Location: Address: Land At Junction 6 M3 Basingstoke Hampshire Ward: Basing Parish: OLD BASING AND LYCHPIT CP OS:

Transcription

1 Application 16/03945/ENSC Details of Application: Screening Opinion Request for screening opinion for development of Motorway Service Area Date Registered 24 October 2016 (Subject to three year condition) Location: Address: Land At Junction 6 M3 Basingstoke Hampshire Ward: Basing Parish: OLD BASING AND LYCHPIT CP OS: Applicant: Greengage Environmental Ltd Case Officer: Lucy Page RECOMMENDATION: It is RECOMMENDED that the proposal for a development comprising the erection of a motorway service station is NOT an EIA development and therefore an Environmental Assessment is not required. Planning Policy The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011; The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015; Guidance is also provided within the Planning Policy Guidance.

2 Description of Site The site is approximately 13.5 hectares and comprises of arable fields with associated hedging. To the east of the site is a woodland area. The M3 motorway runs to the north of the site with the built up area of Basingstoke contained to the north of the M3 (junction 6). The land forms part of the setting of Hackwood Park which is a Grade I Listed Park to the south of the site. The proposal would include substantial buildings, road infrastructure and extensive areas of vehicle parking. The site is not covered by any landscape designation and is separated from the AONB to the north by the town of Basingstoke. There is public right of way south west of the site. Proposal This is a screening request relating to the development of a Motorway Service Station (MSA) on land at junction 6 of the M3 motorway. The proposal falls within the threshold for Schedule 2 development according to the table in Part 10(p) of EIA regulations in that it is a motorway service area exceeding 0.5ha in size. Before submitting an application, developers who are in doubt whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required, may request a screening opinion from the Local Planning Authority in accordance with regulation 5(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) 2011 (the 2011 Regulations ). The application seeks to determine whether or not the proposal is for a form of development that is covered by Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations and whether or not EIA is required. This opinion is based on supporting information received to accompany the application which suggests that the development is to comprise: Fuelling facilities for both cars and HGVs A 100 room lodge A drive through coffee shop Amenity building Service building Provision of car parking spaces Provision of 14 coach parking spaces Provision of 16 caravan parking spaces Provision of 50 HGV parking spaces A dog walking and picnic area Associated drainage, landscaping and ancillary infrastructure Consultations HCC Archaeology EIA not required. Any application should be accompanied by a Heritage Statement. HCC Flood and Water Management Comments: Due to the size of the proposed developed we would need to see a full Flood Risk Assessment with a surface water drainage strategy including all the information listed on our website. Please direct the applicant to our website for information required and further information on recommended surface water drainage techniques.

3 Also, please note that if the proposals include works to an ordinary watercourse, under the Land drainage Act 1991, as amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, prior consent of the Lead Local Flood Authority is required for this work. This consent is required as a separate permission to planning. Details can be found Landscape A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment will be required as part of the EIA. Biodiversity - No potential significant impacts and will not require an EIA on ecological grounds. Natural England - No potential significant impacts. Environmental Health - An EIA would not be necessary for issues of noise, vibration of air quality from the operational development. Conservation If a full EIA not required then application needs to be supported by full Heritage Statement and LVIA. HCC Highways Comments on proposals but no specific reference to EIA. Highways EIA not required. Highways England Objection but no specific reference to EIA. Environment Agency No response Public Observations The reports commissioned by Moto show clearly that as EIA is needed, for several reasons including flood, environmental issues, historic issues and others. A development of this size and nature will clearly have a significant and negative impact on the surrounding environment. An assessment should include the additional impact of the new road system which will doubtless be required to feed any services and is likely to encroach outside the proposed site. The proposed site would be at the head of one of the lesser tributaries of the River Loddon but one important ecologically, for drinking water and for recreation. The pollution risks from the petrol station, the uncontrollable vehicle loads, emissions, road pollution and subsequent rain runoff from the site has to be a threat to water supplies and to the biodiversity of the River Loddon and nearby woodlands. The area is already a surface water flood risk zone and this represents a huge area of hard surfacing and run off. The proposed site is within the Mapledurwell Fen SSSI risk impact zone. The Council should require a full HBIC analysis of all the site designations including SINC s and the priority habitats and priority species for which they have records. There should be best practice surveys provided by the developer from a trusted consultant of all the woodland as well as the aquatic life and water health impacts of the proposal. Light, noise, air and chemical pollution 24 hours a day will inevitably impact all nearby habitats including river and woodland and including birds and bats for example. There should be best practice surveys of all the woodland and aquatic wildlife and impacts including on invertebrates that are food for higher order species and the assessments should take account of all potential pollutant sources. Landscape and historic parkland impacts from ingress into the wider countryside from

