITE

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement Text and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

There are no ecological designations which apply to the Site.
HISTORICAL LAND USE

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 1950’s 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

Figure 2.6 provides details of the following existing buildings / structures:
 Numerous hangars and workshops huts;
 Polar Helicopters;
 Cargo Centre;
 Fire Station;
 Old Control Tower;
 RAF Museum;
 Spitfire and Hurricane Museum;
 Radar Dish;
 Modern Control Tower;
 Terminal Building; and
 A number of electrical sub-stations.

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement Text and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

In heritage terms the following should be noted:
 1 x Conservation Area within 1km of the Site, Acol Conservation Area located to the northwest of the Site.
 There are no World Heritage Sites or Registered Parks and Gardens within 1km or 2km of
the Site.
 There are 6 Scheduled Monuments within the 2km of the Site ranging from Bronze Age
enclosures, Medieval Monastic Sites and Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries. There are 21 listed
buildings located within a 1km radius of the Site, 3 of which are Grade II* and 18 Grade II
Listed.

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

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ES

1.5.1

This ES has been prepared in accordance with the EIA Regulations and the Department for
Communities and Local Government’s (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

Regulation 2 (1) of the EIA Regulations defines an “environment statement” as a statement:

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement Text and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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:

Location of Required Information within this ES

DESCRIPTION – SCHEDULE 4, PART 1

LOCATION WITHIN THIS ES

SCHEDULE 4, PART 1

1. Description of the development, including in particular:

Chapter 2 ‘The Proposed Development’
and relevant Technical Chapters.

(a) A description of the physical characteristics of the whole
development and the land-use requirements during construction Technical Chapters 5 - 14 and Volume
2.
and operational phases;
(b) A description of the main characteristics of the production
processes, for instance, nature and quantity of materials used;
and
(c) An estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and
emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light,
heat, radiation etc.) resulting from the operation of the Proposed
Development.

Chapter 3 ‘Alternatives Studied’.
2. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the application
or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for this choice,
taking into account the environmental effects.

3. A Description of the aspects of the environment likely to be
Methodology and baseline sections of
significantly affected by the development, including in particular, Technical Chapters 5 - 14 and Volume
population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, materials 2.
assets including the architectural and archaeology heritage,
landscape and inter-relationship between the above factors.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement Text and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

1-6
DESCRIPTION – SCHEDULE 4, PART 1

LOCATION WITHIN THIS ES

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.

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

Mitigation sections of Technical Chapter
5 – 14 and Chapter 16 ‘Summary of
Effects and Mitigation Measures’.

6. A non-technical summary of the information provided under
paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part.

Non-Technical Summary (provided as a
separate document)

7. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of Chapter 4 ‘Approach to the
Assessment’ and relevant Technical
know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the
required information.
Chapters.

SCHEDULE 4, PART 2

1. A description of the development comprising information on
the site, design and size of the development.

Chapter 1 ‘Introduction’ and Chapter 2
‘The Proposed Development’

2. A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid,
reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects.

Mitigation sections of technical Chapter 5
- 14 and Chapter 16 ‘Summary of
Effects and Mitigation Measures’.

3, The data required to identify and assess the main effects
which the development is likely to have on the environment.

Baseline and Assessment sections of
Technical Chapters 5 - 14.

4. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or
appellant and an indication of the main reason for the choice
made, taking into account environmental effects.

Chapter 3 ‘Alternatives Studied’.

5. A non-technical summary of the information provided under

Non-Technical Summary

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement Text and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

1-7
DESCRIPTION – SCHEDULE 4, PART 1

LOCATION WITHIN THIS ES

paragraph 1 to 4 of this Part

1.6

PLANNING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS

1.6.1

Table 1.2 lists the other application documents submitted as part of the application.
Table 1.2:

Planning Application Documents

PLANNING APPLICATION
DOCUMENTS

REFERENCE WITHIN THIS ES DOCUMENT REFERENCE

Planning Application Form and
Certificates
SHP1-3

Design and Access Statement

SHP1-4

Planning Statement

SHP1-11

Statement of Community Involvement

SHP1-7 and SHP1-7.1

Transport Assessment and Travel Plan

SHP1-6

Outline Phasing and Delivery Strategy

SHP1-8

Energy and Sustainability Strategy
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage
Strategy
Historic Environment Desk Based
Assessment

Appendix 11.1
Appendix 10.1

SHP1-9

Waste Management Strategy
Outline CEMP

Appendix 2.2

SHP1-5

Outline Business Case

SH1-12

Initial s.106 Heads of Terms

Development Specification
Drawings for Approval

SHP1-17
SHP1-16

Utilities Strategy

Parameter Plans

SHP1-10

Figures 2.1 – 2.6

SHP1-A

Appendix 2.1

SHP1-B

Figures 2.1 – 2.21

SHP1-C

Planning Application Summary
Documents
Drawings for Information

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement Text and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

1-8
Table 1.3:

Project Team

TEAM MEMBERS

ROLE

Stone Hill Park Ltd

Applicant

Planit ie

Masterplanners and Landscape and Visual
Assessment

GVA Bilfinger

Planning Consultant

Aecom

Transport Consultant

Pillory Barn

Communications Consultant

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP | PB)

Engineering and EIA Project Management and
Co-ordination; Ecology & Biodiversity; Noise;
Ground Conditions and Contamination; Air
Quality; Water Resources; Socio-economics;
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; Flood Risk
and Drainage; Energy & Sustainability; and
Waste Management.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement Text and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

1-9
1.8

STRUCTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

1.8.1

The ES is provided in three parts:

1.8.2

Volume 1: Main Text and Figures;

Volume 2: Technical Appendices; and

Volume 3: Non-Technical Summary.

Table 1.4 outlines the structure and content of Volume 1: Main Text and Figures
Table 1.4:
Chapter
Number

1

2

3

4

Structure of Volume 1: Main Text and Figures
Chapter Title

Introduction

The Proposed Development

Alternatives Studied

Approach to the Assessment

Content

Background and Context

Definition of Environmental Impact Assessment

Planning Policy Context

The Site and Surrounding Area

Legal Framework for the ES

Planning Application Documents

Project Team

Structure of the Environmental Statement

Introduction

Description of the Proposed Development

Detailed Application and Parameter Plans

Development Land Use and Quantum

Residential

Tenure Mix

Transportation and Access

Drainage

Sustainability and Energy

Waste Management

Demolition and Construction Programme

Material

Legislative Framework

‘Do Nothing’ Scenario

Alternatives Sites for the Proposed Development

Alternative Layouts for the Proposed Development

Introduction

Basis of the Assessment

Quantum of Development

The Stages of Assessment

Cumulative Effects

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement Text and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

1-10
Chapter
Number

Chapter Title

Content

Consultation

Assumptions and Limitations

Introduction;

Legislation, Policy and Guidance;

Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria;

5

Local Air Quality

6

Noise

7

Ecology and Nature
Conservation

8

Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment

9

Traffic and Transportation

Baseline Conditions;

10

Archaeology and Cultural
Heritage

Sensitive Receptors;

Assessment of Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects

11

Water Resources and Flood
Risk

Limitations and Assumptions;

12

Socio-economics

Summary; and

Ground Conditions,
Hydrogeology and
Contamination

Summary of Effects Table.

13
14

Artificial Lighting

Introduction

Assessment of Inter-Project Effects

Assessment of Intra-Project Effects

Summary

Introduction

Construction Phase

Operational Phase

Introduction

Residual Effects

Conclusions

15

16

17

Cumulative Effects

Summary of Effects and
Mitigation Measures

Summary of Residual 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

Volume 3: Non-Technical Summary provides a summary of the ES in a question and answers
format.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement Text and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

1-11
1.9

REFERENCES
Ref. 1.1

GVA (2016), Stone Hill Park – Planning Statement

Ref. 1.2

HM Government, Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015) – Statutory Instrument 2015
No. 660

Ref. 1.3

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012), Environmental
Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures, A consultation
Paper

Ref. 1.4

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012), National Planning
Policy Framework

Ref. 1.5

Department for Communities and Local Government (March, 2014), National
Planning Practice Guidance

Ref. 1.6

Kent County Council (2012), Development and Infrastructure Creating Quality
Places

Ref. 1.7

Kent County Council (2009), Unlocking Kent’s Potential: Kent County Council’s
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

Thanet District Council (2009), Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Ref. 1.11

Aecom (2016), Stone Hill Park – Transport Assessment

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Statement Text and Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

2-1

2

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

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

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

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

The application is submitted in hybrid form as follows:
 The outline element of the planning application (with all matters except Access reserved for
future determination) for the provision of:

Buildings/floorspace for the following uses:
 Employment (Use Classes B1a-c/B2/B8);
 Residential (Use Classes C3/C2);
 Retail (Use Classes A1-A5);
 Education and other non-residential institutions (Use Class D1);
 Sport and recreation (Use Class D2);
 Hotel (Use Class C1);

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

2-2

Open space/landscaping (including outdoor sport/recreation facilities);

Car parking;

Infrastructure (including roads and utilities);

Site preparation and other associated works;

The full/detailed element of the application comprises:

Change of Use of Retained Existing Buildings;

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

The Parameter Plans fix (in particular):
a) Development Zones;
b) Access and Movement;
c) Land Use;
d) Density and Height;
e) Green Infrastructure; and
f)

2.2.7

Demolition and Retention.

The Development Specification fixes:
a) The description of development; and
b) The quantum of development across all uses - Land use mix and floorspace for all
elements – both detailed and outline.

2.3

DETAILED APPLICATION AND PARAMETER PLANS
DETAILED APPLICATION PLANS

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;

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

FLOORSPACE (GIA) SQM

1

2,788

2

1,860

3

3,716

4

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

PLANS FOR APPROVAL

DRAWING TITLE

PL1436-VW-011

Parameter Plan 1:
Development Zones (Figure
2.1)

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

PLAN CONTENT

This identifies the development zones across
the site.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

2-4

2.3.6

PLANS FOR APPROVAL

DRAWING TITLE

PL1436-VW-012

Parameter Plan 2: Access and
Movement (Figure 2.2)

PL1436-VW-013

Parameter Plan 3: Land Use
(Figure 2.3)

PL1436-VW-014

Parameter Plan 4: Density and
Height (Figure 2.4)

PL1436-VW-015

Parameter Plan 5: Green
Infrastructure (Figure 2.5)

PL1436-VW-016

Parameter Plan 6: Demolition
and Retention (Figure 2.6)

PLAN CONTENT

This identifies the main vehicle and pedestrian
access routes throughout the site and identifies
limits of deviation where necessary.

This identifies the land uses across the Site.

This identifies the maximum densities and
building heights to which buildings could be built
across the Site.

This identifies the proposed areas of green
infrastructure across the Site.

This identifies those buildings and structures to
be retained and demolished within the
application boundary.

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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:

Existing Buildings to be Demolished

BUILDING REFERENCE
(PARAMETER PLAN 6:
DEMOLITION AND
RETENTION – FIGURE
2.6)

STATUS

FLOORSPACE (GIA) SQM

B1 (Hanger)

Removed

4,776

B4 (Building 4)

Removed

366

B6 (Terminal building) Removed

2,800

B10

Removed

321

B11

Removed

318

B12 (Workshop)

Removed

316

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

2-6
BUILDING REFERENCE
(PARAMETER PLAN 6:
DEMOLITION AND
RETENTION – FIGURE
2.6)

STATUS

FLOORSPACE (GIA) SQM

B13

Removed

35

B16

Removed

290

B17

Removed

242

B19

Removed

175

B20

Removed

195

B22

Removed

67

B25 (Workshop Huts) Removed

300

B26 (Portacabin)

111

B30
(Hanger
Avia.)

Removed
TG Removed

1,427

B31 (Portacabin)

Removed

185

B32

Removed

35

B37

Removed

15

B38

Removed

/

B39 (Radar Tower)

Removed

/

B41

Removed

18

B45

Removed

60

B46 (Club House)

Removed

350

B47

Removed

19

B49

Removed

50

B50

Removed

6

B51

Removed

15

B52

Removed

30

B53

Removed

9

B54

Removed

16

B55

Removed

28

B56

Removed

97

B57

Removed

27

B59

Removed

30

B60 (Sub Station)

Removed

30

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

2-7
BUILDING REFERENCE
(PARAMETER PLAN 6:
DEMOLITION AND
RETENTION – FIGURE
2.6)

STATUS

FLOORSPACE (GIA) SQM

B62

Removed

6

B63

Removed

16

TOTAL

12,859

Table 2.4:

Existing Buildings to be Retained with a Change of Use Proposed

BUILDING REFERENCE
(PARAMETER PLAN 6:
DEMOLITION AND
RETENTION – FIGURE
2.6)
B14 & B14a
Control Tower)
B18 (Hanger
Helicopters))

EXISTING USE

(Old Sui Generis
(Polar

FLOORSPACE (GIA) SQM

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

8,317

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

2-8
Table 2.5:

Existing Buildings to be Retained with no Change of Use Proposed

BUILDING REFERENCE (PARAMETER PLAN
6: DEMOLITION AND RETENTION – FIGURE
2.6)

FLOORSPACE (GIA) SQM

B24 (RAF Museum)

1,452

B27 (Spitfire and Hurricane Museum)

608

B35 (Radar Dish)

33

B36

14

B40 (Electrical Sub Station)

125

B43 (Sub Station)

50

B61 (Tunnel Structure)

150

B64

9

Table 2.6:

Total Existing Buildings

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

DEVELOPMENT LAND USE AND QUANTUM

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:

Detailed and Outline Elements: Hybrid Planning Application Total

USE CLASS

MAXIMUM QUANTUM

A1 –A5

3,100 sqm (GIA), of which:

B1 (a-c) / B2/B8

Maximum 1,100 sqm (net) Use Class A1 convenience sales area

Maximum 563 sqm (net) Use Class A1 comparison sales area

85,000 sqm (GIA), of which:

Maximum 1,700 sqm (GIA) for use as office (B1a/b)

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

2-9
USE CLASS

MAXIMUM QUANTUM
[See notes]

C1

120 bedrooms

C3/C2

2,500 residential units, to comprise:

D1/D2

Maximum 2,500 dwellings (use Class C3)

Maximum 250 units to be age-restricted for elderly persons (unit to comprise
bed spaces (use class C2) or dwellings (use class C3))

2 primary schools, with combined capacity of up to 4 forms of entry; And
11,500 sqm (GIA) of other D1/D2 uses

[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:

Detailed Element: Change of Use of Retained Existing Buildings

BUILDING REFERENCE EXISTING USE
(PARAMETER PLAN 6:
DEMOLITION AND
RETENTION – FIGURE
2.6)

B14 & B14a (Old
Control Tower)

B18 (Hangar)

B34 (Workshop)

B21 (Workshop)

B23 (Workshop)

B2 (Hangar)

B3 (Airport Cargo

PROPOSED USE

FLOORSPACE (GIA) SQM

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

2-10
BUILDING REFERENCE EXISTING USE
(PARAMETER PLAN 6:
DEMOLITION AND
RETENTION – FIGURE
2.6)

PROPOSED USE

FLOORSPACE (GIA) SQM

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:

Detailed Element: Phase 1

USE CLASS

FLOORSPACE (GIA) SQM

B1 (c)/B2/B8

10,224

Table 2.10:

Outline Element

USE CLASS

FLOORSPACE (GIA) SQM

A1 –A5

3,100 sqm (GIA), of which:

B1 (a-c) / B2/B8

Maximum 1,100 sqm (net) Use Class A1 convenience sales area

Maximum 563 sqm (net) Use Class A1 comparison sales area

68,288 sqm (GIA), of which:

C1

Maximum 1,700 sqm (GIA) for use as office (B1a/b)

120 bedrooms

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

2-11
USE CLASS

FLOORSPACE (GIA) SQM

C3/C2

2,500 residential units, to comprise:

D1/D2*

Maximum 2,500 dwellings (use Class C3)

Maximum 250 units to be age-restricted for elderly persons (unit to comprise
bed spaces (use class C2) or dwellings (use class C3))

2 primary schools, with combined capacity of up to 4 forms of entry ;
And
9,671 sqm (GIA) to comprise:

Maximum 6,000 sqm Use Class D1

Maximum 6,000 sqm Use Class 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:

Indicative Unit Size Mix

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).

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 district’s 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

TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS
VEHICULAR

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.

WALKING AND CYCLING
2.8.5

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:

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

SUSTAINABILITY & ENERGY

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME
PROGRAMME AND PHASING OF WORKS

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.

GENERAL DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION APPROACH
2.12.2

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. .

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
2.13.2

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

2-15
Table 2.12:

Assumed Construction Plant and Equipment

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


Asphalt Paver and
Tipper Lorry

Vibratory Roller

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
2.13.7

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

Wheel washing facilities for vehicles leaving the Site.

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’.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SOLUTION
2.13.11

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.

SITE WORKING HOURS AND DAYS
2.13.13

It has been assumed for the purposes of this ES that working hours for site preparation,
earthworks and construction activities will be as follows:

08:00 and 18:00hrs Monday to Friday;

08:00 to 13:30hrs on Saturdays; and

Other hours by exception.

CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS PLAN
2.13.14

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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
Applicant’s 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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

2-19
2.14

REFERENCES
Ref. 2.1

Aecom (2016), Stone Hill Park – Transport Assessment

Ref. 2.2

Thanet Transport Strategy - Accessed online
[https://www.thanet.gov.uk/publications/planning/transport-plan-2005-to-2011/]

Ref. 2.3

WSP | PB (2016), Stone Hill Park – Energy and Sustainability Strategy

Ref. 2.4

WSP | PB (2016), Stone Hill Park – Waste Management Strategy

Ref. 2.5

GVA (2016), Stone Hill Park – Outline Phasing and Delivery Strategy

Ref. 2.6

Planit ie (2016), Stone Hill Park – Design and Access Statement

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 2 - The Proposed Development

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

3-1

3

ALTERNATIVES STUDIED

3.1

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

3.1.1

The EIA Regulations require an ES to provide:
“…an outline of the main alternatives studied by the application or appellant and an indication of
the main reasons for this choice, taking into account the environmental effects.”

3.1.2

3.2

Set out below is the Applicant’s 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 Council’s 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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Studied

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

On the basis of the above the ‘Do Nothing’
undeveloped or used, is highly unlikely as this
brownfield site in the defined countryside which
growth. Any expansion and or diversification of
event be subject to applications and policy.

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

ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

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

ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Studied

Scenario with the site remaining closed and
would be a wasted opportunity of a significant
is capable of acting as a catalyst for economic
the previous uses or alternatives would in any

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Studied

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

July 2015 (Public Consultation 1:The Emerging Concept Masterplan)
Key Components

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.

Heritage: aviation-related cultural facilities including a ‘heritage’ grass runway.

Green infrastructure: sports pitches, parks, open green space.
Figure 3-1: The Emerging Concept Masterplan

Key Environmental Considerations at this Stage

Retention of existing runway, access points, existing museums and creation of a heritage hub to the
north of the Site.

Conversion of runway into a large public parkland.

Inclusion of a significant amount of green infrastructure across the Site and retention of certain habitats
for ecological mitigation.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Studied

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

December 2015 (Public Consultation )
Key Components

Option 1 – Development Heart

A heart / central hub located at the centre of the development.

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

Option 2 – Central Parkland

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.

Potential to incorporate a heritage runway.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Studied

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

3-6
DESIGN EVOLUTION
Figure 3-3: Central Parkland

Option 3 – Parkland Edge

Eastern linear parkland creates a large buffer to Manston Village and helps to the Site as a separate
community.

The layout creates a compact development.

The Site connects to adjacent commercial uses at Manston Business Park and potential redevelopment
of the MOD site.

The parkland creates an open edge to the eastern park boundary.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Studied

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

3-7
DESIGN EVOLUTION

Figure 3-4: Open Parkland
Key Environmental Considerations at this Stage

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Studied

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

3-8
DESIGN EVOLUTION

Figure 3-5: 2016 Masterplan
Key Environmental Considerations at this Stage

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.

Wavegarden to be positioned outside SPZ 1 of the Thanet Aquifer.

Inclusion of education, health and leisure facilities.

 Retention of the sub-station to the north-east of the Site.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Studied

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

GVA (2016), Stone Hill Park – (SHP1-4.3) Planning Statement Addendum:
Housing Need

Ref. 3.4

Pillory Barn (2016), Stone Hill Park: Statement of Community Involvement

Ref. 3.5

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012), National Planning
Policy Framework

Ref. 3.6

Planit ie (2016), Stone Hill Park – Design and Access Statement

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Studied

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-1

4

APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT

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 Council’s 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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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)

provided that the Council, in granting planning permission to such a scheme,
imposes conditions to ensure that the process of evolution keeps within the
parameters applied for and assessed.

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

The Parameter Plans fix (in particular):
a) Development Zones;
b) Access and Movement;
c) Land Use;
d) Density and Height;
e) Green Infrastructure; and
f)

4.2.11

Demoltion and Retention,

The Development Specification fixes:
a) The description of development; and
b) The quantum of development across all uses.

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-4
environmental statements, if likely significant effects on the environment not previously assessed
have emerged.
4.2.13

As discussed in Chapter 1 ‘Introduction’, the EIA Regulations do not require an assessment of
planning policy or guidance, however, Appendix 1.1 and the technical chapters present the
appropriate context for the assessment of the Proposed Development against relevant national
and local planning policy, including the NPPF adopted March 2012 (Ref. 4.3). The Planning
Statement (SHP1-4) (Ref 4.4) which accompanies the application examines the planning merits
of the scheme against the relevant planning policy.

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;

g) Water Resources; and
h) Artificial Lighting.

4.4

THE STAGES OF ASSESSMENT

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;

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACE
4.4.2

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 TDC’s 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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

st

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-6

Table 4.1:

Summary of ES Scoping Opinion

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

Alternatives

Page 12 of 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 agree with this in principle but
recommends 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 particularly important given the scale and strategic nature of the
development.
Cumulative effects

TDC

As identified it will be important for any assessment to consider the
potential cumulative effects of this proposal, including all supporting 
infrastructure, with other similar proposals and a thorough assessment of
the ‘in combination’ effects including intra- and inter-project related effects.
The Council does not agree with the proposed arbitrary restriction of the
radius for potential cumulative development effects to 1km. For example 
there are various effects that will be relevant over a much wider area, e.g.
air quality from transported related emissions and cumulative recreational
impacts on designated European sites.
The Council also does not agree that consideration of cumulative effects
should be restricted to those developments that have planning permission
only. Consideration should be given to schemes where a planning
application has been submitted and is in the process of being considered,
so that the Council is able to fulfil its obligation to consider the cumulative
effects of development.

