St. John s, Manchester Environmental Statement Volume 3 ... · St. John’s, Manchester Volume 3...

December 2015

St. John’s, Manchester Environmental Statement Volume 3 Non-Technical Summary

St. John’s, Manchester Volume 3 Non-Technical Summary 2


Contents

1 Introduction 4

2 The Proposals 9

3 Environmental Impact Assessment 11

4 Socio-Economic Effects 16

5 Traffic and Transportation 18

6 Air Quality 20

7 Noise and Vibration 22

8 Townscape and Visual Impact 24

9 Built Heritage 25

10 Ground Conditions and Contamination Risk 27

11 Flood Risk and Drainage 29

12 Sunlight, Daylight and Overshadowing 32

13 Wind Microclimate 34

14 Availability of Environmental Statement 36


What is this document?

1.1 This is a ‘non-technical summary’ of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared as part of the

proposed redevelopment of the former ITV Quay Street Estate, Quay Street, Manchester (‘the Site’) into a

new mixed-use neighbourhood to be known as St. John’s (‘the Proposed Development’).

1.2 The non-technical summary (NTS) is a standalone document. It is required under the Town and Country

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended).

1.3 The NTS is designed to be read on its own. It explains the environmental implications of a proposed

development to the ordinary public, informing them, and allowing them to decide whether they would like

more detail on the proposals.

1.4 More information and greater technical detail is available in the Environmental Statement (ES). The ES is a

separate document which has been submitted as part of the planning application. Please see Section 14,

‘Availability of Environmental Statement’, for details on how and where to view the ES.

What is being proposed?

1.5 Manchester Quays Two Limited / Manchester Quays Limited and Castlefield Properties are applying for

Planning Permission for the demolition and construction of a number of buildings in order to provide

residential, hotel, office/workspace and retail uses. Works to facilitate public realm provision, landscaping,

and highways upgrades are also proposed.

1.6 The Site comprises land within the former ITV Quay Street Estate and adjacent sites that were formerly used

by ITV for activities associated with their occupation of the area, and forms part of a wider Masterplan and

Strategic Regeneration Framework for the area, which is known as St. John’s.

1.7 Four planning applications will be submitted to Manchester City Council (MCC) for the following schemes:

St. John’s Place –1.35 hectares – submitted December 2015; submission completed June 2016

The St. John’s Place proposals involve the demolition of the existing buildings, including the Globe

and Simpson Building and Albert Shed, in advance of the comprehensive redevelopment of the

site for four new buildings, including a tall building of 52 storeys, for residential and hotel use, with

associated public realm and car parking.

Village Phase 2 – 1.3 hectares – submitted December 2015; submission to be completed later in 2016

The Village Phase 2 proposals incorporates a tall building for residential use of up to 34 storeys,

together with a lower rise 7-9 storey element that will incorporate a mix of retail, workspace and

residential use. New public realm, car and cycle parking will also be provided.

Riverside – 0.28 hectares – submitted December 2015; submission to be completed later in 2016

The Riverside proposal incorporates a tall building for residential use of up to 40 storeys, together

with a restaurant and café unit and cycle parking at ground floor of the tower and the first phase of

a new public riverside park and amenity space.

St. John’s Energy Centre – 0.33 hectares – submitted December 2015; submission completed June

2016

1 Introduction


The Energy Centre proposal comprises a gas-powered combined heat and power facility, which

will sit largely within the existing Stage 2 Building and will provide heat and power for development

across the St. John’s Masterplan. The proposal is for the refurbishment, remodelling and

conversion of the existing Stage 2 building together with demolition of the adjoining extensions and

plant equipment.

Where is this happening?

1.8 The Site is located within Manchester City Centre, to the south of the Spinningfields commercial district and

at the junction of Quay Street and Water Street.

1.9 To the south of the Site is the established residential district of Castlefield area; to the east of the Site is the

St. John Street district with south Deansgate beyond, both areas comprising a mix of uses including retail,

leisure, commercial and residential; and immediately to the west of the Site lies the Grade II Listed Victoria

and Albert Hotel and the River Irwell, with hotels and office uses located on the other side of the river.

1.10 The Site is accessed by vehicles and pedestrians from Water Street and New Quay Street.

1.11 The St. John’s Masterplan with the various Planning Application boundaries overlaid is provided overleaf.


What is located on the site at the moment?

1.12 The Site comprises 3.26 hectares (ha) of developed land located entirely within the Castlefield Conservation

Area. The land is irregularly shaped and is located east of the River Irwell.

1.13 The area currently accommodates buildings and workshops associated with former use by ITV, including the

Administration Block, Security Lodge, Workshop and Staff Welfare Building, which are all due to be

demolished as part of a separate planning application, plus the two storey Globe and Simpson building and

the Albert Shed warehouse (an early 20th Century semi-derelict warehouse).

1.14 It also incorporates three areas of surface car parking, one to the east of Water Street (B5225) associated

with the ITV studios and one located to the west of Water Street, which is currently in operation as a public

pay and display car park.

1.15 The Site is located within the Castlefield Conservation Area, but does not contain any other Listed Buildings

or Structures. It is located adjacent to the Grade II Listed Victoria and Albert Hotel.

1.16 The Site has riverside frontages along the River Irwell.

1.17 Figure 1 below illustrates some of the existing buildings on the Site.

Figure 1 – Existing Site


Why is this development being brought forward?

1.18 The Site has been identified by Manchester City Council as being suitable for regeneration and the land has

been set aside within local planning documents as a key strategic area in which to achieve this goal.

1.19 The Site forms a natural extension to the City Centre and has the potential to provide social, economic and

employment benefits which will contribute to wider strategic aims of the region.

1.20 The Site’s redevelopment is expected to bring socio-economic benefits to Greater Manchester, in the form of

new homes and a variety of employment uses.

1.21 The Site’s urban location, good transport links, previously developed nature, and ability to sustainably

contribute to wider strategic aims have been key elements in its selection as a suitable site for a mixed-use

residential and commercial development.

Who has been consulted?

1.22 The proposals have been formulated following extensive consultation with the local public, MCC, statutory

consultees, and key stakeholders, in the form of consultation events, pre-application meetings and design

workshops. Further information with regard to the pre-application consultation process is available within the

Statements of Community Consultation that will be submitted in support of the applications.

1.23 Public consultations were conducted through the forum of public exhibitions, and attended by various

members of the project and design team. These were held at the Site:

‘Create’ drop-in events, held between 30 – 31 January 2014 and 1 – 2 February 2014;

‘Short-term vision’ event, held on 20 March 2014;

Consultation event, held on 7 August 2014;

Meeting with Castlefield Residents and Business Forum held on 13 January 2015; and

Residents’ drop-in event, held on 29 January 2015.

Stakeholder briefing session held on 23 June 2015.

Public exhibition held on 24 June 2015.

1.24 Meetings and workshops have also been held over a substantial period of time with stakeholders including

Network Rail and the Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI).