4 associated light and noise. There will be a massive increase in air, light and noise pollution adding to an already busy junction and heavy traffic going north and south not just west and east, especially to Black Dam. The site lies directly adjacent to a protected grade 1 listed park of historic interest, which includes a number of listed buildings. Visibility of the site would be an issue with lighting and noise, especially in the autumn/winter months. The area is both National Park and AONB. The land is prone to flooding and during heavier rain fall, water lies on the ground, often for prolonged periods. The risk from petrol and gas spillage on the chalk subsoil (an issue for the absorption of highly inflammable liquids) and general waste would impact on the flora and fauna and the environment to the protected species of badgers, dormice and plovers known to reside there. It is also an area of high archaeological potential with remains of a Romano-British settlement, and likelihood of bronze age round barrows. No economic or commercial justification for a third service area in the 29 miles between the existing on-line facilities at Fleet (between Junctions 4a and 5) and Winchester (between junctions 8 and 9) at which there are already full services with hotels. This proposed new site would put a maximum distance of only 15 miles between the services when the national accepted frequency is a minimum of 30 miles. There are also a number of hotels already within a short distance from Junction 6. In the Department for Transport Circular 02/2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development - Section B13 states On-line (between junctions) service areas are considered to be more accessible to road users and as a result are more attractive and conducive to encouraging drivers to stop and take a break. They also avoid the creation of any increase in traffic demand at existing junctions. This proposed development would mean traffic having to exit at Junction 6, a junction which is hugely busy especially at peak times and has just had millions spent on the nearby Black Dam roundabout to reduce congestion and traffic build up why would you wish to construct something that would create the potential of more congestion and risk a repeat of the recent fatal accident? Development of this site would set a precedence for more development on land south of the M3. Consider that these services would be a major security hazard at junction 6 which is already very busy at peak hours. Risk of flooding. Impact on wildlife and risk to environment from petrol and gas spillage. Harm to the visual setting The motorway passes the junction in an elevated arrangement and would disturb the current uninterrupted views of downland. Additional exhaust pollution from static traffic. Environmental impact of remodelling of the roundabout and slipways. Taking good agricultural land out of production. Parish Comments Winslade Parish Meeting Commercial requirement: Winchester Moto services is 29.5 miles from the Fleet Welcome Break services. This proposed new site would reduce the distance between services to some 15 miles, the nationally accepted frequency being a minimum of 30 miles. There are also the two service stations on the A303 at Popham. With no new business generated this development would simply take business from existing services which do not seem to be at

