Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary Blythe Valley Park, Solihull. March 2016

Transcription

1 Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary Blythe Valley Park, Solihull March 2016

2 Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. The EIA Process 1 3. The Site and Surroundings 4 4. The Proposed Development 7 5. Needs and Alternatives Construction Programme Summary of Topics Summary of Residual Effects 32 Contact Angela Reeve angela.reeve@turley.co.uk March 2016

3 1. Introduction 1.1 This document summarises, in non-technical language, the Environmental Statement (ES) which accompanies the hybrid planning application for the mixed-use development of land at Blythe Valley Park, Solihull. The application is submitted on behalf of IM Properties. 1.2 For ease of reference the description of development is as follows: Hybrid planning application for the mixed-use development of land at Blythe Valley Park to comprise: in outline with all matters reserved (save for the new access, internal spine road and elements of landscaping - as described below), up to 750 residential dwellings, up to 98,850 sq m (GIA) of Use Class B1, B2 and B8 floor space, an up to 250 unit housing with care facility (Use Class C2/C3), up to 2,500 sq m of ancillary town centre uses (Use Class A1 A5), up to 1,000 sq m of ancillary leisure and community uses (Use Class D2), up to 200 bed hotel (Use Class C1), associated car parking (including shared car parking which could be decked) public open space, public realm, and highways works; in full, new vehicular access, internal spine road, soft and hard landscaping (in part), SUDS and balancing ponds. 1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a formal process by which the environmental impacts of a development are assessed and where there is potential for a significant impact that cannot be avoided, works are identified to lessen the impact. 1.4 The ES reports on the findings of the EIA and sets out those areas where potentially significant environmental effects have been identified and the mitigation proposed to remedy the effects. 1.5 A request for a Scoping Opinion was submitted to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) on 25 September 2015 under Regulation 13 of the EIA Regulations (2015). SMBC provided scoping responses from statutory consultees to the applicant throughout the month of November 2015 including responses from: SMBC Housing Officer SMBC Drainage Officer (also Lead Local Flood Authority) SMBC Landscape Officer SMBC Ecologist SMBC Planning Policy Highways England Natural England Environment Agency 1

4 1.6 At the request of Solihull Metropolitan Council, a Scoping Report Addendum was submitted to SMBC on 12 February A formal Scoping Opinion from SMBC was received on 24 March The results of the EIA are presented in three volumes as follows: Volume 1 Main Text and Figures Volume 2 Technical Appendices Volume 3 Transport Assessment and Travel Plan 1.8 This Non-Technical Summary (NTS) summarises the findings of the ES and describes the potential likely significant environmental effects (beneficial and adverse) that may arise as a consequence of the proposed development. The NTS also provides details of the measures which can be undertaken to reduce the likelihood of the potential effects. 2

5 2. The EIA Process 2.1 The ES and the associated assessments have been completed in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations The ES has considered all aspects of the environment which are likely to be affected by the proposed development and includes an assessment of the likely extent and significance of the potential effects on the environment. 2.2 The topics which have been included in the ES were informally agreed with SMBC in January The formal Scoping Opinion provided in March 2016 confirmed that the following topics should be formally assessed within the EIA: Traffic and Transportation Landscape and Visual Impact Ecology and Nature Conservation Ground Conditions Drainage and Hydrology Air Quality Noise and Vibration Cultural Heritage Lighting Socio-Economic Sustainability / Energy Approach to the Assessment 2.3 In order to assess the likely environmental effects of the proposed development, the existing or baseline conditions for each topic area must first be defined. This involves reviewing available information to establish the existing environmental conditions within a defined study area. The likely extent of the effects on the environment can then be assessed. The environmental effects are therefore the difference between the existing conditions and the proposed development. 2.4 In order to ensure a robust approach to the assessment of impacts, it is necessary to assess what is often termed the worst case scenario of environmental effects. This most often equates to maximum development parameters; however in the case of some assessments, such as the socio-economic assessment, the minimum parameter would represent the worst case scenario. 1

6 2.5 In the case of this proposed development, the minimum and maximum parameters are reflective of the flexibility sought across the plots. Therefore, if the minimum amount of some uses comes forward, the maximum of other uses will come forward. On this basis, it is unrealistic to consider a worst case in some circumstances as this is unlikely to ever occur. A realistic sensitivity scenario has therefore been used in some circumstances (such as the Highways Assessment and the Socio Economics Assessment). 2.6 The likely effects which are identified are then considered against significance criteria, which is used throughout the ES, and adapted as necessary for each topic area. The significance criteria are outlined in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1: Effect Significance Magnitude Criteria Major Adverse Moderate Adverse Minor Adverse Negligible Minor Beneficial Moderate Beneficial Major Beneficial The proposed development could have a major adverse effect on the environmental character and integrity of the site and / or its surrounding area. The proposed development could have a moderate adverse effect on the environmental character and integrity of the site and / or its surrounding area. The proposed development could have a minor adverse effect on the environmental character and integrity of the site and / or its surrounding area. No observable effect The proposed development could have a minor beneficial effect on the environmental character and integrity of the site and / or its surrounding area. The proposed development could have a moderate beneficial effect on the environmental character and integrity of the site and / or its surrounding area. The proposed development could have a major beneficial effect on the environmental character and integrity of the site and / or its surroundings. 2.7 Where the assessment indicates that the proposed development is likely to have a significant adverse effect, the ES identifies appropriate mitigation measures to prevent, reduce or offset these effects. Mitigation can include opportunities to make environmental enhancements, and can either be incorporated into the design and operation of the proposed development, or through the introduction of safeguards or additional measures. 2

