ABBEY MANOR GROUP/SAINSBURY S SUPERMARKETS LTD

Transcription

1 ABBEY MANOR GROUP/SAINSBURY S SUPERMARKETS LTD Mixed Use Development including Business Park and Foodstore Land at Bunford Park, Bunford Lane, Yeovil Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Report June 2017

2 Introduction This Non-Technical Summary of an Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared on behalf of Abbey Manor Group and Sainsbury s Supermarkets Ltd. It supports a hybrid application submitted to South Somerset District Council for development of a mixed use scheme for a business park and foodstore on land at Bunford Park, Bunford Lane, Yeovil. The scope of the assessment and topics agreed to be covered are as follows: Landscape and Visual Impact (SRL Consulting) Heritage (WYG) Ecology (WYG) Socio-Economic (Indigo and WYG) Traffic and Transport (Connect Consultants) The ES records an assessment of the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the environment. The content of the ES has been agreed with the Council, following consultation with stakeholders, through a formal scoping exercise. The aim has been to ensure a proper understanding by the public and by the Council when making its decision on the planning application of the predicted significant effects on the environment and the scope for reducing them ( mitigation ). The general approach of the ES draws on the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, national guidance and published guidelines on the preparation of ESs. It has been prepared by a consultant team who have undertaken the detailed assessment of likely significant environmental effects. Figure 1: Site Context Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 2

3 The Site The Site at Bunford Park is situated on the western edge of Yeovil. The site extends to 21.6ha. The Site is bordered by Dodham Brook to the north west and to the north east by the A3088, western relief road. The southern and western boundaries are defined by field boundaries and Broadleaze Farm. It is currently undeveloped. The majority of the Site is allocated in the adopted local plan for development as a business park and benefits from an outline planning permission for this business park use ( the 2011 Consented Scheme ). A small proportion in the south of the Site lies beyond the defined built up area of Yeovil and also was not included in the previous planning application. A nearby site to the south, known as Bunford Heights, benefits from outline planning permission for new houses. A further site, known as Bunford Hollow, is also proposed for new houses immediately to the south of Bunford Park. An application for this housing development is to be submitted soon. Bunford Hollow has been considered as part of the required cumulative assessment of likely significant effects in the ES. Approximately 0.5 miles away to the west is Brympton d Evercy, where there are 23 designated heritage assets, including grade I listed Brympton House and grade II* Registered Park and Garden. Figure 2: Site showing 2011 Consented Scheme Site The Site lies immediately adjacent to Somerset County Council s Yeovil Western Corridor Works on the A3088 which are programmed to be delivered in summer The design of those works included the traffic from the 2011 Consented Scheme, which has planning permission. Comparisons with the 2011 Consented Scheme has been made throughout the ES and is used as the baseline. Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 3

4 The Proposed Development The application is submitted as a hybrid with some parts seeking full and some outline planning permission. The application seeks full, detailed planning permission for Phase 1: the main Site access; business park: 2,040sq m gross employment unit; 8,443sq m gross foodstore; petrol filling station; and related car parks, other infrastructure and landscaping. And outline planning permission for: secondary Site access; remainder of business park: 56,051sq m gross floorspace; and other related infrastructure and landscaping. The business park part of the scheme seeks to provide a flexible range of buildings to be attractive to the market. The split of uses is for offices, research and development, light industrial and storage and distribution. The main Site access is in the form of a 4-arm roundabout junction on the A3088 Western Corridor. New pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities and new bus stops will also be provided on the A3088. New pedestrian and cycle routes are to be provided to connect the Site with the surrounding area. A second Site access is to be provided off Watercombe Lane. This also will serve the proposed housing at Bunford Hollow. The landscape masterplan is designed to minimise landscape and visual effects and includes on and off-site structural planting and seeks to retention and improvement, where possible, of existing trees and hedgerows. The off-site planting is in the form of new woodland structural planting along the western edge of the Site, on land known as the banana field. The existing mature oak trees and hedgerows with trees on site have been retained and improved where possible. Figure 3: Phase 1 Detailed Element Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 4