Has the design changed as a result of this?

1.25 The form of the Proposed Development has been influenced by a range of factors, including feedback from

the local public and statutory consultees, as well as consideration of the Site’s location, surrounding uses,

landscape character, and environmental and technical constraints.

1.26 For example, the Riverside Park to the west of the Site (of which the first phase will be delivered through the

Proposed Development, with the second phase coming forward as part of later proposals for the Factory, a

major new arts and culture venue) has been developed as a key outcome of the consultation process, and

provides a significant area of public green space in a waterfront location.

1.27 Consultation with Historic England with regard to the Site’s setting and nearby heritage assets has been a

key consideration in informing the layout, and tall buildings have been tapered and adapted to complement

these historic assets.


2 The Proposals

What will the redevelopment process involve?

2.1 Broadly, the ‘Proposed Development’ will involve:

Demolition of existing structures;

Site clearance;

Ground compaction;

Excavation of the basement;

Laying foundations;

Building of the structure;

External works and landscaping;

Internal fit out of the main structures.

2.2 A demolition and site preparation phase will occur before construction works within each area of the Site.

2.3 Machinery used during redevelopment will consist of standard demolition and construction plant, and will

include excavators, a concrete crusher, and tower cranes.

2.4 The Site will be secured and surrounded with hoardings to ensure public safety and mitigate adverse

environmental effects.

How long will it take?

2.5 The demolition and construction programme associated with the Proposed Development is anticipated to

span a 6 year period, from early 2017 to 2022.

2.6 Detailed construction planning will be conducted prior to construction of the Proposed Development and

once a principal contractor has been appointed to undertake the work.

When will the redevelopment activity take place?

2.7 The proposed working hours are:

07:30 – 18:00 hours on weekdays;

08:30 – 14:00 hours on Saturdays;

No working on Sundays, during Bank Holidays or Public Holidays.

2.8 Occasional abnormal deliveries or inspection of equipment could take place outside of these hours.

What will it look like afterwards?

2.9 The Proposed Development will be a high quality mixed use development, providing 1,031 residential units,

two hotels, office/workspace and retail uses, as well as the first phase of a new riverside park.

2.10 Figure 3 below illustrates a computer generated impression of the scheme as currently designed.


Figure 2 – Computer Generated Image of the Proposed Development


3 Environmental Impact Assessment

What is an EIA?

3.1 The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process is the mechanism by which development proposals

are appraised in terms of environmental criteria, in addition to socio-economic, engineering and technical

considerations.

3.2 The purpose of the EIA is to establish the nature of development proposals, and the environment in which

they are likely to take place, in order to identify likely significant effects on the environment that may arise.

3.3 Both the short-term and long-term effects of development, including temporary and permanent impacts, are

considered. This is done by comparing the existing situation at the start of the work (baseline) with the

projected situation during and after the Proposed Development.

3.4 The Site area of the proposals (3.26 ha) exceeds the applicable thresholds (1 ha of urban development and

150 residential units) outlined in Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended). In addition, given the nature of the proposals in regard to the

demolition and redevelopment of the Site, and subsequent increases in traffic, emissions and noise, an EIA

is considered appropriate to test the likely significant effects of the proposals.

3.5 The Applicant has therefore prepared an Environmental Statement (ES) to accompany the planning

application.

3.6 This non-technical summary forms an important part of the EIA process. Please refer to Section 1

‘Introduction’ for more detail on the non-technical summary.

What environmental effects does the EIA consider?

3.7 An EIA should consider all likely significant environmental effects resulting from the proposals. These are

identified through ‘scoping’ of the effects, the purpose of which is to narrow the focus of the EIA to what is

considered to be significant.

3.8 An EIA Scoping exercise was undertaken to identify the likely significant effects on the environment, and

therefore the scope of the assessment. In addition a formal request for a Scoping Opinion was issued to

MCC who then consulted a number of stakeholders to determine what the EIA should cover.

3.9 An EIA Scoping Opinion relating to this application was formally requested from MCC on 15 July 2015; the

EIA Scoping Opinion was received on 8 September 2015.

3.10 The scope of the EIA is in accordance with the scoping comments received from various statutory and non-

statutory consultees. Comments have been considered and responded to in the ES. Chapter 2 of the ES,

EIA Methodology, discusses the scoping exercise in more detail.

3.11 Table 3.1 illustrates the organisations consulted as part of the formal scoping process.


Table 3.1: List of Statutory Consultees

Consultees

Manchester City Council – Various Departments

Historic England

Natural England

Transport for Greater Manchester

Environment Agency

United Utilities

Greater Manchester Archaeology Advisory Service

Greater Manchester Police

Manchester Airport Safeguarding Team

3.12 The following topics were identified as being likely to experience significant effects:

Socio-economics;

Traffic and Transportation;

Air Quality;

Noise and Vibration;

Townscape and Visual;

Built Heritage;

Flood Risk and Drainage;

Ground Conditions and Contamination Risk;

Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing; and

Wind Microclimate.

3.13 The following topics were agreed to not be included in the assessment, as they were identified as not likely

to have significant environmental effects:

Ecology and Nature Conservation;

Telecommunications & Electronic Interference;

Archaeology;

Odour;

Agriculture; and

Arboriculture.

3.14 In addition to the effects resulting from the proposals, other developments within the wider area have been

considered. This is to account for any cumulation between effects resulting from the demolition and from

these surrounding developments. The following schemes have been considered:


Bonded Warehouse;

Village Phase 1;

Manchester Grande;

Trinity Islands;

1 Water street;

Potato Wharf (Blocks 3 and 4);

Astley & Byrom House;

2-3 Hardman Boulevard (XYZ Building);

One Spinningfields;

Demolition of Iron Girder Bridge;

Ordsall Chord;

Land at Chapel Street, Salford;

Middlewood Locks, Salford;

Salford Central Regeneration; and

Wilburn Street, Salford.

How will environmental effects be managed?

3.15 Environmental controls (or mitigation measures) will be introduced to eliminate, reduce or offset likely

significant adverse environmental effects resulting from the proposals. Mitigation measures are described in

greater detail in the individual technical ES chapters (6 to 15).

3.16 The environmental controls proposed include:

Preparation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which clearly sets out the

methods of managing environmental issues for all involved with the proposals, including supply chain

management;

Requirement to comply with the CEMP included as part of the contract conditions for each element of

the work. All contractors tendering for work will be required to demonstrate that their proposals can

comply with the content of the CEMP and any conditions or obligations secured through the planning

permission;

In respect of necessary departures from the above, procedures for prior notification to MCC and

affected parties would be established;

Establishing a dedicated point of contact and assigning responsibility to deal with demolition and

construction related issues if they arise. This would be a named representative from the contractors’

team; and

Regular dialogue with MCC and the local community.

3.17 It is anticipated that these controls would be secured by appropriate planning conditions or obligations.

Who has been involved in the EIA process?

