ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
Vol 2: Environmental Statement
June 2007
This page is intentionally blank
Main Campus
Masterplan
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Black
This page is intentionally blank
Main Campus
Masterplan
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
June 2007
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
The Arup Campus, Blythe Gate, Blythe Valley Park, Solihull, West Midlands. B90 8AE
Tel +44 (0)121 213 3000 Fax +44 (0)121 213 3001
www.arup.com
This report takes into account the
particular instructions and requirements
of our client.
It is not intended for and should not be
relied upon by any third party and no
responsibility is undertaken to any third
party
Job number
115453
This page is intentionally blank
This page is intentionally blank
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Contents
Glossary of Terms
Page
i
Preface
iii
Non Technical Summary
v
1
Introduction
1
1.1
Overview
1
1.2
The University of Warwick
1
1.3
Background to the Application
1
1.4
Structure of the Environmental Statement
2
2
3
4
5
6
The University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan
5
2.1
Introduction
5
2.2
The University Campus and Surroundings
5
2.3
Main Campus Masterplan Overview
7
2.4
Main Elements of the Masterplan
8
2.5
Implementation
12
EIA Approach and Methodology
13
3.1
Introduction
13
3.2
Legislative Framework
13
3.3
Terminology Adopted in this Environmental Statement
14
3.4
The EIA Project Team
14
3.5
Consultations
14
3.6
Screening
15
3.7
Scope of the EIA
16
3.8
Impact Assessment
17
3.9
Prediction and Assessment of Cumulative and Interactive Effects
19
3.10
Dealing With Uncertainty
19
Consideration of Alternatives
21
4.1
Introduction
21
4.2
Alternative Delivery Mechanisms
21
Assessment of Planning Policies
25
5.1
Introduction
25
5.2
Policy Framework
25
5.3
Assessment of Key Policies
25
5.4
Impacts on National Planning Policy Statements
29
Ecology and Nature Conservation
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
33
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
7
8
9
10
6.1
Introduction
33
6.2
Policy Framework
33
6.3
Assessment Approach
35
6.4
Baseline Conditions
39
6.5
Value
47
6.6
Impact Assessment
54
6.7
Impact Mitigation
63
6.8
Residual Impacts
68
Landscape and Visual
71
7.1
Introduction
71
7.2
Policy Framework
71
7.3
Assessment Approach
87
7.4
Baseline Conditions
95
7.5
Assessment of Impacts: Central Campus East
120
7.6
Assessment of Impacts: Central Campus West
126
7.7
Assessment of Impacts: Gibbet Hill Site
139
7.8
Assessment of Impacts: Westwood Site
142
7.9
Summary
148
Traffic and Transportation
151
8.1
Introduction
151
8.2
Policy Framework
151
8.3
Baseline Conditions and Masterplan Strategy
153
8.4
Proposals
155
8.5
Travel Plan
157
Air Quality
159
9.1
Introduction
159
9.2
Policy Framework
159
9.3
Assessment Approach
163
9.4
Baseline Conditions
168
9.5
Impact Assessment
172
9.6
Significance of Predicted Impacts
176
9.7
Impact Mitigation
178
9.8
Residual Impacts
179
Noise and Vibration
181
10.1
Introduction
181
10.2
Policy Framework
181
10.3
Assessment Approach
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
184
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
11
12
13
14
15
10.4
Baseline Conditions
186
10.5
Impact Assessment
190
10.6
Impact Mitigation
195
10.7
Residual Impacts
196
Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Water Resources
197
11.1
Introduction
197
11.2
Policy Framework
197
11.3
Assessment Approach
198
11.4
Baseline Conditions
201
11.5
Flood Risk
206
11.6
Impact Assessment
208
11.7
Mitigation Measures
209
11.8
Residual Impacts
210
Ground Conditions and Contamination
211
12.1
Introduction
211
12.2
Policy Framework
211
12.3
Assessment Approach
214
12.4
Baseline Conditions
216
12.5
Impact Assessment
226
12.6
Impact Mitigation
229
12.7
Residual Impacts
230
Services
231
13.1
Introduction
231
13.2
Approach
231
13.3
Baseline
232
13.4
Impact Assessment
233
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
237
14.1
Introduction
237
14.2
Policy Framework
237
14.3
Approach and Methodology
240
14.4
Baseline Conditions
246
14.5
Impact Assessment
255
14.6
Impact Mitigation
259
14.7
Residual Impacts
261
Human Population
263
15.1
Introduction
263
15.2
Baseline Conditions
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
265
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
16
15.3
University Expansion
272
15.4
Economic Impact
274
15.5
Policy Context
278
15.6
Wider Impact
284
15.7
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
297
Summary and Interaction of Effects
305
16.1
Introduction
305
16.2
Summary of Impacts
305
16.3
Interaction of Effects
307
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Appendices
Appendix A:
Consultee Comments
Appendix B.1:
Ecological Assessment
Appendix B.2:
Amphibian Survey
Appendix B.3:
Bat Survey
Appendix B.4:
Badger Survey
Appendix B.5:
Breeding Bird Survey
Appendix C.1:
Methodology for Assessing Zones of Visual Influence
Appendix C.2:
Methodology for Preparation of Photomontages
Appendix C.3:
Landscape and Visual Assessment Tables
Appendix D.1:
Air Quality Risk Assessment
Appendix D.2:
Predicted Air Pollutant Concentrations
Appendix E.1:
Noise Survey Measurement Results
Appendix E.2:
Noise Survey Site Photographs
Appendix E.3:
Noise Maps
Appendix E.4:
Traffic Schematic
Appendix F.1:
Archaeological Gazetteer
Appendix F.2:
Buildings Gazetter
Appendix F.3:
Interpretation of Aereal Photographs for Archaeology
Appendix G.1:
Expenditure Impact Methodology
Appendix G.2:
Socioeconomic Assessment: Organisations Consulted
Appendix G.3:
Socioeconomic Assessment: Documents Reviewed
Tables
Table 2.1:
University Masterplan Provision of New Areas
Table 2.2:
Estimated Phasing of Development
Table 3.1:
The EIA Project Team
Table 3.2:
Summary of Consultations and Responses
Table 3.3:
Summary of Scoping Responses
Table 3.4:
Outline Impact Assessment Methodology
Table 3.5:
Generic Significance Criteria
Table 6.1:
Common Ecological Designations
Table 6.2:
Desktop Survey Consultees
Table 6.3:
Phase 1 Habitat Survey Data
Table 6.4:
University of Warwick Great Crested Newt Population Estimates
Table 6.5:
West Midlands Bird Club Breeding Bird Surveys 2002-2004
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 6.6:
Breeding Birds from Tocil Wood and Brookstray SINC Citation
Table 6.7:
Value Summary Table
Table 6.8:
Impacts to Tocil Wood and Brookstray SINC
Table 6.9:
Impacts to the Old Brickyard Plantation pSINC
Table 6.10:
Impacts to Whitefield Coppice pSINC
Table 6.11:
Impacts to Hedgerows
Table 6.12:
Impacts to Woodland and Veteran Trees
Table 6.13:
Impacts to Standing Open Water and Running Water
Table 6.14:
Impacts to Arable Land
Table 6.15:
Impacts to Great Crested Newts
Table 6.16:
Impacts to Water Voles
Table 6.17:
Impacts to Otters
Table 6.18:
Impacts to Bats
Table 6.19:
Impacts to Birds
Table 6.20:
Impacts to White-clawed Crayfish
Table 7.1:
Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors
Table 7.2:
Sensitivity of Visual Receptors
Table 7.3:
Magnitude of Effects: Landscape
Table 7.4:
Magnitude of Effects: Visual
Table 7.5:
Significance of Impacts
Table 9.1:
UK and EU Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines
Table 9.2:
Location of Receptors in Assessment
Figure 9.2:
Assessment of Significance of Air Quality Impacts
Table 9.3:
NO2 Concentrations Measured at Nearby Monitoring Sites within Coventry
City
Table 9.4:
Summary of Annual Mean Background Concentrations (µg/m )
Table 9.5:
NO2 Concentrations (where available) Measured at Nearby Monitoring Sites
from the Warwick District Area
Table 9.6:
Summary of Annual Mean Background Concentrations (µg/m )
Table 9.7:
Examples of Dust Sensitive Facilities
Table 9.8:
Site Evaluation Guidelines (Adapted from the Best Practice Guidance, The
control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition)
Table 9.9
Summary of Model Inputs to Assess the Impact of Boiler Emissions
Table 9.10:
Descriptors for Changes in Ambient Concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide and
PM10 (taken from the NSCA 2006 guidance update)
Table 9.11:
Descriptors for Impact Significance for Nitrogen Dioxide and PM10 (taken from
the NSCA 2006 guidance update)
Table 10.1:
Noise Exposure Category Noise Levels for Road Traffic Noise and Mixed
Noise Sources, LAeq,T
3
3
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 10.2:
Expected Planning Action within NEC Zones
Table 10.3:
Noise Change Significance Criteria
Table 10.4:
Summary of Construction Phases at Each Development Site
Table 10.5:
Residential Properties Exposed to Daytime Noise Levels in the Range 55 to
65 dB(A)
Table 10.6:
Target Noise Levels for Plant Installed on Site
Table 10.7:
Representative Daytime and Night-time Overall Noise Exposure Levels for the
Proposed Residential Developments
Table 11.1:
Criteria for Impact Magnitude
Table 11.2:
Impact Significance Criteria
Table 11.3:
Water Quality Data for Watercourses
Table 11.4:
Outline Description of Underlying Stratigraphy
Table 12.1:
Significance Criteria
Table 12.2:
Outline Underlying Stratigraphy
Table 12.3:
Surface Water Features within and Surrounding the University of Warwick
Table 12.4:
Potential Sources of Contaminations
Table 14.1:
Importance of the Receptor
Table 14.2:
Magnitude of Change
Table 14.3:
Significance of Effects
Table 14.4:
Evaluation Criteria
Table 14.5:
Definition of Archaeological Time Periods
Table 14.6:
Summary of Potential Impacts on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Table 14.7:
Listed Buildings Potentially Impacted
Table 14.8:
Mitigation Proposals and Residual Impacts
Table 15.1:
Economically Active Population (January 2005 - December 2005)
Table 15.2:
Level of Qualifications (January 2005 - December 2005)
Table 15.3:
Total Direct Impact (2004/2005 Academic Year)
Table 15.4:
Total Economic Impact (2004/2005 Academic Year)
Table 15.5:
Assumptions
Table 15.6:
Direct Expenditure Impacts (£m) in 2019-20
Table 15.7:
Direct and Indirect Expenditure (£m) and Employment Estimates
Table 15.8:
University Expansion Employment Impact in Regional and Local Context
Table 15.9:
Estimate of Construction Employment for University Expansion
Table 15.10: Significance and Nature of Potential Impacts
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Graphs
Graph 15.1: Proportion of resident working age population by broad industrial sector
(January 2005 - December 2005)
Graph 15.2: Employment by Occupation (January 2005 - December 2005)
Figures
Figure 2.1:
Site Location
Figure 2.2:
The University Estate
Figure 2.3:
Existing Land Use
Figure 2.4:
Natural Features
Figure 2.5:
Proposed Development Axis and Centres of Activity
Figure 2.6:
Development Plan
Figure 2.7:
Proposed Land Uses
Figure 2.8:
Proposed Building Heights
Figure 2.9:
Landscaping Proposals
Figure 2.10:
Likely Extent of Development within First Five Years
Figure 6.1:
Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Figure 6.2:
Amphibian Survey Results
Figure 6.3:
Bat Survey Results
Figure 6.4:
Bird Survey Results
Figure 7.1.1:
Key Plan
Figure 7.1.2:
Administrative Boundaries
Figure 7.1.3:
Green Belt Land
Figure 7.1.4:
Land Use
Figure 7.1.5:
Roads and Footpaths
Figure 7.1.6:
Vegetation
Figure 7.1.7:
Viewpoints
Figure 7.2.1:
Key Plan
Figure 7.2.2:
Existing Landscape Pattern
Figure 7.2.3:
Compartmentalisation
Figure 7.2.4:
Existing Landscape
Figure 7.2.5:
Existing and Proposed hedges
Figure 7.2.6:
Existing Grassland
Figure 7.2.7:
Proposed Grassland
Figure 7.2.8:
Existing and Proposed Water Bodies and Drainage Ditches
Figure 7.2.9:
Existing Trees
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Figure 7.2.10:
Proposed Landscape
Figure 7.2.11:
Landscape Connections
Figure 7.2.12:
Key Axes
Figure 7.2.13:
Strategic Landscape Features
Figure 7.3.1.1:
Visual Envelope Zone 1 - 3.5 m
Figure 7.3.1.2:
Visual Envelope Zone 1 – 4.7 m
Figure 7.3.2.1:
Visual Envelope Zone 2 – 3.5 m
Figure 7.3.2.2:
Visual Envelope Zone 2 – 4.7 m
Figure 7.3.3.1:
Visual Envelope Zone 3 – 3 m
Figure 7.3.3:
Visual Envelope Zone 3 – 3 m
Figure 7.3.3.1:
Visual Envelope Zone 3 – 3.5 m
Figure 7.3.4.1:
Visual Envelope Zone 4 – 3.5 m
Figure 7.3.4.2:
Visual Envelope Zone 4 – 4.7 m
Figure 7.3.5.1:
Visual Envelope Zone 5 – 3.5 m
Figure 7.3.5.2:
Visual Envelope Zone 5 – 4.7 m
Figure 7.3.6.1:
Visual Envelope Zone 6 – 3.5 m
Figure 7.3.6.2:
Visual Envelope Zone 6 – 4.7 m
Figure 7.3.7.1:
Visual Envelope Zone 7 – 3.5 m
Figure 7.3.7.2:
Visual Envelope Zone 7 – 4.7 m
Figure 7.4.0:
Critical Viewpoints
Figure 7.4.1.1:
Critical Viewpoint 1 – Existing View
Figure 7.4.1.2:
Critical Viewpoint 1 – 4.0 m
Figure 7.4.2.1:
Critical Viewpoint 2 – Existing View
Figure 7.4.2.2:
Critical Viewpoint 2 – 4.0 m
Figure 7.4.3.1:
Critical Viewpoint 3 – Existing View
Figure 7.4.3.2:
Critical Viewpoint 3 – 4.0 m
Figure 7.4.4.1:
Critical Viewpoint 4 – Existing View
Figure 7.4.4.2:
Critical Viewpoint 4 – 4.0 m
Figure 7.4.5.1:
Critical Viewpoint 5 – Existing View
Figure 7.4.5.2:
Critical Viewpoint 5 – 4.0 m
Figure 7.4.6.1:
Critical Viewpoint 6 – Existing View
Figure 7.4.6.2:
Critical Viewpoint 6 – 4.0 m
Figure 8.1:
Landscape and Visual Information
Figure 8.2:
Proposed Views from Viewpoints 1 and 2
Figure 8.2:
Proposed Views from Viewpoints 3 and 4
Figure 9.1:
Location of Air Quality Receptors
Figure 9.2:
Assessment of Significance of Air Qualtiy Significance
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Figure 10.1:
Temporary Noise Measurement Locations
Figure 10.2:
Permanent Noise Logging Locations
Figure 11.1:
Surface Water Features
Figure 11.2:
Bedrock Geology
Figure 12.1:
Indicative Locations of Previous Site Investigations
Figure 13.1:
Power Provision Infrastructure
Figure 13.2:
Sustainable Drainage Strategy
Figure 14.1:
Archaeological Sites Listed from the Historic Environment Record
Figure 14.2:
Historic Landscape Features
Figure 14.3:
Historic Environment Records and Aerial Photograph Sites
Figure 14.4:
Cultural Heritage Site Map
Figure 15.1:
Index of Deprivation in the District of Warwick and Coventry
Photographs
Photograph 14.1: Cryfield House Farmhouse
Photograph 14.2: Rootes and Benefactors Halls when First Built
Photograph 14.3: Detail of the Maths Houses at Gibbet Hill Site
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Glossary of Terms
AOD
Above Ordnance Datum
AQMA
Air Quality Management Area
AQMP
Air Quality Management Plan
BAP
Biodiversity Action Plan
bgl
Below Ground Level
BGS
British Geological Society
BoCC
Birds of Conservation Concern
CA
Countryside Agency (now subsumed into Natural England)
CCC
Coventry City Council
CHP
Combined Heat and Power
CoCP
Code of Construction Practice
CRTN
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise
DCLG
Department for Communities and Local Government
Defra
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DMRB
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
EA
Environment Agency
EcIA
Ecological Impact Assessment
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EN
English Nature (now subsumed into Natural England)
EQS
Environmental Quality Standard
ES
Environmental Statement
EU
European Union
FTE
Full Time Equivalent
GEA
Gross External Floor Area
ha
hectare
HA
Highways Agency
HER
Historic Environment Register
HMSO
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
IMD
Index of Multiple Deprivation
IPPC
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
km
Kilometre
kph
Kilometres per hour
LAQM
Local Air Quality Management
LTP
Local Transport Plan
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page i
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
l/s
Litres per second
m
Metre
m
2
Square metre
NE
Natural England
NEC
Noise Exposure Category
NOX
Nitrogen Oxides
NO2
Nitrogen dioxide
NSCA
National Society for Clean Air
NVQ
National Vocational Qualification
ODPM
(Former) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
OS
Ordnance Survey
PM10
Particulate Matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns
PPG
Planning Policy Guidance
PPS
Planning Policy Statement
pSINC
Potential Site of Importance to Nature Conservation
RPG
Regional Planning Guidance
SINC
Site of Importance to Nature Conservation
SLM
Sound Level Meter
SMR
Sites and Monuments Register
SOA
Super Output Area
TEP
The Environment Partnership
UKBAP
United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan
WDC
Warwick District Council
WCC
Warwickshire County Council
WFD
Water Framework Directive
WWT
Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
µg
Microgramme
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page ii
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Preface
This Environmental Statement has been prepared to accompany an Outline Planning Application by the
University of Warwick in support of the Main Campus Masterplan, which outlines the framework for
development of its Main Campus facilities over a period of ten years.
The Main Campus Masterplan has been determined to fulfil the requirements for Environmental Impact
Assessment, as defined by Schedule 2, paragraph 10(b) of the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 Statutory Instrument (SI)
1999 No. 293 (as amended).
1
Based on a scope and methodology published in an ‘Environmental Scoping Report’ , the Environmental
Statement reports the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken by Ove Arup
and Partners Ltd (Arup) on behalf of the University of Warwick. It is composed of the following four
volumes:
Volume 1:
Environmental Statement: Non Technical Summary;
Volume 2:
Environmental Statement;
Volume 3:
Environmental Statement: Volume of Figures; and,
Volume 4:
Environmental Statement: Volume of Appendices.
Copies of the Non Technical Summary and the Environmental Statement (including technical appendices
and Figures) are available from:
The Estates Office
The University of Warwick
Gibbet Hill Road
Coventry
West Midlands
CV4 7AL
The Environmental Statement may be also consulted at the following addresses during normal opening
hours:
University House
The University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL
Coventry City Council
Civic Centre 4
Much Park Street
Coventry
Warwick District Council
Riverside House
Milverton Hill
Royal Leamington Spa
CV32 5HZ
CV1 2PT
The Non Technical Summary is available free of charge and the Environmental Statement may be
purchased for £250 per copy. These documents are also available as Adobe Acrobat files on CD via the
same contact above at a charge of £25 per CD. The Scoping Report may be purchased for £100 per
copy, from the contact address above.
The Environmental Statement may also be consulted at the following addresses during normal opening
hours:
1
University of Warwick Masterplan Application: Environmental Scoping Report. Ove Arup and Partners Ltd,
December 2005
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page iii
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
This page is intentionally blank
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page iv
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Non Technical Summary
Introduction
This Non Technical Summary accompanies the Environmental Statement for an Outline Planning
Application by the University of Warwick in support of its Main Campus Masterplan. The Masterplan
describes a framework for the development of the University of Warwick over a period of ten years, during
which the gross external area
occupied by the University’s
Coventry
facilities is expected to increase
by over 17 hectares.
This Non Technical Summary
provides a concise overview of
the key predicted environmental
effects
associated
with
development as proposed by
the Main Campus Masterplan.
Full details may be found within
the Environmental Statement,
which
provides
a
comprehensive description of
the assessment of potentially
significant
environmental
impacts
associated
with
implementation of the Main
Campus Masterplan, and is
submitted in support of the
Planning Application.
The University of
Warwick Main Campus
Kenilworth
The University of
Warwick
Location of the University of Warwick’s Main Campus
The University of Warwick was
founded in the 1960s on land gifted by the City of Coventry and Warwick District. The University Estate is
located to the southwest of the urban fringe of Coventry, where it spans Gibbet Hill Road, which forms the
approximate administrative border
between the two authorities. Since
establishment of its first buildings
in 1965, the University of Warwick
has now developed to become a
leading higher education institution
and today serves approximately
19,000 students and employs in
the order of 4,600 staff.
Aerial View of the University of Warwick
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page v
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The Need for Expansion
Since its founding in 1965, The University of Warwick has become one of Britain’s leading universities. It
wishes to become a universally acknowledged world centre of higher education by 2015 (its 50th
anniversary), firmly in the top 50 of world universities. To achieve this requires the University to focus on
the following strategic ambitions:
•
Goal 1: to make Warwick an undisputed World Leader in research and scholarship
•
Goal 2: to make the Warwick teaching and learning experience unique
•
Goal 3: to make the University into an International Portal
•
Goal 4: to enhance the University’s reputation with stakeholders in the UK
In support of these goals, the Main Campus Masterplan has been developed in order to achieve the
following objectives:
Objective 1:
to plan for sustainable long term growth of the university to meet its strategic goals and
Government objectives for higher education
Objective 2:
to plan for an integrated University optimising the use of its established successful campus
Objective 3:
to foster a ‘campus community’ where staff, students and those external to the university
can come together to learn, study, research and interact to further human knowledge and
understanding
Objective 4: to provide a robust and flexible
framework for development of the campus to
meet current and future needs
Objective 5: to provide residential
accommodation on or near campus for a high
proportion of students and an increasing number
of staff to maximise their contribution to campus
life
Objective 6: to manage travel demand through
a sustainable transport strategy to maximise
accessibility of the university whilst mitigating the
impact of traffic congestion on the area
Objective 7: to pursue a sustainable future for
the University and demonstrate long term
stewardship of the environment by protecting and
enhancing landscape character
The University of Warwick Main Campus
Objective 8:
to develop further as a social and economic asset to the local community and the region, in
broad accordance with governmental policy objectives
The Main Campus Masterplan – Scheme Proposals
The University of Warwick has assessed its development needs for the ten year period between 2008 and
2018. Based on the results of this analysis, the ‘Main Campus Masterplan’ has been developed to provide
the framework for it to respond to this need and describes the University’s proposals for development of its
Main Campus over a ten year period, expected between 2008 and 2018.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page vi
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Gross External Area Proposed (m2)
Central
Campus
East
Central
Campus
West
Westwood
Site
Gibbet
Hill
Total
Academic: Teaching
and Research
33,750
20,400
7,550
3,300
65,000
Other: Arts Centre /
New Initiatives /
Student Union
14,900
8,100
0
0
23,000
Support:
Administration / Social
/ Sports
12,950
12,300
2,050
-1,300*
26,000
Masterplan
Provision
Residential
15,900
41,100
0
0
57,000
Total
77,500
81,900
9,600
2,000
171,000
The Main Campus Masterplan
therefore aims to support the
University
of
Warwick
in
realisation of its academic and
broader institutional goals and
seeks to provide the framework
for the physical development of
the University Estate to ensure
progress towards realisation of
its strategic goals.
Comprised within the Main
Campus Masterplan is provision
Note: * Negative value for demolitions
for a range of academic, social,
administrative and residential
facilities which are expected to contribute to meeting the University’s anticipated requirements, effectively
increasing the external area by in the order of 17 hectares. The Masterplan also includes provision to
accommodate the range of required supporting services including utilities, transport infrastructure and
proposals for landscaping
and enhancing the natural
environment.
Although the Main Campus
includes land within both
the
administrative
authorities of Coventry City
and
Warwick
District
Councils,
historical
development has focused
on land to the north of
Gibbet Hill Road within
Coventry.
While the
Masterplan
seeks
to
maximise
use
of
its
currently developed estate,
it also recognises the need
to maintain the architectural
quality of the area and the
visual appearance from
surrounding residential and
rural areas. While suitable
opportunities
for
infill
development are to be
used, the Masterplan also
seeks
to
consolidate
development
at
the
University Estate through
balancing
this
with
increasing the range of
facilities on its land to the
south of Gibbet Hill Road.
Excerpt from the Main Campus Masterplan showing proposed new developments in
orange
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page vii
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Environmental Impact Assessment
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) identifies the potentially significant environmental effects
associated with a development. It comprises a series of studies, surveys and consultations in order to
gain an understanding of the range of facets of the local environmental conditions, and based on this,
makes an objective assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts that may be expected
as a result of development. The information generated during the EIA is compiled in an Environmental
Statement which provides an objective description of the significant environmental effects of a
development and the measures that should be taken to reduce or avoid these.
The regulatory framework for EIA is defined in Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 293 ‘The Town and Country
Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999’. The EIA
Regulations provide thresholds to assist in determining whether development proposals require EIA based
on various criteria. The University of Warwick identified at the outset that the site exceeded the threshold
requirement for Urban Development Projects of 0.5 ha, as described under Schedule 2 of the EIA
Regulations, and would require EIA.
Consultation and Scoping
In accordance with the EIA Regulations, formal ‘Scoping Opinions’ on the content and approach of
Environmental Impact Assessment were sought from Coventry City Council and Warwick District Council
in December 2005. This request for Scoping Opinions was supported by a ‘Scoping Report’ which
presented the proposed approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment and the content of the
proposed Environmental Statement.
In response to the Scoping Report, and during investigation and assessment of the significant issues
associated with the proposals, consultations have been undertaken with a range of statutory and nonstatutory consultees, including local authorities, the former English Nature and Countryside Agency (now
subsumed into Natural England), the Environment Agency and English Heritage. Comments received
during this process of consultation have been taken into account during the EIA.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
In order to identify the potential impacts of implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan on ecological
resources, a range of consultations, desk studies and field studies of ecological resources at the
University’s Main Campus and its surroundings were undertaken during the period 2005 to 2006. Based
on the findings of these studies, the intrinsic values of habitats and the ecological values of resources
within, and in the immediate vicinity of, the Main Campus have been determined. In accordance with best
practice guidance for Ecological
Impact Assessment, the potential
effects of the Masterplan on a
range of habitats and protected
species have been assessed.
There
are
no
nationally
designated conservation sites on
or near to the Main Campus,
although in the immediate vicinity
are three locally designated ‘Sites
of
Importance
for
Nature
Looking towards the Main Campus from Cryfield
Conservation’ in the form of the
woodlands of Tocil Wood, the Old Brickyard Plantation and the Whitefield Coppice. A further network of
wildlife corridors exists across the Main Campus in the form of hedgerows, streams and interconnecting
waterbodies. Field surveys identified several species of conservation importance and protected species
including great crested newts, bats, water voles and badgers, which are known to use the site. A number
of bird species, listed as priorities for conservation, were also identified.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page viii
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Construction activities related to implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan may result in some
temporary disturbance to local ecological resources, primarily through disturbance of habitats that lie
within currently rural areas to the south of Gibbet Hill Road. Nevertheless, ecological mitigation measures,
which have been included within design proposals and the Landscaping Strategy, are expected to
contribute to ensuring that long-term adverse impacts
on protected species are not expected. The principal
long-term adverse impacts are expected to be a
consequence of the conversion of agricultural areas
and the associated loss of nesting and foraging sites
for birds, including the skylark, yellowhammer and song
thrush.
While this may result in a reduction in
ecological value of the land to be occupied by the Main
Campus, it is not expected to have a detrimental effect
on bird populations of the wider area.
Long-term operation of the expanded Main Campus, as
proposed by the Masterplan, is also expected to
support beneficial impacts on ecological resources. The adoption of sustainable drainage features is
expected to contribute to increasing the quality of aquatic habitats, while landscaping proposals would
seek retention and enhancement of the established hedgerows, which act as wildlife corridors and provide
a wildlife-sensitive habitat management
approach. As a result, several species’
habitats are expected to experience longterm benefits, in particular those
supporting populations of great crested
newt and water voles.
Great Crested Newts
Landscape and Visual
A study of the landscape value and visual
amenity of the Main Campus and its
surrounding area has been undertaken
through site visits and reviews of
landscape
and
planning
policy
documents. Based on an understanding
of the current site conditions, a landscape
Woodlands Surrounding the Main Campus
and visual assessment has been
undertaken to determine the potential effects of the proposals on the local landscape and to examine the
effects on the main views of the site from a range of viewpoints in the surrounding natural and built areas.
Implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan would be expected to result in further development of
built facilities on land located to the south of Gibbet Hill Road within Warwick District. In contrast with land
to the north of Gibbet Hill Road, the University Estate within Warwick District still retains rural
characteristics and development may affect the openness of the surrounding landscape. Nevertheless,
construction of existing University facilities on Warwickshire land has already resulted in human
interference in the area, which is expected to be reinforced by the proposals.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page ix
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Rural land to the east of the University of Warwick is described as typical of ‘Arden Parklands’. None of
the wider Arden Parklands characteristics would be expected to be removed or threatened by the
development, although since Arden Parklands typically describes a rural condition, expansion of the built
View of Halls of Residence from Surrounding Arden Parkland Countryside
environment may result in an impact on the landscape by, in effect, reducing the total pool of land which
shares the characteristics of ‘Arden Parklands’. Recognising the value of the local landscape, the
Masterplan has been developed in parallel with a Landscape Strategy, which seeks to improve the
relationship between the site and its setting by drawing on the pattern and scale of the surrounding field
patterns to create a series of fields into which new buildings will be placed. The Landscape Strategy also
includes for reinforcing the characteristic structure of hedgerows that encircle the Main Campus and follow
the main watercourses.
In terms of the visibility of the Main Campus, it has been determined that the visual impact of the
Masterplan proposals would be minimal from the majority of the surrounding rural land. The Main Campus
would remain screened by the Whitefield Coppice and other local woodlands, while from the majority of
surrounding residential areas, views of the University would be limited to overlooking from first floor
windows of a small number of properties. From the vantage points where the development would be
visible, new facilities would be seen against the backdrop of the existing University buildings and no new
building would exceed the current ridgeline of the Main Campus.
Excerpt from Photomontage of Proposed Development from Crackley Road
The scale and distribution of new buildings proposed within the Masterplan would not be expected to
significantly impact upon the character and status of the existing Main Campus. Within currently
developed areas of the University Estate, the Masterplan would provide the opportunity to raise the visual
quality of the Main Campus and provide a greater sense of architectural cohesion and unification.
Traffic and Transport
A Transport Assessment has been undertaken to assess the potential impact of the scheme on traffic and
transportation patterns.
Growth of the University in line with the Masterplan over the next ten years would require a 40% increase
in built area and a similar growth in staff numbers. If car parking provision and thus traffic generation for
the site (which is largely influenced by car parking provision) were to increase by a similar amount then
congestion would reach unacceptable levels even allowing for improvements to local junctions. However,
in line with the national and local policy agenda it is proposed to limit the increase in car parking to 9% of
the existing provision and to set a target to limit traffic generation to 12%.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page x
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The management of transport issues associated with the Main Campus Masterplan would be covered by a
Travel Plan, which accompanies the Planning
Application. The Travel Plan describes a series of
initiatives to support more sustainable travel choices
together with a framework for monitoring, and
overseeing implementation. In order to ensure that
the Masterplan can be delivered, a number of options
have been developed which seek to mitigate adverse
effects of traffic on the local highway network and to
create a campus environment which encourages
sustainable travel.
Traffic Calming on University Road
Air Quality
An assessment of local air quality, and the potential
impacts associated with the proposals has focussed on the current air quality at, and in the vicinity of, the
Main Campus. The primary effects of implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan with respect to air
quality are expected to be realised in emissions of fugitive dust produced by construction activities,
vehicular emissions resulting from changes in traffic patterns, and from potential emissions from
permanent plant employed by the Main Campus, including those of a biomass-powered Combined Heat
and Power plant.
Air quality impacts from construction of facilities included
within the Main Campus Masterplan are primarily expected to
result from dust nuisance caused by construction operations.
Adherence to procedures described within a pre-approved
Code of Construction Practice would ensure that dust-related
emissions would be minimised and that nuisance associated
with dust would be avoided.
Following consultation with Coventry City Council and
Warwick District Council, a model to predict air quality
impacts resulting from vehicular movements at, and in the
vicinity of, the Main Campus, has been developed. Informed
by predictions of traffic flows obtained from the Transport
Assessment which supports the Planning Application,
concentrations of air pollutants included within National Air
Quality Objectives have been predicted for a number of
sensitive locations in the vicinity of the Main Campus.
Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and fine particulates, the two main vehicular related air pollutants, have
been forecast for a range of future years, based on traffic flow predictions both with, and without the
Masterplan.
Findings from the air quality model indicate that in general, with the Masterplan proposals in place, air
pollutant concentrations would be expected to progressively decrease in comparison to current levels.
While it is predicted that implementation of the Masterplan may contribute, by 2018 to a slight increase in
nitrogen dioxide concentrations at a minority of the locations, this is considered a negligible impact and all
national air quality objectives and EU limit values are still expected to be met at all locations modelled.
Furthermore, for all locations considered, airborne concentrations of particulate matter are predicted to
decrease year-on-year.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page xi
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The potential impacts of airborne
emissions resulting from a biomass fed
Combined Heat and Power plant have
been modelled based on typical
performance criteria for the plant
expected. Results of modelling show
that, in combination with the expected
emissions of vehicular traffic, a
significant increase in nitrogen dioxide
levels is not expected and air quality
would remain well within air quality
objective levels.
Gibbet Hill Road
Noise and Vibration
An assessment of the noise and vibration effects that may result from the implementation of the Main
Campus Masterplan has been undertaken based on an understanding of the local noise environment,
informed through field surveys of the ambient noise conditions. Noise and vibration effects associated
with implementation of the Masterplan are expected to relate
primarily to temporary noise from construction of the various
aspects included.
