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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


have been confirmed by the lack of statutory environmental body objection and

by the granting of planning approvaL.

26


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

NICHOLAS JOHN ROWSON - · PDF file6/5/2014 · NICHOLAS JOHN ROWSON BSc(Hons)Hort,...

Documents

Transcript of NICHOLAS JOHN ROWSON - · PDF file6/5/2014 · NICHOLAS JOHN ROWSON BSc(Hons)Hort,...