The consideration of ‘Alternatives’ is set-out in Chapter 3 ‘Alternatives
Studied’ and includes an assessment of the ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario.
No alternative sites have been considered by the Applicant. The
alternative layouts are those which have been presented at the public
consultations/exhibitions and to TDC through the pre-application
meetings. It has been made clear in Chapter 3 ‘Alternatives Studied’
that this process has enabled the design evolution to include mitigation
inherent in the Parameter Plans and Development Specification which
together with Phase 1 and Change of Use application plans and Means
of Access Plans form the basis of the assessment.
The assessment of cumulative effects is reported in Chapter 15
‘Cumulative Effects’.
The study area for the assessment of the ‘in combination’ effects with
other developments is based on a radius suitable for the technical
discipline and where appropriate will be beyond 1km and defined
accordingly.
The assessment of cumulative effects has focused on the schemes
which have the benefit of planning permission. However, as requested
by the Council, where appropriate we have included schemes where a
planning application has been submitted. The schemes in question are
those listed in Table 4.4, Chapter 15 ‘Cumulative Effects’ and Figure
15.1, and include the outline application at Flambeau Europlast for 120
dwellings (OL/TH/15/0187) as requested by the Council in addition to
Manston Green, as identified in the EIA Scoping Report.

As a minimum, the Council request the inclusion of the outline application at
Flambeau Europlast for 120 dwellings (OL/TH/15/0187) in addition to that
identified in the scoping report at Manston Green.
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-7

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

In addition, the longstanding Local Plan commitment to development on the
remainder of the Manston Business Park site should also be taken into
account when considering cumulative effects.
The applicant is also encouraged to seek advice from KCC Highways for
the scope of cumulative sites to include in the traffic assessment.
Local Air Quality

The Council broadly accepts the proposed scope and methodology of the
air quality assessment. However, although the development site sits 
outside Thanet’s 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 Council’s 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:

The impact on Thanet’s Urban AQMA – particularly the three
exceedance areas for nitrogen dioxide: The Square - Birchington,
High Street - St Lawrence, junction of Boundary Road & Hereson
Road as well as the junction at College Road Margate which is
close to the annual NO2 objective and consideration of roads
where increased traffic could lead to new exceedances; and
Given the development site will introduce residential properties
near to Manston’s Fire Training Facility it will be necessary to carry
out dispersion modelling to assess the health impact of the plume
grounding on new receptors.

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 Thanet’s urban wide
AQMA.
We have noted that the Council’s 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’:

The impact on Thanet’s Urban AQMA – particularly the three
exceedance areas for nitrogen dioxide:
The Square Birchington, High Street - St Lawrence, junction of Boundary
Road & Hereson Road as well as the junction at College Road
Margate which is close to the annual NO2 objective and
consideration of roads where increased traffic could lead to new
exceedances; and

Given the development site will introduce residential properties
near to Manston’s Fire Training Facility it will be necessary to
carry out dispersion modelling to assess the health impact of
the plume grounding on new receptors.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-8

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

sufficient data on the likely Nitrogen deposition rates associated from 
traffic within 200m of European sites generated by the proposed
development– please see Ecology and Nature Conservation for details.
Noise and Vibration

Whilst recognising that Thanet has several designated ‘Important Areas’
(defined under Environmental Noise Regulations), the Council’s EHO 
appreciates that noise action plans in these areas are the responsibility of
KCC. However, TDC will want to make ensure that any development which
impacts noise levels in these Important Areas is mitigated.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

Full ecological assessment of the potential impacts of ecosystems and
protected species within the application site will need to be undertaken
following CIEEM guidelines on Ecological Impact Assessment and sufficient 
surveys for protected species in accordance with best practice guidelines.
This should include an assessment of the proposals on habitats and/or
species listed as ‘Habitats and Species of Principal Importance’ in 
accordance with Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural
Communities Act 2006.
The England Biodiversity Strategy published by Defra establishes principles
for the consideration of biodiversity and the effects of climate change. The
ES should reflect these principles and identify how the development’s 
effects on the natural environment will be influenced by climate change,
and how ecological networks will be maintained.
Internationally and Nationally Designated Sites
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and sites of European or
international importance (Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special
Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar sites)

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

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:

Recreational pressure – the proposed development will provide
approximately 100ha of green infrastructure so there is unlikely

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-9

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

The development site lies close to the following designated nature
conservation sites:










to be added pressure and the site is not and will not be directly
linked to these designated sites;

Sandwich Bay and Pegwell Bay NNR (0.9km)
Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI (0.9km)
Sandwich Bay and Pegwell Bay NNR (0.9km)
Thanet Coast SSSI (4.3km)
Sandwich Bay SAC (0.9km)
Thanet Coast SAC (0.9km)
Margate & Long Sands SAC (6km)
Thanet Coast & Sandwich Bay SPA (0.9km)
Outer Thames Estuary SPA (4.7km)
Thanet Coast & Sandwich Bay Ramsar site (0.9km)
Stodmarsh SSSI / SAC / SPA / Ramsar site (7.6km)

Loss of functionally-linked land – wintering bird surveys were
undertaken at the Site during November 2015 to February
2016; initial assessment of the survey results concludes that:
‘no waders which form part of the reasons for designation of the
Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area
(SPA), Ramsar, Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) were recorded within the
Survey Area and therefore it can be concluded the Survey Area
does not function as undesignated supporting habitat
associated with these 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.

Water quality and quantity – the site currently discharges
surface water directly to Pegwell Bay via a private surface water
drainage pipe. It is the intention that the proposed development
continues to use this existing surface water outfall to drain the
proposed development; and

Air quality – consideration will be given to whether any
designated sites (such as the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay
SPA) within 200m of roads are likely to be adversely impacted.
This will tie in with the study area informed by the transport
model.

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:

Recreational pressure - the proposal site falls within the 7.2km
Zone of Influence around the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-10

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

SPA / Ramsar site where any net increase in residential
development will be required to provide mitigation for the
disturbance of notified wintering bird species. An appropriate
financial contribution will therefore be required towards the
Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) Plan.
Given the size and proximity of this development Natural England
advises that additional avoidance and mitigation measures over
and above the SAMM contribution are likely to be required.

Loss of functionally-linked land – we note that the applicant is
currently carrying out wintering bird surveys. Given that the
proposal site includes large areas of short grassland consideration
should be given as to whether it is used by wintering birds forming
part of designated site populations.

Water quality and quantity – we understand from the Environment
Agency that the proposal site lies over a Source Protection Zone
and therefore it is likely to be a requirement that surface water runoff is discharged to the coast rather than to groundwater.

Air quality – given the amount of additional traffic a residential
proposal of this size will generate consideration should be given
as to whether any designated sites within 200m of roads are likely
to be adversely impacted.

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

The Countryside Agency’s Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for
England and Scotland (2002) and the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual 
Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (2013) produced by the Landscape Institute
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

Chapter 8 ‘Landscape and Visual’ reports the likely significant effects
of the Proposed Development in terms of landscape and visual.
Chapter 8 ‘Landscape and Visual’ follows the methods and guidelines

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-11

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

and the Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment should
be used for the assessment. Reference should also be made to Natural
England’s Landscape Character Assessment (2012).
The landscape and visual assessment will need to determine the landscape
character of the application site and surrounding area, the quality of the
landscape, the existing land cover and the application site’s existing 
topography. A detailed study of the visual setting of the application site and
the potential visual receptors that may be affected by the proposed
development should be undertaken and should include identification of the
theoretical visual influence zone (ZTV), which will inform the extent of the
study area (based on a combination of site visits, and professional
judgement). Natural England wish to see details of local landscape
character areas mapped at a scale appropriate to the development site as
well as any relevant management plans or strategies pertaining to the area.

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.

Representative viewpoints should be established and agreed with TDC’s
landscape department.
Winter and summer photographs should be taken at each viewpoint and
used to create a panorama of the view across the seasons. The precise
locations (Ordnance Survey grid reference), date, time of day and weather
conditions should be described for each viewpoint taken.
The EIA should consider potential impacts on public rights on and in the
vicinity of the development. Appropriate mitigation measures should be
incorporated for any adverse impacts.
Traffic and Transportation

KCC – as the Local Highway Authority – confirms that a full Transport
Assessment will be required to support any planning application submitted.
Given the scale of the proposed development, its impact on the highway 
network should be assessed through the creation of a new strategic level
transport model to cover key routes within the Thanet District and outlying
areas where necessary. The strategic model should be fully calibrated and
validated to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority. This will
facilitate the identification of constraint points within the highway network, 
which can then instigate further detailed analysis of any necessary
mitigation as part of the accompanying Transport Assessment.
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

Chapter 9 ‘Traffic and Transportation’ reports the likely significant
effects of the Proposed Development in terms of traffic and
transportation.
Aecom have undertaken a separate Transport Assessment Scoping
process and issued and agreed in principle, a Transport Scoping report
(dated February 2016) to KCC. Aecom are also developing the Strategic
Transport Model in conjunction with KCC.
Due to the planning application submission date of April 2016, it has
been agreed in principle with KCC that the Transport Assessment will
take the form of a two stage approach:

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-12

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

Initially a Transport Assessment will be developed, underpinned
by a spreadsheet based transport model to assess the potential
impact of the proposed development on the transport network;
and

Separately a strategic transport model using the SATURN
modelling software is being developed by Aecom to understand
the wider impacts of the proposed development on the highway
network and identify what infrastructure will be required to
deliver the development proposals, The SATURN model will not
be ready until after spring 2016. As such, it has been agreed
with KCC that the output from the model will follow the
Transport Assessment as additional supporting information
during the post consultation period.

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.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
KCC state that investigations in 2010 on the adjacent East Kent Road
Access indicate that the site has high archaeological potential with
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

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.

Chapter 10 ‘Archaeology and Cultural Heritage’ reports the likely
significant effects of the Proposed Development in terms of archaeology
and cultural heritage.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-13

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

potentially important remains of Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman, 
Saxon and medieval dates. This combined with the remains of the runways,
taxiways and the airport furniture contributes to the significance of the
heritage of Manston Airfield and the proposed site. Historic England
highlight that the site has over a 100 years of aviation history that is
reflected in both above and below ground remains. It therefore considers
Manston to have credentials as a historic RAF base (FWW, WWII and Cold
War (USAAF)).They therefore request that the ES considers the
significance of each surviving buildings particularly where their fabric
reflects specific use of the site during the above conflicts.
The significance that designated assets outside the application site derive
from their settings should also be assessed, along with the potential for the
proposed development to affect that significance.
KCC have indicated the Scoping Opinion Report does not fully reflect what
was agreed as part of discussions between the County Council and the
applicant’s archaeological consultants regarding supporting survey work
required to inform the planning application. KCC believes that in addition to
desk-based research, arrangements are in place regarding topographical
and geophysical surveys and a review of the historic airfield structural
remains. Such surveys will then inform the scope of targeted evaluation
trenching required to confirm the potential and significance of buried
archaeology.
The County Council advises that the above survey and evaluative
measures are undertaken to inform the Historic Environment Desk Based
Assessment, the Environmental Statement and appropriate mitigation
measures. It is also recommended that a survey of the historic airfield
structures is completed to assess the significance, interpretation and
potential opportunities for providing a positive contribution towards the
sense of place.

Since the submission of the Scoping Report, discussions have continued
with KCC and others. We provide an update as follows:

In agreement with KCC an historic settings assessment has
been carried out on Scheduled Monuments, Conservation
Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens and designated and nondesignated built heritage assets within the agreed study area of
between 1km and 2km of the site, to also include Richborough
Castle (Roman Fort, Scheduled Monument) further to the south,
the results of which are included in the HEDBA (Appendix
10.1) and Chapter 10 ‘Archaeology and Cultural Heritage’.

In agreement with KCC, the survey of the historic airfield
structures (including historic landscape characterisation of the
study area) on site is complete and has formed the basis of the
assessment of significance, interpretation and potential
opportunities for providing a positive contribution towards a
sense of place. This survey has formed the basis of the
assessment for inclusion in the HEDBA (Appendix 10.1)and
Chapter 10 ‘Archaeology and Cultural Heritage’ and has
been used to inform which buildings and structures are to be
retained and removed (Figure 2.6).

In relation to buried archaeology, the on-site geophysical
surveys have been completed and have informed the HEDBA
and assessment. The geophysical surveys have been used to
identify any areas of significant archaeological potential to
inform the requirement for any targeted trial trenching. Trial
trenching will may be required in May 2016.

In Appendix 1 the effects on buried archaeology and undesignated heritage
assets at the operational phase have been scoped out. Therefore, it is
advised that consideration is given to ongoing effects following
development as heritage assets may become or remain vulnerable as a
result of the proposed development. Additionally, KCC considers that whilst
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-14

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

watching briefs may be required, as set out in Appendix 2, they are an
insufficient response to the mitigation of potential archaeological impacts.
With regards to the proposed methodology, KCC recommends that the
intrusive and non-intrusive surveys mentioned are timed as part of the
present assessment process and will inform the Environmental Statement.
The County Council believes it is important that the character of the
potential archaeology, its complexity and significance is fully understood
and referenced to the archaeological projects listed in Appendix 2 and
would welcome further engagement on this matter and during the
assessment process.
The Council therefore requests that the any forthcoming ES address the
matters raised by KCC and Historic England. We will expect published
guidance on the setting of heritage assets (Historic Environment Good
Practice Advice in Planning Note 3) to be consulted in the preparation of
the EIA. Historic Environment.
Water Resources and Flood Risk

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.

Chapter 11 ‘Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage’ reports the
likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in terms of water
resources, flood risk and drainage.
Chapter 11 ‘Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage’ reports the
assessment of the effect of the proposed development on water quality
and quantity discharging to Pegwell Bay and to groundwater quality. A
Water Framework Screening Assessment was submitted to the EA
(22/03/2016).

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

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-15

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

quality and quantity discharging to Pegwell Bay and to groundwater quality.
Depending upon these results a Water Framework Assessment may be
expected to consider how risks can be avoided, minimised or mitigated.
The WFD assessment should be submitted to support the application. The
applicant is advised to liaise directly with the EA on this matter.
With regard to foul drainage it will be important to establish appropriate
disposal of foul drainage from the site at an early stage in the planning
process. The EA have stated that given the sensitivity of the site, they
expect foul drainage to be connected to the main sewer as soon as the first
phase of development is completed.
As local and national flood risk and water resource consultees the Council
will require the ES to address all the issues identified above.
Socio-Economics and Population

Chapter 12 ‘Socio-economics’ reports the likely significant effects of
the Proposed Development in terms of socio-economics.

The proposed development includes provision for Primary education and
the locations are shown on the land use parameter plan, Figure 2.3.

As agreed with KCC, Secondary Education will be delivered through an
expansion of existing off site schools. All other social and economic
infrastructure required to support the development form part of the
submitted application.

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

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-16

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

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
50m² 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

Whilst this chapter focuses on contamination and the proposed Phase 1
desk-based study, KCC have raised concerns regarding the lack of
consideration of the impact of ground conditions on the ability to utilise 
infiltration. The County Council would welcome reference made to the
above to be included in the chapter Water Resources and Flood Risk.
Regarding the Phase 1 Environmental Desk Study (PRA) to be prepared, 
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

Chapter 13 ‘Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and Contamination’
reports the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in
terms of ground conditions, hydrogeology and contamination.
As referred to above, consideration has been given to the effect on the
ability to utilise infiltration and will ensure consistency with Chapter 11
‘Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage’.
The Phase 1 Environmental Desk Study (PRA) (Appendix 13.1)

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-17

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

KCC specify that given the former land use(s), sensitivity of Thanet’s
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. TDC’s Environmental Protection Manager’s view is that
further phased intrusive investigations are likely to be required in due
course.

provides a comprehensive assessment and has been carried out in
sufficient detail to enable the applicant to be satisfied that the site can
safely be developed based on the risk assessment findings. The PRA
incorporates the findings of a desk-top Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
survey.
The response from the TDC Environmental Protection Manager (Morgan
Sproates) confirms that they are content with a PRA (Appendix 13.1) to
be submitted with the application, and that intrusive Site Investigations
(SI) are expected to be required in due course. It is the expectation that
any required SI work will be the subject of a planning condition.

KCC highlight that the list of potential sources of contamination from a
former airfield is likely to be longer than the list provided on page 51 of the
scoping report. These potential sources should include (but are not be
limited to) drainage infrastructure including interceptors, pesticide storage
and use, aprons and taxiways where refuelling occurred, open trenches
used in fog clearance and any underground tunnels that may have been
used for storage.
Sources of further guidance are provided in the Environment Agency’s
detailed response attached
Artificial Lighting

The Council welcomes the inclusion of the Artificial Lighting Assessment
within the ES and is broadly happy with the approach suggested. The 
Council is happy for the potential effects on ecological receptors, and
heritage assets from artificial lighting associated with the proposed
development to be addressed within the respective chapters but requests
that the lighting assessment be included as an appendix to the ES and
cross referenced where relevant.
The effects on visual receptors with views of the application site from
artificial lighting should be referenced and assessed in the LVIA where
necessary.
Waste
Waste is a key consideration in the creation of a sustainable community at
the Site, as it has environmental, social, and economic impacts on the
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

Chapter 14 ‘Artificial Lighting reports the likely significant effects of the
Proposed Development in terms of artificial lighting.
Chapter 14 ‘Artificial Lighting assesses the likely significant effects of
the proposed development in terms of lighting on a range of receptors.

The Waste Strategy (SHP1-9) (Ref. 4.5) submitted in support of the
application will include the matters raised and will cover both the outline
and detailed elements of the planning application.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-18

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

proposed development in terms of physical infrastructure provision and how
the Site operates. However the Council is comfortable that this can be
addressed through a standalone Waste Management Strategy submitted in
support of the application and does not necessitate inclusion in the ES.
Nonetheless the strategy should:


Identify applicable policy and guidance relevant to the
proposed development;
Estimate the volume and composition of waste likely to arise
from the proposed development; and
Propose waste management strategies throughout the
demolition and construction phase.

CEMP

 An outline CEMP is provided as Appendix 2.2.

The Council wish to see the inclusion of an Outline Construction
Environmental Management Plan and commitment to it at this stage. The
CEMP is important to provide a framework that sets out the environmental
issues and management procedures to be adopted during construction
works on Site for the purpose of controlling potential adverse impacts to the
environment and the local community. This document will also ensure that
any potential Principal Contractor(s) is fully aware of the environmental
issues that could affect the construction of the Proposed Development.
The CEMP should include all the construction mitigation measures that
have been identified in the ES and should be implemented to ensure that
the environmental effects of the Proposed Development are acceptable.
Points covered above under the heading ‘Ecology and Nature Conservation’ above.
NATURAL
ENGLAND
Comments in relation to:
KCC

Traffic and Transportation.

Socio-economics and Population.

Water Resources and Flood Risk.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-19

CONSULTEE

COMMENTS RELEVANT TO ES DISCIPLINE

Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and Contamination.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.

Thanet Parkway Station.

RESPONSE AND LOCATION WITHIN IN THE ES

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

ASSESSMENT OF THE MAIN ALTERNATIVES
4.4.11

An outline of the main alternatives considered by the applicant is provided in Chapter 3
‘Alternatives Studied’. This also includes a description of the main reason for the preferred
design approach taking into account the environmental effects.

IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
4.4.12

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

Identified Sensitive Receptors

SENSITIVE RECEPTOR / LAND USE

Existing users of the Site and wider area
who will be present during the demolition
and construction works and once the
Proposed Development is completed
(including pedestrians and cyclists);

Users of the bus networks;

Wider community in Thanet and
neighbouring towns and villages.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

RELATIONSHIP TO PART 1 OF
THE SCHEDULE 4 OF EIA
REGULATIONS

Population.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-21

CATEGORY

Commercial

Education and Health

Leisure

Residential

Ecology

Infrastructure

Water Resources

SENSITIVE RECEPTOR / LAND USE

RELATIONSHIP TO PART 1 OF
THE SCHEDULE 4 OF EIA
REGULATIONS

Various commercial and farming
properties surround the Site.

Local Nursery and Primary Schools with
3.2 of the Site;

Secondary Schools within 6.3km of the
Site;

Primary Care Services with 2km of the
Site; and

Dentists within 2km of the Site.

Community and Recreational Facilities
within 2km of the Site.

Residential properties surrounding the site
Population, noise, air quality, soil,
to the north, south, east and west.
water and material assets,
including architectural and
archaeological heritage; and
townscape.

On-Site ecology, such as bats and
reptiles.

Sandwich and Pegwell Bay National
Nature Reserve;

Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes
SSSI;

Sandwich Bay Special Area of
Conservation;

Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special
Protection Area;

Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Wetland
of International Importance;

Thanet Coast Special Area of
Conservation; and

Thanet Coast SSSI.

Existing Road Networks.

Underlying Thanet Aquifer; and

Existing Surface water.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

Material assets, including
architectural and archaeological
heritage; and townscape.

Population, material assets,
including architectural and
archaeological heritage; and
townscape.

Population, material assets,
including architectural and
archaeological heritage; and
townscape.

Population, flora, fauna, water and
noise.

Flora, fauna, air, climate factors,
material assets.

Population, soil and water.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-22

CATEGORY

Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage

4.4.14

SENSITIVE RECEPTOR / LAND USE

Archaeological and Cultural heritage
Features on-Site;

Quex Park Settlements Scheduled
Monument – 2.3km north of the Site;

Settlement Scheduled Monument 1.5km
north of the Site;

Anglo-Saxon Cemetery Listed Monument
– 0.48km east of the Site;

Enclosure and Ring Ditches Scheduled
Monuments – 0.07km south of the Site;

Monastic Grange and pre-Conquest
Nunnery Scheduled Monument – 1.17km
south of the Site;

Anglo-Saxon Cemetery and Associated
Remains Scheduled Monument – 1.74km
west of the Site;

Listed Buildings in proximity to the Site;

Gove Farmhouse (Grade II)

Remains of Monastic Building (Grade II)

Barn at Manston Green (Grade II)

Cheeseman’s Farm (Grade II)

Sevenscore House (Grade II)

Chapel House (Grade II)

Rose Cottage and Pansy Cottage (Grade
II)

Tudor Cottage (Grade II)

Wayborough Manor (Grade II*)

Barn at Sevenscore House (Grade II)

Farm Office at Sevenscore House (Grade
II)

Way House and Wayborough House
(Grade II)

Old Forge House (Grade II)

Manston Court (Grade II)

Granary at Manston Court (Grade II)

Manston War Memorial (Grade II)

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).

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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;

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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:

Matrix for Determining the Significance of Effects

MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE / EFFECT

SENSITIVITY OF RECEPTOR / RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT TO
CHANGE / EFFECT

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:

1

1

These terms have been developed with reference to published best practice guidance as well as WSP EIA experience.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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).

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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).

IDENTIFICATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES
4.4.33

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’.

RESIDUAL EFFECT ASSESSMENT
4.4.35

Following the implementation of mitigation measures, an assessment of the significance of
residual effects was undertaken. The findings are presented within each technical chapter of this
ES (Chapter 5 - 14 and Volume 2).

