NICHOLAS JOHN ROWSON - · PDF file6/5/2014 · NICHOLAS JOHN ROWSON BSc(Hons)Hort,...
Transcript of NICHOLAS JOHN ROWSON - · PDF file6/5/2014 · NICHOLAS JOHN ROWSON BSc(Hons)Hort,...
NSC/5/1June 2014
THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK CLASSIFIEDROAD)
SIDE ROADS ORDER 2013
THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2013
THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (No 2) 2014
EXCHANGE LAND CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF SPECIAL CATEGORYLAND
PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF
NICHOLAS JOHN ROWSON
BSc(Hons)Hort, BLD, CMLI, MloH
On behalf ofNorth Somerset Council
I n respect of
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND
Contents
NSC/5/1June 2014
1. Personal Details
2. Scope of Evidence
3. Statement of Experience of those Assisting the Historic Environment
evidence section
4. Background to the Environmental Design of the Scheme
5. Planning History
6. Environmental Design
7. Appraisal of the Scheme
8. Highridge Common Exchange Land
9. Open Space and Exchange Land
10. Open Space Within ReseNed Corridor
11. Historic Environment
12. Consideration of Objections
13. Conclusions
Appendices (Contained in NSC5/2)
Appendix 1 -
Appendix 2 -
Appendix 3-
Appendix 4-
Appendix 5 -
Appendix 6-
Appendix 7-
Scheme Landscape Design Drawings
National Character Area 118: Bristol, Avon Valleys and Ridges(Extracts)
North Somerset Landscape Character Assessment SPD
(Extracts)
Scheme Sections Location Plan
NSC and BCC Planning Conditions relevant to Landscape &Heritage - Summary table
Commons Registration Act Record and Plan
Extent of Common Land Required for CPO and Exchange
ii
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND
Appendix 8-
Appendix 9-
Appendix 1 0-
Appendix 11 -
Appendix 12 -
Appendix 13 -
Appendix 14 -
Appendix 15 -
Appendix 16 -
NSC/5/1June 2014
Common Land Options Plan
Common Land Option 1 and Option 2 Plan
Common Land Construction Area Plan
SNCI Essential Mitigation Plan
Site Photographs - Option 1 and Option 2 Exchange Land
A370 to Railway Line Open Space CPO and Exchange LandPlan
ReseNe Corridor Open Space CPO Land Plan
Heritage Asset Table and Plan
Glossary
iii
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
1. PERSONAL DETAILS
1.1 I am employed by Atkins Limited as Principal Landscape Architect for the South
West of England and Wales.
1.2 i have practised as a landscape architect since 1983. I joined Atkins Ltd. in
January 1988 and have been in my current post, as manager of the landscape
department, since then. I am also part of the Bristol regional management
team. I have acted as landscape architect or environmental coordinator for a
number of major landscape design, land use, highway and environmental
schemes for which i have prepared, or overseen the preparation of,
environmental assessment studies.
1.3 i am a holder of a Bachelor of Science, with Honours, Degree in Horticulture
from the University of Bath and a Bachelor of Landscape Design Degree from
the University of Manchester. i am a Member of the Institute of Horticulture and
a Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute.
1.4 I am duly authorised to make this statement on behalf of North Somerset
CounciL. I hereby declare that insofar as the contents of this proof of evidence
are matters within my knowledge they are true. Insofar as they are not within
my direct knowledge, they are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and
are drawn from documentation and information to which I have had access.
The evidence which I have prepared and provided for this Inquiry has been
prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of the Landscape
Institute and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional
opinions.
4
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
2 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
2.1 I am the Environmental Coordinator and lead appraisal Landscape Architect for
the South Bristol Link (lithe Scheme"). I have worked on the Scheme since April
2011 and have visited the area on a number of occasions between then and
2014 to support the preparation of the landscape design, the preparation of the
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment chapter of the EIA, the coordination
of the environmental aspects of the scheme, the preparation and submission of
the planning application and to prepare evidence.
2.2 Whilst my area of special ism is Landscape Design and the assessment ofLandscape and Visual Impacts (LVIA), i regularly act as the Environmental Co-
ordinator for major transportation schemes. This entails the co-ordination of the
assessment of environmental impacts and provision of appropriate mitigation
across the range of environmental specialisms identified by formal scoping and
screening. I have acted as Environmental coordinator for this scheme and in
this capacity my proof of evidence addresses landscape design, LVIA and
other environmental assessments not confirmed as screened out by North
Somerset and Bristol City Councils and not covered by other expert witness.
The Scheme design was prepared by CH2M Hill Halcrow in liaison with the
Atkins environmental team. The Scheme landscape designs (Appendix 1),
together with the landscape strategy, Photomontage Report and Artistic
impressions prepared by CH2M Hill (CD/4/6) formed part of the planning
application. As explained later, some details of the landscape submission are
being updated to address specific planning conditions relating to the scheme
design
2.3 My evidence will demonstrate that in making the Orders which are the subject
of this Public Inquiry, due account has been taken of all landscape and heritage
considerations and the environmental aspects of the scheme would meet North
Somerset Council's scheme objectives.
2.4 My evidence begins by describing the background to the environmental design
of the Scheme, the policy context and the environmental issues covered in the
Major Scheme Business case (MSBC) and Best and Final Bid (BAFB)
submissions for funding approval to the Department for Transport. It then
5
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
summarises the Scheme changes since BAFB was awarded and sets out the
Landscape design strategy and the environmental features.
2.5 The evidence continues with a detailed description of the Scheme approach to
landscape design and to the mitigation of landscape and visual impacts arising
from the Scheme; this is done by reference to a logical division of the Scheme
into 5 sections, following the approach taken in the LVIA and DAS.
2.6 In a separate chapter within my proof (Chapter 8) I set out the rationale for the
selection of the exchange land for the area of Highridge Common lost to the
development and for the extent of land taken for this purpose, together with the
exchange land proposals elsewhere in the scheme (Chapter 9).
2.7 My evidence then provides a summary of the potential heritage impacts
(Chapter 11) from the Scheme and the proposals for their mitigation. I then
address each of the formal objections to the CPO and SRO draft orders which
relate to landscape, visual or heritage matters received. I conclude my
evidence by summarising how the environmental aspects of the proposals
would meet the Scheme objectives.
6
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
3 STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE OF THOSE ASSISTING THE HISTORICENVIRONMENT EVIDENCE SECTION
3.1 In preparing my evidence, I have been assisted on matters of Heritage and
Archaeology by Mr Ken Sabel and Mr Andrew Holmes, both of Atkins Ltd.
3.2 Mr Ken Sabel is Associate Director at Atkins Ltd and has worked in the Historic
Environment field for over 28 years. He has a certificate in Architectural History
and an MSc in Historic Conservation. He has extensive experience on large
scale infrastructure projects including on various road schemes. Mr Sabel
leads the built environment projects within Atkins Heritage and is widely
published. Twice a year he presents the masterclass for the RTPI on the
Historic Environment on the Planning Process.
3.3 Andrew Holmes is a Principal Archaeologist at Atkins Ltd. He has worked as a
professional archaeologist for over 16 years. He has a BA (Hons) inArchaeology and an MSc in Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies. He
has extensive experience in transport and other infrastructure projects. He is
currently managing the archaeological and built heritage issues for several
large infrastructure projects. Mr Holmes has been actively involved in the
development of the Scheme and in undertaking consultations with the County
heritage officers and with English Heritage. Andrew Holmes is a full member of
the Institute for Archaeologists (MlfA).
7
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
4 BACKGROUND TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN OF THE SCHEME
Site Description
4.1 The Scheme is proposed within two distinct character areas, passing from the
rural hinterland south west of Bristol within North Somerset District, into the
suburban areas of Withywood and Bishopsworth in south BristoL. The rural
section of the route, from the A370 to the eastern edge of Highridge Common,
lies within the Green Belt. In developing the Scheme and the mitigation for
landscape and environmental impacts, consideration was given to the
designated landscape characters of the area, supplemented by more detailed
site obseNation and review.
Landscape Character
4.2 This section involves the identification of those features or combinations of
elements that contribute to the character of the landscape, thereby enabling the
special character and qualities of an area to be understood.
4.3 Assessment starts at a national level which is now under the remit of Natural
England to undertake National Character Area (NCA) assessments. These
descriptions are broad scale, and were used as a starting point inunderstanding landscape character for this assessment. County and district
wide assessments are the next tier that were studied and described. The
descriptions of these landscape character areas were taken as a design tool for
development. They establish whether the proposed development is responding
to its context. They also inform the development of appropriate mitigation
measures.
National and regional landscape character assessments
4.4 Landscape character guidance is fully described in Chapter 2.14 of the ES
(CD/4/2). In summary the following character areas were considered in thedevelopment of the Scheme design:
a) National Character Area 118: Bristol, Avon Valleys and Ridges (Appendix 2 -
Extracts).
b) North Somerset Landscape Character Assessment SPD (adopted December
2005) (Appendix 3 - Extracts).
8
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
National Countryside Character
4.5 The Scheme falls with character area 118 - Bristol, Avon Valleys and Ridges.
There are a number of broad objectives given for this character area, those
relevant to the Scheme being:
a) Much of the area falls within the Forest of Avon Trust, a charity established in
2008. Their objectives include getting trees planted individually, in gardens,
streets, green spaces or as woodlands, with a strong focus on areas of low
tree cover. They provide advice to improve the management of woodlands
and help safeguard these where they are under threat.
b) On agricultural land there are many areas where hedgerow management
could be improved for landscape and wildlife benefits.
c) The continued management of pastures and calcareous grassland isimportant.
d) The area has a rich and complex industrial history. The conseNatiön and
interpretation of historic features, particularly those associated with the coal
industry, rural mills and early factory building, needs to be addressed.
Regional Countryside Character
4.6 The far northern section of Scheme falls within landscape character type B1 -
Land Yeo and Ken River Floodplain which forms part of the North Somerset
Landscape Character Assessment (Appendix 3- Extracts). The Landscape
Character assessment advocates a number of landscape guidelines for this
area, those relevant to the Scheme being:
a) Conserve the rural, pastoral character of the area.
b) Enhance the hedgerow network (ensuring cyclical hedge cutting and nurturing
new and existing hedgerow trees).
c) Management of streams and ponds for biodiversity including planting bank
side trees for light shade.
d) Promote opportunities for creating areas of unimproved grassland andwetland habitats.
e) Consider opportunities to introduce wet woodland possibly for screening
intrusive land uses, urban edge and transport corridors.
9
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
4.7 The central section of the Scheme falls within character area J4 - Colliter's
Brook Rolling Valley Farmland. Relevant landscape guidelines for this area
are:
a) Promote sensitive, cyclical/rotational management of hedgerows and nurture
new and existing hedgerow trees.
b) Consider opportunities for grassland, woodland and wetland habitat creation,
particularly in areas which are marginal for farming.
c) Minimise visual effects of modern settlement along the A roads for instance
through careful screening and replanting of hedgerows and or new woodland
belts.