5 capacity. It may also take business from local Basingstoke businesses and hotels. Therefore, there appears to be no commercial requirement for this new service station. Positioning: Both of existing M3 facilities are "on-line" service stations in line with government guidelines for strategic road infrastructure. Guidelines specifically state that locating services at existing junctions should be avoided. Junction 6 is already an overly busy junction and so guidelines would make the avoidance of this junction of even greater importance. Location: The proposed site lies immediately adjacent, boundary to boundary, with a Grade I listed Park of historic interest see map and comments below. Statements in the Greengage report are incorrect. Direct visibility of the site from the Park is a serious issue and will be particularly so in Autumn/Winter months. There will also be light pollution all night, winter and summer, and constant extra noise, particularly noting the planned 50 HGV parking bays. Ecology: The land is prone to flooding and during heavy rain, standing water lies on the ground. The risk from petrol and gas spillage on the chalk subsoil (with the absorption of inflammable liquids) and general waste will impact the flora and fauna and eventually the water in the subsoil. The site is also an area of high archaeological interest with the remains of a Romano British settlement lying within the perimeter of the site. Local issues: Local residents have suffered from months of delays and congestion caused by the works to Black Dam roundabout that have been successfully completed. Even so the access roads off the M3 can still become congested with tailing backs onto the motorway. With the extra access point to the south off the motorway roundabout to the new service station, this congestion can only become worse unless there is considerable expenditure on wider improved access roads and somehow increasing the capacity of the roundabout. North bound traffic wishing to use the service station will go all the way around the roundabout crossing at the lights where southbound traffic leaves the motorway and enters the roundabout. These lights are also passed by Black Dam traffic wishing to go south on the M3. These lights may therefore become another pinch point with possible tail backs. A new congestion point will have been created. Another reason why this site is unsuitable. I believe that the factors above provide sufficient grounds to question the viability of Moto's proposal. However, the current main focus is that Moto and its advisors be required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment. Reading the Greengage application to B&DBC I found the maps attached to it misleading. They do not allow the reader to understand the scale of the proposed service station and its proximity to Grade 1 listed Hackwood Park. I have lived close to and walked over these fields all my life and could not comprehend the siting of the proposal from the maps. I therefore took the Google Earth view of the area and superimposed on it the rough proposed Service Station site as well as the boundaries of the Grade 1 Hackwood Park See MAP 1 below. This makes clear the importance of the EIA. The boundaries of Grade 1 Hackwood Park are shown in the listing by Historic England at: I attach their map as MAP 2 below. Historic England also shows that there are 42 other separate Grade 2 listings within the important Hackwood Park area. Its significance must be recognised and this alone is a clear reason for the need for an EIA. Please will you ensure that Councillors when considering this application are provided with accurate maps/plans similar to my rough attached MAP 1 so they may clearly understand the siting of this proposed development, its location, relative scale, and proximity to Dickens

6 Lane. Also that the site s south eastern boundary is immediately adjacent to the boundary of Grade 1 Hackwood Park. Herriard Parish Council The consensus opinion of Herriard Parish Council is that there is no justification for an additional service area on the 29 mile stretch of the M3 between the existing facilities at Fleet and Winchester. Tunworth Parish Council In my capacity as Parish chairman, I am writing to register the strong concerns of the members of Tunworth Parish with respect to the proposals for siting a service station at Junction 6 of M3 motorway and request that an Environmental Impact Assessment be carried out on the site, despite the obviously inaccurate conclusions laid out in the submission made on behalf of Moto Hospitality. There are a number of justifications for this position and I lay them out below: Environmentally, the proposed site lies between a protected Grade I registered Park of historic interest with a number of listed buildings. To build on this land would destroy the general protected area of both National Park and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Visibility of the site will be an issue with constant light and noise, especially in the Autumn/Winter months. The land is prone to flooding and during heavy rain, standing water lies on the ground. The risk from petrol and gas spillage on the chalk subsoil (an issue for the absorption of highly inflammable liquids) and general waste would impact on the flora and fauna and the environment. It is also an area of high archaeological potential with the remains of a Romano British settlement lying within the perimeter of the site. The proposed site lies within a span of 29 miles starting at Fleet services and ending at Winchester Services. Both of these service stations are "on-line" service stations per the government's guidelines for strategic road infrastructure whilst the proposed service station at Basingstoke will not be "on-line" and so will not met the government's own criteria for preferred solutions for motorway service stations. The site of the proposed development will, if it goes ahead, add markedly to the adverse traffic conditions already experienced at Black Dam. What is even more concerning is that the local residents have only just begun to enjoy a return to reasonable traffic conditions after months of additional congestion caused by the works to Black Dam. The expense and time spent in introducing the revised traffic layout at Black Dam roundabout will be negated entirely by any works undertaken to build a service station at junction 6. I believe that the factors above provide sufficient ground to question the viability of Moto's proposal and in the near term insist upon the requirement for Moto and its advisors to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment. CPRE Basingstoke 1. Background CPRE Hampshire stands for retaining and protecting the rural areas of Hampshire and the wider English countryside. It also has a general concern for the environmental resources of the county and beyond. CPRE has a long standing interest in transport policy and in the provision of public services. It is not against private car use or new road building. Indeed, it