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-27
validated, registered or have the benefit of Planning Permission as identified on the relevant
authority’s / authorities’ planning application Register(s).

DEVELOPMENTS CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS
4.5.4

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

Application for outline planning permission for mixed-use
development for up to 550 dwellings; up to 63,000 sqm Class
B1 business floorspace; car showroom; a new local centre
comprising up to 2,000sqm convenience retail (class A1, A2,
A3), community facilities up to 5,000 sqm (class D1/D2) and
community healthcare up to 1,200sqm (class D1); and
associated highway works with all matters reserved.
Application for outline planning permission including access
for the erection of 785 dwellings, highways infrastructure
works (including single carriageway link road), primary
school, small scale retail unit, community hall, public open
space.
Mixed use urban extension comprising: residential use (Class
C3), community facilities (Class D1), commercial and
employment uses (Class A1-A5, B1 and D2) and associated
infrastructure including a new link road associated alterations
to existing junctions and new access arrangements.
Mixed use urban extension comprising residential use (Class
C3), community facilities (Class D1), commercial and
employment uses (Class A1-A5, B1 and D2) and associated
infrastructure including a new link road, associated alterations
to existing junctions and new access arrangements, without
compliance with planning conditions 2 and 37 of planning
permission F/TH/10/0726 to allow 50 dwellings within phase
1 to be occupied before the completion of highway works
within the southern part of the site.
Outline application for the redevelopment of the existing site
for up to 120 dwellings including access, following demolition
of existing buildings.

EuroKent

Flambeau
Europlast

4.5.5

Developments Considered in the Assessment of Cumulative Effects

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’.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

4-30

4.8

REFERENCES
Ref. 4.1

HM Government, Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Ref. 4.2

HM Government, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Ref. 4.3

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012), National Planning
Policy Framework

Ref. 4.4

GVA (2016), Stone Hill Park – Planning Statement

Ref. 4.5

WSP | PB (2016), Stone Hill Park – Waste Strategy

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 4 - Approach to the Assessment

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

5-1

5

LOCAL AIR QUALITY

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

LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE

5.2.1

Details of the relevant legislation, policy and guidance are provided in Appendix 5.2.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
5.2.2

The applicable legislative framework is summarised as follows:
 Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC (Ref. 5.1);
 The Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 - Statutory Instrument 2000 No.928 (Ref. 5.2);
 The Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 - Statutory Instrument 2002
No.3043 (Ref. 5.3);
 The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 - Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 1001 (Ref. 5.4);
 The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Ref. 5.5); and
 The Environment Act 1995 (Ref. 5.6).

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

The following planning policies are relevant:
 Kent County Council Development and Infrastructure – Creating Quality Places (Ref. 5.7);
 Unlocking Kent’s Potential – Kent County Council’s Framework for Regeneration (Ref. 5.8);
st

 21 Century Kent – A Blueprint for the County’s Future (Ref. 5.9);

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

The following guidance is relevant:
 Institute of Air Quality Management: Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition
and Construction (February 2014) (Ref. 5.13);
 Planning Practice Guidance (2014) (Ref. 5.14);
 Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (AQS) (Ref. 5.15);
 Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(16) (DEFRA, April 2016) (Ref.
5.16);
 Environmental Protection UK & Institute of Air Quality Management. Land-Use planning &
Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (May 2015) (Ref. 5.17);
 Thanet District Council Air Quality Planning Guidance (March 2016) (Ref. 5.18)
 Highways England. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 Air
Quality HA 207/07 (DMRB HA 207/07, Ref. 5.19); and
 Highways England. Interim Advice Note 174/13 (Ref. 5.20);

5.3

RELEVANT ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

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:

Change of Use of existing buildings to be retained; and

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.

Operational Phase (Road Traffic):
 Employment (Use Classes B1a-c/B2/B8);
 Residential accommodation (Use classes C3/C2);
 Retail (Use Classes A1-A5);
 Education and institutional (Use Class D1);
 Leisure (Use Class D2);
 Hotel (Use Class C1); and
 Associated infrastructure (including roads and utilities).

5.4

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

During the construction phase:
 Changes in levels of dust, PM10 and PM2.5 at existing receptors due to on-site demolition and
construction activities; and
 Changes in ambient concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 at existing receptors as a result of
exhaust emissions arising from non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) and construction traffic.
OPERATIONAL PHASE

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 Thanet’s 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

WSP | Parsons Amanda Berry – Air
Brinckerhoff
Quality EHO at TDC

03/11/2015

WSP | Parsons Amanda Berry – Air
Brinckerhoff
Quality EHO at TDC
WSP | Parsons Amanda Berry – Air

21/03/2016

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

SUMMARY OF OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS

AND OTHER FORMS
OF CONSULTATION

30/03/2016

Telephone conversation to discuss air quality
assessment and inputs into air quality scoping
report
Email request for data/contact to obtain
information regarding the Fire Training Facility.
Email request for data/contact to obtain

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 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

SUMMARY OF OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS

AND OTHER FORMS
OF CONSULTATION

31/03/2016

04/04/2016

information regarding the Fire Training Facility.
Consultation Letter, details include:

Qualitative & quantitative construction
assessment;

Quantitative road traffic assessment; and

Quantitative assessment of the fire training
facility.

Provided the contact at the MoD who is able to
supply information with regards to the operation
of the fire testing facility. In addition, provided
the November 2001 report that was undertaken
by AEA to assess the plume dispersion of the
facility.
Provided comments with regards to the air
quality consultation letter issued:

Agreed with approach outlined. It was
requested that WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
consider TDC background data (confirmed
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff would use
where appropriate) and to align our
assessment with the Thanet AQ Planning
Guidance, March 2016.

EXTENT OF THE STUDY AREA
5.4.7

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).

NITROGEN DEPOSITION METHOD OF BASELINE DATA COLLATION
DESK STUDY
5.4.9

A desk study has been undertaken to obtain baseline data to inform the assessment. Sources of
information include:
 DEFRA’s 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);

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Effects of the operational phase relate to potential changes in ambient concentrations of NO 2,
PM10 and PM2.5 at human receptors (listed in Table 5.2), and annual mean NOx and nitrogen
deposition rates at Designated Sites. These are the local air pollutants that that are of most
concern in the context of the Proposed Development.

Table 5.2: Human Receptors
ID

DESCRIPTION

X

Y

HEIGHT
ABOVE
GROUND (M)

R1

Residential property on Canterbury Road

625713 165014 1.5

R2

Residential property on Ramagate Road

625733 164987 1.5

R3

Residential property on Canterbury Road

627000 166386 1.5

R4

Residential property on Thanet Way/Frost Farm

626922 167104 1.5

R5

Residential property on Ramagate Road

625989 164987 1.5

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

5-6
ID

DESCRIPTION

X

Y

HEIGHT
ABOVE
GROUND (M)

R6

Residential property on Canterbury Road

627661 165281 1.5

R7

Caravan park on Hengist Way

631016 165736 1.5

R8

Holiday Inn hotel on Hengist Way

631054 165770 1.5

R9

Residential property on Canterbury Road

634433 165112 1.5

R10 Residential property on Foads Lane

634610 164673 1.5

R11 Residential property on Sandwich Road

634839 164134 1.5

R12 Residential property on Sandwich Road

635364 164592 1.5

R13 Residential property on Canterbury Road

636432 164921 1.5

R14 Residential property on Canterbury Road

629246 167831 1.5

R15 Residential property on Canterbury Road

629363 167958 1.5

R16 Residential property Canterbury Rd/The Square

630260 169038 1.5

R17 Residential property above commercial premises on The Square

630297 169053 4.5

R18 Residential property on Canterbury Road

630232 169005 1.5

R19 Residential property on Canterbury Road

630172 168969 1.5

R20 Residential above commercial premises on Station Road

630249 169079 4.5

R21 Residential property on Minnis Road

629855 169372 1.5

R22 Residential property on The Square

630449 169103 1.5

R23 Residential property on Canterbury Road

631071 169534 1.5

R24 Residential property on Canterbury Road

631870 169614 1.5

R25 Residential property on Canterbury Road

631946 169643 1.5

R26 Residential property on Canterbury Road

632402 169754 1.5

R27 Residential property on Canterbury Road

632684 169872 1.5

R28 Residential property on Canterbury Road

633015 169876 1.5

R29 Residential property on Canterbury Road

633559 169850 1.5

R30 Residential property on Canterbury Road

634016 170123 1.5

R31 Residential property above commercial premises on Canterbury
Road
R32 Residential property on Hartsdown Road

634335 170406 4.5

R33 Residential property on Hartsdown Road

634468 170140 1.5

R34 Residential property on Shottendane Road

635151 169569 1.5

R35 Residential property on Manston Road

635136 169524 1.5

R36 Residential property on Shottendane Road

634506 169196 1.5

R37 Residential property on Shottendane Road

634103 169071 1.5

R38 Residential property on Minster Road

632565 169316 1.5

R39 Residential property on Manston Road

631429 167839 1.5

R40 Residential property on Park Lane

630483 168563 1.5

R41 Acol Hill Farm

630471 167955 1.5

R42 Residential property Spitfire Way

632627 166211 1.5

R43 Residential property on Manston Road

633115 166504 1.5

R44 Residential property on Manston Road

633953 167069 1.5

R45 Residential property on Manston Court Road

634189 166379 1.5

R46 Residential property on Manston Court Road

635543 167687 1.5

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

634408 170317 1.5

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

5-7
ID

DESCRIPTION

X

Y

HEIGHT
ABOVE
GROUND (M)

R47 Residential property on Manston Court Road

635988 167732 1.5

R48 Residential property on Star Link Lane

636056 167733 1.5

R49 Residential property on Star Link Lane

636001 167838 1.5

R50 Residential property on Manston Court Road

635895 167764 1.5

R51 Residential property on Haine Road

635898 166466 1.5

R52 Residential property on Canterbury Road

635582 165091 1.5

R53 Residential property on Newintgon Road

636979 166973 1.5

R54 Residential property on High Street

637090 165339 1.5

R55 Residential property on Newintgon Road

636796 166493 1.5

R56 Residential property on High Street

636951 165163 1.5

R57 Residential property on Nethercourt Hill

636586 164868 1.5

R58 Residential property on London Road

636569 164818 1.5

R59 Residential property on London Road

636950 164545 1.5

R60 Residential property on Margate Road

636839 167253 1.5

R61 Residential property on Westwood Road

636854 167899 1.5

R62 Residential property on Ramsgate Road

635566 169885 1.5

R63 Residential property on College Road

635734 169933 1.5

R64 Residential property on Ramsgate Road

635607 169716 1.5

R65 Residential property on Margate Road

636418 168243 1.5

R66 Ellington Infant School

637177 165328 1.5

R67 St Laurence in Thanet Church of England Junior School

636991 165559 1.5

R68 Dame Janet Primary Academy

636855 166630 1.5

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 (HDV’s) 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

For the assessment, six scenarios have been modelled:
 Scenario 1: 2015 Baseline & Model Verification;
 Scenario 2: 2021 Without Development;
 Scenario 3: 2021 With Phase 1 Only (10,244 sqm employment);
 Scenario 4: 2021 With Construction + Partial Development (500 residential dwellings and
22,667sqm employment);

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

5-8
 Scenario 5: 2026 Without Development; and
 Scenario 6: 2026 With Full Development.
5.4.21

Future year traffic data account for committed development.
VEHICLE EMISSIONS

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 (40µg/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, DEFRA’s guidance
(Ref. 5.16) suggests that in locations where the annual mean NO2 concentration exceeds
3
60µg/m then the 1-hour mean objective may be breached. Where annual mean concentrations

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

5-9
3

are less than 60µg/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 µg/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, DEFRA’s 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 50µg/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

Details of roads model verification are given in Appendix 5.6.
MOD FIRE TRAINING FACILITY

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:

Road alignment will change by 5m or more;

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

5-10

Daily traffic flows will change by 1,000 AADT or more;

Heavy Duty Vehicle flows change by 200 AADT or more;

Average speed will change by 10km/hr or more; or

Peak hours speed will change by 20km/hr or more.

 Identification of Designated Sites sensitive to NOx concentrations and nitrogen deposition
(Nitrogen deposition) within the study area as defined above. DMRB HA 207/07 guidance
indicates that assessment should be undertaken when within 200m of the affected road
network;
 If roads in the network do not meet the above traffic/alignment criteria or there are no
properties or relevant Designated Sites near the affected roads, then the impact of the
scheme can be considered to be neutral in terms of local air quality and no further work is
needed.
5.4.41

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’.”

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

3

ANNUAL MEAN (µG/M )
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

NUMBER OF EXCEEDENCES OF 1-HOUR
3
MEAN = 200µG/M
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

UB

635460,
169833

19.5

19.5

19.3

-

-

0

0

0

-

-

S

635931,
165331

18.37 18.1

16.0

16

15

0

0

0

0

0

R

638483,
165430

26.8

25.1

25.2

26

23

0

0

0

0

0

R

630284,
169052

35.9

40.8

34.8

31

25

0

0

1

0

0

Notes:
R = Roadside, UB = urban background, S = Suburban
A concentration statistic shown in bold indicates non-compliance with the air quality objective.

Table 5.4: Monitored ambient PM 10 concentrations in TDC area
SITE ID

SITE X, Y
TYPE

ZH4 Thanet R
Ramsgate
ZH5 Thanet R
Birchington

638483,
165430
630284,
169052

3

ANNUAL MEAN (µG/M )
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

NUMBER OF EXCEEDENCES OF 24-HOUR
3
MEAN = 50µG/M
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

34

27.6

30.7

25

26

49

16

9

13

10

38.8

25.4

25.6

21

23

31

11

16

6

6

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

K

3

ANNUAL MEAN (µG/M )
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015*

639019,167981

34.4

34.7

31.2

38.7

34.4

K

635539,169840

40.4

35.4

33.7

39.4

38.8

K

630254,169037

46.6

45.1

43

53

47.8

UB

634445,164416

17.2

18.9

16.6

22.3

16.8

K

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

R

636570,167894

32.2

27.9

25.5

29.8

27.4

K

636405,168227

26.1

24

23.8

28.6

25.6

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

K

3

ANNUAL MEAN (µG/M )
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015*

635932,165333

19.4

17.2

16.7

18.5

16.8

K

630438,169111

32.8

34.2

33.3

37.5

36.2

R

630186,168983

38.8

37.1

32.8

37.4

22.5

R

638616,165564

34.7

33.7

33.1

38.5

36.7

R

638472,165432

25.5

26.4

23.6

28.4

26.9

R

637135,165354

42.3

41.7

38

45.7

43.3

R

636815,167297

28.3

26.6

25.9

29.5

27.2

R

637112,165331

29

28.1

28.3

31.7

35.3

R

638536,165465

37.7

36.5

34.4

38.2

38.3

R

637092,165340

43.4

44.3

43.7

49.3

49.0

R

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 40µg/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 DEFRA’s 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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

3

CONCENTRATION (µG/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

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

3

CONCENTRATION (µG/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

MODELLED AMBIENT POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN 2015
5.5.11

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 40µg/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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

OBJECTIVES SHOULD APPLY AT:

OBJECTIVES SHOULD GENERALLY NOT
APPLY AT:

All locations where members of the public
might be regularly exposed.

Building facades of offices or other
places of work where members of
the public do not have regular
access.

Building facades of residential properties,
schools, hospitals, care homes etc.

Hotels, unless people live there as
their permanent residence.
Gardens of residential properties.

24-hour mean

1-hour mean

Kerbside sites (as opposed to
locations at the building façade), or
any other locations where public
exposure is expected to be short
term.
Kerbside sites (as opposed to
All locations where the annual mean
locations at the building façade), or
objective would apply, together with hotels.
any other locations where public
1
Gardens of residential properties.
exposure is expected to be short
term.
Kerbside sites where the public
All locations where the annual mean and 24
would not be expected to have
-hour mean objectives apply.
regular access.
Kerbside sites (for example, pavements of
busy shopping streets)
Those parts of car parks, bus stations and
railway stations etc. which are not fully
enclosed, where members of the public
might reasonably be expected to spend one
hour or more.
Any outdoor locations where members of the
public might reasonably expected to spend
one hour or longer.

15-minute mean

All locations where members of the public
might reasonably be exposed for a period of
15 minutes or longer.

1

.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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE

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

The total volume of buildings and hardstanding to be demolished on site is estimated to be
3
between than 20,000 - 50,000 m . Demolition activities are expected to occur at heights less than
10m above ground level, with the potentially dusty materials. Due to the estimated volume of
demolition and the uncertainty of material there is potential for dust emission; therefore, the
magnitude is considered to be medium for demolition activities.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

5-17
EARTHWORKS
5.7.6

2

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

SUMMARY OF EACH ACTIVITY
Total volume of buildings to be
demolished estimated at between
3
20,000 and 50,000 m and at <10m
above ground level
2
Total site area >10,000m ,
>100,000 tonnes of material
3
Total building volume >100,000m

DUST EMISSION MAGNITUDE
Medium

Large
Large

>100m unpaved surface, estimated Large
45 HGV movements per day,
however scale of development is
large.

ASSESSMENT OF SENSITIVITY OF THE STUDY AREA
5.7.10

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 17.5µg/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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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).

Table 5.9: Sensitivity of the Study Area
POTENTIAL IMPACT

SENSITIVITY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

ANNUAL MEAN NO2 CONCENTRATIONS
3

5.7.19

The AQS objective for annual mean NO2 concentrations is 40µg/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 54.9µg/m at R2 (residential receptor located near the junction of
3
Canterbury Road and A253 Ramsgate Road) and 49.7µg/m at R5 (residential receptor on A253
3
Ramsgate Road). In both cases the annual mean concentration is only 0.3µg/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).

HOURLY MEAN NO2 CONCENTRATIONS
5.7.21

3

The annual mean NO2 concentrations predicted are below 60µg/m at all receptors modelled;
therefore, a breach of the 1-hour mean NO2 AQS objective is unlikely to occur. All impacts are
negligible.

ANNUAL MEAN PM10 CONCENTRATIONS
5.7.22

3

The AQS objective for annual mean PM10 concentrations is 40µg/m . The AQS objective is met at
all receptors. All impacts are negligible.

DAILY MEAN PM10 CONCENTRATIONS
5.7.23

3

The AQS objective for 24-hour mean PM10 concentrations is 50µg/m to be exceeded no more
than 35 times a year. The AQS objective is met at all receptors. All impacts are negligible.

ANNUAL MEAN PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS
5.7.24

3

The AQS objective for annual mean PM2.5 concentrations is 25µg/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 HGV’s 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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

For Scenario 4, the residual effect on air quality is not significant.

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.

ANNUAL MEAN NO2 CONCENTRATIONS
5.7.32

3

The AQS objective for annual mean NO2 concentrations is 40µg/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

SCENARIO 3: 2021 W ITH PHASE 1
ONLY

SCENARIO 6: 2026 W ITH FULL
DEVELOPMENT

Major Positive

0

0

Moderate Positive

0

0

Minor Positive

0

0

Negligible

68

55

Minor Negative

0

10

Moderate Negative

0

1

Major Negative

0

2

Total Existing Receptors

68

68

5.7.33

With Scenario 3 the impacts at all existing receptors are negligible.

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 56.5µg/m in Scenario
3
2 (without development), and 58.3µg/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 51.2µg/m in Scenario 2 to 53.0µg/m in Scenario 6. Neither receptor is located
within the Thanet Urban AQMA.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

3

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

5-21
3

5.7.36

Two new exceedences of the AQS objective with Scenario 6 occur at Receptors R8 (40.4µg/m )
3
and R31 (40.2µg/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.

HOURLY MEAN NO2 CONCENTRATIONS
5.7.39

3

The annual mean NO2 concentrations are below 60µg/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.

ANNUAL MEAN PM10 CONCENTRATIONS
5.7.40

3

The AQS objective for annual mean PM10 concentrations is 40µg/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

SCENARIO 3: 2021 W ITH PHASE 1

SCENARIO 6: 2026 W ITH
DEVELOPMENT

Major Positive

0

0

Moderate Positive

0

0

Minor Positive

0

0

Negligible

68

68

Minor Negative

0

0

Moderate Negative

0

0

Major Negative

0

0

Total Existing Receptors

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.

DAILY MEAN PM10 CONCENTRATIONS

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

5-22
5.7.3

3

The AQS objective for 24-hour mean PM10 concentrations is 50µg/m to be exceeded no more
than 35 times a year. The AQS objective is met at all receptors. All impacts are negligible.

ANNUAL MEAN PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS
5.7.4

3

The AQS objective for annual mean PM2.5 concentrations is 25µg/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

SCENARIO 3: 2021 W ITH PHASE 1

SCENARIO 6: 2026 W ITH
DEVELOPMENT

Major Positive

0

0

Moderate Positive

0

0

Minor Positive

0

0

Negligible

68

68

Minor Negative

0

0

Moderate Negative

0

0

Major Negative

0

0

Total Existing Receptors

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 0.01µg/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 0.2µg/m (as the 99.79 percentile) at new receptor N3. For 24-hour mean
3
th
PM10 concentrations the greatest process contribution is 0.4µg/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

ANNUAL MEAN NOX CONCENTRATIONS
5.7.10

The AQS objective for annual mean NOx concentrations for the protection of vegetation and
3
ecosystems is 30µg/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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 (30µg/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 1.4µg/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

In Scenario 3, the residual effect in terms of air quality is not significant.

5.7.20

In Scenario 6, the residual effect in terms of air quality is not significant.

5.7.21

The residual effect with regard to Designated Sites is not significant.

5.8

LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

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’.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

A comprehensive list of the cumulative schemes included in the assessment is detailed in
Chapter 4 ‘Approach to Assessment’.

5.10

SUMMARY

5.10.1

A summary of effects is given in Table 5.14.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION POST-MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE OF
EFFECTS
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
MAJOR /
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
/ LT
MODERATE / NEGATIVE
MT /
MINOR /
LT
NEGLIGIBLE

Minor

Negative T

MT

RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y

N/A

Demolition and Construction
Impacts of
Nearby
Demolition,
residential
Earthworks,
dwellings.
Construction &
Trackout on Dust
and PM10 & PM2.5
Concentrations

D

Implementation of a
Negligible (not N/A
Construction Environmental significant)
Management Plan.

Environmental
Protection Act
1990

Implementing good site
practice, including
dampening of exposed road
surfaces and stock piles of
materials. All vehicles
carrying loose aggregates
should be sheeted.

Air Quality
Directive
2008/50/EC;
The Air Quality
(England)
Regulations
2000

Ensure all motorised
equipment on-site is kept in
good working order.