4.8 A full description of the character of the land along the proposed routealignment and surrounding area is provided within the Landscape and Visual
Impact chapter (Chapter 2.14) of the Environmental Statement (CD/4/2),
summarised in the Design and Access Statement (CD/4/6). For ease ofreference a brief summary is provided below following the same 5 route
sections:
a) Section 1 - A370 to Railway Line;
b) Section 2 - Railway Line through to Castle Farm and the A38 (Bridgwater
Road)
c) Section 3 - A38 to the edge of Highridge Common;
d) Section 4 - Highridge Common to King Georges Road; and
e) Section 5 - King Georges Road and Queens Road junction to Hengrove Way
4.9 These are illustrated on a scheme sections location plan (Appendix 4).
Section 1: A370 to Railway Line
4.10 This section is bounded by the A370 along the northern extent of the Scheme
and the main Bristol to Taunton railway line on embankment to the south. The
settlement of Long Ashton, which is a designated ConseNation Area, lies to the
north. The Ashton Court Grade 11* Registered Park and Garden is located at a
distance of 0.5km directly north of the A370. Landscape surrounding the Court
is identified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
4.11 The Long Ashton Park & Ride site lies adjacent to the A370 in the north east of
this section, which will link with the proposed bus-only route via the Ashton
10
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
Vale to Temple Meads BRT route. Ashton Vale Fields Wildlife Site lies
immediately east of the bus only route. Public Rights of Way (PROWs) and a
National Trail known as the Community Forest Path meet and cross the
proposed road carriageway and bus route at various points, with Longmoor
Brook dissecting the area in an east-west direction.
4.12 The landscape within this section is characterised by level open ground
comprising agricultural fields lain to grassland, aligned by hedgerows and
scattered trees. An area of floodplain lies in the north of the section, which
includes marsh and semi improved grassland. There is an existing crossing of
the railway provided by an underpass.
Section 2: Railway Line to Castle Farm and A38 (Bridgwater Road)
4.13 Southwards from the railway line, the route passes through countryside
designated as Green Belt between Ashton Vale and south west BristoL. The
route is aligned to the west of Colliter's Brook which is identified as a Site of
Nature ConseNation Importance (SNCI). Here the route passes through the
eastern flanks of South Bank Meadow Yanley Wildlife Site and Hanging Hill
Wood Wildlife Site, an area of ancient woodland.
4.14 The route crosses the former Yanley landfill site owned and managed by
Viridor Waste Exeter Ltd and ascends to reach the A38 to the east of Castle
Farm, a Grade 1I Listed Building. An existing access road runs to the west of
the brook and the proposed route broadly follows the alignment of this existing
track in this section. PROWs and the National Trail run alongside and cross the
route through this section.
4.15 The wider landscape is characterised by large scale pastoral fields separated
with hedgerows and trees. The buildings of Yew Tree Farm are located to the
east of the route, with the extensive Computershare office building situated
further east, accessed from the A38. The urban edge of south west Bristol lies
beyond the route corridor to the south of the A38.
Section 3: A38 to the edge of Highridge Common
4.16 This section completes the extent of the route within the Green Belt, passing
from North Somerset District into Bristol City at the western boundary of
11
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
Highridge Common. The proposed roundabout junction with the A38 will be
centred over an existing triple conjoined Lime Kiln structure which, although not
formally designated, is recognised as a locally important heritage asset and will
hence be retained. Open fields and gently undulating terrain continue to the
south of the A38, with the wider landscape dominated by the backdrop of the
residential properties forming the urban edge of Bristol lying east. The
residential property of Highridge Cottage and the cluster of buildings of Burnell
Ltd are located south of the proposed route, with Chestnut Cottage and its
associated curtilage buildings to the north.
Section 4: Highridge Common to King Georges Road
4.17 The proposed route crosses the northern section of Highridge Common, an
area of designated common land comprising open grassland with scattered
scrub and tree cover, enclosed along the western boundary by hedgerows. The
Common is identified as an SNCI.
4.18 Highridge Green and Highridge Road align the eastern and southern
boundaries of the Common, fronted by two storey detached and semi-detached
residential properties within generous sized plots, most with individual vehicular
accesses.
Section 5: King Georges Road and Queens Road junction to Hengrove Way
4.19 This forms the urban section of the proposed route passing through the
Withywood and Bishopsworth areas of south BristoL. The route passes along
King Georges Road, a residential street of two storey detached and semi-
detached properties, each with front and rear gardens enclosed by a variety of
boundary treatments. Each side of the road is fronted by a strip of wide amenity
grass with a row of intermittent trees and standard lighting columns. This is
traversed by strips of tarmac surfacing used as crossovers to individual
properties and informal parking. Footways align the road alongside the property
boundaries. The proposed route then crosses Queens Road to enter an area of
unmanaged grassland and scrub scattered with trees which forms a BCC
adopted reseNed corridor east-west between areas of housing from Queens
Road to Hareclive Road, crossed by surfaced and unsurfaced pathway
12
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
connections between the housing estates. These estates are characterised by
two storey detached and semi-detached properties with some three storey
apartment blocks arranged along cui de sacs accessed from Goulston Road
and Gatehouse Avenue. A large area of green space is located to the east of
Hareclive Road which will accommodate a new junction for the proposed route.
This is fronted by a mixture of residential properties along Whitland Road to the
south and the commercial properties of Cater Road Business Park to the north,
fronting Whitchurch Lane.
4.20 Once joined with Whitchurch Lane and onto Cater Road Roundabout, this will
complete the new carriageway of the Scheme. Buses will then follow existing
roads along Hengrove Way, through Imperial Park and onwards to Hengrove
Park via Whitchurch Lane.
4.21 My evidence will demonstrate that the approved design appropriately reflects
the existing landscape character of the area is appropriate in its extent to
achieve this and does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the
landscape character of the area.
13
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
5 PLANNING POLICY
5.1 In respect of planning policy, Mrs Janette Shaw provides evidence on planning
policy context.
5.2 I would note that, whilst the Forest of Avon Trust did make representations to
the planning application, this was neutral in character. No objection to the
planning applications was received from any of the statutory environmental
bodies. Likewise, none of those organisations have objected to the CPO
process.
14
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
6 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
Scheme Background and Design Principles
6.1 In developing the Scheme since its inception a number of design principles
have been established and have been considered in the design evaluation,
review and development. These are set out in the Design and Access
Statement (DAS), the South Bristol Link Route Corridor Guidelines, the SBL
Visual Identity Guidelines (VIG) and the submitted Landscape Strategy (all
forming CD/4/6). They can be summarised as follows:
a) To satisfy the objectives of the Scheme.
b) To design a road and associated facilities that comply with current design
standards, resulting in a road that is accessible, effective and safe for all
users.
c) To minimise the environmental impact of the Scheme whilst achieving the
overall objectives.
d) To design the facilities with due consideration to all user groups, including
those driving the route and those cycling or walking along or across the route.
e) To design the Scheme with due consideration to those adjacent to the route
and who will be impacted upon by the road and its associated facilities.
f) To design the route with due consideration to the views expressed by all
stakeholders, from statutory consultees to local residents and businesses.
6.2 The final alignment of the Scheme and details of the engineering design are
provided in the evidence of Mr Philip Paterson (NSC/2/1).
Environmental Consultation - Public, Stakeholders, Statutory Environmental
Bodies (SEBs), NSC/BCC Officers
6.3 Throughout the development of the Scheme there has been wide ranging
engagement with the public, stakeholders, SEBs and the officers of the two
councils.
6.4 Two Environmental Liaison Group meetings were held in 2011. Statutory
organisations (Environment Agency, English Heritage and Natural England)
and local authority officers were invited to these meetings, which covered both
the SBL and NFHP schemes, their design and the potential environmental
15
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
issues arising. Subsequently separate meetings and liaison took place between
the designers, the EIA team and individual consultees to review and agree
design and environmental mitigation approaches. As noted, this extensive
liaison resulted in no formal objections from those bodies to the planning
application or CPO publication.
SCOpin9 Opinions
6.5 The EIA process commenced in earnest with the preparation of the Scoping
Report issued to the two local authorities in March 2012 (CD/4/3). Formal
Scoping Opinions were received in May 2012, which have formed the basis for
the environmental assessment and the extent of issues to be addressed as part
of the planning application, which in turn have informed the early scheme
design process.
Pre-application Consultation
6.6 The Scheme design and route alignment remained largely unchanged between
the BAFB submission in September 2011 and the draft scheme consulted upon
at an initial pre-application stage in November 2011 with BCC and NSC
Development Management Officers. Minor amendments to the alignment and
Scheme layout were made during this period to enhance the environmental
benefits, reduce environmental impacts and to enable a safer and more
pleasant non-motorised user experience of the Scheme. These developments
were led by the environmental and landscape team working with the highway
engineers to ensure a balanced approach to the Scheme design. The resultant
design formed the basis of the formal pre-application public consultation held in
May and June 2012.
6.7 The methodology for the pre-application consultation strategy for the Scheme,
prepared in April 2012 was driven by the Statement of Community Involvement
documents (SCI) produced by Bristol City Council and North Somerset CounciL.
6.8 As a result of the pre-application consultation held in May and June 2012, a
total of 1502 comments were received from some 290 statutory organisations,
local and special interest groups and the residents and businesses surrounding
the proposed scheme.
16
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
Issues Raised at Pre-Application Stage and Main Design Changes
6.9 As a result of comments received in response to the pre-applicationconsultation, a comprehensive review of the scheme design followed from July
2012 to March 2013. This involved ongoing engagement with local and
statutory organisations and a further review of environmental and engineering
options. The Scheme layout was developed with regard to optimising:
a) The alignment, with particular regard to the potential impact on the Ashton
Court 'borrowed landscape' and the section between the A370 and the A38,
and the section over Highridge Common;
b) The junction layouts, with particular consideration to achieving a balance
between traffic capacity, facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, junction
footprint and environmental impact; and
c) The route for pedestrians and cyclists along the route, as far as possiblekeeping the shared facility to one side of the highway.
6.10 The final Scheme design has been developed as a collaborative exercise
balancing landscape and environmental mitigation with engineering standards.
Mr Philip Paterson deals with and explains these design developments in his
Proof of Evidence.
6.11 The close involvement of landscape designers and other environmental
disciplines in the Scheme development in large part culminated with an
Environmental Statement and an application scheme layout which raised no
objection from the statutory environmental bodies and which was approved by
the two Local Planning Authorities (CD/2/1, CD/2/2).
17
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
7 APPRAISAL OF THE SCHEME
Landscape Scheme
7.1 Full details of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment are set out in the
Environmental Statement (CD/4/1 to CD/4n inclusive).
7.2 The Scheme layout and design features are provided in the Core Documents
(CD/2/19 to CD/2/23 inclusive).
7.3 The landscaping proposals are shown on the Landscape Drawings (Appendix
1).
7.4 The landscaping and habitat creation/enhancement measures are an integral
part of the Scheme, pay due regard to local distinctiveness and contribute
positively to the local context. The Scheme provides mitigation for impacts on
landscape character, visual amenity and biodiversity.
7.5 The landscape scheme, which forms the basis of the environmental mitigation,
has been developed alongside, in particular, the ecological and heritage
sUNeys. Environmental constraints and opportunities for essential mitigation or
landscape improvement have informed and assisted in the development of the
engineering scheme, both in terms of horizontal and vertical alignment and in
respect of the extents of land take.