In the long-term, noise sources are
expected to be associated with operational plant employed by
buildings and from the increase in vehicular traffic generated
by implementation of the Masterplan.
While, given the current level of detail regarding proposals,
construction methods and requirements have not been
finalised at this time, a construction noise assessment has
been carried out based on assumed typical construction
activities. With the location of current and proposed buildings,
the site geography and topography, ‘noise mapping’ has been
undertaken to identify potential construction related impacts
on surrounding residential properties. Findings from this
indicate that there would be no significant noise impacts
resulting from construction activities.
Noise impacts related to changes in traffic levels caused by
Acoustic Monitoring at the University
implementation of the Masterplan have been assessed based
Estates Office
on predictions of traffic flows produced as part of the
Transport Assessment. Findings of the assessment of 44 individual sections of road shows that only one
of these sections, located along University Road, is expected to realise a moderately significant impact.
This location lies at the heart of the University Estate and over half a kilometre from the nearest sensitive
receptor. At all other locations, including those in the vicinity of residential and other noise sensitive
properties, traffic noise impacts are not expected to be of any significance.
Permanent plant employed by various facilities developed in support of the Masterplan would be selected
in order to be appropriate with the ambient noise levels of their location. Where suitably quiet plant could
not be achieved, local noise screening would be applied to control noise emissions and ensure that plant
noise impacts would be of no significance.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page xii
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
In accordance with governmental planning policy guidance (Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and
Noise), noise levels expected as a result
of implementation of the Main Campus
Masterplan would not be expected to
compromise the noise environment of
surrounding residential areas.
Water Resources
A
desk-based
study
has
been
undertaken to gain an understanding of
water resource characteristics in the
vicinity of the Main Campus. Informed by
this, the water environment has been
assessed in terms of its sensitivity to
change as a result of measures
contained within the Main Campus
Soundmap providing indicative sound contours as a result of
Masterplan. In addition, a Flood Risk
Construction Activities at Gibbet Hill
Assessment of the Main Campus has
also been undertaken to understand the Main Campus’ vulnerability and potential influence on flooding.
The two main watercourses at the University’s Main Campus are the Westwood Brook, which flows
through the Central Campus, and the Canley Brook, which flows to the south of the University Playing
fields. The Main Campus also contains a number of surface water features including the Tocil Lakes,
Heronbank Lakes and a number of other landscaped and natural waterbodies and ponds.
With the implementation of appropriate site management controls, construction activities are not expected
to contribute to water resource impacts. The proposals would not result in the loss of waterbodies or
culverting of watercourses and provision of
sustainable drainage features in support of
development on currently agricultural land
may enhance the range of aquatic habitats.
Operation of the developed Main Campus is
not expected to introduce significant polluting
activities to threaten the environmental
quality of water resources. Retention of
newly developed areas as predominantly
residential and academic uses should ensure
the risk of introducing new polluting sources
that may threaten the water environment is
minimised.
Ground Conditions and
Contamination
Tocil Lakes
An assessment of ground conditions at the Main Campus has been undertaken in order to determine the
potential for impacts in terms of ground contamination and the potential for related impacts on human
health, ecological systems, agricultural land and controlled waters.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page xiii
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The majority of the Main Campus is
constructed on land which, prior to its
development, was agricultural and
undeveloped. Only at the Westwood
Site is there evidence of development
prior to the current use, and the extent of
redevelopment prior to establishing the
buildings
is
considered
minimal.
Information drawn from previous site
investigations has not provided evidence
of current ground contamination and
recent walkover surveys have revealed
the area to be well maintained and
without
evidence
of
potentially
contaminating sources.
Although contamination has not been
identified, there remains the possibility
that construction activities may either
mobilise potentially unidentified and undisturbed contamination or introduce new sources of
contamination. Particular risks may be introduced through construction and excavations disturbing
unknown contamination which may affect human health through ingestion or inhalation, or may migrate to
other areas, particularly surface or groundwater bodies.
Rootes Hall
Measures to be employed in order to minimise the risks of contaminated land rely on adherence to a Code
of Construction Practice. Such a management plan, inclusive of measures required by Environment
Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance notes and other best practice advice, would ensure that activities
are undertaken with due care and minimise the potential for impacts to result from disturbance of
unexpected contamination or accidental ground pollution. Further environmental sampling would also be
required as part of pre-construction ground investigations in order to confirm the absence of ground
pollution.
Provided all appropriate and necessary mitigation measures are successfully implemented, delivery of the
Masterplan is not expected to represent a risk to ground conditions at the site.
Services
An assessment has been made of the capability of the Main Campus’ current services and utilities to
accommodate development proposed by the Main Campus Masterplan. As a result of the forecast
electricity demand, the Masterplan includes provision for a biomass Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
plant, which is proposed in order to provide on-site electricity supply and therefore require no further
increase on the current authorised supply. The current district heating network would continue to be
developed in order to allow contribution of heat from the biomass CHP plant to the network. Additional
energy would also be saved through increased efficiency of new facilities.
Water supply and foul water drainage have also been considered and increased demands would be
accommodated in agreement with appropriate service providers. Surface water drainage has been
considered as part of the Flood Risk Assessment, and would be managed through adoption of sustainable
drainage features.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page xiv
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Taken as a whole, the Main Campus and its setting contain a significant amount of archaeological
resources dating from a range
of historical periods.
An
assessment of archaeological
and cultural heritage resources
has been undertaken to provide
an understanding of the built,
environmental
and
cultural
heritage resources at the Main
Campus. Informed by this, the
potential
impacts
of
the
structural
and
landscaping
proposals contained within the
Main Campus Masterplan have
been assessed.
Findings of this study show that
the Westwood Site of the Main
Campus is located on the site of
a previous Iron Age settlement,
Historical View of the Main Campus from the South
with another likely to be located
in the vicinity of Tocil Wood. To the east of the Main Campus the Romans constructed a major road and
the site of a Roman Villa is considered to be located within the setting of the Main Campus, possibly near
the Cryfield Farmhouse. Further archaeological resources dating to medieval and post-medieval periods
have also been identified.
In addition to the Main Campus’ historical and archaeological resources, built heritage features, such as
Cryfield Farm, Gibbet Hill Farm, South Hurst Farms, and their associated landscapes have played a
considerable role in forming the basis of the University of Warwick’s rural setting and are viewed as
contextually important. Within the University Estate two early buildings have also been identified as
architecturally significant, and it is recommended that effects to these buildings are mitigated to the same
level as is proposed for the older heritage features.
It is expected that potential impacts to archaeological and cultural heritage resources are most likely to
result from sub-surface disturbance during construction and landscaping activities and limited to the
Westwood Site and selected areas of Central Campus West. As a result, mitigation would be required to
record and, where appropriate, preserve resources discovered during site activities. On a site-by-site
basis, remote surveys would indicate the need for the provision of an archaeological ‘watching brief’ and,
where necessary, intrusive surveys in order to ensure activities were undertaken with due regard to
preservation of archaeological resources.
Human Population
A socioeconomic impact assessment has been made of the expansion of the University of Warwick, as
proposed by the Main Campus Masterplan.
Overall, the estimated economic impact of the proposed expansion of Warwick University is positive and
significant at the local and regional levels with potential net additional employment of up to 2,121 jobs in
the Warwick and Coventry area and up to 3,390 jobs in the West Midlands. Another 251 full-time jobs are
estimated in the construction industry during the ten year development programme. A the local level, an
increase of about 30% on the existing local employment impact of the University of Warwick and about
1.02% of the existing local economically active population. The regional impact represents an increase of
about 20% on the existing regional employment impact and about 0.14% of the existing regional
economically active population.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
Page xv
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Mitigation measures identified to address the range of impacts of the proposed expansion of the Main
Campus are both supportive in order to realise potential positive impact and also responsive to reduce or
avoid negative impacts. Most of the mitigation measures would involve continued partnership action
between the University of Warwick, Warwick District Council, Coventry City Council, the various public
agencies at the county and regional levels and local companies and business organisations.
Current Centre of Activity near the Warwick Arts Centre
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
The University of Warwick would need to extend its
various local education, enterprise, innovation,
business tourism, inward investment and community
development initiatives to help maximise the potential
impact of the proposed University expansion. The
local authorities, other public agencies and local
business organisations would need to consider how
their strategies, policies and programmes could
support the mitigation measures identified and how
best they could work with the University of Warwick to
improve integration and accessibility between the
campus, adjoining areas and other deprived areas
elsewhere.
Page xvi
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft 1 28 November 2005
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
1
Introduction
1.1
Overview
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd (Arup) have been commissioned to undertake an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) in respect of the University of Warwick’s Main Campus
Masterplan proposed to guide development of residential, academic, and administrative
facilities, together with their supporting infrastructure over a ten year timeframe, anticipated
between 2008 and 2018.
An EIA has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country
2
Planning (EIA) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 , (hereafter referred to as the EIA
Regulations) and the findings are reported in this Environmental Statement. The objective
of this Environmental Statement (ES) is to provide information on the proposed
development and its potential impacts on the environment to assist planning decision
makers.
This Environmental Statement presents the findings of the Environmental Impact
Assessment of the University of Warwick’s Masterplan and includes assessments of
impacts to ecology and nature conservation resources undertaken by TEP (the Environment
Partnership), the assessment of landscape and visual impacts undertaken by Churchman
Landscape Architects Ltd, and the assessment of impacts on the human environment,
undertaken by SQW Ltd.
1.2
The University of Warwick
Since its origins in the 1960s, when the Local Authorities of Warwick District and the City of
Coventry gifted land for a new university, the University of Warwick has developed to
3
become one of the UK’s leading higher education institutions . Today it serves in the order
4
of 19,000 students and employs in the order of 3,300 full time and 1,300 part time staff .
The University of Warwick has a major influence on the educational, economic and cultural
life of the sub-region of Coventry and Warwickshire. With an annual income of £283 million
during 2004-2005 (forecast to rise to more than £300 million in 2006/2007), the University of
Warwick is now akin to a major business enterprise and estimates have put the University’s
total contribution to the regional economy at around £1 billion a year. In addition to its core
academic focus, the University of Warwick also features the Warwick Business School, the
Warwick Arts Centre and the adjacent Warwick Science Park, which is a joint venture with
Coventry City Council, Warwick District Council and the West Midlands Enterprise Board.
1.3
Background to the Application
In accordance with the provisions of the EIA Regulations, an Environmental Scoping
5
Report was prepared by Ove Arup and Partners Ltd (Arup) in December 2005 and formal
‘Scoping Opinions’ were sought from Coventry City Council and Warwickshire County
Council (as the scheme’s determining authorities). Comments from Local Authorities,
statutory and regulatory bodies were received as part of the consultation resulting from the
Scoping Report and have influenced the scope and approach of the EIA accordingly.
Comments and responses are contained in Appendix A.
2
The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999,
Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 293
3
The Sunday Times University League Table 2006, The Sunday Times, 2006
4
University of Warwick Masterplan: Critical Numbers, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, August 2006
5
University of Warwick Masterplan Application: Environmental Scoping Report. Ove Arup and Partners Ltd,
December 2005
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 1
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
This Environmental Statement (ES) presents the findings of the EIA, undertaken since
November 2005. It also forms part of a portfolio of documents being submitted for the
application of an outline planning consent.
1.4
Structure of the Environmental Statement
This Environmental Statement is composed of volumes as described below:
Volume 1:
Environmental Statement: Non Technical Summary;
Volume 2:
Environmental Statement;
Volume 3:
Environmental Statement: Volume of Figures; and,
Volume 4:
Environmental Statement: Volume of Appendices.
Within this volume of the Environmental Statement the text is divided into the following
Chapters:
Chapter 2:
Provides a description of the University of Warwick Main Campus and a
summary of major aspects of the Main Campus Masterplan;
Chapter 3:
Provides a description of the EIA process, including an overview of the
methodology adopted for identification assessment of impacts;
Chapter 4:
Discusses the main alternatives studied and presents a summary of the
potential environmental impacts associated with them;
Chapter 5:
Provides a discussion of the national, regional and local planning context
within which the Main Campus Masterplan fits;
Chapter 6:
Details the ecological impact assessment undertaken for the Main Campus
Masterplan;
Chapter 7:
Provides a description and assessment of the potential impacts of the
Masterplan on landscape and the visual setting at the Main Campus;
Chapter 8:
Presents a summary of the main traffic and transportation implications of the
scheme;
Chapter 9:
Provides the prediction and assessment of the impacts on air quality as a
result of changes in vehicular and other emissions resulting from the
Masterplan;
Chapter 10:
Describes and assesses the potential acoustic and vibration impacts of the
Main Campus Masterplan;
Chapter 11:
Describes the hydrological and hydrogeological regime of the Main Campus
and surroundings, and the potential impacts of the Masterplan on water
resources;
Chapter 12:
Provides a discussion of ground conditions and contamination risk at the
site, and provides an assessment of impacts of the Masterplan on ground
conditions and contamination;
Chapter 13:
Discusses the assessment of impacts relating to changes in services and
utilities required by the Masterplan;
Chapter 14:
Provides an assessment of archaeological resources at the sites, together
with an assessment of the effects of the scheme on archaeology and
cultural heritage;
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 2
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Chapter 15:
Describes and assesses the effects of the main Campus Masterplan on the
human population; and,
Chapter 16:
Provides a summary of the predicted residual effects and discussion on
interaction and cumulative effects.
Technical details of individual environmental topic assessment are presented as appendices
in Volume 4 to this report.
The Non Technical Summary is presented at the front of the Environmental Statement and
is also available as Volume 1.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 3
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
This page is intentionally blank
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 4
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
2
The University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan
2.1
Introduction
The Chapter describes the main proposals outlined within the Masterplan for the
development of the University of Warwick’s Main Campus. This Chapter is structured as
follows:
Section 2.2: Provides a description of the University of Warwick’s Main Campus;
Section 2.3: Describes an overview of the principles and drivers behind the Main Campus
Masterplan;
Section 2.4: Provides a summary of the major provisions of the Main Campus Masterplan;
and,
Section 2.5: Describes the proposed phasing and delivery of the Main Campus
Masterplan.
2.2
The University Campus and Surroundings
2.2.1
Overview
The University of Warwick’s Main Campus is located on the southwest fringe of the
Coventry conurbation, approximately 5 km from the centre of Coventry (Figure 2.1). To the
north and east of the University are the residential suburbs of Canley and Cannon Park
respectively, to the northwest is the Westwood Business Park and to the west and south the
University Campus is agricultural land.
The University Estate was gifted jointly by Coventry City Council, Warwick District Council
and Warwickshire County Council in 1964, with the aim of establishing a new university. As
a result, the Main Campus straddles the administrative boundary between Coventry City
and Warwick District and may be considered as four discrete sub-sites, as shown in Figure
2.2:
•
Central Campus East: Comprising land within the administrative boundary of Coventry;
•
Central Campus West: Comprising land within the administrative boundary of Warwick
District in Warwickshire;
•
Gibbet Hill Site: Located to the south of the Main Campus within Coventry; and,
•
Westwood Site: Located within Coventry, to the north of Kirby Corner Road.
The spine of the Main Campus is formed by Gibbet Hill Road, which also forms the
administrative border between Coventry City and Warwick District. The A45 Coventry Ring
Road passes to the north of the University and connects to Gibbet Hill Road via Kirby
Corner Road. At the west of the University, Gibbet Hill Road links to the A429 Kenilworth
Road, which runs between Coventry and the town of Kenilworth, which lies approximately
4 km to the south.
Figure 2.3 shows the current land uses at the Main Campus. Key features of the
surrounding natural environment, including Tocil Lakes and Woods, the Old Brickyard
Plantation and surrounding Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) are
described in Figure 2.4.
Characteristics of each of the four sites that comprise the Main Campus are described
below.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 5
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Central Campus East
Central Campus East, shown on Figure 2.2, lies to the east of Gibbet Hill Road, within the
administrative boundary of Coventry. The Central Campus East comprises what is currently
considered to be the heart of the Main Campus with University House, the administrative
centre of the University, lying at the northern end. Much of the Central Campus East is
comprised of key academic facilities and faculties, including the Library and Engineering
Buildings, established among the first purpose-built facilities. Buildings completed more
recently include the student welfare facilities and the Warwick Arts Centre. To the south
and southeast of the Central Campus East lie areas of residential accommodation and the
Tocil Lakes and Woods.
Central Campus West
Central Campus West lies to the West of Gibbet Hill Road and thus within the boundary of
Warwickshire and Warwick District. Central Campus West has been developed at a far
slower rate than land to the east of Gibbet Hill Road and, in comparison to Central Campus
East, comprises of open landscape and primarily residential facilities.
While early development of the University focussed on the Central Campus East and Gibbet
Hill Sites during the 1960s, development of the Warwickshire land started later in the 1970s
with low-rise residential accommodation located to the south of the ‘Old Brickyard
Plantation’. While now also the location for the academic facilities of Radcliffe House and
the Warwick Business School (Figure 2.3), Central Campus West remains dominated by
residential use, reinforced by the recent development of the Lakeside and Heronbank
Residences. To the south of Central Campus West, a large portion of the estate is
dedicated to the University playing fields.
Westwood Site
The Westwood Site, lies at the north of the Main Campus, separated from Central Campus
East by Kirby Corner Road and the Warwick Science Park. Formerly the Coventry Teacher
Training College, Westwood did not form part of the original Campus, however the
Westwood Site is now the location for a mix of academic, support and residential facilities.
The west of the Westwood Site features a large area dedicated to a range of sports facilities
and pitches.
Gibbet Hill Site
The Gibbet Hill Site lies to the east of Central Campus East adjacent to Tocil Lakes and the
Tocil Wood. The Gibbet Hill Site includes the earliest phase of the University development
including the Estates Department and the Maths block constructed in 1964. Subsequent
development has maintained a low-rise courtyard style in a landscape setting and despite
the site’s location on high ground much of the area is screened by surrounding woods and
trees.
University Campus Surroundings
The entire Central Campus West footprint is designated by the Warwick District Local Plan
as Green Belt (Figure 2.2), while the eastern boundaries of the Central Campus East,
together with the western portion of the Westwood Site occupy land designated as Green
7
Belt by the Coventry Development Plan 2001 .
6
To the north and east of the University lie the predominantly residential suburbs of Cannon
Park and Canley. Separating the Central Campus East from the Westwood Site is the
Warwick Science Park, a joint venture between the University, Coventry City Council,
Warwick District Council and the West Midlands Enterprise Board. To the west of the
Central Campus West, land is dominated by Green Belt in agricultural use, while to the west
6
7
Warwick District Local Plan, First Deposit Version, November 2003. Approved May 2005
Coventry Unitary Development Plan, Coventry City Council, December 2001
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 6
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
of the Westwood Site is Westwood Business Park. The town of Kenilworth lies to the south
of the Main Campus, separated by agricultural land.
Land to the west and south of the Main Campus remains essentially undeveloped
agricultural land and woodland. Whitefield Coppice lies adjacent to the west of the Central
Campus West while Tocil Wood and Tocil Lakes separate Central Campus East from
Gibbet Hill (Figure 2.4).
The University also has a satellite campus at Wellesbourne, near Stratford on Avon,
approximately 30 km from the Main Campus. A Government-run Horticultural Research
Institute Station since the 1940s, Wellesbourne was acquired by the University in 2004.
2.3
Main Campus Masterplan Overview
2.3.1
Vision
The University of Warwick has been a successful institution since its inception in 1965. In
response to its ambition, to become a universally acknowledged world centre of higher
8
education by 2015 (its 50th anniversary) in the top 50 of world universities the University is
looking to focus on the following strategic ambitions:
•
To increase its international reputation for the very best research and teaching;
•
To continue to attract the highest quality staff and students by virtue of its reputation and
its supportive yet challenging community;
•
To reach out to relevant stakeholders particularly in business, industry and government,
but also the wider community, to win their support;
•
To position Warwick as an intellectual gateway to the UK and beyond by bringing
sharper focus to regional, national and international engagement so that Warwick is
perceived as a key node on the international map of higher education;
•
To generate a substantial increase in income to realise these ambitions, particularly
through research growth; and,
•
To make the Warwick campus into a representation of the University’s strength of
ambition and quality of imagination, distinguished by environmental quality, the highest
standards of design, and a supportive collegial atmosphere.
2.3.2
Goals
This ambition described above has been translated into four main goals:
Goal 1:
to make Warwick an undisputed World Leader in research and scholarship;
Goal 2:
to make the Warwick teaching and learning experience unique;
Goal 3:
to make the University into an International Portal; and,
Goal 4:
to enhance the University’s reputation with stakeholders in the UK.
2.3.3
Objectives
The Masterplan Objectives have been prepared over a number of years and has been the
subject of wide consultation with university staff and students, with the local authorities and
other public agencies, and with the wider community in Coventry and Warwickshire. It
draws on the founding principles of the University from 1964, which foresaw a compact
university with urban character, although preserving key landscape features for amenity
purposes, with two thirds of the anticipated 20,000 students living on campus with all
facilities within easy walking distance, segregating traffic and pedestrians (which was very
8
Main Campus Masterplan 1, The University of Warwick, 2007
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 7
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
much a policy thrust of the era), and creating a lively place throughout the day. It was also
intended to be a flexible plan to allow for growth and changing requirements, and was based
on the fundamental decision to plan the university on a united basis – bringing humanities
and sciences together.
The overall project objectives against which the Masterplan has been tested are described
as follows:
Objective 1: to plan for sustainable long term growth of the university to meet its strategic
goals and Government objectives for higher education;
Objective 2: to plan for an integrated University optimising the use of its established
successful campus;
Objective 3: to foster a ‘campus community’ where staff, students and those external to the
university can come together to learn, study, research and interact to further
human knowledge and understanding;
Objective 4: to provide a robust and flexible framework for development of the campus to
meet current and future needs;
Objective 5: to provide residential accommodation on or near campus for a high proportion
of students and an increasing number of staff to maximise their contribution to
campus life;
Objective 6: to manage travel demand through a sustainable transport strategy to
maximise accessibility of the university whilst mitigating the impact of traffic
congestion on the area;
Objective 7: to pursue a sustainable future for the University and demonstrate long term
stewardship of the environment by protecting and enhancing landscape
character; and,
Objective 8: to develop further as a social and economic asset to the local community and
the region, in broad accordance with governmental policy objectives.
2.3.4
Approach
The Main Campus Masterplan has been designed to support the academic and other aims
of the University. It provides a framework for the physical development of the University
Estate and ensures that the University would develop as a planned and coherent entity in
realisation of its vision and goals.
In response, the Masterplan promotes an approach to development which focuses on
developing a series of interconnected ‘Centres of Activity’ and ‘Principle Connections’. In
support of this, future development would be focused around two principle axes of Library
Road, which would be extended into the Warwickshire land, and University Road. A
number of plazas and public spaces would be located along the line of these roads, as
illustrated in Figure 2.5.
2.4
Main Elements of the Masterplan
In conjunction with the scheme’s architects, MacCormac, Jameson and Prichard, The
University of Warwick has calculated the amount of development it would need over the ten
9
2
year period which the Masterplan is intended to cover . A total of 171,000 m of Gross
External Area (GEA) is anticipated to be required which has further been broken down into
various types of land use as summarised in Table 2.1.
9
University of Warwick Masterplan: Critical Numbers, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, August 2006
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 8
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Academic Teaching and Research
The focus of the Main Campus Masterplan is provision of academic, teaching and research
units to allow for an increase in the full-time student population from the current 19,000 to
20,000 by 2018. In addition to an increase in student numbers, the Masterplan aims to
provide facilities to allow a two-fold increase in the University of Warwick’s research
facilities.
Student Accommodation
The University has a strong commitment to providing residential accommodation for a
significant proportion of its students. In support of campus life as a key ingredient of
Warwick’s success, the Masterplan provides for an increase of approximately 3,000 places
in student accommodation on or near campus, and create a ‘staff village’ for academics and
researchers and their families to feel more part of the campus community. Better social and
leisure facilities within easy walking distance, which create vibrant places throughout the
day, are also incorporated.
Support Services
The Central Campus Masterplan provides for a range of services, including supporting
central administrative facilities, library services, social, catering and sports facilities.
Other Uses
In addition to academic, residential and supporting services, the Main Campus Masterplan
allows provision for a range of other uses which would complement the existing services
and facilities offered by the University. These are expected to comprise of arts facilities,
conferences services and centres dedicated to new initiatives that would be launched during
the ten year period covered by the Masterplan.
Table 2.1: University Masterplan Provision of New Areas
Masterplan
Provision
Central
Campus
East GEA
2
(m )
Central
Campus
West GEA
2
(m )
Westwood
Site GEA
Academic: Teaching
and Research
33,750
Other: Arts Centre /
New Initiatives /
Student Union
(m )
Gibbet
Hill GEA
2
(m )
Total
GEA
2
(m )
20,400
7,550
3,300
65,000
14,900
8,100
0
0
23,000
Support:
Administration /
Social / Sports
12,950
12,300
2,050
-1,300*
26,000
Residential
15,900
41,100
0
0
57,000
77,500
81,900
9,600
2,000
171,000
2
Total GEA (m )
2
Note: * Negative value for demolitions
The proposed distribution of development is further described in Figure 2.6.
In addition to its provision for management of the Main Campus’ built environment, the
Masterplan proposals also include the following elements:
•
Provision of Public Open Space;
•
A ‘Landscaping Strategy’, to direct soft and hard landscaping appropriate to the
characteristics of individual areas in order to protect the visual amenity and provide
ecological habitats; and,
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 9
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
A ‘Movement Strategy’, including provisions for traffic management, provision of
pedestrian and cycle routes, sustainable travel proposals, and active traffic monitoring
10
11
and management, reflected in the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan .
2.4.1
The Built Environment
While current University activity is concentrated on the Coventry side of the Gibbet Hill
Road, there remain limited opportunities for development which can both accommodate the
proposed expansion and the supporting services, including transportation, connections,
public space and landscaping. The Main Campus Masterplan therefore seeks to fulfil the
proposed requirements through development of a combination of sites at the Central
Campus, to the east and west of Gibbet Hill Road, at the Westwood Site and at the Gibbet
Hill Site.
Central Campus East
The Main Campus Masterplan seeks to reintroduce a strong connection between the east
and west of the Central Campus Area and proposes to reintroduce the access off Library
Road within the Warwickshire Lands of the Central Campus West, reflecting the original
proposals advocated by the 1966 plans designed by Yorke, Rosenberg and Mardall.
Figure 2.7 describes the proposed land uses envisaged by the Main Campus Masterplan
while Figure 2.8 describes proposed building heights of completed structures.
Central Campus West
The Main Campus Masterplan includes proposals for continued development on the
Warwickshire land to the west of Gibbet Hill Road, primarily for residential accommodation,
but also for training, academic and communal facilities. Development of Warwickshire land
is designed to respond to the character of the landscape and the particular features of the
site. Development would be located in the area that has been designated for the University
since it was founded in the 1960s and there are no proposals for development of land to the
south of the existing playing fields within the Main Campus Masterplan. The form and
massing of proposed developments on the Warwickshire land, as shown in Figure 2.7 and
Figure 2.8, is intended to complement the rural landscape and reduce visual impacts.
Together with the proposed significant increase in residential facilities, academic and
supporting facilities are also proposed in order to provide a mixed use environment, a more
varied and lively visual and social environment and an inherently more sustainable form of
development.
Westwood
At the Westwood Site, infill development, combined with selective redevelopment of those
buildings at the end of their lifetimes, would provide potential areas for expansion of
university departments. Development of further recreational facilities located to the west of
the Westwood Site would also accommodate the corresponding increase in the University’s
social and recreational requirements.
Gibbet Hill
While the Gibbet Hill site provides little capacity for development, redevelopment of the
Estates Office and development of a vacant space would provide capacity to accommodate
increased academic and support facilities.
2.4.2
Public Open Space
The Main Campus Masterplan proposes the provision of public open space in the form of
strategic ‘Plazas’, to be located across the Main Campus along the axis of Library Road and
10
University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan: Transport Assessment, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, September
2006
11
University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan: Travel Plan, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, September 2006
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 10
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
University Road as shown in Figure 2.5. Along Library Road, ‘Whitefield Plaza’ and
‘Brickyard Plaza’ would be created within Central Campus West, while the ‘Oval Plaza’ and
‘Tocil Plaza’ would be located in the Central Campus East. The area of hilltop adjacent to
Cryfield House would be retained as an open landscape area.
2.4.3
Transport Proposals
Expansion of the University over the ten year development period is expected to lead to an
increase in travel demand. Transport would be managed by the University working closely
with local and national highway authorities together with other transport operators. The
transport proposals are based on a balanced strategy which promotes more sustainable
transport options manages car parking and improves key junctions and infrastructure.
12
Details of the transport strategy are described in detail within the Transport Assessment
and Travel Plan, and include the following:
•
Continuing development of the University’s sustainable transport strategy in the form of
the Travel Plan with a commitment to reduce the proportion of journeys to and from the
Campus by single occupancy private cars;
•
Integration of the Central Campus East and West sites across Gibbet Hill Road;
•
Provision, management and control of the internal road and footway/cycleway networks
to serve the needs of the University;
•
Provision and management of car parking to serve the needs of the University; and,
•
Actions to ensure, where possible, that public transport provision is made for the on and
off-site travel needs of staff, students and visitors.
2.4.4
Services Proposals
13
A Services Strategy has been developed by Arup to inform determination of proposals
relating to the provision of electricity, gas and district heating infrastructure in support of the
14
proposed expansion in facilities at the Main Campus. The Arup Flood Risk Assessment
further describes measures to manage water and drainage at the Main Campus.
The increase in built facilities at the Main Campus would require an increase in electrical
power and heating. The University of Warwick would continue to expand its district heating
provision to serve current and new facilities. To supplement the current provision of power
and heat, a second Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant would be provided. Use of a
biomass based fuel source for this plant would diversify power sources and minimise the
reliance on gas supply and provide a more sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. The Main
Campus drainage strategy focuses on the need for sustainable drainage measures, for local
abatement and control of surface water flow.
2.4.5
Main Landscape Proposals
A landscape development plan has been prepared as a component of the Main Campus
Masterplan and is described in Figure 2.9.
The landscape setting of the Main Campus would be maintained and managed to ensure
that the current landscape, which is now reaching maturity, is allowed to continue. New
landscaping features would be created to complement proposed changes to site layout,
particularly with respect to proposed changes in the movement corridors around Library
Road and the Arts Centre. Natural landscapes, concentrated around the Tocil Lakes and
12
University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan: Transport Assessment, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, September
2006
13
The University of Warwick: Services Strategy, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, August 2006
14
The University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan: Flood Risk Assessment, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, August
2006
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 11
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Westwood Brook, would be enhanced through management of longer grasses and
enhanced hedgerows and tree planting.
Given the rural nature of the Central Campus West, elements that are determined most
sensitive to change would be retained and where possible, offered enhanced protection. It
is proposed that the landscape would be compartmentalised in the same way as hedges
subdivide the local Arden landscape and surrounding perimeter hedges would be retained
and reinforced. New hedgerows would also be planted both to provide landscaping features
and to maintain ecological corridors in the presence of physical development. The adoption
of sustainable drainage features would also provide opportunity for the creation of ditches
and drainage channels that may contribute to the area’s artificial wetland features. Adoption
of soft landscaping would further support sustainable drainage while enhancing the
landscape as a whole.
2.5
Implementation
The delivery of all aspects of the Masterplan is expected to take a period of ten years. Two
phases of development are proposed, with each phase being completed in a period of five
years. The proposed phasing of the built environment is shown in Figure 2.10 and areas for
development are described in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Estimated Phasing of Development
2
Area Developed (m )
Development
Type
Phase 1
Phase 2
2008 - 2012
2013 – 2018
Academic
32,500
32,500
65,000
Other
11,500
11,500
23,000
Support
13,000
13,000
26,000
Residential
28,500
28,500
57,000
Total
85,500
85,500
171,000
50
50
100
Total (%)
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 12
Total
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
3
EIA Approach and Methodology
3.1
Introduction
This chapter describes the background to Environmental Impact Assessment and the
methodology adopted for the assessment.
Section 3.2: Describes the EIA legislative framework and requirements;
Section 3.3: Describes terms adopted within the Environmental Statement;
Section 3.4: Outlines the EIA project team;
Section 3.5: Describes the consultations undertaken in contribution to the EIA;
Section 3.6: Provides a summary of the EIA screening process;
Section 3.7: Outlines the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment;
Section 3.8: Describes the approach to impact prediction and assessment adopted by the
various technical assessments;
Section 3.9: Provides a discussion of the approach to assessing cumulative and interactive
impacts resulting from implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan; and,
Section 3.10: Describes the technical limitations of the assessment and assumptions made.
3.2
Legislative Framework
3.2.1
Introduction
The regulatory framework for EIA is defined in the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 Statutory
Instrument (SI) 1999 No. 293. These Regulations implemented the requirements of the
15
European Council Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The
EIA regulations are supplemented by formal guidance on EIA procedures contained in the
former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) Circular 2/99
16
Environmental Impact Assessment and the consultation good practice guidance, published
17
by the Department for Communities and Local Government .
An Environmental Statement is a document setting out a project’s likely ‘significant’
environmental effects and the means by which negative effects would be ameliorated. The
formal requirements as to the content of an Environmental Statement are set out in
Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations. While every Environmental Statement should provide a
full factual description of a project’s effects, the emphasis of Schedule 4 is on the significant
effects to which a project is likely to give rise. Other effects of little or no significance for the
project in question need only brief treatment in the Environmental Statement to indicate that
their possible relevance has been considered.
3.2.2
Determining Authorities
The University of Warwick straddles the administrative boundaries of two Local Authorities.
It is situated to the southwest of the administrative area of the City of Coventry and within
the Kenilworth and Stoneleigh Parishes of Warwick District. It is therefore considered
15
European Council Directive 85/337/EEC, The assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment
16
Circular 2/99, Environmental Impact Assessment, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1999
17
Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures, (Consultation Paper), Department for
Communities and Local Government, June 2006
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 13
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
appropriate that the Outline Planning Application, together with supporting consultations, is
made available to both Local Authorities.