5 Figure 4: Illustrative Combined Masterplan Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 5

6 Alternative Options An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicants is required. The alternatives considered have been in the context of the long standing allocation of the majority of the Site for employment development. Thus, the options have been focused on the no-scheme option and the 2011 Consented Scheme. With the no-scheme option there will be neutral effects on ecology, landscape, setting of nearby heritage assets, traffic and shopping effects. The significant positive socio-economic effects arising from creation of jobs and commerce in Yeovil will not happen. Thus, the no-scheme option would have a significant negative effect on the local economy of Yeovil. The 2011 Consented Scheme will give rise to very similar significant effects to the Proposed Development, notwithstanding the additional parcel of land to the south included in the current hybrid application. However, the 2011 Consented Scheme has not happened, despite having planning permission since 2011 and being marketed and promoted; it has not been viable to start construction. The key difference with the Proposed Development is the inclusion of a foodstore; its role is to pump prime by enabling the funds to be released to construct the main Site access to facilitate the business park to be delivered. Figure 5: 2011 Consented Scheme Masterplan Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 6

7 Landscape and Visual An assessment of the potential significant effects on landscape (physical changes to landscape elements) and to the resulting landscape character and visual effects (changes in people s views) has been undertaken. The 2011 Consented Scheme has been categorised as baseline and it is assumed that it has been implemented. The difference in landscape and visual terms between the 2011 Consented Scheme and the Proposed Development has been assessed. A comparative zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) demonstrated that with the enlarged site to the south the Proposed Development was unlikely to give rise to significant or different effects from those arising from the 2011 Consented Scheme. Consideration has been given to the effects on completion and 15 years after completion with the benefit of planting mitigation both by day and by night. Landscape mitigation proposals have been designed to minimise these effects, integrate the scheme into the landscape and to provide benefits to the wider landscape. The residual landscape and visual effects have been assessed with 15 years growth of the landscape mitigation. The following effects have been found: During construction, a temporary, moderately significant adverse landscape effect will arise to the aesthetic factors of the Site. This adverse effect will reduce by being not significant on completion. Significant but short-term temporary adverse visual effects will arise during Figure 6: Comparative Zone of Theoretical Visibility construction when seen from the roof terrace of Brympton House, and moderately significant short-term temporary adverse visual effects will arise on construction from Camp Road/West Coker Road Junction, Brympton Avenue, Brympton d'evercy parkland and Watercombe Lane. The effects from both these receptors will reduce to being not significant 15 years after completion with the landscape mitigation as shown on Figure 7. Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 7

8 Figure 7: Landscape Mitigation Proposals Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 8

9 Heritage Effects An assessment of the potential significant effects of the Proposed Development on the significance of nearby heritage assets was undertaken. It focused on the differences between the Proposed Development and the 2011 Consented Scheme. There are no heritage assets on the Site. Using the ZTV described above, four designated heritage assets were identified as requiring setting assessments, as follows: Effects of intermediate or greater significance are considered to be significant in EIA terms. Without mitigation, the effects of the Proposed Development on the setting and significance of two designated assets, Brympton d Evercy Registered Park and Garden and Brympton House, are considered to be significant. This would have been the same for the 2011 Consented Scheme. The effects on the other heritage assets were not found to be significant. Brympton d Evercy Registered Park and Garden (grade II*): Entrance Gateway to Brympton House (grade II Listed Building); Brympton House (grade I Listed Building); and The Chantry/Dower House (grade I Listed Building). In addition, Yeovil Airfield, a non-designated heritage asset, was also identified as requiring a setting assessment. Unmitigated, the Proposed Development would have negative impacts on the setting and significance of the above heritage assets. These impacts are at the lower end of the magnitude scale. When these impacts are combined with their respective levels of heritage significance, this would amount to effects ranging from intermediate adverse to neutral. Figure 8: Southern Elevation of Brympton House Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 9