7 2.8 A cumulative assessment is also undertaken to consider the combination of the effects which each other, and with the effects of other committed developments, which have been agreed with SMBC. SMBC has confirmed that the committed developments need only be assessed in relation to Traffic and Transport (and Air Quality / Noise and Vibration which are closely linked), due to the location of the site. 3

8 3. The Site and Surroundings Description of Site Context and Location 3.1 The application site is located on land within and adjacent to the existing Blythe Valley Business Park in Solihull. The site is within the Cheswick Green Parish boundary, with the village of Cheswick Green located approximately 1.2 km north west of the site (as the crow flies) and Solihull Town Centre located approximately 4.7km north east of the site. 3.2 The site is bound to the south and east by the M42 motorway, beyond that lies open farmland and the village of Hockley Heath. To the immediate south, the site is bound by (and partially includes) Kineton Lane, which provides access to approximately 22 residential properties. To the west, the site abuts agricultural farmland interspersed with residential properties (and Cottage Farm Equestrian Centre) all accessed off Ilshaw Heath Road. 3.3 To the north west lies Winterton Farm and beyond that the built up area of Cheswick Green. Within Cheswick Green there are a number of local facilities including: Cheswick Green Village Hall The Village (GP) Surgery A pharmacy A Post Office A Newsagent A salon A Public House Cheswick Green Primary School Earlswood Cricket Club 3.4 The River Blythe and the associated River Blythe Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lies to the north of the site. Beyond the River Blythe lies Shirley Golf Club. Site Description 3.5 The site measures approximately 120 hectares and comprises the existing Blythe Valley Business Park and associated Country Park (referred to as the eastern area ), and undeveloped open countryside (referred to as the western area ). 4

9 3.6 The existing Blythe Valley Business Park is accessed off Junction 4 of the M42, via a one-way access and egress system. Vehicles exit the park via a bridge across the M42 on to the A Two Public Rights of Way (PROW) cross the site (SL78 and SL79) and there are a number of existing footpaths associated with the existing development and the associated country park. The Eastern Area 3.8 The eastern area currently comprises 16 buildings (including the Gate House) of predominantly office use (Use Class B1(a)) and associated parking. In addition to office buildings there is also a nursery and Virgin Active gym located on the site. Figure 3.1 below shows the existing buildings on site; all of which will be retained as part of the proposed development. Figure 3.1: Existing Buildings on Blythe Valley Park 3.9 The existing buildings are set within a managed landscaped setting, typical of a high quality business park. In between the existing buildings, the eastern area also includes several ready-made development plots, which have historically been levelled ready for future development. Some of these plots are currently used as temporary car parks. The Western Area 3.10 The western area of the site comprises undeveloped green field land. The undeveloped area is made up of four parcels of land, irregular in shape, separated by hedgerows and 5

10 trees. To the north east of the Western Area is a marl pond which is surrounding by trees and dense scrub Two dense hedgerows, interspersed with trees, dissect the western area. There is also an area of new planting to the south of the western area, which is accessible via a number of existing footpaths. The Country Park 3.12 The existing Country Park is a valuable asset on the site and comprises 50 hectares of woodland, grassland, hedgerows, watercourses and wetlands. It was developed in association with the existing business park and includes an exemplar Sustainable Urban Drainage System. Subsequent planning applications proposed to extend the park around the entire site; however the extension of the park around the entire site was never fully implemented. Topography 3.13 The areas of the site that are proposed for development have a relatively flat topography. The eastern area has historically been levelled in order to accommodate development with the ground sloping gently away around the site edges. The western area has a gentle gradient sloping gently downwards to the west and rising up again on the western edge. 6