3.3
Terminology Adopted in this Environmental Statement
While the term ‘impact’ is used in the title of the EIA Regulations to describe the
environmental outcome resulting from a project, the main body of the Regulations refers to
the term ‘effect’ and the terms may be used interchangeably, often leading to confusion.
For the purpose of this EIA the following terms are adopted:
Impacts:
Changes attributed to the University of Warwick that have the potential to
have environmental consequences (i.e. they are the cause of environmental
effects);
Effects:
Results of impacts on environmental assets, resources or the human
environment. These may have secondary consequences i.e. becoming
secondary or cumulative effects;
Mitigation:
Mitigation may take the form of avoidance (to avoid impacts occurring),
reduction (to reduce the impact magnitude, duration), offsetting (to offset
impacts where it is not possible to fully mitigate). The latter may take the
form of off-site compensatory measures; and,
Enhancement: Whereby the existing environmental conditions are improved over the
baseline as a consequence of the direct intervention of the developer.
Alternative terminology may have been adopted within individual technical sections,
particularly where this relates to well-established guidance or statutory definitions.
3.4
The EIA Project Team
Given the range and number of technical issues involved, input from a number of
consultants was required in the production of the ES. The members of the EIA Project
Team are indicated in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1: The EIA Project Team
Subject Areas
Consultant
Ecology and nature conservation
The Environment Partnership (TEP)
Planning policies
Turley Associates
Socio-economics issues
SQW
Landscape and visual
Churchman Landscape Architects
Services
Archaeology and built heritage
Noise and vibration
Traffic and transportation
Arup
Air quality
Water resources
Ground conditions and contamination
3.5
Consultations
Consultations have been undertaken with statutory, public and voluntary sector bodies with
a responsibility for, or an interest in, the environmental and social issues arising from the
implementation of the proposed Main Campus Masterplan.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 14
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 3.2 lists the organisations contacted during the EIA, also indicating the topics within
the Environment Statement for which the consultations are relevant. The assistance that
has been provided by these organisations in providing data and guidance is gratefully
acknowledged.
Table 3.2: Summary of Consultations and Responses
Consultee
Environment Agency (EA)
18
English Nature
Protected Species Records
Flood risk
Surface water drainage
Chapters
6, 12
Natural Area Profile Classification
6
English Heritage (EH)
Cultural Heritage
15
Countryside Agency (CA)
Landscape Character Area
Classification
7
Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
(WWT)
Ecology
Coventry City Council (CCC)
Unitary Development Plan
Air Quality
Noise and Vibration
Archaeological remains and
Scheduled Ancient Monuments
5
10
11
15
Warwick District Council (WDC)
Warwick District Local Plan
Noise
Air quality
5
10
11
Warwickshire County Council
(WCC)
Protected Species records and
Designated Sites
Archaeological remains and
Scheduled Ancient Monuments
6
15
Highways Agency
Transport
9
Severn Trent Water
Foul water drainage
12
National Biodiversity Network
Protected Species records and
Designated Sites
6
3.6
(EN)
Nature of Information Supplied
6
Screening
The EIA Regulations make provision for Local Planning Authorities to provide a ‘Screening
Opinion’ on whether EIA is required for a proposed development. Although the University of
Warwick recognised that the development proposals exceeded the minimum threshold
criterion described within Paragraph 10(b) of Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations on ‘Urban
development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks, sports
stadiums, leisure centres and multiplex cinemas’, and that EIA was thus deemed likely,
formal Screening Opinions were sought from both Coventry City Council (CCC) and
Warwick District Council (WDC).
Given the location of the University Main Campus, partially occupying land designated as
Green Belt, the scale of development proposed and the associated transport implications,
both Local Authorities determined that the proposed Main Campus Masterplan represents
EIA development. Screening responses are presented in Appendix A.
18
English Nature, along with the Countryside Agency, have since been subsumed into Natural England
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 15
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
3.7
Scope of the EIA
Under Regulation 10(1) of the EIA Regulations, a developer may ask the Local Planning
Authority for a formal opinion on the likely significant effects of their proposals and the
information to be supplied in the Environmental Statement. This is known as a 'Scoping
Opinion'. The EIA Regulations require that Local Planning Authorities must respond to a
request to provide a Scoping Opinion on the likely significant effects to be addressed during
the EIA.
3.7.1
Technical Scope
The range of environmental topics addressed in the assessment is referred to as its
19
‘technical scope’. An Environmental Scoping Report was prepared in order to assist Local
Authorities and inform consultees, in formulating their Scoping Opinions. The following
principal issues were identified by the Environmental Scoping Report as materially relevant
and recommended for consideration during the EIA.
•
Consideration of alternative development scenarios;
•
Planning context;
•
Noise and vibration;
•
Air quality;
•
Ground conditions and contamination;
•
Water resources (hydrology, hydrogeology, sewerage and flood risk);
•
Services (gas, water, electricity, and telecommunications);
•
Archaeology and built heritage;
•
Human population;
•
Ecology and nature conservation;
•
Landscape and visual; and,
•
Traffic and transportation.
Formal Scoping Opinions were sought from CCC and WDC and are presented in
Appendix A. The following responses were contained within the CCC and WDC scoping
responses:
Table 3.3: Summary of Scoping Responses
Scoping Response Requirement
The alternatives assessed to minimise
Green Belt release
Section Addressed
Steps to minimise Green Belt release are discussed
in Section 4, relating to the assessment of
alternatives, and in Chapter 5, regarding the Policy
Framework
The options assessed to minimise the
impacts on the highway network and
proposals to provide satisfactory transport
arrangements including proposals for
Green Travel, pedestrians, cyclists, and
public transport;
Chapter 8 presents a summary of the Traffic and
Transport related impacts of the scheme, and
draws together the findings of the Transport
Assessment and the Green Travel Plan
19
University of Warwick Masterplan Application: Environmental Scoping Report. Ove Arup and Partners Ltd,
December 2005
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 16
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Scoping Response Requirement
The phasing in regard to both the above;
Any impacts on Coventry City Council's
draft Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP), and
the Stoneleigh Road corridor between
Kenilworth Road and the A46; and,
The environmental impacts of any
proposals for the wider area or resulting
from mitigation measures proposed.
3.7.2
Section Addressed
Proposals relating to phasing are provided in
Section 2.5
Assessment of potential impacts relating to Air
Quality, Chapter 9
Each technical assessment seeks to provide
assessments of indirect and off-site impacts
Residual impacts are addressed by the assessment
of each technical area
Temporal Scope
The Main Campus Masterplan is intended to deliver the University of Warwick’s
development aspirations for the ten years between 2008 and 2018. The individual
components which comprise the Masterplan cannot however be assumed to share the
same timeframe and, unless otherwise stated by individual technical sections, the
construction phase for each individual component, and thus the duration of any construction
related impact, is expected to be considerably less than the total of ten years. In addition to
construction periods, the EIA seeks to assess the long-term environmental impacts resulting
from the operational lifetime of the components of the Masterplan.
3.7.3
Spatial Scope
The spatial extent of the EIA study area varied according to each environmental topic area.
In general terms, the spatial extent of the study area for each topic has been determined by
relevant guidance, professional judgement and experience of other development schemes
of a similar nature.
3.8
Impact Assessment
3.8.1
Impact Assessment Process
Each environmental topic area has been approached with the aim of identifying potentially
significant environmental impacts that may result from implementation and operational
phases of the Masterplan. While in some cases this assessment is directed by guidance
and requirements specific to the environmental topic area, assessment of potentially
significant impacts is based on the following general assessment methodology:
Table 3.4: Outline Impact Assessment Methodology
Stage
Description
Identification of Policy
Framework
The planning and policy framework relating to the specific
environmental topic is identified in order to guide the assessment
Determination of Baseline
Conditions
Provides a description of the baseline environment that currently exists
which would be taken to persist were the Main Campus Masterplan not
to be implemented
Impact Assessment
Details the anticipated environmental impacts arising from the
implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan within that particular
topic area and an interpretation of the significance of the impacts
relative to identified significance criteria
Unless otherwise stated in the ES, the importance of an environmental
resource and the significance of the likely impacts are evaluated against
the significance criteria set out in Table 3.5 below:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 17
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Stage
Description
Impact Mitigation
Discusses methods proposed to avoid, reduce or offset the impacts
identified above
If required, mitigation measures would be identified in order to reduce or
avoid any potentially adverse impacts arising from the construction and
operation of the proposed development
Residual Impacts
For each potentially significant impact identified, the post-mitigation
residual impacts are described
3.8.2
Significance of Environmental Impacts
The potential environmental effects that arise from a development can be either site
specific, such as the effects of traffic noise on a residential property, or of a broader impact
to the environment such as an alteration to the intrinsic value of landscape character.
Environmental effects may also relate to construction and / or operational phases of a
development. In addition, effects may be either short or long term, reversible or permanent,
and may occur immediately or at some time in the future. Assessing the significance of the
various environmental effects arising from the Main Campus Masterplan must therefore take
into account the following considerations:
•
The magnitude of the environmental effect;
•
The duration of the environmental effect;
•
The groups affected and how they are affected;
•
Whether the effect is reversible or irreversible, repairable or irreparable;
•
If the impact is continuous or temporary, and whether it increases or decreases with
time;
•
If impacts are identified, whether mitigation measures are available; and,
•
The effect on environmental designations or standards.
Where appropriate, in order to compare the relative importance of environmental impacts,
sets of significance assessment criteria has been developed for specific topic areas and are
presented within the appropriate sections of the Environmental Statement. Where bespoke
significance criteria have not been developed on an issue by issue basis, assessment has
been based on criteria described in Table 3.5, derived from EIA guidance.
Table 3.5: Generic Significance Criteria
Degree of
Significance
Severe
Criteria
Only adverse impacts are assigned this level of importance as they
represent key factors in the decision making process
These impacts are generally but not exclusively associated with sites and
features of national importance and resources / features which are unique
and which if lost, cannot be replaced or relocated
Typically, mitigation measures are unlikely to remove such impacts
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 18
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Degree of
Significance
Criteria
Major
These impacts, if adverse, while important at a local scale, are not likely to
be key decision making issues
Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase
in the overall impacts on a particular area or on a particular resource
They represent issues where impacts would be experienced but mitigation
measures and detailed design work may ameliorate / enhance some of the
consequences upon affected communities or interests
Some residual impacts would still arise
Moderate
These impacts, if adverse, while important at a local scale, are not likely to
be key decision making issues
Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase
in the overall impacts on a particular area or on a particular resource
They represent issues where impacts would be experienced but mitigation
measures and detailed design work may ameliorate / enhance some of the
consequences upon affected communities or interests
Some residual impacts would still arise
Minor
These impacts may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be of
importance in the decision making process
Nevertheless, they are of relevance in the detailed design of the project and
consideration of mitigation or compensation measures
Not Significant
No impacts, or impacts which are beneath levels of perception, within
normal bounds of variation or within the margin of, forecast error
3.9
Prediction and Assessment of Cumulative and Interactive Effects
Cumulative impacts may be defined as impacts that result from incremental changes
caused by other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project.
Interactive effects may be considered to be the result of reactions between impacts.
Interactive effects may result either from reactions between impacts of just one project or
from reactions with impacts of other projects in the area.
Given the proposed ten year timeframe over which it is proposed that the Main Campus
Masterplan is implemented, at this time the full range of schemes and projects that may
provide opportunities for cumulative and interactive effects cannot be fully anticipated.
Nevertheless, the following schemes have been identified as lying within the spatial zone of
influence of the scheme, and are considered to provide the potential to contribute to
cumulative and interactive effects.
Given the range of the development components that comprise of the Masterplan and
which, in combination, might have cumulative effects on the Main Campus and its setting,
the cumulative impact of the Masterplan has been discussed on a topic by topic basis,
where individual technical assessments have addressed the potential effects of the quantum
of development. Interactive effects are considered within Chapter 16.
3.10
Dealing With Uncertainty
In support of the EIA process, it is sometimes necessary to make assumptions when only
limited data is available. Where such limitations have been identified, or it has been
necessary to make assumptions, these are documented within the Environmental
Statement. The assumptions are important in respect of developing the EIA. The approach
adopted within this Environmental Statement is one of making assumptions explicit where
appropriate, to facilitate review by external parties. Information shortfalls that have arisen
during the EIA are identified in the relevant chapter. As the outline design of the scheme
becomes more detailed, it would be possible to redress any shortfalls should this be
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 19
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
required by the planning authority. It is considered that there are no outstanding items of
data, engineering design information or environmental information that would materially
influence the conclusions drawn from this study. Where information is incomplete,
conservative assumptions have been made to describe potentially worst-case conditions.
The relevant authorities would be informed as and when information becomes available (if
applicable) as part of any future studies.
For certain environmental topics it has been necessary to assume local plan policies are
implemented and policies remain unchanged. It has also been assumed that existing local
environmental trends would continue.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 20
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
4
Consideration of Alternatives
4.1
Introduction
Schedule 4 to the EIA regulations requires that the Environmental Statement provides:
“An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an
indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental
effects”.
To fulfil this requirement, this chapter presents a summary of the main alternatives
considered, and highlights the predicted effects on environmental resources.
4.2
Alternative Delivery Mechanisms
In developing the Main Campus Masterplan, a number of alternatives for accommodating
the projected growth of the University and the predicted levels of floorspace over the next
ten years were considered.
Scenario A: The ‘zero-growth’ option;
Scenario B: Limited growth, assuming development only on land not designated as Green
Belt
Scenario C: Full growth, but at much higher densities, limited to non-Green Belt
designated land;
Scenario D: Full growth on multiple non-Green Belt sites; and,
Scenario E: Full growth through non-site specific expansion and use of the University of
Warwick brand.
The following section provides a summary of each alternative development scenario, based
on the discussion of alternatives provided in the Masterplan. For each scenario, the main
potential environmental impacts are identified.
The following section does not seek to provide a comparative exercise between each
scenario. Further details of the appraisal of the alternatives are available in the Masterplan,
which is published under separate cover.
4.2.1
Scenario A: Zero Growth
Summary of the Alternative
The Main Campus Masterplan does not aim for growth in its own right but, as a means of
achieving the University of Warwick’s vision of becoming a universally acknowledged world
centre of higher education by 2015. The first scenario considered addresses the potential
effects of no development, which would consequently fail to deliver the objectives.
Summary of Environmental Impacts
The zero growth option would not be expected to represent any change on the current
environmental characteristics of the Main Campus.
4.2.2
Scenario B: Limited Growth Within Non-Green Belt Land
Summary Appraisal of Alternative
An assessment has been made of the development capacity of the non-Green Belt land
within the Main Campus by identifying appropriate sites and assessing the approximate size
of the buildings that could be accommodated on each site. Assessment of indicative
building footprints and heights has taken into account the current form and massing of the
Main Campus, together with its visual amenity and potential impacts on the landscape of the
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 21
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Green Belt where relevant. Allowing provision for landscaping, roads and paths and
parking, the remaining development capacity of non-Green Belt land has been estimated at
2
89,200 m Gross External Area (GEA). This represents less than half of the University of
Warwick’s anticipated requirements for the next ten years.
Main Environmental Effects
The primary environmental impacts that may result from limited development of facilities
within the Main Campus would be expected to be the increased use of areas not designated
as Green Belt. In particular, impacts may be realised with regards to air quality and noise
owing to increased vehicular traffic generated by the development and constrained within
the existing road network. While development may also serve to put pressure on ecological,
water resource and archaeological resources in the area to be developed, it is expected that
a similar commitment to mitigation, as demonstrated by the proposed scheme, would offer
the potential to ameliorate the impacts.
4.2.3
Scenario C: Full Growth at Higher Density
Summary Appraisal of Alternative
As described above, the capacity for development of the non Green Belt designated Main
Campus, while retaining the current structural and environmental characteristics, is
2
estimated at 89,200 m GEA. This development scenario proposes higher density
development, achieved through doubling the heights of each proposed development on
non-Green Belt land would be expected to fulfil the University’s requirements.
Main Environmental Effects
The primary environmental effects that would be associated with development entirely within
the non Green Belt land of the Main Campus are expected to be associated with landscape,
townscape and visual amenity. Development to meet the needs of the University of
Warwick, entirely within the Main Campus’ non Green Belt land could not be accommodated
at heights reflecting those of the surrounding built and natural landscape. Landscaping
proposals would be compromised, car parking located either underneath or remote from the
developments and infrastructure could be optimised to maximise development plots, it is
expected that this would require development of almost all green space within
non-Green Belt land, creating an ‘urban’ campus.
The location of the University Estate on the urban fringe of Coventry affords the University
both an urban location and a rural setting and has allowed the Main Campus to create its
characteristic green environment, which contributed to it being voted the best in the UK in a
2005 student poll published by The Times Higher Education Supplement. Landscape
effects would also be expected to affect the University setting, particularly through
increasing the height and the zone of inter-visibility of the Main Campus from the
surrounding Arden Parkland countryside.
In addition to landscape and visual impacts, the need for high density development on non
Green Belt designated land may increase the pressure on local environmental resources. In
particular, development would contribute to increasing the impermeable area of the Central
Campus East, and reduce the opportunities to implement sustainable drainage
infrastructure. Combined, these may contribute to increased pressure on local
watercourses through increasing the quantity of surface water run-off and to loss of
opportunity for surface water attenuation infrastructure. In addition to the pressures on
watercourses, species that use watercourses at, and downstream of the Campus, including
otters, voles and white-clawed crayfish, may be affected through damage to habitat.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 22
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
4.2.4
Scenario D: Full Growth Based on a Satellite Campus
Summary Appraisal of Alternative
Given that the existing non Green Belt area of the Main Campus is estimated capable of
2
accommodating no more than a further 89,200 m GEA, provision of the remaining balance
of floorspace requirement would require a site with an area of between 12 and 17 hectares
at the current Main Campus development scale. Adoption of a City Centre location, which
would allow more dense development, is estimated to require between 6.6 to 10 hectares of
land. Scenario D therefore considered provision of the University of Warwick’s land
requirements through establishment of a satellite campus.
It is considered that a satellite campus would need to be capable of providing a critical mass
of faculties, infrastructure and support facilities to avoid the need for constant traffic of staff
and students between the Main Campus and a second campus. This lack of supporting
infrastructure is considered to be a limitation of the University’s current Horticultural
Research Institute at Wellesbourne in south Warwickshire.
Discounting the ability of multiple satellite operations around Coventry and Warwickshire to
deliver the requirement, only a single satellite campus of between 6.6 to 17 hectares is
considered capable of delivering the requirement. The nearest potential site is considered
to be located at Ansty, to the northeast of Coventry, which is owned by Advantage West
Midland and designated as a Major Investment Site for a single inward investor.
Main Environmental Effects
The main environmental effects associated with development of a satellite campus would be
expected to be the need for transport and traffic between two sites. A direct consequence
of generation of traffic would be generation of emissions to air and the acoustic
environment. Establishment of a satellite campus may also require the duplication of a
number of facilities at both of the two sites which may result in the need for increased
resource demand during construction.
While off-site development may contribute to effects to landscape, ecology, water resources
and ground resources, it could also be assumed that the University would approach each
scenario with a consistent commitment to maintaining local conditions and environmental
mitigation. In this event, impacts may be reduced, or even avoided.
Dependant on the location of a potential satellite site, further effects may be either beneficial
or adverse. A satellite site, located in an area of low landscape and townscape quality or
low visual amenity, may serve to improve the setting of the local environment. Remediation
of brownfield sites or contaminated land in support of development may also serve to
improve ground and water resource conditions and consequently promote ecological
enhancements. Socio-economic benefits may be realised be invigorating a depressed local
economy.
4.2.5
Scenario E: Full Growth based on Exporting the Warwick ‘Brand’
Summary of Alternative
The University of Warwick’s aspirations include increasing its international profile in pursuit
of universal recognition of research and teaching excellence. In support of this, Scenario E
considered the potential through which the University of Warwick ‘brand’ could be utilised
beyond the boundaries of the University Estate, and indeed its West Midlands setting itself,
in order to lever non location restricted development through ‘off-campus’ activity.
Main Environmental Effects
In the absence of details regarding the nature, location or surrounding environment for
developments, potential off-site impacts cannot be predicted.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 23
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
On-site effects would be expected to reflect those predicted in the event of development of
Scenario B. Primary environmental effects would generally be expected to be associated
air quality and noise increases owing to a potential increase in vehicular traffic. While such
development may also serve to put pressure on ecological, water resource and
archaeological resources in the area to be developed, it is expected that a similar
commitment to mitigation, as demonstrated by the proposed scheme, would offer the
potential to ameliorate the impacts.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 24
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
5
Assessment of Planning Policies
5.1
Introduction
This chapter has been produced by Turley Associates to summarise the national, regional
and local land use planning policies which are relevant to the proposed development.
20
These are considered in greater depth in the Planning Statement , which is submitted to
accompany the Planning Applications, under separate cover.
5.2
Policy Framework
A hierarchical structure of policies, guidance and plans covers national, regional and local
planning. Central Government is responsible for forming national policies, including those
related to land use planning and the environment. It also provides guidance to Local
Authorities on the development and application of policies at a regional and local level.
Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) provide a broad framework of policies and initiatives for
the principal regions of the country.
Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) are required to prepare Development Plans which
interpret and apply national and regional objectives at a local level. The previous system of
Structure and Local Plans is gradually being replaced with a system of Local Development
Frameworks (LDF). The new system requires LPAs to prepare Local Development
Documents which will operate alongside RSS as the basis for spatial planning. Pending
finalisation and adoption of the LDF for the local area, the existing Development Plans
remain the policy framework for the application proposals.
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals
be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise. The Development Plan, for the purpose of this application, is comprised
of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (2004), the Coventry Unitary Development
Plan (2001) (for that part of the site within the administrative boundaries of Coventry) and
the Warwickshire Structure Plan (2001) and the Warwick District Local Plan (1995) (for that
part of the site within the administrative boundaries of Warwick District).
All of these plans are under review, with the Warwick District Local Plan well advanced. An
Inspector’s Report was issued in May 2007 following an inquiry in 2006. The Inspector’s
Report is considered material to the current planning application and is afforded some
weight. A review of the RSS is also underway but is at a very early stage, as is the
preparation of a Core Strategy for Coventry’s LDF and therefore neither are afforded any
weight. The Warwickshire Structure Plan is only ‘saved’ until September 2007, when it is
expected to be fully superseded by the RSS.
Other material considerations include the range of Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG)
and Planning Policy Statements (PPS) issued by Central Government. The 1994 University
of Warwick Development Plan, which was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance by
both Coventry City and Warwick District Councils in 1995 is also relevant, albeit somewhat
out-of-date (and to be replaced by the Masterplan the subject of this application).
5.3
Assessment of Key Policies
Planning policy considerations are fully assessed in the Planning Statement, which
accompanies the Planning Application and is published under separate cover. This chapter
summarises the assessment, with particular reference to potential environmental effects
which are also assessed elsewhere within technical assessments the Environmental
20
Main Campus Masterplan: Planning Statement, Turley Associates for the University of Warwick, 2007
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 25
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Statement. In particular, it seeks to identify any conflicts with policy or plan commitments at
a national, regional or local level; and aspects of the proposals which help to realise or
support policy or development plan commitments.
5.3.1
Impacts on the Development Plan
The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy
The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (WMRSS) was approved in 2004 and covers
the period to 2021. A selective review is underway including consideration of housing,
employment and transport policies as well as the strategy for town and city centres.
The WMRSS identifies a number of towns and cities within the Region where development
should be focused. These include Coventry, which is designated as a ‘Major Urban Area’
and where it is considered that a variety of development opportunities are likely to arise.
Policy SS6 of the WMRSS provides guidance on Green Belts and ‘urban renaissance’ and
aims to maintain the integrity of current Green Belts surrounding the Metropolitan Area.
However, it also recognises that some adjustments of the inner boundaries may be justified
in order to provide opportunities for selective employment development.
The WMRSS aims to maintain a high and stable economy and seeks to encourage the
development of a highly trained workforce, foster development of new high growth
employment sectors and enable existing economic activities to modernise and to stay
competitive. Of particular relevance is the commitment, in Policy PA4, to fostering the
growth and expansion of Universities. It acknowledges that institutions, like the University of
Warwick, are important sources of innovation and critical to the future of the region’s
economy. Development Plans are charged with facilitating their appropriate expansion and
the close location of new, emerging and as yet unforeseen forms of economic activity where
there is a need for physical proximity.
Other relevant polices include Policy PA1(b)(iv), which gives a commitment to ‘developing
the skills and abilities of the West Midlands people by improving access to training, higher
education and employment opportunities’.
Policy PA3 on high technology corridors confirms that a corridor based on Coventry, Solihull
and Warwickshire has been defined wherein ‘cluster’ development, closely linked to
research, development and advanced technologies will be promoted. It makes specific
reference to the ‘universities and their science parks’ as examples of critical research bases
where new incubator space should be provided (paragraph 7.18) and to higher education
establishments representing key nodes where corridor development should occur
(paragraph 7.20).
The proposed expansion of the University of Warwick would have a positive impact on the
realisation of these policies.
The current review of the RSS is selective and does not propose changes to the above
policies.
The Warwickshire Structure Plan (1996-2011)
The Warwickshire Structure Plan (1996-2011) was adopted in 2001 and is currently saved
until September 2007. The policies which are intended to be saved beyond September
have recently been notified to the Regional Assembly for their endorsement.
One of the strategic constraints (recognised in Policy GD.4) is the West Midlands Green
Belt which, in Warwickshire: ‘serves to prevent the spread of the built-up areas of Coventry
and the Birmingham conurbation into open countryside; maintains a rural setting for the
towns in Warwickshire; preserves the special character of historic towns and areas of open
countryside, and supports urban regeneration’.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 26
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The Plan defines the extent of the Green Belt as extending to the edge of Coventry, which
equate to Gibbet Hill Road which runs through the middle of the Main Campus.
Policy GD.6 provides more detailed guidance on Green Belt restrictions and reflects national
guidance in PPG2, that there should be a general presumption against inappropriate
development within the Green Belt. The plan does however recognise that in the interests
of sustainable development, local authorities may exceptionally need to review the
boundaries of settlements excluded from and on the edge of the Green Belt. This could
apply particularly where development might contribute significantly to the objective of
reducing the need to travel.
The supporting text only recognises the pressures from large scale employment sites or
smaller housing developments. This policy provides no guidance on the consideration of
other regionally significant land uses such as universities.
The County Structure Plan does not provide specific guidance on universities, although
educational uses are referred to throughout the plan. Policy TC3, for example, recognises
the need to make provision for retailing, business services, leisure, education and health
within local plans.
The proposed development would have a potential adverse effect on the purposes of
including land within the Green Belt to prevent the spread of built-up areas. However, the
Planning Statement that supports this application proposes a series of ‘very special
circumstances’ in mitigation for this impact. These relate to the educational need for the
University of Warwick to expand, the socio-economic benefits to the area and region and
the absence of alternative sites for development outside of the Green Belt.
The Warwick District Local Plan
The Warwick District Local Plan was adopted in 1995. Its review is almost complete with an
Inspector’s Report now available, so consideration has been given both to the adopted and
emerging policies which can be afforded some weight.
The adopted Plan contains a site-specific policy for the University of Warwick (EMP8) which
states that proposals for the Main Campus area would normally be given ‘favourable
consideration’ so long as relevant criteria are met in relation to suitable educational uses,
impact on the special landscape area, impact on the local highway network and accordance
with Green Belt policy.
The supporting text recognises the University of Warwick’s importance both locally and
nationally as an educational resource, its cultural role, and its academic research function.
It states that ‘the Council wishes to continue to support the role performed by the University
by giving favourable consideration to proposals related directly to the University’s academic
function’. The plan favours preparation of a brief to ‘build upon the historical and locational
reasons for the continued development of the University’ and states that this will need to
‘address and identify the very special circumstances that justify development in this Green
Belt location’.
The brief referred to above is the 1994 University Development Plan, which was approved
by Warwick District Council in November 1995 as Supplementary Planning Guidance and is
covered below.
The Local Plan Review commenced in 2003 and the Revised Deposit Plan (2005) included
the University within draft Policy SSP2 as a Major Developed Site (MDS) in the Green Belt.
The proposed MDS boundary encompasses 42 hectares of land, reflecting the areas
identified for development in the approved University Development Plan SPG (1995). This
was supported by the University and the Planning Inspector’s Report of May 2007 endorses
the MDS designation. The Inspector agrees that MDS status is the appropriate way forward
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 27
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
given the Green Belt context and support for higher education institutions expressed in
Policy PA4 of the RSS.
The Inspector further recognises that the MDS boundary has been defined in a rather
different manner from those of the other designated MDS sites as the area contains land
which has not previously been developed. However, he considers that the University
Development Plan SPG is a material consideration in defining the MDS area and, since it
was subject to public consultation at the time of its preparation, it is reasonable to
accommodate the commitments made in that Plan.
The Inspector does not consider Policy SSP2 to be overly restrictive in relation to future
development at the University and feels that it achieves an appropriate balance between
Green Belt policy and fulfilling the aspirations of the University set out in its Development
Plan.
The supporting text (paragraph 10.17A) recognises the University as a ‘world class higher
education institution’ and that developing its Warwickshire Green Belt land ‘is critical to
sustaining its vision for the long term’. Paragraph 10.17C continues:
‘The Council supports the University as a higher education institution of national
importance, and is keen to ensure its continued success. It is important, however, that
this is done having regard to all relevant environmental safeguards and in particular
its designation as Green Belt. Identifying the site as a major developed site within
which the various university uses can expand is the most appropriate means of doing
this. An area of 42 hectares has been identified for this purpose, which reflects the
outer limit to development as defined by the University Development Plan 19942004.’
The Green Belt policy within the Revised Local Plan (Policy DAP1) notes that there should
be an ongoing general presumption against inappropriate development, but that certain
forms of development will be permitted in appropriate instances. This includes
‘development within major developed sites, in accordance with Policy SSP2’.
The proposed development would have a positive effect on the realisation of this recently
endorsed draft policy, which can now be expected to become part of the adopted plan.
The Coventry Unitary Development Plan
The Coventry Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (1996-2011) was adopted in 2001. It
acknowledges the importance of the University of Warwick for employment, community and
leisure as well as its educational responsibilities. Policy SCL9 is a site specific policy which
deals with the University and identifies the extent of its boundary on the proposals map.
None of this land is situated within the Green Belt. The policy favours growth of the
university within the boundary and makes reference to the 1994 University Development
Plan, against which proposals for new development would be considered.
Coventry City Council is currently in the process of formulating its Local Development
Framework. The Local Development Scheme (April 2007) anticipates adoption of the Core
Strategy to be unlikely before July 2009. The first stage of consultation is underway but little
weight can be afforded to it.
The proposed development would accord with the site specific policy in the UDP and overall
have a positive effect.
University Development Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance
The University Development Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) (1995) derives
from the 1994-2004 estate development framework, prepared by the University of Warwick,
as an update of its earlier 1964, 1966 and 1972 Development Plans. It was approved as
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 28
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
SPG by both Coventry and Warwick District Councils in 1995. This identified areas for
development and indicated proposed uses, with academic uses concentrated on the
Coventry side and residential accommodation and sports facilities on the Warwickshire land.
The SPG is still referred to in the Coventry UDP and even the Warwick Local Plan Review
(as endorsed by the Inspector). While its end date of 2004 has now passed, not all the
development envisaged has occurred. The current application proposals will supersede the
plan.
5.4
Impacts on National Planning Policy Statements
National Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and old-style Planning Policy Guidance notes
(PPGs) are material considerations and, in this case, include the following.
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development
PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development (2005), highlights the importance of
sustainable patterns of urban and rural development, by making suitable land available for
development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives. It also emphasises
the importance of good design. The University of Warwick’s proposals are intended to meet
the educational and economic need identified in the Government’s White Paper on Higher
Education, and recognised in the Regional Spatial Strategy.
It is possible to view the University of Warwick, and the proposals contained within the Main
Campus Masterplan, in the context of sustainable development by virtue of the mix of uses
and community it supports. There are potential environmental consequences associated
with further development in terms of the loss of open countryside, but there is already a
university campus in existence in this location and the additional visual intrusion is limited.
The Masterplan would help to ensure that a high quality of design is achieved.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts
PPG2 - Green Belts (1995), regards the proposals as inappropriate development requiring
‘very special circumstances’ to be shown to outweigh the harm to the purposes of Green
Belt which include preventing urban sprawl, the coalescence of settlements, safeguarding
the countryside from encroachment, preserving historic towns and constraining urban
regeneration. In this case, there is the potential to regard the University of Warwick’s
expansion as urban sprawl and encroachment into the countryside. The proposals would
not be expected to result in coalescence, impact on historic towns and would not obstruct
urban regeneration. The Planning Statement describes what are considered to be the ‘very
special circumstances’ that outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt, by virtue of the
historic acceptance of university development, the sustainability of development, the lack of
alternative sites outside the Green Belt, the strategic policy support for expansion, the
economic benefits, and the limitations of the development plan process in facilitating
expansion.
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing
PPS3 - Housing (2006), encourages a sequential approach to identifying land for
development, taking account of the accessibility of jobs, shops and other services by means
other than the private car. It also seeks to make the best use of land, taking account of
density, layout, design and parking, and as with PPS1, reflecting good design. The
residential accommodation proposed in the Masterplan is for staff and students and
therefore it is considered reasonable, given the historic aim for the University to
accommodate a high proportion of students on or near its Main Campus, to continue to
provide housing in what is a sustainable location, given the accessibility of their studies and
the various support services available for campus life.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 29
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Planning Policy Statement 6: Town Centres
PPS6 - Town Centres (2006), encourages a sequential approach towards the location of
town centre uses which are major generators of travel, such as retail, offices, leisure and
arts facilities. However, the principle of a ‘campus’ model is to locate a variety of supporting
uses to create a sustainable community, and the ‘business model’ approach therefore
should allow for a university to develop a range of uses, including some that may also be
considered appropriate for town centres, where this can be shown to be in support of its
overall expansion.
Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas seeks
PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004), seeks to protect the quality and
character of the countryside, preserving local distinctiveness and locating larger scale
developments in, or near to, towns or other service centres that are accessible by public
transport, walking and cycling. The University of Warwick’s proposals potentially impact on
the character of the countryside, but for the same reasons as the ‘very special
circumstances’ which apply to the Green Belt, it is considered that the benefits of expansion
outweigh the harm to the countryside.
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005), gives general advice on
development affecting designated sites. It notes that LPAs should not refuse permission if
development can be subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impacts on wildlife
habitats or important physical features, or if other material factors are sufficient to override
nature conservation considerations. The Main Campus Masterplan proposals seek to take
full account of wildlife habitats and enhance biodiversity.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport
PPG13 - Transport (2001), seeks to locate development which helps to promote more
sustainable transport choices, promotes accessibility to jobs, shopping and leisure facilities
by public transport, walking and cycling, and reduces the need to travel especially by car.
The University is located on the edge of the urban area, but given its critical mass, this
creates demand for public transport services. The combination of uses contained within the
campus, including residential accommodation, also reduces the need for travel and
commuting. The proposed development would substantially limit additional car parking and
introduce travel plan measures to promote and encourage access by means other than the
private car.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment and
PPG16: Archaeology
PPG15 on Planning and the Historic Environment (1994), and PPG16 relating to
Archaeology (1990), both seek to protect historic buildings, conservation areas and
archaeological remains. The University of Warwick’s proposals are supported by an
assessment of the potential impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage, and are expected
to result in a very limited impact on listed buildings and avoid areas of known archaeological
interest.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Open Space, Sports and Recreation
PPG17 - Open Space, Sports and Recreation (2002), seeks to protect or enhance existing
facilities and open spaces and that new provision should be secure and accessible to all to
meet the needs of the local community. The Masterplan proposals preserve the existing
outdoor sports pitches and propose enhancement to indoor facilities including a new tennis
centre.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 30
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Planning Policy Statement 23: Pollution Control, and PPG24: Planning and Noise
PPS23 - Pollution Control (2004) and PPG24 - Planning and Noise (1994), both provide
advice on the potential environmental impacts of development. Pollution control and noise
and vibration have been assessed as part of the overall Environmental Impact Assessment,
and shown to resfurther in the relevant sections of the Environmental Statement.
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk
PPS25 - Development and Flood Risk (2006), states that development should not increase
flood risk and should be located as far as possible in lower-risk areas, taking account of the
likely effects of climate change. This is addressed in detail within the Flood Risk
Assessment, which is submitted under separate cover in support of the Planning
Application.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 31
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
This page is intentionally blank
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 32
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
6
Ecology and Nature Conservation
6.1
Introduction
This chapter summarises the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) undertaken by TEP
(The Environment Partnership). The assessment was undertaken to determine baseline
ecological data for the survey area and subsequently to assess the ecological impact of the
expansion proposals on the various ecological resources and features at the site.
The Chapter is structured as follows:
Section 6.2:
Discusses the planning and policy framework relating to ecological aspects;
Section 6.3:
Describes the approach adopted by the assessment of ecological and
nature conservation impacts;
Section 6.4:
Describes the baseline conditions at the University of Warwick Main
Campus;
Section 6.5:
Describes the assessment of value of the ecological and nature
conservation resources;
Section 6.6:
Describes the prediction and assessment of significance of potential
impacts to ecology and nature conservation;
Section 6.6:
Discusses approaches for the mitigation of potentially significant impacts;
and,
Section 6.7:
Describes potential residual impacts to nature conservation and ecology
6.2
Policy Framework
The legal and planning frameworks within which this assessment has been undertaken is
provided in detail within individual species and habitat survey reports provided in
Appendices B.1 to B.5.
Sites, species or habitats may be protected or highlighted by six broad categories of
instrument:
•
Statutory Instruments;
•
National Planning Policy Statements;
•
Development Plans;
•
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan;
•
Local Biodiversity Action Plans, locally adopted Wildlife Strategies and the Natural Area
profile for the area; and,
•
Other lists of species of conservation concern.
In the UK there are many designations for giving protection to sites of national or
international importance. The most commonly-encountered designations together with the
level of importance and associated legislation are summarised in Table 6.1 below:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 33
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 6.1: Common Ecological Designations
Designation
Level of
Importance
Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
European Union
Habitats Directive (92/43/EC)
Special Protection Area (SPA):
European Union
Birds Directive (79/409/EC)
Ramsar site
International
Ramsar Convention 1971
National Nature Reserve (NNR)
National
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
(as amended)
Local Nature Reserve (LNR)
Local Authority
Section 21 of the National Parks
and Access to the Countryside Act
1949
Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI)
National
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
(as amended) or the National
Parks and Access to the
Countryside Act 1949
Associated Legislation
In most cases relevant to planning applications, protected species are those listed in
21
Schedule 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act , in the Protection of Badgers Act,
22
23
1992 and in the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations, 1994 . The extent of
legal protection varies between species, and the protocols for development which might
affect such species also varies.
6.2.1
National Policy Framework
National Planning Guidance is issued in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs)
and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). The most relevant guidance appropriate to
assessment of ecological and nature conservation issues is provided by PPS9 relating to
24
25
Biodiversity and Geological Conservation , although PPG13 Transport also refers to
nature conservation interests being material in the planning process. The thrust of guidance
in PPS9 is aimed at Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities who must
consider nature conservation impacts in planning policy and decision.
Relevant statements in Planning Policy Statement 9: Geological and Biological
Conservation include:
“1.(vi)The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity or
geological conservation interests. Where granting planning permission may
result in significant harm to those interests, local planning authorities would
need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on
any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of
any such alternative sites, planning authorities should ensure that, before
planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation measures are put in
place. Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to
biodiversity and geological interests which cannot be prevented or adequately
mitigated against, appropriate compensation measures should be sought. If
that significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against or
compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.”
21
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Online only
Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c. 51), Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1992
23
Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations, 1994, Statutory Instrument 1994 No. 2716, Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office, 1994
24
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2005
25
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport, The Department for Communities and Local Government, 2001
22
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 34
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
“14. Development proposals provide many opportunities for building in beneficial
biodiversity or geological features as part of good design. When considering
proposals, local planning authorities should maximise such opportunities in
and around developments, using planning obligations where appropriate.”
6.2.2
Regional and Local Planning Framework
Local, Structure and Unitary Development Plans (to be replaced by Local Development Plan
Documents under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) provide varying levels
of protection, both to sites and to species and allow for the designation and protection of
non-statutory wildlife sites. These designations include Sites of Biological Importance, Sites
of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and Biological Heritage Sites.
Non-statutory sites are usually identified by a fairly rigorous system of criteria which are
themselves usually adopted as supplementary planning guidance. The extent of protection
to non-statutory sites is usually not absolute, but even where the importance of development
is considered to outweigh ecological interests, a mitigation strategy is usually required as a
condition of a planning consent.
6.2.3
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) was published to develop national strategies for
the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of biological resources. The
UKBAP contains action plans for over 200 ‘UK Priority Species’ and 30 ‘UK Key Habitats’,
considered to be of national conservation priority. 'UK Priority Species' are defined in the
'UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action Plans' as either globally threatened or rapidly
declining in the UK. Some of the UK Priority species are statutorily protected, while others
receive partial or no protection.
The listing of a species or habitat in the UKBAP does not provide statutory or planning
policy protection per se, however the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduces a
duty on local authorities to have regard to UKBAP priority species in their policies. Many
non-statutory wildlife sites are already selected by reference to populations of UKBAP
species and habitats.
6.3
Assessment Approach
6.3.1
Scoping Report and Consultations
26
Responses to the Environmental Scoping Report relevant to the assessment of impacts to
ecology and nature conservation chapter were received via Coventry City Council, from the
27
Warwickshire Wildlife Trust (WWT), the English Nature (EN) North Mercia Team and the
Environment Agency (EA). Scoping responses are presented in Appendix A.
The response from English Nature referred to the need for assessment of impacts on
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and habitats, for great crested newt pond surveys
and for bat surveys to determine roost, foraging, movement and dispersal habitat. All these
issues are covered in the scoping report and are addressed in this chapter.
Responses from the Environment Agency (EA) regarding ecological issues relate to water
voles, specifically the need to protect and enhance existing waterways, to retain existing
populations and promote colonisation of new areas, and the provision of a 10 m buffer strip
along watercourses. They also commented on the importance of retaining veteran and
mature trees. The EA “agree with the range of ecological surveys which are planned for the
site”.
26
University of Warwick Masterplan Application: Environmental Scoping Report. Ove Arup and Partners Ltd,
December 2005
27
Now subsumed within Natural England
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 35
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Additionally, the EA commented on the need to assess the potential impacts of temporary
works and the need for appropriate constraints to prevent unnecessarily ecological damage.
6.3.2
Ecological Impact Assessment Methods
The approach for this assessment follows the Institute of Environmental Assessment’s
28
Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment . The detailed methods for evaluation of
impact significance follow the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s
29
Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment .
Ecological impact assessment (EcIA) is a means to identify, quantify and evaluate potential
impacts of defined actions on ecological receptors; being ecological features or resources
affected by a particular action or stress.
In summary, the following procedure was undertaken during this ecological impact
assessment:
•
Identification and evaluation of ecological receptors;
•
Identification of the predicted biophysical changes likely to affect the valued ecological
receptors;
•
Assessment of the significance of the biophysical changes predicted;
•
Identification of the scope for refinement of the Main Campus Masterplan to include
avoidance, mitigation, amelioration, compensation and enhancement measures;
•
Assessment of the predicted residual impacts upon the valued ecological receptors;
and,
•
Provision of advice on the consequences for decision making of the residual impacts
based upon the value of the ecological receptor affected.
The conventional approach to assigning significance to an impact upon a receptor is to
tabulate the value of the receptor versus the magnitude of the impact. Recent IEEM
guidance specifically recommends against this approach for EcIA.
Ecological valuation determines the importance of ecological receptors. The value of an
ecological receptor is used to determine the legal, policy and development control
consequences of a significant impact. The criteria and standards used for determining
whether ecological impacts are significant vary and are often subjective. The IEEM EcIA
guidance defines a significant impact, in ecological terms, as:
“an impact (adverse or positive) on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem(s)
and/or the conservation status of habitats or species within a given geographical
area, including cumulative impacts”.
Site integrity is defined in the Government Circular ODPM 2006/05 as:
“…the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that
enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations
of species for which it was classified”.
Justification for the value assigned to an ecological receptor and the characterisation of
significant effects, as described in the IEEM guidelines, are discussed in following sections
of this chapter.
28
Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment, Institute of Environmental Assessment, Spon Press, 1995
Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom, Institute of Ecology and Environmental
Management, 2006
31
Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, 2003
29
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 36
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
6.3.3
Field Survey Methods
The following ecological surveys were undertaken during the period 2005 to 2006:
•
Desktop survey;
•
Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey;
•
Amphibian survey;
•
Bat survey;
•
Badger survey; and,
•
Breeding bird survey.
To date, the survey effort applied to this site has been sufficient to obtain baseline data to
inform the impact assessment. Further survey would be required for the preparation of
detailed method statements, especially in the case of European Protected Species, but
these would need to be undertaken within 1to 2 years of commencement of individual works
(including habitat/mitigation works) to ensure that data is valid. Meanwhile a precautionary
approach has been taken, assuming the presence of protected species in suitable habitat
unless there is detailed survey data to indicate otherwise. Detailed descriptions of the
survey methods adopted are presented in the species and habitat survey reports provided in
Appendix B.1 to Appendix B.5. A brief summary is given below.
In order to inform the desktop survey, information regarding historic species records,
protected sites, land allocation, relevant policies and strategies for nature conservation was
obtained from the sources listed in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Desktop Survey Consultees
Consultee/Source of Information
Nature of Information Supplied by
Consultee
Warwickshire County Council
Protected species records and designated sites
National Biodiversity Network
Historical protected species records
The Environment Agency
Protected species records
UK Biodiversity Action Plan
Identification of national priority bat species known
to occur in the region.
Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull
Biodiversity Action Plan
Identification of regional priority bat species known
to occur in the region.
The University of Warwick
Species/habitat records
Magic Map: Multi-Agency Geographic
Information for the Countryside
(www.magic.gov.uk) (2003)
Statutory and rural designations, citations, natural
area boundaries
English Nature
Natural Area Profile classification
Countryside Agency
Character Area classification
Warwickshire County Council
Warwick District Local Plan
Coventry City Council
Unitary Development Plan
West Midlands Bird Club
Breeding bird survey data
EcoRecord (referred to Warwick CC)
n/a
Warwickshire Badger Group
No response
Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
No response
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 37
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
31
An Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was carried out in 2005 by experienced ecologists.
The Extended Phase 1 is a standard method of survey that provides an overview of key
habitats, wildlife corridors and the likely sites for species of conservation concern. Target
notes provide a botanical list of the immediate area and any additional information thought
useful.
An amphibian survey of all waterbodies on site was carried out in the period 2005 - 2006 to
32
the standard English Nature guidelines of a four visit survey to determine
presence/absence and an additional two visits to ponds containing great crested newts to
enable a population estimate to be calculated.
A survey for the Main Campus presence of badgers was undertaken in 2005 as part of the
Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey. A sett was identified in the south of the site and
therefore a follow-up survey was undertaken in March 2006 to determine sett status and
territory size.
33
A breeding bird survey was undertaken in 2006 by an experienced ornithologist following
guidelines of the British Trust for Ornithology, with an initial survey visit in late April and a
repeat visit in early July 2006. The survey was targeted to cover those areas considered to
have habitats of value to birds and most likely to be affected by the expansion proposals.
As a result the survey concentrated on land south and west of Gibbet Hill Road, but
avoiding the sports fields in the south of the site.
An assessment of the features on site likely to support roosting bats was undertaken as part
of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey. Bat records were obtained as part of the desktop
survey and field surveys undertaken using standard methodologies prescribed by English
34
35
Nature and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) by licensed bat ecologists.
These surveys included evening transect walks across the site in June and July, targeted
internal and external building inspections in July, dawn swarming surveys in June and July
and targeted ground-based tree assessments in July.
The daytime building inspections targeted those buildings identified as potentially being
affected by the expansion plans and dusk swarming surveys were used to assist in
determining the presence of bat roosts within these buildings. The general approach for the
expansion of the University is to retain the mature trees within the site. However, there is a
small potential for tree loss within the general areas identified for demolition and or
construction work, therefore a ground-based assessment of trees in these areas was
undertaken.
6.3.4
Impact Assessment Criteria
Each ecological receptor identified on site has been assessed to determine the likely
construction and operational impacts of implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan, to
outline any mitigation required and to highlight residual impacts. The details of this
assessment and a summary table are given in the following sections of this chapter.
Assessment of potential ecological impacts resulting from implementation of the Main
Campus Masterplan is based on predicting ecologically significant changes (impacts) to the
baseline conditions of the site that are likely to occur. The baseline conditions used in the
assessment take into account existing environmental trends and the predicted impacts of
any other current and/or future (consented) developments. This approach allows the issue
of cumulative impacts to be addressed.
32
Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough, 2001
Warwick University Breeding Bird Survey, Report Ref: 1040.026, TEP, 2006
34
Bat mitigation guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough, 2001
35
Bat workers manual (eds: Mitchell-Jones, A. J. & McLeish, A. P.) Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
Peterborough, 1999
33
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 38
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
An ecologically significant impact is defined as one that affects the Integrity of a site or
ecosystem, or the Conservation Status of a habitat or species within a geographical area.
The value assigned to a receptor determines the geographic scale at which the impact is
significant.
Impacts are predicted based on the potential effects that the Masterplan proposals would
have on those aspects of ecological structure and function on which the identified ecological
receptors depend. Natural trends and the inherent resilience of a receptor would be
considered and changes would be discussed using the following headings:
•
Direction (positive/negative);
•
Magnitude and/or Extent;
•
Duration (using relevant ecological time frame);
•
Reversibility (chance of recovery/replacement within reasonable timeframe); and,
•
Timing & Frequency.
Confidence in predictions would be based on the scale proposed in IEEM guidelines as
summarized below:
•
Certain / Near-Certain: Probability estimated at 95% chance or higher;
•
Probable: Probability estimated above 50% but below 95%;
•
Unlikely: Probability estimated above 5% but less than 50%; and,
•
Extremely Unlikely: Probability estimated at less than 5%.
6.3.5
Limitations and Uncertainty
It must be recognised that there are limitations associated with the scope of any
assessment. The Main Campus Masterplan proposals represent a ten year period and
given this timeframe, the relevance of surveys conducted at this stage must be considered
at the time of implementation of site specific proposals. This would be achieved through the
projection of current baseline conditions and through the provision for updated survey to
refine assessments throughout the expansion period.
In addition to these long-term constraints, field surveys in general have their own limitations,
for example, bats are dynamic in their roosting habitats particularly in tree roosts and survey
results may only be relevant if taken immediately prior to works commencing; otters cover
large home ranges and finding evidence of their presence can be difficult; water vole
distribution can fluctuate between years as they exist within a meta-population and
individuals can easily disperse over distances of 1.5 km. For these reasons a precautionary
approach has been taken in prediction of impacts. Where there is any doubt, species are
assumed present and the impact is given the higher level of significance.
6.4
Baseline Conditions
6.4.1
Statutory and Non-statutory Sites
Baseline environmental conditions of statutory and non-statutory sites, illustrated in
Figure 2.4 and Figure 6.1, are described as follows:
Tocil Wood and Brookstray (SINC)
Tocil Wood and Brookstray Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) is situated
along the south-eastern boundary of Central Campus East. To a large extent the SINC
follows the valley of Canley Brook and the tributary that runs across the east and north of
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 39
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
the survey site. It is partly owned by Coventry City Council and the University of Warwick
and partly managed by Warwickshire Wildlife Trust.
At just over 21 ha in size the SINC contains a large and highly varied concentration of
wildlife habitats including dry and wet ancient semi-natural woodland, broadleaved
plantation woodland, semi-improved and marshy grassland, scrub, tall herbs and several
waterbodies and a network of streams. The site forms the southern section of a valuable
wildlife corridor that runs from the open countryside to the south of Coventry into the city
and ending just 1.5 km from the city centre.
The SINC contains an area of wet woodland which is a habitat type that has an Action Plan
under the UKBAP. One of the aims under the action plan is to maintain the total extent and
distribution of wet woodlands.
The mire, swamp and wet woodland habitats are considered rare communities at the county
level and the quality of species-rich grassland supported by the SINC are considered rare
for the city. Additionally the site contains several plant species that are considered to be
rare in Warwickshire and there is also a large population of yellow rattle (Rhinanthus minor)
a species considered to be scarce in Coventry.
A number of Red or Amber listed birds have been recorded breeding in the SINC. There
are records for at least seven bat species, several of which are known to roost in the trees.
Water voles are established along the watercourses and the SINC supports four nationally
scarce and several regionally scarce invertebrate species.
Old Brickyard Plantation (pSINC)
The Old Brickyard Plantation is a potential Site of Importance for Nature Conservation
(pSINC) and classified as a Warwickshire Ecosite (Ref: 43/27). It is situated adjacent to
Gibbet Hill Road in Central Campus West.
The plantation consists of semi-natural broadleaved woodland dominated by oak (Quercus
sp.) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and occasion ash (Fraxinus excelsior) with an
understorey of hazel (Corylus avellana), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and ash
regeneration. The field layer is predominately bramble (Rubus fruticosus) and tall nettles
(Urtica dioica) and the ground layer contains abundant ivy and occasional wood avens
(Geum urbanum), hairy brome (Bromus ramosus), wood spurge (Euphorbia amygdaloides)
and herb Robert (Geranium robertianum).
Whitefield Coppice (pSINC)
The Whitefield Coppice is a potential Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (pSINC)
and classified as a Warwickshire Ecosite (Ref: 23/27). It is situated largely outside of the
University Estate, adjacent to the western border of Central Campus West, as shown in
Figures 2.4 and Figure 6.1.
It is an oak woodland with invasive sycamore, derelict hazel coppice and planted larch. The
understorey is mainly hawthorn and the ground flora includes dogs mercury (Mercurialis
perennis), pendulus sedge (Carex pendula) and wood anemone (Anemore nemorosa). The
woodland is not managed but pheasant and deer shooting is undertaken within it.
West Side of Gibbet Hill
The Sports Pitches located in Central Campus West, to the west side of Gibbet Hill Road, is
a Warwickshire Ecosite (Ref:35/27). This is a geological site, considered to have little
botanical interest, and is therefore not discussed further as an ecological receptor.
6.4.2
Phase 1 Habitat Survey
An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken across the Main Campus to identify
and record habitats considered to be potentially important ecological receptors. Table 6.3
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 40
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
displays a list of the habitats that are present on or adjacent to the site and Figure 6.1
provides an illustration of these findings. The full report, together with target notes and the
desktop survey data is presented in Appendix B.1 and there follows a written summary of
the survey findings.
Table 6.3: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Data
Habitat types identified during Phase 1 Habitat survey
Amenity grassland
Species poor hedge / hedge and trees
Mesotrophic grassland
Species rich hedge / hedge and trees
Species poor semi-improved neutral grassland
Tall ruderal herbs
Arable
Ephemeral / short perennial
Broadleaved semi-natural woodland
Introduced shrub
Broadleaved plantation woodland
Bare ground
Mixed plantation woodland
Standing water
Scattered trees
Running Water
Scattered shrub / Dense scrub
Wet / Dry ditch
Amenity Grassland
Large areas of the Main Campus are made up of amenity grassland dominated by perennial
rye-grass (Lolium perenne). These are landscaped areas around buildings and sports
pitches.
Marshy Grassland
A small area of marshy grassland exists adjacent to two ponds at the southern end of the
Sports Fields in Central Campus West. Species present include false oat-grass
(Arrhenatherum elatius), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), docks (Rumex sp.), thistles
(Cirsium sp.), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), great willowherb (Epilobium
hirsutum) and soft rush (Juncus effusus).
Species Poor Semi-improved Neutral Grassland
A large area of damp neutral Yorkshire fog-dominated grassland with abundant hogweed
around the edges, lies towards the east of Central Campus East, adjacent to Canley Brook.
A small area of semi-improved neutral grassland also lies adjacent to Gibbet Hill Road, in
the area occupied by Sports Fields in Central Campus West. This is dominated by
Yorkshire fog and perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne) with occasional meadow foxtail
(Alopecurus pratensis), cocks foot (Dactylis glomerata), annual meadow grass (Poa annua),
creeping bent-grass (Agrostis stolonifera), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and
ragwort (Senacio jacobaea). There is also occasional soft rush (Juncus effusus).
To the southwest of the Old Brickyard Plantation is a strip of former arable land has been
set aside. This is developing into semi-improved neutral grassland and abundant in thistles
and docks.
Arable
Areas of arable land are present in Central Campus West where, at the time of the survey,
oil seed rape (Brassica napus ssp oleifera) was grown.
Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland
This habitat, dominated by oak (Quercus robur) together with species such as alder (Alnus
glutinosa), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), willow (Salix sp.) sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and
elder (Sambucus nigra) is present at various locations across the Central Campus
representing areas of plantation, isolated patches where mature hedgerows have spread
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 41
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
and areas of habitat alongside streams where alder and crack willow (Salix fragilis) pollards.
Hazel (Corylus avellana), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa),
goat willow (Salix caprea) and holly (Ilex aquifolium) are common as the understorey.
Broadleaved Plantation
Broadleaved plantation areas found across the Central Campus and Westwood Site are
dominated by sycamore, willow and poplar species. There is extensive use of non-native
varieties of these species. More recently planted areas of this habitat in the south of the site
make use of a greater diversity of species but non-native varieties are still common
Scattered Trees
Scattered trees are common in areas of amenity grassland, particularly at the Westwood
Site. These are almost entirely broadleaved species and extensive use is made of
non-native varieties.
Scattered / Dense Scrub
Small patches of bramble (Rubus fruticosus) are found adjacent to hedges and woodland.
Hawthorn and willow scrub is found alongside the Canley Brook.
Species Poor Hedge / Hedge with Trees
Hawthorn dominated hedgerows are present across the site. These have commonly been
planted with trees in the north of the site, particularly oak, ash and rowan (Sorbus
aucuparia).
Species Rich Hedge with Trees / Hedge with Trees
At various locations across the Main Campus are a number of mature and overgrown
hedges with trees which, containing more than six woody species, qualify as ‘species rich’.
Native woody species present include oak, ash, elder, alder, hawthorn, hazel, blackthorn,
holly, guelder rose (Viburnum opulus), rowan, and various varieties of willow. Sycamore is
also present. In a number of areas these hedges have developed into broadleaved
woodland and in some areas in the north there has been some additional planting of nonnative species.
Tall Ruderal Herbs
Nettle (Urtica dioica) and dock (Rumex obtusifolius) dominate some areas adjacent to
Canley Brook, along a bank adjacent to the hedge on the western perimeter of Central
Campus West and as ground cover at the edges of many of the plantation and woodland
areas. Other species found in the semi-improved grassland areas are also present in these
areas.
Introduced Shrubs
Introduced shrubs have been planted in many of the ornamental beds adjacent to buildings.
Bare Ground
Numerous bare ground areas (paved surfaces) are found across the Main Campus.
Additionally, an area of trees within one of the woodland areas adjoining the Sports Fields of
Central Campus East have been cleared to store machinery and dump grass and vegetation
cuttings.
Standing Water
Twenty ponds were identified within the vicinity of the Main Campus including sixteen ponds
within the University Estate, three in the Warwick Science Park and one on the boundary of
Central Campus West. These ponds include small ornamental ponds surrounded by
introduced shrub, a large man-made lake with very little marginal vegetation, two man-made
lakes with extensive native marginal vegetation and numerous historic ponds at various
stages of succession. Ponds identified as Pond 10a and Pond 10b, located to the south of
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 42
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
the Sports Pitches, were identified as subject to infestations of New Zealand pygmyweed
36
(Crassula helmsii), an invasive non-native plant species .
Running Water
Streams flow southwards along the east and west perimeters of the Main Campus. These
are shaded by hedgerows and woodland within the survey area.
Ditches
At the south of the Sports Pitches in Central Campus West is a wet ditch which flows south
from a pond into the Canley Brook. A recently created dry ditch runs along the
north-western corner of Whitefield Coppice.
Wildlife Corridors
The hedgerows, woodlands and watercourses create an interweaving network of habitat
corridors extending deep into the heart of the Main Campus and also linking the Main
Campus with the surrounding countryside.
The most notable corridor is that created by Westwood Brook, Canley Brook and an
unnamed tributary in the south-west. These interlinking watercourses and their associated
habitats create a strong wildlife link that covers approximately three quarters of the
perimeter of the Central Campus, running clockwise from the Kirby Corner roundabout to
Whitefield Coppice.
Also of importance is the finer network of hedges and ditches that afford wildlife a means by
which to both move across the Main Campus and to access/utilise the patchwork of habitats
that can be found within the more developed areas.
6.4.3
Protected Species
Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus)
An initial amphibian survey, undertaken in 2005, identified great crested newts in eight
ponds at the Main Campus, all within Central Campus West. A further survey of all twenty
waterbodies undertaken in 2006 confirmed the absence of Great Crested Newts from any of
the waterbodies located north of Gibbet Hill Road and enabled population estimates to be
calculated for the seven great crested newts ponds south of Gibbet Hill Road (an additional
four ponds south of Gibbet Hill Road were without great crested newts). Anomalously, in
pond P10a, which is infested with an New Zealand pygmyweed (Crassula helmsii),great
crested newt’s eggs were found in 2005 but despite an intensive survey in 2006 no species
were found.
The results are presented in Table 6.4 below and the location of great crested newt ponds
together with a 500 m ranging zone is illustrated in Figure 6.2. The full amphibian survey
report is presented in Appendix B.2:
Table 6.4: University of Warwick Great Crested Newt Population Estimates
36
Ponds with Great Crested Newts
Size Class Assessment
P2
Small
P3
Small
P4
Small
P5
Small
P7
Small
P8
Medium
P9
Medium
Guidance for the control of invasive weeds in or near fresh water, Environment Agency, August 2003
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 43
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Ponds with Great Crested Newts
P10
Size Class Assessment
Calculation not possible as only great crested newt
eggs were identified.
Bats
Warwick County Council supplied records of common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus),
soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), Daubenton’s (Myotis daubentonii), whiskered /
Brandt’s (Myotis mystacinus / M.brandtii), noctules (Nyctalus noctula) and Natterer’s (Myotis
nattereri) bats within Tocil Wood and Brookstray SINC (Site of Importance for Nature
Conservation). In addition, the University of Warwick also holds records of brown
long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus) and an unconfirmed record of a serotine bat (Eptesicus
serotinus), both within the SINC. Warwickshire County Council also supplied records of
pipistrelles, whiskered bats, and noctules towards the centre of the Main Campus along
Gibbet Hill Road. With the exception of one record for noctules ‘roosting in the north-east of
the main [Tocil] wood’, no specific reference is made to the presence of any roost locations.
The evening activity transects recorded common pipistrelle, noctule and myotis bats.
Pipistrelles were recorded across the site, although there was a general absence or
reduction in activity within built-up areas of Central Campus East. Main areas of noctule
activity were in the south-west of the site within the Warwickshire County Council
boundaries. Myotis activity was prevalent along the Tocil Lakes in the southeast of the site
but these bats were also recorded along the large linear pond near Heronbank halls of
residence. In the main, bat activity was associated with linear and aquatic habitat features.
This is in part a reflection of the transect routes and in part a reflection of bat behaviour.
The results of the evening transect surveys are illustrated in Figure 6.3.
The daytime building inspections found no evidence of roosting bats in any buildings
identified as potentially being affected by the expansion plans and the majority of these
buildings were considered to have low potential to support roosting bats. Only one bat roost
was identified during the dusk swarming surveys and this was a single bat entering a
building in the extreme southeast of the site. This building would not be affected by the
expansion plans. The full bat survey report can be found in Appendix B.3.
The targeted ground-based assessment of trees focused on the Westwood Site at the north
of the Main Campus and trees along Gibbet Hill Road. Although the Westwood Site, where
demolition may be required, features mature trees, none had the features associated with
roosting bats. The majority of mature trees along Gibbet Hill Road are associated with the
Brickyard Plantation and this would similarly not be affected by the Main Campus
Masterplan. However, there are trees in the vicinity of the road that were identified as
containing general features associated with bat roost habitat.
Badger (Meles meles)
Warwick County Council, Warwick University and the National Biodiversity Network did not
have any records of badger setts in the site or immediately adjacent land, however the
citation for the Tocil Wood and Brookstray SINC states that badgers use the area for
foraging.
During the Phase 1 Habitat Survey a single badger sett consisting of four entrance holes
was located just outside the southern extent of the site. Activities such as badger baiting
are still common in certain areas of Britain, therefore the exact location of the sett is not
disclosed in this document.
Further investigation to confirm the activity status of the sett and to establish the extent of
their territory was undertaken in March 2006 and the results of this survey can be found in
Appendix B.4. The presence of badger hairs, fresh digging and bedding in the sett
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 44
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
entrances confirmed the sett as being in active use by badgers. However, no latrines (used
to define territories) were identified within the campus boundaries and the only heavily used
mammal paths were found off site within Whitefield Coppice.
Water Vole (Arvicola terrestris)
Warwickshire County Council and the Environment Agency hold records for water voles on
Canley Brook. The Environment Agency hold records along the brook from the railway in
the north (SP2897877686) to the eastern edge of the SINC (SP3062375749). The Council
also has records of a strong population just east of the SINC (SP309759, 2003) together
with further records on the western edge of Tocil Wood and south of Gibbet Hill Road were
the brook borders the University sports fields. (SP303755, 1997 and SP300750, 2002).
These records are presented within the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey report in
Appendix B.1 of this document.
While expansion plans indicate that no works would significantly impact upon watercourses
(or associated habitat margins) running through the site, on a precautionary basis, and
given the likelihood of the species being present, water voles would be presumed present
on all watercourses and impacts assessed on this basis. If these plans change and
watercourses are to be directly affected by expansion plans, a detailed survey to map the
distribution of water voles would be required in any affected areas.
Otter (Lutra lutra)
The Environment Agency had no records of otters in the area but stated that it should be
assumed that Otters are using Canley Brook in the vicinity of the University of Warwick’s
Main Campus as they have re-colonised the Avon Catchment and are known to be present
on Finham Brook which is southeast of the site and hydraulically linked to Canley Brook.
These records are presented within the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report, contained
as Appendix B.1 to this document.
The expansion plans indicate that no works would directly impact the watercourses (or
associated habitat margins) running through the site. On a precautionary basis, and given
the possibility of the species being present, otters would be presumed present on all
watercourses and impacts assessed on this basis.
Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus)
The Extended Phase 1 survey identified a small area along the western boundary of the
Central Campus West that had some potential to support brown hares. Neither the
University of Warwick, nor the National Biodiversity Network, hold any records of brown
hares within 2 km of the Main Campus.
White-clawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes)
The Environment Agency and the National Biodiversity Network had no records of whiteclawed crayfish within 2 km of the University grounds, although there are records within the
catchment. These records are presented within the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Report, contained as Appendix B.1 to this document.
Proposals described within the Masterplan indicate that no works would directly impact the
watercourses (or associated habitat margins) running through the site. On a precautionary
basis, and given the slight possibility of the species being present, crayfish are presumed
present in all watercourses and impacts are assessed on this basis.
Birds
The West Midlands Bird Club supplied data from breeding bird surveys (2001-2004) for the
area and setting of the University of Warwick’s Main Campus. Those species that are listed
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 45
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
as birds of Medium (Amber) or High (Red) conservation concern
Table 6.5.