7.6 The landscape design seeks to integrate the Scheme improvements into the
existing landscape; ensuring essential mitigation is provided whilst minimising
the land take necessary to achieve the mitigation aims.
7.7 A number of trees will be affected by the Scheme. These have been assessed
by a qualified Arboriculturist in accordance with BS5837:2005.Trees in relation
to design, demolition and construction' and are considered to be of low value.
The loss of the trees will not have a great effect on landscape amenity as they
are only viewed by a few properties and the users of the existing road. The
desirability of the Scheme outweighs the amenity value of the trees to be
removed. Trees which are close to the Scheme will be protected.
7.8 Mitigation which forms part of the design is as follows:
a) New hedgebank and hedgerow planting, new woodland planting, new species
rich grassland, earth shaping, mounding, hard and soft materials which are
sympathetic with the local landscape character,
18
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
b) Avoiding loss and damage to valuable landscape features notably the existing
vegetation during the construction;
c) Use of native planting and seeding of local provenance;
d) An appropriate diverse mix of species in planting to enhance biodiversity and
habitat creation; and
e) Visual screen planting.
Relevant Planning Conditions
7.9 The conditions to the BCC and NSC Planning Approvals (CD/2/1 and CD/2/2
respectively) provide a significant degree of environmental protection, confirm
many of the assumptions and design intent within the application documents
and plans and set out some specific design changes required to be made. In
terms of Landscape, visual and heritage considerations, the relevant conditions
are tabulated in Appendix 5.
Landscape and Visual Considerations
7.10 See Section plan (Appendix 4) for location of each section.
Section 1: A370 to Railway Line
7.11 The landscape of this section of the proposed route is typified by rolling valley
farmland with good quality pasture fields being divided by mature hedges and
hedgerow trees. Much of the area is low lying and prone to occasional flooding.
A network of drains connect into Ashton, Colliter's and Longmoor Brooks.
7.12 The proposals focus on screening views of the road and any associated
highway infrastructure from the Ashton Court Estate; reinstating vegetated field
boundaries whilst retaining the open rolling landscape character.
7.13 An industrial estate forms part of the eastern edge with the Park & Ride link
generally hugging the east side of the fields it passes through. The existing
public right of way running parallel to this link will be amended and routed
immediately adjacent to the carriageway.
7.14 The proposals include:
a) Native tree and shrub belts to reinforce existing belts of vegetation between
existing public right of way, roads and the new highway.
19
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
b) A native woodland belt immediately east of the proposed A370 roundabout
and on the north side of the Scheme. Planted partially on the embankments,
once well-established this will provide a good belt of screening.
c) Native hedgerow parallel to the Scheme on the embankments set backsufficiently for ease of future maintenance.
d) Scattered small groups of native trees on embankments ensuring trees are
set sufficiently back from the carriageway edge. Typically feathered trees and
light standards.
e) Highway grass verge immediately adjacent to carriageway.
f) Embankments (with the exception of those in front of native tree and shrub
belts) seeded with a species rich grass.
g) The integration of drainage basins, parts of which are intended to bepermanently wet. Bank profiles vary to create undulating margins allowing
growth of emergent vegetation. The basin structures will be seeded with a
'pond edge' type grass mix. Seasonal variations in water levels will naturally
dictate what species within the mix thrive and where.
h) Creation of flood storage areas north of the retained Community Forest Path
avoiding the loss of any 'Category A' trees.
i) An area of native woodland to reinforce screening of the Industrial Estate
j) An area of native woodland west of the Brookgate junction which responds to
existing hedged field boundaries.
k) Access for maintenance vehicles is provided alongside the existing vegetation
at the southern end of the industrial estate and along the two stream lines.
Section 2: Railway Line to Castle Farm and A38 (Bridgwater Road)
7.15 This section is largely distinguished by a rural environment that has been the
subject of considerable change, substantially as a result of extensive landfill
operations. It is well wooded and includes Hanging Hill Wood, an important
landscape feature.
7.16 In the main the proposed road corridor runs along the current alignment of the
landfill access road. However, given the complex topography of the location
and the requirements to create a safe road accordant with legal requirements,
engineered slopes and cut require some land take and loss of vegetation.
20
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
7.17 As well as protecting areas of retained trees as indicated in the Arboricultural
Impact Assessment (CD/4/3), the proposals consist of:
a) The section between the railway and Hanging Hill Wood generally consists of
seeded embankments and small belts of native tree and shrub planting. The
native tree and shrub planting will help tie the existing retained vegetation
back into the fabric of the landscape.
b) Topsoil stripped through this section of woodland will be re-used locally on
areas of compensatory native woodland and some embankments to act as a
natural, local provenance seed bank.
c) Embankments through the central area of this section will be covered with
topsoil from other areas of the Scheme.
d) An area of proposed native woodland adjoining Hanging Hill Wood as a new
area of compensatory tree planting to create an extension to the wood.
e) The reuse of brash and felled lumber within the landscape proposals along
this section will enhance the biodiversity of the local area. Chipped brash
generated from the arisings of felled vegetation will be used as hibernacula to
create new habitats for amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates.
Section 3: A38 to the edge of Highridge Common
7.18 This section of the route is currently in use as farmland with good quality
pasture fields divided by mature hedges and hedgerow trees.
7.19 The positioning of the roundabout has enabled a group of valued remnant kilns
to be retained at the centre of it. Retaining clear visibility splays on the
approaches to the junction has been considered. South of the A38 roundabout
the land is primarily in agricultural use, grassland and associated hedges of a
number of farmsteads. Through this section the route is purposefully sinuous to
discourage high speeds and increase the amount of usable space on either
side.
7.20 The proposals in the section will include:
a) Reinforcing the existing screening vegetation between Castle Farm and the
roundabout, minimising any adverse effect on the setting of the listed building.
b) Native belts of tree and shrub planting which both reform field boundaries as
well as screening the junction and associated highway infrastructure.
21
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
c) Heading south towards Highridge Common the proposals consist of
reinstating vegetated field boundaries with native hedgerows and occasional
hedgerow trees.
d) Small, agriculturally unviable pockets of field will be planted as belts of trees
and shrubs, tying into retained field hedgerows.
e) Just before the point where the route runs through common land a 'Gateway'
is proposed. This will be a semi-formal arrangement of trees and mounding
with appropriate signage to reinforce the change in landscape character and
use.
Section 4: Highridge Common to King Georges Road
7.21 The strategy through the Common has been one of minimal final soft land take
by utilising as much of the existing road (High ridge Green) as possible. The
road should have minimal visual impact in views from the west (Le. from the
larger part of the Common). Landscape features will include:
a) Shallow, grassed, linear depressions to aid the drainage of the Common
parallel with the road on the south side.
b) A kerb with a small up-stand along the south side of the road to visually soften
the character of the road through the Common.
c) Semi mature tree planting at the south east corner of the main Common area
to mitigate for the loss of the existing trees and help absorb the proposed bus
stop into the landscape.
d) There will be no additional planting on the Common Exchange Land in order
to retain its open character.
e) Exchange land for the Common will be managed to promote grassland of
similar quality and appearance to the Highridge SNCI.
Section 5: King Georges Road and Queens Road junction to Hengrove Way
King Georges Road
7.22 A suburban streetscape with wide grass verges containing mature trees of
moderate value. Footways on both sides are along the rear edge abutting
setback property boundaries.
22
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
7.23 The accommodation of the route along King Georges Road will require the
removal of all the existing trees, totalling some 13 number, but which will be
replaced with 39 new trees, matched to form a more appropriate avenue.
7.24 In general, underground services along this section are towards the highway
boundary. There are a number of underground seNices within the verge which
creates a significant constraint when planting trees. The footway and shared
footway/cycleway is proposed along the edge of the highway boundary
adjacent to the residential properties. This maximises the amount of space
available for tree planting adjacent to the carriageway.
7.25 Proposals include:
a) Semi mature tree planting within the grassed verge along King Georges Road
where possible.
b) The inclusion of a 1.5m wide flush central reserve finished in a contrasting
coloured surface applied buff materiaL. This provides an informal waiting
space for pedestrians choosing to cross the road whilst allowing residents to
access their driveways as they currently do.
c) Formal pedestrian crossing points are provided at regular inteNals along the
road via kerbed islands 2.0m wide.
d) Amenity shrub planting - groundcover and small to medium sized shrubs.
e) Bulb planting within grassed verges for seasonal colour.
Queens Road to Hareclive Road
7.26 This existing green corridor can be considered in two sections. The west end is
relatively narrow with edges on both sides under scrub with some trees before
boundary fencing to adjacent properties. The east end is substantially an open
grassed corridor with edges of suburban residential development along its
north and south sides. There are some individual trees, tree groups and areas
of scrub.
7.27 The proposed route alignment through the reserved corridor between Queens
Road and Hareclive Road will require the removal of a small number bf trees
and ornamental species of low amenity value. The proposed shared
footway/cycleway runs parallel and adjacent to the north side of the
carriageway. The footway along the south side of the corridor deviates away
from the carriageway where the corridor is wider. The overarching principle
23
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
along this section is to create a green corridor using species and forms more
familiar with an urban park. Trees and shrubs will tend to be more ornamental
and earth modelling more geometric in form. The landscape proposals for this
section also formed part of the Bristol mayor's review of the wider MetroBus
network.
7.28 Proposals include:
a) The creation of a strong framework of tree cover along the road corridor that
links through and beyond the Hareclive Road junction.
b) Retention of a number of existing trees that provide some screening and
established structure towards the edge of the reseNed corridor
c) Management to an existing belt of vegetation where the Scheme passesthrough the narrow section of the reseNed corridor.
d) A 4m wide central reseNe containing semi mature trees and ground cover
planting.
e) Amenity planting arranged to form smaller spaces.
f) Bulb planting for seasonal variation.
g) Controlled and uncontrolled pedestrian crossing facilities linking theresidential areas on either side of the reseNed corridor.
h) Where the footway is not adjacent to the westbound carriageway, kerbs shall
be splayed and the grass verge will be reinforced to allow broken down
vehicles to pull off the road.
Hareclive Road to Cater Road roundabout
7.29 The existing grassed area is currently open and featureless with very little tree
cover. The south and south western edge is surrounded by housing, the south
corner by the Gatehouse Centre, and along the northern edge by Whitchurch
Lane with a Lidl supermarket and car park.
7.30 The alignment of the Scheme through this section utilises much of Whitchurch
Lane. The landscape proposals for this section also formed part of the Bristol
mayor's review of the wider MetroBus network.
7.31 Taking the underground seNices into account the proposals:
a) Introduce small groups of semi mature trees.
b) Include a set of drainage basins forming part of the landscape proposals.
Bank profiles vary to create undulating margins allowing growth of emergent
24
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
vegetation. The basin structures will be seeded with a 'pond edge' type grass
mix. Seasonal variations in water levels will naturally dictate what species
within the mix thrive and where.
c) Provide distinct areas of amenity and species rich grass for biodiversity
enhancements and visual diversity.
d) Continue from the previous section of more formal arrangements of grass
mounds and tree planting associated with the pedestrian routes at Hareclive
junction.