11 4. The Proposed Development The Proposed Development 4.1 The ES supports a hybrid planning application for mixed-use development at Blythe Valley Park. The main design components are summarised in this chapter and described in detail within the Design and Access Statement accompanying the planning application. 4.2 The Planning Application is submitted in a Hybrid format. Whilst this format is technically and legally an application for outline planning permission, there is a clear distinction between those elements for which all matters of detail will be specified for approval and those elements where all matters are reserved for subsequent approval through future applications for reserved matters approval. 4.3 The following defines the application s outline and full components. Outline Elements 4.4 The outline elements seek to provide for a flexible parameter-based permission whereby different uses could come forward on different plots within the development. Whilst the residential uses are predominantly proposed in the western area and the employment uses are predominantly proposed in the eastern area, the central area of the site provides opportunities for the flexible mixed-use. 4.5 Table 4.1 provides a summary of the key components making up the outline elements of the planning application. Table 4.1: Minimum and Maximum Development Parameters Component Maximum parameter Minimum Parameter Residential Dwellings (Use Class C3) Employment Floorspace (Use Classes B1, B2, and B8) Housing-with-Care (Use Class C2 / C3) 750 dwellings ,850 sq m* (GIA) 58,900 sq m 250 units 0 units Ancillary Use Class A1-A5 2,500 sq m 150 sq m Ancillary Leisure (Use Class D2) 1,000 sq m 0 sq m A hotel (Use Class C1) Up to 200 rooms No hotel * The maximum employment floorspace can only be delivered in a scenario where the Housing-with-care unit and the hotel are not delivered and the minimum parameters for A1-A5 and D2 are delivered. If both the hotel and the Housingwith-Care unit are delivered, then the maximum employment floorspace which can be built out is 58,900 sq m. Of the maximum 98,850 sq m, up to 98,850 of this could be delivered as B1 floorspace, whereas the parameters restrict the total amount of B2/B8 floorspace would be 39,500 sq m. 7

12 4.6 The Housing-with-Care unit is proposed on Zone H. In a scenario whereby this did not come forward, this area could instead be developed as office (B1(a)) floorspace and or other mixed-use elements including A1-A5, C1, C3 or D2 floorspace. Similarly, there is flexibility for the hotel to come forward on either plot A, B, E or H, however were this not to come forward, there is flexibility to allow for further employment development (and mixed-use where appropriate) on these plots. If both the hotel and Housing-with-Care unit were not delivered, the maximum employment floorspace deliverable would be 98,850 sq m. Residential (Use Class C3) and Housing-with-Care (Use Class C3 / C2) 4.7 The western area of Blythe Valley Park, which is currently undeveloped grassland, will be developed for residential use. In the centre of the park there will be opportunities for higher density residential development and a Housing-with-Care unit as part of a mixeduse centre. 4.8 The development will incorporate a range of dwellings with opportunities for a mixture of dwelling sizes, types and tenures. Larger homes at lower densities (25-35 dwellings per hectare) will be located to the west and south of the site where a more rural character is appropriate. This density will increase to between 60 and 80 dph towards the centre of the site, with the Housing-with-Care scheme at a density of up to 110 dph. 4.9 Affordable housing will be provided as part of the scheme. The precise quantum and nature of this provision will be the subject of discussion with SMBC during the determination. Employment Floorspace (Use Classes B1, B2 and B8) 4.10 The eastern area of the site currently comprises a partially built out business park with five large plots of undeveloped land. These plots will be built out for employment uses (Use Classes B1, B2 and B8) with flexibility for a mixture of different uses on each plot as set out in Table 4.2 below. Table 4.2: Plot A B E F H Employment Plot Flexibility Potential Uses B1, B2, B8 and C1 B1, B2, B8 and C1 B1, C3 and A1-A5 B1 and C1 A1-A5, B1, C1, C2, C3 and D The employment development will predominantly be office-led, however there is flexibility for B2 and B8 development on plots A and B. These plots are the furthest 8

13 away from the residential uses and closest to the motorway, therefore limiting the potential noise / traffic impacts of these uses on residents. Ancillary Mixed-Uses (Use Classes A1-A5, D2 and C1) 4.12 In order to create a sustainable-mixed use community, a number of ancillary uses are proposed in the central area of the site. Plots H and E are flexible plots wherein there is the opportunity for A1-A5, B1, C1, C2, C3 and D2 uses. These uses will provide services and facilities for both employees and residents of the park, as well as visitors to it. Public Open Space 4.13 The proposed development will provide formal and informal opportunities for play and sport for different age groups A LAP will be provided to the north of the site, whilst a doorstep play trail will be provided within the green corridors running through the residential development. Formal sports pitches and a LEAP or NEAP will be provided to the west of the residential development. Car Parking 4.15 Both the residential and employment development will result in a need for the provision of car parking spaces. There are also opportunities for the provision of some shared car parking (which could be decked) on site. The number of new car parking spaces to be provided across the site will be up to 8,359. Full Elements 4.16 In order to ensure consistency across the development, IM will seek to deliver the following elements of the scheme for which detailed permission is sought: Landscaping The new access and internal spine road Drainage ponds and primary drainage routes within the landscape Landscaping 4.17 The existing Country Park will be extended and opportunities for formal and informal play will be created through and on the edges of the development. The total amount of landscaping for which detailed approval is sought covers approximately hectares in the western area. The detailed design of play facilities is reserved for future determination. New Access and Spine Road 4.18 Detailed permission is sought for the new proposed access from Kineton Lane and the new internal spine road. The new access will see the existing Kineton Lane route diverted directly in to the site and Kineton Lane will be accessed via a turning off the new stretch of road. 9