37
are displayed in
Table 6.5: West Midlands Bird Club Breeding Bird Surveys 2002-2004
Common Name
Latin Name
List
Criteria
BAP status
Bullfinch
Pyrrhula pyrrhula
Red
BDp
UK & Local
Cuckoo
Cuculus canorus
Amber
BDMp
--
Dunnock
Prunella modularis
Amber
BDMp
--
Goldcrest
Regulus regulus
Amber
BDMp*
--
Green Woodpecker
Picus viridis
Amber
SPEC 2 or
3
--
House Martin
Delichon urbica
Amber
BDMp
--
House Sparrow
Passer domesticus
Red
BDp
--
Lesser Spotted
Woodpecker
Dendrocopos minor
Red
BDp
--
Linnet
Carduelis
cannabina
Red
BDp
UK & Local
Mistle Thrush
Turdus viscivorus
Amber
BDMp
--
Mute Swan
Cygnus olor
Amber
BI
--
Reed Bunting
Emberiza
schoeniclus
Red
BDp
UK & Local
Skylark
Alauda arvensis
Red
BDp
UK & Local
Song Thrush
Turdus philomelos
Red
BDp
UK & Local
Starling
Sturnus vulgaris
Red
BDp
--
Stock Dove
Columba oenas
Amber
BI
--
Swallow
Hirundo rustica
Amber
SPEC 2 or
3
--
Wouldow Warbler
Phylloscopus
trochilus
Amber
BDMp
--
Yellowhammer
Emberiza citrinella
Red
BDp
--
Notes:
Red list criteria:
IUCN:
Globally Threatened
HD:
Historical population decline in UK during 1800-1995
BDp:
Rapid (= 50%) decline in UK breeding population over last 25 years
BDr:
Rapid (= 50%) contraction of UK breeding range over last 25 years
Additional amber list criteria
BDMp: Moderate (25-49%) decline in UK breeding population over last 25 years
BDMr:
Moderate (25-49%) contraction of UK breeding range over last 25 years
SPEC: Species with unfavourable conservation status in Europe (SPEC = Species of European
Conservation Concern)
BR:
Five-year mean of 1-300 breeding pairs in UK
BL:
50% of UK breeding population in 10 or fewer sites, but not rare breeders (BR)
WL:
50% of UK non-breeding population in 10 or fewer sites
BI;
20% of European breeding population in UK
WI:
20% of NW European (wildfowl), East Atlantic Flyway (waders) or European (others) nonbreeding populations in UK 1 UK population >10 000 pairs
37
Gregory Raod, Wilkinson NI, Noble DG, Robinson JA, Brown AF, Hughes J, Procter D, Gibbons DW and Galbraith
C, 2002. The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man: an analysis of
conservation concern 2002-2007. British Birds 95: 410448.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 46
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The citation for the Tocil Wood and Brookstray SINC lists further breeding bird species not
covered by the West Midland Bird Club and these are displayed in Table 6.6. The survey
data used for the citation was gathered during the period 1982-1998 and is therefore not as
recent.
Table 6.6: Breeding Birds from Tocil Wood and Brookstray SINC Citation
Common Name
Latin Name
List
Criteria*
BAP status
Grey Partridge
Perdix perdix
Red
BDp 2
UK & Local
Greylag Goose
Anser anser
Amber
BL, WL, WI
--
Amber
SPEC 2 or
3
--
Alcedo atthis
Kingfisher
Marsh Tit
Parus palustris
Red
BDp 2
--
Spotted Flycatcher
Muscicapa striata
Red
BDp 2
UK & Local
Tree Sparrow
Passer montanus
Red
BDp 2
UK & Local
Turtle Dove
Streptopelia turtur
Red
BDp 2
UK & Local
Wouldow Tit
Parus montanus
Red
BDp 2
--
Notes:
Red list criteria:
IUCN:
Globally Threatened
HD:
Historical population decline in UK during 1800-1995
BDp:
Rapid (= 50%) decline in UK breeding population over last 25 years
BDr:
Rapid (= 50%) contraction of UK breeding range over last 25 years
Additional amber list criteria
BDMp: Moderate (25-49%) decline in UK breeding population over last 25 years
BDMr:
Moderate (25-49%) contraction of UK breeding range over last 25 years
SPEC: Species with unfavourable conservation status in Europe (SPEC = Species of European
Conservation Concern)
BR:
Five-year mean of 1-300 breeding pairs in UK
BL:
50% of UK breeding population in 10 or fewer sites, but not rare breeders (BR)
WL:
50% of UK non-breeding population in 10 or fewer sites
BI;
20% of European breeding population in UK
WI:
20% of NW European (wildfowl), East Atlantic Flyway (waders) or European (others) nonbreeding populations in UK 1 UK population >10 000 pairs
The breeding bird survey undertaken in 2006 identified a total of 48 bird species, including
six species of Red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC), four of which are also
listed as UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species, and nine Amber-listed BoCC species.
Seven of these species of have been identified as probable breeders and another species,
the mute swam, a confirmed breeder. Findings of the survey are described in the complete
Breeding Bird Survey Report, presented as Appendix B.5 to this Report.
On account of the diversity of species present, the site is of local importance for birds.
Furthermore the site is specifically of some interest for breeding mute swans and a range of
probable breeders generally considered to have declined nationally including skylark and to
a lesser extent reed bunting, dunnock and goldcrest.
6.5
Value
6.5.1
Criteria
The relative value and importance of ecological receptors are determined in accordance
with a geographical frame of reference to provide consistency. The ecological receptor is
considered valuable (or has the potential to become valued) on the following scale (which
may be adjusted as appropriate to local frameworks):
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 47
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
International;
UK;
National;
Regional;
County (or Metropolitan);
District (or Unitary Authority, City or Borough);
Local or Parish; or,
Within the ‘Immediate Zone of Influence’ only.
Values have been assessed in a variety of ways. While sites may have pre-determined
values relating to their level of designation, biodiversity value relates to many factors
including rarity, stability, mobility, vulnerability, local distinctiveness, species richness,
diversity, connectivity, size and location within the known range. Instruments to assist in
this valuation include site designations, national and local Habitat and Species Action Plans,
English Nature Natural Area Profiles and classification as declining species.
The appearance of habitat or species within a BAP is to guide conservation action and not
intended to imply importance of the habitat. As an example, while reedbeds are prioritised
in the UKBAP and some local BAPs, it is inappropriate to mechanistically assign them a
national or county value unless action plans state that ALL areas should be protected, as
they may exist in small, fragmented, atypical and unfavourable conservation conditions.
When assigning value to species it is accepted that many species must be considered
during the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) process because the proposals could
result in contravention of current legislation. EcIA must consider biodiversity value in
addition to legal status and value is often used to determine policy implications when
impacts are predicted.
6.5.2
Values of Statutory and Non-statutory Sites
Tocil Wood and Brookstray SINC
This is a site designated by Coventry City Council and as a Site of Importance for Nature
Conservation and as such is of conservation importance at the District level.
Old Brickyard Plantation pSINC
This is a site proposed for designation by Warwickshire County Council as a Site of
Importance for Nature Conservation and as such is of conservation importance at the
County level.
Whitefield Coppice pSINC
This is a site proposed for designation by Warwickshire County Council as a Site of
Importance for Nature Conservation and as such is of conservation importance at the
County level.
6.5.3
Values of Other Habitats
Hedgerows
Ancient and/or species-rich hedgerows are both a UK and Local BAP Priority Habitat and
objectives refer to halting the loss and achieving favourable condition of species-rich
hedgerows and maintaining overall numbers of hedgerow trees. Important hedgerows are
also protected under the Hedgerows Regulations (1997).
There are several species-rich hedgerows found within the site but they do not constitute a
large proportion of the habitat found within Warwickshire/Coventry as a whole. However
they have secondary value in their role as a wildlife corridor within and across the site.
Thus, species-rich hedgerows are of conservation importance at the Local level and
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 48
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
species-poor hedgerows are of conservation importance at the Immediate Zone of
Influence.
Woodland / Veteran Trees
The UKBAP refers to broadleaved and mixed woodland as a broad habitat type only; the
specific types of woodland found within this site are not identified as Priority habitats. There
is an area of wet woodland but this is assessed as part of the Tocil Wood SINC, additionally
sites designated as ‘potential Site of Importance for Nature Conservation’ (pSINC) are
considered in this section. Woodlands are listed as a Local BAP broad habitat type with the
aims of: retaining and protecting all Ancient Semi-Natural Woodlands and veteran trees;
extending existing Ancient Semi-Natural Woodlands through natural regeneration or
appropriate woodland creation; minimising other woodland habitat loss through
development or neglect; and increasing areas of other plantation or farmed woodland.
Although no areas of Ancient Semi-Natural Woodlands exist on site, veteran trees are of
conservation importance at the County level.
Standing Open Water / Running Water
Standing open water and rivers and streams are identified as UK BAP broad habitats,
although the site does not contain any of the specific aquatic habitats types highlighted as
Priorities. The Local BAP lists both rivers and streams and ponds, lakes and reservoirs as
Priority habitats and their aims regarding these include: ensuring the quality of watercourses
and their corridors do not deteriorate; and enhance those watercourses supporting UK BAP
Priority species or Red Data Book species.
The importance of these habitats on site is raised by considering the collective value of the
aquatic habitat and through the presence of great crested newts, water voles within the site
and otters and crayfish within the catchment, together with their value as wildlife corridors.
The aquatic habitats, collectively, are of conservation importance at the County level.
Marshy Grassland / Swamp
Fen, Marsh and Swamp is a UK and Local BAP broad habitat type and within this category
Reedbeds are a Priority Habitat. The aims of the Local BAP include: ensuring the survival
and conservation focused management of all significant wetlands; the creation of an
additional 5 ha of wetland (excluding reed beds) by the year 2010 and to ensure the survival
of all reed beds over 0.5 ha.
Although there are areas of reed within the waterbodies/watercourses, none of these are of
significant size to constitute a reedbed habitat and the same is true for the marshy
grassland. This habitat has a secondary value in its role as a buffer between the heavily
managed sports fields and one of the waterbodies. Therefore this habitat is considered of
conservation value at the Immediate Zone of Influence.
Arable
‘Arable and Horticulture’ is a UK BAP broad habitat type with cereal field margins given as a
Priority Habitat. Field margins are identified as a Local BAP Priority habitat and the aims
are to maintain strips of ecologically diverse habitat around the perimeters of agricultural
fields. However, field margins are very limited within the University as arable land tends to
be bordered by close mown paths or roads. This habitat provides nesting and foraging
habitat to several species of bird listed on the UK and Local BAP.
The arable land is limited to the west of the site and the size of this habitat that is found
within the site is small compared to the immediate and wider area. Therefore this habitat is
of conservation value only at the Immediate Zone of Influence.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 49
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Semi-improved Grassland
This habitat has no planning or legislative protection, however, it does provide habitat of
value to a variety of plant and invertebrate species and some secondary value in its role as
a buffer and wildlife corridor to the Old Brickyard Plantation and the pond to the south.
Taking into account the lack of protection and the small size of the habitat, semi-improved
grassland is considered of conservation value only at the Immediate Zone of Influence.
6.5.4
Values of Species
Great Crested Newts
Great crested newts are a UK and Local BAP Priority Species. BAP targets include
maintenance of the geographical range and viability of existing populations and
establishment of populations in suitable unoccupied sites. The great crested newt is listed
on Annexes II and IV of the EC Habitats Directive and Appendix II of the Bern Convention.
It is protected under Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.)
Regulations 1994, (Regulation 38) and Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Great crested newt populations at this site have been classed as low and medium. Given
the variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat within range of each other, this population is
considered to have the potential to increase. Therefore the great crested newt population is
of conservation value at County level, consistent with the collective value of aquatic
habitats described above.
Water Voles
Water voles are a UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) Priority Species. The
LBAP targets include maintaining all existing populations and expanding key populations of
water voles. The water vole receives partial protection under the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981 under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) in
respect of section 9(4) only.
The records of water voles at this site and adjacent habitat indicate it is a well established
and stable population. This, in combination with the potential to expand the current range of
this species, makes water voles of conservation value at the County level.
Otters
Otters are a UK and Local BAP Priority Species. LBAP targets include expanding the otter
population through natural colonisation and restoring breeding otters to all main subcatchments. The otter is listed on Appendix 1 of CITES, Appendix II of the Bern Convention
and Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive. It is protected under Schedule 5 of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats,
etc.) Regulations, 1994 (Regulation 38). The European sub-species is also listed as
globally threatened on the IUCN World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) Red Data
List (RDL).
Although there are no records of otters specifically within the site boundary, this species has
only relatively recently returned to the sub-catchment and individuals occupy large home
ranges. It is therefore important to consider the sub-catchment as a whole to ensure a
stable population. As such otters are considered of conservation importance at the County
level.
Badgers
Badgers and their setts are given legal protection under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992
mainly as a response to animal welfare issues arising from persecution. This is also a
socially valued species.
However badgers are not considered rare in the area and the sett that was found was not
particularly large. Additionally the sett is located just outside the site boundaries and no
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 50
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
latrines were found within the site boundaries. As such badgers are considered of
conservation value at the Local level.
Bats
The Pipistrelle is the only bat species found at the University of Warwick Main Campus
listed as a UKBAP Priority Species. However, 12 species of bat have been confirmed
throughout the Warwickshire/Coventry area and the Local BAP has a combined action plan
for all the bat species locally present. The main aims of the plan are to maintain and
enhance commuting feeding and roosting habitats for bats. UK bat species are listed on
Appendix II of the Bonn Convention (and its Agreement on the Conservation of European
Bats, 1994), Appendix II of the Bern Convention (and its appropriate Recommendations)
and Annexes II and IV of the EC Habitats and Species Directive. It is protected under
Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations, 1994 (Regulation 38)
and Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Common pipistrelle, noctule and myotis bats were recorded on site and historical records
show at least eight species of bat utilise the site for roosting and feeding. Because of the
variety of bat species recorded on site and the wide range of potential foraging, roosting and
commuting habitats, bats at the Main Campus are considered to be of conservation value at
the County level.
Brown Hares
The brown hare is classified as a UKBAP Priority Species. Although there is low potential
for the Main Campus to support brown hares, there are no records of occurrence of this
species at the and greater potential habitats are off-site. Brown hares are considered of
conservation value only at the Immediate Zone of Influence.
Birds
UK wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended by the
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) with those species listed on Schedule 1
of the Act afforded greater protection (see Appendix B.5)
During the 2006 breeding bird survey no Schedule 1 bird species were recorded on site.
However, six Red-listed BoCC species, four of which are also listed as UKBAP Priority
species, and nine Amber-listed BoCC species were recorded. Despite having a good range
of birds, the survey area supported these species at relatively low densities and does not
contain a type, range or size of habitat that is not available elsewhere in the district. As
such birds at this site are considered of conservation value at the Local level.
White-clawed Crayfish
This species is listed in Appendix III of the Bern Convention and Annexes II and V of the EC
Habitats Directive. It is classed as Globally Threatened by IUCN/WCMC. It is protected
under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
While there are no recorded occurrences of White-clawed Crayfish at the Main Campus,
they are known to be present within the wider river catchment. Given the type and extent of
watercourses within the site, White-clawed Crayfish have the potential to exist in
watercourses at the Main Campus and therefore Crayfish are considered of conservation
importance at the County level.
Invertebrates
Invertebrates of interest would be found in woodland (several nationally and regionally
scarce species have been recorded in Tocil wood SINC), ponds and urban grassland
habitats. All these habitats have been identified above. There is no need to consider them
as separate receptors in this impact assessment.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 51
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
A summary of the value of site, habitat and species value is given in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7: Value Summary Table
Receptor
Planning / Legislative
Status
Nature
Conservation
Value
Comments
Statutory and Non-Statutory Sites
Tocil Wood &
Brookstray
SINC
Coventry City Council
designation
District
Part of the SINC is off-site
Old Brickyard
Plantation
(pSINC)
Warwickshire County Council
designation
County
The pSINC is within the site
Whitefield
Coppice
(pSINC)
Warwickshire County Council
designation
County
The pSINC is off-site but borders
University land
Other Habitats of Conservation Value
UK & Local BAP Priority
Habitat Hedgerow
Regulations
Local
Mature/species rich hedgerows,
provide nesting, foraging and
commuting habitats
UKBAP Broad habitat type
Immediate Zone
of Influence
Species-poor hedgerows,
provide nesting, foraging and
commuting habitats
Local/County*
The woodland on site does not
match the LBAP specifications
(LBAP states retention of ALL
veteran trees)
Veteran trees provide foraging
and roosting habitat and their
replacement is not possible
within reasonable timeframes
Standing Open
UK & Local BAP Priority
/ Running
Habitat
Water
County*
Collective due to the array of
protected species that it
supports/has the potential to
support including water vole,
crayfish, otter great crested
newts
Also has value as a wildlife
corridor
Marshy
Grassland /
Swamp
Immediate Zone
of Influence
The size of these habitats within
the site are of insignificance at
anything other than the
immediate area
Immediate Zone
of Influence
Specific Priority habitat
descriptions are not relevant to
the arable land found on site, but
it does provide some nesting and
forging habitat for birds on site
Immediate Zone
of Influence
This habitat has good
invertebrate communities,
although the size of these
habitats within the site are of
insignificance at anything other
than the immediate area
Hedgerows
Woodland /
Veteran Trees
Arable
UKBAP Broad habitat type
UK & Local BAP Broad
Habitat
UK & Local BAP Broad
Habitat
Semi-improved
N/A
Grassland
Species of Conservation Value
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 52
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Receptor
Planning / Legislative
Status
Great Crested
Newts
UK & Local BAP Priority
Species. EC Habitats
Directive. Bern Convention.
Conservation (Natural
Habitats, etc.) Regulations
1994. Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981
Water voles
UK & Local BAP Priority
Species. Schedule 5 of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Otters
UK & Local BAP Priority
Species. CITES. EC
Habitats Directive. Bern
Convention. Conservation
(Natural Habitats, etc.)
Regulations 1994. Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981
Nature
Conservation
Value
Comments
County*
Confirmed breeding in a cluster
of waterbodies and there are a
variety of associated terrestrial
habitats within the southwest of
the site giving the potential for
the population to expand
County*
The long-term historical presence
and the network of aquatic
habitats within the site provide
opportunities for expanding
colonisation
County*
The value of this receptor comes
from its threatened status in
combination with the species
relatively recent return to the
sub-catchment area and the
large home ranges it requires
Local
Only a small-sized sett was
found and this was just outside
the site boundaries, additionally
the badger is not considered a
rare species. However it does
have legal protection and social
value
County*
Long-term historical presence a
good range of bat roosting and
foraging habitat and connectivity
with the wider countryside,
together with a wide variety of
bat species give this site value
Badgers
Protection of Badgers Act
1992
Bats
UK & Local BAP Priority
Species. Conservation
(Natural Habitats etc.)
Regulations 1994, Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981.
Brown Hare
Appendix III Bern Convention, Immediate Zone
UKBAP, Priority Species
of Influence
Potentially occurring species.
There are no records of brown
hares at this site and potential
habitat is limited
Birds
Four UK & Local BAP,
species and several BoCC
species
Local
The site has only low densities of
typical (potential) breeders for
the area. Bird habitats present
are not novel in either type, size
or variety for the County
White-clawed
crayfish
Bern Convention and
Annexes. EC Habitats
Directive. WCA.
IUCN/WCMC -Globally
Threatened
County*
There are currently no confirmed
records within the site but the
species is within the catchment
and there is potential habitat on
site
District
Invertebrates would not be
considered as a separate
receptor but as a constituent of
the habitats they utilise
Invertebrates
Various
Notes:
*In this case ‘County’ refers to the combined areas of Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull as this is the
geographical area covered by the Local BAP
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 53
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
6.6
Impact Assessment
6.6.1
Overview
In terms of ecological impacts, the main losses as a result of implementation of the Main
Campus Masterplan are expected to be amenity grassland, arable land, species poor
hedgerow and two ponds. Loss of some scattered trees and small areas of broadleaved
plantation may also occur.
These impacts would be experienced during construction of proposals contained within the
Masterplan and would be permanent impacts. Additional temporary impacts incurred during
the construction phase may be associated with construction activity; noise, reverberations,
lighting, regular emissions etc.
The operational phase may result in the continuation of these impacts, although to a
differing degree than during the construction phase.
A number of habitat creation and management proposals which form part of the Masterplan
and these include:
•
Establishment of wetland habitat in the south of the site as part of a sustainable
drainage system that would include a network of open drainage channels and ditches
across the site in combination with reedbeds;
•
Enhancement of hedgerows that follow the site perimeter, the watercourses and
traverse the Central Campus West;
•
Sensitive management of the habitat surrounding Tocil Lakes; and,
•
Possible plantation of a short-rotation coppice energy crop.
6.6.2
Construction and Operational Impacts on Statutory and Non-statutory
Sites
Tocil Wood & Brookstray SINC
This site is valued at the District level and although there would be no direct impact on the
SINC as a result of the proposals, there is potential for a significant indirect impact during
the construction phase of residential facilities west of the ponds. Increased run-off could
impact the wet woodland habitat within the SINC. Increased silting of wet woodland can
lead to the drying out of this habitat resulting in a change to drier woodland types and loss of
the associated floral and faunal communities. The affects of silting may be compounded by
any flood prevention plans for the adjacent watercourse that would lead to the loss of
dynamic disturbance-succession systems, as well as possible reductions in the extent of
this habitat.
No significant operational impacts are predicted on the SINC arising from the proposals.
The implementation of a sustainable drainage strategy to deal with surface water run-off
would prevent increased silting of this site. Significant increased human use of the SINC is
not expected despite the increase in accommodation provision, this is because; extensive
areas of green space exist within the University grounds, the Tocil Lakes create an effective
barrier between the campus and the SINC along much of the boundary and the SINC
structure allows only peripheral access into the habitat.
The significant impacts on this receptor without mitigation are summarised in Table 6.8:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 54
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 6.8: Impacts to Tocil Wood and Brookstray SINC
Impact:
Construction (run-off)
Type:
Negative (District)
Magnitude/Extent:
Drying out of wet woodland areas along confluence with Tocil Lakes
Duration:
Length of construction works on adjacent land plus unknown recovery time
Reversibility:
Reversible (prevention or desilting)
Timing/Frequency:
During construction phase
Confidence:
Probable
Old Brickyard Plantation pSINC
This site is valued at the County level and although there would be no direct impact on the
plantation as a result of the proposals, there is potential for significant incidental
construction phase damage to habitat from encroachment of works traffic on adjacent land,
which could lead to compaction of soil and damage to trees.
No significant operational impacts are predicted as a result of the expansion proposals.
Although the area around the Old Brickyard Plantation would form an important connection
visual and physical connection between Central Campus East and Central Campus West,
physical alteration to the plantation itself is not proposed. Any increase in traffic would be
restricted to pedestrians and cyclists, which would have a low effect on the habitat in terms
of pollution and noise disturbance.
The significant impacts on this receptor without mitigation are summarised in Table 6.9:
Table 6.9: Impacts to the Old Brickyard Plantation pSINC
Impact:
Construction (tree damage)
Type:
Negative (County)
Magnitude/Extent:
Loss of peripheral trees though soil
compaction and root damage
Duration:
Lifetime of the tree
Reversibility:
Reversible (only through prevention, mature
trees cannot be replaced within a reasonable
timescale)
Timing/Frequency:
During construction phase
Confidence:
Probable
Whitefield Coppice pSINC
This site is valued at the County level. It falls outside the University grounds and although
there would be no direct impacts on this site as a result of the proposals, there is potential
for significant incidental construction phase damage to habitat from encroachment of works
traffic on adjacent land, which could lead to compaction of soil and damage to trees.
No significant operational impacts are predicted as a result of the expansion proposals. The
coppice is outside the University grounds and without public access, therefore, it is not
expected that any additional human pressure on the woodland would exist once operational.
The significant impacts on this receptor without mitigation are summarised in Table 6.10:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 55
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 6.10: Impacts to Whitefield Coppice pSINC
Impact:
Construction (tree damage)
Type:
Negative (County)
Magnitude/Extent:
Loss of peripheral trees though soil compaction and root damage
Duration:
Lifetime of the tree
Reversibility:
Reversible (only through prevention, mature trees cannot be replaced
within a reasonable timescale)
Timing/Frequency:
During construction phase
Confidence:
Probable
6.6.3
Construction and Operational Impacts on Other Habitats
Hedgerows
Species rich hedgerows are valued at the Local level and species-poor hedgerows at the
Immediate Zone of Influence. Based on these values, permanent removal of species-poor
hedges along Gibbet Hill Road would have a significant impact. There is also the potential
for significant damage to hedgerows during construction works from encroachment of
construction traffic working on adjacent land, which could lead to compaction of soil and
damage to hedge species.
The significant impacts on this receptor, without mitigation, are summarised in Table 6.11:
Table 6.11: Impacts to Hedgerows
Impact:
Construction (species poor
hedge)
Construction (species rich hedge)
Type:
Negative (IZI)
Negative (Local)
Magnitude/Extent:
All hedges on Gibbet Hill Road
between security lodge and
southern roundabout
Loss of sections of hedge though soil
compaction and root damage
Duration:
-
Lifetime of the hedge
Reversibility:
Reversible (only through
prevention, mature trees cannot
be replaced within a reasonable
timescale)
Reversible (only through prevention,
mature hedges cannot be replaced within
a reasonable timescale)
Timing/Frequency:
During construction phase
During construction phase
Confidence:
Certain
Probable
Woodland and Veteran Trees
This section does not deal with impacts to the SINC/pSINC woodlands discussed in section
6.5.3. Woodland is valued at a local level and Veteran trees at the County level. There
would potentially be the permanent loss of part of a small broadleaved plantation and
scattered trees in the Westwood Site. There is also the potential for unintentional damage
to trees during construction works from encroachment of construction traffic working on
adjacent land, which could lead to compaction of soil and damage to trees, although the
limited nature of these impacts make them of significance only at the local level.
No significant operational impacts on the woodlands are predicted as a result of the
proposals.
The significant impacts on this receptor, without mitigation, are summarised in Table 6.12:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 56
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 6.12: Impacts to Woodland and Veteran Trees
Impact:
Construction (plantation/tree loss)
Construction (tree damage)
Type:
Negative (Local)
Negative (Local)
Magnitude/Extent:
All hedges on Gibbet Hill Road
between security lodge and
southern roundabout
Loss of peripheral trees though
soil compaction and root damage
Duration:
-
Lifetime of the tree
Reversibility:
Reversible (prevention-mature
trees or replacement – young
trees)
Reversible (prevention-mature
trees or replacement – young
trees)
Timing/Frequency:
During construction phase
During construction phase
Confidence:
Probable
Probable
Standing Open Water and Running Water
The aquatic habitats as a whole are valued at the County level. There is potential for a
significant indirect impact during construction phases across the Main Campus. Increased
run-off could impact aquatic habitats causing increased silt levels, which could result in
retention of nutrients and a reduction in pond and river bed habitat quality and diversity,
potentially affecting invertebrates including White-clawed Crayfish. Effects of siltation could
be compounded on waterbodies where waterfowl droppings further increase the nutrient
load and fish behaviour can cause the re-suspension of sediments.
Although no watercourses would be canalised or otherwise rerouted, there would be a
significant direct impact on this receptor through the permanent loss the small ornamental
pond on the western side of Radcliffe House (pond P2 in Figure 6.2). The size and
structure of this pond together with its population to great crested newts would make the
impact significant at a Local level.
Potential long-term operational impacts on waterbodies/courses include increased run-off
leading to a reduction in the quality of aquatic habitats on site. However, the
implementation of a sustainable drainage strategy to deal with surface water run-off would
prevent increased silting of this site. Several ponds on site are known to support great
crested newts, and all watercourses are presumed to contain white-clawed crayfish and
water voles. Specific impacts on these species are dealt with separately.
The significant impacts on this receptor without mitigation are summarised in Table 6.13
below:
Table 6.13: Impacts to Standing Open Water and Running Water
Impact:
Construction (run-off)
Construction (pond loss)
Operational
(sustainable drainage)
Type:
Negative (County)
Negative (Local)
Positive (County)
Magnitude/Extent:
All aquatic habitat
1 small ornamental pond
All aquatic habitat
Duration:
Length of construction
plus estimated 1yr
recovery
-
Ongoing
Reversibility:
Reversible (prevention
or de-silting)
Reversible (Timing of
works and 2 for 1
replacement of ponds)
-
Timing/Frequency:
During construction
phase
During breeding season
Continuous
Confidence:
Probable
Certain
Certain
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 57
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Marshy Grassland and Swamp
This habitat is valued at the Immediate Zone of Influence. No significant construction
impacts are predicted to the small areas of marshy grassland or swamp on site.
No significant operational impacts (other than run-off as discussed in the section on
standing/running water) are predicted to these habitats.
Arable
This habitat is valued at the Immediate Zone of Influence. There are several areas of arable
land within the Main Campus. This habitat is known to support several BoCC and BAP
species of bird, but the impacts on these species are dealt with separately. Impacts during
the construction period include the permanent loss of much of this habitat.
Due to the loss of this habitat within the site, assessment of operational impacts is not
applicable.
The significant impacts on this receptor without mitigation are summarised in Table 6.14:
Table 6.14: Impacts to Arable Land
Impact:
Construction (run-off)
Type:
Negative (IZI)
Magnitude/Extent:
All arable habitat on site
Duration:
-
Reversibility:
Permanent
Timing/Frequency:
During construction phase
Confidence:
Certain
Semi-Improved Grassland
This habitat is valued at the Immediate Zone of Influence. There are three small areas of
semi-improved grassland within the site and it is not anticipated that any would be directly
affected by the proposals.
There are no significant impacts predicted during the construction or operational phases of
the expansion proposals.
6.6.4
Construction and Operational Impacts on Species
Great Crested Newts
This receptor is valued at the County level. The presence of great crested newts has been
confirmed in eight of the twenty ponds surveyed, all of which are located within Central
Campus West. Additionally, as a precautionary approach to this impact assessment it
would be assumed that all suitable terrestrial habitat within 500 m of a confirmed great
crested newt pond also supports great crested newts.
Significant impacts during the construction phase would include the loss of aquatic habitat
(Figure 6.2, pond P2) and the potential loss of foraging and hibernation habitat across the
Central Campus West. Construction activities may also result in obstruction, disturbance or
death of newts.
Significant negative operational impacts include the fragmentation of habitat resources and
the inadvertent ‘trapping’ of newts along the road network. Significant positive operational
impacts include the increase in aquatic habitat and connectivity across the site through the
implementation of a sustainable drainage network.
The significant impacts on this receptor without mitigation are summarised in Table 6.15:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 58
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 6.15: Impacts to Great Crested Newts
Impact:
Construction (terrestrial habitat loss)
Construction (pond loss)
Type:
Negative (County)
Negative (Local)
Magnitude/Extent:
Terrestrial habitat in SW of site
1 small ornamental pond
Duration:
Permanent in areas of construction,
1-2 years in areas of habitat
creation
Permanent loss of breeding pond,
newts may find alternate habitat in
following season
Reversibility:
Reversible (prevention of newt
deaths through trapping and
exclusion and replacement through
habitat creation)
Reversible (Timing of works and 2 for
1 replacement of ponds)
Timing/Frequency:
During construction phase
During breeding season
Confidence:
Probable
Certain
Impact:
Operational (fragmentation)
Operational (sustainable drainage)
Type:
Negative (County)
Positive (County)
Magnitude/Extent:
Terrestrial and aquatic habitat in
SW of site
All aquatic habitat
Duration:
Permanent in some areas of
construction, 1-2 years in areas of
habitat creation
Ongoing
Reversibility:
Reversible (prevention through newt
sensitive design to road schemes
and location of habitat links)
-
Timing/Frequency:
During migration from terrestrial to
aquatic habitats
Continuous
Confidence:
Probable
Certain
Water Voles
This receptor is valued at the County level. Populations of water voles are present along
Canley Brook in the south and east of the site and as a precautionary approach for this
impact assessment it is assumed that water voles utilise or have the potential to utilise all
running water and any ponds near watercourses within the site.
A significant negative impact is predicted during the construction phase of these proposals.
Although no watercourses would be canalised, rerouted or otherwise directly impacted by
the proposals, there is the potential for incidental construction phase damage water vole
habitat through encroachment of works traffic onto the banks of watercourses. This could
lead to destruction of burrows and foraging habitat.
There is a significant positive operational impact predicted on this receptor through the
implementation of a sustainable drainage strategy to deal with surface water run-off. Not
only would this prevent increased silting of this site, but it would result in a network of
suitable water vole habitat across the campus, thus encouraging dispersal of the species
and increasing its local range.
The significant impacts on this receptor without mitigation are summarised in Table 6.16:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 59
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 6.16: Impacts to Water Voles
Impact
Construction (bank damage)
Operational (sustainable drainage)
Type:
Negative (County)
Positive (County)
Magnitude/Extent:
Marginal aquatic habitat
adjacent to construction
works
Creation of a network of ditches
and associated reedbeds across
the site that have the potential for
colonisation by existing water vole
populations
Duration:
Length of works or
permanent if bank profile is
altered
Ongoing
Reversibility:
Reversible (prevention
through creation of buffer
zone or timing to avoid
periods of breeding/torpor
and reinstatement of habitat)
-
Timing/Frequency:
Duration of construction
Continuous
Confidence:
Probable
Probable
Otters
This receptor is valued at the County level. Although there are no records of otters within
the site they are known within the catchment. A cautious approach for this impact
assessment assumes that otters utilise or have the potential to utilise all running water on
site.
No significant negative impact is predicted during either the construction or operational
phase of these proposals as no watercourses would be canalised, rerouted or otherwise
impacted by the proposals. However, there is a significant positive impact predicted on this
receptor through the implementation of a sustainable drainage strategy to deal with surface
water run-off. Not only would this prevent increased silting of this site, but it would result in
a network of habitats across the campus that could be utilised by otters for foraging,
commuting and/or dispersal.
The significant impacts on this receptor without mitigation are summarised in Table 6.17:
Table 6.17: Impacts to Otters
Impact:
Operational
Type:
Positive (County)
Magnitude/Extent:
Creation of a network of ditches and associated reedbeds across the site that
have the potential for utilisation by otters
Duration:
Ongoing
Reversibility:
-
Timing/Frequency:
Continuous
Confidence:
Unlikely (this is low due to the uncertainty that otters would use the new
habitat)
Badgers
This receptor is valued at the local level. The only badger sett identified during survey was
located just outside the southern boundary of the University and no territory markers were
found within the site.
No significant operational or construction impacts are predicted on badgers as a result
of the expansion proposals. There are no plans for development of the land in the
immediate vicinity of the sett. The land surrounding the site has a good variety of habitat
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 60
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
patches that can provide the badgers with range of food types with good connectivity
between these resources and the sett. Therefore no impact on forging habitat is predicted.