10 The mitigation in the proposed masterplan seeks to minimise negative impacts and adverse effects. This includes the structural woodland planting of the banana field described above, which was agreed mitigation planting for the 2011 Consented Scheme with Historic England and the Council. With this mitigation after 15 years, the Proposed Development would be slightly less visible from within the Registered Park and Garden in views to the north-east and south-east of Brympton House and considerably less visible within the eastern setting of the Registered Park and Garden. The mitigation planting also helps preserve the semi-rural character of the area. With the mitigation implemented, there would be a reduction in magnitude of identified negative impacts and scale of effects for three heritage assets, highlighted in bold in the table below: Heritage Assets Brympton d Evercy Registered Park and Garden Heritage Significance High Impacts Mitigated Slight negative Effects - Mitigated Minor adverse Entrance Gateway High Negligible Neutral negative Brympton House Very High Negligible negative Minor adverse The Chantry/Dower House Very High Negligible negative Minor adverse Yeovil Airfield Medium Negligible negative Neutral Table 1: Summary of Residual Impacts and Effects The Proposed Development would not give rise to any residual heritage effects of sufficient scale to be considered significant in EIA terms. This remains the case when the cumulative effects of Bunford Hollow are considered. Figure 9: View from Roof Terrace of Brympton House to Site Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 10

11 Ecology Effects The ecological effects of the Proposed Development on habitats and associated flora and fauna have been assessed. It uses the findings of a number of field surveys including detailed surveys on reptiles, great crested newts, dormice, bats and badgers. The masterplan design has sought to retain as much of the habitats of importance within the Site and promote enhancement and connectivity within the development. This has included retention of linear features, including areas of green spaces and specific measures for bats, badgers and birds. The habitats on Site are arable land (fields for growing crops), scrub/tall ruderal vegetation, hedgerow with trees, treelines and ditches, see Figure 10. There are no statutory designated sites within 2km of the Site, one statutory designated site 7km of the Site and 5 Local Wildlife Sites (nonstatutory sites) within 2km of the Site. In terms of species, the surveys reveal: presence of a low population of slow worm of Site level importance; no great crested newts recorded, Site is considered to be of negligible importance; no dormice were recorded, Site is considered to be of negligible importance; the commuting and foraging bat value of the Site is considered to be of up to District level owing in part to the frequency of rarer species recorded on Site; there are a number and variety of badger setts and suitable habitats for foraging of badgers within and adjacent to the Site, the Site is of Local importance to badgers. Figure 10: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 11

12 With the mitigation in place, both forming part of the design and specific additional measures, the significant environmental effects from the construction phase are an overall significant beneficial permanent effect on hedgerows with lines of trees and broadleaved woodland in the medium to long term and significant and permanent beneficial effect on other habitats of local value. Turning to the operation phase, again with the proposed mitigation in place, the residual effect will be significant beneficial and permanent on habitats within the Site in the medium to long term. This is different conclusion than that assessed for the 2011 Consented Scheme owing to the level of habitat connectivity throughout the Site with the Proposed Development. There will be an overall habitat loss of ha because of the Proposed Development, a loss that predominantly equates to the loss of arable land and those habitats assessed of being of importance within the context of the Site only; the majority of this loss would have been lost with the 2011 Consented Scheme too. The loss of those habitats is not considered significant in the context of the proposed mitigation, including 3.78ha of native structural planting of the banana field. The additional gains in planting proposed will result in an overall significant, beneficial and permanent effect on the site value in the medium to long term. For species, with the mitigation in place including a management plan there will be no significant negative effects and potential to result in an overall significant, permanent positive effect in the medium to long term for badgers. For foraging/commuting bats, with mitigation including input into the final lighting design, there will be no significant negative effect arising. The conclusions in respect of bats are not possible until the summer surveys are available. Looking at effect on species during the construction phase, with the proposed mitigation in place: the effect on roosting bats cannot be drawn in advance of the summer surveys; no significant effect on foraging/commuting bats using the Site; no significant effect on the badger population using the Site. Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 12