14 Ponds and Primary Drainage Routes 4.19 BVP has an exemplar existing Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS). The proposed new development will extend and connect into the existing SUDS network, with additional ponds proposed on the periphery of the built development area. Ditches and other drainage infrastructure elements are proposed within the built development area along the proposed green corridors. 10

15 5. Needs and Alternatives 5.1 Paragraph 2, Part I of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations requires the Applicant to provide details of the main alternatives considered. 5.2 The form of the proposed development has been influenced by a range of factors including location, surrounding uses, responses from statutory consultees and stakeholders, and environmental and policy considerations. This as well as the operational and functional requirements of the end users. 5.3 This chapter reviews the various design and location options explored and reasoning for the selection of the preferred development option that forms the subject of the assessment within the ES. 5.4 This following have been considered within the ES: The need for the development Consideration of the Do Nothing scenario Consideration of the Do Minimum scenario; and Consideration of alternative designs for the development The Need for the Development 5.5 The proposal is for up to 750 homes, up to 98,850 sq m of employments floorspace, a Housing-with-Care facility and ancillary uses including A1-A5 and D2 floorspace and a hotel. 5.6 The site is allocated for mixed-use development in the adopted Solihull Local Plan (2013). More specifically the allocation allows for 162,575 sq m of B1, B2 and B8 floorspace overall (i.e. including that already existing on site), circa 600 homes and supporting ancillary or complementary uses including hotels, health and fitness, leisure, childcare facilities and local facilities (A1-A5). As the site is allocated for mixed-use development it is considered that the proposed uses are acceptable in principle and the need for the development is well-established in the Local Plan evidence base. 5.7 The residential quantum proposed is higher than the amount allocated to the site. However, the NPPF states that Local Authorities should boost significantly the supply of housing (para 47), and a High Court ruling has quashed Policy P5 of the Solihull Local Plan which relates to housing numbers and delivery. The Council therefore do not have a target against which to calculate housing land supply. The Council do have an informal housing need figure, and this has been used by them to calculate their five year supply of housing land. This calculation includes the delivery of circa 600 dwellings from the Blythe Valley site. Given the severe housing shortfall in the wider Housing Market Area, it is considered appropriate to develop more dwellings on the site than allocated within the Local Plan. 11

16 Consideration of the Do Nothing Scenario 5.8 The Do Nothing scenario refers to the option of leaving the site in its current state. This would see no further development coming forward on the site and would leave the site part-developed and part undeveloped. 5.9 The proposed development will see a site which is identified as a prime location for growth within the Borough brought forward, contributing towards the provision of much needed housing and employment land, and ensuring the continuing success of the park; a key asset within the Borough and a key component of the UK Central masterplan area By not developing the site, this would prejudice the delivery of the Borough s housing and employment needs and potentially the economic success of the Borough. The Do Nothing scenario is therefore not considered to be an appropriate option. Consideration of the Do Minimum Scenario 5.11 The western area of the application site is subject to an extant outline planning permission for 74,320 sq m of B1 floorspace. This is the part of the site where residential development is now proposed (application reference: 2006/1461). The Do Minimum scenario refers to the option of fully implementing the consented scheme This scenario is not considered appropriate or achievable as the submission of any reserved matters applications would be required prior to October 2016 and the consented scheme would not allow for the current allocation or the vision of the applicant to be delivered. Consideration of Alternative Designs 5.13 The final scheme design has been based on the site analysis, surrounding landscape and topography, sustainable design principles and the deliverability, functionality and viability of the development The proposed development has gone through a process of considering alternative design iterations which is fully documented in the Design and Access Statement submitted in support of the planning application, and summarised below. Layout Options 5.15 The following layout options were considered during the development of the scheme: Land Use Scenario 1: Zonal - This scenario proposed a clear separation between residential and employment scenarios, with a residential centre within the residential zone Land Use Scenario 2: Variegated - Land use scenario 2 proposed a truly mixed community where residential and commercial development parcels were interspersed within the site, joined in the middle by a community centre. 12