Bats
This receptor is valued at the County level. There are records of at least eight species of
bat utilising the area surrounding Warwick University. The activity surveys recorded bat
foraging and commuting activity along aquatic and linear habitats across the site and on the
peripheries of wooded areas. Although bat activity was largely absent from Central Campus
East, in general, buildings and trees across the site have the potential to provide bat
roosting habitat.
In general, potential impacts during the construction phase are likely to include loss of
roosting habitat through demolition of buildings and removal of mature trees and loss of
commuting/foraging habitat. However surveys to those buildings highlighted as potentially
being demolished did not identify the presence of roosting bats and the majority were
considered to have low potential as bat roost habitat. Equally none of the trees in the
vicinity of areas highlighted for demolition works were found to contain those features
associated with roosting bats.
The general approach of the expansion plan calls for the retention of mature trees on site,
however, it is proposed to create better links across the campus which is currently divided
by the main road, through the removal of the hedgerow along Gibbet Hill Road. These
proposals should not impact on foraging and commuting behaviour of bats as most activity
along this road is associated with the Old Brickyard Plantation, but the removal of the
hedgerow may impact on associated mature trees either directly through loss of roosting
habitat or indirectly through their isolation from linear features used for commuting, as a
precaution this is considered a significant construction impact.
Significant impacts may occur during the operational phase as a result of increased light
pollution affecting bat behaviour patterns.
The significant impacts on this receptor without mitigation are summarised in Table 6.18
below:
Table 6.18: Impacts to Bats
Impact:
Construction (tree roost loss)
Operational (light pollution)
Type:
Negative (County)
Negative (County)
Magnitude/Extent:
Selected trees along Gibbet Hill
Road
All areas of campus no
currently subject to artificial
lighting
Duration:
Permanent loss of roost habitat,
although alternative habitat may be
found nearby
Continuous
Reversibility:
Reversible (prevention of bat deaths
through tree inspections and timing
of works and replacement through
habitat creation)
Reversible (prevention
through use of downward
facing or direction lighting of
minimal power required)
Timing/Frequency:
During construction phase
Continuous
Confidence:
Probable
Probable
Brown Hares
This receptor is valued at the Immediate Zone of Influence. No records of brown hares
were held for the University grounds or surrounding area, although the Extended Phase 1
Habitat survey did identify areas with some potential to support this species. The decline of
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 61
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
the brown hare is mainly attributed to the conversion of grassland to arable land and this is
not a anticipated by the Main Campus Masterplan.
No significant impacts are predicted during the construction or operational phases.
Birds
This receptor is valued at the Local level. The breeding bird survey reported low densities
of typical bird species for the area, although these did include six Red-listed BoCC species,
four of which are also listed as UKBAP Priority species, and nine Amber-listed BoCC
species.
The main habitat losses to occur on site would be amenity grassland and arable land.
There is also the potential for some tree loss in the Westwood Site. These habitats would
be lost in part to construction works and in part to habitat creation including reedbeds, short
rotation coppice and marshy grassland.
Significant predicted construction phase impacts include the disturbance to birds through
noise pollution which can scare/stress the birds and interfere with the transmission of bird
song, and the loss of potential bird breeding and foraging habitat through arable, scrub,
hedge and tree removal.
No significant operational impacts are predicted. It is not anticipated that increased
incidental disturbance would have a significant impact and no rise in the local domestic cat
population (and resulting predation) are expected as the Main Campus Masterplan provides
only for provision of places of work and study and term-time residence.
The significant impacts on this receptor without mitigation are summarised in Table 6.19:
Table 6.19: Impacts to Birds
Impact:
Construction (habitat loss)
Construction (noise pollution)
Type:
Negative (Local)
Negative (IZI)
Magnitude/Extent:
Loss of all arable land in SW of site
and loss of some scrub, hedge and
trees
Breeding birds adjacent to
construction sites
Duration:
Permanent loss of habitat
Duration of works although
abandonment of area is possible
Reversibility:
Reversible (prevention of deaths
through avoiding site clearance
during bird nesting season and
replacement through habitat
creation)
Reversible (birds likely to return
to successful breeding following
completion of works)
Timing/Frequency:
During construction phase most
significant over breeding season
During breeding season
Confidence:
Certain
Probable
White-clawed Crayfish
This receptor is valued at the County level. Although there are no records of crayfish within
watercourse of the Main Campus, they are known within the catchment and a precautionary
approach has assumed that crayfish are present.
No significant adverse impacts are predicted during either the construction or operational
phase of the Main Campus Masterplan as no watercourses would be directly impacted by
the proposals. However, a significant, beneficial operational impact is predicted as a result
of implementation of a sustainable drainage strategy to deal with surface water run-off. This
would reduce silting of aquatic habitats and thereby improve the river-bed aquatic habitat
conditions required by this species.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 62
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The significant impacts on this receptor without mitigation are summarised in Table 6.20:
Table 6.20: Impacts to White-clawed Crayfish
Impact:
Operational (sustainable drainage)
Type:
Positive (County)
Magnitude/Extent:
Improved quality of benthic aquatic habitats on site
Duration:
Ongoing
Reversibility:
-
Timing/Frequency:
Continuous
Confidence:
Unlikely (this is low due to the uncertainty that crayfish would use the
new habitat)
Invertebrates
Invertebrates of interest would be found within the woodland, aquatic and grassland
habitats. Most notably nationally and regionally scarce invertebrate species have been
recorded within the Tocil Wood and Brookstray SINC. Invertebrates have not been
assessed as a separate receptor and do not require an additional impact assessment to
those already carried out for the habitats themselves.
6.7
Impact Mitigation
6.7.1
Mitigation for Impacts on Statutory and Non-statutory Sites
Tocil Wood and Brookstray SINC
Any adverse effects from run-off and the resultant silting up of the wet woodland during the
construction phase may be prevented through provision preventative drainage solutions
prior to commencement of works.
The proposals include provision of sustainable drainage measures that would feed in the
Canley Brook watercourse which should reduce any potential adverse impacts caused by
excess post-construction run-off. The lead-in time required for the maturation of any
reedbeds would need to be programmed into the expansion proposals.
The majority of the SINC is outside the ownership of the University of Warwick, however the
area surrounding Tocil Lakes are part of the Main Campus and this land would be managed
as a more natural landscape with a less manicured vegetation structure and new indigenous
woodland stands. This would extend the adjacent ecologically diverse habitat into the
University grounds.
Old Brickyard Plantation pSINC
Any potential for damage to woodland habitat during construction works would be prevented
by the use of protective fencing around this ecologically valuable habitat.
Fencing and buffer planting would be utilised to minimise the impacts of increased postconstruction traffic around the plantation. This would discourage uncontrolled access into
the main body of the woodland, while enhancement of the three existing hedgerows that
radiate out from the plantation would strengthen its connections with the wider habitats of
Central Campus West. In addition the area to the southwest of the plantation would be
retained as open landscape, and the adjacent land immediately north of Gibbet Hill Road is
proposed as a new copse thus further preventing isolation of this habitat. It is also proposed
that the plantation be brought into active management with the objective of conserving and
enhancing its value.
Whitefield Coppice pSINC
Any potential for damage to woodland habitat during construction works would be prevented
by the use of protective fencing between the construction zone and the coppice.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 63
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Artificial lighting along the boundary of the coppice would be kept to the minimum intensity
required, preferably at low height and shielded so as to avoid direct light pollution on the
woodland. Habitat management of the land between the coppice and Main Campus would
be graduated in its intensity, from formal/amenity landscape at the perimeter of the
buildings, to a more natural habitat towards the woodland edge. Maintaining these fringe
habitats would promote ecological diversity and reduce potential habitat fragmentation.
6.7.2
Mitigation for Impacts on Other Habitats
Hedgerows
Any potential for accidental damage to this habitat during construction works would be
prevented by the use of protective fencing around retained hedgerows where they are
adjacent to construction works. The loss of species-poor hedgerow along Gibbet Hill Road
would be compensated for by the proposed strengthening of other existing hedgerows on
site using native species of local stock where possible, and enhancing these habitats with
associated seeding and planting of other species to create viable wildlife corridors.
Woodland/Veteran Trees
Any potential for accidental damage to woodland habitat during construction works would be
prevented by the use of protective fencing to standards outlined in BS5837 (2005) around
retained woodlands/trees where they are adjacent to construction works.
It is proposed that redevelopment of parts of the Westwood Site would retain existing
mature trees. Where tree removal is required this would be compensated by provision and
positive management of native woodland habitat species elsewhere on site, including east
of the Old Brickyard Plantation and northwest and west of the Sports Pitches.
Additionally an energy crop of short-rotation coppice (willow or poplar) is proposed for the
western fringes of the site which would provide a new woodland habitat.
Standing Open Water / Running Water
The loss of pond P2 would be mitigated for by adhering to a construction method statement
that minimises secondary impacts on the flora and fauna supported by the pond through
timing of works and translocation of aquatic species, and through creation of two new ponds
to be situated west of the Sports Pitches. Other construction impacts would be minimised
through the use of protective fencing to create a buffer zone, ensuring that waterbodies and
associated marginal vegetation are not directly damaged by construction works. Surface
run-off from construction areas can be prevented through the provision of appropriate
temporary drainage measure prior to commencement of works.
Operational impacts would be mitigated through the use of sustainable drainage which
would limit impacts from surface run-off into existing aquatic habitats. Sensitive landscaping
and habitat management would also ensure a gradation of intensity from formal/amenity
landscape at to a more natural habitat at the edge of aquatic habitats. A buffer zone, of a
minimum width of 10 m, would promote ecological diversity through retention of fringe
habitats. Aquatic habitats would be actively managed to prevent succession where
appropriate and connectivity would be strengthened between waterbodies. Hedgerows and
grass swards would be used as wildlife links to encourage interchange of species (notably
amphibian) between pond habitats.
Infestations of the invasive, non-native New Zealand pygmyweed (Crassula helmsii) found
38
in ponds P10a and P10b would be treated in line with Environment Agency guidance after
taking into account their varying impacts on the great crested newts known to breed in the
area.
38
Guidance for the control of invasive weeds in or near fresh water, Environment Agency, August 2003
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 64
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Marshy Grassland/Swamp
Although there are no predicted impacts on this habitat during the construction or
operational phases, additional wet grassland habitat would be created as part of general
aquatic habitat improvements. The current habitat in the south of the site would be
extended and new habitat created (by seeding with a wet meadow grass mix) on the land
that is currently arable and lies between the sports fields and Whitefield Coppice.
Arable
Some arable habitat would be lost to buildings and associated landscaping but much would
be given over to habitat creation in the form of wet grasslands, new broadleaved
plantations, short-rotation coppice and landscaping to create a graduated buffer between
proposed construction areas and ecological receptor habitats. One area of arable land just
north of Whitefield Coppice is no longer in active production and as such is likely to have a
higher conservation value due to its invertebrate populations. However, it is proposed that
this would be replaced by short-rotation coppice, which is also a good habitat for
invertebrates.
Semi-Improved Grassland
There are no predicted impacts on this habitat during the construction or operational phases
and no mitigation is proposed.
6.7.3
Mitigation for Impacts on Species
Great Crested Newts
Data from the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Amphibian Survey has allowed identification of
potential terrestrial great crested newt habitats across the Main Campus. Generally
speaking this is suitable habitat (i.e. woodland, hedgerows, scrub and rough grassland)
within 500 m of a great crested newt pond and not separated by a significant barrier to newt
migration. Where these areas are to be affected by development, this data would be used
to inform the preparation of an appropriate construction method statement.
Prior to the commencement of works within 500 m of a great crested newt pond, a Defra
licence is required to permit development. As part of the licensing process, a construction
method statement would be produced to demonstrate that the conservation status of the
species would not be adversely affected by the proposals. The approach is expected to
include avoidance of destructive activities through timing or use of appropriate locations,
trapping and exclusion of newts, and habitat compensation through the provision of foraging
habitat and a ‘two for one’ replacement of lost waterbodies.
Habitat fragmentation would be minimised through the retention of existing wildlife corridors
and connectivity enhanced through the network of ditches that would form part of the
integrated sustainable drainage system proposals. The inadvertent trapping of newts would
be avoided through the use of low kerbs and the absence of gully pots (also made possible
through the use of sustainable drainage systems) in areas where newt migration is
anticipated.
The size and range of habitats within the Main Campus provide ample opportunity for
mitigation and compensation works where avoidance is not possible. Additionally the
proposed hedgerow improvements, marshy grassland creation and the sustainable drainage
network would be of benefit to newts.
Water Voles
The sustainable drainage system proposals would result in the creation of a network of
water vole habitat across the campus, encouraging dispersal of the species and increasing
the stability of the population as a result.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 65
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Construction impacts would be minimised through the creation of 10 m wide buffer strips
along the watercourses which would be strengthened, where necessary, by protective
fencing to ensure that the structure of the bank and associated marginal vegetation are not
directly damaged by construction works. Surface run-off from construction areas would be
prevented through the implementation of drainage solutions prior to commencement of
works.
If it is later revealed that modifications are required to watercourses (e.g. pedestrian
crossings and habitat improvements), further targeted surveys would be undertaken. Where
works are found to be necessary in areas inhabited by water voles, these would be directed
by a Natural England approved construction method statement. Measures included would
include mitigation and compensation based on timing works to avoid periods of the year
when water voles are most vulnerable, encouraging water voles to temporarily vacate
affected areas, inclusion of wildlife shelves on any crossings and if required, provision of
compensatory habitat.
As part of the Main Campus Masterplan, it is proposed that the Tocil Lakes area is subject
to more sensitive habitat management practices and this would result in changes to the
marginal aquatic habitat. Provision of water vole-friendly features would include vegetation
suitable as a food source and as shelter from predation and improvements to the bank
profile to provide greater more potential burrow sites. This would benefit the water voles
that records have shown are present to the east and south of Tocil Lakes, allowing
population growth and encouraging migration.
Otters
It is not anticipated that there would be any impacts during the construction or operational
phases other than those discussed in the sections on aquatic habitats. Therefore, no
mitigation or compensation would be required other than that already discussed in relation
to aquatic habitats. However, the site as a whole would have an increased range of
connective aquatic habitats through the creation of an integrated sustainable drainage
network which has the potential to be utilised by otters.
Badgers
Although there is potential for some loss of foraging habitat, the identified badger sett would
remain surrounded by open countryside. Maintenance and enhancement of wildlife
corridors would ensure that animals retain access to the network of habitats within the Main
Campus. In particular there would remain strong connections between the sett Whitefield
Coppice, where there are records of foraging badgers mammal tracks.
Bats
With tree loss kept to a minimum and the production of method statements for works
affecting any areas supporting roosting bats, adverse impacts can be mitigated through
timing and strategy of works, provision of local alternative roosting habitats.
Bats are dynamic in their roosting behaviour and repeat surveys would be undertaken prior
to any demolition, construction or any tree removals. Where bats are found to be present
and avoidance of works is not possible, Defra licensing would require preparation of a
method statement based upon timing works to avoid periods when bats are most vulnerable
to disturbance, ensuring flyways are maintained and provision of replacement habitat such
as bat boxes on trees or bat-friendly features incorporated into new buildings.
The lighting of newly developed areas would be kept to the minimum power requirements.
Footpath lighting would ideally be in the form of low level ground units or short bollards. All
lighting would be shielded to reduce general light pollution and would be directional so as to
avoid direct lighting of those features identified as being utilised by bats.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 66
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
General habitat improvements to the hedgerows and aquatic habitats, as discussed earlier,
would provide additional benefits to bats in the form of sheltered foraging and commuting
corridors across the site. Planting of native species and use of sensitive habitat
management approaches should result in an increase in the invertebrate population, which
in turn would improve foraging opportunities for bats.
Brown Hares
No impacts are likely during the construction or operational phases and no mitigation is
proposed.
Birds
The main impacts on birds are through arable habitat loss, but there is also the potential for
some tree loss in the Westwood Site and general scrub removal. The loss of arable land
and any tree removal would be compensated for by the provision of a diverse landscape
(including reedbeds, coppice and marshy grassland) in place of the current amenity/arable
layout that is to be lost. Of the species identified, the skylark, grey partridge and
yellowhammer are the only species whose nesting is largely reliant on arable and
associated habitats. However the impact even on these species is likely to be minimal
given the large amount of surrounding arable habitat that would remain untouched by the
construction. The mute swan is unlikely to be affected by the proposals. Breeding and
foraging habitat for song thrush, reed bunting, goldcrest, swallow, house martin and
dunnock would increase as a result of the proposed habitat changes.
To avoid disturbance to nesting birds, ground and vegetation clearance would be
undertaken outside of the bird breeding season. If at any time this is not possible, searching
would be undertaken immediately prior to any works and clearance would not be allowed to
proceed while there are occupied nests in the area.
White-clawed Crayfish
It is not anticipated that there would be any impacts during the construction or operational
phases other than those discussed in the sections on aquatic habitats. Therefore, no
mitigation or compensation would be required other than those already discussed in relation
to aquatic habitats. However, the aquatic habitat across the site increase in water quality
through reduction in run-off through the creation of an integrated sustainable drainage
network.
6.7.4
Delivering the Proposed Mitigation
It is proposed that mitigation measures are delivered through the preparation and adoption
of two documents.
Firstly a Construction-phase Nature Conservation Management Plan would ensure that
species and habitat protection, translocation, creation measures are planned and
supervised adequately. Such plans are becoming standard practice as part of Site
Environmental Management Plans and are promoted by construction organisations such as
CIRIA.
Secondly a long-term Habitat Management Plan would cover issues such as monitoring and
management of habitats and species.
Both these plans would cover an extended period of construction and management and
would need to incorporate flexibility for annual review to accommodate changes in
construction proposals, legislation and best-practice.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 67
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
6.8
Residual Impacts
6.8.1
Residual Impacts on Statutory and Non-statutory sites
Tocil Wood and Brookstray SINC
Implementation of the Masterplan is expected to have a long-term, beneficial residual
impact of local significance on the SINC resulting from the sensitive habitat management
of the Tocil Lakes area.
Old Brickyard Plantation pSINC
The proposed management of the woodland, its adjacent land and connective habitat
features would result in a long-term positive residual impact of local significance from
the Main Campus Masterplan proposals on the Old Brickyard Plantation.
Whitefield Coppice pSINC
Through the protection of the habitat during construction and implementation of long-term
considerate lighting and landscaping schemes on adjacent land, there are likely to be no
residual impacts on Whitefield Coppice.
6.8.2
Residual Impacts on Other Habitats
Hedgerows
The loss of hedges along Gibbet Hill Road represents a permanent negative residual
impact, but only at the Immediate Zone of Influence, as this is a species-poor and heavily
manicured hedgerow of low ecological value. The strengthening of other hedgerows
following watercourses, the site perimeter or radiating across the Central Campus West
represents a long-term, positive residual impact, which would compensate for losses.
Woodland/Veteran Trees
The partial loss of broadleaved plantation (at the east corner of the Westwood Site)
represents a permanent negative residual impact at the Immediate Zone of Influence
owing to the low conservation value and scale of loss. Planting and positive management of
other woodland types elsewhere within the Main Campus represents a long-term, positive
residual impact at the local level.
Standing Open Water / Running Water
The mitigation strategy would avoid a decline in habitat status through the prevention of
habitat loss, fragmentation and isolation and the protection of water quality that could
otherwise result from implementation of proposals comprised within the Masterplan, most
importantly those affecting Central Campus West. There would be a long-term, positive
residual impact at the Immediate Zone of Influence for running water on site through
retention of marginal areas and the use of sustainable drainage to alleviate problems of
flooding currently experience by Canley Brook.
There would be a long-term beneficial residual impact at the local level for standing water
habitats through management to prevent pond degradation from succession and
fragmentation. Treatment and removal of New Zealand pygmyweed would further
contribute to improving the aquatic habitats and sustainability of amphibian populations.
Marshy Grassland and Swamp
There would be no residual impact resulting from the proposals on the small area of swamp
within the site. There would be a long-term positive residual impact at the local level
due to the proposed creation of further wet grassland habitats.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 68
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Arable
There would be a permanent negative impact at the Immediate Zone of Influence
caused by loss of habitat, however it would be partially replaced by a range of higher value
habitats.
Semi-Improved Grassland
There are no residual impacts anticipated on semi-improved grassland.
6.8.3
Residual Impacts on Species
Great Crested Newts
Great crested newts would experience a long-term, positive residual impact at the
County level as a result of the habitat enhancement works resulting from the Masterplan
proposals.
Water Voles
The Main Campus would have an increased range of suitable water vole habitat through the
provision of sustainable drainage features and changes to wildlife sensitive management
practices. Water voles are expected to experience a long-term, beneficial residual
impact at County level.
Otters
The site as a whole would have an increased range of aquatic habitats through provision of
sustainable drainage measures. Otters are therefore expected to experience a long-term,
positive residual impact at the County level.
Badgers
Badgers would experience no residual impacts as a result of the Masterplan proposals.
Bats
Bats would experience a long-term positive residual impact at the Local level as a result
of the habitat improvements to wildlife corridors across the site.
Brown Hares
No residual impacts on brown hares are expected as a result of the Masterplan proposals.
Birds
Despite the removal of arable habitats, creation of a variety of replacement habitats would
result in a beneficial residual impact at local level. However, skylark, yellowhammer and
song thrush may experience a permanent, adverse residual impact at the Immediate Zone
of Influence, due to the availability of arable habitat on adjacent land.
The affects of noise pollution on breeding birds during construction is largely unavoidable,
but would only impact on areas adjacent to current construction site and the birds are likely
to recover the following breeding season.
White-clawed Crayfish
Aquatic habitats may experience a reduction in silting from surface run-off as a result of
provision of sustainable drainage measures. Therefore, were White-clawed Crayfish to be
found in watercourses at the site, these would be expected to experience a long-term
beneficial impact at County level as a result of implementation of the Masterplan
proposals.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 69
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
This page is intentionally blank
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 70
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
7
Landscape and Visual
The following section provides a discussion of the potential landscape and visual impacts
resulting from implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan, as assessed and reported
by Churchman Landscape Architects Ltd.
7.1
Introduction
This assessment is concerned with the landscape and visual impacts associated with the
proposed expansion of the University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry.
It considers the influence that the proposed scheme would have on both the landscape and
the people who view that landscape. Visual and landscape assessments are treated as
separate, although linked, procedures.
Assessment of landscape impact is concerned with revealing the effects of development
upon individual physical features (or resources) and the combination of these resources,
which together give the landscape its unique structure, fabric and overall character.
Assessment of impact on visual amenity is concerned with identifying potential changes in
views as a result of changes to the landscape, and to the overall effects with respect to
visual amenity.
Landscape and visual impacts are assessed separately to take into account the possibility
for landscape impacts to occur without any, or minimal implications for visual impact and
vice versa.
This assessment should be read in conjunction with the following documents which support
the University of Warwick’s proposed plans:
39
•
The Main Campus Masterplan ;
•
The Main Campus Masterplan Planning Statement ; and,
•
The University Needs Case .
40
7.1.1
41
Document Structure
The order for this document is as follows:
Section 7.2: Review of planning policies which relate to landscape and visual issues;
Section 7.3: Description of the agreed assessment methodology as defined by the Scoping
Report submitted in January 2006;
Section 7.4: Description of baseline conditions;
Section 7.5: Identification and assessment of impacts to Central Campus East;
Section 7.6: Identification and assessment of impacts to Central Campus West;
Section 7.7: Identification and assessment of impacts to Westwood; and,
Section 7.8: Identification and assessment of impacts to Gibbet Hill.
7.2
Policy Framework
7.2.1
Legislation
The following section describes the Planning Policies related to landscape and visual issues
against which the proposals would be assessed.
39
Main Campus Masterplan 1, The University of Warwick, 2007
Planning Statement, The University of Warwick, 2007
41
University’s Need for Expansion, The University of Warwick, 2007
40
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 71
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The planning framework is a multi level structure allowing policies to be applied in a
strategic and local context:
•
At national level, through Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and Planning Policy
Statements (PPSs);
•
At regional level, through the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands;
•
Within Coventry, through the Unitary Development Plan;
•
Within Warwickshire, at a sub-regional level or county level through the Warwickshire
Structure Plan 1996-2001; and,
•
At District level through the Warwick District Plan.
The policies identified in this section relate only to Landscape and Visual issues. Policies
related to other aspects of the development, such as ecology and archaeology are dealt
with under those respective sections of the Statement
7.2.2
National Planning Policy
PPG2 Green Belts
The principal issues related to landscape issues arise from Planning Policy Guidance 2:
Green Belts (PPG 2).
The fundamental aim and objective of including land within the Green Belt is:
“to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open”
Paragraph 1.5 of this document states:
“the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness”
And;
“There are five purposes of including land in Green Belts:
•
to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
•
to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
•
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
•
to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
•
to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and
other urban land.”
Paragraph 1.6 states:
“Once Green Belts have been defined, the use of land in them has a positive role to
play in fulfilling the following objectives:
• to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban
population;
• to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban
areas;
• to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where people
live;
• to improve damaged and derelict land around towns;
• to secure nature conservation interest; and
• to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.”
Paragraph 1.7 goes on to say:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 72
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
“The quality of the landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within a Green
Belt or its continued protection.”
This means that landscape need not be of outstanding quality to merit its inclusion in Green
Belt. Moreover it is not possible to argue that land should come out of the Green Belt on the
grounds of its condition.
Paragraph 3.1 states that with reference to Green Belt in addition to general policies
controlling development in the countryside there is:
“a general presumption against inappropriate development within them. Such
development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances”
Paragraph 3.4 states:
“The construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for
the following purposes:
• agriculture and forestry (unless permitted development rights have been
withdrawn - see paragraph D2 of Annex D);
• essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries, and
for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and
which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it (see paragraph
3.5 below);
• limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings (subject to
paragraph 3.6 below);
• limited infilling in existing villages (under the circumstances described in the
box following paragraph 2.11), and limited affordable housing for local
community needs under development plan policies according with PPG3 (see
Annex E, and the box following paragraph 2.11); or
•
limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in
adopted local plans, which meets the criteria in paragraph C3 or C4 of Annex
C1.”
On the subject of visual amenity Paragraph 3.15 states:
“The visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for
development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although they would
not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually
detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design”.
Since the Warwick District Local Plan proposes that Central Campus West is designated as
a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt, Annex C also applies.
Paragraph C3 of Annex C1 states:
“Limited infilling at major developed sites in continuing use may help to secure jobs
and prosperity without further prejudicing the Green Belt. Where this is so, local
planning authorities may in their development plans identify the site, defining the
boundary of the present extent of development and setting out a policy for limited
infilling for the continuing use within this boundary. Such infilling should:
• have no greater impact on the purposes of including land in the Green Belt
(paragraph 1.5) than the existing development;
• not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and
• not lead to a major increase in the developed proportion of the site.”
Paragraph C16 of Annex C1 states:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 73
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
“The lack of reasonable alternative site outside the Green Belt (whether within the
urban area or elsewhere ) for the proposed expansion of an HFE establishment
located in or adjacent to the Green Belt should be taken into account in preparing or
reviewing a development plan”.
It goes on to say:
“Green Belt boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances, after
consideration of development opportunities in urban areas”.
Paragraph C17 of Annex C1 states:
“Meanwhile, pending the next local plan or UDP review, the infilling or (partial or
complete) redevelopment of HFE establishments on major sites in the Green Belt,
which are not identified in development plans but otherwise meet the criteria in
paragraph C3 or C4 of this Annex, is not inappropriate development. HFE
establishments means: universities, colleges, schools and institutes of higher
education; and establishments funded by the Further Education Funding Council for
England, including colleges of further education, VI form colleges, and agricultural
and horticultural colleges.”
Therefore, limited infilling in accordance with C3 is appropriate pending the next local plan.
On the basis of C16 more significant infilling may not be inappropriate if there are not
reasonable alternative sites outside the Green Belt.
PPS 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
The relevant Government objectives described by Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable
Development in Rural Areas (PPS 7) are:
“(i)
To raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas through the
promotion of
• thriving, inclusive and sustainable rural communities ensuring people have
decent places to live by improving the quality and sustainability of local
environments and neighbourhoods;
• sustainable economic growth and diversification
• good quality, sustainable development that respects and, where possible,
enhances local distinctiveness and their intrinsic qualities of the countryside;
and
• continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all, with the
highest level of protection for our most valued landscapes and environmental
resources.”
Paragraph 1, ‘Key Principles’, states:
“The following key principles should be applied in combination with all the policies set
out in this PPS
(i)
Decisions on development proposals should be based on sustainable
development principles, ensuring an integrated approach to the consideration
of:
• social inclusion, recognising the needs of everyone;
• effective protection and enhancement of the environment;
• prudent use of natural resources;
• maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 74
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
(iv)
New building development in the open countryside away from existing
settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plan,
should be strictly controlled; the Government’s overall aim is to protect the
countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its
landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it
may be enjoyed by all.
(vi)
All development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in
keeping and scale with its location and sensitive to the character of the
countryside and local distinctiveness.”
Paragraph 14, ‘The Countryside’, states:
“SS should recognise the environmental, economic and social value of the
countryside that is of national, regional or, where appropriate, sub regional
significance. Policies in RSS and LDDs should seek to maintain and enhance these
values, so enabling the countryside to remain an important natural resource,
contribute to national and regional prosperity and be enjoyed by all”.
Paragraph 16, ‘Countryside Protection and Development in the Countryside’, states:
“When preparing LDDs and determining planning applications for development in the
countryside, local authorities should:
(iii)
take account of the need to protect natural resources;
(iv)
provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources in
accordance with policies set out in PPs22 and,
(v)
conserve specific features and sites of landscape, wildlife and historic or
architectural value, in accordance with statutory designations.”
Paragraph 26, ‘The Countryside around Urban Areas’, states:
“While the policies in PPG2 continue to apply in Green Belts, local planning
authorities should ensure the planning policies in LDD’s address the particular land
use issues and opportunities to be found in the countryside around all urban areas,
recognizing its importance to those who live or work there, and also in providing the
nearest and most accessible countryside to urban residents. Planning Authorities
should aim to secure environmental improvements and maximize a range of
beneficial uses of this land, whilst reducing potential conflicts between neighbouring
land uses. They should include improvement of public access (e.g. through the
support of country parks and community forests) and facilitating the provision of
appropriate sport and recreation facilities.”
PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation
This document places a responsibility on local authorities to define a strategy for the
protection and provision of open space with.
Clause 10, relating to ‘Maintaining an Adequate Supply of Open Space and Sports and
Recreational Facilities’ states:
“Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land should not be built
on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open
space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements”
Clause 11 is concerned with the recognition and protection of quality open space resource
stating:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 75
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
“Open space and sports and recreational facilities that are of high quality, or of
particular value to a local community, should be recognised and given protection by
local authorities through appropriate policies in plans“
Clause 16 is concerned with open space where development is deemed to be acceptable
stating:
“The recreational quality of open spaces can be eroded by insensitive development or
incremental loss of the site. In considering planning applications - either within or
adjoining open space - local authorities should weigh any benefits being offered to the
community against the loss of open space that would occur”
This clause goes on to state:
“They should seek to ensure that all proposed development takes account of, and is
sensitive to, the local context”.
Clause 17 states:
“Local authorities should:
i.
avoid any erosion of recreational function and maintain or enhance the
character of open spaces;
ii.
ensure that open spaces do not suffer from increased overlooking, traffic flows
or other encroachment;
iii.
protect and enhance those parts of the rights of way network that might benefit
open space; and
iv.
consider the impact of any development on biodiversity and nature
conservation”.
Clause 24 places the following responsibilities upon Local Authorities:
“In planning for new open spaces and in assessing planning applications for
development, local authorities should seek opportunities to improve the local open
space network, to create public open space from vacant land, and to incorporate
open space within new development on previously-used land”.
Clause 30 deals specifically with recreational development within Green Belt areas stating:
“Planning permission should be granted in Green Belts for proposals to establish or to
modernise essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation where the openness of
the Green Belt is maintained. Development should be the minimum necessary and
non-essential facilities (e.g. additional function rooms or indoor leisure) should be
treated as inappropriate development. Very special circumstances which outweigh
the harm to the Green Belt would need to be demonstrated if such inappropriate
development is to be permitted”.
On the subject of public access Clause 32 states:
“Rights of way are an important recreational facility, which local authorities should
protect and enhance. Local authorities should seek opportunities to provide better
facilities for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders, for example by adding links to existing
rights of way networks”.
At the time of preparing this assessment it is understood that Coventry City Council have
not prepared a Green Space Strategy.
7.2.3
Regional Planning Policy
The Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (formerly known as Regional Planning
Guidance 11) was published in June 2004. It sets the regional framework for economic
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 76
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
development and environmental protection. The key objective of this strategy is the
development of a sustainable agenda for development. The following extracts, which relate
to environmental quality have been selected from this document.
Under the heading ‘Toward a More Sustainable Region’, two of the key objectives are:
• “effective protection of the environment:
• prudent use of natural resources”.
The Vision for the Spatial Strategy “looks forward to a region which is recognised for its
distinctive, high quality natural and built environment”.
One of the major concerns of this spatial strategy is Climate Change. At Clause 2.15, the
RSS states:
“Development Plans and the plans, strategies and programmes of local authorities
and statutory agencies should be co-ordinated to ensure that all new developments
and activities which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions are identified. The
impacts should be considered and where possible action taken to avoid, reduce, or
offset them. This could include contributions through energy efficiency measures and
Regional woodland targets”
Clause 2.16 identifies possible mechanisms for responding to climate change including the
use of sustainable drainage systems (Policy QE9) increasing tree cover (Policy QE8)
encouraging renewable energy and energy conservation
Under Chapter 5, relating to the ‘Rural Renaissance’, Clause 5.3 states:
“It is important that activities to improve the quality of life in the rural areas protect and
enhance their unique qualities including their environmental assets.”