13 Socio-Economic Effects Employment & Training An assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the Proposed Development, both as a whole and the first phase only as described above, has been undertaken. The purpose was to explain the baseline position for the local area and South Somerset, identify, quantify and assess the significance of the likely socio-economic effects coming from the Proposed Development and consider cumulative effects. The construction phase will generate three temporary effects for the entire Proposed Development, as set out in the table below. The effects of the first phase are also judged to be moderate beneficial; the scale of the effect being smaller (133 person years, GVA of 9.0m). Effect Scale of Significance Mitigation Residual effect effect Construction employment Gross value added Construction training 466 person years Moderate beneficial Not required None 31.5m Moderate - Not required None beneficial Not Minor to Not required None quantified moderate - beneficial Table 2: Construction Phase Temporary Socio-Economic Effects Once it is operational and fully occupied, the Proposed Development will generate four different permanent socio-economic effects. All four will be beneficial effect which will be enjoyed in perpetuity. Effect Scale of effect Significance Mitigation Residual effect Employment effects Permanent jobs 2,499 to 3,090 FTE gross on Major beneficial Not required Major - beneficial site jobs Net additional jobs 2,192 to 2,711 FTE net additional jobs Major - beneficial Not required Major - beneficial Economic effects Gross value 93.5m to Major - Not Major added 115.7m beneficial required beneficial Training opportunities Training & Not quantified Moderate - Not Moderate skills beneficial required beneficial development opportunities Table 3: Operational Phase Permanent Socio-Economic Effects Economic Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 13

14 The Proposed Development will create a major new employment hub which Permanent Proposed 2011 Comments will make a significant contribution to the delivery of jobs and economic effect Development Consented growth for South Somerset. The permanent jobs created by the Proposed Scheme Development represents an increase of between 5.8% and 7.2% in the number of full time equivalent (FTE) throughout South Somerset. Operational phase permanent socio-economic effects Once operational and fully occupied the first phase will generate four different permanent socio-economic effects: permanent jobs: 190 FTE gross on site jobs of moderate beneficial; 167 FTE net additional jobs of moderate beneficial significance; 7.1m GVA of moderate beneficial significance; and Moderate beneficial training and skills development opportunities. The assessment compares the socio-economic effects of the Proposed Development with those of the 2011 Consented Scheme. For the construction phase the findings were: Construction employment: 466 person years compared with 373 person years for 2011 Consented Scheme; the build costs assumed to be 80% of those of the Proposed Development. Gross value added: 31.5m compared for 25.2m for the consented scheme. Broadly similar construction training opportunities. Permanent jobs 2,499 to 3,090 FTE gross on site jobs Net additional permanent jobs Gross value added Training and skills development opportunities 2,192 to 2,711 FTE net additional jobs 93.5 million to million per annum in perpetuity Up to 4,000 to 5,000 jobs No information available. No information available. The high-level estimate of gross on site employment for the 2011 Consented Scheme is more ambitious than realistic. Not possible to assess based on information available for the 2007 Application. Not possible to assess based on information available for the 2007 Application. Not quantified Not quantified The Proposed Development would have a larger effect than the 2011 Consented Scheme, given the additional inclusion of the new Sainsbury s food store. Table 4: Socio-Economic Effect Comparison with 2011 Consented Scheme The table below sets out comparison for the operational phase: Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 14

15 Socio-Economic Effects Shopping The likely significant shopping effects of the proposed foodstore element of the Proposed Development was assessed looking at the existing shopping patterns and environment, notably of Yeovil Town Centre. The Proposed Development includes a 8,443sq m gross, 5,108sq m net foodstore to be operated by Sainsbury s. The convenience goods turnover of the store is assessed to be 37.1m; the comparison goods turnover is assessed to be 13.9m per annum. Yeovil Town Centre is categorised as a Regional shopping centre and is an important comparison goods destination with a comparison goods turnover of 161.1m per annum. The main foodstore provision in Yeovil includes Tesco Extra, Queensway, Asda, Preston Road and Morrisons, Lysander Road. These three stores attract the highest share of main food shopping in the defined study area. Once the new store is trading the potential significant effects on Yeovil Town Centre have been considered looking at change in turnover of existing shops in the centre and on investment decisions in the centre. The change in market share of Yeovil Town Centre is assessed to be -2.1% and impact on potential 2020 turnover of Yeovil Town Centre -5.9%. The Proposed Development would not delay or prejudice any potential investment or proposals in the centre, in particular any extension to the Quedam Centre, should it come forward. Taken together, the effect on Yeovil Town Centre is considered to be minor adverse. Accordingly, no mitigation measures are suggested. Yeovil Town Centre demonstrates healthy levels of vitality and viability with a good diversity of uses, broad base of key non-food anchor stores, reduction in number of vacant units, evidence of investor confidence and good levels of pedestrian activity. Yeovil Town Centre is judged to be a receptor of moderate sensitivity to change. No significant impacts relating to shopping have been identified at the construction stage. Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 15