17 Land Use Scenario 3: Blended Core This scenario proposes residential development to the west of the site and employment uses to the east of the site, with the blended core incorporating a mix of residential, employment and town centre / leisure uses in the centre of the site. Detailed Design Options 5.16 Three detailed design options looking at the location of play facilities were considered as followed: Option 1: Provide the play space at the centre of the site - It was considered that the area of green space in the centre of the site should remain neutral in that it should be available for both residential and commercial occupiers to use as amenity space; designating it as formal play space would result in an area which would be predominantly for use by residential occupiers. Option 2: Provide play space within the residential development area- The site is significantly constrained by its Green Belt location, and by providing large areas of play space (including offsetting zones) within the development, this would prejudice the delivery of much needed housing on a site allocated for that purpose. Early assessment work indicated that if the required open space was provided within the site, this would result in the loss of land for approximately 150 dwellings, and would therefore not make the most efficient use of land in accordance with paragraph 58 of the NPPF. Option 3: Provide play space on the periphery of the site within the Green Belt - In order to ensure that the site, which is allocated for mixed use development within the Solihull Local Plan, can be delivered, there is an opportunity to provide play space within the Green Belt and allow for the allocated land to be maximised. Access Options 5.17 Once a suitable layout option was established, more detailed studies and analysis were undertaken to understand the optimum access arrangement option for the scheme. This analysis was undertaken following pre-application discussions where the merits of a secondary access were discussed. The following options were considered: Access Scenario 1: Single Vehicular Access - During early pre-application discussions with SMBC it was agreed that there would be merit in exploring the opportunity for a second access point to the site; it was considered that this second access could reduce the potential impact of the scheme on Junction 4 of the M42, improve connectivity of the site to the surrounding area, and improve the overall design of the scheme. In terms of the benefits to the scheme by securing improved connectivity and reduced highways pressure on Junction 4 of the M42, it is considered that relying on one singular vehicular access point would not be a suitable approach to design for this site. Access Scenario 2: Opening up of the bus gate - The site is currently served by a bus and emergency vehicle only access point off Kineton Lane. This access point takes buses directly into and out of the existing business park via Central Boulevard. The opportunity to open up the bus gate for general vehicular use was 13

18 discounted early in the design process for two primary reasons: the gate is subject to a legal covenant which restricts the access for use by buses and emergency vehicles only; the access would not be easily accessible from the new residential development plots and would further encourage the mixing of traffic on Central Boulevard. Access Scenario 3: A new access off Kineton Lane - In addition to ensuring that the scheme is well connected to Cheswick Green and the surrounding area, the provision of a new access on to Kineton Lane will also help to reduce speeds by acting as a traffic calming measure on Kineton Lane. Kineton Lane will effectively be diverted into the site and the existing properties on Kineton Lane will be accessed via a left turn from the new access road. Summary 5.18 Paragraph 2, Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations requires applicants to provide an outline of the main alternative approaches to the proposed development that have been considered and the reasons for the eventual choice. These are broken down into the following categories and justification is provided for the rejection of each alternative: The Need for the Development: The site is allocated for mixed-use development comprising employment, residential and ancillary town centre, leisure and community uses in the adopted Solihull Local Plan (2013). As the site is allocated for mixed-use development it is considered that the proposed uses are acceptable in principle and the need for the development is well-established in the Local Plan evidence base. The Do Nothing Scenario: The Do Nothing scenario refers to the option of leaving the site in its current state. The site is allocated for development which the Plan anticipates will be delivered during the current plan period. This development is required in order to ensure that Solihull Borough can meet it employment and housing land needs; the Do Nothing scenario is therefore not considered to be a suitable option. The Do Minimum Scenario: The Do Minimum scenario would see extant planning permission reference 2006/1461 delivered on the site. This scenario is not considered appropriate or achievable as the submission of any reserved matters applications would be required prior to October 2016 and the consented scheme would not allow for the current allocation or the vision of the applicant (or SMBC) to the delivered. Consideration of Alternative Designs: A number of design iterations have been considered and assessed against a range of criteria including feasibility, design quality, sustainability and deliverability. This has included wider design considerations including the layout of the whole site and more detailed design considerations including the provision and location of a new site access. Through this process the preferred design / layout has been reached and is reflected in the final development scheme plans. The proposed scheme is appropriately tested in the subsequent chapters of the ES. 14

19 6. Construction Programme 6.1 The construction programme associated with the Development is anticipated to span a circa 9 year period. This is based on an assumption that there will be two housebuilders on site for the residential development at any one time. 6.2 Table 6.1 summarises the indicative programme. Table 6.1: Indicative Construction Programme Activity Approximate Start Date Approximate End Date Phase 1 (Ecological Enabling Works) Phase 2 (Site Preparation and Infrastructure) Phase 3 (First commercial plots and first residential plots) Phase 4 (Housing with Care scheme and first mixed-use plots) Phase 5 (Second phase commercial and residential plots) Phase 6 (Third phase commercial and residential plots September / October 2016 September 2017 May 2017 May 2018 May 2018 May 2020 May 2018 May 2023 May 2020 May 2022 May 2022 May 2024 Phase 7 (Mixed-use plots) May 2024 January 2026 Operation January The above assumes that the residential and employment phases of the Development will take place in tandem, with various elements of the scheme being delivered simultaneously. 6.4 The ES has been based on the assumption that the Development will take approximately 9 years to complete, with it becoming fully operational in early The construction programme impacts of the Development are particularly relevant to the assessment of traffic and transportation impacts (the TA and ES Chapter 7), Dust and Air Quality Assessment (Chapter 12) and, Noise and Vibration Assessment (Chapter 13). 15