3.18 The EIA process has involved communication and collaboration between the Applicant, Deloitte Real Estate,

the project architects and technical team, Manchester City Council, statutory consultees (shown in Table 1)

and the public.


3.19 Table 3.2 illustrates the project team and their roles.

Table 3.2: Project Team and Roles

Organisation Expertise

Manchester Quays Two Limited /

Manchester Quays Limited and Castlefield Properties Limited

The Applicant

Deloitte Real Estate Town Planning, EIA Coordination

Simpson Haugh Architects Masterplanning and Urban Design

RoC Consulting

Engineering

Water Resources, Drainage and Flood Risk

Ground Conditions

Gillespies Public Realm and Landscaping

Vectos

Traffic and Transport

Waste

Hilson Moran Air Quality

Sandy Brown Noise and Vibration

Heritage Architecture Built Heritage

Chris Burnett Associates Townscape and Visual Impact

Our Studio Visualisation

Watts Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing

Urban Microclimate Wind Microclimate

Oxford Archaeology Archaeology

Taylor Bros. Telecommunications

Crookes Walker Consulting Energy and Sustainability

ERAP Ecology

Planit UXB Ltd Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment


What were the results of the EIA?

3.20 The following sections summarise the methodology used in determining the likely significant effects of the

proposals and a high-level overview of the outcomes of the EIA.

3.21 This section is organised into technical subjects. Greater detail can be found in the relevant chapters of the

Environmental Statement (6 to 15) and their technical appendices.

3.22 The technical topics are those elements of the environment considered likely to experience significant effects

and therefore assessed in the EIA. These are identified in paragraph 3.12.

3.23 With regard to the assessment for each topic, the subsequent sections discuss:

Methodology and scope;

Baseline conditions;

Likely significant effects of the Proposed Development;

Mitigation;

Likely ‘residual’ effects following mitigation.

Significance of Effects

3.24 The likely effects of the proposals have been classified according to their significance.

3.25 Significance is determined as a function of both the magnitude of change from the baseline environment and

the sensitivity of the receptor. Chapter 2 of the ES, EIA Methodology, describes this process in greater detail.

3.26 This serves as a useful guide for specialists to assess effect significance. Where discipline-specific

methodology has been applied that differs from these generic criteria, this has been clearly explained within

the relevant ES chapters (6 to 15).

3.27 Table 3.3 illustrates how most significance ratings were determined.

Table 3.3: Effect Significance Ratings

Magnitude

Sensitivity

High Moderate Low

Major Major Adverse /

Beneficial Major - Moderate

Adverse / Beneficial

Moderate - Minor

Adverse / Beneficial

Moderate

Major - Moderate Adverse / Beneficial

Moderate - Minor Adverse / Beneficial

Minor Adverse / Beneficial

Minor Moderate -



Minor - Negligible

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible


4 Socio-Economic Effects

4.1 The Socio-economic assessment has assessed the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development

with respect to the following issues:

Population;

Employment;

Local Expenditure;

Healthcare Facilities;

Education;

Crime; and

Open Space and Amenity.

4.2 The assessment considered the impacts of the Proposed Development during the construction and

operational phases to ascertain any requirement or opportunities for incorporating mitigation measures.

4.3 Where appropriate, the assessments have considered the ‘worst case scenario’ to ensure a robust

assessment of the Proposed Development.

4.4 Published statistics and information in the public domain have been collected to establish the baseline

conditions. The assessment has been carried out using a combination of quantitative methods based on

published formulae and qualitative approaches based on guidance, professional judgement and experience

of other major mixed use development projects.

4.5 Table 4.1 below summarises the predicted effects of the scheme on the socio-economic indicators that were

assessed.

Table 4.1 – Summary of socio-economic effects

Issue Phase Residual Effect Cumulative Effect

Population

Construction Negligible n/a

Operation Minor beneficial Negligible / minor beneficial

Employment

Construction Major beneficial Moderate beneficial

Operation Moderate beneficial Major beneficial

Local Expenditure

Construction Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial

Operation Major beneficial Moderate beneficial


Issue Phase Residual Effect Cumulative Effect

Housing Operation Moderate beneficial Major beneficial

Healthcare Facilities Operation Moderate adverse Negligible

Education Operation Minor adverse Negligible

Open Space and

Amenity


Operation Moderate beneficial Negligible

Crime


Operation Minor beneficial Minor / moderate beneficial


5 Traffic and Transportation

5.1 This Chapter has considered the environmental implications of additional road traffic arising from the

Proposed Development and the wider St John’s Masterplan area in general. It sets out the Transport Policy

Context for the development noting that the National Guidance places a threshold of a severe impact as the

level at which a development would be refused. It notes the local guidance and in particular the

Development Framework that has been prepared to support the development,

5.2 The Environmental Assessment Methodology used follows the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA)

Guidelines which set thresholds where an environmental effect could be perceptible to a sensitive receptor.

In summary, the guidance sets this threshold at a 30% increase in traffic or 10% in sensitive locations.

5.3 The environmental impact form traffic movements could give rise Severance; Driver Delay; Pedestrian

Amenity; Accidents and Safety; Hazardous Loads; and, Dust & Dirt. There are other potential impacts from

traffic such as Noise and Air Quality but these are considered elsewhere in this Environmental Assessment.

A methodology for assessing these effects was established and has been applied to both the Construction

Phase and the Operational Phase of development.

5.4 The existing conditions have been quantified including the levels of delays for traffic and the recorded

accidents. Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) have developed a traffic model for the wider area and

forecast the flows at 2014 levels including the traffic flows while the site operated as the Granada Studios.

Those flows were then factored to 2017 and 2032 levels incorporating traffic growth and the traffic from

nearby committed developments.

5.5 The traffic forecasts for the development including the wider St John’s development have been forecast

using standard traffic forecasting methods and these have been agreed with TfGM and Manchester City

Council highways officers.

5.6 The distribution of that traffic on the highway network does result in a net increase in traffic compared to the

baseline situation. That increase has been quantified in percentage terms. The percentage impact from this

net change in traffic is then compared against the IEA Guidelines.

5.7 Firstly, the implications of construction traffic have been considered. Due to the application of a Construction

Management Plan and through conditions to the planning permission, the potential impact of construction

traffic on Dust and Dirt and the movement of Hazardous Loads will be mitigated. The CMP will apply

delivery routes to and from the Inner Relief Road away from sensitive residential properties, it will employ

wheel washing, road sweeping and dust suppression measures and the movement of Hazardous Loads will

be subject to risk assessment to limit any potential harm.

5.8 This Assessment has considered that the environmental impact from construction traffic will reduce from

Moderate - Minor Adverse for the nearby residential properties to Minor Adverse with mitigation. The

vulnerable road users of pedestrians and cyclists would experience a Minor Adverse – Negligible impact

during construction.

5.9 The environmental implications of development arise from the additional traffic flows and the IEA Guidelines

set out thresholds below which it is considered that impacts would not be perceptible. A 30% change in

traffic is the level at which the environmental impacts of traffic start to become perceptible or 10% in


sensitive locations. As a city centre environment this location is not considered environmentally sensitive.