Air Quality
(England)
(Amendment)
Regulations

Restrict on-site vehicle
movements where possible.
Use of best practice in
materials storage and
transportations, plant
maintenance and site
management.
Restrict HGV movements to
non-peak hour deliveries.
Traffic management
measures to minimise
congestion.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

N/A N/A N/A

The Air Quality
Standards
Regulations
2010
Air Quality
Strategy for
England,
Scotland, Wales
& Northern
Ireland July
2007.
Environmental
Protection Act
1990
WSP | Parsons
Brinckerhoff
Air Quality
70009799
Directive
May 2016
2008/50/EC;

The Air Quality
(England)
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

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION POST-MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE OF
EFFECTS
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
MAJOR /
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
/ LT
MODERATE / NEGATIVE
MT /
MINOR /
LT
NEGLIGIBLE
MT
Negligible (not N/A
N/A N/A N/A
significant)

RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y

Elsewhere, air
quality impacts
are negligible
at all locations
with relevant
exposure.
Operation

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION POST-MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE OF
EFFECTS
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
MAJOR /
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
/ LT
MODERATE / NEGATIVE
MT /
MINOR /
LT
NEGLIGIBLE
LT
Junction improvement/traffic Negligible (not N/A
N/A N/A N/A
control measures should be significant)
considered for the A253/A28
junction.

Sandwich Bay
to Hacklinge
Marshes
(SSSI) and
Sandwich Bay
and Thanet
Coast (SPA)

With Scenario Negative P
6, a negative
impact is
predicted in
relation to the
annual mean
NOx
concentration
at the very
edge of the
Sandwich Bay
to Hacklinge
Marshes SSSI
Negligible

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

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

The Air Quality
Standards
Regulations
2010
D

LT

The need for mitigation in
Negligible (not N/A
relation to Sandwich Bay to significant)
Hacklinge Marshes SSSI
under Scenario 6 should be
considered in consultation
with the Project Ecologist
and Natural England.

N/A N/A N/A

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

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION POST-MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE OF
EFFECTS
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
MAJOR /
POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
/ LT
MODERATE / NEGATIVE
MT /
MINOR /
LT
NEGLIGIBLE

RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y

The Air Quality
(England)
Regulations
2000;
Air Quality
(England)
(Amendment)
Regulations;
The Air Quality
Standards
Regulations
2010
Air Quality
Strategy for
England,
Scotland, Wales
& Northern
Ireland July
2007.

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 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 Kent’s Potential – Kent County Council’s Framework for
Regeneration
st
Kent County Council (2010), 21 Century Kent – A Blueprint for the County’s 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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 5 – Local Air Quality

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-1

6

NOISE AND VIBRATION

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

This Chapter is necessarily technical in nature; a glossary of terminology can be found in
Appendix 6.1.

6.2

LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

6.2.1

The applicable legislative framework is summarised as follows:
 The Control of Pollution Act (CoPA) 1974 (Ref 6.1) which was introduced to cover a wide
range of environmental pollution including noise. Parts of the Act have been superseded by
the Environmental Protection Act (please see below); and
 The Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (Ref 6.2) which amongst many other things
requires local authorities to issue a noise abatement notice where a noise nuisance is proven.

PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
6.2.2

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref 6.3) sets out the Government’s 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

on health and quality of life as a

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.”

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 government’s 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

In addition, the PPG refers to further considerations to mitigating noise on residential
developments. The PPG states that the noise impact may be partially off-set if the residents of
those dwellings have access to:
 “a relatively quiet facade (containing windows to habitable rooms) as part of their dwelling,
and/or;

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 COUNCIL’S LOCAL PLAN (2006)
6.2.12

Saved policies EP7 and EP8 of TDC’s 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

Saved policy D1 Design Principles states, inter alia:
“A new development proposal will only be permitted if it:
B.
is compatible with neighbouring buildings and spaces and does not lead to unacceptable
loss of amenity through overlooking, noise or vibration, light pollution, overshadowing, loss of
natural light, or sense of enclosure;”
GUIDANCE

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:

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

RELEVANT ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

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

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

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);

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

The following are considered the likely significant effects.
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
 Demolition and construction noise and vibration levels at existing receptors in addition to any
completed and occupied residential phases of the Proposed Development.
 Potential construction traffic during peak periods of the construction phase.
OPERATIONAL PHASE
 Increase in noise levels as a result of external fixed plant items associated with the nonresidential aspects of the Proposed Development (including the existing buildings which will
be subject to change of use).
 Increase in noise levels as a result of the operation of the employment and leisure space.
 Increase in road traffic noise levels on the surrounding road network as a result of movements
associated with the Proposed Development.
LIKELY INSIGNIFICANT EFFECTS

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 consultation emails can be found in Appendix 6.3.

EXTENT OF THE STUDY AREA
6.4.6

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.

METHOD OF BASELINE DATA COLLATION
BASELINE DATA COLLECTION
SITE VISIT
6.4.9

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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
White’s 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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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, Façade, dB
THE LEVEL OF NOISE SOLELY FROM
DEMOLITION/CONSTRUCTION WORKS

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

SCALE OF EFFECT
SIGNIFICANCE

SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE
EFFECT

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-9
≤65 dB LAeq,T (T – the time period over the core
working day)

Negligible

66 dB to 70 dB LAeq,T (T – the time period over
the core working day)

Minor negative

71 dB to 75 dB LAeq,T (T – the time period over
the core working day)

Moderate negative

≥76 dB LAeq,T (T – the time period over the core
working day)

Insignificant

Significant
Major negative

Table 6.3: Construction Vibration Criteria
PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY (PPV) MM/S
(TEMPORARY VIBRATION)
≤0.3

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

Table 6.4: Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment Criteria
CHANGE IN NOISE LEVEL, dB(A)

≥+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 –

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

DAYTIME (07:00 – 23:00)
LAEQ,16H
TYPICAL LA90,15MINS
63.0
37.2
63.4
37.3
67.2
39.6
69.1
47.6
70.5
56.8
55.2
39.7
48.1
36.0

LAEQ,8H
57.3
57.6
61.0
62.4
63.7
51.1
42.2

NIGHT-TIME (23:00) – (07:00)
TYPICAL LA90,15MINS
TYPICAL LAFMAX
28.7
86.3
29.4
82.0
26.1
86.3
32.1
84.1
31.8
88.7
36.7
78.5
28.4
67.3

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

The proposed dwellings are also considered as noise sensitive receptors.

6.7

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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;

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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, Façade, dB L Aeq,T

RECEPTOR

DEMOLITION AND
SITE CLEARANCE

SUBSTRUCTURE

SUPERSTRUCTURE EXTERNAL WORKS

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

Bell Davis Drive

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-14
King Arthur
Road

66

70

47

51

46

50

44

55

Ivy Cottage Hill

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

Mitigation measures are set out below.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

As all effects are insignificant, no specific mitigation measures are required.
RESIDUAL EFFECTS

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

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
A229 Hengist Way

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

2021 BASELINE

2021 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
CONSTRUCTION

73.7

73.7

0

66.8

66.9

+0.1

67.2

67.3

+0.1

65.4

65.5

+0.1

77.1

77.2

+0.1

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-17
ROAD LINK

Site 8
Site 9

64.5

64.5

0

A256 Haine Road: south of Spratling
Street

72.0

72.1

+0.1

69.0

69.0

0

70.8

70.8

0

67.6

67.6

0

79.4

79.4

0

68.1

68.5

+0.4

65.6

65.7

+0.1

66.2

66.2

0

65.3

65.3

0

67.6

67.6

0

62.7

62.7

0

67.9

67.9

0

B2048 Minster Road: north of B2190

64.6

64.6

0

Columbus Avenue: north of B2190

64.1

64.1

0

72.2

72.4

+0.2

76.3

76.4

+0.1

A28 Island Road

72.4

72.4

0

A299 Thanet Way

80.7

80.8

+0.1

68.6

68.8

+0.2

61.7

61.7

0

65.7

65.8

+0.1

A299 Hengist Way

B2190 Spitfire Way: east of Columbus
Site 20 Avenue
B2050 Manston Road: east of
Site 21 Shottendane Road
B2048 Park Lane: north of B2050
Site 23 Manston Road
Minster Road: north of Shottendance
Site 24 Road
B2052 Hartsdown Road: north of Tivoli
Site 25 Road
Tivoli Park Avenue: south of Mere
Site 26 Gate
A254 Ramsgate Road: north of
Site 27 Connaught Gardens
Site 33
Site 34

A256 Haine Road: south of B2050
Site 35 Manston Road
A256 Richborough Way: south
Site 36 Sandwich Road
Site 38
Site 39

2021 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
CONSTRUCTION

Sandwich Rd north of Foads Ln

A254 Margate Rd north of Whitehall
Site 10 Rd
A254 Ramsgate Road: north of
Site 11 Enterprise Road
B2052 College Road: west Upper
Site 16 Dane Road
Site 19

2021 BASELINE

A256 New Haine Road: north of
Site 40 Antolin Way
Manston Ct Rd: between Valley Rod
Site 42 and Manston Way
Manston Rd: between Vincent Road
Site 43 and Fleet Road

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-18
ROAD LINK

Minnis Rd between Gore End Close
Site 44 and Gallway Av
Star Lane: between Manston Ct Rd
Site 45 and Nash Road
Site 47

Site I-4
Site I-5
Site I-6

63.1

0

67.0

67.0

0

69.6

69.6

0

70.4

70.4

0

69.2

69.2

0

A299 west of Harbour Approach

71.5

71.5

0

A255 east of Harbour Approach

71.3

71.4

+0.1

London Rd east of junction with A255

68.6

68.6

0

A255 east of junction with London Rd

67.7

67.7

0

67.9

68.0

+0.1

68.7

68.7

0

66.9

66.9

0

A256 Haine Rd: East of Star Lane Link

Newington Rd north of A255 High
Site I-7 Street
A255 High Street east of junction with
Site I-8 B2014
B2014 Newington Rd north of junction
Site I-9 with Manston Rd
6.7.32

2021 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
CONSTRUCTION

63.1

A256 Westwood Rd east of Poorhole
Site 48 Ln Rbt
A28 Canterbury Road west of Park
Site I-1 Lane
Site I-3

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

No mitigation measures are considered necessary as all effects are negligible .
RESIDUAL EFFECTS

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

All residential receptors
(existing and proposed)

6.7.44

PERIOD

TYPICAL BACKGROUND
NOISE LEVEL (LA90)

NOISE LIMIT (LAR,T)

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

All residential receptors
(existing and proposed)

6.7.51

PERIOD

TYPICAL BACKGROUND
NOISE LEVEL (LA90)

NOISE LIMIT (LAR,T)

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

The following scenarios have been assessed:
1. 2021 baseline and 2021 baseline with Phase 1;
2. 2021 baseline and 2021 baseline with Proposed Development (including Phase 1);
3. 2026 baseline and 2026 baseline with Proposed Development (including Phase 1);
4. 2021 baseline and 2026 baseline with Proposed Development (including Phase 1).

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-22

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

0

Negligible

66.8

66.9

+0.1

Negligible

67.2

67.3

+0.1

Negligible

65.4

65.4

0

Negligible

A229 Hengist Way

77.1

77.0

-0.1

Negligible

Site 8

Sandwich Rd north of
Foads Ln

64.5

64.5

0

Negligible

Site 9

A256 Haine Road: south
of Spratling Street

72.0

72.1

+0.1

Negligible

69.0

69.0

0

Negligible

70.8

70.8

0

Negligible

67.6

67.6

0

Negligible

79.4

79.4

0

Negligible

68.1

68.3

+0.2

Negligible

65.6

65.7

+0.1

Negligible

66.2

66.2

0

Negligible

65.3

65.3

0

Negligible

67.6

67.6

0

Negligible

62.7

62.7

0

Negligible

67.9

67.9

0

Negligible

64.6

64.6

0

Negligible

Site 1

Site 2

Site 4

Site 5
Site 6

A254 Margate Rd north of
Site 10 Whitehall Rd
A254 Ramsgate Road:
Site 11 north of Enterprise Road
B2052 College Road:
Site 16 west Upper Dane Road
Site 19

A299 Hengist Way

B2190 Spitfire Way: east
Site 20 of Columbus Avenue
B2050 Manston Road:
Site 21 east of Shottendane Road
B2048 Park Lane: north
Site 23 of B2050 Manston Road
Minster Road: north of
Site 24 Shottendance Road
B2052 Hartsdown Road:
Site 25 north of Tivoli Road
Tivoli Park Avenue: south
Site 26 of Mere Gate
A254 Ramsgate Road:
north of Connaught
Site 27 Gardens
B2048 Minster Road:
Site 33 north of B2190

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-24
ROAD LINK

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

A299 Thanet Way

A256 New Haine Road:
Site 40 north of Antolin Way
Manston Ct Rd: between
Valley Rod and Manston
Site 42 Way
Manston Rd: between
Vincent Road and Fleet
Site 43 Road
Minnis Rd between Gore
End Close and Gallway
Site 44 Av
Star Lane: between
Manston Ct Rd and Nash
Site 45 Road
A256 Haine Rd: East of
Site 47 Star Lane Link
A256 Westwood Rd east
Site 48 of Poorhole Ln Rbt
Site I- A28 Canterbury Road
west of Park Lane
1
Site I- A299 west of Harbour
Approach
3
Site I- A255 east of Harbour
Approach
4
Site I- London Rd east of
junction with A255
5
Site I- A255 east of junction with
London Rd
6
Site I- Newington Rd north of
A255 High Street
7
Site I- A255 High Street east of
junction with B2014
8
B2014 Newington Rd
Site I- north of junction with
9
Manston Rd

2021
BASELINE

2021 BASELINE +
DIFFERENCE
PHASE 1

EFFECT

64.1

64.1

0

Negligible

72.2

72.2

0

Negligible

76.3

76.3

0

Negligible

72.4

72.4

0

Negligible

80.7

80.7

0

Negligible

68.6

68.6

0

Negligible

61.7

61.7

0

Negligible

65.7

65.8

+0.1

Negligible

63.1

63.1

0

Negligible

67.0

67.0

0

Negligible

69.6

69.6

0

Negligible

70.4

70.4

0

Negligible

69.2

69.2

0

Negligible

71.5

71.5

0

Negligible

71.3

71.3

0

Negligible

68.6

68.6

0

Negligible

67.7

67.7

0

Negligible

67.9

67.9

0

Negligible

68.7

68.7

0

Negligible

66.9

66.9

0

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

0

Negligible

66.8

67.5

+0.7

Negligible

67.2

67.6

+0.4

Negligible

65.4

65.9

+0.5

Negligible

A229 Hengist Way

77.1

77.4

+0.3

Negligible

Site 8

Sandwich Rd north of
Foads Ln

64.5

64.5

0

Negligible

Site 9

A256 Haine Road: south
of Spratling Street

72.0

72.3

+0.3

Negligible

69.0

69.0

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

A254 Margate Rd north of
Site 10 Whitehall Rd
A254 Ramsgate Road:
Site 11 north of Enterprise Road
B2052 College Road:
Site 16 west Upper Dane Road
Site 19

A299 Hengist Way

B2190 Spitfire Way: east
Site 20 of Columbus Avenue
B2050 Manston Road:
Site 21 east of Shottendane Road
B2048 Park Lane: north
Site 23 of B2050 Manston Road
Minster Road: north of
Site 24 Shottendance Road
B2052 Hartsdown Road:
Site 25 north of Tivoli Road
Tivoli Park Avenue: south
Site 26 of Mere Gate
A254 Ramsgate Road:
north of Connaught
Site 27 Gardens

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-26
ROAD LINK

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

A299 Thanet Way
A256 New Haine Road:
north of Antolin Way
Manston Ct Rd: between
Valley Rod and Manston
Way
Manston Rd: between
Vincent Road and Fleet
Road
Minnis Rd between Gore
End Close and Gallway
Av
Star Lane: between
Manston Ct Rd and Nash
Road
A256 Haine Rd: East of
Star Lane Link

A256 Westwood Rd east
Site 48 of Poorhole Ln Rbt
Site I- A28 Canterbury Road
west of Park Lane
1
Site I- A299 west of Harbour
Approach
3
Site I- A255 east of Harbour
Approach
4
Site I- London Rd east of
junction with A255
5
Site I- A255 east of junction with
London Rd
6
Site I- Newington Rd north of
A255 High Street
7
Site I- A255 High Street east of
junction with B2014
8
B2014 Newington Rd
Site I- north of junction with
9
Manston Rd

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

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

0

Negligible

69.2

69.2

0

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

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

0

Negligible

67.0

67.7

+0.7

Negligible

67.4

67.8

+0.4

Negligible

65.7

66.1

+0.4

Negligible

A229 Hengist Way

77.3

77.7

+0.4

Negligible

Site 8

Sandwich Rd north of
Foads Ln

64.7

64.7

0

Negligible

Site 9

A256 Haine Road: south
of Spratling Street

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

0

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

0

Negligible

Site 1

Site 2

Site 4

Site 5
Site 6

A254 Margate Rd north of
Site 10 Whitehall Rd
A254 Ramsgate Road:
Site 11 north of Enterprise Road
B2052 College Road:
Site 16 west Upper Dane Road
Site 19

A299 Hengist Way

B2190 Spitfire Way: east
Site 20 of Columbus Avenue
B2050 Manston Road:
Site 21 east of Shottendane Road
B2048 Park Lane: north
Site 23 of B2050 Manston Road
Minster Road: north of
Site 24 Shottendance Road
B2052 Hartsdown Road:
Site 25 north of Tivoli Road
Tivoli Park Avenue: south
Site 26 of Mere Gate
A254 Ramsgate Road:
Site 27 north of Connaught

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

A299 Thanet Way
A256 New Haine Road:
north of Antolin Way
Manston Ct Rd: between
Valley Rod and Manston
Way
Manston Rd: between
Vincent Road and Fleet
Road
Minnis Rd between Gore
End Close and Gallway
Av
Star Lane: between
Manston Ct Rd and Nash
Road
A256 Haine Rd: East of
Star Lane Link

A256 Westwood Rd east
Site 48 of Poorhole Ln Rbt
Site I- A28 Canterbury Road
west of Park Lane
1
Site I- A299 west of Harbour
Approach
3
Site I- A255 east of Harbour
Approach
4
Site I- London Rd east of
junction with A255
5
Site I- A255 east of junction with
London Rd
6
Site I- Newington Rd north of
A255 High Street
7
Site I- A255 High Street east of
junction with B2014
8

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

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

0

Negligible

69.8

70.0

+0.2

Negligible

70.6

70.7

+0.1

Negligible

69.4

69.4

0

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

0

Negligible

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

A229 Hengist Way

77.1

77.7

+0.6

Negligible

Site 8

Sandwich Rd north of
Foads Ln

64.5

64.7

+0.2

Negligible

Site 9

A256 Haine Road: south
of Spratling Street

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

A254 Margate Rd north of
Site 10 Whitehall Rd
A254 Ramsgate Road:
Site 11 north of Enterprise Road
B2052 College Road:
Site 16 west Upper Dane Road
Site 19

A299 Hengist Way

B2190 Spitfire Way: east
Site 20 of Columbus Avenue
B2050 Manston Road:
Site 21 east of Shottendane Road
B2048 Park Lane: north
Site 23 of B2050 Manston Road
Minster Road: north of
Site 24 Shottendance Road

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-30
ROAD LINK

B2052 Hartsdown Road:
Site 25 north of Tivoli Road
Tivoli Park Avenue: south
Site 26 of Mere Gate
A254 Ramsgate Road:
north of Connaught
Site 27 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

A299 Thanet Way
A256 New Haine Road:
north of Antolin Way
Manston Ct Rd: between
Valley Rod and Manston
Way
Manston Rd: between
Vincent Road and Fleet
Road
Minnis Rd between Gore
End Close and Gallway
Av
Star Lane: between
Manston Ct Rd and Nash
Road
A256 Haine Rd: East of
Star Lane Link

A256 Westwood Rd east
Site 48 of Poorhole Ln Rbt
Site I- A28 Canterbury Road
west of Park Lane
1
Site I- A299 west of Harbour
Approach
3
Site I- A255 east of Harbour
Approach
4
Site I- London Rd east of
junction with A255
5
Site I- A255 east of junction with
London Rd
6

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

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

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-31
ROAD LINK

Site I- Newington Rd north of
A255 High Street
7
Site I- A255 High Street east of
junction with B2014
8
B2014 Newington Rd
Site I- north of junction with
9
Manston Rd
6.7.67

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

SITE SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT

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

Each of these is considered below.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 façade to ensure that suitable internal noise levels can be achieved in habitable
rooms overlooking the roads.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-33
6.8.12

The sound reduction performance requirements for the building façade 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 façade, 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 façade 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

SOUND REDUCTION (RW)

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

*Includes a +5dB adjustment in accordance with the simplified methodology in BS 8233:2014.

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 façades. 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 occupant’s 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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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)

PASSIVE THROUGH-WALL VENTILATORS (OPEN) DB(A)

From 14 to 40 (depending on model)

From 30 to 46 (depending on model)

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 façade, 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.

PROPOSED PRIMARY SCHOOLS
6.8.23

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

LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

OPERATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE
6.9.2

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

D

LT

Demolition and
construction
vibration

Existing and
proposed
residential
receptors
Existing
residential
receptors

Negligible to
minor

T

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

Demolition and Construction

Construction
traffic

Negligible to
moderate

Negative

T

D

MT

None

Control of
Pollution Act
1974

Negligible to
minor

Negative

T

D

ST

None

Control of
Pollution Act
1974

N/A

T

D

ST

None

None

Application of the principle of
Best Practicable Means

ST

Implementation of a CEMP

D

ST

Application of the principle of
Best Practicable Means
None required
Negligible

Not assessed Negative P
but potentially
major

D

LT

Mitigation to be considered Negligible
at the detailed design stage
to ensure all relevant noise
sources meet the noise limits
in Tables 6.9 and 6.10

N/A

P

D

LT

None

Environmental
Protection Act
1990

Negligible to
minor

Negative P

D

LT

None required

Negligible to
minor

Negative

P

D

LT

None

N/A

Negligible

N/A

D

LT

None required

Negligible

N/A

P

D

LT

None

Environmental
Protection Act
1990

Negligible

Negative T

N/A

D

Operation
Noise from
commercial/
industrial sources
associated with
the proposed
employment and
mixed use areas
Operational road
traffic
Use of Spitfire
Park

P

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

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

6-38
6.11

REFERENCES
Ref. 6.1:

The Control of Pollution Act 1974. London. HMSO.

Ref. 6.2:

The Environmental Protection Act 1990. London. HMSO.

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

Department of Communities and Local Government, (2014); Planning Practice

Ref. 6.6:

Thanet District Council; Local Plan (2006)

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:

Department of Transport/Welsh Office (1988), Calculation of Road Traffic Noise

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.