7 considers that appropriate investment in local infrastructure is a necessary and important part of future community well-being and sustainability. 2. Initial approach In the absence of an application, CPRE is concerned about the principle of a new MSA on the M3 motorway between Fleet and Winchester, a distance of 28.7 miles. It does not believe another MSA is justified and that siting it directly on a junction is misplaced. 3. Overall effect The location of the proposed service area is a matter of concern. A new service station could bring traffic problems to the area, due to the design of the service station, being located directly off a junction, rather than by the traditional method of locating services between junctions. It may be that locating by a junction would be less costly than an on-line site between junctions, but other public policy issues may outweigh this. 4. Heritage impact The proposed site, immediately south of junction 6, is within the vicinity of the historic Hackwood Estate. Hackwood House is a 17 th century mansion of considerable merit and architectural distinction. Its links with the Duke of Bolton, Lord Curzon, after being Viceroy of India, and with Viscount Camrose, noted press baron, are part of the history of Basingstoke. Even if sited north of Dickens Lane, the MSA is still within part of the original estate holdings. The impact on Hackwood Racecourse could be devastating. Greater recognition is now given to settings of heritage assets. The presence of a manor of ancient vintage is significant. CPRE attaches much value to the survival of the Grade I Registered Park intact. It is an integral part of the heritage asset, and cannot lightly be swept aside for scant commercial reasons. CPRE is very concerned about glaring and intrusive light pollution in the historic parkland. Land extending south of the motorway is of value though not at present enjoying a designated or protected status. 5. Wider implications Breaching the protective function of the motorway line has major implications for the rural area to the south. Rear traffic access arrangements could be critical. It may be that an EIA is not judged necessary. However, a wide range of elements need to be evaluated. Landscape features need to be considered, as well as the loss of productive farmland. A review of wildlife interest and heritage aspects, as well as archaeological factors is required. The possible presence of Roman settlement remains and artefacts, should also be assessed, and weighed in the balance of planning issues. 6. Conclusions The developer should work with the council and highway authority to determine the most suitable form and location of any new motorway facilities. No such assessment has taken place. In consequence, CPRE recommends that this proposal be rejected on the grounds of inadequate justification and inappropriate location. Were applicants to appeal a decision, it would all be exposed in a public inquiry. We urge the council not to accept this scheme and to ensure a sensible public outcome ensues. Relevant Planning History None relevant. Assessment The application seeks a Screening Opinion to be considered in accordance with Regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Regulations 2011). The key issues for consideration are:

