ABBEY MANOR GROUP/SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD … Park MUD, Business Park... · ABBEY MANOR...
Transcript of ABBEY MANOR GROUP/SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD … Park MUD, Business Park... · ABBEY MANOR...
ABBEY MANOR GROUP/SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD
Mixed Use Development including Business Park and Foodstore Land at Bunford Park, Bunford Lane, Yeovil
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Report June 2017
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 2 www.wyg.com
Introduction
This Non-Technical Summary of an Environmental Statement (ES) has
been prepared on behalf of Abbey Manor Group and Sainsbury’s
Supermarkets Ltd. It supports a hybrid application submitted to South
Somerset District Council for development of a mixed use scheme for a
business park and foodstore on land at Bunford Park, Bunford Lane,
Yeovil.
The ES records an assessment of the likely significant effects of the
Proposed Development on the environment. The content of the ES has
been agreed with the Council, following consultation with stakeholders,
through a formal scoping exercise.
The aim has been to ensure a proper understanding by the public and by
the Council when making its decision on the planning application of the
predicted significant effects on the environment and the scope for
reducing them (‘mitigation’).
The general approach of the ES draws on the Town and Country
Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, national
guidance and published guidelines on the preparation of ESs. It has
been prepared by a consultant team who have undertaken the detailed
assessment of likely significant environmental effects.
The scope of the assessment and topics agreed to be covered are as
follows:
• Landscape and Visual Impact (SRL Consulting)
• Heritage (WYG)
• Ecology (WYG)
• Socio-Economic (Indigo and WYG)
• Traffic and Transport (Connect Consultants)
Figure 1: Site Context
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 3 www.wyg.com
The Site
The Site at Bunford Park is situated on the western edge of Yeovil. The
site extends to 21.6ha. The Site is bordered by Dodham Brook to the
north west and to the north east by the A3088, western relief road. The
southern and western boundaries are defined by field boundaries and
Broadleaze Farm. It is currently undeveloped.
The majority of the Site is allocated in the adopted local plan for
development as a business park and benefits from an outline planning
permission for this business park use (‘the 2011 Consented Scheme’). A
small proportion in the south of the Site lies beyond the defined built up
area of Yeovil and also was not included in the previous planning
application.
A nearby site to the south, known as Bunford Heights, benefits from
outline planning permission for new houses. A further site, known as
Bunford Hollow, is also proposed for new houses immediately to the
south of Bunford Park. An application for this housing development is to
be submitted soon. Bunford Hollow has been considered as part of the
required cumulative assessment of likely significant effects in the ES.
Approximately 0.5 miles away to the west is Brympton d’Evercy, where
there are 23 designated heritage assets, including grade I listed Brympton
House and grade II* Registered Park and Garden.
The Site lies immediately adjacent to Somerset County Council’s Yeovil
Western Corridor Works on the A3088 which are programmed to be
delivered in summer 2017. The design of those works included the traffic
from the 2011 Consented Scheme, which has planning permission.
Comparisons with the 2011 Consented Scheme has been made
throughout the ES and is used as the baseline.
Figure 2: Site showing 2011 Consented Scheme Site
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 4 www.wyg.com
The Proposed Development
The application is submitted as a hybrid with some parts seeking full and
some outline planning permission. The application seeks full, detailed
planning permission for Phase 1:
• the main Site access;
• business park: 2,040sq m gross employment unit;
• 8,443sq m gross foodstore;
• petrol filling station; and
• related car parks, other infrastructure and landscaping.
Figure 3: Phase 1 Detailed Element
And outline planning permission for:
• secondary Site access;
• remainder of business park: 56,051sq m gross floorspace; and
• other related infrastructure and landscaping.
The business park part of the scheme seeks to provide a flexible range of
buildings to be attractive to the market. The split of uses is for offices,
research and development, light industrial and storage and distribution.
The main Site access is in the form of a 4-arm roundabout junction on the
A3088 Western Corridor. New pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities and
new bus stops will also be provided on the A3088. New pedestrian and
cycle routes are to be provided to connect the Site with the surrounding
area. A second Site access is to be provided off Watercombe Lane. This
also will serve the proposed housing at Bunford Hollow.
The landscape masterplan is designed to minimise landscape and visual
effects and includes on and off-site structural planting and seeks to
retention and improvement, where possible, of existing trees and
hedgerows. The off-site planting is in the form of new woodland structural
planting along the western edge of the Site, on land known as the ‘banana
field’. The existing mature oak trees and hedgerows with trees on site
have been retained and improved where possible.