20 6.5 Prior to the start of construction of each phase of the Development, necessary works will be carried out to prepare the Site for construction. These works are likely to comprise of the following main activities: Ecological enabling works. Identification of all underground services serving and transiting the Site. Services to be retained will require demarcation and protection; those to be removed will require termination and isolation. Installation of Site hoardings and establishment of a demolition/construction Site. Site preparation ready for foundation works. Further Site assessment investigations and surveys to define ground conditions for construction (e.g. geotechnical properties, soil and groundwater quality, potential for contamination). 16

21 7. Summary of Topics 7.1 This chapter of the NTS outlines each of the detailed assessments undertaken to determine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on the environment, together with the proposed mitigation measures. Transport and Traffic 7.2 The Transport and Traffic chapter assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed development in terms of transport and traffic on sensitive receptors within the vicinity of Blythe Valley Park. In particular it has assessed the potential effects of the proposed development in terms of changes in the traffic flow volume and composition of HGV traffic in relation to Severance, Driver Delay, Pedestrian Delay, Pedestrian Amenity, Fear and Intimidation, Accidents and Safety, and Hazardous Load movements in the construction and operational phases of development. 7.3 The chapter has been prepared with reference to relevant national and local policy and guidance including the National Planning Policy Framework which sets out the policy framework for sustainable development and sustainable transport from new developments, Planning Practice Guidance which states the requirement for the assessment of cumulative effects of a development and Movement for Growth: The West Midlands Strategic Transport Plan which sets out the West Midlands transport strategy over the next 20 years and how it will support growth and the economy of the West Midlands. 7.4 The methodology used for assessing the significance of effect was broadly based on guidance provided in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11: Environmental Assessment and Institute of Environmental Assessment (1993) Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (referred to as the IEMA Guidelines ). The assessments were also informed by Automatic Traffic Counter and Manual Turning Count traffic surveys, and traffic flow data extracted from Highways England s Traffic Flow Data System (TRADS) which provided the base year traffic flows. 7.5 The extent of the study area was based on the junctions Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and Highways England identified for consideration in the Transport Assessment; the assessment years were also agreed with these highway authorities 2016 and 2026; therefore the scenarios assessed as part of the Transport and Traffic chapter were 2016 base year, 2026 Do Minimum (without the proposed development but including committed development) and 2026 Do Something (including the proposed and committed development). 7.6 Baseline conditions show that Blythe Valley Park is accessible using sustainable modes of travel with a network of foot and cycle paths at and in the vicinity of Blythe Valley Park providing connectivity to nearby amenities (such as a supermarket and garden centre) and residential areas. Private bus services also serve Blythe Valley Park and provide connectivity to Solihull town centre; the private shuttle bus services provide connectivity to Solihull Rail Station and Birmingham International Rail Station, whilst public bus services provides connectivity to Stratford-upon-Avon and Birmingham City Centre 17

22 7.7 A review of Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data was undertaken for the highway network in the vicinity of Blythe Valley Park which found that there were no substantial safety concerns regarding the existing layout of the road network in the search area apart from the junction including Dyers Lane, School Road and Illshaw Heath Road. The primary causation factor of collisions that occurred at this junction relates to having poor visibility from the Illshaw Heath Road approach; however, there is the potential to improve the highway network at this junction to help traffic flow and improve safety. A possible safety scheme would be to introduce a one-way system on two sides of the triangular road network formed by Dyers Lane, Illshaw Heath Road and Kineton Lane. This would directly remove the trend of collisions caused by vehicles entering the junction from Illshaw Heath Road by preventing traffic approaching the junction from this arm. It would also reduce the number of movements at this junction and improve safety for vehicles approaching the junction from other arms. No other significant trends in the PIC data for the highway network surrounding Blythe Valley Park were found. 7.8 The impact on sensitive receptors during the construction phase from construction traffic was found to be negligible. A worst case peak daily construction traffic flow scenario was assessed based on the maximum construction activities occurring at the same time. Due to the nature of construction works, deliveries to Blythe Valley Park and the working hours of most operatives would not coincide with the network peak, thereby limiting the number of light vehicle and heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements on the highway network during periods of peak demand. Further, vehicle movements associated with construction activities would be managed by a Construction Traffic Management Plan as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan, minimising potential impacts on sensitive receptors in the vicinity of Blythe Valley Park. 7.9 The assessments of operational effects, which also covered cumulative effects as both proposed and committed developments were considered, found that there were no significant adverse impacts anticipated on sensitive receptors in the study area from the proposed development. Due to the scale of the proposed development, there were significant increases in traffic flows on the Blythe Gate Access and Bridge links however this would be expected as these sections of the road network formed part of the primary entry and exit routes of Blythe Valley Park. The increases in traffic flows expected on Kineton Lane through the village of Illshaw Heath resulted in a minor significance of effect; however, as the traffic flows used in the assessments were based on a worst case scenario, it would be unlikely that the expected flows would actually be observed as internalisation and changes to travel behaviour have not been included. A number of built-in mitigation measures as part of the proposed development would further reduce the impact of development traffic including Travel Plan measures which would encourage trips to be made by sustainable modes of transport and the traffic calming of Kineton Lane achieved in part through the proposed site access arrangements for the new Kineton Lane access. The proposed access off Kineton Lane also enables car drivers to make shorter journeys, travelling south, rather than using the existing access/ egress arrangements in M42 Junction 4. This makes better use of the existing available highway infrastructure No change was recorded in the HGV flows as employment trips were calculated based on B1 Use which is associated with higher vehicle trip generation. Should B8 Use be delivered due to flexibility in the planning application, there would be an increase in the 18