Conclusion
7.32 The landscape proposals will deliver a number of different functions once well-
established post construction. These include:
a) Screening via belts of native woodland and hedgerows;
b) Re-establishing field boundaries as tree lined hedgerows;
c) Small blocks of native woodland to tie parcels of land back together;
d) Large blocks of native woodland as mitigation for loss of overall tree cover;
e) Species rich and semi improved grassland;
f) Street tree planting adding vertical form and colour to residential areas;
g) Suburban tree and shrub planting of a more ornamental variety;
h) The reseNed corridor - The creation of a linear green corridor visually
attractive for pedestrians and cyclists to pass through and live adjacent to;
and
i) Permanently wet drainage basins with a varied bank profile to improve
biodiversity.
7.33 The landscape proposals have been the subject of considerable design
development over a long period of time. They have been developed in
conjunction with the engineering design and taking account of formal and
informal consultation with officers, statutory environmental bodies, the public
and other interested bodies. An iterative process of Landscape and visual
impact assessment, supported by the appraisal of other environmental
disciplines, has challenged and informed the design to ensure landscape
proposals are appropriate, proportionate and provide the requisite level of
impact mitigation. This and the appropriateness of the extent of the proposals
25
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
have been confirmed by the lack of statutory environmental body objection and
by the granting of planning approvaL.
26
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
8 HIGHRIDGE COMMON EXCHANGE LAND
Details of Highridge Common, the commoners and their rights
8.1 The Common is registered under number B/CU3 with Bristol City Council as
the Commons Registration Authority for the area. The plan showing the extent
of the registered Common together with the relevant extract from theRegistration Act Record forms Appendix 6.
8.2 The Common is approximately 8.9ha in area and contains two "horns" at the
north and east where the land narrows significantly. The Tithe map from 1840
shows the same general extent of the Common as now, with small areas of
enclosure around the boundaries that correspond to the adjacent fields and the
older adjacent houses that can be seen today.
8.3 Land use within the locality is primarily residential and commercial in the
suburban areas of Highridge and Bishopsworth, with areas of open space
within the suburban developments and agricultural or related uses to the west
of the Common.
8.4 The Common falls from about 83m AOD at its southernmost corner beside
Highridge Road to about 64m AOD beside Highridge Green where this meets
Sandburrows Road, before rising slightly again towards the northern corner.
8.5 The higher south-western part has expansive views over the southern suburbs
of Bristol to the hills beyond. The views from the eastern part are lessexpansive and partly curtailed by the surrounding housing area, but the feel is
still open.
8.6 Highridge Common is a locally designated Site of Nature ConseNation Interest
(SNCI) (also part of the Dundry Strategic Nature Area (SNA)). The designated
land comprises a large, generally flat area of, mainly damp, unimproved neutral
grassland with some patches of unimproved calcareous grassland. To the
north-west of the site there are wetter areas which support good populations of
sedges and rushes. Mr Matthew Bowell explains the ecological value of this
land in his proof (NSC/6/1).
8.7 The road surface of Highridge Green is included in the registered Common for
some 875m, as is the road surface of Highridge Road to the east of the junction
of King Georges Road. This represents 1.2ha, just over 13%, of the registered
Common.
27
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
8.8 Highridge Green is for the most part not kerbed along its west side and follows
the undulations of the Common, giving the appearance of being a route within
the Common. The Common is also crossed by property accesses in several
places.
Rights exercised over the Common
8.9 There are five Commoners' rights over the Common. All have rights of pasture,
for which sheep, cattle, horse and goats are listed. Two also have rights of
estovers, one of which is listed as 'rough grass and weeds as forage'; and one
also has right of turbary.
8.10 The Commoner's rights are shown in the extract from the register held by the
Commons Registration Authority (BCC) and provided as Appendix 6. These
rights of Common will be preserved in the exchange land.
Use of the Common by the public
8.11 This land is also included as public access land under the Countryside and
Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) and is shown as such on the Countryside
Agency website and the recent issue of the Ordnance SUNey (OS) map. The
use of the Common is principally as an area of general recreation by the public.
The Scheme's impact on the Common
8.12 Mr Phi lip Paterson has in his Proof of Evidence (NSC/2/1) explained the major
changes to the Scheme design leading up to the planning application and those
subsequently promoted to meet planning conditions.
8.13 In respect of Highridge Common, the Scheme route originally entered
Highridge Common immediately north of Highridge Cottage, running straight
across the Common to form a new junction arrangement with Highridge Road
and King Georges Road. Highridge Green road was stopped up as part of the
Scheme.
8.14 Prior to public consultation on the Scheme as a whole, a number of alternative
routes were considered as part of the design development process. These are
described in more detail in the Burges Salmon Report on Common Land dated
8 July 2013 (CD/2/5).
28
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
8.15 Having carefully considered the alternatives, it was concluded that the original
scheme should be taken forward in the design development leading to the
public consultation exercise held between 4 May and 29 June 2012.
8.16 The alignment, including the working strip, includes highway land but is still
registered as common land.
8.17 During and following the consultation process, no objector suggested any
alternative alignment for the route across the Common, however following
consultation; a number of minor changes were made to the alignment across
the Common. These can be summarised as:
a) Improvements to the junction at Highridge Road including adjustments to
individual property accesses;
b) Alignment moved east to increase the amount of Highridge Green alignment
used, thus reduce the amount of soft estate common land lost;
c) Alignment made more sinuous, moving the alignment away from Highridge
Cottage and improving the natural traffic calming;
d) Reintroduction of a junction with Highridge Green;
e) Introduction of a central refuge hatched zone; and
f) Changes to MetroBus stop locations.
8.18 Land included in the CPO includes land required not only for the new highway
but also for its construction. Appendix 10 shows the extent of this land.
8.19 Following construction and completion of the Scheme the construction land,
some 2,932m2, will be restored to grass and therefore its character and
appearance will be much like the existing common land albeit that it will remain
highway. The fact it will be highway means that there will be a public right of
way across this land to the common, thereby ensuring the public continue to
have access to the Common. The land will not be returned to the Common as
there is a need for unfettered access for emergency and maintenance work to
the highway in the future without needing to apply for consents under the
Commons Act 2006 to undertake works on a Common.
29
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
Legal requirement for exchange land - Exchange land considerations
8.20 Land which is a part of common and is to be acquired under a CPO is subject
to a special parliamentary procedure unless the relevant Secretary of State (in
this case the Secretary of State for EFRA) provides a certificate in accordance
with section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (the ALA 1981) (CD 6/2)
8.21 Before granting a section 19(1 )(a) certificate the Secretary of State must be
satisfied that:-
(a) "there has been or will be given in exchange for such land, otherland, not being less in area and being equally advantageous to the
persons, if any, entitled to rights of Common or other rights, and to the
public, and that the land given in exchange has been or will be vested in
the person in whom the land purchased was vested, and subject to the
like rights, trusts and incidents as attached to the land purchased; or
(aa) that the land is being purchased in order to secure its preseNation
or improve its management; or
(b) that the land does not exceed 250 square yards (209 square metres)
in extent or is required for the widening or drainage of an existing
highway or partly for the widening and partly for the drainage of such a
Highway and that the giving in exchange of other land is unnecessary,
whether in the interests of the persons, if any, entitled to rights of
Common or other rights or in the interest of the public... 11
8.22 Under section 19(1 )(a), Common includes any land "subject to be enclosed
under the Inclosure Acts 1845 - 1882". Such land includes land subject to
Rights of Common which is not common land unless registered.
8.23 The fact of registration is not conclusive in respect of status as common land in
the case of highway. However, it is necessary to include all the registered
common land for the avoidance of doubt as to its status. This includes the need
to ensure that common land immediately beneath the two spits below the
highway surface, which will be required for the construction of the scheme, is
brought within the ambit of the acquisition.
8.24 Furthermore, once registered, I am advised that there is no scope for
deregistration in these circumstances.
30
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
8.25 In relation to private accesses over the common, where affected by the
scheme, they also need to be included as common land since I am advised that
in the case of private accesses over common land the fact of registration as
common land is conclusive in respect of its status as common land.
8.26 In respect of the Scheme, as it affects Highridge Common, the Secretary of
State will have to be satisfied that the criteria of section 19.1 (a) are met (as set
out above). An application for a certificate has been made by North Somerset
Council by letter to DEFRA through the Planning Inspectorate. The Secretary
of State has issued a "minded to grant" notice (CD/1/3). Two objections have
been received to this and are addressed in Section 11 of my proof.
8.27 When considering whether or not to grant the certificate the Secretary of State
will only consider the merits of the exchange land being offered as at the date
of exchange rather than the benefits of the CPO scheme as a whole.
8.28 The merits of the exchange land will depend on the category of land it is
replacing. Guidance is set out in Circular 06/2004 (the Circular) (CD/6/5).
Paragraph 25 of Appendix L to the Circular states the requirements for
identification of suitable Exchange Land as being:
(a) no less in area than the order; and
(b) equally advantageous to any persons entitled to rights of Common or toother rights, and to the public
8.29 Paragraph 25 of Appendix L to the Circular goes on to say that in determining
whether the offer land meets the criteria above the Secretary of State may have
regard to the relative size and proximity of the exchange land when compared
with the land identified for compulsory purchase.
8.30 The provision of replacement land is a requirement of the legal mechanism of
compulsory land acquisition. However, it can incidentally provide various
elements in mitigation of the Scheme, such as additional planting and habitat
creation.
8.31 The CPO provides for the Commoners' existing rights to apply to the exchange
land. The exchange land will also be placed into the same ownership as the
existing common land. The Council has agreed with Bristol City Council that
31
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
following acquisition of the land required for the Scheme by the Council the
exchange land will be transferred to Bristol City CounciL.
8.32 Common land is also subject to public rights of access for recreation by virtue
of the CROW Act. It is also necessary to consider how the exchange land
affects this right.
Options for exchange land:
The part of the Common to be compulsorily acquired for SBL
8.33 Common land is subject to rights for the grazing of animals. To provide
replacement land which is not contiguous means animals have to be driven to
the new land rather than be left to graze as before and consequently the
original common land cannot sustain the same level of grazing stock.
Therefore, when considering options for exchange land, whether the potential
land was contiguous or not was a relevant consideration.
8.34 There are also rights of Estovers and Turbary over the Common. The
exchange land should also accommodate those rights.
8.35 The extent of common land required for the Scheme is as shown in Appendix
7 The area totals some 11,652m2 and comprises: plots 04/11 to 04/18 and
plots 05/01, 05/02 and part of plot 05/05 as referenced on the CPO plans
(CD/1/1).
The Council's considerations for suitable exchange land
8.36 In considering potential exchange land the Council has had regard to the
following:
a) Capable of direct connection to the existing Common and/or existing
highways or rights of way;
b) Capable of creating a comparable visual character;
c) Preferably pasture, to provide scope for creating comparable botanical
interest;
d) Not having existing general public access, whether by right or usage, other
than along public rights of way;
32
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
e) Providing sufficient area;
f) Capable of being used by the Commoners in a way which is consistent
with their rights; and
g) Capable of being used by the public in a way which is consistent with their
rights and current custom of using the land.
8.37 To ensure that the proposals for replacement land were 'not less in area', all of
the options reviewed, including that chosen, were at least as large as the gross
area required by the Scheme from the registered area of the Common,
including the extent of existing public highway required for the route.