8 whether the proposed development would comprise a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 development for the purposes of the Regulations; and if so, whether the development is EIA development requiring any future planning application to be accompanied by a full Environmental Statement being mindful of factors such as the nature of the development, size and location and the requirements of Schedule 3 of the Regulations. In undertaking the assessment, the applicant is obliged to provide enough information about the proposed development for the Council to make an adequate assessment, such as providing a description of the development and a plan of the site location. Such information has been received for this submission against these requirements. Schedule 1 Development It is considered that the proposed development does not fall within any of the categories of development listed in Schedule 1 of the Regulations, which comprise potentially the most significantly harmful forms of development in terms of environmental risk. As such an assessment of the proposal is required to determine whether it falls within the remit of Schedule 2 of the Regulations. Schedule 2 Development Schedule 2 development is deemed to be those forms of development listed within Schedule 2 of the Regulations which: i) has any part of the development located wholly or partly in a sensitive area as defined in Regulation 2(1) or ii) meets one of the relevant criteria or exceeds one of the relevant thresholds listed in Schedule 2. In having regard to criteria i) above, the site is not located wholly or partly within any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage Site as defined sensitive areas within Regulation 2(1). There are no statutorily designated sites within the site boundary. The Mill Field Local Nature Reserve is approximately 1.8km to the north of the site and there are also Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) approximately 0.2km to the north of the site. In addressing criteria ii), regard is given to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations The development on land at Junction 6, M3 for the purposes of the 2011 Regulations, comprises an Infrastructure Project falling within subcategory 10(p) for motorway service areas. The size of the site exceeds the Applicable Thresholds and Criteria set out in Schedule 2 and must be assessed in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Regulations. Need for EIA for Schedule 2 development Development proposals that are considered to be Schedule 2 development are only considered to be EIA development if the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment. Guidance on assessing the potential environmental impact is given in Schedule 3 (Selection criteria for screening Schedule 2 development) of the 2011 Regulations and sets out three categories for consideration: 1. Characteristics of development; 2. Location of Development; and 3. Characteristics of the potential impact. The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)) is also a material consideration to the determination of the Screening Opinion. The section entitled Annex: Indicative Screening

9 Thresholds of the NPPG gives indicative thresholds and Criteria for the identification of Schedule 2 development requiring Environmental Impact Assessment and indicative values for determining significant effects. For motorway service areas it is indicated that this is, the area of development exceeds 0.5 hectares. The proposal is significantly above this threshold. The NPPG also states that, Only a very small proportion of Schedule 2 development will require an assessment. The project exceeds the indicative screening threshold and criteria for determining significant effects set out in 10 (p) of Schedule 2 of the EIA Regs, as below: (p) Motorway The area of the service development areas. exceeds 0.5 hectare. New motorway service areas which are Traffic, noise, air proposed for previously undeveloped quality, ecology sites and if the development would cover and visual more than five hectares. impact* * Types of impact that are most likely to be significant for particular types of development Development Characteristics Part 1 of Schedule 3 requires due consideration to be had within set criteria (a) (f) against matters of size of the proposed development, the culmination with other development, the use of natural resources, the production of waste, pollution and other nuisances, and the risk of accidents. The development site has an overall size of the development site at 13.5ha, which is not deemed to be significant in the overall wider landscape of the Borough. Notwithstanding this, Local Planning Authorities are still required to have regard to the possible cumulative effects with existing or approved development when determining whether likely significant effects are to arise. Location of Development Part 2 of Schedule 3 requires consideration to be given to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be effected by the development, having regard particularly to; the existing land use, the abundance, quality, and regenerative capacity of natural resources in the area, and the absorption capacity of the natural environment, paying particular attention to defined vulnerable or sensitive locations. The site is in a countryside location. There is a significant amount of agricultural land in the wider area, and the site is in close proximity to existing built form in the form of the M3 motorway. The absorption capacity of the natural environment/landscape must be considered in the context of the development characteristics and whether taken together there could be a potential significant effect on the environment. Landscape The site is located in open countryside to the south of the M3 and the development would have both a visual impact and an impact on existing landscape character. The land is in close proximity to the Grade I Listed Hackwood Park and there are also a number of listed buildings including Hackwood House and Home Farm.