Department for Education. (2015) Acoustic design of schools: performance

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 6 – Noise and Vibration

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-1

7

ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

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

Information for Habitats
Regulations Assessment
Detailed Information on
Planning Policy
Extended Phase 1 Habitat
Survey
Ecological Desk Study

Appendix 7.7

Further Building Inspections
for Bats
Bat Activity Surveys –
Interim Results
Wintering Bird Survey

Appendix 7.8

Bat Hibernation Survey

Appendix 7.6

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

APPENDIX TITLE

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-2
FIGURE
REFERENCE

7.2

FIGURE TITLE

APPENDIX
REFERENCE
Appendix 7.9

APPENDIX TITLE

Appendix 7.10

Outline Ecological Mitigation
and Management Strategy

Meeting Notes

LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

7.2.1

The applicable legislative framework is summarised as follows:
 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (Ref. 7.1);
 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (Ref. 7.2);
 The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (Ref. 7.3);
 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (Ref. 7.4);
 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and
Flora (1992) (Ref. 7.5); and
 Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (2009) (Ref. 7.6).

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 Kent’s Potential – Kent County Council’s 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 England’s 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

RELEVANT ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION

7.4.1

This Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) has been prepared with reference to the Chartered
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s 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.

1

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).

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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:

2

 Designated sites and habitats;
 Protected species and species of conservation concern;
 Species of Principal Importance (SPI);
 Local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and habitats;
 Habitats of nature conservation value at a Local scale and above; and
 Legally controlled (i.e. invasive) species.
7.4.6

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

2

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’.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Timescales for ecology surveys up until
August 2016 were conveyed to all attendees.
Follow-up discussion regarding survey scope
with Stefanie Bramley during post-meeting
workshop.

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

Full assessment of potential impacts on
ecosystems and protected species within the
site required; impact of climate change and
how ecological networks will be maintained;
full assessment of potential impacts on
designated sites, including HRA input relating
to recreational pressure, loss of functionallylinked land, water quality and air quality.
Recommendation for use of DAS (see below).
Agreement that the ES will report on the
assessment of the potential for the Proposed
Development to affect designated sites and
that ‘Information for Habitats Regulations
Assessment’ will be provided.
Key considerations for HRA reporting, to
include water discharge, air quality and
recreational pressure on designated sites.

Agreed the proposed survey effort and
seasonal timing for baseline ecological
surveys.

EXTENT OF THE STUDY AREA
7.4.9

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.

METHOD OF BASELINE DATA COLLATION
DESK STUDY
7.4.11

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

SEARCH
RADIUS
FROM SITE
BOUNDARY

DATA SOURCE

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-6
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL FEATURE

SEARCH
RADIUS
FROM SITE
BOUNDARY

DATA SOURCE

Designated Sites and Habitats
European Designated Sites (Special Areas of
10km
Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA)
and Ramsar Sites (wetlands of international
importance)).

Natural England Corporate datasets,
citations and data held by the Joint
Nature Conservation Committee
(JNCC).

UK Statutory Designated Sites (Sites of Special
2km
Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserves
(NNR, Local Nature Reserves (LNR)).

Natural England Corporate datasets.

Non-statutory Designated Sites Local Wildlife Sites
(LWS)

Kent and Medway Biological Records
Centre (KMBRC).

2km

Ancient Woodland

Natural England Corporate datasets.

Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI)

Natural England Corporate datasets.

Species
Protected & Notable Species Records

2km

KMBRC.

Bat Records

5km

KMBRC using data gathered by Kent
Bat Group.

SITE VISIT / OTHER ASSESSMENT
7.4.12

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

FIELD SURVEY METHODS

DATES OF
SURVEY

REFERENCE
/APPENDIX

Extended
Phase 1
habitat survey

An extended Phase 1 habitat survey of the Study Area was
completed in accordance with good practice guidance (Ref.
7.14 and Ref. 7.15).

June 2015.

Appendix 7.3

Bats

Roost survey (inspection)

June and
October
2015.

Appendix 7.5

External and internal (where possible) inspections were
undertaken at each of the buildings on the site to determine
potential to support roosting bats. Evidence indicating current
or historic use of the buildings by bats was also searched for,
in accordance with good practice (Ref. 7.16).
Roost survey (emergence / re-entry)
Buildings within the site boundary which have the potential to
be affected by the Proposed Development and support bat
roosts will subject to emergence / re-entry survey. Survey
methods used and level of survey will depend on the features

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

Scheduled
Pending
for May to
August 2016.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-7
TOPIC

FIELD SURVEY METHODS

DATES OF
SURVEY

REFERENCE
/APPENDIX

September
2015.

Appendix 7.6

present, potential for direct effects and access constraints and
will be designed with regard for with current good practice
guidance (Ref. 7.17).
Activity survey
Manual transect surveys were completed in September 2015;
this entailed surveyors walking four pre-determined transect
routes from 15 minutes pre-dusk until 120 minutes post-dusk to
watch and listen for bats. As the Site has been assessed as of
low suitability habitat for bats, one survey visit is required per
season. Further surveys are therefore scheduled for spring /
summer 2016.
Automated detector survey (Song Meter SM2Bat) was
completed for a period of at least five nights in September
2015 at eight locations within the site. Recordings were
analysed using Analook. This approach is consistent with good
practice guidance (Ref. 7.19). Further automated monitoring is
scheduled for five nights in each month between April and
August. This elevated level of survey effort has been discussed
and agreed with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) as a robust
means of gathering data which provides a more detailed
reflection of bat species and activity across the survey area.

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

Breeding bird surveys will have regard for standard methods
(Ref 7.18) and will comprise five evenly spaced survey visits
completed by two surveyors between April and June to cover
the period when birds are most likely to be nesting.

Scheduled
for April to
June 2016.

Botanical
survey

Botanical surveys will be undertaken between May and August Scheduled
Pending
2016 to determine the presence or otherwise of protected or
for May to
notable plant species on the site. Areas of less closely
August 2016.
managed grassland on the site will be focussed upon, with
quadrat data being gathered with regard for current good
practice guidance (Ref. 7.19). Species lists will be collated
detailing the frequency of occurrence of species recorded in
each grassland parcel.

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).

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

Pending

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-8
TOPIC

FIELD SURVEY METHODS

DATES OF
SURVEY

REFERENCE
/APPENDIX

Reptiles

Reptile surveys commenced in April 2016. Refugia have been
deployed in the most suitable habitat on the Site to establish
the presence or likely absence of reptiles. The checks,
comprising survey of artificial refugia and visual observation of
natural refugia and basking habitat will be undertaken on seven
occasions during suitable weather conditions within the active
period. Reptile surveys will be completed with regard for
current good practice guidance (Ref. 7.24 and Ref. 7.25).

April 2016.

Pending

An entomologist will complete a walkover survey to evaluate
the potential for habitats present to support an invertebrate
assemblage of elevated value and to gather samples. This will
be completed in spring 2016. The requirement for further
survey will be reconsidered after the walkover survey and the
exact methods and extent of survey informed by the initial
walkover/sampling. Surveys will be undertaken with regard for
current good practice guidelines (Ref. 7.26 and Ref. 7.27).

Scheduled
for May (to
August if
further
surveys are
necessary)
2016.

Terrestrial
invertebrates

Subsequent
surveys
scheduled
for May and
June 2016.

Pending

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
SCOPING AND EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL FEATURES
7.4.14

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

A number of characteristics are considered to contribute the importance of ecological features,
including for example (but not exclusively) the rarity of a species or habitat, habitat diversity,
whether the species population size is notable in a wider context, rich assemblages of plants and
animals and species on the edge of their range, particularly where their distribution is changing as
a result of global trends and climate change.

CHARACTERISING THE POTENTIAL EFFECT
7.4.18

Based on an understanding of the baseline conditions and of the Proposed Development,
potential effects on important ecological features scoped into the assessment to date have been
considered, taking into account construction (to include site preparation and demolition of existing

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Where the Proposed Development would cause a
significant improvement (or deterioration) to the existing
environment.

Moderate

Where the Proposed Development would cause a
noticeable improvement (or deterioration) to the existing
environment.

Local (Minster Parish)

Minor

Where the Proposed Development would cause a barely
perceptible improvement (or deterioration) to the existing
environment.

Site / Negligible

Negligible

Where the Proposed Development would result in no
discernible improvement or deterioration to the existing

National (England)
Regional (South-East England)
County (Kent)
District (Thanet)

3

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).

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-10
GEOGRAPHIC SCALE

SIGNIFICANCE DEFINITION
environment

ASSIGNING A THRESHOLD VALUE
7.4.23

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.

CONFIDENCE IN PREDICTION OF EFFECT ON ECOLOGICAL FEATURE
7.4.24

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

Thanet Coast SPA
and
Sandwich
Bay

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).

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

The site supports internationally important numbers of wintering
ruddy turnstone, nationally important numbers of a breeding
seabird, and four wader species including; ringed plover
Charadrius hiaticula, golden plover Pluvialis apricaria, grey
plover Pluvialis squatarola, and sanderling Calidris alba. The
site is used by many migratory bird species, including the
Lapland bunting Calcarius lapponicus. In addition, many
passerine birds also pass through the area during spring and
autumn migration. Large numbers of nationally scarce
invertebrate species occur at the site.
Ramsar Criterion 2:
The site supports 15 British Red Data Book wetland
invertebrates.
Ramsar Criterion 6:
The following species/populations occur at levels of
international importance:
Overwinter; ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres interpres (NE
Canada, Greenland/W Europe & NW Africa) 1007 individuals,
representing an average of 1% of the population (5 year peak
mean 1998/9-2002/3).

Sandwich
Bay

SAC

905m SE

Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this
site:
2110 Embryonic shifting dunes
The Embryonic shifting dunes at Sandwich Bay are
representative of this habitat type in south-east England. The
seaward edge of the north of this site displays a good sequence
of embryonic shifting dune communities and there is a clear
zonation within the dune habitat, with strandline species on the
seaward edge and sand-binding grasses inland. Lyme-grass
Leymus arenarius is extremely sparse and sand couch Elytrigia
juncea is the dominant sand-binding species.
2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila
arenaria (white dunes)
This habitat occurs along the seaward edge of the northern half
of this extensive dune system. The shifting dune vegetation
contains a good range of characteristic foredune species
including sea bindweed Calystegia soldanella, sea spurge
Euphorbia paralias and sea-holly Eryngium maritimum.
2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey
dunes)
Sandwich Bay is a largely inactive dune system with a
particularly extensive representation of fixed dune grassland,
the only large area of this habitat in the extreme south-east of
England. The vegetation is extremely species-rich and the site
has been selected because it includes a number of rare and
scarce species, such as fragrant evening-primrose Oenothera
stricta, bedstraw broomrape Orobanche caryophyllacea and

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-12
SITE NAME

DESIGNATION

PROXIMITY TO DESCRIPTION
SITE
sand catchfly Silene conica, as well as the UK’s 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.

Thanet Coast SAC

940m SE

Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this
site:
1170 Reefs
Thanet Coast been selected on account of the unusual
communities that are found on the longest continuous stretch of
coastal chalk in the UK. This site contains an example of reefs
on soft chalk along the shore. Thanet has sublittoral chalk
platforms that extend into the littoral and form chalk cliffs.
Species present include an unusually rich littoral algal flora,
essentially of chalk-boring algae, which may extend above high
water mark into the splash zone in wave-exposed areas.
Thanet remains the sole known location for some algal species.
8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves
Thanet Coast provides the second most extensive
representation of chalk caves in the UK on the extreme southeast coast of England. Partially submerged caves around
Thanet vary considerably in depth, height and aspect and
hence in the algal communities present. They support very
specialised algal and lichen communities containing species
such as Pseudendoclonium submarinum and Lyngbya spp.,
some of which have never been recorded elsewhere.

Outer
Thames
Estuary

SPA

Margate and
Long Sands

SAC

3542m N

Annex I birds and regularly occurring migratory birds not listed
on annex 1:
Marine area with high numbers of overwintering North- western
European red throated divers Gavia stellata; 38% of the
population in Great Britain. The Thames also supports
important commercial fisheries (as well as estuarine and marine
angling), there is also a well-established cockle industry.
Human activities such as static net fishing pose threats for
divers.

4706m N

Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this
site:
1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water
all the time
Margate and Long Sands starts to the north of the Thanet coast
of Kent and proceeds in a north-easterly direction to the outer
reaches of the Thames Estuary. It contains a number of Annex
I Sandbanks slightly covered by seawater at all times, the
largest of which is Long Sands itself. In common with all
sandbanks the structure of the banks is dynamic and there
have been significant movements of the bank edges over time.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stodmarsh is located in central Kent in south east England. It is
a wetland site resulting from subsidence under the valley of the
Great Stour. The range of wetland habitats include open water,
extensive reedbeds, grazing marsh and alder Alnus glutinosa
carr. The site supports a number of uncommon wetland
invertebrates and plants, and provides wintering habitats for
wetland bird species. It is especially notable in winter for
supporting significant numbers of hen harrier Circus cyaneus
and bittern Botaurus stellaris.
This site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive
(79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European
importance of the following species;
Bittern Botaurus stellaris; 2 individuals representing at least
2.0% of the wintering population in Great Britain (5 year peak
count, 1987/8-1991/2)
Hen harrier Circus cyaneus; 9 individuals representing at least
1.2% of the wintering population in Great Britain (5 year peak
count, 1987/8-1991/2).
This site qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive
(79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European
importance of the following species:
During the breeding season the area regularly supports:
Gadwall Anas strepera (North-western Europe) 0.8% of the
population in Great Britain
(5 year mean, 1988-1992)
Over winter the area regularly supports: shoveler Anas clypeata
(North-western/Central Europe) 1.9% of the population in Great
Britain (5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96)
Overwinter the area regularly supports: Gadwall Anas strepera
(North-western Europe) 1.8% of the population in Great Britain
(5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96)
The overall assemblage of birds is internationally important.

SAC

7660m SW

Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this
site:
1016 Desmoulin`s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana
A sizeable population of Desmoulin’s whorl snail lives beside
ditches within pasture on the floodplain of the River Stour,
where reed sweet-grass Glyceria maxima, large sedges Carex
spp. and sometimes common reed Phragmites australis
dominate the vegetation. Stodmarsh is a south-eastern outlier
of the main swathe of sites and is important in confirming the
role of underlying base-rich rock (chalk) as a factor determining
this species’ distribution.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-14
SITE NAME

DESIGNATION

PROXIMITY TO DESCRIPTION
SITE

Ramsar Site

8317m SW

Stodmarsh is a complex site comprising inland, marine and
coastal wetlands. It is important because it supports species of
uncommon wetland invertebrates and nationally rare and
scarce plants, as well as providing breeding and wintering
habitat for several wetland bird species, particularly waterfowl
such as gadwall Anas Strepera. European otter Lutra lutra also
occur on site. The main activities occurring on site include
nature conservation, recreation, research and fishing.
Ramsar Criterion 2:
Six British Red Data Book wetland invertebrates. Two nationally
rare plants, and five nationally scarce species. A diverse
assemblage of rare wetland birds.
Qualifying Species/populations (as identified at designation):
Species regularly supported during the breeding season:
Gadwall Anas strepera strepera (NW Europe) 6 pairs,
representing an average of 1% of the Great British population
(1988-92)
Species with peak counts in spring/autumn:
Gadwall Anas strepera strepera (NW Europe) 267 individuals,
representing an average of 1.5% of the Great British population
(5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)
Species with peak counts in winter:
Great bittern Botaurus stellaris stellaris (W Europe, NW Africa)
2 individuals, representing an average of 2% of the Great
British population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)
Northern shoveler Anas clypeata (NW & C Europe) 274
individuals, representing an average of 1.8% of the Great
British population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)
Hen harrier Circus cyaneus (Europe) 9 individuals, representing
an average of 1.2% of the Great British population (5 winter
period peak count 1987/8-1991/2).

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

Sandwich Bay SSSI
to Hacklinge
Marshes

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.

Sandwich and NNR
Pegwell Bay

905m SE

One of Kent Wildlife Trust’s largest and most important nature
reserves, with the only ancient dune pasture in Kent. The
reserve is made up of a complex mosaic of habitats: inter-tidal
mudflats, saltmarsh, shingle beach, sand dunes, ancient dune
pastures, chalk cliffs, wave cut platform and coastal scrubland.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

NON-STATUTORY DESIGNATED SITES
7.5.3

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-16
such as false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) and cock’s-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):

5

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 Kent’s neutral grassland). A significant
proportion of Thanet’s 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
Thanet’s 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

5

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-17
HABITAT
PARCEL

AREA/
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH &
(PROPORTION
OF SITE)

CONSERVATION
VALUE

Dense scrub

0.47ha
(0.15%)

Dense scrub was recorded in 7 locations around the Site.
These were typically bramble (Rubus fruticosus) dominated
areas of unmanaged ‘overgrown’ vegetation in small pockets;
frequently associated with marginal areas, inaccessible
corners near fencing or buildings or earth mounds. Other
species recorded included elder (Sambucus nigra), dog rose
(Rosa canina), common nettle (Urtica dioica) and hawthorn
(Crataegus monogyna).

Negligible

Dense scrub /
tall ruderal
mosaic

0.03ha
(0.01%)

A small area of dense scrub and tall ruderal vegetation was
Negligible
recorded close to buildings in the central-eastern part of the
Site. This was growing as unmanaged vegetation with bramble
being dominant. Other species included hedge mustard
(Sisymbrium officinale), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis),
false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), creeping thistle
(Cirsium arvense), elder and cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata).
Occasional spikes of bee orchid (Ophrys apifera) were also
recorded in this location.

Scattered
scrub

0.11ha
(0.03%)

Scattered scrub was recorded as individual bushes or as
Negligible
scattered woody vegetation within other habitat types in a few
locations; typically close to fencing or buildings or as invading
woody species. Examples include invading goat willow (Salix
caprea) in grassland in the south-east of the Site and elder
scrub with cow parsley (Anthriscus sylvestris) and Alexanders
(Smyrnium olusatrum) on the north-eastern edge of the Site
(north of Manston Road).

Scattered
0.02ha
scrub/tall
(0.01%)
ruderal mosaic

An area of tall vegetation around an oil interceptor toward the
eastern end of the runway was recorded as a mosaic of
scattered scrub with tall ruderal vegetation. Scrub species
included abundant hawthorn with occasional elder and dog
rose. Tall ruderal species included frequent ox-eye daisy
(Leucanthemum vulgare) with occasional common mallow
(Malva sylvestris), ivy (Hedera helix) and Alexanders. False
oat-grass was also frequent here.

Scattered
broadleaved
trees

Scattered broadleaved trees were recorded in relatively few
Site
locations around the Site; most notably as rows of mature and
semi-mature trees along the eastern and western boundaries
of the grassland areas north of Manston Road. These rows
were dominated by sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) with
other trees including ornamental alder (likely Italian alder;
Alnus cordata). A short row of sycamore was also recorded to
the east of the Site just south of the former main car-par, with
a few scattered trees comprising cherry (Prunus sp.), rowan
(Sorbus aucuparia) and silver birch (Betula pendula) just northwest of this same car park.

N/A

Semi-improved 70.15ha
neutral
(22.13%)
grassland

Negligible

Semi-improved neutral grassland covers large parts of the site, District
particularly beyond the eastern and western ends of the
runway and around buildings in the north-west of the Site
(north of Manston Road). Smaller areas of this habitat were
also recorded around the access road and former car-park to
the east of the former Site entrance/terminal building. The
dominant and characteristic species recorded in these areas
included tall and coarse grasses such as false oat-grass,
cock’s-foot, Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), creeping bent
(Agrostis stolonifera), red fescue (Festuca rubra), perennial
rye-grass (Lolium perenne) and meadow fescue (Festuca
pratensis) along with a variety of herbs such as ox-eye daisy,
ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), yarrow (Achillea

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-18
HABITAT
PARCEL

AREA/
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH &
(PROPORTION
OF SITE)

CONSERVATION
VALUE

millefolium), bulbous buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus), rough
hawkbit (Leontodon hispidus), goat’s-beard (Tragopogon
pratensis) and common vetch (Vicia sativa). These species
favour neutral conditions resulting in these areas being
classified as largely neutral grassland. However, species
indicative of the underlying calcareous soil-type within the Site
were also recorded. This included yellow oat-grass (Trisetum
flavescens) which in some areas (particularly to the eastern
end of the runway) was locally frequent or abundant. Other
species favouring calcareous conditions (although only
occurring as occasional or rare) included common restharrow
(Ononis repens), grass vetchling (Lathyrus nissolia) and bee
orchid; the latter being a very rare component of the open
grassland but also found in localised locations in unmanaged
areas around the Site.
Poor semiimproved
grassland

118.59ha
(37.41%)

Species-poor semi-improved grassland was recorded as one District
of the dominant habitat types across the Site (along with semiimproved neutral grassland). This grassland included areas
understood to be subject to twice annual fertilisation and at
least annual cutting for silage (site security, pers. Comm.)
occupying extensive areas either side of the runway as well as
across the large individual field north of Manston Road. This
management has evidently resulted in a very grass-dominated
sward, with limited species diversity and low percentage cover
of herb species. In addition, grassland around the former
airport buildings was recorded as this habitat type (including in
the isolated part of the Site around the former fuel store).
These areas included parcels not subject to silage cutting, but
dominated by coarse grass species and generally lacking a
diversity of herb species. It is possible that some of these
areas may have previously been managed as short ‘amenity’
grassland close to the buildings, but have been left to become
tall and ‘rank’ through lack of management.
Characteristic species in parcels of this habitat type include
coarse grasses such as false oat-grass, cock’s-foot, red
fescue, Yorkshire fog, common couch (Elymus repens) and
perennial rye-grass. Other grasses occurring in some areas
(but typically with less dominance) included yellow oat-grass
and timothy (Phleum pratense). Herb species generally
occurred as occasional or rare components of this community,
with species such as hoary cress (Lepidium draba), ox-eye
daisy, red clover (Trifolium pratense), black medick (Medicago
lupulina), ribwort plantain and common mallow all recorded.
Overall, these areas of grassland are dominated by species
favouring mesotrophic conditions, likely as a result of regular
fertilisation and management (see above). The presence of
species such as yellow oat-grass indicate some influence of
the underlying calcareous soil type, although these species
were never as abundant as those indicating neutral grassland.