Under Policy RR1, relating to ‘Rural Renaissance’, Clause C states:
“In preparing their development plans, local authorities would need to have regard to
the inter-relationship between urban and rural areas”
For rural areas which are subject to strong influences from the Major Urban Areas:
“the main priority would be to manage the rate and nature of further development to
that required to meet local needs, whilst ensuring that local character Is protected and
enhanced.”
Clause C item v of RR2, ‘The Rural Regeneration Zone’, states:
“Local Authorities should work with the RRZ Partnership Board to identify initiatives
which have spatial implications and to develop policies in their development plans to
facilitate those initiatives. In particular emphasis would be given to measures that
maintain and enhance the landscape (especially the three AONBs), natural, built and
historic environment and distinctive character of the Zone and particular areas within
it, and minimise the negative effects of any new development.”
Policy QE1, ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Environment’ states:
“A. Environmental improvement is a key component of the Spatial Strategy in order to
underpin the overall quality of life of all areas and support wider economic and social
objectives.
B. Local authorities and other agencies in their plans, policies and proposals should:
i)
support regeneration, by restoring degraded areas, conserving existing
environmental assets, including the reuse of redundant and under-used
buildings of merit, and creating new, high quality, built and natural
environments, particularly within the MUAs;
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 77
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
iii)
protect and where possible enhance other irreplaceable assets and those of a
limited or declining quantity, which are of fundamental importance to the
Region’s overall environmental quality, such as specific wildlife habitats,
historic landscape features and built heritage, river environments and
groundwater aquifers;
iv)
protect and enhance the distinctive character of different parts of the Region
as recognised by the natural and character areas… and associated local
landscape character assessments, and through historic landscape
characterisation.”
Policy QE3, ‘Creating a High Quality Built Environment for All’, states:
“A. Development Plans and other strategies should promote the creation of high
quality built environments as part of urban and rural renaissance and the regeneration
strategies for the Region’s cities, towns and villages.
B. Particular attention should be given to:
i)
securing a high quality of townscape, urban form, building design and urban
spaces, through the use of architecture, urban design and landscape design,
which respects Regional and local character, culture and history;
ii)
promoting public art;
iii)
incorporating sustainability considerations such as energy and water
efficiency, use of renewable energy, sustainable construction and drainage,
building orientation, use of recycled materials, minimisation of waste,
construction materials, and prolonging the lifespan of buildings;
iv)
assessing and minimising the impacts of noise and light pollution as a result of
development;”
Policy QE4 Greenery, Urban Greenspace and Public spaces
There are references to:
•
increasing the overall stock of urban trees;
•
maintaining and enhancing sports, playing fields and recreation grounds;
•
ensuring adequate protection is given to key features such as parks, footpaths and
cycleways, river valleys canals and open spaces;
•
linking new urban green space to the wider countryside to encourage the spread of
species.
Policy QE6, ‘The Conservation, Enhancement and Restoration of the Region’s Landscape’,
states:
“Local authorities and other agencies, in their plans, policies and proposals should
conserve, enhance and, where necessary, restore the quality, diversity and
distinctiveness of landscape character throughout the Region’s urban and rural areas
by:
i)
ensuring that a consistent approach is taken to landscape and character
issues, particularly where they cross local planning authority boundaries;
ii)
establishing a positive and integrated approach to the use, management and
enhancement of the urban fringe;
iv)
protecting and, where possible, enhancing natural, man-made and historic
features that contribute to the character of the landscape and townscape, and
local distinctiveness;
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 78
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
v)
considering other factors that contribute to landscape character including
tranquillity and the minimisation of noise and light pollution.”
Policy QE8, ‘Forestry and Woodlands’, states:
“A. Development plans, other strategies and programmes should encourage tree
cover in the Region to be increased, where it is appropriate to the character of the
area, taking account of the Regional Forestry Framework, and in ways that reinforce
and support the Spatial Strategy by:
i)
designing new planting and woodland expansion so as to maintain and
enhance the diversity and local distinctiveness of landscape character within
the Region, ensuring that new planting does not adversely impact on the
biodiversity of a site;
iii)
realising the potential for creating larger multi-purpose woodlands, woodlands
along transport corridors and reducing fragmentation of ancient woodlands;
v)
ensuring that woodland expansion and management, and the development of
any associated facilities, observe sustainable development principles and
minimise environmental impacts;
vii)
promoting, where appropriate, opportunities for short rotation coppice as a raw
material and where this can provide a renewable energy resource.
B. Development plans and other strategies should seek to conserve and protect
woodlands, especially ancient and semi-natural woodlands, by:
i)
prohibiting the conversion of semi-natural woodland (as defined in the UK
Forestry Standard Notes) to other land uses unless there are over-riding
conservation benefits;
ii)
increasing the protection of ancient woodland sites or ancient semi-natural
woodland through consultation with the Forestry Commission over any
planned application within 500m; and
iii)
exercising a general presumption against the conversion of any woodland to
other land uses unless there are overriding public benefits”
Specific clauses of relevance under Policy EN1: energy Conservation are:
“Local authorities in their development plans should:
i)
encourage proposals for the use of renewable energy resources, including
biomass, subject to an assessment of their impact using the criteria in iii)
below.
Specific policies should be included for technologies most appropriate to the
particular area;
ii)
provide locational guidance through supplementary guidance as necessary on
the most appropriate locations for each renewable energy technology, having
regard to resource potential, the desirability of locating generation sites close
to or within areas of demand, and landscape character assessment where
appropriate;
iii)
identify the environmental and other criteria that would be applied to
determining the acceptability of such proposals including:
a)
impact on the landscape, visual amenity and areas of ecological or
historic importance;
Policy SS5, ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Environment’, states:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 79
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
“The environmental capital of all parts of the Region would be maintained and
improved as a key component of the Spatial Strategy in order to underpin the overall
quality of life of all areas and support wider economic and social objectives.
This would be achieved by:
• supporting regeneration, by restoring degraded areas, conserving existing
environmental assets and creating new, high quality, built and natural
environments, particularly within the Major Urban Areas;
• protecting and enhancing other irreplaceable assets;
• protecting and enhancing the distinctive character of different parts of the
Region. In bringing forward development, consideration must be given to using
natural resources more sustainably and mitigating or compensating for any
significant loss of environmental capital.”
7.2.4
District Planning Policy
The University Main Campus spans the administrative boundary between the districts of
Warwick and Coventry. Thus, with respect to landscape designations and planning policies,
the development site is effectively split into two, with Coventry Unitary Plan designations
applying to the northeast while designations in the southwest fall under the County Planning
framework of the Warwickshire Structure Plan and the Planning Policies of the Warwick
District Plan.
The relevant landscape planning policies and designations for these two authorities are
outlined below. (Only policies that are different to either national or regional policy are
highlighted).
Coventry Unitary Plan Policies
The Coventry Development Plan is the second Unitary Development Plan for the City of
Coventry Metropolitan District. It is a full replacement plan for the City of Coventry Unitary
Plan 1993, rolling the end date forward from 2001 to 2011.
Landscape and Green Belt issues are defined in Section 9 of the Plan titled the ‘Green
Environment’.
The Policy aim of this Chapter is:
“to provide people with rich, accessible and diverse Green Spaces, linked to the
surrounding countryside where possible, while ensuring effective conservation of
wildlife, landscape and natural features, as important elements of a clean, healthy
and sustainable green environment”
Policy GE 1, Green Environment Strategy, defines the following objectives:
“the City Council would:
• protect Green Space;
• enhance the provision and quality of Green Space;
• make Green Space accessible to all sections of the community;
• encourage the appropriate management of Green Space;
• give protection to valuable wildlife, habitats and landscape features; and
• maintain a Green Belt protecting the Green Wedges and the ‘Arden’
• countryside from inappropriate development.”
Green space within the City is categorised either as Green Belt and protected under Policy
GE 6, or Urban Green Space, Policy being defined by GE 8.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 80
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table GE 1 sets down levels of Green Space provision under the Coventry Green Space
Standards. Green Space is categorised as Outdoor Playing Space, Public Parks and
Gardens and Natural Green Space
Policy GE 2 seeks to define a network of Green Space enhancement sites, which would be
established, in partnership with a range of organisations, to make the best use of neglected
and unsightly land, improve environmental quality and provide or enhance Green Space.
These would include Community Pocket Parks, Nature Reserves and Community
Woodlands, wetlands and the river and canal corridors.
Under Policy GE 3, the City is committed to the establishment of a network of Green Space
Corridors, these spaces promoting:
•
amenity;
•
access to open countryside;
•
outdoor sport and recreation;
•
environmental education; and
•
landscape and nature conservation.
They include green wedges, wetlands and river corridors.
Policy GE 6 relates to the protection of Green Belt reinforcing the national guidelines
defined by PPG 2:
“Inappropriate development would not be allowed in the Green Belt unless justified by
very special circumstances”
and
“Development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt must not harm the visual
amenities of the Green Belt by reason of siting, materials or design. protect the
openness, purposes and character of the Green Belt”
Paragraph 9.39 states that:
“The most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. There are four
purposes for including land in Coventry’s Green Belt:
• to check the unrestricted sprawl of the City;
• to prevent Coventry from merging with the neighbouring towns of Birmingham,
Kenilworth, Bedworth and Rugby;
• to assist in safeguarding the City’s countryside and Green Wedges from
encroachment;
• to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and
other previously-developed urban land”
Paragraph 9.40 states:
“In addition, the use of land in the Green Belt has a positive role to play in fulfilling the
following objectives:
• retaining land in agriculture, forestry and related open uses;
• providing access to the open countryside for the urban population;
• providing opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban
areas;
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 81
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
• retaining attractive landscapes, and enhancing landscapes near to where
people live;
• securing nature conservation interests; and
• improving damaged and derelict land.”
Although there is a presumption against development and change of use within Paragraph
9.41 states:
“Changes in the use of land may also be appropriate if they preserve its openness
and visual amenities and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the
Green Belt”
Paragraph 9.43 states:
“Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and would be
allowed only if very special circumstances clearly outweigh that, and any other, harm”
Paragraph 9.45 states:
“The visual amenities of the Green Belt must also be protected. In this regard, the
countryside surrounding the built up area of Coventry forms part of the ‘Ancient
Arden’ landscape of scenic quality and distinctive local character. It is a mature and
varied undulating landscape, characterised by a wide range of historic features,
including small irregular fields defined by thick, ancient hedgerows and hedgerow
oaks; unimproved pastures and field ponds; ancient woodlands; vernacular style
buildings; and a network of narrow, winding and often sunken lanes. These features
are woven within a working agricultural landscape, which still retains a locally
distinctive and rural character”
Paragraph 9.46 states:
“The City Council’s Ancient Arden Design Guidelines would be applied in order to
protect the visual amenities, local distinctiveness, openness and rural character of the
Green Belt.”
Paragraph 9.47 states:
“Where development is considered appropriate within the Green Belt, a high standard
of design and siting would be required, reflecting the traditional character of buildings
in the area and the landscape, and using materials sympathetic to the locality. The
conservation and maintenance of features important to the local landscape would
also be required.”
Of particular relevance in the context of the Green Belt setting of the University is P.48,
which relates to Green Wedges, and states:
“Aside from the open countryside there are also green wedge areas of Green Belt
which are extensive tracts of open land which penetrate the built-up area from the
countryside beyond and include remnants of the Arden landscape. They have a
particular value in maintaining the openness and environmental quality of urban
areas, assisting nature conservation, and providing people with access to the open
countryside. Special attention would be given to the protection conservation and
enhancement of these Green Wedges”
The zones of Green Belt to both north and south of the Main Campus are defined within the
Development Plan as Green Wedges and as such would receive a high level of protection.
Policy GE 7, ‘Industrial or Commercial Buildings in the Green Belt’, may be relevant to the
University due to its scale:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 82
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
“The redevelopment, extension, or other alteration of existing industrial or commercial
buildings in the Green Belt for industrial or commercial uses, may be appropriate
development if the overall impact of the development on the openness, appearance
and character of the Green Belt is improved
A proposal would not be regarded as appropriate if:
• the area occupied by built development is enlarged;
• the height of existing buildings is exceeded;
• the use and associated activities are materially intensified;
• the total gross floorspace is significantly increased; or
• a high quality of design, materials and landscaping is not achieved”
Policy GE 8 is concerned with Urban Green Space which can be either public or privately
owned. Given that the campus is semi public space the objectives of this policy are relevant
recognizing its value in terms of nature conservation, combating pollution and general
raising of amenity values. The City Council seeks to protect this resource by ensuring that
development incorporates, enhances and conserves the Urban Green Space resource.
Policy GE14 is concerned with the ‘Protection of Landscape Features’, stating:
“Important landscape features of value to the amenity or history of a locality, including
mature woodlands, trees, hedgerows, ridge & furrow meadows and ponds, would be
protected against unnecessary loss or damage.”
Clause 9.81 goes on to say:
“Where valuable trees, hedgerows and ponds are retained within a development site,
the City Council would use conditions to ensure that they are protected during and
after development, and are given sufficient space to grow”.
Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996-2011
Environmental Policies are defined at Section 3, ‘Rural Policies’ and Section 8,
‘Environmental Resource Policies’. General Development Policies relevant to landscape
and visual issues include:
“GD. Development should (f) conserves resources of land and energy, including
minerals and water, and makes maximum use of renewable energy resources.
GD.3 Urban development should be planned in a compact and disciplined form, as
far as possible avoiding the Green Belt, and controlled to use previously
developed land and buildings and greenfield land in the proportions indicated
in this Plan.
GD.6 local plans should, in accordance with PPG2, specify policies for the
restriction of inappropriate development in the Green Belt.”
Section 3: Rural Policies
Relevant policies are:
RA.1 which seeks to “prevent development in rural areas other than that which specifically
meets the needs of the rural population, rural businesses and agriculture”.
Section 8: Environmental Resource Policies
The main thrust of policy is defined by ER.1 which states:
“Development would only be permitted where it is consistent with protection of the
environmental assets of the County and respect for the character and quality of its
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 83
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
towns and countryside. Local plans should therefore include policies and land
allocations which ensure that:
(b)
development does not involve loss of, or risk of damage to, or adverse impact
on the Area of Outstanding National Beauty; a Site of Special Scientific
Interest, National Nature Reserve, Scheduled Ancient Monument, Listed
Building, Registered Park, Garden or Battlefield, Conservation Area or the
setting of any of these or any other landscape, site, building, structure,
artefact, feature habitat species or area with national statutory protection, or of
national importance unless the development can be demonstrated to be in the
public interest;
(c)
development does not involve significant loss of, risk of damage to, or adverse
impact on the setting or character of any landscape, site, building, structure,
artefact, feature, habitat, species or area of ecological, geological,
archaeological, historical, recreational or other conservation interest of
acknowledged regional or local importance unless there are overriding
reasons for development;
(e)
the ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) would be
protected from development; where there is an overriding need for such land
to be developed land of the lowest grade would, wherever possible, be used
first.
(f)
design guidance moves away from standardisation towards design that is
more sensitive to the locality, and takes account of ways in which the
environmental impact of development on energy and water resources can be
reduced.”
The inclusion of the campus within the Warwickshire Green Belt means that it falls within the
directive given at sub clause B, while its inclusion on the Key Diagram within a Special
Landscape Area means that it is also covered by sub clause C.
Policy ER.4 on ‘Protection and Enhancement of the Landscape’ states:
“Local plans should seek to protect and enhance landscape character and quality in
all areas of Warwickshire's countryside.
(a) Special Landscape Areas should be designated by virtue of their particular
landscape quality, which is of local rather than national importance. Within
these areas, local policies should ensure that development does not damage
landscape character and that only developments which can demonstrate a
high quality of design are permitted.”
Central Campus West falls within the boundary of a Special Landscape Area defined on the
Structure Plan. However, the Special Landscape Area classification has been deleted from
the revised draft version of the Warwick District Plan. This designation would not therefore
appear to have any status.
The framework for assessment is the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines published by
Warwickshire County Council and the Countryside Commission in 1993, which have been
adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance.
ER.5 seeks to explore the environmental opportunities offered by development stating:
“Local Plans should take advantage of the opportunities afforded by development, in
addition to the mitigation or compensation for adverse impacts, for the provision,
positive management and enhancement of environmental and recreational assets.
This should include public access to and interpretation of features for education and
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 84
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
informal recreation, as well as contributing to targets in UK and Local Biodiversity
Action Plans.”
This is amplified at 8.5.3 which seeks to encourage and manage landscape features that
are of major importance for wild life flora and fauna, specifically linear features such as
hedges small woods and streams, linear tree belts, green lanes and grassland as these all
promote species migration and dispersal.
ER.6 Seeks to protect the character of urban areas by safeguarding its open spaces.
Although not directly relevant to this proposal the protection of the open space between
Kenilworth and the University is a major consideration, although this is achieved through
Green Belt policy.
ER.7 seeks to protect publicly accessible land and public rights of way.
Warwick District Council Planning Policies
The policies identified in this section refer to those listed in the first deposit version of the
Warwick District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, referred to as the Local Plan.
The Local Plan is heavily influenced by The Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 policies
identified above. The revised deposit version was approved by the Council in May 2005.
Specific clauses related to landscape, visual quality and Green Belt issues are as described
as follows:
Development Policy 1 (DP1)
“DP1:
Development would only be permitted which positively contributes to the character
and quality of its environment through good layout and design. Development
proposals would be expected to demonstrate that they:
a.
harmonise with, or enhance, the existing settlement in terms of physical form,
patterns of movement and land use;
b.
harmonise with the character of prominent ridge lines or other important
topographical or landscape features;
h.
integrate with existing paths, streets, circulation networks and patterns of
activity;
k.
ensure all components, e.g. buildings, landscaping, access routes, parking
and open spaces are well related to each other and provide a safe and
attractive environment”
DP3 Natural and Historic Environment and Landscape
“Development would only be permitted which protects important natural features and
positively contributes to the character and quality of its natural and historic
environment through good habitat/landscape design and management. Development
proposals would be expected to demonstrate that they:
c.
protect and enhance the local ecology and landscape character of the area,
particularly respecting its historic character;
d.
provide appropriate levels of amenity space which incorporate suitable habitat
features and hard and soft landscaping;
e.
integrate the amenity space and proposed landscaping into the overall
development ;
f.
secure the long term management and maintenance of habitat/landscape
features and
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 85
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
g.
protect best and most versatile agricultural land”
Specific sub clauses of importance are:
“4.16a The District includes some of the Region's most valued as well as nationally
and internationally renowned heritage assets. Beyond statutory protected
assets the historic environment is fundamental to the wider character of the
area's rural landscapes, towns and villages.
4.18 The objective of this policy is to ensure that habitat/landscaping features and
amenity space are a key component in the design of new development and
form an integral part of the wider landscape and open space network.
4.22a The results of the programme of Historic landscape characterisation to be
undertaken by Warwickshire Museum would need to be taken into account
when assessing the impact of development proposals on the historic
landscape.
4.22b The value of hedgerows in the landscape has been recognised by the
Government by the introduction of regulations to protect 'important' specimens
from the threat of damage or removal. There would be a presumption against
the removal of hedgerows unless the relevant notification procedure has been
fully complied with”
DP12 Energy Efficiency
There are clauses within this section of the Policy which do impact on the landscape.
“Development proposals would be expected to demonstrate that they:
c.
utilise opportunities for landscaping to provide shelter belts to improve energy
efficiency;
e.
use sustainable and renewable forms of heating such as the use of solar
panels and CHP (Combined Heat & Power) schemes”
DP12a Renewable Energy Developments
Within this policy there are more relevant clauses related to the growing of energy crops:
“A. Planning permission would be granted for developments which generate energy
from renewable resources where they do not have an unacceptable impact on:
• local amenity including visual intrusion, noise, dust, odour and traffic
generation;
• townscape and/or landscape character;
• the natural environment”
Chapter 8: Rural Area Policies
This section of the Local Plan defines the principal objectives, given that the University falls
within a rural Green Belt setting.
RAP1 Development within Rural Areas
“Development within the rural areas would not be permitted except in accordance with
policies of this Plan. Policies RAP2 to RAP16, set out the criteria whereby
development would be permitted in the rural areas. RAP7 Directing New Employment
being the section that applies to the University’s proposed expansion”
New employment development would be permitted in the following circumstances:
“proposals on identified major developed sites within the Green Belt in accordance
with policy SSP2”
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 86
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Warwick District Green Belt
DAP 1 Protecting the Green Belt states:
“Within the Warwickshire Green Belt as defined on the Proposals Map, there would
be a general presumption against inappropriate development. The following forms of
development would be permitted in appropriate instances:
e.
development within major developed sites in accordance with policy SSP2;
h.
other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not
conflict with the purpose of including land within it.”
Relevant sub clauses are:
“9.5 The primary purpose of this policy is to protect the Green Belt from
inappropriate development that would prejudice the open nature of the rural
area and the setting of the settlements within Warwick District. The Council
supports the role of the Green Belt in accordance with Government guidance
as contained in PPG”
DAP 4 Protecting Nature Conservation Geology and Geomorphology
Nature Conservation Issues are dealt with under the Ecology chapter of this Environmental
Statement. However, there are sections of this policy that relate also to landscape features.
“Development would not be permitted which would destroy or adversely affect the
following sites of national importance:
b. designated Ancient Woodlands”
This applies to Whitefield Coppice which although not within the University boundary, is
immediately adjacent to its boundary and subject to land use changes or development
proposals on University land. Other local tree groups that have been classified as ancient
woodland include:
The Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines published by Warwickshire County Council and
the Countryside Commission in 1993, have been adopted by the District Council as
Supplementary Planning Guidance with regard to Special Landscape Areas. Therefore,
development proposals have to accord with the principles set out in these guidelines.
7.3
Assessment Approach
7.3.1
Introduction
The assessment methodology is based on the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment prepared jointly by The Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental
42
Management and Assessment .
The assessment stages are:
•
Evaluation of the baseline condition, as described within Section 7.4; and,
•
Evaluation of the impacts arising from the development, as described in Section 7.5 to
Section 7.8.
The assessment covers firstly issues related to the landscape followed by issues related to
visibility. Landscape is considered both as a resource, i.e. the nature and value of its
individual constituent parts e.g. hedges, ponds, built elements, and then in terms of its
character i.e. the nature and value of these parts when assessed in combination.
42
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition, The Landscape Institute and the Institute
of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2003
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 87
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
For the assessment of landscape issues the text covers firstly the wider landscape setting of
the University and secondly the immediate context of the campus itself.
Due to the diverse range of characters present within both the surrounding landscape and
the existing campus, it has been decided to break the assessment down into the four
sections related to the following parts of the University:
•
•
•
•
Central Campus East (Coventry Land);
Central Campus West (Warwickshire Land);
Gibbet Hill Site; and,
Westwood Site.
These areas are illustrated on Figure 7.1.1.
The extent of the landscape study area is shown in Figure 7.1.1 covering an area of 4 km
7.3.2
Effects
The potential range of effects arising from the development would be as follows:
Negative
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduction in openness of Green Belt;
Damage to Arden Parklands Character;
Damage to Special Landscape Character;
Damage to suburban character;
Dilution of clarity of urban edge;
Loss of public access;
Loss of green space;
Effects of noise/ dust on enjoyment / character of landscape;
Loss of tranquillity;
Intensification of use;
Inappropriate planting and management strategies;
Damage to grassland, hedgerows and trees identified for retention; and,
Damage to the topsoil resource, due to poor handling.
Positive
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clearer definition of land use zones;
Additional planting;
Addition of new water bodies as drainage features;
More appropriate planting typologies;
Reconnection of existing landscape features; and,
Enhancement of ecological resource.
Visual Effects
Negative
•
•
•
•
Visibility of cranes;
Visibility of construction activities;
Visibility of new buildings, car parks and roads; and,
Increased light pollution.
Positive
•
Increased screening through additional planting
The interaction between receptors and sources of effect are illustrated in Appendix C.3,
Tables 6, 13, 20 and 27. Within these tables some entries appear on both the receptor axis
and the source of effect axis. The existing users of the campus are the receptors of change
to the landscape brought about by increased levels of usage related to the University’s
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 88
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
expanding population. Also new vegetation introduced in association with the new
development would have an effect on the character of the surrounding landscape so trees,
and hedges appear within both columns.
7.3.3
Commonly Used Terms
Study area:
Extent of area surveyed.
Landscape setting:
The wider landscape within which the University is located
Main Campus:
The area owned by the University of Warwick and defined on Figure
7.1.2 including, Central Campus East (within Coventry), Central
Campus West, (within Warwickshire), Gibbet Hill and Westwood.
This is different from the University Ownership which encompasses
the above areas plus Cryfield Grange Farm to the south
Landscape:
Refers to the physiography and appearance of the land, both rural
and urban. Landscape reflects the local mix of physical influences
such as geology, topography, soils and climates, together with
human influences of land use, land management, cultural and social
activities.
Elements:
Individual components that make up the landscape.
Landscape
features:
Refers to the more conspicuous and localised elements within a
landscape such as hedgerows, woods, trees and ponds, notable
buildings, rivers, and streams.
Landscape
characteristics:
The various components of the landscape that contribute in a
significant manner to its distinctive character.
Landscape
character:
Description of the appearance of the land and how it is generally
perceived. Landscape character reflects the physical influences
together with human influences of land use, land management and
cultural and social activities. These influences, together with the
constant dynamic of ecological change and the historic legacy of
past uses, combine to produce the landscape that is used,
experienced and seen today.
Visual envelope:
Extent of visibility to or from the areas of proposed development.
Vantage point:
Location from which the University can clearly be seen
Receptor:
Physical or natural landscape resource, special interest group or
viewer group that may experience an impact if the nature of the
landscape is changed
Effect:
Change brought about, either directly or indirectly, by the
development. The change can be both positive or negative,
significant or minor.
Impact:
A combination of the magnitude of an effect and the sensitivity of
the receptor influence by that effect
7.3.4
Scoping Report
The assessment follows the methodology outlined in the Scoping Report submitted in
January 2006.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 89
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Responses to the scoping report were as follows:
th
•
Letter from Coventry City Council dated 28 February 2006: No specific issues relating
to landscape or visual impact.
•
Screening Opinion from Coventry City Council dated 6 June 2006: No specific issues
relating to landscape or visual impact.
•
Letter from Environment Agency dated 31 July 2006: Specific issues relating to
landscape or visual impact were as follows:
th
st
-
Development should commit to best available technology for sustainable urban
drainage;
-
Use of renewable energy should be incorporated throughout the site; and,
-
Wooded areas, veteran and semi mature trees should be retained. Extensive
survey of all trees should be carried out. Development should be built around trees
of significant value, both on an individual level and on a landscape scale.
7.3.5
Consultations
Consultations on landscape and visual issues were covered within the general consultation
43
exercise described in the Statement of Community Involvement , which is published under
separate cover.
Specific issues related to the design of the landscape and the impact on the wider setting
were dealt with through the Design Sub Group incorporating representatives from Coventry
City Council, Warwickshire County Council and Warwick District Council.
This included:
•
Assessment of landscape proposals; and,
•
Identification of critical views.
7.3.6
Assessment Methodology
Methodology for Determining Baseline Condition
Landscape
The process of identifying the existing landscape baseline condition involved surveying the
existing landscape features and analysing the character of the landscape arising from the
collective value of these features when viewed in combination. This process was based on
44
the methodology recommended by The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural
46
Heritage’s Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland .
This involved an analysis of contemporary Ordnance Survey maps, the review of historic
maps from the Warwick Public Records Office and study of the Warwickshire Landscape
Guidelines – Arden, prepared by Warwickshire County Council and the Countryside
47
Commission .
Visual
The visibility of the development was assessed by determining the extent of the visual
envelope i.e. those areas from which the University can clearly be seen. This was defined
43
Main Campus Master: Statement of Community Involvement, University of Warwick, 2007
The Countryside Agency has since been subsumed into the new ‘Natural England’
46
Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland, The Countryside Agency and Scottish
Natural Heritage, 2002
47
Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines: Warwickshire County Council and Countryside Commission
44
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 90
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
using three dimensional digital modelling which produces a topographic base from which the
potential extent of the visual envelope can be defined. This was then moderated by adding
the main blocks of woodland, stands of trees and building masses. This process is
described fully in Appendix C.1.
The model was then verified by:
•
Walking and/or driving all of the public highways and footpaths with a potential view of
the University; and,
•
Accessing the roofs and/or top floors of all existing University Buildings
Visual surveys and field observations were carried during the period January 2004 to
February 2006, the majority undertaken during the months October 2005 to February 2006
when there was minimal foliage on the trees and the University Estate was at its most
visible.
Access to the site was permissible and walkover surveys were carried out throughout the
area. Local footpaths within the study area were walked and local roads travelled by car in
order to gather baseline information and assess the potential visual effects arising from the
development.
The visibility of the site from private residences and other private buildings has been
predicted as accurately as possible based on observations within the public domain, from
the careful analysis of map information and by assessing the numbers of private properties
that can be viewed when standing on either existing areas of elevated topography or on the
upper decks of existing structures within the University. With regards to Central Campus
East, this has allowed a fairly accurate prediction of the limits of visibility. Due to the lack of
buildings at Central Campus West it has only been possible to make theoretical
assessments using digital models and photomontage techniques.
The existence of the taller buildings does allow fairly accurate visual assessments to be
made in the field. The six-storey Library building and the Arts Tower exceed the canopy line
of the surrounding trees, so if they are not visible from surrounding vantage points then it
can be assumed that future development would also not be seen.
Methodology for Assessing Impact
Landscape and visual effects can arise from a variety of sources such as changes in land
use, development of buildings and changes in land management. This assessment
identifies the nature of these changes, the sensitivity of the receptors that would be affected
by these changes together with the likely nature and magnitude of the effects. It then uses
the assessments of receptor sensitivity and effect magnitude to determine the significance
of impact. It also questions whether these impacts can be mitigated either in the short or
long term.
The methodology adopted for the assessment of impact would therefore be as described
below:
•
Description of the proposed development;
•
Definition of the receptors that are likely to be affected and the sensitivity of these to
change;
•
Description of the effects arising from the development in terms of whether they are
positive or negative, direct or indirect, permanent or temporary;
•
Assessment of the degree of significance of the impacts arising from these effects;
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 91
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
Assessment of the effectiveness of mitigation measures that has been employed to
address severe or major impacts; and,
•
Identification of residual impacts.
The identification of all potential sources, receptors, effects and impacts is described fully in
the supporting Tables 6 to 33 of Appendix C.3. Each of the four areas is dealt with as a
separate and discrete assessment, the sequential process described above being followed
for each area in turn. It is acknowledged that this has resulted in a certain amount of
repetition, but it was felt that the diverse range of impacts that relate to each of the areas
would be better understood if the overall development was broken down into smaller more
manageable packages.
For each of the four areas an assessment is made first of the landscape impact, followed by
the visual impact. Landscape impacts are further subdivided into those related to the
landscape setting of the Main Campus followed by those relating to the site landscape.
Landscape Impact Assessment Methodology
Through an understanding of the existing baseline condition it was possible to assess what
impacts the proposals would have on the landscape resource. This involved an assessment
of the following:
•
Loss of green space;
•
Change of landscape character;
•
Change of definition of the urban edge;
•
Loss of tranquillity;
•
Loss of individual landscape features, trees, woods, hedges ponds; and,
•
Changes to intensity of use.
Visual Impact Assessment Methodology
The degree of visibility can be determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy through the
use of three dimensional modelling and computer aided design.
The visual envelope of the proposed development was determined using a three
dimensional modelling package, verified by onsite investigations. This process is described
in detail in Appendix C.1.
In order to provide an accurate graphic indication of the visual effect that would be
perceived from key vantage points a number of photomontages were prepared. The
process of preparing these images is described fully in Appendix C.2 ‘Methodology for the
Preparation of Photomontages’.
It was agreed with representatives of the local authorities that six key views would be
considered on this basis.
Viewpoint 1: Westwood Heath Road, near the corner with Roughknowles Road (National
Grid Reference (NGR) 427 795, 276 721, looking 112° off north);
Viewpoint 2: Public footpath, near Old Lodge Farm (NGR 427 428, 276 416, looking 103°
off north);
Viewpoint 3: Crackley Lane, between Pools Cottages and Hurst Farm
(NGR 428 274, 275 636, looking 84° off north);
Viewpoint 4: Footpath, near Crackley Road, (NGR 429 427, 274 194, looking 19° off north);
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 92
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Viewpoint 5: Cryfield Road, near Cryfield Grange, (NGR 430 112, 274 785, looking 352° off
north); and,
Viewpoint 6: De Montfort Way near the junction with Lynchgate Road (NGR
430 497, 276 566, looking 215° off north);
7.3.7
Impact Assessment Criteria
A range of criteria have been drawn up in order to provide consistency when assessing the
sensitivity of receptors and the magnitude of effects. These range from high to low.
Table 7.1:
Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors
Sensitivity
Landscape features that are rare/unusual/distinctive, fundamental to
overall character and virtually impossible to replace or recreate; or,
A landscape of particularly distinctive sense of place and character and
highly valued for its scenic quality
Landscape features that are notable and important to overall character but
which could be replaced; or,
Moderately valued landscape character which is reasonably tolerant of
changes or easy to recreate
Landscape features that are commonplace; or,
Relatively unimportant landscape or potentially tolerant of substantial
change
Table 7.2:
High
Moderate
Low
Sensitivity of Visual Receptors
Sensitivity
Viewed from publicly accessible vantage points or a large number of
residential properties where one of the following criteria apply:
•
The view is of high visual quality; or,
•
Part of a wide panorama when viewed at distance; or,
•
Viewed at close quarters Less than 1 km; or,
•
Where quality of the view is a major consideration for the receptor
Viewed from publicly accessible routes / open space or a moderate
number of residential properties where one or more of the following criteria
apply:
•
The distance of view is significant (1 km or more); or,
•
The quality of the view is only moderate; or,
•
The view is filtered or screened by existing site features such as
topography or vegetation; or,
•
The view is of only moderate importance to the receptor
Viewed from public routes / open space or a small number of residential
properties or commercial properties where one or more of the following
criteria apply
•
The distance of view is significant (1 km or more), or,
•
The quality of the view is of low quality or is already compromised,
The view is largely screened by existing site features such as
topography or vegetation; or,
•
The view is not a major consideration for the receptor
Table 7.3:
Classification
Classification
High
Moderate
Low
Magnitude of Effects: Landscape
Magnitude
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 93
Classification
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Magnitude
Wholesale removal of significant landscape features leading to notable
change in landscape character over an extensive area; or,
a very intensive change over a more limited area
Fragmentation of landscape features leading to discernible but not obvious
change in landscape character
Limited removal of landscape features with barely perceptible change in
landscape character
Negligible effects
Table 7.4:
Classification
High
Moderate
Low
No change
Magnitude of Effects : Visual
Magnitude
Classification
Many viewers affected, major changes in the view from nearby vantage
points or major intrusion on long distance views with little or no prospect of
mitigation
High
Many viewers affected and/or minor changes to nearby views, moderate
changes to medium distance views neither of which change the overall
balance of landscape character within the view and where mitigation may
be effective after a number of years
Moderate
Few viewers affected and/or minor change in medium/long distance views,
with every prospect that the effect would be eliminated by mitigation
Negligible effects
Low
No change
Significance of impact has been determined by assessing the sensitivity of the receptor with
the magnitude of the effect. For consistency with other sections of the Environmental
Statement, significance classifications range from Severe to Negligible.