10 The development site is within the setting of the Hackwood Park. The northern boundary of the park runs along the site sits adjacent to Dickens Lane. The M3 to the north forms a very distinct boundary separating the rural landscape to the south from the urban conurbation to the north. The landscape south of the M3 is unbroken by significant urban development for several miles either side of junction 6. It has an open aspect characterised by large-scale arable fields and an undulating landform that gives it a very agricultural and rural nature despite the presence of the M3. The site occupies slightly lower ground relative to the surrounding countryside to the south, east and west. It is extensively screened by the Oaken woodland plantation running along its south eastern boundary. However, there is a more open aspect along its south western boundary and it is likely the development will be visible from Dickens Lane that runs south of the site and from other elevated vantage points in the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposals represent a significant development within the rural landscape south of the M3 where there are no other developments of similar scale. This significance is further amplified by the fact the M3 is unlit at junction 6 and for several miles north or south of the junction, so the proposals may potentially also have significant effects in terms of its lighting and effects on dark skies. Whilst the Landscape Officer concludes that an EIA is required as a result of the impact on landscape character and visual amenity, the site is not within the North Wessex Downs AONB or any other designated landscape, and it is considered that full consideration of the effect on the local landscape could be considered as part of an LVIA including a lighting assessment could support any future planning application. Heritage The site is located in close proximity to Hackwood Park, which is on the Register of Historic Parks and Garden, listed at Grade I The Conservation Officer understands is that the majority of the Park is in private ownership. The Park contains Hackwood House, a palatial mansion listed at Grade II*, set on rising ground a large number of other listed buildings and structures listed at Grade II* and Grade II. Whilst correspondence from the agent suggests that there will be limited visibility between the development and heritage assets this is, understandably, not evidenced at this stage, and such intervisibility cannot be fully assessed by a brief site visit. It is noted that Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on Local Planning Authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses, and further, in considering the wider setting of the heritage assets in relation to the proposal, that presently there is no recent development to the south east of the M3. In respect of heritage issues, taking into account the characteristics of the development (notably its size and the cumulative effect (cumulation) of the proposals and other development, notably the M3 as well as part of the built up area of Basingstoke); its location (close to a landscape of historical, cultural or archaeological significance); and the characteristics of its potential impact, in relation to Schedule 3 of the Regs, which set out selection criteria for screening Schedule 2 deveiopment, the following is noted: - The extent of potential impact in terms of geographical area as yet unclear - The probability of the impact as yet unclear - The duration (long term in nature); frequency (all the time); and reversibility (not readily achieved) of the impact. On the basis of the above information, the Conservation Officer has taken the initial view that there would be value in an EIA being undertaken in order to help to ensure that relevant issues are considered in terms of impact on heritage assets and to provide a clear audit trail.

11 The Conservation Officer goes on to state that if it is not undertaken, an LVIA and Heritage Statement will be required to accompany any application, taking account of, inter alia, views to and from all relevant heritage assets. Notwithstanding these comments from the Conservation Officer it is considered that the impacts of the development could be considered thoroughly with an appropriate assessment of heritage matters supporting any future planning application and as such heritage issues would not trigger the requirement for an EIA. Archaeology The site is located in an area of high archaeological potential. Cropmarks located within the north east corner of the proposed development appear to represent a series of enclosures which are thought to be the remains of a Romano-British settlement site. A further undated linear cropmark has been recorded in the south west corner of the site. A second cropmark enclosure has been recorded around 400 metes to the south west of the site on the opposite side of the valley, while a line of Bronze Age round barrows are located 240 metres to the south west of the site, on the valley edge. Another Romano-British enclosure site was excavated around 250 metres to the west of the site during the construction of the M3 in the 1970s. Stray finds of both Roman and later prehistoric material have been made to the north of the M3, immediately to the north east of the proposed area. On the basis of the current evidence therefore, the County Archaeologist would advise that an Environmental Impact Assessment would not be required for the proposed development on the basis of archaeology. That being said there is very good potential to expose the remains of the possible Romano-British enclosure in the north east of the site and the undated linear feature in the south west. There is also very good potential to uncover as yet unrecorded archaeological features that are likely to date from the later prehistoric and Roman periods. It is noted from the Screening Request that the presence of Hackwood Park is acknowledged but that the potential for below ground archaeology is not addressed although the likely need for some form of archaeological assessment to support any future application is acknowledged in the text. As a result of all this the Archaeologist would recommend that any future planning application should be accompanied by a Heritage Statement which should address the below ground archaeological issues within the site. It should set out the nature of the archaeological potential of the site and the impact of the proposals on that potential as well as a mitigation strategy to satisfy the planning authority that all archaeological issues will be sustainably dealt with during development under the terms of NPPF. Biodiversity The site is not situated within or adjacent to any SSSI s or AONB listed as environmentally sensitive under section 2.1 of the EIA Regulations. The applicant s supporting documents state within the screening request that a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been undertaken and identified possible protected species surveys that may be required prior to a planning application. These will presented through an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) submitted with any application which is considered adequate at present to address any ecological issues which may arise. It is considered that the EcIA should identify any issues pertaining to protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Habitat and Species Regulations It should also address issues under NPPF guidance and policy EM4 of Basingstoke and Deane s Local Plan. The proposal would have an impact on biodiversity and whilst the submitted layout indicates a 25m deep landscape buffer, the creation of a link onto and off the existing roundabout would result in the loss of existing mature planting.