Quantum Of Exchange Land Required
8.38 Some 11,651 m2 of common land is required for the construction of the section
of the Scheme across Highridge Common. Of this, 5033m2 is designated SNCI
and warrants essential mitigation consideration in its own right.
8.39 The legislation requires that the area of exchange land should not be less than
that lost. It also requires it to be 'equally advantageous'. Where the situation, of
the land being 'equally advantageous', does not exist, if simply replaced on a
1:1 basis, as is the case with options considered for Highridge Common, then
the ratio of exchange land to land lost can be increased to compensate for this.
8.40 Further, consideration must be given to the combination of the loss of common
land and the loss of SNCI grassland. Both losses require mitigation. For the
SNCI grassland, the preferred method of mitigation, agreed with the relevant
Authority and Natural England officers, is to translocate the grassland.
8.41 Consideration must also be given to the ecological attributes of the land which
forms an important component of its value. Mr Bowell in his proof of evidence
(NSC/6/1), addresses the ecological basis to the selection of land for andmethod of mitigation proposed.
8.42 Consideration must be given not only to the direct loss of common land as a
result of the Scheme but also to the adverse impact to the public enjoyment
and use of the Common arising from severance (because of their right to
access the land under CROW Act). Whilst reduced in extent by comparison
with the BAFB alignment, the current route still severs common land to the
33
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
north. This both reduces the extent of uninterrupted common but also makes
movement between the main block of land and the severed portion more
difficult. Consequently it was considered necessary to increase the ratio of
exchange land being offered to address this.
8.43 Consideration has also been given to the impact of noise (see NSCn/1) on the
enjoyment of the Common and exchange land and of the relative narrowness
of the physical connection between the two.
8.44 Highridge Common is development locked on two of its three sides and on thethird by a distinctive line of small field enclosures linked to ditch/boundary lines.
The latter are a feature on historic mapping and it was therefore not considered
appropriate to take all these as exchange land. Removal of hedgerow would
significantly change the character of the area. In addition a number of the fields
are now directly associated with residential and business properties (Grove
House, Highridge Cottage and the Highridge Hamlet). These features limited
the options available for suitable exchange land which was capable of direct
connection to the Common.
8.45 The areas of land considered as potential replacement land are mostly pasture
used for the grazing and exercising of horses or ponies. As most of theadjacent fields are also laid to pasture, it would appear feasible for these land
uses to continue in the vicinity of the Scheme, subject to the pattern of land
tenure and the financial arrangements being suitable.
8.46 Various options for exchange land were considered (as shown in Appendix 8
(extracted from CD/2/5)) but many were not suitable as they were consideredto be either too remote from the main body of the Common, creating adverse
impacts or security concerns on adjoining residential areas and risking
extensive loss of hedges or trees or already used as public open space or a
combination of these.
8.47 From the options considered, two areas of potentially suitable replacement land
were identified to compensate for the loss of areas of the Common arising from
the construction of the Scheme. These options are shown in Appendix 9 and
on the public consultation leaflet (CD/2/3).
8.48 At the time of the public consultation, whilst both options were considered
potentially suitable, neither had been confirmed as appropriate.
34
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
Option 1 -Area approx 23,531 m2 (2.02x area lost)
8.49 Option 1 land comprises CPO land parcels 04/08 and 04/19 to 04/22 inclusive.
8.50 The land consists of pasture with hedgerow and hedgerow trees to theperimeters of the two fields. Hedgerow to field 1 would need removal in whole
or part to provide connectivity (though this would in greater part be required
anyway to provide for the construction of the Scheme). The land is flat and
contiguous with the common land at the eastern end, starting to fall gently to
the North West as the valley starts to form. The pasture is species rich un-
improved grassland but with areas of semi-improved grassland on the western
side suitable for biodiversity enhancement and/or to receive translocated sward
from the Common. It was considered that the area met or was capable of
meeting the tests set out above.
8.51 This option was developed following refinement of the alignment, moving the
road away from Highridge Cottage and thus allowing appropriate access on
the west side through the small field and leading to an appropriate size and
shape of exchange parceL.
8.52 In developing this option it was recognised that the benefits of greater passive
security, maintaining the relationship of road to common land and connectivity
would be offset by increased traffic noise which would impact on the enjoyment
of use of land closest to the road. In addition, the area to be set aside for
translocation of SNCI turfs (some 5046m2) would need to be fenced and
unavailable for public use whilst the turfs establish.
8.53 Appendix 11 shows the area of loss of SNCI designated grassland, the Option
1 exchange land and the area within this land specifically required as essential
mitigation land for the translocation of turfs from the SNCI.
8.54 I would note that, in considering the quantum of exchange land, not all the
existing pasture considered for common exchange land is also suitable as
SNCI essential mitigation land and, for Option 1, Plots 04/08, 04/09, 04/21 and
04/22 are already within the area of SNCI designation.
8.55 Botanic sUNey and ground investigation have shown that the larger south
easterly part of the land comprising plots 04/06, 04/19 and 04/20 is of a botanic
quality equivalent to the SNCI designated grassland. As such to translocate the
35
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
SNCI grassland to this area would offer no net gain and thus no mitigation of
loss.
8.56 Grassland to the south and west of plot 04/19 has been shown to be of a more
agriculturally improved nature and thus to translocate SNCI grassland to this
area would, once established, offer the necessary essential mitigation and
ecological equivalence, thus justifying the additional area taken.
8.57 As the area for translocation would be contiguous with the m9re eastern area,
of similar quality and appearance to that once established and visually of the
same parcel of land, for both management and public use it would be sensible
to also designate this as common land. This is an important approach to ensure
equivalence of land for ecological mitigation and underpins the choice of this
area of land.
8.58 The existing field boundary hedgerows are important landscape features in
their own right and worthy of protection from possible loss to reintegrate small
severed slivers of pasture into a larger unit. Similarly, in the context of the
existing common land and the character of the western boundary, extension of
the exchange land to these natural existing boundaries and the retention of
these hedgerows as the boundary features to the exchange land is justifiable.
8.59 Option 1 land was discussed with the land owners, the Burnells, at a meeting
on 5 February 2013, in advance of the public consultation exercise.
Option 2 - Area approx 13,300m2 (1.14x area lost)
8.60 This area comprises pasture with hedgerows and hedgerow trees. There is a
significant row of trees and lower vegetation along the central existing field
boundary and to the east and west boundaries of the area. Part of the area has
previously been used as a site compound for the installation of a pipeline which
runs under the Option 2 land.
8.61 This option provides a reasonable, though still narrow, access from the existing
Common to an area of land suitable for recreational use. Access and part of the
area has been discussed with one land owner, the Burnells, but at their request
was amended from that first tabled to include some of the land in adjoining, but
un-registered, ownership.
8.62 In the absence of appropriate existing field boundaries to the north or south,
fence lines across the two fields would be required to form the boundaries on
36
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
those sides. The extent of this and the width of the link to the existing Common
were established following discussion with a landowner, the Burnells, at the
meeting of 16 August 2012 at David James and Partners Offices, Wrington,
and in respect of concerns raised by them as to the security issues to their
property if the proposed exchange land was to extend further north. This in
large part influenced the size of Option 2.
8.63 As noted above, in determining the size of Option 1, the impact of noise on
both the existing common and exchange land was taken into account in the
size of exchange land proposed. For Option 2 it is recognised that noise impact
is not of the same magnitude.
8.64 In terms of ecological equivalence, Option 2 land is less preferable for the
translocation of turfs from the SNCI; as explained by Mr Matthew Bowell.
Public consultation
8.65 At the stage options were prepared for public consultation a more detailed
assessment of suitability of the two options had still to be undertaken.
8.66 Formal public consultation on Options 1 & 2 was undertaken between the 6 and
25 of February 2013 (see CD/2/5).
8.67 In summary, a total of 77 people responded to the consultation. Of these 51 %
expressed a clear preference for Option 1, 21 % for Option 2 with 28% either
having no preference or not expressing an opinion.
8.68 A number of statutory environmental bodies and similar organisationssubmitted formal comment. Avon Wildlife Trust, Natural England and the BCC
Development Management Team all expressed a preference for Option 1.
Western Power were in favour of either option, whilst BCC Parks noted that
Option 1 would be more onerous to maintain because of the greater area,
however this is not a relevant consideration when determining the area to be
offered in exchange. Wessex Water, Network Rail, the Police, the Coal Board
and the Malago ConseNation Group made no comment.
Selection of final option for exchange land
8.69 Following review of the comments and outcomes from the public engagement
exercise, Options 1 and 2 were further reviewed with a more detailedassessment of their ability to meet the statutory tests undertaken.
37
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
8.70 Option 1 was confirmed as the preferred option for a number of reasons:
a) It was the preferred option at public consultation;
b) Opening up the land to public use will have less potentially adverse impact on
residential properties than would Option 2;
c) The land has a similar relationship between road and common land as does
the existing Common;
d) Option 2 is more remote and disconnected visually and physically from the
existing Common than is Option 1. Option 2 could have been larger, and
would have needed to be larger to provide for turf translocation, but this does
not overcome the remoteness of the land from the rest of the Common, rather
compounding it;
e) Option 1, in meeting the tests, provides a greater exchange area than does
Option 2. This recognises that the degree of contiguity with the existing
Common is limited, that there will be some increased degree of severance,
some increased averse noise impacts on land closest to the new road and
that part of the area will not be available for public use for a period of time. Mr
Adam Lawrence addresses the specific noise effects in his proof of evidence
(NSC/9/1);
f) Option 1 has, with the exception of the two short runs of hedge to Area i,
greater inherent openness than Option 2. It is more level and has greater
equivalence in terms of the visual quality and the views out from the common.
With the exception of the two, short hedgerow runs removed as the Scheme
exits the existing common, there is no significant hedgerow loss with Option 1;
g) By contrast, the character of Option 2 is very different. Hedgerows around and
within the area are mature with significant numbers of mature hedgerow trees.
Some would of necessity be lost in forming the access to the area. In order to
provide an equivalence of openness within the area, removal of the central
vegetation belt, with its mature oak trees, between Areas B & C would have
been necessary. Following further review it was considered that to open up
Option 2 would have significant ecological, landscape and visual implications
such that planning approval might reasonably have been withheld.
h) Access for maintenance and management will be easier for Option 1;
i) Option 1 provides continuity and a much greater level of passive security
compared to Option 2;
38
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
j) Part of the Option 1 area is already included within the Common SNCI andsome currently contains relatively diverse grassland, however the section of
field at the western end is suitable to take translocated turfs from the area of
the SNCI affected by the Scheme;
8.71 i do not consider that Option 2, even if enlarged in size, would meet the tests of
being equally advantageous to the public.
8.72 Appendix 12 provides a photographic record of the two options from public
rights of way and of the access points from the common;
8.73 Appendix 7 shows the extent of common land subject to CPO and the extent
of Exchange Land comprising Option 1.
Exchange Land Maintenance/Management Plan
8.74 An exchange land management plan will be produced to formally set out the
existing condition of the exchange land, the management aims in respect of
future use and landscape and ecological quality and the maintenance actions
and regimes necessary to achieve those aims.
8.75 The overarching aim fully meets the tests set out for exchange land, in
particular in respect of the appearance of the land and its botanical grassland
quality relative to the character and SNCI designation of the existing Common.