23 number of HGV trips generated by the proposed development although it is not considered that the HGV trip generation would be significant A number of mitigation schemes have been proposed, as part of the proposed development, which include improvements to the A34 Stratford Road/ Monkspath Hall Road roundabout and the existing access arrangements to Blythe Valley Park, improvements to the existing public bus services, and highway scheme improvement at Illshaw Heath triangle which involves making Illshaw Heath Road one-way (with travel in the northwest bound direction) and Kineton Lane one-way (with travel in an east bound direction). These improvements would be delivered should the triggers for their need be met; this will be determined through regular monitoring of the trips generated by Blythe Valley Park through the Travel Plan No significant adverse effects were identified in the assessment of residual effects. Although there were beneficial impacts from the proposed development identified including shorter journeys to the surrounding road network for occupiers of Blythe Valley Park due to the new site access proposed off Kineton Lane; a more comprehensive foot and cycle network on-site with quality leisure routes through the Countryside Park and connections to surrounding areas; and improved road safety for the residents in Illshaw Heath through the implementation of the one-way system along the triangle section of the road network to the west of Kineton Lane In summary, the proposed development is unlikely to result in any significant adverse impacts on the road network or on sensitive receptors within the study area in the vicinity of Blythe Valley Park. Landscape and Visual Impact 7.14 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been undertaken by Chartered Members of the Landscape Institute The LVIA considered the potential effects of the development upon: Individual landscape features and elements Landscape character Visual amenity and the people who view the landscape. Landscape Character 7.16 The site includes an established business park, and the land adjacent to it that has had planning consent as a Business Park. This land is currently unused farmland. A range of planting has been undertaken within the site over the last 20 years or so, which provides a new landscape structure, and some screening The proposals retain the existing landscape features of value, such as hedgerows and mature trees, and integrate these successfully into the proposed scheme. Whilst the immediate effects on the local character are considered to be adverse, within 10 years the growth of new planting would help to reduce this. 19

24 Visual Amenity 7.18 The assessment shows that the development proposals respect local landscape character and views by identifying and seeking to protect and integrate key views and landscape features as part of the scheme The site is visible from quite a limited area. It is enclosed and screened from the surrounding landscape by existing built development to the east and partially to the south. Existing mature vegetation and landform screens the proposed development from views from Cheswick Green to the north and properties to the west The site is enclosed within the surrounding landscape by mature vegetation. However, the southern and western boundaries are considered more visually sensitive, these areas already include some new planting which would be extended as part of the scheme to produce a sensitive planting scheme within the proposed layout to create a visual screen from properties and public rights of way The new access onto Kineton Lane has been carefully considered to retain the roadside hedgerow and vegetation as far as possible. Summary 7.22 It is considered that the proposed development of 750 dwellings, employment buildings and mixed-use development is of a scale and nature which can be successfully accommodated within the local landscape without any unacceptable landscape or visual effects. Ecology and Nature Conservation 7.23 The application site was surveyed between 2012 and 2016 following initial surveys undertaken in 2005 and 2006 to inform a previous outline application. Additional information was collected from statutory and non-statutory consultees. This baseline information has provided a summary of habitats, species and ecological features present and enabled an assessment of their relative values in a spatial context The site is situated to the south of Solihull close to Junction 4 of the M42 motorway (Central Grid Reference: SP ). The site measures approximately 121 hectares and comprises the existing Blythe Valley Park and associated Country Park (referred to the 'Eastern Area') and areas of grassland (also within a previously-created Country Park) referred to as the 'Western Area' The Eastern Area currently comprises buildings forming the extant Business Park with associated parking and landscape planting. A number of previously-cleared and managed development plots sit in between the existing buildings and generally comprise semi-improved grassland with scattered scrub and discrete areas of tall ruderal vegetation. The Country Park was developed in association with the existing Business Park and includes extensive areas of woodland, grassland and wetland habitats. The Western Area comprises four field compartments consisting species-poor semi-improved grassland, scrub, hedgerows, waterbodies (including a marl pond), broad-leaved woodland and small pockets of plantation woodland. As part of a previous planning consent the Country Park associated with the Eastern Area was extended into 20