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 5 www.wyg.com
Figure 4: Illustrative Combined Masterplan
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 6 www.wyg.com
Alternative Options
An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicants is required.
The alternatives considered have been in the context of the long standing
allocation of the majority of the Site for employment development. Thus,
the options have been focused on the ‘no-scheme’ option and the 2011
Consented Scheme.
With the ‘no-scheme’ option there will be neutral effects on ecology,
landscape, setting of nearby heritage assets, traffic and shopping effects.
The significant positive socio-economic effects arising from creation of jobs
and commerce in Yeovil will not happen. Thus, the ‘no-scheme’ option
would have a significant negative effect on the local economy of Yeovil.
The 2011 Consented Scheme will give rise to very similar significant effects
to the Proposed Development, notwithstanding the additional parcel of land
to the south included in the current hybrid application. However, the 2011
Consented Scheme has not happened, despite having planning permission
since 2011 and being marketed and promoted; it has not been viable to
start construction. The key difference with the Proposed Development is
the inclusion of a foodstore; its role is to pump prime by enabling the funds
to be released to construct the main Site access to facilitate the business
park to be delivered.
Figure 5: 2011 Consented Scheme Masterplan
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 7 www.wyg.com
Landscape and Visual
An assessment of the potential significant effects on landscape (physical
changes to landscape elements) and to the resulting landscape character
and visual effects (changes in people’s views) has been undertaken.
The 2011 Consented Scheme has been categorised as baseline and it is
assumed that it has been implemented. The difference in landscape and
visual terms between the 2011 Consented Scheme and the Proposed
Development has been assessed. A comparative zone of theoretical
visibility (ZTV) demonstrated that with the enlarged site to the south the
Proposed Development was unlikely to give rise to significant or different
effects from those arising from the 2011 Consented Scheme.
Consideration has been given to the effects on completion and 15 years
after completion with the benefit of planting mitigation both by day and by
night. Landscape mitigation proposals have been designed to minimise
these effects, integrate the scheme into the landscape and to provide
benefits to the wider landscape. The residual landscape and visual effects
have been assessed with 15 years’ growth of the landscape mitigation. The
following effects have been found:
During construction, a temporary, moderately significant adverse
landscape effect will arise to the aesthetic factors of the Site. This adverse
effect will reduce by being not significant on completion. Significant but
short-term temporary adverse visual effects will arise during
Figure 6: Comparative Zone of Theoretical Visibility
construction when seen from the roof terrace of Brympton House, and
moderately significant short-term temporary adverse visual effects
will arise on construction from Camp Road/West Coker Road Junction,
Brympton Avenue, Brympton d'Evercy parkland and Watercombe Lane.
The effects from both these receptors will reduce to being not significant 15
years after completion with the landscape mitigation as shown on Figure 7.
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 8 www.wyg.com
Figure 7: Landscape Mitigation Proposals
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 9 www.wyg.com
Heritage Effects
An assessment of the potential significant effects of the Proposed
Development on the significance of nearby heritage assets was undertaken.
It focused on the differences between the Proposed Development and the
2011 Consented Scheme.
There are no heritage assets on the Site. Using the ZTV described above,
four designated heritage assets were identified as requiring setting
assessments, as follows:
• Brympton d’Evercy Registered Park and Garden (grade II*):
• Entrance Gateway to Brympton House (grade II Listed Building);
• Brympton House (grade I Listed Building); and
• The Chantry/Dower House (grade I Listed Building).
In addition, Yeovil Airfield, a non-designated heritage asset, was also
identified as requiring a setting assessment.
Unmitigated, the Proposed Development would have negative impacts on
the setting and significance of the above heritage assets. These impacts
are at the lower end of the magnitude scale. When these impacts are
combined with their respective levels of heritage significance, this would
amount to effects ranging from intermediate adverse to neutral.
Effects of intermediate or greater significance are considered to be
significant in EIA terms.
Without mitigation, the effects of the Proposed Development on the setting
and significance of two designated assets, Brympton d’Evercy Registered
Park and Garden and Brympton House, are considered to be significant.
This would have been the same for the 2011 Consented Scheme. The
effects on the other heritage assets were not found to be significant.
Figure 8: Southern Elevation of Brympton House
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 10 www.wyg.com
The mitigation in the proposed masterplan seeks to minimise negative
impacts and adverse effects. This includes the structural woodland planting
of the ‘banana field’ described above, which was agreed mitigation planting
for the 2011 Consented Scheme with Historic England and the Council.