The existing traffic flows on the network have been quantified and the future flows with development

determined at an assumed 2017 and 2032 future year scenarios. By comparing the increases in flow with

development at these future years it is possible to determine whether there would be a perceptible change in

environmental conditions.

5.10 The Proposed Development during its operational phase does give rise to an increase in traffic which could

have a perceptible impact on nearby residents of Left Bank with apartments facing New Quay Street on the

western section of Liverpool Road and also on pedestrians and cyclists.

5.11 Elsewhere the change in traffic flows on Lower Byrom Street is not sufficient to result in a perceptible

environmental impact.

5.12 A wide range of mitigation measures are proposed that reduce the potential to travel by car, to reduce traffic

speeds and enhance road safety.

5.13 These measures combine to mitigate a Moderate-Minor Adverse impact in the case of the Left Bank

Apartments overlooking New Quay Street to a Minor Adverse Impact. The increase in traffic on Water Street

of around 30% would not affect any sensitive receptors save for cyclist and pedestrians who benefit from a

considerable improvement in their amenity through traffic calming and new public realm.

5.14 In conclusion, traffic that is attracted to St John’s Place, Village Phase 2, Riverside and the Energy Centre

either in its Construction or Operational Phases will not give rise to a significant environmental impact.


6 Air Quality

6.1 The Air Quality Assessment considers the impact of the Proposed Development, both during construction

and operation, on local air quality and its subsequent effect on sensitive locations, such as residential

properties and educational facilities. The assessment has focussed on the effect of the Proposed

Development on nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter concentrations, as the main pollutants of concern in

the Manchester area.

6.2 The scope of the assessment has been derived in consideration of the Manchester Air Quality Management

Area, air quality standards and limits identified in relevant legislation and relevant planning policy

requirements. The approach was detailed as part of the Scoping Report submitted to Manchester City

Council for approval prior to completion of the assessment and submission of the Environmental Statement.

6.3 The air quality assessment has been completed in line with best practice guidelines, adopting the worst-case

scenario where relevant to ensure a conservative approach to the assessment of impacts.

6.4 Impacts associated with the generation of dust during construction have been assessed following the

Institute of Air Quality Management guidelines for the assessment of dust from demolition and construction.

The risk of dust related impacts is established from the sensitivity of the surrounding area to impacts and the

likely magnitude of dust emissions from the Proposed Development.

6.5 Air quality conditions associated with the changes in traffic volumes have been modelled for two assessment

years (2017 and 2032) using ADMS-Roads, a computer-based modelling package that predicts

concentrations of specified pollutants based on the input of sources of the pollutants (e.g. roads and their

predicted traffic volumes) and identification of representative sensitive receptors (e.g. residential properties).

The results of the model have been verified using diffusion tube monitoring data from 2014 to ensure

modelling results are consistent with actual measured results. Impacts have then been analysed and

described following best practice guidance provided jointly by the Institute of Air Quality Management and

Environmental Protection UK.

6.6 The Manchester City Centre falls within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), which was declared by

Manchester City Council as annual average nitrogen dioxide levels exceeded air quality limits set through

national legislation.

6.7 Monitoring of both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter in the City Centre demonstrate a downward trend

(improvement) in the annual mean concentrations of both pollutants, although some areas (e.g. Oxford

Road) remain above the Air Quality Objective limit value for nitrogen dioxide. One monitoring location,

Liverpool Road, falls within the area of influence of the Proposed Development, with monitoring of annual

average nitrogen dioxide concentrations showing that they fell below the Air Quality Objective limit value for

the first time in 2014.

6.8 Background concentrations identified by Defra have been identified; however, these fall below that

monitored by Manchester City Council. Prediction of future background pollutant concentrations, included in

the assessment, identify that the downward trend in pollutant concentrations is expected to continue.

6.9 As the Proposed Development is closely surrounded by a number of sensitive receptors, including residential

properties and significant buildings including the Museum of Science and Industry and Grade I Listed


Liverpool Road Station, impacts associated with dust soiling were identified as giving rise to moderate to

major adverse effects. However, due to relatively low background concentrations of particulate matter,

impacts associated with human health were identified as giving rise to minor to moderate adverse effects.

Due to an absence of ecological receptors in the area of influence, impacts were identified as negligible.

6.10 Modelling of the changes in traffic volumes as a result of the Proposed Development demonstrates that it will

result in relatively small changes in air quality in relation to sensitive receptors, with changes in relation to the

most sensitive (e.g. residential properties) largely being of negligible magnitude for both nitrogen dioxide and

particulate matter in both 2017 and 2032. However, the assessment identified one receptor in both the 2017

and 2032 scenarios where the impact magnitude was slight adverse with two further locations where a

moderate beneficial impact was identified for the 2017 scenario only.

6.11 The suitability of the development site and resultant sensitive receptor locations in relation to pollutant

concentrations was assessed, and demonstrated that the Proposed Development would not result in new

sensitive receptor to be subject to pollutant concentrations that exceeded the relevant air quality limits for

nitrogen dioxide or particulate matter.

6.12 As a result, based on the overall changes in air quality, relative contributions to pollutant concentration and

using professional judgement, the impact on air quality was identified as giving rise to negligible effects in

both 2017 and 2032.

6.13 A range of mitigation measures, following best practice guidelines provided by the Institute of Air Quality

Management, have been identified for incorporation into the construction methodology to minimise the

generation of dust and its release from the Site. This includes a range of measures that should be

incorporated into the entire development programme, such as development and implementation of a Dust

Management Plan, and measures that are specific to certain aspects of the development (i.e. demolition).

6.14 Mitigation proposals for the development identified in the Transport Assessment, including the adoption of

strategic and sustainable transport practices as part of a Travel Plan, will provide reductions in vehicular

emissions associated with the Proposed Development.

6.15 Provided recommended mitigation measures are implemented into the Proposed Development, the

significance of the predicted impacts will be reduced. The implementation of mitigation measures during the

construction phase will reduce the generation of dust on site and prevent its spread off-site to nearby

receptors. Consequently, the residual impacts are considered to give rise to negligible effects.

6.16 Implementation of the Regent Road improvement scheme will reduce vehicular emissions in this part of the

road network, with reductions extending to adjoining roads such as Water Street through easing of

congestion. Similarly, adoption of strategic and sustainable transport practices across the Proposed

Development will lead to further reductions across the influenced road network. Consequently, the residual

impacts are considered to give rise to negligible effects


7 Noise and Vibration

7.1 A noise and vibration assessment has been carried out for the Proposed Development at St John’s,

Manchester. This assessment indicates the significance of the effects from construction activities and

operation of the Proposed Development.

7.2 The noise sensitive premises considered in the assessment are at the Marriott Hotel on Water Street,

residential premises on Lower Byrom Street, Atherton Street, and Liverpool Road, the Leftbank Apartments

and Manchester College on Quay Street, and the Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI).