12 Natural England It is the advice of Natural England, on the basis of the material supplied with the consultation, that, in so far as statutory designated sites, landscapes and protected species are concerned, that there are no potential significant impacts. Natural England have checked their records and based on the information provided, have confirmed that the application site is not located within, adjacent to or in close proximity to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) or Ramsar Site and is not likely to significantly affect the interest features for which they are notified. The location of the proposal is not within, nor is it sufficiently close to a National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Heritage Coast to impact upon the purposes for which these sites are designated. Natural England does not hold information on the location of significant populations of protected species, so is unable to advise whether this proposal is likely to affect such populations to an extent sufficient to require an EIA. It remains the case, however, that the developer must provide information supporting this application sufficient for the LPA to assess whether protected species are likely to be affected and, if they are, whether sufficient mitigation, avoidance or compensation measures will be put in place. Notwithstanding this advice, Natural England does not routinely maintain locally specific data on all potential environmental assets. As a result this application may raise environmental issues that have not been identified on local or national biodiversity action plan species and/or habitats, local wildlife sites or local landscape character that may be sufficient to warrant an EIA. Characteristics of the Potential Impact Part 3 of Schedule 3 requires consideration to be given to the potential significant effects of development, which are listed as; the extent of the impact (geographical area and size of affected population), transfrontier nature, magnitude and complexity of the impact, probability, and duration, frequency and reversibility. This must be considered particularly in relation to parts 1 and 2 as set out above. The potential significant effects of the development, considered in respect of part 1 and part 2 of Schedule 3, taking account of the defined list, and the NPPG document entitles Annex: Indicative Screening Thresholds sets out that for Motorway Service Station development the key issues to be considered to be the effect on landscape character of the area by virtue of the scale of the development, traffic, air quality, noise, ecology. In this instance, given the proximity of the site to the Grade I Listed Hackwood Park, the development would also have a potential significant effect on heritage and landscape character. Natural Environment The development of a motorway service area would have a visual impact and change the existing landscape character. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment as well as a Heritage Statement would be needed to accompany any planning application. When looking north the development would be seen in context with the M3 and the edge of the built form of Basingstoke and when viewed from the north, looking south the development would introduce an urbanising effect on land which clearly sits beyond the existing pattern of development and forms part of the rural character and setting of Hackwood Park. An assessment should also be undertaken of existing trees and hedgerows to inform any submission in combination with an ecological assessment however it is not considered that the impact on the natural environment would be so significant as to require an EIA on these grounds.