25 the northern extent of the Western Area, with habitats including grassland, waterbodies, swales and scrub/woodland planting Habitats of note on site included hedgerows within the Western Area which were considered to provide connectivity through and around the site and were considered to be of County importance as were a number of waterbodies throughout the site (predominantly within the Country Park). A brook with associated wet/dry woodland (considered to be of County importance) ran through the northern section of the Western Area and formed the Winterton Farm and Wood Pasture LWS. This area comprised a mix of ditches, waterbodies (considered to be of County importance) and scrub/grassland planting however, had become unmanaged since its creation. Great crested newt (GCN)-suitable waterbodies and hibernacula had also been created within this area as part of a previously-implemented GCN strategy The remaining on-site habitats comprised a mix of scrub, tall ruderal, previously-cleared development plots, plantation woodland and ditches. These remaining habitats were considered to be of, at most, local nature conservation value A small/medium population of GCN were confirmed as present on site during surveys originally undertaken to inform a previous outline planning application with the population confirmed as present in the Western Area during the 2014 surveys. A similar-sized separate population was also confirmed present during surveys of the Eastern Area undertaken in This site was therefore considered to be of County level importance for this species. Breeding bird surveys noted that the site supports a species assemblage consisting in the most part of widespread, common and abundant species associated with woodland edge (broad-leaved woodland, scrub, hedgerow) habitats. Bat surveys also noted the use of this site (predominantly the hedgerows and Country Park areas) for the purposes of commuting and foraging, however, the level of use was considered to be unexceptional (no roosts were observed on site). This site is therefore considered to be of no more than Local value for these assemblages. Limited evidence of badger foraging was observed on site, however, no setts were considered to be present and it was therefore considered that the site was of negligible value of this species. No other protected species were observed on site The proposed development will lead to the loss of the majority of the on-site semiimproved grassland within the Western Area and, prior to mitigation, these impacts are considered significant at the local level as are the impacts resulting from the loss of plantation woodland. The remaining habitat to be lost entails scrub/tall ruderal, with a very limited extent of hedgerow and trees as a result of site roads/footpaths/drainage etc. Unmitigated the loss of the scrub/tall ruderal is considered to be of significance at the local level, however, the limited loss of trees and hedgerow is considered to be negligible Unmitigated the loss of suitable habitats for GCN and skylark and lapwing are considered to be significant, whilst pollution incidences and direct construction impacts could also be significant to the amphibians utilising on-site aquatic and terrestrial habitat. In the absence of mitigation the use of the residential development within the Western Area could potentially impact upon the Local Wildlife sites in the area as well as the local population of bats, birds and GCN. 21

26 7.31 Development proposals for the site provide significant areas of habitat creation to accompany that already provided within the on-site Country Park. Habitat creation will provide areas of species-rich semi-improved grassland with the potential for the provision of additional waterbodies. As well as providing further biodiversity enhancements the management of the existing Country Park (and provision of footpaths through the scheme linking-in with existing rights-of-way) will ensure the protection of the Local Wildlife Sites during the operation phase of the development. On-site Japanese knotweed is to be eradicated Biodiversity offsetting calculations have be undertaken for the site which currently result in a loss of approximately 10 biodiversity units. However, it is considered that this figure could be reduced with the provision of additional on-site features that could be implemented / designed at the detailed stage. Once the exact number of units requiring offsetting (if any) are calculated (following the detailed landscaping scheme for subsequent Reserve Matters applications) opportunities will be sought for enhancements within the extensive County Park associated with the site. The developer is committed to ensuring a neutral and if possible minor positive residual effect in terms of biodiversity units in line with the Biodiversity Offsetting scheme Following mitigation and compensation minor residual effects that will remain include an impact upon skylark and lapwing currently using the site, on-site habitat creation cannot fully mitigate for this loss resulting in a minor adverse residual effect The development proposals shall conserve and enhance the on-site biodiversity and shall help enhance the Greenspace Asset of Blythe Valley Countryside Park as recommended within the Green Infrastructure strategy. The proposals will also ensure the maintenance of the Favourable Conservation Status of great crested newts. Proposed habitat enhancements shall also provide a greater diversity of habitats across the site area providing increased opportunities for bats and other wildlife. Ground Conditions 7.35 ES Chapter 10 assesses the likely effects of the proposed development on ground conditions. A contaminated land risk assessment (walkover, desk study, a preliminary intrusive investigation and agricultural land classification study) has been undertaken to identify baseline conditions and determine a preliminary worst case conceptual site model Based on this, an assessment of the worst case potential impacts has been undertaken for both the construction and operational phases. Impacts potentially requiring mitigation have been identified in relation to human health risks, risks to controlled waters, and ground gas Potential mitigation options have been considered that would reduce the identified potential impacts to acceptable (i.e. negligible) levels. It is concluded that the worst case Conceptual Site Model (CSM) does not include any potential source-pathway-receptor linkages that could not be feasibly addressed by simple, well-established and available mitigation technologies. 22