Scattered
1.63ha
scrub/ poor
(0.51%)
semi-improved
grassland/tall
ruderal mosaic

A narrow triangular area of land in the south-east of the Site
(outside the boundary fence but within the red-line area) was
recorded as a mosaic habitat due to the mixture of species
present. This area is likely to have been originally grassland,
but tall ruderal and scrub species were recorded throughout
indicating varying stages of succession due to lack of recent
management. The grassland component was dominated by
coarse grasses; particularly false oat-grass with cock’s-foot,
Yorkshire fog and common couch also present. Ruderal

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

Site

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-19
HABITAT
PARCEL

AREA/
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH &
(PROPORTION
OF SITE)

CONSERVATION
VALUE

species included Alexanders, hogweed (Heracleum
sphondylium), creeping thistle and common mallow with young
elder scrub also developing.
Poor semi0.16ha
improved
(0.05%)
grassland/tall
ruderal mosaic

A mosaic of species-poor semi-improved grassland and tall
ruderal vegetation was recorded on earth banks close to the
former car-park in the eastern part of the Site. These areas
were dominated by coarse grasses such as false oat-grass
with ruderal species including Alexanders, common mallow,
hedge bedstraw (Galium mollugo) and wild mignonette
(Reseda lutea). Bladder campion (Silene vulgaris) was also
present here as a rare species in the sward.

Poor semi0.08ha
improved
(0.03%)
grassland/
ephemeral /
short-perennial
mosaic

An unmown square area of species-poor grassland just to the Negligible
north of Manston Road was recorded as a mosaic with
invading ephemeral/short perennial vegetation likely due to the
presence of stony substrate/rubble in the ground. Red fescue
and cock’s-foot were characteristic of the grassland
component, with common mallow, ribwort plantain, spear
thistle (Cirsium vulgare), yarrow and hedge bedstraw also
present as self-seeded vegetation.

Tall Ruderal

Tall ruderal vegetation was recorded as the dominant habitat
in 6 individual locations across the Site. These were typically
unmanaged ‘edge’ habitat close to boundary fencing or
buildings, often on raised banks or earth bunds. Species
included a variety of taller vegetation such as hemlock
(Conium maculatum), cow parsley, curled dock (Rumex
crispus), common mallow, hedge mustard, hedge bedstraw
and Alexanders. Coarse grasses such as cock’s-foot and
common couch were also evident in places.

0.27ha
(0.09%)

Tall Ruderal/
0.70ha
ephemeral /
(0.22%)
short-perennial
mosaic

Negligible

Negligible

A mixture of ruderal and ephemeral species was recorded as Negligible
colonising vegetation in various locations around the Site. This
habitat was typically associated with the edges of hardstanding areas, particularly to the north and south of the
runway and amongst cracks in concrete and tarmac surfaces
elsewhere on Site. Characteristic species included common
mallow, biting stonecrop (Sedum acre), bristly ox-tongue
(Helminthotheca echioides), red fescue and hedge mustard
occurring as occasional plants or in small clumps. More rarely
occurring species included soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus),
barren brome (Bromus sterilis), rat’s-tail fescue (Vulpia
myuros) and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense).
An area of recently disturbed and partially bare ground was
recorded south of buildings in the eastern part of the Site. This
had colonising ruderal and ephemeral vegetation including
common poppy (Papaver rhoeas), common mallow, bristly oxtongue, ox-eye daisy, cock’s-foot and scarlet pimpernel
(Anagallis arvensis).

Standing water <0.01ha
(<0.01%)

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

Arable land was recorded in three locations within the Site.
This included a large arable field to the north-east of the
runway, outside the boundary fence but partially included
within the red-line boundary. A further two co-joined arable

16.57ha
(8.6%)

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

Site

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-20
HABITAT
PARCEL

AREA/
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH &
(PROPORTION
OF SITE)

CONSERVATION
VALUE

fields were recorded south of the boundary fence (but again
within the red-line area) adjacent to the A299 (Hengist Way).
All arable areas were in use for wheat production at the time of
survey.
Amenity
grassland

0.39ha
(0.12%)

Amenity grassland was recorded as short, heavily managed
(mown) lawns in association with the RAF History/RAF
Manston Museum’s in the north-west of the Site (north of
Manston Road). These areas were dominated by perennial
rye-grass with other species including smooth meadow-grass
(Poa pratensis), ribwort plantain and yarrow.

Negligible

Scattered
0.17ha
broadleaved
(0.05%)
trees/ amenity
grassland
mosaic

Amenity grassland including scattered broadleaved trees was Negligible
recorded at the north-eastern end of the land associated with
the RAF History/RAF Manston Museum’s (see above).
Species within the grassland were as described under Amenity
Grassland above, with trees including a mixture of ornamental
species planted as part of a memorial garden. These included
small whitebeam (Sorbus sp.), rowan, cherries, maples (Acer
sp.) and birches (Betula sp.) under-planted with lavender
(Lavandula sp.) in places.

Ephemeral /
0.18ha
short-perennial (0.06%)

Colonising plant species collectively classified as
Negligible
ephemeral/short-perennial vegetation were recorded in
numerous locations around the Site, often in association with
the interface between grassland and hard-standing and
growing in cracks within the hard-standing itself. Species such
as prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), smooth sow-thistle
(Sonchus oleraceus), hedge mustard, common mallow,
common poppy and bristly ox-tongue were typical, with
grasses including rat’s-tail fescue, false oat-grass, and soft
brome. A small area of ephemeral vegetation was recorded
outside the boundary fence (but within the red-line area) east
of the former terminal buildings. This comprised an area of
gravel with colonising vegetation including similar species to
those above plus frequent red fescue and other less frequent
grasses including barren brome and creeping bent.

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).

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-21
HABITAT
PARCEL

AREA/
DESCRIPTION
LENGTH &
(PROPORTION
OF SITE)

Buildings

2.50ha
(0.79%)

In general the buildings are dominated by large aircraft
Negligible
hangars with sheet metal construction or ancillary buildings of
modern construction. Many of these are very small (e.g.
various electrical sub-station buildings); a selection of
temporary buildings (e.g. portacabins) are also present.

Bare ground

0.19ha
(0.06%)

Areas of predominantly bare ground primarily consisting of
recently disturbed soil or areas of gravel were recorded in a
few locations, typically close to buildings. This were distinct
from areas of hard-standing (see below); the latter being set
concrete or tarmac man-made surfaces.

Negligible

Artificial areas of hard-standing occur across the site as
access roads, the large runway, taxiing areas (for aircraft),
close to buildings, car-parks and other concrete or tarmac
surfaces.

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 Martin’s 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

6

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-25
7.6

IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL FEATURES AND POTENTIAL EFFECT
PATHWAYS

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 feature’s 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

POTENTIAL EFFECTS TO BE CONSIDERED

Statutory Designated Sites
Thanet Coast and
Up to International In
Sandwich Bay SPA,
SAC and Ramsar site

Margate and Long
Sands SAC

Degradation through air borne pollution during
operational phases;

Degradation through hydrological changes during
the construction and operational phases; and

Degradation via increased recreational pressure
and associated disturbance of bird species.

European

Out

It is considered unlikely that the Proposed
Development will have an impact on upon this site
due to the distance from Manston Airport and the
urban barrier provided by the coastal settlements of
Birchington, Westgate-on-Sea and Margate; which, by
their nature will contain a number of factors more
likely to influence the site.

Outer Thames Estuary European
SPA

Out

It is considered unlikely that the Proposed
Development will have an impact on upon this site
due to the distance from Manston Airport and the
urban barrier provided by the coastal settlement of
Margate; which, by its nature will contain a number of
factors more likely to influence the site.

Stodmarsh SPA, SAC, Up to International Out
Ramsar Site and SSSI

It is considered unlikely that Proposed Development
of Manston Airport will have an impact on upon this
site due to the distance from Manston Airport.

Thanet Coast SSSI

National

In

Degradation via increased recreational pressure.

Sandwich Bay to
Hacklinge Marshes
SSSI

National

In

Degradation through air borne pollution during
operational phases;

Degradation through hydrological changes during
the construction and operational phases; and

Degradation via increased recreational pressure.

Degradation through air borne pollution during
operational phases;

Degradation through hydrological changes during
the construction and operational phases; and

Degradation via increased recreational pressure.

Sandwich and Pegwell National
Bay NNR

In

Non-Statutory Designated Sites
Minster Marshes LWS County

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

Out

It is considered unlikely that Proposed Development
of Manston Airport will have an impact on upon this
site due to the distance from Manston Airport and

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-26
ECOLOGICAL FEATURE

NATURE
SCOPING
CONSERVATION
(IN/OUT)
VALUE OF FEATURE

POTENTIAL EFFECTS TO BE CONSIDERED

relatively isolated nature of this site.

Habitats
On-site Habitat (good District
and poor semiimproved grassland)

In

Direct loss during the construction phase;

Habitat fragmentation during the construction and
operational phases; and

Alteration through hydrological changes or
changes in management regime during the
construction and operational phases.

Direct loss (mortality and injury) during the
construction phase;

Direct habitat loss (roost destruction) and
fragmentation during the construction phase;

Disturbance (noise and light) during the
construction and operational phase; and

Habitat creation and changes in management
regime during the construction and operational
phases.

Direct habitat loss (land take) and fragmentation
during the construction phase;

Disturbance (noise and light) during the
construction and operational phase; and

Habitat creation and changes in management
regime during the construction and operational
phases.

Direct loss (mortality and injury) during the
operational phase;

Direct habitat loss (land take) and fragmentation
during the construction phase;

Disturbance (noise and visual) during the
construction and operational phase;

Degradation of supporting habitat through
hydrological changes during the construction and
operational phases;

Reduction in prey availability (small mammals) for
raptors and owls due to cat predation during the
operational phase; and

Habitat creation and changes in management
regime during the construction and operational
phases.

Fauna & Flora
Bats (roosting)

Bats (foraging /
commuting)

Birds (wintering)

7

TBC

7

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-27
ECOLOGICAL FEATURE

NATURE
SCOPING
CONSERVATION
(IN/OUT)
VALUE OF FEATURE

POTENTIAL EFFECTS TO BE CONSIDERED

Birds (breeding)

TBC

Direct loss (mortality and injury) during the
construction and operational phase;

Direct habitat loss (land take) and fragmentation
during the construction phase;

Disturbance (noise and visual) during the
construction and operational phase;

Degradation of supporting habitat through
hydrological changes during the construction and
operational phases;

Reduction in prey availability (small mammals) for
raptors and owls due to cat predation during the
operational phase; and

Habitat creation and changes in management
regime during the construction and operational
phases.

Direct loss (mortality and injury) during the
construction and operational phase;

Direct habitat loss (land take) and fragmentation
during the construction phase;

Disturbance (noise and light) during the
construction and operational phase;

Reduction in prey availability (small mammals)
due to cat predation during the operational phase;
and

Habitat creation and changes in management
regime during the construction and operational
phases.

Direct loss or damage of rare/notable species
during the construction phase;

Degradation of supporting habitat through air
borne pollution during construction and
operational phases;

Degradation of supporting habitat through
hydrological changes during the construction and
operational phases; and

Habitat creation and changes in management
regime during the construction and operational
phases.

Direct loss (mortality and injury) during the
construction and operational phase;

Direct habitat loss (land take) and fragmentation
during the construction phase;

Disturbance (noise and visual) during the
construction and operational phase; and

Habitat creation and changes in management
regime during the construction and operational
phases.

Barn owl

District

Botanical (rare/notable TBC
plants)

Brown hare

Great crested newt

Local

-

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

TBC

In

TBC

In

Out

Survey has confirmed that although suitable terrestrial
habitat occurs on Site, this species is absent from
suitable aquatic habitat on and within 500m of the
Site, and therefore is concluded to be absent from the

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-28
ECOLOGICAL FEATURE

NATURE
SCOPING
CONSERVATION
(IN/OUT)
VALUE OF FEATURE

POTENTIAL EFFECTS TO BE CONSIDERED

Site.

Reptile

Terrestrial
invertebrates

TBC

TBC

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

TBC

TBC

Direct loss (mortality and injury) during the
construction and operational phase;

Direct habitat loss (land take) and fragmentation
during the construction phase; and

Habitat creation and changes in management
regime during the construction and operational
phases.

Direct habitat loss (land take) and fragmentation
during the construction phase;

Disturbance (light) during the construction and
operational phases;

Degradation of supporting habitat through air
borne pollution during construction and
operational phases;

Degradation of supporting habitat through
hydrological changes during the construction and
operational phases; and

Habitat creation and changes in management
regime during the construction and operational
phases.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-29
7.7

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS
DESIGN SOLUTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

7.7.1

The proposed design includes the following integral measures to avoid or reduce effects upon
sensitive ecological features:
Avoidance

 Retention of large continuous undisturbed parcels of existing semi-improved grassland
(approximately 100ha in total) as shown on Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure (Figure
2.5);
 Retention (and enhancement – see below) of existing hedgerows at Site boundaries, where
possible; and
 Retention of building confirmed as supporting roosting barn owl (B8) and some buildings
confirmed as supporting bat roosts (B23, B36 and B43) as shown on Parameter Plan 6:
Demolition and Retention (Figure 2.6).
7.7.2

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
STATUTORY SITES
7.7.5

Documentation regarding potential effects, and mitigation as necessary, 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.
ON-SITE HABITAT (GOOD AND POOR SEMI-IMPROVED GRASSLAND)

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

As detailed in Chapter 2 ‘The Proposed Development’, standard mitigation measures including
a variety of good environmental sites practices, will be observed through the implementation of a
Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP (outline CEMP included in Appendix 2.2))
at the Proposed Development during the Site preparation, earthworks and construction phase to
minimise the risk of site runoff transmitting contaminants and sediment into groundwater via the
surface water drainage system.
RESIDUAL EFFECT

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

As detailed in Chapter 2 ‘The Proposed Development’, standard mitigation measures including
a variety of good environmental sites practices will be undertaken at the Proposed Development
during the Site preparation, earthworks and construction phase to minimise the risk of
degradation to surrounding habitat and disturbance to wintering birds. This will be captured in a
CEMP. In addition to general methods of working to minimise effects, the outline CEMP
(Appendix 2.2) also identifies the following specific measures relating to plant and equipment
use:
 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;
 Equipment and vehicles to be shut down when not in use;
 Semi-static equipment is to be sited and oriented as far as is reasonably practicable away
from noise sensitive receptors and will have localised screening if deemed necessary; and
 Where possible, mains electricity to be used instead of generators;
 Local hoarding, screens or barriers to be erected as necessary to shield particularly noisy
activities; and
 The layout of the Site will be designed to minimise the risk of pollution reaching the
groundwater.
RESIDUAL EFFECT

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Following implementation of mitigation, there will be a loss of approximately 90ha of grassland
and the retention of approximately 100ha of grassland habitat during the construction phase. It is
considered that the resulting residual effect upon barn owls at the Site will be a direct temporary
(medium term) effect of negative significance at the local scale.

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

It is probable that following implementation of standard mitigation measures and good
environmental site practices through the CEMP, the residual effect upon brown hare as a
consequence of increased vehicular movement and construction related activities (disturbance)
will be negligible.

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Documentation regarding potential effects, and mitigation as necessary, 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.
ON-SITE HABITAT (GOOD AND POOR SEMI-IMPROVED GRASSLAND)

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

Continued implementation of a sensitive grassland management regime during the operational
phase will see improvements to the sward structure and botanical community of the semiimproved grassland; this will mitigate for the loss of semi-improved grassland habitat on the Site
during the construction phase.
RESIDUAL EFFECT

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Continued implementation of sensitive semi-natural habitat management regimes during the
operational phase will mitigate for the loss of wintering bird habitat and likely reduction in prey
abundance owing to cat predation on the Site. These sensitive areas will be managed for
wintering birds and other wildlife and public use of these spaces (particularly by dog walkers) will
be discouraged by the provision of more suitable amenity ‘dog-friendly’ areas within the Site
boundary. This will be implemented through a ‘Dog Management Strategy’, which will have an
objective (amongst others) of ensuring that areas allocated for ‘wildlife’ on the Site are subject to
minimal disturbance (i.e. dogs excluded or where leads are required).

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Continued implementation of sensitive grassland management regimes to increase small
mammal populations during the operational phase will mitigate for the likely reduction in prey
abundance owing to cat predation on the Site.
RESIDUAL EFFECT

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Continued implementation of sensitive grassland management regimes to provide refuge and
foraging habitat for brown hare during the operational phase will increase habitat quality and
mitigate for the reduction in habitat quantity on the Site.
RESIDUAL EFFECT

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

LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS POST
MITIGATION
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

Demolition and Construction
Degradation
through air borne
pollution and
hydrological
changes.

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

D

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

T

D

MT

Thanet N/A
Local
Plan
2006

Negative

T

D

ST

N/A

N/A

Positive

T

D

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

SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS POST
MITIGATION

NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E

POSITIV P / T D / I
E/
NEGATI
VE

District

Negative P

D

LT

Retention of significant areas Local
of existing grassland,
creation of connected grass
borders and verges and
inclusion of berry-bearing
native shrubs to provide food
source.

Negative

P

D

LT

Local

Negative T

D

MT

Local

Negative

T

D

MT

Changes in
management
regime.

Negligible

N/A

Site

Positive

T

D

MT

N/A

N/A

Degradation of
supporting habitat
through
hydrological
changes.
Direct loss.

Local

Negative T

I

ST

Negligible

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

District

Negative P

D

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).

NPPF NERC Act 2006
2012,
ODPM
Circular
06/200
5,
Thanet
Local
Plan
2006
N/A
N/A

District

Negative

P

D

LT

WCA 1981 (as
amended),
NERC Act 2006

District

Negative P

D

LT

Negative

T

D

MT

NPPF
2012;
ODPM
Circular
06/
2005,
Thanet
Local
Plan
2006
NPPF
2012;

Habitat loss and
fragmentation.

Disturbance.
Birds
(wintering)

N/A N/A

N/A

Barn owl

Habitat loss and
fragmentation.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E

Replacement roost creation Local
in existing building, retention
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
NEGATIVE
MT /
LT

RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y

NERC Act 2006

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

SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS POST
MITIGATION
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E

POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
NEGATIVE
MT /
LT

and enhancement of parcels
of grassland habitat to
increase prey biomass
creation of linking seminatural corridors and
sensitive light management.

Disturbance.

Local

Negative T

D

Changes in
management
regime.

Negligible

N/A

Direct loss.

Site

Negative P

D

MT

Local

Negative P

D

LT

N/A N/A

LT

N/A

Implementation of standard Local
mitigation measures
including a variety of good
environmental sites practices
and sensitive work timing
and light management
(CEMP).
Cessation of use of fertilisers Site
and limited (targeted) use of
herbicides and sensitive
timing of grass cuts.
Implementation of standard Negligible
mitigation measures
including a variety of good
environmental sites practices
(CEMP).

Negative

T

D

MT

Positive

T

D

MT

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Retention of significant areas Site
of existing grassland;
sensitive management.

Negative

P

Brown hare
Habitat loss and
fragmentation

Creation of new scrub,
hedgerow and woodland
mosaic habitat.
Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

D

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

NPPF NERC Act
2012;
ODPM
Circular
06/
2005,
Thanet
Local
Plan
2006
NPPF NERC Act
2012;
ODPM
Circular
06/
2005,
Thanet

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

D

N/A N/A

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
/ LT

MT

N/A

SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS POST
MITIGATION
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E

Implementation of standard Negligible
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.

POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
NEGATIVE
MT /
LT

RELEV RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
ANT
POLIC
Y

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Local
Plan
2006
N/A

Positive

T

MT

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

Positive

P

D

LT

N/A

N/A

Negative

P

D

LT

NPPF NERC Act 2006
2012,
ODPM
Circular
06/200

D

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)

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

D

LT

Degradation of
supporting habitat
through
hydrological
changes.
Changes in
management
regime.

Local

Negative P

I

LT

Site

Negative P

D/I

LT

Direct loss.

District

Negative P

D/I

LT

Barn owl

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS POST
MITIGATION
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

High hedgerow cultivation as District
a buffer alongside primary
roads intersecting short
eared owl foraging habitat*.
Cat predation of prey on
large scale impractical to
mitigate.
Implementation of dog
Local
management strategy,
encourage use of amenity
areas by public (discourage
access to ‘nature areas’) and
sensitive light management.
Implementation of SuDS.
Negligible

Negative

P

D / I LT

5,
Thanet
Local
Plan
2006
NPPF NERC Act 2006
2012,
ODPM
Circular
06/200
5

Negative

P

D

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

Continued implementation of Site
sensitive habitat
management regime to
provide additional food
sources for wintering birds
and encourage increase in
prey abundance for short
eared owl.
High hedgerow cultivation as District
a buffer alongside primary
roads intersecting barn owl
foraging habitat*.
Cat predation of prey on

Positive

P

D / I LT

N/A

N/A

Negative

P

D / I LT

NPPF WCA 1981 (as
2012; amended),
ODPM NERC Act 2006
Circular
06/

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS POST
MITIGATION
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E

POSITIVE / P / T D / I ST /
NEGATIVE
MT /
LT

large scale impractical to
mitigate.

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

D

LT

Sensitive lighting and habitat Negligible
management.

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Disturbance.

Local

Negative T

D

MT

Prevent access to
replacement roost by
building users and
discourage disturbance.

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Positive

P

I

LT

N/A

Negative

P

D

LT

NPPF NERC Act
2012,
ODPM
Circular
2005,
Thanet
Local
Plan
2006

Changes in
management
regime.

District

Negative P

I

LT

Direct loss.

Local

Negative P

D

LT

Negligible

Encourage use of amenity
areas by public (discourage
access to ‘nature areas’) and
sensitive light management.
Continued implementation of Site
sensitive grassland
management regime will
improve habitat for small
mammals increasing prey
abundance.
Practical mitigation is not
Local
possible on a large scale.

Brown hare

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

D

N/A N/A

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
/ ENHANCEMENT
ST / MT MEASURES
/ LT

LT

N/A

SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS POST
MITIGATION
NATIONAL/REGI
ONAL/COUNTY/D
ISTRICT/LOCAL/
SITE/NEGLIGIBL
E

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

P

D

LT

N/A

N/A

Positive

P

D

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-52
7.10

REFERENCES

Ref. 7.1

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (2010), The Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010 (as amended).

Ref. 7.2

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (1981), The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended).

Ref. 7.3

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (2000), Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Ref. 7.4

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (2006), Natural Environment and Rural
Communities Act 2006.

Ref. 7.5

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild
Fauna and Flora (1992).

Ref. 7.6

Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (2009).

Ref. 7.7

GVA (2016), Stone Hill Park – Planning Statement.

Ref. 7.8

Department of Communities and Local Government (2012), National Planning
Policy Framework available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/

Ref. 7.9

Thanet District Council (2006), Thanet Local Plan 2006.

Ref. 7.10

Kent County Council (2009), Unlocking Kent’s Potential: Kent County Council’s
Framework for Regeneration.

Ref. 7.11

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) (2016),
Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial,
Freshwater and Coastal (Second Edition).

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

Kent Biodiversity Partnership, Kent Biodiversity Action Plan available at:
https://www.kentbap.org.uk/ (accessed April 2016).

Ref. 7.14

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2013),
Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal.

Ref. 7.15

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010), Handbook for Phase 1 habitat
survey – a technique for environmental audit.