7.3 This initial assessment on construction noise and vibration has been based on the calculation set out in BS

5288:2009 and noise data for the typical types of construction plant from ‘DEFRA Update of Noise Database

for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites’ that could be used to carry out the proposed works.

7.4 Estimated worst-case noise egress levels for each type of construction activity has been calculated outside

the nearest noise sensitive premises.

7.5 The construction phase, and as such any effects associated with construction, will be temporary, appropriate

mitigation measures will be implemented and local residents and community groups will be informed.

7.6 The significant of effects associated with construction noise and vibration with mitigation measures in place

are:

Moderate/major adverse construction noise effects due to piling, Tower Crane, Concrete pumps and

Fork lift trucks at the Marriott Hotel.

Moderate/major adverse construction noise effects due to piling, Tower Crane, Concrete pumps at the

worst affected residential premises on Lower Byrom Street and Atherton Street.

Moderate/major adverse construction noise effects due to piling at the Leftbank Apartments and

Manchester College.

Minor adverse construction noise effects have also been predicted for the following:

Mobile crane at the Marriott Hotel

Fork lift trucks at the worst affected residential premises on Liverpool Road

Tower crane, concrete pumps and fork lift trucks at the Leftbank Apartments and Manchester

College

Piling at MOSI.

Minor adverse construction vibration effects due to piling have been predicted at the Marriott Hotel.

Minor adverse construction vibration effects due to piling have been predicted at the worst affected

residential premises on Lower Byrom St and Atherton Street, the Leftbank Apartments and Manchester

College.


7.7 Construction mitigation measures and best practice measures will be included as part of a Construction

Environmental Management Plan, which would be secured by planning condition.

7.8 Noise limits have been set for noise egress from any new building services plant associated with the

operational Proposed Development. These have been based on the requirements of Manchester City

Council and would result in negligible significance effect.

7.9 Noise limits have been set for amplified sound egress from any new retail/restaurant/bar/gym units

associated with the operational Proposed Development. These have been based on the requirements of

Manchester City Council and would result in negligible significance effect.

7.10 Operation noise limits will be secured by planning conditions.

7.11 The increase in road traffic noise outside the nearest noise sensitive premises due to the operation of the

Proposed Development is expected to result in negligible significance effect.


8 Townscape and Visual Impact

8.1 The Townscape of Manchester contains many disparate and varied townscape elements, features and views

as one might expect in a major city with such a long and varied history. This Townscape and Visual

Assessment examines the impact the Proposed Development will have on the townscape of Manchester City

Centre in a systematic rational and objective way and explores the effect the Proposed Development will

have on the established Townscape Character Zones, as defined by Manchester City Council, significant

Heritage Assets and views using established methodologies and practices contained in GLVIA 3. The impact

of the Proposed Development on its own is explored and then in conjunction with consented and committed

development in a Cumulative Assessment.

8.2 A computer modelling process was employed to provide an accurate series of massed images and accurate

rendered views which illustrate the impact the Proposed Development will have on a series of selected

Representative Viewpoints and on the surrounding townscape on a 360 degree basis. As such, it is not

possible to generalise and provide one single summary value for the impact the Proposed Development will

have on Manchester as a whole as it is dependent on location or view or the nature or the townscape under

consideration.

8.3 The Proposed Development is large in scale and will affect a wide area although its location on the south

western side of Manchester City Centre means that it will not have an impact on the entire city centre. There

is no doubt however that the Proposed Development will transform the townscape character of the Leftbank

(Zone M) in a major and largely beneficial way, with one or two exceptions. It is also predicted to have a

dramatic and largely beneficial effect on views and the receptors who live, work in and visit Manchester. It

will become in effect a new landmark development for the western side of Manchester clearly viewed on

approach roads and trains that run into the city centre and radically improving the accessibility and

streetscape of the land adjacent to the river Irwell.

8.4 Significance of effect is accurately summarised in Table 10.4 within the ES (Volume 1) in terms of the visual

impact of the Proposed Development on a series of Representative Viewpoints. The overriding value is a

major or moderate beneficial effect certainly in respect of the City Centre Townscape Character Zones.

8.5 Occasionally a negligible value is recorded where the view of the development is obscured by existing

buildings or it is judged that there is no discernible deterioration or improvement in the view.

8.6 Occasionally also, an adverse effect is registered in a situation where the development introduces elements

that are prominent and uncharacteristic of the surrounding townscape. In this case this occurs in several

views around the Liverpool Road Station Complex, with its Grade I listed buildings or in the Castlefield Basin.

This is only restricted to a few locations however.

8.7 In the context of other consented or committed development, or development coming forward, in the area,

then the effect of the Proposed Development is diminished noticeably. This is particularly noticeable in the

case of the adjacent Wilburn Street basin and Middlewood Lock developments which are of equivalent scale.


9 Built Heritage

9.1 For the purposes of this assessment, consideration has been given to the relevant part of Manchester City

centre that surrounds the Site within a 250m radius. The study area provides a focus for assessment but is

not intended to be prescriptive; buildings outside the boundary of the study area are considered where

relevant.

9.2 The assessment has identified 33 no. heritage assets within the study area.

9.3 The assessment methodology for the Historic Environment is a synthesis of established guidance, best

practice and professional judgement. In accordance with an adapted form of the methodology set out in the

Department for Transport’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, all receptors identified in the baseline

which might be affected by the Proposed Development are given a value and the impact on them is

assessed in order to give a significance of effect. Historic England guidance is also utilised for the

assessment.

9.4 The site currently accommodates buildings and workshops associated with former use by ITV that are

proposed to be demolished as part of the Manchester Grande proposals outlined above, including the

Administration Block, Security Lodge, Workshop and Staff Welfare Building.

9.5 The Site also incorporates three areas of surface car parking, one of which will be utilised on a temporary

basis for the Manchester Grande in advance of the current proposals coming forward. Two further car parks

are located to the west of Water Street and are currently in operation as public pay and display car parks.

9.6 The area surrounding the Application Site has witnessed dramatic cycles of development and decline; the

area was first developed in the beginning of the 19th century into a dense industrial area before the decline

of industry 100 years later saw the area become underused and derelict. Following the construction of the

Mancunian Way and the associated road network in the 1960s, the area immediately surrounding the subject

site become shorn of any historic context and was redeveloped for low quality commercial uses.

9.7 The immediate environs surrounding the former ITV Granada Site as it is today, began developing following

the establishment of the first of Manchester’s Quay’s in the late 18th century. This first quay was located at

approximately the junction of Water Street and Quay Street, thus giving Quay Street its name.

9.8 By the beginning of the 19th century other warehouses and wharves had been constructed and a handful of

small residential roads and courts, which were interspersed with warehousing and industrial buildings,

leading off Quay Street southwards into what is today the car park of the ITV Granada Studio. The

Application Site is not considered to yield any heritage value, in built heritage terms, and does not enhance

the character of the Conservation Area.