13 Built environment and Heritage The applicant has concluded that the impact on the setting of Hackwood Park would be negligible however it is considered that an LVIA and Heritage Statement will be required to accompany any application, taking account of, inter alia, views to and from all relevant heritage assets. It is considered that the impacts of the development could be considered thoroughly with an appropriate assessment of heritage matters supporting any planning application. Noise, Vibration and Air Quality The site is adjacent to the M3 which may reduce the potential impact in relation to noise, vibration and air quality during the construction phase of development at this site. Residential properties sit on the southern side of Dickens Lane. The Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that they do not anticipate that noise, vibration or air quality from the operational development will be significant and on this basis do not believe that EIA is required for this development. The supporting document confirms that any impacts could be mitigated through the implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan and this is considered necessary. Drainage and Flood Risk The Environment Agency website confirms that there is a surface water flood risk area in the northern part of the site. The Lead Flood Authority has confirmed that due to the size of the proposed developed we would need to see a full Flood Risk Assessment with a surface water drainage strategy and further details can be found on the LFA website. The LFA also advise that if the proposals include works to an ordinary watercourse, under the Land drainage Act 1991, as amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, prior consent of the Lead Local Flood Authority is required for this work. This consent is required as a separate permission to planning. Details can be found It is not considered that an EIA is required on flood risk grounds. Highway Assessment The Highways England response to this Screening request relates to the information currently submitted being insufficient to support a planning application and their full comments are attached to this response. Highways England has confirmed that in particular, the proposed access and egress directly onto the roundabout would likely have a significant impact on the safe and efficient operation of the M3 and its users. There has been no evidence presented to date that a connection from the proposed site can meet with the requirements set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). If the applicant wishes to pursue this application, Highways England would like to be consulted on both the Transport Assessment and Framework Travel Plan prior to a planning application being submitted in order to prevent abortive works with Junction 6 of the M3 considered part of the study area for the Transport Assessment. Highways England would also expect to see a Road Safety Audit to assess the impact on safety of all users of the junction. This might include an NMU context Report. The supporting information for this proposed Motorway Service Area suggests that this would provide a facility for traffic already using the M3. Very limited information has been provided with respect to the proposed means of access and the associated alterations to the existing highways. With vehicles from Basingstoke and the surrounding area being able to gain direct entry and exit from this site without having to use the eastern and western sections of

14 the mainline M3 Motorway, it is highly likely that this development would also attract nonmotorway traffic. The introduction of a new entrance/exit onto the roundabout which supports junction 6 will clearly have an impact and whilst potentially not significant, this needs to be considered and evidenced as part of any submission. The applicant has indicated that a Transport Assessment would consider the impacts of the development upon Junction 6 and the associated slip roads. The Basingstoke and Deane Highways Officer has provided a comprehensive response that extends beyond EIA considerations and these are attached to this report. It is not considered however that the effects on the highway network would be significant such as to warrant an EIA on highway grounds. Socio-economic Impacts The proposed development would result in the loss of 13.5ha of agricultural land and some associated boundary planting. Supporting information has confirmed that an agricultural land assessment would accompany an application and new jobs would be created both during the construction phase and during the operation of the motorway service area. Cumulative impacts The site is located to the south of the M3 beyond the existing pattern of built development associated with the town. An EIA screening opinion has been issued for a similar proposal for motorway services on land to the west of this site however it is not considered that the cumulative impacts of this would in combination trigger the requirement for EIA. Recommendation It is the Council's opinion that the proposed development at Land at Junction 6, M3, Basingstoke, Hampshire, as defined within the screening opinion request and supporting documents, comprises an Infrastructure Project falling within subcategory 10(p) for motorway service areas. The size of the site exceeds the Applicable Thresholds and Criteria set out in Schedule 2 and has been assessed in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Regulations. Having regard to the nature of the proposed development and to the selection criteria set out in Schedule 3 of the 2011 Regulations, as amended, the Local Planning Authority adopts a screening opinion to the effect that the proposed development is not likely to have significant effects on the environment given the size, scale, location and characteristics of the proposed development that could not be otherwise considered through the planning process. It is therefore the LPA's opinion, in accordance with Regulations 4 and 5 of the 2011 Regulations, as amended, that the proposed development does not constitute EIA development and an Environmental Statement is not required to accompany any future planning application.