Ref. 7.16

Hundt, L. (ed.) (2012), Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines (2
Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Ref. 7.17

Collins, J. (ed.) (2016), Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice
rd
Guidelines (3 edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

nd

edition).The

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Rodwell (2006), National Vegetation Classification Users Handbook, JNCC.

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

Gent, A. and Gibson, S. (1998), Herpetofauna Workers Manual, JNCC,
Peterborough.

Ref. 7.25

Froglife (1999), Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting, and
interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation (Froglife Advice Sheet 10).
Froglife, Peterborough.

Ref. 7.26

Joint Nature and Conservation Committee (2008), Common Standards Monitoring
Guidance for Invertebrates. JNCC, Peterborough.

Ref. 7.27

English Nature (2005), Organising surveys to determine site quality for
invertebrates.

Ref. 7.28

ARCH, Kent Habitat Survey (2012).

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

Harris, S. and Yalden, D. W. (2008), Mammals of the British Isles (4 edition).
The Mammal Society.

Ref. 7.32

Kent Wildlife Trust (2004), Brown hare – Lepus europaeus.

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

Planit (2016), Stone Hill Park: Design and Access Statement.

Ref. 7.35

Barn Owl Trust (2012), Barn Owl Conservation Handbook: A comprehensive
guide for ecologists, surveyors, land managers and ornithologists. Pelagic
Publishing, Exeter.

th

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

7-54

Ref. 7.36

The Mammal Society National Road Death Survey 2001,
www.mammal.org.uk/sites/default/files/RoadDeaths2001Report.pdf (accessed
April 2016).

Ref. 7.37

The Mammal Society (2016), www.mammal.org.uk/brown_hare (accessed April
2016).

Ref. 7.38

Tapper, S. and Hobson, D. (2002), Conserving the brown hare. Game
Conservancy Trust (now Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust).

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

Hansen, K. (1996), European Hare (Lepus europaeus) time budget of nine
different nocturnal activities in a Danish farmland.

Ref. 7.42

Jenkinson, S. (2013), Planning for Dog Ownership in New Developments:
Reducing Conflict – Adding Value. Design Guidance for planners and developers.
Hampshire County Council.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

8-1

8

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

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

The Chapter is accompanied by the following Appendices:
 Appendix 8.1: Summary of relevant planning policies;
 Appendix 8.2: Figures, photographs of key views and photomontages;
 Appendix 8.3: Landscape Baseline Assessment and Effects;
 Appendix 8.4: Visual Baseline Assessment and Effects.

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

LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE

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

The applicable legislative framework is summarised as follows:
 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as
amended) (Ref.8.1).
 Directive 85/337/EEC (subsequently amended, primarily by Council Directive 97/11/EC) (Ref.
8.2) on the ‘Assessment of the effects of certain private and public projects on the
environment’. The objective of the Directive is to provide the competent authorities “with
relevant information to enable them to take a decision on a specific project in full knowledge
of the project's likely significant impact on the environment”

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 Kent’s Potential – Kent County Council’s 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

RELEVANT ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

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

The Guidelines note that:
“The [EU] Directive [covering EIA] is clear that the emphasis is on the identification of likely
significant environmental effects.” (para. 1.17, page, 9)

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
8.4.8

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Thanet District Council

Thanet District Council Iain Livingstone
(Planning Officer).
Thanet District Council Iain Livingstone
(Planning Officer).

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

25/01/16 Issue of Scoping Confirmed location of
Report (including
viewpoints, provision of OS
viewpoints)
grid ref and other relevant
details. Confirmed timing of
photographs to represent
worst case scenario.
Email 21/03/16 to update No response received.
and request comment on
amended viewpoints plan.
Email 07/04/16 to update No response received.
and final request for
comment on viewpoints
plan.

METHOD OF BASELINE DATA COLLATION
METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
8.4.10

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;

Viewpoint were selected in consultation with Thanet Council;

Likely significant effects on landscape and visual resources were identified;

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

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.

8.4.16

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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)

World Heritage Site

Unique sites,
features or areas of
international
importance with
settings of very
high quality.

None

International
(High)

National Park, AONBs,
curtilage of Grade I, II
and II* Listed
Buildings, Registered
Parks and Gardens of
Special Historic
Interest, Scheduled
Monuments, Ancient
Woodland

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/

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

8-8
Open Space or local
footpath
8.4.22

valued at the local
level.

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

Intactness of the landscape/condition of individual elements.

Scenic Quality

General appeal of the landscape to the senses.

Rarity

Rarity of landscape character areas, types or features.

Representativeness

Particular characteristic/feature/element considered a
particularly important example.

Cultural Interest

The presence of wildlife or cultural heritage interest which
contributes positively to the landscape.

Recreation Value

Evidence that the landscape experience forms an important
part of recreational activity, eg. as established in guidebooks.

Wildness/Tranquillity

Evidence that a landscape is valued for its wildness/tranquillity.

Associations

Relevant associations with notable figures, such as writers or
artists, or events in history that contribute to landscape value.

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

Little ability to accommodate the proposed development
without undue harm.

Medium

Some ability to accommodate the proposed development
without undue harm.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

8-9
Attribute

Description of criteria

High

Little ability to accommodate the proposed development
without undue harm.

Low

Substantial ability to accommodate the proposed development
without undue harm.

OVERALL SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTOR
8.4.25

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:

Glimpsed (i.e. in passing)/Filtered/Oblique/Framed/Open Views; and

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

The value attached to views has regard to a number of factors, including:

8.4.29

recognition through planning designations or heritage assets; and

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

Views from landscapes/viewpoints of national importance, or
highly popular visitor attractions where the view forms an
important part of the experience, or with important cultural
associations.

Medium

Views from landscapes/viewpoints of regional/district
importance or moderately popular visitor attractions where the
view forms part of the experience, or with local cultural

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

8-10
associations.
Low

Views from landscapes/viewpoints with no designations, not
particularly popular as a viewpoint and with minimal or no
cultural associations.

SUSCEPTIBILITY OF VISUAL RECEPTORS TO CHANGE
8.4.30

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 occupation or activity of the viewer at a given location; and

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

Travellers on road, rail or other transport routes, where the view
is moderately important to the quality of the journey.
People engaged in outdoor sport or recreation, which does not
involve appreciation of views;
People at their place of work, where the setting is not important
to the quality of working life; and
Travellers on road, rail or other transport routes, where the view
is fleeting and incidental to the journey.

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 geographical extent of effects relates to:

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

the area over which visual effects are likely to be visible.

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 extent/proportion of landscape elements lost or added;

the contribution of that element to landscape character and the degree to which
aesthetic/perceptual aspects are altered; and

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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:

Table 8.9: Matrix for Determining the Significance of Effects

MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE / EFFECT

SENSITIVITY OF RECEPTOR / RECEIVING
ENVIRONMENT TO CHANGE / EFFECT

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 site’s 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:

An open, low and gently undulating landscape, characterised by high-quality, fertile,
loamy soils dominated by agricultural land uses.

The area’s 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.

Large arable/horticultural fields with regular patterns and rectangular shapes
predominating, and a sparse hedgerow pattern.

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 area’s 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 importance of historic and ancient features;

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;

Restore semi-natural habitats along cliff-tops which are not developed;

Restore and enhance views/sea views from key locations;

Restore the influence of the landform on access and circulation;

Ensure that development and associated planting respect and enhance the landform.

LOCAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER/LAND USE/OPEN SPACE
8.5.20

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

8-17
previous land use, the site is currently devoid of any recreational open space. Ultimately, the
site’s 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 site’s 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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 site’s
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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Visitors to heritage assets, such as Richborough Roman Fort located approximately
5.3km to the south, and Quex Park, a Regency mansion, still in family ownership, and a
private parkland estate. The Park is home to several visitor attractions, including the
Powell-Cotton Museum.

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

8-20
8.7

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS

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.

DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
8.7.2

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 impacts of machinery carrying out demolition works;

The visual impact of HGV movements and other machinery carrying out enabling works
on the site, implementing landscape proposals and implementing masterplan proposals;

The visual impact of machinery carrying out construction works;

The visual impact of site lighting around construction areas;

The visual and landscape impact of remodelling ground levels;

Landscape impacts of incorporating service and utilities;

Visual impact of temporary screening measures and protective fencing;

Landscape and visual impacts of temporary parking, on-site accommodation and work
areas;

Landscape and visual impact of material stockpiles.

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;

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Use of directional lighting will be used across the site.

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.

Stockpiles will be located on site to limit visual impacts where possible.

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.






Effects on landscape character at national and local level result in no change.
Effects on regional level landscape character are of minor negative significance.
Effects on site level landscape character are of negligible significance (direct effect).
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).

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

The surrounding townscape character is defined by the merged conurbation of Ramsgate,
Broadstairs and Margate, as well as Manston Business Park, RAF Manston and numerous
caravan parks. The townscape is identified as being of low sensitivity with a negligible overall
magnitude of effect, resulting in a landscape effect of negligible significance.
Manston Village

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

T

D

ST/MT

Moderate

Negative

P

D

LT

Moderate

Negative

T

D

ST/MT

Moderate

Negative

T

D

ST/MT

Moderate

Negative

T

D

ST/MT

Moderate

Negative

P

D

LT

Moderate

Negative

T

D

ST/MT

Moderate

Negative

T

D

ST/MT

Moderate

Negative

P

D

LT

Moderate

Positive

P

D

LT

Moderate

Negative

T

D

LT

Moderate

Negative

P

D

LT

Moderate

Negative

T

D

ST/MT

Moderate

Positive

P

D

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

8-25

MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS
8.7.25

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

LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

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 Aldred’s 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 Institute’s 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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

8-27
8.10

REFERENCES
Ref 8.1

Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011 – available at:
http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/environmental-impactassessment/
[Date accessed: 27.04.16]

Ref 8.2

Environmental Impact Assessment EU Directive and UK Regulations,
(85/337/EEC).
[Date accessed: 27. 04.16]

Ref 8.3

Department of Communities and Local Government (2012), National Planning
Policy Framework- available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
[Date accessed: 27.04.16]

Ref 8.4

Kent County Council, Unlocking Kent’s Potential – Kent County Council’s
Framework for Regeneration – available at
https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/13390/Unlocking-kentspotential.pdf
[Date accessed: 27. 04.16]

Ref 8.5

Thanet District Council, Thanet Local Plan – Saved Policies https://www.thanet.gov.uk/your-services/planning-policy/thanets-new-localplan/what-is-the-new-local-plan/
[Date accessed: 27. 04.16]

Ref. 8.6

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

Department for Communities and Local Government (2014), Planning Practice
Guidance - available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
[Date accessed: 27. 04.16]

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

Landscape Institute, 2011. Photography and photomontage in landscape and
visual impact assessment, Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11, London,
Landscape Institute.
[Date accessed: 27. 04.16]

Ref. 8.10

Tudor, C. 2014. An approach to landscape character assessment, Natural
England.
[Date accessed: 27. 04.16]

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

8-28
Ref. 8.11

Natural England National, 2014. NCA Profile: 13 North Kent Plain,
www.gov.uk/natural-england
[Date accessed: 27. 04.16]

Ref. 8.12

Babtie. J. 2004. Landscape Assessment of Kent – available at
http://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/strategies-and-policies/environmentwastehttp://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/strategies-andpolicies/environment-waste-and-planning-policies/countryside-policies-andreports/kents-landscape-assessment
[Date accessed: 27. 04.16]

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-1

9

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT

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

LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE

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 Government’s 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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Local Transport Policy considered relevant to the Proposed Development includes:
 Kent County Council (KCC) Third Local Transport Plan (2011) (Ref 9.5) - Regionally, KCC’s
Third Local Transport Plan sets out the strategy and implementation plans for local transport
investment for the period 2011-16;
 KCC Growth Without Gridlock (2010) (Ref 9.6) – Regionally this document sets out the
objectives for transport across the County. In relation to Thanet it identifies the location and
purpose of the proposed Parkway Station and associated rail journey time improvements on
the line between Ashford and Ramsgate. It also identifies the now constructed East Kent
Access;
 Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 Mapping out the future Supplementary Planning
Guidance SPG 4 Kent Vehicle Parking Standards (July 2006) (Ref 9.7) – outlines parking
standards that the proposed development will need to accord with;
 Kent Design Guide Review: Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking (2008) (Ref 9.8) –
outlines residential parking standards that the proposed development will need to accord with;
 Thanet Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies (Ref 9.9) – outlines the Local Plan policy for the
period 2006-2011. Whilst this policy is now out of date consideration has been given to the
saved policies. The following saved policies are considered relevant to this Chapter:

Policy TR3 – Provision of Transport Infrastructure;

Policy TR12 – Cycling;

Policy TR15 - Green Travel Plans; and

Policy TR16 - Car Parking Provision.

 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:

Draft Policy SP34 - Safe and Sustainable Travel;

Draft Policy SP35 - Accessible Location;

Draft Policy SP36 - Transport Infrastructure;

Draft Policy SP37 – Connectivity;

Draft Policy SP39 – New Rail Station;

Draft Policy SP38 – Strategic Road Network;

Draft Policy TP01 - Transport assessments and Travel Plans;

Draft Policy TP02 – Walking;

Draft Policy TP03 – Cycling;

Draft Policy TP04 - Public Transport;

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-3

Draft Policy TP06 – Car Parking; and

Draft Policy TP10- Traffic Management.

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

RELEVANT ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
CONSULTATION

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-5
Table 9.1: Summary of Consultation
BODY /
ORGANISATION

INDIVIDUAL / STAT
BODY/ORGANISATION

Kent County Council Highways and Transportation
Kent County Council Highways and Transportation
Kent County Council Highways and Transportation
Kent County Council Highways and Transportation
Kent County Council Highways and Transportation

Kent County Council Highways and Transportation
Stagecoach East
Kent and Kent
County Council

9.4.4

Highways and Transportation
and Stagecoach East Kent

MEETING DATES AND
SUMMARY OF OUTCOME
OTHER FORMS OF
OF DISCUSSIONS
CONSULTATION
Outline of Thanet Transport
th
18 May 2015
Strategy
Strategic Transport Model
th
9 October 2015
Scoping Discussion
KCC Technical Meeting –
th
18 January 2016
Outlined Access Strategy
Agreed scope of Strategic
nd
22 January 2016
Transport Model
Outlined access strategy and
TH
5 February 2016
infrastructure requirements
for the development.
Agreed walking and cycling
strategy for the site as part
th
29 February 2016
of discussions with the
Public Rights Of Way Officer
th

29 February 2016
th

Kent County Council Highways and Transportation

16 March 2016

Kent County Council Highways and Transportation

22

nd

March 2016

Agreed public transport
strategy for the site
Outlined transport access
strategy for the
development.
Transport Assessment
Scoping Meeting

Scoping discussions are ongoing with KCC regarding the strategic transport model and the
development of on and off-site highway mitigation measures.

EXTENT OF THE STUDY AREA
9.4.5

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 / Monk’s 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.

METHOD OF BASELINE DATA COLLECTION
DESKTOP STUDY
9.4.12

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:

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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:

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

MODE OF TRANSPORT

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-9
Car

Bus

Severance
Driver delay

Cycle

Walk


Pedestrian delay
Pedestrian and cycle amenity

Fear and intimidation

Accidents and safety

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Pedestrian Delay is considered to be affected by the changes in volume, composition or speed
of traffic, in terms of their respective effects on the ability of pedestrians to cross roads. In
general, increases in traffic levels and/or traffic speeds are likely to lead to greater increases in
pedestrian delay. Pedestrian Delay has been measured at the highway links in the vicinity of the
application site with reference to changes in AADT.

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-11
Table 9.3: Magnitude of Effect criteria
MAGNITUDE
OF EFFECT
CRITERIA
SEVERANCE

DEFINITION OF EFFECTS BY MODE
DRIVER
DELAY

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

Less than 30%
change in
traffic volumes

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

30%-60% 300-600 Decrease
5%-20%
decrease in
in average 18
decrease in
traffic
hour traffic
traffic
volumes
volumes
volumes

Less than
Less than 30%
30% change
change in
in traffic
traffic volumes
volumes

Less than 300
change in
average 18 hour
traffic 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

1800+ increase in 30% increase
average 18 hour
in traffic
traffic volumes
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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-12
peak assessments has been taken and thresholds for sensitivity of junctions have been defined
as:
 Low Sensitivity:

RFC under 85% or DoS below 90%;

 Medium Sensitivity: RFC between 85% and 95% or DoS between 90% and 95%; and
 High Sensitivity:
9.4.37

RFC over 95% or DoS above 95%.

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;

Rural road with no pedestrian / cycle facilities provided;

Strategic vehicular route in a rural setting with pedestrian / cycle facilities

 Medium Sensitivity: Main vehicular route with pedestrian / cycle facilities provided in built up
area;
 High Sensitivity:

Lightly trafficked route provided in town centre setting

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

Major Negative Major Negative Major Negative

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 site’s southern boundary. Regional Route

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

5

5

1051 /
1841

0704 / 1605

Ramsgate –
Birchington on Sea

13

14

0746 / 1736

0838 / 1752

Ramsgate - St
Nicholas at Ware

4

2

0711 / 1613

0755 / 0755

Westwood Cross Canterbury
Canterbury –
Westwood Cross

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-18
being of the types expected for the road layout. A pattern of KSI’s 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 Kent’s 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,

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

-

1

Manston Road
(B2050)

A256 Haine Road

Spitfire Corner

Medium

2

Manston Road
(B2050)

Spitfire Corner

Park Lane

Medium

3

Manston Road

Spitfire Corner

Shottendane Road

Medium

4

Spitfire Way
(B2190)

Spitfire Corner

Minster Road

Low

5

Columbus Avenue

Spitfire Way

Columbus Avenue

Low

6

Spitfire Way

Park Lane

High

7

Minster Road
(including The
Street and Acol
Hill)
Park Lane

Manston Road

Canterbury Road
(A28)

Medium

8

Shottendane Road

Park Lane

Coffin House Corner

Medium

9

Manston Court
Road

Manston Road (B2050)

Star Lane Link

Medium

10

A299 Hengist Way

Minster roundabout

Cliffsend roundabout

Low

11

A299 Hengist Way

Minster roundabout

Thanet Way

Low

12

A253 Canterbury
Road

Monkton Roundabout

Old Road

Medium

13

A299 Hengist Way

Cliffsend roundabout

Sevenscore
roundabout

Low

14

Canterbury Road
West

Cliffsend roundabout

Lord of the Manor
(north)

Medium

15

A256

Sevenscore roundabout

Lord of the Manor
(south)

Low

16

A256

Sevenscore roundabout

Ramsgate Road
(Copart roundabout)

Low

17

Sandwich Road

Lord of the Manor
(south)

Ebbsfleet roundabout

Medium

18

A256 Haine Road *

Lord of the Manor
(north)

Manston Road
(B2050)`

Low

19

A256 Haine Road

Manston Road (B2050)

Spratling Street

Medium

20

A256 New Haine
Road

Spratling Street

Haine Road

Medium

21

A256 Haine Road

Haine Road

Star Lane Link

Medium

22

Star Lane Link

Haine Road

Nash Road

Medium

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-21
23

A299 Canterbury
Road East

Lord of the Manor
(south)

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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/Sainsbury’s 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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-23
9.7

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
METHODOLOGY

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 5667m² 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 22667m² of employment space. Other uses such as the local centre,
school and leisure were not assumed to be in place by this time.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

The magnitude of effect of Severance is measured in terms of proportional change in traffic
volumes. As a result of the construction activity, no links in the vicinity of the application site are
forecast to experience a 30% increase in AADT all vehicle traffic flows or a 10% increase in AADT
HGV traffic flow and therefore all links have a negligible effect on Severance.