16 Traffic & Transport Effects The likely significant effects in relation to the accessibility of the Proposed Development and traffic activity during construction and from the completed development on road safety and highway capacity have been considered. The assessment has used a future assessment year of 2028, which aligns with the County Council s traffic model. That traffic model has included the traffic from the 2011 Consented Scheme. It forms part of the baseline conditions and has been included in the design of the County Council s Western Corridor Improvement Works. The Proposed Development benefits from accessibility by non-car modes: the existing infrastructure and walk/cycle routes makes foot and cycle an attractive mode of travel to the Site and the Site is accessible by bus. Looking at the construction phase, based on the construction method statement the vehicle movements associated with the Proposed Development are assessed to be negligible. The impacts on all junctions that will be affected have been assessed and either no change or a reduction in driver delay (and a corresponding reduction in stress) was identified compared with the baseline position; the latter included the traffic from the 2011 Consented Scheme. As such, the Proposed Development has been assessed as having a long term, low beneficial effect of moderate significance. Owing to the accident data for the existing local roads, the sensitivity of road safety was judged to be high. The decrease in traffic compared with the baseline for weekdays and modest increase during the Saturday peak hour means that the change in traffic road safety will be negligible. Overall, the residual cumulative impacts of development are low beneficial of minor significance on non-car accessibility; low beneficial of moderate significance on traffic and negligible on road safety. The likely effect on walking, cycling and public transport resulting from the Proposed Development (with mitigation in place in the form of new signal controlled pedestrian crossings, together with the proposed new bus stops and foot and cycle links) is judged to be of long term, minor beneficial effect of minor significance. Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 16

17 Overall Conclusions The ES has examined in detail the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the environment. The assessment concludes the Proposed Development can proceed without causing unacceptable level of impacts and effects on either the local or wider environments. The overall residual effect will be positive in some areas. The ES has identified a number of likely significant primary effects arising from the Proposed Development post mitigation. In simple terms, these can be summarised as follows: A moderate beneficial effect on landcover, specifically on trees and hedgerows, 15 years after planting; some adverse landscape effects will remain 15 years after planting, but these are assessed not to be of EIA significance despite the additional land in the south of the Site beyond the 2011 outline planning permission site. A minor adverse effect on the setting and significance of Brympton d Evercy Registered Park and Garden, albeit not of EIA significance. On the setting and significance of Brympton House and The Chantry/Dower House minor adverse effects, again not of EIA significance. A permanent, significant benefit in the medium to long term to hedgerow habitats. On construction employment and GVA a temporary, beneficial effect of moderate significance. A minor to moderate beneficial effect which is temporary on construction training opportunities. On operational employment, gross, on site, and net additional jobs and GVA there is assessed to be a permanent, major beneficial effect. A permanent, moderate beneficial effect on district wide training and skills development opportunities. A minor adverse shopping effect on Yeovil Town Centre, albeit not of EIA significance. On non-car access a minor, long term beneficial effect. The effects on junction capacity and road safety are assessed to be low beneficial of moderate effect to negligible. All other significant effects from the Proposed Development post mitigation are judge to be neutral or negligible. Overall the Proposed Development is judged as being likely to give rise to major to moderate positive socio-economic effects in terms of temporary and permanent job creation and GVA and minor to moderate positive effects on permanent training and skills development, landscape, hedgerow habitats and non-car access. Minor adverse shopping effects on Yeovil Town Centre and on the setting and significance of Brympton House and Brympton d Evercy Registered Park and Garden, albeit not of magnitude of EIA significance. Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 17