9.9 Discussion with Historic England, alongside the characterisation appraisal of the study area, informed the

selection of key views for the visual impact assessment.

9.10 Heritage assets are susceptible to numerous forms of development and non-development impacts both

during the construction process and as a consequence of the operational life of the Proposed Development.

The potential impact or effects in relation to the current Proposed Development have been deemed to relate


to impacts on the setting of the identified heritage assets. It is not anticipated that the Proposed

Development will result in any physical impacts.

9.11 In terms of mitigation, heritage considerations have been integral of the design development of the

proposals. Enlisting appropriate specialists and consulting with the local authority and Historic England has

informed the design and assessment process to ensure potential adverse impact on the identified heritage

assets are minimised.

9.12 The visual impact assessment has demonstrated that the Proposed Development will have a moderate/

minor adverse impact on the historic built resource as a whole.

9.13 Mitigation for any perceived instances of adverse harm are accrued by the identified public benefits of the

Proposed Development.


10 Ground Conditions and Contamination

Risk

10.1 An assessment of risks posed by ground contamination, as well as the potential environmental impacts

posed, was completed following on from liaison with and approval of an EIA Scoping Document by

Manchester City Council. The purpose of this Ground Conditions assessment was to describe soil and

groundwater quality beneath the Site and ascertain the range of potential impacts that could occur as a

result of the Site’s development during both the construction and operational phase of the Proposed

Development.

10.2 Baseline site conditions were establish by way of two Phase 1 Desktop studies, which included a review of

current and historical environmental records coupled with completion of a walkover survey to ascertain the

Site’s current condition. The desktop assessment included referenced to published OS historical map,

Environment Agency, British Geological Survey and Coal Authority data as well as review of existing site

investigation information for the development site and surrounding area.

10.3 The Site currently comprises a mixture of public and private car parking, a sound recording studio, vacant

warehouse structure, workshops and existing stage 2 building. Bounded by the River Irwell to the north and

west, so specific sources of contamination have been noted on or adjacent the site. In addition the current

site land uses are considered to be of a low contaminative potential.

10.4 Historical map records indicate the Village Phase 2 portion of the development site is situated within the

former Manchester & Salford Junction Canal wharf side and known to have historically contained a number

of engineering works, terraced housing, warehousing, timber yards and other point sources of contamination.

In addition this portion of the Site is crossed by the former canal that is known to have been infilled with

demolition and domestic waste material to depths circa 5.8m.

10.5 Historic land use across the Riverside portion of the development site comprised warehousing and quayside

developments associated with shipping operations on the River Irwell.

10.6 Historic land use across the St John’s Place site also indicate this portion of the site comprised a mixture of

warehousing, engineering works, timber yards and terraced residential housing. The Albert Shed portion of

the site to the north is said to have been constructed during the early 20th century, replacing an earlier Dye

House and Timber Yard. The Globe Simpson site was constructed at the expense of terraced residential

and timber yard developments circa 1930 and was formerly used as an automotive and electrical

engineering works.

10.7 The Site is said to be underlain by limited Alluvial and Glacio-fluvial deposits which, in turn, overly the

Chester Pebble Beds Triassic Sandstone formation. On site ground investigation is limited, however

available logsheets indicate rockhead at depths between 4 to 5m below ground level across the northern

portion of the Site, with a similar depth range reported in boreholes formed off site to the south.

10.8 The Site’s development has the potential to expose contaminated material and presents a risk to both

Human Health and Controlled Waters Receptors. Of particular concern will be the development of the


Village Phase 2 portion of the Site and specifically the construction of the proposed basement structure

across the former (and now infilled) Manchester & Salford Junction Canal; as well as the handling of soils

from the surrounding area which was formerly employed for a range of industrial uses.

10.9 It is considered risks posed to Construction Works, Off Site Receptors and Surface / Groundwater are of

greatest concern during the Site’s development process and a range of measures have been proposed to

provide mitigation against risks posed. These measures centre on increasing the understanding as to the

extent of contamination beneath the Site (by way of Phase 2 Intrusive Site Investigations) and the adoption

of a remediation strategy (as required) / good site practice during the development process. Specific care

and attention will be directed toward the on-going protection of the adjacent River Irwell and the pollution of

its groundwater table which extends beneath the Site.

10.10 Both the Site’s development process, and the completed development, will have a Minor Beneficial impact;

owing to the fact sources of contamination beneath the Site will be investigated and treated during the

construction process. The Site development is also considered to have a Minor Beneficial impact when

viewed cumulatively with other developments proposed or completed within the local area for similar

reasons.


11 Flood Risk and Drainage

11.1 This chapter within the Environmental Statement has identified the likely significant environmental effects of

the Proposed Development on the surrounding area in respect of the water resources, flood risk and the

wider water environment. Relevant content is drawn from the Flood Risk Assessment (Appendix 13.1) for the

Site.

11.2 The Site is at potential risk of flooding from fluvial, surface water and reservoir breach sources. The Site is

located in Flood Zones 1 and 2 associated with the out of banks flows from the River Irwell. The 1 in 100

year plus climate change set at 30% flood level within The Site is 26.6mAbove Ordnance Datum which

affects the riverside development of the core development and the single low spot on Water Street.

11.3 In general the Site slopes from south east to north east and then across towards the River Irwell and it is this

profile which creates two low spots. The risk of surface water flooding in these two isolated locations is due

to the low lying nature of these areas when compared with the remainder of the development and the

associated surface water flow paths which drive the flows to the lowest points within the development

footprint.

11.4 There are public sewers running around the periphery of the Proposed Development site and also running

through it. Currently the various building which occupy the development site drain to these combined

sewers. With regard to the building and car park which currently occupies the river frontage developments

there are no surface water discharges visible or advised by the EA and Peel entering the River Irwell.

Therefore these developments must also drain into the Sewer Network. This approach to the existing

drainage has been discussed and agreed with United Utilities.

11.5 The River Irwell is defined through the Environment Agency’s water quality classification scheme as E –

“Poor”.

11.6 The Site is located outside any groundwater source protection zone. The superficial deposits below the Site

are defined as a Secondary A aquifer but classed as un-productive and the bedrock is defined as a principal

aquifer.

11.7 During construction the likely significant effects are anticipated to be associated with combined water

sewerage and watercourse water quality. These effects are all associated with the risk of construction-

related materials pollutants being washed into the local sewerage system and potentially accumulating and

causing a blockage, or through overland flows following the topography of the Site eventually being

discharged into a watercourse and causing environmental damage.

11.8 The likely significant operational effects generated by the Proposed Development are anticipated to be

associated with surface water flooding, combined water sewerage and watercourse water quality. The nature

of the Proposed Development is such that existing surface water flow paths may be changed resulting in a

potential increase in flood risk elsewhere. The effect on the local combined water sewerage system is

positive as there will be a reduction in the peak flow rates from the development. The water quality may be

impacted upon because of the intention to use the land for car parking and to house service yards when the

Site is operational.