8.76 Such a plan is required under Condition 25 of the NSC planning approval and
condition 15 of the BCC approval for the scheme (CD/2/1 and CD/2/2).
Conclusion
8.77 Taking account of the extent and nature of the loss of areas of Highridge
Common, of the wider environmental assessment reported in the formal EIA for
the Scheme, the results of the public consultation and the statutory tests as set
out in the ALA 1981, i consider that the location and extent of, Option 1, is
appropriate and justified being equally advantageous to the public and those
entitled to rights of common and other rights.
39
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
9 OPEN SPACE AND EXCHANGE LAND
Open Space North of the Railway Line
9.1 The Scheme contains land required for the bus-only link to AVTM and the Park
+ Ride, for pedestrian and cycle access, for EA maintenance access toColliter's Brook and for flood compensation which was identified by the Ashton
Vale Temple Meads (AVTM) scheme as (possible) open space, as shown on
the scheme layout plan (Appendix 13)
9.2 At the time of the AVTM application, it was considered that the land may be
classified as 'Open Space' for the purposes of section 19(1 )(a) of the
Acquisition of Land Act 1981. In accordance with section 19(4) of the Act,
'Open Space' means any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the
purposes of public recreation or land being a disused burial ground. Although
the flood compensation area will remain accessible for public recreational use
once constructed, the s.19 (1 )(a) Acquisition of Land Act procedure and
government guidance required exchange land to be provided for this area also.
9.3 There are two public footpaths which provide access to the land, LA 12/14/50,
from the north, which becomes LA 12/14/60 from the south at the junction with
LA 12/12C/20. From site inspections it is apparent that the land is used by local
residents for recreational purposes, in particular dog walking, and that the land
has a different character to other fields in the area with a number of individual
trees planted within the field.
9.4 Section 19(1 )(a) of the Acquisition of Land Act states that the land being
provided in exchange should be not less in area to the land being acquired and
equally advantageous to the public as the open space being acquired
9.5 The extent of the open space land (existing) that is required for the Scheme
north of the railway line is 36,534m2 and comprises CPO plots 01/15 to 01/18
inclusive.
9.6 The land proposed for provision in exchange is provided in four areas:
(a) The first block comprising CPO Plots 01/19, 01/20, 01/27, 02/01, 02/02, 02/03,
02/08 is located to the south of the existing open space and east of the AVTM
open space exchange land. It totals some 2,036m2 and is situated between
the SBL (including the bus only section to the Park + Ride site) and Colliter's
40
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
Brook. It is linear in nature and upon completion of the scheme it will consist
of open grassed areas and tree planting. The land will be accessible via the
new shared cycleway and footway, from existing footpaths that link into this,
from the re-diverted public footpath LA 12/14/60 which passes to the west of
the exchange land and also from the Brookgate junction.
(b) The second area of land comprising CPO Plots 01/22 and 01/23 comprises
19,450m2 of existing open ground to the east of the A370 and south of the
Long Ashton Park & Ride. This land forms a horseshoe around andcontiguous with a central block of land identified as open space exchange
land by the AVTM scheme. The land is open, rough pasture and will be
accessible via the new shared cycleway and footway, from existing footpaths
that link into this, from the re-diverted public footpath LA 12/14 which passes to
the west of the exchange land and also from the Brookgate junction.
(c) The third area of land comprising CPO Plots 02/17 and 02/19, some 7,143m2,lies between the railway line and the new Brookgate junction. This area will be
accessible from the new cycle path and footway and from footpathLA 12/14/60. It will comprise open grassland and trees.
(d) The fourth area of land comprising CPO Plots 02/22 and 02A101 comprises anarrow strip of land of some 8597m2 parallel to and immediately north of the
railway line. The land is currently pasture. New pedestrian and maintenance
accesses will be formed in the existing hedgerows providing pedestrian
access to the area and between footpath LA 12/11/10 to the west and footpath
LA 12/14/70 to the east. This land was formerly identified as land to be
provided by the AVTM, project in exchange for open space lost to the AVTM
but was subsequently considered surplus to requirements.
9.7 Considering the test that the exchange land should be equally advantageous to
the public, the proposed exchange land is of a similar physical nature to that
lost and there is public access as set out above. Essential mitigation
landscaping will provide an enhanced recreational environment to parts of the
area. In terms of functionality, the exchange land could be used for similar
recreational purposes as the open space lost; in terms of dog walking and
general walking by the local community.
41
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
9.8 The current proposal is for 38,182m2, of exchange land a little over 1: 1 to
ensure the statutory minimum requirement. However, the approach taken in
the applications for the s.19 certificates, providing exchange land for the flood
compensation area, means that the actual amount of land available to the
public, comprising exchange land and flood compensation land, will be some
63,245m2.
9.9 There have been no objections to this notice.
42
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
10 OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE RESERVED CORRIDOR10.1 During the development of the Scheme a finger of land was identified within the
reseNed corridor that was not within the registered ownership of BCC and thus
could potentially be considered as being open space to be acquired under the
scheme. This land has no known owner. It lies at the eastern end of the r6seNe
corridor, running off Colemead Road, parallel to Hareclive Road. It is assumed
the land forms what was once an agricultural access (see Appendix 14).
10.2 Land lost to the Scheme from this area equates to 183m2. As such the loss is
below the 209m2 threshold set under Section 19(1 )(b). The reseNe corridor,
after construction of the Scheme, will provide significant areas of openlandscape available to the public to use and as such exchange land for this
area is not considered to be necessary in the interest of the public.
10.3 No objections have been made to this notice.
43
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
11 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
Baseline
11.1 All known heritage assets within a linear corridor, 500m either side of the red
line boundary have been identified (see asset table and plan - Appendix 15).
They comprise: one Grade I Listed Building, two Grade 11* Listed Buildings and
one Grade 11* Registered Park & Garden, all of high significance; twenty Grade
11 Listed Buildings and four ConseNation Areas, all of medium significance; and
sixty-eight undesignated heritage assets, all of low significance.
Archaeological and historical investigations:
11.2 A number of site and desk-based investigations have been undertaken in the
past and in preparing the scheme design. Those considered include an
archaeological desk-based assessment and field-walking (between A370 and
the railway). No significant material was found (Cotswold Archaeology, 1996).
Two areas of geophysical survey and evaluation near Yanley. Noarchaeological features were identified (Gloucestershire County Council
Archaeological SeNice, 2001). Archaeological desk-based assessment of Yew
Tree Farm, on the A38 (Cotswold Archaeology, 2001) and an archaeological
desk-based assessment, geophysical sUNey, LiDAR survey, archaeological
evaluation and building recording for the Ashton Park development. No
significant archaeological features were identified (Cotswold Archaeology,
2009) (all in CD/4/2).
11.3 Based on the baseline studies and the archaeological and historical
investigations, the potential for further archaeological remains to be
encountered within the scheme footprint is considered to be low. The Scheme
would therefore likely have an overall neutral effect.
Consultations
11.4 Consultations have been held with a number of local authority and statutory
heritage consultees. These have included North Somerset CouncilArchaeologist and ConseNation Officer, the Bristol City Archaeologist, English
Heritage officers and the Ashton Court Estate Management Team.
11.5 A number of heritage issues were raised by consultees. These included:
44
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
a) Consideration of the potential impacts on Highridge Common, which forms
part of a ConseNation Area within Bristol City;
b) Potential adverse impacts (including loss of) on a triple lime kiln adjacent to
the A38 (MNS988 - undesignated monument within North Somerset); and
c) Effect of the new road and associated lighting and landscaping on the
borrowed landscape and setting of the Grade I Listed Ashton Court Mansion
(NHLE1129841) and its surrounding Grade 11* Historic Park (NHLE1000560).
11.6 Other heritage issues that were identified included:
a) Potential adverse impacts on sections of the proposed route within the
greenbelt (but considered to be of low archaeological potential)
b) Potential impact from Iighting/ increased noise and visually on the setting of
Castle Farmhouse, a Grade 11 Listed Building (NSHER no. MNS3063) largely
surrounded by mature vegetation,;
c) Visual impacts on Long Ashton Conservation Area and Long Ashton Grade 11*
All Saints Church; and
d) Potential impacts on the Westleaze and Wyke Conservation Area and on the
Yanley ConseNation Area.
Mitigation
11.7 In developing the Scheme design, the potential to mitigate the heritage and
archaeological impacts was considered and, where appropriate, included in the
application designs.
Ashton Court Estate and Registered Park and Garden.
11.8 In early discussions with English Heritage it became clear that one of the
issues for the Scheme to consider was the potential effect of the new road and
associated lighting and landscaping on the borrowed landscape of the Estate
and garden. English Heritage was of the opinion that the Estate comprised not
only the listed landscape of the immediate Estate grounds but also relied on the
wider landscape to, in particular, the southern arc, for its character. In order to
address their concerns, an initial visual impact study was undertaken to identify
and agree viewpoints from within the Estate and from Ashton Court itself.
Following this, it was agreed with English Heritage to take four of the suggested
viewpoints relating to Ashton Court forward for photomontage production. In
45
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
addition to the four suggested locations it was agreed to include a view looking
south towards the Scheme from a first floor window of Ashton Court and to
assess night time views.
11.9 In assessing the potential for change in visual impact, consideration was given
to the Woodland Management Plan being developed by Ashton Court Estate
and to the suggestion by English Heritage to use of native woodland belts,
mixed aged trees and hedgerow planting to assist in mitigating visual impacts.
11 .10 A separate 'Obtrusive Light Assessment Report' was commissioned to inform
consideration of night time light impacts (CD/4/3).
11.11 As a result of this work a number of design developments to the Scheme were
considered including landscaping and planting along the route, designed in
keeping with the wider existing landscape, minimising the extent of street
lighting (lighting proposed between the Brookgate and A370 junctions was
omitted), use of light fittings which minimise spill and agreeing the preferred
route either side of the new underpass through the railway line.
11.12 The magnitude of change assuming mature trees and vegetation immediately
south of the mansion are retained, was assessed as minor resulting in a slight
adverse effect. English Heritage and the LPA deemed the proposed mitigation
satisfactory and no objection to the application was received from English
Heritage.
Triple Limekilns.
11.13 During the design development and consultations with the North Somerset
Archaeologist it became apparent that the group of three conjoined limekilns
just to the north of the A38 were, although not listed locally or nationally, of
considerable local importance. Although not directly affected by the Scheme
put to public consultation, the change to a signalised roundabout had meant the
kilns could not be retained.
11.14 The approved A38 junction design was the result of considerable dialogue
between the engineering design team and heritage officers who agreed to the
alignment changes to the junction, moving it south and east to place the kilns
as a feature within the centre of the roundabout. This will restore and conseNe
the structure and make it publically visible resulting in a moderate beneficial
effect. To effect this, following planning approval, a separate conseNation
46
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
management plan will be produced providing for the specialist conservation of
the structure.
Castle Farmhouse
11.15 English Heritage and the NSC heritage officer expressed concern at the effect
of the Scheme on the setting of this Grade 11 building. As part of the
consideration of mitigation options for the lime kilns the setting of Castle
Farmhouse was also considered.