With this mitigation after 15 years, the Proposed Development would be
slightly less visible from within the Registered Park and Garden in views to
the north-east and south-east of Brympton House and considerably less
visible within the eastern setting of the Registered Park and Garden. The
mitigation planting also helps preserve the semi-rural character of the area.
Figure 9: View from Roof Terrace of Brympton House to Site
With the mitigation implemented, there would be a reduction in magnitude
of identified negative impacts and scale of effects for three heritage assets,
highlighted in bold in the table below:
Heritage Assets Heritage
Significance
Impacts –
Mitigated
Effects -
Mitigated
Brympton d’Evercy Registered Park
and Garden
High Slight negative
Minor adverse
Entrance Gateway High Negligible negative
Neutral
Brympton House Very High Negligible
negative
Minor
adverse
The Chantry/Dower
House
Very High Negligible
negative
Minor
adverse
Yeovil Airfield Medium Negligible negative
Neutral
Table 1: Summary of Residual Impacts and Effects
The Proposed Development would not give rise to any residual heritage
effects of sufficient scale to be considered significant in EIA terms. This
remains the case when the cumulative effects of Bunford Hollow are
considered.
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 11 www.wyg.com
Ecology Effects
The ecological effects of the Proposed Development on habitats and
associated flora and fauna have been assessed. It uses the findings of a
number of field surveys including detailed surveys on reptiles, great crested
newts, dormice, bats and badgers.
The habitats on Site are arable land (fields for growing crops), scrub/tall
ruderal vegetation, hedgerow with trees, treelines and ditches, see Figure
10. There are no statutory designated sites within 2km of the Site, one
statutory designated site 7km of the Site and 5 Local Wildlife Sites (non-
statutory sites) within 2km of the Site.
In terms of species, the surveys reveal:
• presence of a low population of slow worm of Site level importance;
• no great crested newts recorded, Site is considered to be of negligible
importance;
• no dormice were recorded, Site is considered to be of negligible
importance;
• the commuting and foraging bat value of the Site is considered to be of
up to District level owing in part to the frequency of rarer species
recorded on Site;
• there are a number and variety of badger setts and suitable habitats for
foraging of badgers within and adjacent to the Site, the Site is of Local
importance to badgers.
The masterplan design has sought to retain as much of the habitats of
importance within the Site and promote enhancement and connectivity
within the development. This has included retention of linear features,
including areas of green spaces and specific measures for bats, badgers
and birds.
Figure 10: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 12 www.wyg.com
With the mitigation in place, both forming part of the design and specific
additional measures, the significant environmental effects from the
construction phase are an overall significant beneficial permanent
effect on hedgerows with lines of trees and broadleaved woodland in the
medium to long term and significant and permanent beneficial effect
on other habitats of local value.
There will be an overall habitat loss of 18.75 ha because of the Proposed
Development, a loss that predominantly equates to the loss of arable land
and those habitats assessed of being of importance within the context of
the Site only; the majority of this loss would have been lost with the 2011
Consented Scheme too. The loss of those habitats is not considered
significant in the context of the proposed mitigation, including 3.78ha of
native structural planting of the ‘banana field’. The additional gains in
planting proposed will result in an overall significant, beneficial and
permanent effect on the site value in the medium to long term.
Looking at effect on species during the construction phase, with the
proposed mitigation in place:
• the effect on roosting bats cannot be drawn in advance of the summer
surveys;
• no significant effect on foraging/commuting bats using the Site;
• no significant effect on the badger population using the Site.
Turning to the operation phase, again with the proposed mitigation in
place, the residual effect will be significant beneficial and permanent
on habitats within the Site in the medium to long term. This is different
conclusion than that assessed for the 2011 Consented Scheme owing to the
level of habitat connectivity throughout the Site with the Proposed
Development.
For species, with the mitigation in place including a management plan there
will be no significant negative effects and potential to result in an
overall significant, permanent positive effect in the medium to long
term for badgers. For foraging/commuting bats, with mitigation including
input into the final lighting design, there will be no significant negative
effect arising. The conclusions in respect of bats are not possible until the
summer surveys are available.
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 13 www.wyg.com
Socio-Economic Effects – Employment &
Training
An assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the
Proposed Development, both as a whole and the first phase only as
described above, has been undertaken. The purpose was to explain the
baseline position for the local area and South Somerset, identify, quantify
and assess the significance of the likely socio-economic effects coming from
the Proposed Development and consider cumulative effects.