11.9 The following mitigation measures are proposed for use during construction and for inclusion within the

Proposed Development in order to address the impacts that have been identified:

Planning of construction activities to avoid creating areas where floodwater could accumulate, ensuring

that existing surface water flow paths are not blocked and that new flow paths are not created.

Inclusion of a new positive drainage system with efficient collection measures, and where appropriate

depending upon the preferred surface water drainage strategy the inclusion of storage and flow

controls to control surface water flows and limit the impact on existing downstream systems.

Maintain a regime of inspecting existing sewers within and adjacent to The Site throughout

construction to check for damage and accumulation of debris. Any defects that are identified will be

rectified.

Sediment control measures, wheel washing and regular road sweeping will be put in place at all site

access points to limit the amount of soil and other material that could be washed into the local

sewerage system.

Water quality will be maintained through the use of silt traps and filter, sedimentation basins, controls

on vehicle refuelling, use of spill trays, regular plant maintenance to control leaks, floating oil booms

and having spill kits available to contain any pollutants. Similar measures will be used to ensure

groundwater is not polluted.

11.10 There are two potential drainage strategies that are currently being tested. The first and preferred option

would be for all the surface water run-off generated by the Proposed Development to be collected in a

private surface water sewerage network as discharged un-restricted to the River Irwell. The only limit on this

discharge is in relation to velocity which must not exceed 3m/s. The second operation is as per the current

situation where the Site continues to discharge both foul and surface water into the adopted United Utilities

Sewers which surround and cross the development site. The maximum operational discharge rate into the

United Utilities sewers will be 620l/s (50% of the current annual average discharge rate from the Site) for all

rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100-year +30% event. Flow controls must be put in place as soon

as possible within the construction sequence to ensure that downstream protection is provided.

11.11 The delay in the discharge of surface water to the sewer network and the increase in time taken for said

volume to discharge will be beneficial due the following:

Flows will discharge after the storm surge (peak flow within the sewer network) this both acts to

remove water from the adopted sewer network at the peak of the storm when it is likely that the sewer

is already at/in excess of its full capacity and utilises the available capacity which flows this peak to

discharge into.

The delay will reduce the likelihood of the CSO’s with the vicinity of the development having to operate,

which in terms limits the potential for contamination of the existing water course from detritus material

carried in the sewer during a storm event.

11.12 All foul water generated by the development will be discharged at an un-restricted rate into the adjacent

adopted sewer.

11.13 All parts of the new drainage systems serving the Proposed Development must be designed in accordance

with the legislation, standards, guidance and best practice applicable at the time.

11.14 All mitigation measures to be incorporated during construction will be included in the Construction

Environment Management Plan.

11.15 The Proposed Development has impacts on the surrounding water environment. The mitigation measures

proposed allow the various impacts to be addressed as far as is practicable. In some cases, a residual risk

remains; however, the mitigation measures attempt to ensure that likelihood of such an event occurring is

low and that the consequences will be adequately managed to limit any impact.


11.16 The mitigation measures associated with the control and reduction of surface water flows from the

development entering the combined drainage network are beneficial. How beneficial depends upon the

implemented drainage strategy. The preferred option would result in the removal of all surface water

generated by the Proposed Development from the adopted United Utilities and into the River Irwell. The

alternative being a 50% reduction in the peak flow rates. The Proposed Development is able to provide an

improvement of the wider area and assist in addressing a recognised problem in the Manchester Strategic

Flood Risk Assessment.


12 Sunlight, Daylight and Overshadowing

12.1 The impact of the Proposed Development on the levels of daylight and sunlight to the surrounding windows

has been assessed during operation. The potential effects of overshadowing have been considered in

respect of the adjacent outside amenity space; in this case, balconies to the 10-18 Leftbank apartments, St

John’s Hotel, Bauhaus and Rossetti Place. The extent of the windows analysed is based on professional

experience and are those that are unable to pass the initial 25o test set by the BRE Report 209.

12.2 Whilst not an instrument of planning policy the Building Research Establishment (BRE) Report 209 “Site

Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – a guide to good practice” is generally accepted as the industry

standard and is used by most local planning authorities in considering the impact on sunlight, daylight and

overshadowing that a development may cause. The BRE Report 209 is based on a sub-urban setting

(equivalent to the light available over two storey houses across a suburban street), no guidance is given as

to suggested daylight and sunlight levels in city centres.

12.3 In assessing the impact on daylight and sunlight the current levels (baseline condition) at the Site have been

established using a 3D computer model and specialist daylight and sunlight computer software. A second

analysis is then run with which included a 3D model of the Proposed Development (operational phase). This

specialist software compares the results analyses against the guidance BRE Report 209. Generally, a

reduction of levels of daylight or sunlight up to 20% is not considered to be noticeable to occupants; and

would meet with the BRE guidance.

12.4 The baseline condition demonstrates that very few of the adjacent properties are able to meet with the BRE

guidance for all the windows analysed; unsurprising given the City Centre locality.

12.5 The overall effect of the Proposed Development on daylight and sunlight to the surrounding properties is

shown in Table 12.1. The residential properties have been given a higher level of sensitivity, which has

increased the severity of impact. In the context of the City Centre setting it is considered that the overall

impact of the Proposed Development is comparable to other high rise developments in the City. In

consideration of the scale of the Proposed Development it is considered that the overall impact on daylight

and sunlight is less than would be expected in a typical City Centre high rise development; only one property

is significantly affected.

12.6 It is important to remember that the overall impact of the Proposed Development is in relation to the windows

facing the Proposed Development rather than the property as a whole. For example, whilst there is a Major

Adverse impact to 10-18 Leftbank, this impact is largely restricted to one elevation; not the building as a

whole. The worst affected windows to 10-18 Leftbank have balconies over windows which reduces the

amount of visible daylight from the upper section of the sky; an area normally accessible to windows. The

daylight levels to the worst affected windows are comparable to windows in 10-18 Leftbank overlooking the

adjacent RBS building on Hardman Boulevard.


Table 14.13 Overall Impacts

Property Sensitivity Overall impact

Marriott Hotel Water Street Low Minor Adverse

Premier Inn Irwell Street Low Minor Adverse

10-18 Leftbank High

Major -Moderate

Adverse

Bauhaus Little John Street High Negligible

Great John Street Hotel Great John Street Low Minor Adverse

Rossetti Place Lower Byrom Street High Negligible

33-39 Culvercliff Walk High None

2-8 Rozel Square High Minor Adverse

10-16 Rozel Square High

Moderate - Minor

Adverse

18-24 Rozel Square High None




MOSI Air and Space Gallery Low Negligible

MOSI Great Western Warehouse Low Negligible

MOSI Power Hall Low Negligible

MOSI Station Building Low Minor Adverse

MOSI 1830 Warehouse Low

Moderate - Minor

Adverse

73-83 Liverpool Road High None

91-93 Liverpool Road High Negligible

101 Liverpool Road High None

The Castlefield House High None

2-36 Potato Wharf Low None

1-25 Woollam Place High None










13 Wind Microclimate

13.1 The Proposed Development introduces a number of significant structures with regards to wind effects.

Consequently, wind tunnel testing of a physical scale model has been combined with long-term wind

statistics from Manchester Airport (corrected to apply at the Site) to provide a detailed assessment of

pedestrian level wind conditions in and around the Site, in accordance with the industry standard Lawson

criteria for pedestrian safety and comfort.