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-26
RECEPTOR (LINK)
Link
Road Name
Number

Start
Junction

1

Manston
A256 Haine
Road (B2050)
Road

2

Manston
Road (B2050)

3
4
5

6

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

LINK FLOW ASSESSMENT (AAWT)
End
Junction

2021 Base 2021 Base +
Percentage
+
Committed + Difference
Difference
Committed Development

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

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

Star Lane
Link

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

1

Manston
A256 Haine
Road (B2050)
Road

2

Manston
Road (B2050)

3
4
5

6

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

LINK FLOW ASSESSMENT (AADT)
End
Junction

2021 Base 2021 Base +
Percentage
+
Committed + Difference
Difference
Committed Development

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)

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

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

1

Manston
A256 Haine
Road (B2050)
Road

2

Manston
Road (B2050)

3
4
5

6

7
8
9
10

LINK FLOW ASSESSMENT (AAWT)
End
Junction

2026 Base 2026 Base +
Percentage
+
Committed + Difference
Difference
Committed Development

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

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

1

Manston
A256 Haine
Road (B2050)
Road

2

Manston
Road (B2050)

3

LINK FLOW ASSESSMENT (AADT)
End
Junction

2026 Base 2026 Base +
Percentage
+
Committed + Difference
Difference
Committed Development

Spitfire
Corner

9793

10611

817

8%

Spitfire
Corner

Park Lane

5210

6411

1201

23%

Manston
Road

Spitfire
Corner

Shottendane
Road

3872

4551

679

18%

4

Spitfire Way
(B2190)

Spitfire
Corner

Minster Road

8654

10882

2227

26%

5

Columbus
Avenue

Spitfire Way

Columbus
Avenue

1804

2011

206

11%

Minster Road
Spitfire Way
(including The

Park Lane

6895

7168

273

4%

6

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-30
Street and
Acol Hill)
7

Park Lane

Manston
Road

Canterbury
Road (A28)

5139

5403

264

5%

8

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

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

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/Sainsbury’s
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 Manston Road/Canterbury Road
West (Lord of the Manor North)
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
Junction Type

DRIVER DELAY (SECONDS)
2021
2021 Base Change in
Base +
+
Driver
Committ Committe
Delay
ed
d+
Developm
ent

Roundabout

13

44

31

Roundabout

4

4

1

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

3

4

1

24

26

2

5
5

7
6

2
1

Roundabout

14

28

14

Roundabout

33

91

58

Roundabout
Roundabout

149
16

232
52

83
36

2

2

0

37

77

40

Roundabout

5

7

2

Roundabout
Roundabout

13
22

23
39

10
17

Roundabout

5

8

2

Roundabout

2

4

2

Roundabout

5

7

1

Roundabout

5

5

1

Roundabout

190

247

56

Roundabout

6

15

9

Priority junction
Signalised
gyratory

Table 9.16: Predicted Effect of the Development on Driver Delay in 2026 scenario
Junction
ID

RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)

JUNCTION TYPE DRIVER DELAY (SECONDS)

Junction Name

Junction Type

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

2026
Base +

2026 Base + Change
Committed + in Driver

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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/Sainsbury’s
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

4

5

1

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

4

4

1

22

27

5

Roundabout

5

7

2

Roundabout

5

7

1

Roundabout

14

29

15

Roundabout

33

92

59

Roundabout

156

239

83

Roundabout

28

83

55

2

2

0

39

86

48

Roundabout

5

7

2

Roundabout
Roundabout

22
38

100
65

78
26

Roundabout

5

19

14

Roundabout

3

4

1

Roundabout

8

14

5

Roundabout

14

23

9

Roundabout

161

209

48

Roundabout

8

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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)

Junction Junction Name
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

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/Sainsbury’s
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 Manston Road/Canterbury
Road West (Lord of the Manor
North)
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)

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

JUNCTION TYPE

Junction Type

ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY (TOTAL
FLOW DURING WORST CASE
PEAK HOUR)
2021 Base 2021 Base +
%
+
Committed + Change
Committed Development

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%

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

4

Spitfire Way
(B2190)

Spitfire
Corner

Minster
Road

Negligible

Low

Negligible

5

Columbus
Avenue

Spitfire Way

Columbus
Avenue

Negligible

Low

Negligible

6

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

1

2

3

7
8

9

10

Manston
Road

Shottendane Park Lane
Road
Manston
Court 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)

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

Sensitivity Significance of
of
Effect
Receptor

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

A256 Haine Haine Road
Road

22

Star Lane
Link

23

A299
Canterbury
Road East
A255

24

9.7.27

A256

Star Lane
Link

Haine Road Nash Road
Lord of the
Manor
(south)
Royal
Harbour
Approach

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-37
TABLE 9.19: SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT ON DRIVER DELAY 2021
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)
Junction
ID

Junction Name

3

A299 Hengist Way/Minster
Road/Tothill Street (Minster
roundabout)
A299 Hengist Way/A253/Willets Hill
(Monkton roundabout)
A299/A28 Canterbury Road

4

A253/A28 Canterbury Road

5

B2190 Spitfire Way/Minster Road
B2190 Spitfire Way/Columbus
Avenue
B2050 Manston Road/Spitfire Way
(Spitfire Corner)
B2050 Manston Road/Shottendane
Road

1
2

6
7
11
13
14
17
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27

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/Sainsbury’s
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 Manston Road/Canterbury
Road West (Lord of the Manor
North)

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

A299/Royal Harbour Approach

Roundabout

29

A255/London Road

Roundabout

33
34
35
37
40

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)

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

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

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

A299 Hengist Way/Minster
Road/Tothill Street (Minster
Roundabout
roundabout)
A299 Hengist Way/A253/Willets Hill
Roundabout
(Monkton roundabout)
A299/A28 Canterbury Road
Roundabout
MiniA253/A28 Canterbury Road
roundabout
B2190 Spitfire Way/Minster Road Roundabout
B2190 Spitfire Way/Columbus
Roundabout
Avenue
B2050 Manston Road/Spitfire Way
Priority
(Spitfire Corner)
junction
B2050 Manston Road/Shottendane
Priority
Road
junction
Priority
Manston Road/Shottendane Road
Junction
Shottendane Road/Nash Road
Signalised
(Coffin House Corner)
junction
A256 Haine Road/A254 Margate
Roundabout
Road
A256 Haine Road/Star Lane Link
Roundabout
A256 New Haine Road/Haine Road
Roundabout
(Toby Carvery roundabout)
A256 New Haine Road/Sainsbury’s
Roundabout
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 Manston Road/Canterbury
Road West (Lord of the Manor
North)
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)

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

5

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

6

7
8

9

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

Lord of the
Manor
(north)

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

A256 Haine Haine Road
Road

22

Star Lane
Link

23

A299
Canterbury
Road East
A255

24

9.7.32

A256

Star Lane
Link

Haine Road Nash Road
Lord of the
Manor
(south)
Royal
Harbour
Approach

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

The effect of the development on Pedestrian / Cycle Amenity 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 /
Cycle Amenity is considered to be negligible as per Table 9.22 below.
TABLE 9.22: SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT ON PEDESTRIAN / CYCLE AMENITY
RECEPTOR (LINK)
Link Road Name
Number

SEVERANCE

Start
Junction

End
Junction

Manston
Road
(B2050)
Manston
Road
(B2050)
Manston
Road

A256 Haine
Road

Spitfire
Corner

Spitfire
Corner

Park Lane

Spitfire
Corner

4

Spitfire Way
(B2190)

5

Columbus
Avenue

1

2

3

Magnitude Sensitivity Significance of
of Effect
of
Effect
Receptor
Negligible

Medium

Negligible

Negligible

Medium

Negligible

Shottendane
Road

Negligible

Medium

Negligible

Spitfire
Corner

Minster
Road

Negligible

Low

Negligible

Spitfire Way

Columbus
Avenue

Negligible

Low

Negligible

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-41
6

7
8

9

10

Spitfire Way

Manston
Road

Shottendane Park Lane
Road
Manston
Court 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

A256 Haine Haine Road
Road

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

Haine Road Nash Road
Lord of the
Manor
(south)
Royal
Harbour
Approach

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

9

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

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

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

A256 Haine Haine Road
Road

22

Star Lane
Link

23

A299
Canterbury
Road East
A255

24

9.7.36

Sandwich
Road

Star Lane
Link

Haine Road Nash Road
Lord of the
Manor
(south)
Royal
Harbour
Approach

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

3

A299 Hengist Way/Minster
Road/Tothill Street (Minster
roundabout)
A299 Hengist Way/A253/Willets Hill
(Monkton roundabout)
A299/A28 Canterbury Road

4

A253/A28 Canterbury Road

5

B2190 Spitfire Way/Minster Road
B2190 Spitfire Way/Columbus
Avenue
B2050 Manston Road/Spitfire Way
(Spitfire Corner)
B2050 Manston Road/Shottendane
Road

1
2

6
7
11
13

Manston Road/Shottendane Road

14

Shottendane Road/Nash Road
(Coffin House Corner)

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

JUNCTION
TYPE
Junction
Type

DRIVER DELAY
Magnitude of
Effect

Sensitivity Significance of
of
Effect
Receptor

Roundabout

Minor Negative High

Moderate
Negative

Roundabout

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Roundabout
Miniroundabout
Roundabout

Minor Negative Moderate

Minor Negative

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Minor Negative Low
Moderate
Low
Negative
Moderate
Moderate
Negative

Minor Negative

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Roundabout
Priority
junction
Priority
junction
Priority
Junction
Signalised
junction

Minor Negative
Moderate
Negative

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-44

28

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/Sainsbury’s
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 Manston Road/Canterbury
Road West (Lord of the Manor North)
A299/Royal Harbour Approach

29

A255/London Road

17
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27

32
33
34
35

9.7.38

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)

Roundabout

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Roundabout

Minor Negative l Low

Minor Negative

Roundabout

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Roundabout

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Roundabout

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Roundabout

Minor Negative Moderate

Minor Negative

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Minor Negative Moderate

Minor Negative

Roundabout

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Roundabout

Minor Negative Moderate

Roundabout

Minor Negative High

Minor Negative
Moderate
Negative

Roundabout

Minor Negative Low

Minor Negative

Roundabout

Major Negative Low

Moderate
Negative

Roundabout

Minor Negative l Low

Minor Negative

Roundabout

Minor Negative l Low

Minor Negative

Priority
junction
Signalised
gyratory

37

A256/A257 Ash Road

Roundabout

Minor Negative High

Moderate
Negative

40

A256 Haine Road/Manston Road
(new junction)

Roundabout

Minor Negative Low

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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: 10,244m² 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 TDC’s 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 25,000m²) 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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 55,000m² 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

Development Quantum: Up to completion of development
Accompanying PTS: A contribution towards the potential introduction of a new bus service to link
the Local Plan sites, Westwood Cross, Stone Hill Park, Parkway Station and Discovery Park.

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

A299 Hengist Way/Minster
Road/Tothill Street (Minster
roundabout)
B2050 Manston Road/Spitfire Way
(Spitfire Corner)
B2050 Manston Road/Shottendane
Road
A256 New Haine Road/Haine Road
(Toby Carvery roundabout)
A256 New Haine Road/Sainsbury’s
Access
A256 Haine Road/New Haine Road
A256 Haine Road/B2050 Manston
Road
A299/A256/Sandwich Road (Lord of
the Manor south)
A299/Royal Harbour Approach
A255/London Road
A256/A257 Ash Road
A256 Haine Road/Manston Road
(new junction)

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

JUNCTION
TYPE

DRIVER DELAY

2021 Base +
2021 Base Committed + Change in
Junction Type
+
Development Driver
Committed
with
Delay
mitigation
Roundabout

13

9

-4

Priority junction

13

7

-6

Priority junction

14

25

11

Roundabout

14

11

-3

Roundabout

33

14

-19

Roundabout

149

139

-10

Roundabout

16

16

0

37

25

-12

13
22
68

8
14
109

-5
-7
41

6

6

0

Signalised
gyratory
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout
Roundabout

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-49
TABLE 9.26: MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT ON DRIVER DELAY FOLLOWING MITIGATION IN
2026
RECEPTOR (JUNCTION)

Junction
ID

3

A299 Hengist Way/Minster
Road/Tothill Street (Minster
roundabout)
A299/A28 Canterbury Road

4

A253/A28 Canterbury Road

1

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

8

13

5

5

16

11

19

8

-11

19

38

19

22

27

5

14

16

2

33

14

-19

156

145

-11

28

27

-1

39

36

-3

22
38

26
27

4
-11

5

19

14

8

14

5

14

23

9

160

209

49

8

7

-1

B2050 Manston Road/Spitfire Way
Priority junction
(Spitfire Corner)
B2050 Manston Road/Shottendane
Priority junction
Road
Shottendane Road/Nash Road (Coffin
Signalised
House Corner)
junction
A256 New Haine Road/Haine Road
Roundabout
(Toby Carvery roundabout)
A256 New Haine Road/Sainsbury’s
Roundabout
Access
A256 Haine Road/New Haine Road
Roundabout
A256 Haine Road/B2050 Manston
Roundabout
Road
A299/A256/Sandwich Road (Lord of
Signalised
the Manor south)
gyratory
A299/Royal Harbour Approach
Roundabout
A255/London Road
Roundabout
A299 Hengist Way/A256/Cottington
Roundabout
Link Road (Sevenscore roundabout)
A256/Sandwich Road (Ebbsfleet
Roundabout
roundabout)
A256/Ramsgate Road (Copart
Roundabout
roundabout)
A256/A257 Ash Road
Roundabout
A256 Haine Road/Manston Road
Roundabout
(new junction)

Table 9.27 below outlines the residual effect of the development when compared to the effect
identified before mitigation.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

1

A299 Hengist Way/Minster
Road/Tothill Street (Minster
roundabout)

Roundabout

3

A299/A28 Canterbury Road

Roundabout

4

A253/A28 Canterbury Road

7
11
14
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
32
34
35

9.8.2

B2050 Manston Road/Spitfire Way
(Spitfire Corner)
B2050 Manston Road/Shottendane
Road
Shottendane Road/Nash Road
(Coffin House Corner)
A256 New Haine Road/Haine Road
(Toby Carvery roundabout)
A256 New Haine Road/Sainsbury’s
Access

Miniroundabout
Priority
junction
Priority
junction
Signalised
junction
Roundabout
Roundabout

A256 Haine Road/New Haine Road Roundabout
A256 Haine Road/B2050 Manston
Roundabout
Road
A299/A256/Sandwich Road (Lord of Signalised
the Manor south)
gyratory
A299/Royal Harbour Approach
Roundabout
A255/London Road

Roundabout

A299 Hengist Way/A256/Cottington
Roundabout
Link Road (Sevenscore roundabout)
A256/Sandwich Road (Ebbsfleet
Roundabout
roundabout)
A256/Ramsgate Road (Copart
Roundabout
roundabout)

37

A256/A257 Ash Road

Roundabout

40

A256 Haine Road/Manston Road
(new junction)

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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)

2

3

Manston
Road
(B2050)

Manston
Road

Spitfire
Corner

Spitfire
Corner

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

FEAR AND INTIMIDATION
End
Junction
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

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-52
4

Spitfire Way
(B2190)

Spitfire
Corner

Minster
Road

Moderate
Negative

8

Shottendane Park Lane
Road

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

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

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

A256 Haine Haine Road
Road

Star Lane
Link

Moderate
Negative

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 pedestrians or
cyclists would be
expected to use this
link.
Good quality
pedestrian and cycle
facilities are provided
along the sections of
this link where nonmotorised users would
be expected.
No pedestrians or
cyclists would be
expected to use this
link.
Pedestrian facilities
are provided along this
link. Cyclists would be
expected to use the
neighbouring cycle
routes.
No pedestrians or
cyclists would be
expected to use this
link as other nearby
facilities are provided.

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-56
Table 9.29: Summary of Effects for Traffic and Transport

Stone Hill Park
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-57
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR
OF SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS

SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
MAJOR /
MODERATE /
MINOR /
NEGLIGIBLE

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
/ ENHANCEMENT
MEASURES

SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS AFTER
MITIGATION
MAJOR /
POSITIVE P / D / I ST /
MODERATE / /
T
MT /
MINOR /
NEGATIVE
LT
NEGLIGIBLE

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

D

LT

A CEMP will be secured by
condition and implemented
to minimise the effects of
construction on the
surrounding transport
network for all users.

Negligible

Negative

T

D

MT

N/A

N/A

Negative T

D

LT

A CEMP will be secured by
condition and implemented
to minimise the effects of
construction on the
surrounding transport
network for all users.

Negligible

Negative

T

D

MT

N/A

N/A

Negative T

D

LT

Negligible

Negative

T

D

MT

N/A

N/A

Pedestrian and
cyclist amenity

The relative
Negligible
pleasantness
or a journey
for pedestrians
or cyclists

Negative T

D

LT

Negligible

Negative

T

D

MT

N/A

N/A

Fear and
Intimidation

The scale of
Negligible
fear and
intimidation to
pedestrians

Negative T

D

LT

A CEMP will be secured by
condition and implemented
to minimise the effects of
construction on the
surrounding transport
network for all users.
A CEMP will be secured by
condition and implemented
to minimise the effects of
construction on the
surrounding transport
network for all users.
A CEMP will be secured by
condition and implemented
to minimise the effects of
construction on the

Negligible

Negative

T

D

MT

N/A

N/A

Demolition and Construction
Severance

Driver Delay

Pedestrian delay

Stone Hill Park
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

D

LT

A CEMP will be secured by
condition and implemented
to minimise the effects of
construction on the
surrounding transport
network for all users.

Negligible

Negative

T

D

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

D

LT

The Development Proposals Negligible
are not expected to have a
material effect on severance.
No mitigation is therefore
proposed.

Negative

P

D

LT

N/A

N/A

Negative P

D

LT

Negative

P

D

LT

N/A

N/A

The ability of Negligible
pedestrians
and cyclists to
cross the road

Negative P

D

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

P

D

LT

N/A

N/A

Operation
Severance

Driver Delay

Pedestrian delay

Stone Hill Park
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-59
Pedestrian and
cyclist amenity

The relative
Negligible
pleasantness
or a journey
for pedestrians
or cyclists

Negative P

D

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

D

LT

Accidents and
Safety

The likelihood Moderate
of accidents
occurring as a
result of
increased
traffic flows
resulting from
the Proposed
Development.

Negative P

D

LT

Stone Hill Park
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

The Development Proposals Negligible
are not expected to have a
material effect on pedestrian
and cycle amenity.
Notwithstanding this a
number of improvements to
the pedestrian and cycle
network both within the site
and surrounding it are
proposed that will improve
amenity for existing users of
the area.
A number of improvements Negligible
to the pedestrian, cycle and
public transport networks
both within the site and
surrounding it are proposed
that will improve amenity for
existing users of the area.
The majority of links where a
moderate to major negative
effect has been identified
already feature segregated
pedestrian facilities that will
adequately mitigate
pedestrian fear and
intimidation. Cyclists would
not be expected to use the
busiest routes and instead
seek routes on quieter
routes.
A number of junctions have Negligible
been identified where the
effects on accidents and
safety could be either minor
or moderate negative. 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
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

Negative

P

D

LT

N/A

N/A

Negative

P

D

LT

N/A

N/A

Negative

P

D

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

Stone Hill Park
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

9-61
9.11

REFERENCES
Ref. 9.1

AECOM (2016), Stone Hill Park - Transport Assessment

Ref. 9.2

AECOM (2016), Stone Hill Park - Framework Travel Plan

Ref. 9.3

GVA (2016) Planning Statement

Ref. 9.4

Department of Communities and Local Government (2012), National Planning
Policy Framework - available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
[Date accessed: 25.04.2016]

Ref. 9.5

Kent County Council (2011), Third Local Transport Plan
[Date accessed: 25.04.2016]

Ref. 9.6

Kent County Council (2010), Growth Without Gridlock
[Date accessed: 25.04.2016]

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

Thanet District Council (2006), Thanet Local Plan Saved Policies
[Date accessed: 25.04.2016]

Ref. 9.10

Thanet District Council (2015), Draft Thanet Local Plan
[Date accessed: 25.04.2016]

Ref. 9.11

Department of Communities and Local Government (2014), National Planning
Practice Guidance - available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
[Date accessed: 25.04.2016]

Ref. 9.12

Institute of Environmental Assessment (1993), Guidelines for the Environmental
Assessment of Road Traffic
[Date accessed: 25.04.2016]

Ref. 9.13

Department for Transport (2007), Guidance on Transport Assessment
[Date accessed: 25.04.2016]

Ref. 9.14

GVA (2016) Stone Hill Park Outline Phasing and Delivery Strategy

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 9 – Traffic and Transport

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

10-1

10

ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL
HERITAGE

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

LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE

10.2.1

Details of the relevant legislation, policy and guidance are provided in Appendix 10.2.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
10.2.2

The applicable legislative framework is summarised as follows:
 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (AMAAA 1979) (Ref. 10.3), The
AMAAA largely relates to Scheduled Monuments and Section 61(12) defines sites that
warrant protection due to their being of national importance as 'ancient monuments';
 Burial Act 1857 (Ref. 10.6). Under Section 25 of the 1857 Act, it is generally a criminal
offence to remove human remains from any place of burial without appropriate license issued
by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), although recent legislative changes indicate that some cases
are exempt from this requirement;
 Treasure Act 1996 (Ref. 10.5). The Act defines what constitutes Treasure and states that any
finds of treasure and objects found in association with treasure must be reported to the local
coroner;
 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 relates to specific controls in
regard to the protection of building and areas of special architectural and/or historic interest;
and
 The Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 provides protection for the wreckage of military
aircraft and designated military vessels.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 10 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

As a minimum the policy and guidance documents considered relevant include:
 Kent County Council Development and Infrastructure – Creating Quality Places;
 Unlocking Kent’s Potential – Kent County Council’s Framework for Regeneration;
st

 21 Century Kent – A Blueprint for the County’s Future;
 Thanet Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies; in particular:

HE11

Archaeological Assessment

HE12

Archaeological Sites and Preservation

 Draft Thanet Local Plan (2015) Emerging Policy; in particular:

Policy HE01 – Archaeology

Policy HE02 - Development in Conservation Areas

Policy HE03 - Local Heritage Assets

Policy HE04 - Historic Parks and Gardens

Policy HE05 - Works to a heritage asset to address climate change

GUIDANCE
 Planning Practice Guidance (2014) (Ref.10.15);

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 10 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

RELEVANT ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

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

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT
th

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

KCC’s 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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 10 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 Chapter’s 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.

KCC approved Military Richard Taylor and
Historians
Victor Smith

Historic England

24/02/16 Telephone calls
and emails regarding site
surveys and meeting.
17/02/16 site meeting with
follow up emails and
telephone calls.

16/02/16 Telephone call

KCC Heritage
Conservation

Simon Mason

Meeting on site 18/01/16

KCC

Simon Mason

Emails 18/01/16

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 10 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

SUMMARY OF OUTCOME
OF DISCUSSIONS
Agreed areas on site for
geophysical survey. Also,
agreed concept of TT during
application period.

Agreed date for meeting on
site.
Agreed for the military
historians to undertake
assessment and spent the
day with them helping with the
assessment. Draft buildings
assessment report appended
to HEDBA, Appx.10.1.
HE preferred to allow
consultation with KCC.
Site meeting with KCC agreed
archaeological strategy and
for military historians to have
access to the site for an
assessment of the airfields
historic buildings
Received information from
Simon Mason on the large
scale archaeological
investigations undertook by

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

KCC Heritage and
Conservation

Simon Mason

30/10/16 Email

KCC Heritage and
Conservation

Simon Mason

08/10/16
Telephone and email

Wessex and Oxford
Archaeology on the East Kent
Access Road. Also,
suggested that this would
provide a relevant blue print
for mitigation within the
Manston Airport Site.
Discussed utilising the historic
military assessment within
HEDBA. Also, agreed that a
combined study for
archaeology and built heritage
was the best way forward.
Also, discussed a site
meeting.
Agreed to meet up on site for
discussion of archaeological
strategy.
Undertook walkover of around
half of the site to ascertain
areas of archaeological
potential and view historic
buildings.
Discussions regarding
allowing access for KCC
military historians to view
historic building for
assessment.
Further full discussions on the
Site including potential
archaeology and built heritage
assets, and for date for a site
meeting.

EXTENT OF THE STUDY AREA
10.4.6

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.

METHOD OF BASELINE DATA COLLATION
10.4.8

This assessment is based on the following baseline studies:

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 10 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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.

CHANGES TO THE FABRIC AND SETTING OF NON-DESIGNATED
HERITAGE ASSETS
10.4.11

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 10 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

10-7
Table 10.2: Criteria Used to Determine Value of all elements of the Historic Environment

Value

Criteria

Very High

Assets of acknowledged international value/assets that can contribute to acknowledged
international research objectives

High

Non-designated assets of schedulable quality and value Designated and non-designated
assets that can contribute to acknowledged national research objectives

Medium

Non-designated assets that contribute to acknowledged regional research objectives

Low

Non-designated assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research
objectives

Negligible

Non-designated assets (including sites and features) with no significant historic or
archaeological value

Unknown

The value of the resource has not been ascertained

Source: Adapted from DMRB

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:

Criteria Used to Determine the Magnitude of Change

Magnitude of
Change

Criteria

High

Change to most or all of the key elements of the asset so that it is totally altered

Medium

Changes to many key elements of the asset so that it is clearly modified

Low

Changes to key elements such that the asset is slightly altered

Negligible

Very minor / barely noticeable changes to key elements

No Change

No change to elements

Source: Adapted from DMRB

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

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 10 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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

EXISTING LAND USE ON THE SITE
10.5.2

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 10 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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).

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 10 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 Thanet’s 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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 10 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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 Thanet’s 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.

MEDIEVAL PERIOD (1066 – 1539)
10.5.17

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.

Stone Hill Park Ltd
Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Statement
Chapter 10 – Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
70009799
May 2016

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) settlemen