The construction phase will generate three temporary effects for the entire
Proposed Development, as set out in the table below. The effects of the
first phase are also judged to be moderate beneficial; the scale of the
effect being smaller (133 person years, GVA of £9.0m).
Effect Scale of
effect
Significance Mitigation Residual
effect
Construction
employment
466 person
years
Moderate –
beneficial
Not required None
Gross value
added
£31.5m Moderate -
beneficial
Not required None
Construction
training
Not
quantified
Minor to
moderate -
beneficial
Not required None
Table 2: Construction Phase – Temporary Socio-Economic Effects
Once it is operational and fully occupied, the Proposed Development will
generate four different permanent socio-economic effects. All four will be
beneficial effect which will be enjoyed in perpetuity.
Effect Scale of effect Significance Mitigation Residual
effect
Employment effects
Permanent
jobs
2,499 to 3,090
FTE gross on
site jobs
Major –
beneficial
Not
required
Major -
beneficial
Net
additional
jobs
2,192 to 2,711
FTE net
additional jobs
Major -
beneficial
Not
required
Major -
beneficial
Economic effects Economic
Gross value
added
£93.5m to
£115.7m
Major -
beneficial
Not
required
Major –
beneficial
Training opportunities
Training &
skills
development
opportunities
Not quantified Moderate -
beneficial
Not
required
Moderate
beneficial
Table 3: Operational Phase – Permanent Socio-Economic Effects
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 14 www.wyg.com
The Proposed Development will create a major new employment hub which
will make a significant contribution to the delivery of jobs and economic
growth for South Somerset. The permanent jobs created by the Proposed
Development represents an increase of between 5.8% and 7.2% in the
number of full time equivalent (FTE) throughout South Somerset.
Once operational and fully occupied the first phase will generate four
different permanent socio-economic effects:
• permanent jobs: 190 FTE gross on site jobs of moderate beneficial;
• 167 FTE net additional jobs of moderate beneficial significance;
• £7.1m GVA of moderate beneficial significance; and
• Moderate beneficial training and skills development opportunities.
The assessment compares the socio-economic effects of the Proposed
Development with those of the 2011 Consented Scheme. For the
construction phase the findings were:
• Construction employment: 466 person years compared with 373 person
years for 2011 Consented Scheme; the build costs assumed to be 80%
of those of the Proposed Development.
• Gross value added: £31.5m compared for £25.2m for the consented
scheme.
• Broadly similar construction training opportunities.
The table below sets out comparison for the operational phase:
Permanent
effect
Proposed
Development
2011
Consented
Scheme
Comments
Operational phase – permanent socio-economic effects
Permanent jobs 2,499 to 3,090
FTE gross on site jobs
“Up to 4,000 to
5,000 jobs”
The high-level
estimate of gross on site employment for
the 2011 Consented Scheme is more
ambitious than
realistic.
Net additional
permanent jobs
2,192 to 2,711
FTE net additional jobs
No information
available.
Not possible to assess
based on information available for the 2007
Application.
Gross value
added
£93.5 million to
£115.7 million per annum in
perpetuity
No information
available.
Not possible to assess
based on information available for the 2007
Application.
Training and
skills development
opportunities
Not quantified Not quantified The Proposed
Development would have a larger effect
than the 2011
Consented Scheme, given the additional
inclusion of the new Sainsbury’s food store.
Table 4: Socio-Economic Effect – Comparison with 2011 Consented Scheme
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 15 www.wyg.com
Socio-Economic Effects – Shopping
The likely significant shopping effects of the proposed foodstore element
of the Proposed Development was assessed looking at the existing
shopping patterns and environment, notably of Yeovil Town Centre.
The Proposed Development includes a 8,443sq m gross, 5,108sq m net
foodstore to be operated by Sainsbury’s. The convenience goods
turnover of the store is assessed to be £37.1m; the comparison goods
turnover is assessed to be £13.9m per annum.
Yeovil Town Centre is categorised as a ‘Regional’ shopping centre and is
an important comparison goods destination with a comparison goods
turnover of £161.1m per annum. The main foodstore provision in Yeovil
includes Tesco Extra, Queensway, Asda, Preston Road and Morrisons,
Lysander Road. These three stores attract the highest share of main food
shopping in the defined study area.
Yeovil Town Centre demonstrates healthy levels of vitality and viability
with a good diversity of uses, broad base of key non-food anchor stores,
reduction in number of vacant units, evidence of investor confidence and
good levels of pedestrian activity. Yeovil Town Centre is judged to be a
receptor of moderate sensitivity to change.