11 .16 Repositioning of the junction to incorporate the lime kilns also moved the
junction and the scheme alignment away from the farmhouse boundary,
reducing the impact on the setting. Additional screening and improved
downward lighting for the roundabout further mitigated the impacts of the
scheme.
Long Ashton Conservation Area and Long Ashton Grade 11* All Saints Church
11.17 The designers were asked by English Heritage to specifically consider the
impact on the setting of the church and on the conservation area. Assessment
showed that the Scheme would not be visible from the majority of the Long
Ashton ConseNation Area nor result in a significant impact on setting. of the
church. The magnitude of change would be neutral, resulting in a neutral effect.
The Westleaze and Wyke Conservation Area
11.18 The magnitude of change was assessed as neutral, resulting in a neutral
effect and requiring no further mitigation proposals in the design.
The Yanley Conservation Area
11.19 The magnitude of change was assessed as neutral, resulting in a neutral
effect and requiring no further mitigation proposals in the design.
Bishopsworth & Malago Conservation Area
11.20 The magnitude of change to the Bishopsworth and Malago ConseNation Area
was assessed as minor, as it would alter the character of Highridge Common,
by cutting across the northern most end of the open green space on the urban
fringe. This would result in a slight adverse effect.
47
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
Archaeology
11.21 During preparation of the design and planning application it was agreed with
the North Somerset Archaeologist that no further archaeological evaluation or
mitigation was needed with the exception of restoration and conseNation of the
triple limekiln. The planning approvals have been conditioned to require a
watching brief along the length of Scheme.
11.22 Based on consultation with the Bristol City Archaeologist, field evaluation has
been agreed where the route crosses Highridge Common. Mitigation fieldwork
will be required on a precautionary basis.
11.23 Currently, a geophysical sUNey has been completed, which has proved
inconclusive due to magnetic interference. As a consequence, three trial
trenches are proposed to further inform mitigation strategy across this area and
will commence upon the start of grass translocation works.
Conclusion
11.24 There is no evidence to suggest adverse impacts on known or potential
archaeology. There would be no effect on the setting of listed and historic
buildings identified within the study area of Bristol City due to the presence of
inteNening vegetation.
11 .25 There is no evidence to suggest adverse impacts on known or potential
archaeological deposits where the Scheme passes through the rural area
leading to Ashton Vale Park & Ride. The restoration and conseNation of the
triple limekiln within the A38 junction would avoid its destruction and have a
moderate beneficial effect; however, the proposed roundabout and highway
adjacent to Castle Farm would have a moderate adverse effect on the listed
building.
11.26 Given the relative distance from the Ashton Court Estate, views to the
Scheme would be limited to glimpses from the higher parts of the estate. There
would be no significant effect on views from the house, pleasure grounds or
more low-lying parts of the Estate. The effect would be limited to slight adverse,
and may be mitigated further through the use of sensitive screen planting along
the route of the Scheme.
48
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
11.27 Overall, the Scheme would not affect the historic character of the
Bishopsworth and Magalo ConseNation Area. However, the development of
the new road across part of Highridge Common (which forms part of the
conservation area) would have a slight adverse effect on its historic character.
Overall, the effect of the Scheme on the historic environment was assessed as
being 'slight adverse;
11.28 In response to a number of consultations with English Heritage regarding
potential settings impacts from the Scheme on Grade I listed Ashton Court
mansion and the Grade 11* listed park, no heritage objections were made to the
application or CPO based on the implementation of mitigation measures set out
in the ES.
11.29 As agreed with heritage officers and as required to meet planning conditions
(in particular NSC Conditions 10 and 11 and BCC Conditions 7, 8 and 14)imposed on the planning permissions granted for the Scheme (CD 2/1 and
CD2/2), the Scheme will undertake a programme of field investigation and
recording within Highridge Common and undertake vegetation clearance and
conseNation of the triple lime kilns in line with an agreed methodology.
49
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
12 CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS
12.1 I now address those individual objections to the CPO and Side Road Orders
that pertain to landscape or heritage matters.
OBJ/9 Osborne Clarke on behalf of the Gianettos - Ground 2: Land requiredfor tree planting not necessary to mitigate scheme (Plots 04/01 and 04/03)
12.2 Land to the north of the proposed highway is required for the combined
cycleway and footpath, for access to two fields, for highway verge, a grassed
drainage ditch and for hedgerow with hedgerow trees. This planting is
considered essential mitigation, re-establishing the local landscape character of
fields and of roads in the area with boundary hedgerows and hedgerow trees
and providing habitat connectivity along the line of the road.
12.3 Land to the south of the road is required for highway verge, for access to one
field and for hedgerow and hedgerow tree planting for the same reasons as to
the north. Appendix 1 (c) clearly shows the small parcel of land to be planted to
its full extent with native trees and shrubs.
12.4 I therefore conclude that the Scheme design is appropriate.
OBJ/16 David James and Partners on behalf of the Withers - Loss ofestablished native trees and wildlife
12.5 The Scheme put to public consultation in May/June 2012 proposed a route for
the Scheme north of the A38 that ran well to the east of Colliter's Brook and
Hanging Hill Wood. This alignment was strongly objected to by the Withers. At
a meeting with them and their agent in February 2013 they sought to promote a
route which made use of the Viridor haul road, to the west of Colliter's Brook.
This was on the basis that it substantially avoided loss of their farm land and
the consequential access difficulties to the remaining land. It avoided severing
access to the Brook for their cattle to drink and they also considered that it
would be more environmentally acceptable to Natural England.
12.6 It was agreed at that meeting that consideration would be given to the viability
of this option. The option was reviewed for both environmental and engineering
feasibility. It was concluded that the route could be developed without
significant impact from the engineering works. In ecological terms, whilst there
50
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
was some loss of ancient woodland and from the Hanging Hill SNCI this was of
markedly lesser significance than the loss of grassland SNCI from the then
existing preferred route.
12.7 In respect of landscape and visual consideration the route has the benefit of
already being developed, as the access road to the landfill site already exists,
along with associated weighbridge and other infrastructure. As such, physical
landscape impacts would be less than the eastern route and visually it would
be an improvement being contained by the valley and woodland. Although to a
much lesser degree, potential visual receptors already experience HGV and
other vehicles moving along the route.
12.8 In summary, it was concluded that the route using the haul road, an existing
degraded corridor through the woodland, was preferable to a new road across
agricultural land, especially as some of the land included historic landfill. The
haul road route was accepted as preferable by the local authority ecologist and
by Natural England. Support for the route and the appropriateness of
environmental mitigation proposals in the design and ES was confirmed by the
absence of statutory objection to the planning applications, now approved.
12.9 In respect of maintenance, the contract to construct the Scheme will provide for
appropriate maintenance of the hard estate, boundary fencing etc and of the
soft estate to ensure the successful establishment of the new landscape.
12.10 Where appropriate water troughs will be provided in fields that otherwise
would not have access to a water supply.
12.11 I therefore conclude that the scheme design is appropriate.
OBJ/17 David James and Partners on behalf of Mrs D Bloyce - Landscaping
12.12 I n respect of objections I, 11, and IX, I comment as follows.
12.13 The landscape and engineering design for the section of the Scheme north of
the railway received careful consideration due to the specific concerns raised
by English Heritage in respect of the potential impact of the Scheme on the
Ashton Court "borrowed landscape" and in respect of potential impact on the
green belt tests; recognising that this had to be balanced with impact on the
Bloyce's agricultural business.
12.14 Consideration was given to the elevation of the road above the existing
landscape, to options to route the Scheme over or under the railway line and to
51
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
the provision of an agricultural overbridge, underbridge or at grade crossings to
access the farmland that would lie either side of the route.
12.15 In respect of the soft landscape it was agreed in discussion with landscape
and heritage officers that large scale woodland planting to screen the route in
views from the north and east would in itself be incongruous and intrusive.
Hedgerow and hedgerow tree planting, reflecting the existing field boundary
patterns characteristic of the area, was agreed as the most appropriate
landscape solution.
12.16 It was considered that an agricultural overbridge, especially in the context of
the existing access bridge, would be a significant adverse visual impact. Given
the nature of the agricultural use, at grade crossings were not considered
suitable or safe to accommodate 4 or more daily crossings by a dairy herd. An
underbridge sized to accommodate all potential agricultural machinery
movements would, along with the necessary approach embankments, have
been an unacceptable visual and physical impact on the landscape.
12.17 The preferred option, which has been granted planning permission, was to
provide an underbridge sized to accommodate cattle and small agricultural
vehicles with at grade crossings to accommodate larger machinery. This
approach provides for the continued operation of the Bloyce's dairy farm whilst
keeping the significance of the landscape and visual impact at a level
acceptable to English Heritage and the planning authority.
12.18 The need to maintain access for agricultural purposes during construction is
recognised. It is proposed that the underbridge would be constructed first to
facilitate cattle movement during the construction of the main works.
Arrangements would be made with the agricultural tenant and landowner to
facilitate access to all fields, to provide for large machinery movements and to
ensure appropriate stock security, provision of water etc.
12.19 i therefore conclude that the scheme design is appropriate.
OBJ/28 Osborne Clarke on behalf of Ashton Park Ltd - Ground 5: Landscaping
- not enough detail in landscaping drawings to assess impacts on retained
land. Extent of tree planting appears excessive.
52
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
12.20 Read in conjunction with the engineering and other drawings forming the
planning application, I consider that there is ample detail on the landscape
plans to allow the location relative to the existing layout of the land and to
assess the impact of the proposals. The scale and level of detail shown on the
landscape plans was agreed with the case officers for the two authorities as
being sufficient to allow determination of the applications whilst not overly
constraining development of the Scheme through detailed design.
12.21 Each landscape plan has a location plan relating to the full extent of the
Scheme and is shown overlaying the Ordnance SUNey base mapping for the
area. The type of soft landscape is broken down into approximately 15 different
types. Each block is referenced to the landscape element and the
environmental function, this following DMRB guidance. This is further
supported by the DAS and Landscape Strategy documents (CD/4/6). It was
agreed with the local authority officers that detailed species lists and planting
designs were not required at this stage. Planning Conditions 6 & 7 of the NSC
approval (CD/2/1) and condition 9 of the BCC approval (CD/2/2) provide for this
additional detaiL. The applications have been approved on this basis.
12.22 i have set out in my rebuttal to Objection 17 and elsewhere in this proof the
justification for the extent of landscape proposed and have demonstrated that it
is both appropriate and essentiaL. This has been supported by the relevant
statutory consultees and through the planning approval process. I therefore
conclude that the scheme design is appropriate.
OBJ/29 Bond Dickinson on behalf of the Burnells - Lack of legal basis toacquire the exchange land. The CPO includes more land than is needed for the
delivery of the scheme. The multiplier being applied to the exchange land is
significantly greater than that being applied to the open space land with no
explanation for the differentiation.
12.23 This objection is in part covered by the proof of evidence of Mr Karuna
Tharmananthar and by legal submissions. I will deal with the objection as it
relates to landscape and exchange land issues and in the order and numbering
set out in the Bond Dickinson objection letter of 13 January 2014. In greater
part my response to this objection is set out in Chapter 8 of this proof where I
53
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
cover in detail and justify the location and quantum of the exchange land for
Highridge Common.