13.2 From the climate statistics, light to moderate winds from the south and south-south-east are most common at

the Site, whilst stronger winds more frequently blow from the south-south-west. Winds from the west-south-

west and west also occur frequently, and extreme winds are most likely to blow from this direction. North-

easterly winds are also common during spring.

13.3 The south end of the existing Site is partially sheltered from prevailing southerly winds and the existing low-

level buildings extend the sheltering effect into the central and northern area. The Site is however more

exposed to westerly winds and the existing buildings also offer little shelter to neighbouring taller buildings, to

the north of the Site. As a result, conditions across the Site are considered suitable for current activities.

Conditions within the surrounding area are also generally suitable for current activities. The main exception

is the potential for accelerated winds marginally exceeding the Lawson safety criteria threshold on New

Quay Street, created by downdraughts from Leftbank Apartments. The Marriot Hotel’s outdoor seating area

may also be slightly windy for long periods of outdoor sitting in summer.

13.4 Upon completion the Proposed Development will include a number of dominant structures with regards to

wind effects. Potential effects were identified at an earlier stage in design process and the ongoing detailed

design has responded to these effects. Preliminary, indicative, landscaping measures and canopy options on

the south elevations of St. John’s Place Zone 1 and Riverside Tower have been incorporated. At the current

stage, these measures focused on the final Site conditions due to the potential for the phasing to change.

However, the currently proposed phasing includes St. John’s Place within Phase 1, such that the exposure

of the Zone 1 tower will be greater than for the final Site conditions. As a result, interim conditions in and

around the St. John’s Place site have the potential to be worse and the mitigation measures will therefore be

developed further during the detailed design to respond to both interim and final Site conditions, accounting

for the phasing.

13.5 For the completed Development, pedestrian level conditions around the northeast corner and on the west

side of St. John’s Place Zone 1 marginally rate as unsafe for the general public. Similar conditions occur at

the entrance to the exposed passage within Village Phase 2, to the southeast of the Village Phase 2 tower.

These localised effects are considered moderate adverse but will be mitigated to negligible by either the

introduction of consented future developments within the surrounding area or further development of the

wind mitigation measures, comprising landscaping features and canopies.

13.6 In terms of pedestrian comfort, wind conditions are expected to be suitable only for fast or business walking

around the northeast corner of St. John’s Place Zone 1. This localised effect is considered moderate adverse

but will be mitigated to no worse than minor adverse through further development of the landscaping

features and canopy. Conditions are also marginally windy, but tolerable, for leisurely strolling on Water

Street, adjacent to the east corner of the Marriott Hotel, and on the riverside, to the southwest of Riverside

Tower. These effects are considered minor adverse. Conditions are otherwise suitable for strolling through

the Site.


13.7 Several entrances to the buildings of the Proposed Development are too windy for comfortable pedestrian

ingress/egress. These localised effects are considered moderate adverse but will be mitigated to negligible

through further development of the landscaping features or recessing of the entrances. Soft landscaping will

also be developed further to protect drop-off points and ensure at least tolerable conditions for associated

activities. This will reduce the moderate adverse effects to no worse than minor adverse.

13.8 The Proposed Development includes several amenity spaces that enjoy suitable conditions for recreational

activities including outdoor seating during at least summer. These effects are considered negligible. The

amenity spaces located around the bases of the towers include areas considered too windy for planned

recreational uses and, in the context of existing surrounding conditions, only parts of the St. John’s Place

Zone 3 and 4’s riverfront terrace enjoy suitable conditions for outdoor seating. These effects range from

minor to moderate adverse. The introduction of consented future development to the west of the Site would

shelter the St. John’s Place Zone 3 and 4’s riverfront terrace and create suitable conditions for outdoor

seating across the terrace. Otherwise, landscaping features and canopy options will be further developed to

ensure conditions are generally suitable, and no worse than tolerable, for planned recreational activities. This

may also require relocating of the amenity spaces to less windy areas within the Site. The residual effects

are expected to range from negligible to no worse than minor adverse.

13.9 The Proposed Development is expected to shelter the neighbouring Leftbank Apartments, alleviating the

potential exceedance of the safety criteria threshold on New Quay Street. This effect is potentially moderate

beneficial. Conditions within the Marriott Hotel outdoor seating area are expected to be too windy for

prolonged periods of outdoor sitting. As existing conditions are considered marginally windy for such

activities this effect is considered minor adverse. No further significant permanent residual effects on

surrounding wind conditions is expected.

13.10 Potential additional adverse effects during the construction phase will be considered in development of both

the further wind mitigation measures and the phasing strategy, and are expected to be no worse than short-

term moderate adverse.


14 Availability of Environmental

Statement

14.1 The ES is available for public viewing during normal office hours at the Manchester City Council Planning

Department, at the following address:

Manchester City Council

Town Hall

Albert Square

Manchester

M60 2LA

14.2 The ES may be purchased in volumes, the costs for which are set out below:

Volume 1: ES Main Text & Figures - £150

Volume 2: ES Appendices - £150

Volume 3: Non-Technical Summary (NTS) - £15

Full copy (Volumes 1-3) of the ES on CD - £15

14.3 For copies of any of the above please contact the Planning Team at Deloitte Real Estate:

St. John’s Project

Deloitte Real Estate

Planning and Environment

2 Hardman Street

Spinningfields

Manchester

M3 3HF

This report and its appendices (“the document”) have been prepared for submission to the planning

authority on the understanding that it will be made publically available on the LPA’s and others’

websites. All copyright and other proprietary rights in the document remain the property of Deloitte

LLP and any rights not expressly granted in these terms or in the Contract are reserved. The

document makes use of a range of third party data sources. Whilst every reasonable care has been

taken in compiling this document, Deloitte cannot guarantee its accuracy.

Neither the whole nor any part of this document nor any reference thereto may be included in any

published document, circular or statement nor published in any way without our written approval as to

the form and context in which it may appear.

Deloitte LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number

OC303675 and its registered office at 2 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BZ, United Kingdom.

Deloitte LLP is the United Kingdom member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (“DTTL”), a UK

private company limited by guarantee, whose member firms are legally separate and independent

entities. Please see www.deloitte.co.uk/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of DTTL

and its member firms.

St. John s, Manchester Environmental Statement Volume 3 ... · St. John’s, Manchester Volume 3...

Documents

Transcript of St. John s, Manchester Environmental Statement Volume 3 ... · St. John’s, Manchester Volume 3...