No significant impacts relating to shopping have been identified at the
construction stage.
Once the new store is trading the potential significant effects on Yeovil
Town Centre have been considered looking at change in turnover of
existing shops in the centre and on investment decisions in the centre.
The change in market share of Yeovil Town Centre is assessed to be
-2.1% and impact on potential 2020 turnover of Yeovil Town Centre
-5.9%.
The Proposed Development would not delay or prejudice any potential
investment or proposals in the centre, in particular any extension to the
Quedam Centre, should it come forward.
Taken together, the effect on Yeovil Town Centre is considered to be
minor adverse. Accordingly, no mitigation measures are suggested.
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 16 www.wyg.com
Traffic & Transport Effects
The likely significant effects in relation to the accessibility of the Proposed
Development and traffic activity during construction and from the
completed development on road safety and highway capacity have been
considered.
The assessment has used a future assessment year of 2028, which aligns
with the County Council’s traffic model. That traffic model has included
the traffic from the 2011 Consented Scheme. It forms part of the
baseline conditions and has been included in the design of the County
Council’s Western Corridor Improvement Works.
The Proposed Development benefits from accessibility by non-car modes:
the existing infrastructure and walk/cycle routes makes foot and cycle an
attractive mode of travel to the Site and the Site is accessible by bus.
Looking at the construction phase, based on the construction method
statement the vehicle movements associated with the Proposed
Development are assessed to be negligible.
The likely effect on walking, cycling and public transport resulting from
the Proposed Development (with mitigation in place in the form of new
signal controlled pedestrian crossings, together with the proposed new
bus stops and foot and cycle links) is judged to be of long term, minor
beneficial effect of minor significance.
The impacts on all junctions that will be affected have been assessed and
either no change or a reduction in driver delay (and a corresponding
reduction in stress) was identified compared with the baseline position;
the latter included the traffic from the 2011 Consented Scheme. As such,
the Proposed Development has been assessed as having a long term,
low beneficial effect of moderate significance.
Owing to the accident data for the existing local roads, the sensitivity of
road safety was judged to be high. The decrease in traffic compared
with the baseline for weekdays and modest increase during the Saturday
peak hour means that the change in traffic road safety will be negligible.
Overall, the residual cumulative impacts of development are low
beneficial of minor significance on non-car accessibility; low
beneficial of moderate significance on traffic and negligible on road
safety.
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 17 www.wyg.com
Overall Conclusions
The ES has examined in detail the likely significant effects of the Proposed
Development on the environment. The assessment concludes the Proposed
Development can proceed without causing unacceptable level of impacts
and effects on either the local or wider environments. The overall residual
effect will be positive in some areas.
The ES has identified a number of likely significant primary effects arising
from the Proposed Development post mitigation. In simple terms, these
can be summarised as follows:
• A moderate beneficial effect on landcover, specifically on trees and
hedgerows, 15 years after planting; some adverse landscape effects
will remain 15 years after planting, but these are assessed not to be of
EIA significance despite the additional land in the south of the Site
beyond the 2011 outline planning permission site.
• A minor adverse effect on the setting and significance of Brympton
d’Evercy Registered Park and Garden, albeit not of EIA significance.
• On the setting and significance of Brympton House and The
Chantry/Dower House minor adverse effects, again not of EIA
significance.
• A permanent, significant benefit in the medium to long term to
hedgerow habitats.
• On construction employment and GVA a temporary, beneficial effect
of moderate significance.
• A minor to moderate beneficial effect which is temporary on
construction training opportunities.
• On operational employment, gross, on site, and net additional jobs and
GVA there is assessed to be a permanent, major beneficial effect.
• A permanent, moderate beneficial effect on district wide training
and skills development opportunities.
• A minor adverse shopping effect on Yeovil Town Centre, albeit not of
EIA significance.
• On non-car access a minor, long term beneficial effect.
• The effects on junction capacity and road safety are assessed to be
low beneficial of moderate effect to negligible.
All other significant effects from the Proposed Development post mitigation
are judge to be neutral or negligible.
Overall the Proposed Development is judged as being likely to give rise to
major to moderate positive socio-economic effects in terms of
temporary and permanent job creation and GVA and minor to moderate
positive effects on permanent training and skills development, landscape,
hedgerow habitats and non-car access. Minor adverse shopping effects
on Yeovil Town Centre and on the setting and significance of Brympton
House and Brympton d’Evercy Registered Park and Garden, albeit not of
magnitude of EIA significance.