12.24 At 2.1 it is contended that because part of Highridge Green, as existing road,
is subsumed within the footprint of the Scheme, that land and other existing
accesses across the Common should not be included in the exchange land
calculation. The road, Highridge Green, is highway. I have previously set out
why it is necessary to include all land registered as common land within the
acquisition proposals.
12.25 The physical characteristics of the road, Highridge Green, and the private
accesses has been taken into account in the selection of Options 1 and 2.
12.26 Account has been taken of the character of the land as the basis of the
acquired common land in calculating the appropriate exchange land area.
12.27 For the reasons explained earlier in my proof, the use of Section 38 of the
Commons Act 2006 in respect of construction would not be appropriate as it
would not secure the right to access the land for maintenance or emergency
work.
12.28 At 2.2 the objector contends that the quantum of exchange land isunreasonable. As set out in my proof, paragraphs 8.33 to 8.43, consider an
area greater than that lost to be appropriate when considered against the
relevant tests.
12.29 The land included in the CPO of necessity includes an appropriate extent of
land to provide both for the final Scheme and to construct the Scheme.
12.30 I therefore consider that it is appropriate to exceed a ratio of 1: 1 for exchange
land and that to take the land sought for exchange under Option 1 to existing
boundaries is rational and appropriate.
12.31 Under paragraph 2.4 it is contended that the Common Exchange Land Report
(CD/2/3), in paragraph 5.7 states that the exchange land should be at least the
same area as that lost but provides no justification for the scale now proposed.
This paragraph actually states, confirming the relevant tests, that the land
should be "not less in area". Inherent in this is the assumption that equality of
extent is a minimum and that there is an expectation that unless the exchange
land is "equally advantageous" a greater quantum of exchange land will be
required to mitigate any disadvantageousness.
54
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
12.32 In respect of the objections under paragraph 2.5, Mr Bowell addresses the
issue of essential mitigation land for the loss of SNCI designated grassland. I
would note that, in landscape and visual terms, it is important that this
mitigation land is contiguous with the common land (or exchange land for the
same). Uncertainty of success does not mean that there is no compelling case
to acquire land for this purpose. Loss of the SNCI grassland without mitigation
would not be appropriate, adversely affecting the ecological and landscape
value of the exchange land.
12.33 Matthew Bowell will address paragraph 2.7 of the objection in his evidence,
suggesting that the land owner did not give consent for entry onto their land to
undertake intrusive sUNeys and as such the assessments on which the above
is based are without foundation.
12.34 In respect of the objection under 2.10, it is contended that the land identified
as Option 2 is a more appropriate location and meets or is capable of meeting
the tests set out in 5.6 of the CELR.
12.35 I have set out in my proof in paragraph 8.66 the reasons why a number of
factors made Option 2 unsuitable and, after detailed consideration, did not
meet the tests.
12.36 Under 2.10 and 2.11, the objector notes that they are not in ownership of the
full extent of the Option 2 land. As such, as stated in their para 2.11, they are
not in a position to offer all the land making up Option 2 nor to provide that
there would not be need for a similar CPO process to acquire the remainder. In
any event Option 2 would not meet the statutory tests.
12.37 Turning to paragraph 2.12 of the objection, the expression of a preference in
the February NSC Executive report (CD/2/29) did not commit the authority to
the adoption of that option. Paragraph 3.11 of the report clearly states that an
alternative option had been identified, that both options would be the subject of
public consultation and that the results of that consultation would inform the
final preferred option.
55
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
OBJ/30 TL T on behalf of Viridor Waste Exeter Ltd. - Grounds 5 and 6. Impact
on Hanging Hill Wood
12.38 As set out in addressing objection 16 and elsewhere in my proof, careful
consideration was given to the potential impacts of the Scheme through the
area of Hanging Hill Wood, this in respect of the appropriateness of a departure
from the then preferred route.
12.39 The woodland has both SNCI and ancient woodland designation. These
factors were taken into account in assessing the best route, aligning with the
Viridor access road, to minimise impact on the woodland. New planting is
proposed with an area of essential mitigation woodland planting to the southern
end of the wood. Mr Bowell outlines the wildlife mitigation measures.
(NSC/6/1).
12.40 The planning permissions for the Scheme take precedence over any tree
protection orders. The Scheme contractors will be required to ensure the
protection of trees shown for retention and to provide method statements that
minimise the working area and best protect the landscape, including the Brook.
NSC planning conditions 8 and 14.3 and BCC conditions 3 and 6.4 further
provide for this (CD/2/1 and CD/2/2).
12.41 i consider that in landscape terms the impact of the scheme on Hanging Hill
Wood is acceptable.
OBJ/32 and OBJ/34 Matthew Macan on behalf of Phyllis and Raymond James -
Section 2 1. No reasonable justification for the acquisition of 03/26 for thepurposes of compensatory tree planting.
12.42 As previously noted, extensive consideration was given to the potential
impacts of aligning the route along the Viridor haul road, in particular the
potential loss of ancient woodland. In discussion with the North Somerset
ecologist and with Natural England it was agreed that new woodland planting
was required specifically to mitigate this loss. Having regard to historic loss of
areas of Hanging Hill Wood it was considered that for both landscape and
ecological reasons mitigation would be most appropriately provided to the
western side of the route and to the immediate south of the woodland. This
would provide contiguous connection between the new planting and the major
56
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
part of the existing woodland, including and incorporating a block of more
recent tree planting.
12.43 The land proposed by the objector, to the east of the route is, as they note,
steep, previously tipped and unsuitable for agricultural use. For these same
reasons i consider the land inappropriate for mitigation woodland planting and
not of an equivalence with the land shown and approved by the planning
permissions. i therefore consider that the acquisition of 03/26 for tree planting
is justified.
OBJ/12 to OBJ/15, OBJ/18 to OBJ20, OBJ/23, OBJ/25, OBJ/27 and OBJ/36
12.44 These objections lack detaiL. i consider that my evidence and response to
objections above adequately covers matters of exchange land, landscape,
visual and heritage issues noted in these objections.
Objections to the s19(1 Ha) application in respect of the common exchange
land.
12.45 As noted in paragraph 8.21, two objections were received to the s19
application in respect of common exchange land. These are as follows:
1 OBJ/29 Bond Dickinson on behalf of the Burnells
12.46 This objection consists of a covering letter from Bond Dickinson LLP to The
Planning Inspectorate dated 25 February 2014 enclosing a copy of their letter
of objection to the CPO and Side Roads process dated 13 January 2014.
12.47 This objection is as that submitted as noted above and numbered OBJ29.
This is responded to under Paragraphs 12.23 to 12.37 inclusive above. i have
no further obseNations to make in respect of this objection.
2 OBJ/43 Mary Walker dated 25 February 2014
12.48 Firstly i would note that Mary Walker does not appear to have formally
objected to either the planning application for the Scheme, nor to the CPO and
Side Roads Orders application.
57
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
12.49 Her second and third paragraphs set out her concerns as to the use of part of
Highridge Green for the Scheme, the difficulty in gaining access to the
exchange land and the danger of crossing the road once open.
12.50 In respect of the first point, I have set out in my proof previously that the
Scheme in selecting Option1 as the preferred option accepted that the degree
of contiguity with the existing common was not full and as such the quantum of
the land was increased to provide for this short fall in line with the statutory
tests and guidance. I have previously fully explained the reasons for the
selection of Option 1. That the Secretary of State is minded to grant approval to
the s19(1 )(a) application is recognition that an appropriate balance has been
struck and that public access provision from the existing common to the
exchange land is adequate.
12.51 Mr Robert Thompson addresses in his Proof of Evidence (NSC/1 )the issues
of traffic volumes on the new SBL, Unaffected extent of Highridge Green, north
of the Scheme and Highridge Road.
12.52 Currently Highridge Green is a two carriageway road which already effectively
cuts through the common. The Scheme widens the carriageway to meet
agreed standards and introduce safe turning lanes but is essentially still two
lanes. The alignment across the common has been revised as the scheme has
developed to more closely follow the current alignment of Highridge Green,
minimising additional severance.
12.53 In recognition of the changes, three uncontrolled crossing points with central
island and dropped kerbs have been introduced at points along the alignment
as it crosses the common, in addition to the new signal controlled crossing at
the junction with Highridge Road.
12.54 An increased degree of severance of the common is accepted and is a factor
taken into account in assessing the quantum of exchange land.
12.55 It should be noted that the larger part of the common remains un-disturbed
and that access across Highridge Road to the common remains as existing.
12.56 In respect of the comment in paragraph 3 on views from the common, the
Scheme has been designed to sit within the common with as little change to the
character of the common as possible. Views across the city and the Clifton
Suspension Bridge are generally from the higher parts of the common and will
not be obstructed by the scheme.
58
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
13 CONCLUSIONS
13.1 Scheme options and their relative environmental impacts were assessed during
the design process to arrive at the Scheme submitted to and granted planning
by both Authorities. As i have set out in, in particular in sections 4, 6 and 7 of
my proof, the environmental impacts of the Scheme have been assessed and
appropriate mitigation has been provided which resulted in the approved
application having few objections on environmental grounds.
13.2 The views of landowners, of the planning authority and other consultees have
been considered in developing the environmental mitigation strategy and the
landscape design submitted. This involved improvements to and refinement of
the design in a number of areas in respect of alignment and landscape design,
again minimising objection to the scheme at planning..
13.3 Land take is appropriate for the essential mitigation of environmental impacts
and the appropriateness of this confirmed through the planning process and
approvals. In considering land take, due consideration has been given to
balancing landscape requirements with those of ecology and the interests of
land owners and users of the public rights of way, common and open space.
13.4 As I have set out in section 8, a comprehensive review of options for exchange
land for the loss of Highridge Common land was undertaken. Two options were
taken forward to public consultation. These were reviewed against the statutory
tests, against the public preference in response to the consultation, and
through a more detailed assessment of the suitability of the options. On this
basis Option 1 was confirmed as the preferred option, meeting the tests,whereas it was concluded that Option 2 did not meet the tests.
13.5 In respect of open space north of the main railway line, I have in Section 9 set
out the rationale for the provision of such exchange land and consider the
quantum of such land to be appropriate taking account of exchange land
proposed for the A VTM scheme and land temporarily unavailable to the public
during the construction of the flood compensation areas.
13.6 The scheme does not adversely impact on the heritage of the area, particularly
the setting of Ashton Court, as set out in Chapter 11. Approval of the scheme
without objection from English Heritage or the Authority heritage officers
demonstrates that our approach has been appropriate and proportionate.
59
LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND NSC/5/1June 2014
13.7 I have addressed objections lodged to the CPO process in section 12. In my
opinion none of the objections stand on either landscape or visual impact
grounds.
13.8 There is no requirement for exchange land in respect of the reseNed corridor.
13.9 It is considered that the land take for landscape, for exchange land and other
mitigation measures is appropriate and essential to deliver the necessary
Scheme mitigation, consistent with planning policy. In my opinion, in relation to
environmental mitigation and biodiversity, the Scheme would meet the specific
scheme objectives as set out in evidence of Mr Karuna Tharmananthar. In
respect of land required for landscape and visual mitigation, I conclude that the
CPO of land and associated Side Road Orders are necessary and appropriate
for the delivery of the Scheme.
60