Table 7.5:
Significance of Impacts
Significance
Classification
Where both the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the
change are high and where the change would be nationally or
regionally significant
Severe
Where both the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the
change are high but where the change would be of only local
significance
Major
Where the sensitivity is high and the magnitude is moderate, or vice
versa
Moderate
Where both sensitivity and magnitude are low
Where there is no perceptible change
Minor
Negligible
For detailed analysis of all potential receptors, effects and impacts the reader should refer to
Tables 6-33 in Appendix C.3. Receptors that are highly sensitive, effects that are high in
magnitude and impacts that are classified as severe or major are then identified in
Section 7.5 to Section 7.8 of this Chapter.
7.3.8
Limitations and Assumptions
Given that this has been produced to support an outline planning application, it is not
possible to be specific about precise features of the landscape that would be lost, or the
extent of views that would be affected.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 94
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The basis of assessment was the Development Parameters Plan (Figure 2.6) which divides
the Main Campus into eight discrete Development Zones each being given a maximum
allocation of new floorspace and a maximum storey height of 4.7 m.
Although this plan shows indicative building footprints, the final development need not and
almost certainly would not adhere to these. Buildings could be accommodated anywhere
within the areas defined as ‘Main Areas for Development’.
The built footprint within each zone could also exceed that shown if it is decided to develop
at a lower building height, having beneficial effects in terms of visibility, but adverse effects
in terms of openness of the Green Belt and loss of green space.
In order to cover the majority of development scenarios, assessments have been made on
the basis of two models, the maximum specified building heights and the maximum potential
dispersal.
In terms of the analysis of visual impacts the zones of visual influence diagrams and
photomontages give a reasonably precise prediction of the effects of the new development
but it can never be 100% accurate unless every vantage point is modelled digitally.
7.4
Baseline Conditions
This section of the document describes the existing baseline conditions in the following
order:
•
Landscape setting: Assessment of the wider context in which the Main Campus sits;
•
Site landscape: Assessment of the existing landscape on the site; and,
•
Visibility of the campus.
To locate areas and features referenced in the text refer to Figure 7.1.1.
7.4.1
Landscape Setting
Site location
The University of Warwick’s Main Campus is located in the West Midlands, on the urban
fringe of the city of Coventry, approximately 4 km to the southwest of the city centre. The
town of Kenilworth is located 3 km to the south of the site.
Land Use
Land use in the wider study area around the site is extremely varied due to its location on
the suburban fringe. It straddles the administrative boundary between Coventry and
Warwickshire, sitting part within and part outside the Green Belt. Its position at the edge of
the City means that it has an urban context to the east and a rural context to the west.
To the north is a mixed-use suburban area around Canley and Tile Hill, comprising dense
ex-local authority council housing and industrial areas, punctuated by pockets of woodland
and green space such as Tile Hill Wood, Plants Hill Wood, Park Wood and Ten Shilling
Wood, all of which serve as nature reserves. The Birmingham to Coventry railway line
passes through this area, along which linear industrial development has followed. The A45
Trunk Road also passes to the northeast, serving as a southern bypass around Coventry
city centre. The southern edge of this sector is occupied by mixed use development
consisting of recently constructed residential development, sports fields and a Business
Park
To the east of the site are large residential areas that form the southern fringe of Coventry,
such as Cannon Park. Within the residential areas are pockets of urban green space,
particularly Hearsall Golf Course, Stivichall Common and the War Memorial Park. Together
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 95
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
with Tocil Wood these spaces form a chain of open green space connecting the City Centre
with the edge of the Green Belt.
To the south of these residential areas, outside of the city fringe, are large areas of both
arable and pastoral land, dotted with field ponds and punctuated with farms. Finham Brook
runs through this land to where it meets the River Sowe, adjacent to a large sewage works
and golf course. Beyond this is the historic village of Baginton and Coventry Airport.
The A45 and A46 Trunk Roads converge approximately 4 km to the east of the site. The
A45 and the A429 Coventry to Kenilworth Road converge approximately 1.5 km to the east
of the Main Campus.
Immediately to the south of the site are large expanses of agricultural land with scattered,
isolated farms and pockets of ancient woodland, some of which serve as nature reserves.
Narrow lanes and footpaths meander across this area and there is a small amount of
encroaching linear residential development associated with the A429 trunk road.
Two kilometres to the south of the site the small settlement of Crackley begins what is
effectively the outer urban fringe of the settlement of Kenilworth. This is predominantly a
residential area. There is also a small industrial estate located here at the town’s southern
fringe.
There is mixed use of land to the west of the Main Campus. To the southwest are large
expanses of agricultural land with isolated farms and significant pockets of ancient
woodland. Narrow lanes and footpaths meander across this area. There is characteristic
linear residential development along a series of lanes directly to the west of the site, such as
those that form the settlement of Burton Green.
The position of the Main Campus in relation to the edge of the Green Belt is highly
significant in terms of the character of its setting. Westwood Heath Road and Gibbet Hill
Road represent a line passing northwest to southeast which effectively defines the edge of
the Green Belt and the limit of the Coventry conurbation. In simple terms, land to the
northeast of this line can be classified as suburban, while land to the southwest can be
classified as rural. Although this is a clear edge, both on the plan and on the ground, the
division between developed and rural landscapes is not absolute and woodlands and green
space occur within the suburban zone, while pockets of residential development exists
throughout the rural area.
Settlement
The largest local settlement is the city of Coventry together with its associated suburbs and
industrial areas, which extend to surround the Main Campus on all sides except to the west
and south west. There are however fingers of green space between the Main Campus and
the surrounding suburban development along both the east and north-western boundaries,
giving the impression that the campus is encircled by vegetation.
Linear residential development extends along the A429 as far as Gibbet Hill to the south of
the Main Campus. From here there is an absence of development for just under 1 km before
the settlement of Crackley (NGR 299 738), which forms the outskirts of Kenilworth.
Kenilworth is the second largest settlement in the local area and is situated approximately
3 km to the south of the Main Campus and surrounded by Green Belt.
The small linear settlement of Burton Green is located less than 3 km to the west of the
Main Campus. The linear extensions of development both along the A249 and along
Cromwell Lane, Burton Green dilute the sense of a true rural setting for the western part of
the University.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 96
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Numerous, relatively isolated farmhouses and farm buildings are scattered throughout the
agricultural areas to the south, southwest and southeast, farms of significance in the context
of the University’s immediate setting being Hurst Farm (NGR 285 754) and Cryfield Grange
Farm (NGR 300 748)
Topography
The study area has a gently rolling topography with few dramatic features. The Main
Campus is centred around a low hill just to the southwest of Brickyard Plantation
(NGR 297 757). The land is finely cut by a number of brooks and tributaries that lead into
the River Blythe to the west and the River Avon to the south.
In its immediate context, the Main Campus is set within a shallow bowl with land rising
gently to the west toward Burton Green, to the north toward Tile Hill, to the east toward
Cannon Park, to the south toward the A249, and to the southwest toward Cryfield Grange
Road. Variations in height occur from 120 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) in areas such
as Tile Hill to the northwest of the University, to 58 m AOD along the River Sowe to the
southeast.
Drainage
There are numerous small brooks and streams that run through the study area around the
Main Campus, a number of these arising from springs such as at ‘The Pools’. These brooks
and streams are tributaries of the larger Finham Brook, which flows through the north of
Kenilworth. The Finham Brook is itself a tributary of the River Sowe, which it joins to the
east of the Main Campus. The River Sowe subsequently joins the River Avon just south of
the village of Stoneleigh.
The higher ground around the village of Burton Green and the suburbs of Tile Hill and
Earlsdon forms the watershed around the Main Campus. The water exits the local area to
the south where it is picked-up by Finham Brook and the River Sowe.
The Sowe and Avon River valleys, approximately 3 km southeast of the Main Campus, are
defined by the limits of the alluvial flood plains. There are numerous field ponds throughout
the area, often fringed by scrub and trees. These are mainly associated with the local
history of stock rearing and are not natural drainage features.
Due to the presence of the local promontory at the heart of the Main Campus, the south
flowing drainage enters watercourses passing to east, in the form of Westwood Brook, or to
the west in the form of the un-named watercourse that follows the western edge of
Whitefield Coppice.
Vegetation
Scattered blocks of ancient and semi-natural woodland occur throughout the local area, the
majority of which are best described as oak-ash-birch woodlands. These wooded areas,
particularly the ancient woodlands (existing for more than 400 years), have a rich ground
flora that has built up over the centuries. Local woods of significance to the site are Crackley
Wood (NGR 290 743), Broadwells Wood (NGR 282 753) Roughknowles Wood
(NGR 288 749) and Whitefield Coppice (NGR 292 754).
Hedgerows are a characteristic feature of the landscape along local lanes and to field
boundaries. Some of these may represent remnants of original wildwood as it was cleared
and converted into small, hedged fields by the process of assarting. A wide variety of
species are typically present such as hazel, dogwood, field maple, hawthorn, blackthorn and
holly. Where hedge banks occur a diverse flora may also be supported. Mature oaks are
also found along some of the hedges.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 97
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
There are large areas of arable and pastoral land to the west, southwest, south and
southeast of the Main Campus. Scrub and trees can also be found on the fringes of some
of the field ponds.
Within the urban areas to the north, northeast and east of the University, the vegetation
cover is significantly less dominant, mainly comprising street tree planting, gardens, golf
courses and urban parks with grassland and the occasional block of remnant woodland.
7.4.2
Landscape Character
The Main Campus is located at the well defined threshold between urban and rural
characters. Gibbet Hill Road, which effectively bisects the Main Campus, has previously
served to define this transition. Subsequently the areas of the University that have been the
subject of greatest development i.e. Westwood, Gibbet Hill and Central Campus East are
located within an area of predominantly suburban character, whilst Central Campus West is
located within an area of predominantly rural character.
The Rural Character Setting
Central Campus West sits within the wider rural landscape to the west and south of the
Main Campus. This area of countryside is defined as ‘Arden’ by The Countryside Agency,
as part of their Character Initiative and Landscape Character Assessment. The key
characteristics of the Arden countryside being described as:
• “Well-wooded farmland landscape with rolling landform.
• Ancient landscape pattern of small fields, winding lanes and dispersed,
isolated hamlets.
• Contrasting patterns of well-hedged, irregular fields and small woodlands
interspersed with larger semi-regular fields on former deer parks and estates,
and a geometric pattern on former commons.
• Numerous areas of former wood-pasture with large, old, oak trees, often
associated with heathland remnants.
• Narrow, meandering river valleys with long river meadows.
• Northeastern industrial area based around former Warwickshire coalfield, with
distinctive colliery settlements.
• North western area dominated by urban development and associated urban
edge landscapes”
The Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines, published by Warwickshire County Council and
the Countryside Commission in 1993, identify this rural area adjacent to the Main Campus
as having ‘Arden Parklands Landscape Character’.
The guidelines describe the overall character and qualities of Arden Parklands as:
“An enclosed, gently rolling landscape defined by woodland edges, parkland and
belts of trees.”
The guidelines describe the characteristic features of Arden Parklands as follows:
• “Middle distance views enclosed by woodland edge.
• Belts of mature trees associated with estate-lands.
• Many ancient woodlands, often with irregular outlines.
• Large country houses set in mature parkland.
• Remnant deer-parks with ancient pollard oaks.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 98
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
• Thick roadside hedgerows, often with bracken”
The setting for the west side of the Main Campus is the characteristic rolling landscape
consisting of small irregular shaped fields, enclosed by hedgerows and interspersed with
stands of woodland or copses of trees. The heavy soils give rise to numerous watercourses
which occupy the valley bottoms.
The characteristic remnant deer-parks mentioned above can be found at Stoneleigh (5 km
southeast) and Kenilworth Castle parklands (4 km southwest). Kenilworth Castle enhances
the historic character in its immediate area but is visually separated from the Main Campus.
The characteristic middle distance views associated with the Arden Parklands are also to be
experienced around the University’s western edge, Whitefield Coppice, Rough Knowles
Wood Black Waste Wood and the un-named wood around Fish Ponds framing and
restricting views of the wider landscape.
Rural / Urban Edge Character
Close to the western edge of the conurbation many of the characteristics referred to above
have already been diluted or compromised by the presence of development. Low density
housing and commercial office development to the north of Westwood Heath Road
inevitably impact on the character of the adjacent rural landscape which exists to the south.
However, along this road there is still a clearly discernable boundary between open
countryside and the edge of development, this section of road appearing to ‘ring fence’ the
City.
In other areas the clarity of the edge is less obvious. Within the University Estate, past
developments within the Green Belt, including the Cryfield residences, Scarman House,
Radcliffe House and more recently the Heronbank residences, have had the effect of
extending a bubble of development into the rural landscape.
Similarly, to the southwest around the Gibbet Hill Road and A249 junction, recent
development at Cryfield Heights and along the A249 has passed across, what had
previously been the notional city boundary of Gibbet Hill Road.
Suburban Character
The outer city area of Coventry encircles the Main Campus from northwest, to southeast. It
can be subdivided into various zones related to the scale, density and age of the properties.
•
To the north of Westwood Heath Road is a major development of low density two-storey
detached properties in a pseudo vernacular idiom;
•
To the north of the University at Tile Hill are large areas of high density former local
authority housing consisting of two-storey detached and semi detached properties with
occasional flat blocks;
•
To the east, centred on Cannon Park, there is a large development of two-storey
detached and semi detached properties characteristic of private housing of the 1960s;
•
To the southwest, adjacent to Tocil Woods, is a low rise residential development
consisting of two-storey detached properties in the style of the 1980s and 1990s. This
style of development has now continued across Gibbet Hill Road at Cryfield Heights;
and,
•
In addition there are pockets of larger private properties, probably of the 1930s -1950s,
set within more extensive gardens. These appear along the main road corridors, the
A249 Kenilworth Road, Stoneleigh Road, Fletchampstead Highway at Canley and
Cromwell Lane at Burton’s Green.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 99
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Active frontages are in short supply in all areas, the exception being the commercial centre
at Cannon Park (NGR 304 769).
There are large blocks of green space set within the urban infrastructure, including several
blocks of woodland, but the general character is predominantly urban.
The expansion of the City has incorporated older and smaller settlements into its structure.
This is apparent at Canley Gardens, adjacent to the eastern boundary of Westwood and the
linear settlement along the A429 at Gibbet Hill, to the southeast of Gibbet Hill. These areas
serve to break up the monotony of the local urban areas by introducing historic character
and interest. This has been recognized by Coventry City Council and these two areas have
been designated as Conservation Areas.
In addition to the residential development there are a number of commercial premises
including:
•
Westwood Business Park, to the north of Westwood Heath Road (NGR 285 767);
•
The industrial works at Earlsdon (NGR 305 780);
•
The Science Park at Cannon Park (NGR 298 767); and,
•
The district shopping centre at Cannon Park (NGR 303 767).
The surrounding urban character of Coventry’s suburbs is kept at bay by a ‘green collar’ that
surrounds the University campus, creating an important visual boundary, helping to maintain
the University’s distinctive, high quality environment and sense of detachment.
7.4.3
Landscape Baseline of the Main Campus
Site Features
This section describes the baseline landscape conditions within the Main Campus. Since
the Main Campus is publicly accessible with major public corridors passing through its heart
it is necessary to consider the condition of this resource and the effect that proposed
development would have.
Topography
The centre of the Main Campus occupies a hilltop setting, at 98 m AOD, at the Brickyard
Plantation (NGR 297 757),with land falling away eastward toward Westwood Brook,
southward toward Canley Brook and westward toward the watercourse that runs to the west
of Whitefield Coppice. The hill has a domed profile making it visually prominent within the
wider landscape. The second local high point is at Gibbet Hill (NGR 307 754), again at
98 m AOD. The lowest local points within the Main Campus are along Canley Brook in Tocil
Wood Nature Reserve and along the southern boundary of the Cryfield sports pitches.
These areas sit at just under 75 m AOD.
The relatively steep sides and wet soils of the valley created by the Canley Brook have
prevented any significant development from taking place along its course. This has created
a green wedge around the east and south-eastern boundary of Central Campus East
producing a sense of separation from the Gibbet Hill Site and the surrounding urban areas.
The drop in height from Gibbet Hill to the Canley Brook is approximately 25 m over a
distance of 300 m, which gives an approximate gradient of 1:12 in this area. This is the
steepest area of land within the Main Campus. There is also a significant rise back up the
other side of this small valley, however this is less steep with an average gradient of
approximately 1:24.
There is also sloping ground from the high point adjacent to Brickyard Plantation down to
the ponds at Lakeside (gradient of 1:19) and also down across the sports pitches, to the
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 100
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
brook adjacent to Whitefield Coppice. The overall average slope here is approximately 1:25,
but this is taken up in a number of stepped terraces, created to allow for the installation of
university sports pitches.
The rest of the Main Campus is on predominantly flat or gently sloping land, ranging in
height from 80 m AOD to 90 m AOD.
Along the north-western boundary of Central Campus West several major earthworks have
been created as screening devices to incoming views from the footpath immediately to the
north of the campus.
Drainage
The historic watercourses are major contributors to the quality and character of the
landscape within the campus. The two major watercourses are Canley Brook and its
tributary Westwood Brook with a third watercourse running along the western edge of the
campus.
The large areas of impermeable surfaces such as roads, pavements and roofs significantly
influence the drainage system within the Main Campus.
Westwood Brook picks up storm water running across the Main Campus from northwest to
southeast. This has been realigned and culverted at its northern end (NGR 298 763 to NGR
295 764).
Canley Brook runs from the Canley Gardens Conservation Area and is joined by Westwood
Brook near to Claycroft Residences (NGR 304 758). This has also been culverted in areas.
A further small tributary of Canley Brook begins in fields near to the village of Burton Green,
3 km west of the Main Campus and runs adjacent to the railway line at Tile Hill and through
Canley Conservation Area before also joining Canley Brook at Tocil Hill Nature Reserve.
Canley Brook then leaves the Main Campus at its south-western corner running southwest
under Cryfield Grange Road towards Crackley.
A fourth brook runs along the fringe of Whitefield Coppice, picking up surface run-off from a
drainage ditch and ground water from the sports pitches south of ‘Cryfield Village’. This
subsequently joins Canley Brook at the south-western corner of the University playing fields
(NGR 297 748).
There are a number of large standing water bodies within the Main Campus. The largest is
a series of four interconnected ponds at Heronbank (NGR 294 758) that have no direct
inflow or outflow. These are likely to take surface runoff and groundwater drainage from
their immediate surroundings. Overflow water from these water bodies is piped under
Gibbet Hill Road to a pumping station under the Physics Department (NGR 299 762), from
where it discharges into the Westwood Brook.
There are also two large ponds at Tocil Wood Nature Reserve (NGR 303 755). These take
surface runoff and ground water drainage from the small valley sides and outflow into
Canley Brook, which leaves Central Campus East under Gibbet Hill Road (NGR 301 754).
Natural ponds are found at the following locations:
•
•
•
•
•
South of Claycroft Residences in the field adjacent to Cryfield House, a historic field
pond (NGR 303 762);
At the south-western corner of the sports pitches (NGR 297 751);
East of Whitefield coppice (NGR 293 755);
To the north of the Heronbank Residences (NGR 296 756); and,
Within the Gibbet Hill site (NGR 306 754).
Ornamental water features also exist at the following locations:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 101
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
•
•
•
University Square to the east of University Road (NGR 301 763);
A canal feature linking University House with University Road (NGR 298 764);
A small ornamental pool adjacent to the Engineering Department (NGR 297 762); and,
A small pond to the rear of Radcliffe House (NGR 297 759).
Land Use
The following are the predominant land uses within the Main Campus:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roads, pavements & Car Parks;
Service buildings and hard-standing;
Academic buildings;
Student and staff accommodation;
Sports buildings, pitches, tracks and courts;
Grassland and recreational green space;
Small woodland blocks; and,
Agricultural fields.
Buildings
The main concentration of buildings is within Central Campus East where the original 1960s
University buildings are clustered around the higher ground east of Gibbet Hill Road. The
built form is characterized by five to six-storey white clad modernist slab blocks which
provide a strong visual structure to this part of the Main Campus. The Rootes Residences,
to the north of Tocil Flats, exhibit a similar architectural style. At the heart of the campus are
the Arts Centre and Senate House (NGR 299 758), again in the modernist style but having a
more individual form. These buildings still exhibit very strong architectural qualities which
have a major impact on the landscape setting.
More recent additions exhibit a range of architectural styles and include the four-storey
Mathematics faculty, the four-storey IMC building and the Rootes complex. At the northern
end of Central Campus East within the adjacent Warwick Science Park, is the three-storey
post-modernist building of University House.
Within this central core are three four-storey car parks areas while scattered around this
cluster of large academic buildings are a series of smaller scale brick and tile residential
units including Tocil Flats, Claycroft and Cryfield.
Within Central Campus West there are a number of more recent brick and tile, two to fourstorey, pseudo vernacular buildings including Radcliffe House, Scarman House, Lakeside
Residences and the most recent introduction, Heronbank Residences. This latter
development has a significant impact on the character of this part of the Main Campus.
Two other buildings are located within Central Campus West, the Sports Pavilion
(NGR 297 755) and Cryfield House (NGR 296 755). The Sports Pavilion, while clearly
visible, has minimal impact on the surrounding rural landscape due to its vernacular
detailing. Cryfield House is a two-storey brick and tile house from the early nineteenth
century and as such is well suited to its setting.
At Gibbet Hill buildings are smaller in scale the site being dominated by the two-storey
Biomedical Sciences Building built in the 1980s. Other buildings of note include the twostorey 1960s Estates Office and the two-storey car parking deck on the north-eastern
boundary (NGR 305 753). One of the more interesting sets of buildings on campus are also
found at Gibbet Hill in the form of the Maths Houses, which have recently been the subject
of an application for Listing.
At Westwood the scale of the buildings is again smaller than that of the Main Campus, with
a maximum height of three storeys. The style and character of the buildings is more
eclectic, although the western side of the site has more visual cohesion due to the presence
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 102
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
of a series of three-storey brick and tile residential blocks. The south-eastern zone of the
site contains an assortment of two to three-storey structures covering the period 1950-1980.
Vegetation
Refer to Figure 7.2.4 through to Figure 7.2.7.
Grassland
The vast majority of grassland within the Main Campus is improved. That is, those
grasslands heavily treated with fertilisers or herbicides, or have been recently re-seeded.
However, there are small areas of semi-improved grassland and three areas of unimproved
grassland. These are areas of moderate and high conservation value.
Agricultural Fields
Within Central Campus West large areas toward the western and northern ends of the site
are rented out to tenant farmers who use the land for arable crops.
Sports Fields
Toward the south of Central Campus West a large area has been improved for use as
sports fields.
Wetland
There are several areas of wetland, mainly associated with the numerous ponds found
throughout the Main Campus. A number of the field ponds have tree and scrub vegetation
around their fringes. Some ponds also have a shallow fringe of emergent vegetation and
also some aquatic vegetation. Within these areas the predominant vegetation is marshy
grasses or reed beds interspersed with wetland scrub vegetation of willow and hazel.
Large parts of the Main Campus, particularly the lower lying areas of Central Campus East
and West, are dominated by heavy clay soils with impeded drainage characteristics. On
Central Campus West this has discouraged development in the past and is likely to make
these areas less attractive for buildings in the future.
Hedges
There are hedges along many boundaries of the Main Campus, with fragments of the
historic field pattern retained within the more developed areas.
The hedges are mainly dominated by hawthorn but there are also species such as hazel,
blackthorn and field maple. Mature trees can also be found within some hedges, the most
widespread being pedunculate oak and ash, with alder where the soil is damp.
The ground flora of several hedges includes woodland species such as bluebell, dog’s
mercury and cuckoo pint.
Key hedgerows within the Main Campus include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
To the northeast of Tocil Ponds (NGR 303 756);
Running north south through the sports fields (NGR 297 750 – NGR 297 755);
From Brickyard Plantation to Whitefield Coppice (NGR 297 757- NGR 293 756);
Along the western boundary of the academic area of Westwood;
To the north of the athletics track at Westwood; and,
To the west of the Westwood playing fields.
There are also several lengths of recently planted hedge which generally lack the diversity
of species found in the older hedges.
In addition there are hedges that have been regularly trimmed and as such lack the
ecological value of the species rich hedges. The hedges to be found on both sides of
Gibbet Hill Road fall into this category.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 103
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Trees
There are over 4,000 individual trees within the Main Campus, a large number of which are
either mature or semi mature. The most significant are the native pedunculate oaks, these
specimens pre-dating the University. Where these trees stand as individual specimens they
are likely to have been associated with former hedgerows, where they are in groups they
would have been copses or parts of former woodlands.
Adjacent to water courses the tree mix is representative of wetland habitats, the principle
species being alder, ash, poplar and willow. This is particularly noticeable adjacent to
Westwood Brook as it runs alongside University Road and then runs west of Claycroft
residences. At Canley brook to the south of the playing fields the vegetation tends to be
lower in stature being dominated by Goat willow (Salix caprea), Hazel (Corylus avellana)
and Dog Wood (Cornus sanguinea). Where new plantings have been carried out by the
University the wetland species tend to become non indigenous, including a group of
Taxodium distichium north of the Tocil Ponds (NGR 302 755).
There is a significant amount of ornamental tree planting throughout Westwood, Central
Campus East and Gibbet Hill. These plantings are characteristic of the style of planting
associated with large commercial developments of the 1970s and 1980s. They are diverse
in nature and include a large percentage of non native conifers. In addition there are
significant numbers of birch, maples mountain ash and cherry. These trees have been
installed in association with the various phases of University development. Many are now
reaching early maturity and as such are beginning to generate management problems in
terms of overcrowding and over-shading of adjacent buildings. Of local importance is the
collection of Sorbus planted within the courtyards of Claycroft Residences.
The most diverse and mature collection of trees is to be found at Westwood many of which
were installed prior to the development of the Main Campus. This collection of trees
includes many fine conifers including larch (Larix) and various species of pine, wing nut
(Pterocarya) and beech (Fagus sylvatica). The better trees are concentrated in two main
areas, along the western boundary and along the south-eastern boundary adjacent to Kirby
Corner Road, although other notable specimens are scattered throughout the grounds.
Associated with these trees are large groupings of ornamental shrub species and wellmaintained amenity grassland, creating a strong amenity landscape.
Woodland
The largest area of woodland is found at the Brickyard Plantation. The dominant tree
species include pedunculate oak, field maple, ash and sycamore. The ground flora is
diverse and dominated by bluebell, some of the species present indicate that it is possibly of
ancient origin, although this block of woodland is not included on the English Nature register
of Ancient Woodlands.
There are smaller patches of woodland along the eastern boundary of the University Estate
following the course of Westwood and Canley Brooks. These are on damp soils and the
most dominant tree species are alder and pedunculate oak, with small patches of willow
species in places.
Although larger in size, Tocil Woods lies outside the University Estate, however its proximity
to the southern edge of Central Campus East, and the fact that it lies between the main
body of the University and the Gibbet Hill site (which are connected through it) makes it
significant in terms of the local tree population. This is ancient woodland predominantly
consisting of pedunculate oak, ash, and field maple. To the south of this body of woodland
a new area of tree planting has been established by Coventry City Council through their
‘Woods on Your Doorstep Initiative’ and managed through the Woodland Trust.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 104
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Similarly, Whitefield Coppice, although not within the University’s Estate, is sufficiently close
that it is important in terms of the local vegetation. This block of woodland consists of Oak,
Ash, Alder and Birch and is included on the schedule of ancient woodlands.
Access
Vehicular access into the central area of Central Campus East is along University Road
from Gibbet Hill Road close to Kirby Corner (NGR 297 763). It is possible to exit Central
Campus East at three points along Gibbet Hill Road including the Business School
Roundabout (NGR 297 763), from Library Road (NGR 297 759) and adjacent to the Arts
Centre (NGR 298 758). It is also possible to enter a surface car park to the north of Tocil
Lakes (NGR 299 755).
There are two main vehicular access points into Central Campus West. These are the two
ends of Scarman road, which forms a circuit through this part of the Main Campus. This
road starts and terminates at two different roundabouts approximately 750 m apart along
Gibbet Hill Road. There is also a vehicular access point to the car park of Radcliffe House
from Gibbet Hill Road.
There is one vehicular access point to Gibbet Hill from Gibbet Hill Road and two vehicular
access points into Westwood from Kirby Corner Road. There is a third vehicular access into
Westwood from Charter Avenue (NGR 300 771) although this is closed to day to day traffic.
Rights of Way
Pedestrian access into and through the Main Campus is possible along the roads,
pavements and footpaths that transect the site.
The only designated Public Right of Way (W164) runs from Crackley on the outskirts of
Kenilworth, via Cryfield Grange and Cryfield House, along the edge of Brickyard Plantation
to Gibbet Hill Road. However, there is a permissive footpath following the southern edge of
the playing fields from Tocil Woods (NGR 303 753) to Cryfield Grange Farm
(NGR 299 748). This connects into a permissive pathway that follows the campus boundary
around Westwood before emerging to the rear of Scarman House.
There are also paths following the north-western boundary from Westwood Heath Road
(NGR 292 763) to Hurst Farm (NGR 285 753) and Westwood Heath Road (NGR 292 763)
to Roughknowles Wood (NGR 288 753).
Although not designated footpaths there are informal footways that run through the Tocil
Woods to the southeast of Central Campus East.
Pedestrian connections exist between the eastern edge of Central Campus East adjacent to
Claycroft Residences (NGR 303 765) and the commercial development at Cannon Park
(NGR 304 767), between University House (NGR 297 765) and the Cannon Park Science
Park and between University House (NGR 297 765) and Kirby Corner Road.
Level of Use
The Main Campus is used by a large number of both pedestrians and road users. In the
order of 19,000 students live on campus and use the facilities during term time with another
approximately 4,500 members of staff and other university employees also working within
and around the Main Campus.
Gibbet Hill Road also serves as a route for road users between the A46 Trunk road and the
western suburbs of Coventry. This further adds the amount of traffic on Gibbet Hill Road.
Levels of activity within the Main Campus are therefore significant at all times with Central
Campus East being the zone of greatest activity. Although Central Campus West
represents the most tranquil zone there are areas within this part of the site which are highly
active at certain times, particularly the University sports fields. Because these areas are
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 105
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
located within a predominantly rural area the impact of noise associated with sporting
activities is significantly greater than it would be in a setting that is predominantly rural.
7.4.4
Landscape Character of the Main Campus
Introduction
The following section describes the existing landscape character associated with the four
zones of the Main Campus, each of which is distinctly different.
Central Campus East
This area has a suburban setting and contains a dense conglomeration of academic,
residential and administrative buildings that make up the majority of the Main Campus’
building resource. Although the individual buildings vary in their character, building materials
and age, as a group they contribute to the academic character of a well-maintained and
lively university campus. The original 1960s modernist architecture still provides a sense of
order and unity. The more recently constructed buildings such as the Mathematics and IMC
complex, are of high design quality and use contemporary materials, which generate the
sense of being within a high quality urban environment.
There is a network of asphalted roads, car parks and pavements serving these buildings,
these are in good condition, are well maintained and kept free from litter. The accompanying
network of pathways allows relaxed use and connection of open spaces and buildings by
pedestrians, which promotes a character of contemplation and study.
Vegetation within this area comprises well-maintained ornamental tree and shrub planting,
amenity grassland areas, mature native specimen trees and some small remnant areas of
native species hedgerows and tree groupings. All of these more natural, scenic features add
a softening element to the urban fabric and create an attractive green backdrop of spaces
and form.
Central Campus East is essentially a high quality environment, of particular value to the
students and staff of the University as an environment in which to live, study and work. It
has the character of a high quality campus development including notable buildings, a
strong sense of place, a generous volume of public open space and a high level of activity.
Central Campus West
This area has a predominantly rural setting and character. Gibbet Hill Road serves to define
the boundary between Central Campus East and Central Campus West, the higher density
of buildings and service infrastructure being found to the east, as described above.
Central Campus West effectively sits on the boundary between an area of rural character to
the west and the encroaching urban form to the east. This is reflected in the defining
features of this area; large areas of green space, ponds, mature trees, a significant
woodland block, agricultural fields and hedgerows, amongst which are situated the built
forms of Scarman House, Lakeside Residences, Radcliffe House, Cryfield House, Cryfield
Village, the Sports Pavilion and Heronbank.
Lakeside Residences, and particularly Heronbank, are large, obtrusive buildings that
introduce distinctly blunt and unsubtle urban forms into the essentially rural landscape.
Consequently, these buildings have a significant landscape and visual impact upon the
existing wider rural Arden landscape to the west. The rural character becomes diluted by the
presence of these buildings, particularly due to their large size, architectural style and a lack
of appropriate planting that would have allowed greater integration.
While smaller in scale the recent developments at Radcliffe House and Scarman House do
not achieve a comfortable fit with their setting. Conversely the two to three-storey brick and
tile residences at Cryfield (NGR 297 755) are more appropriate to the rural setting.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 106
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The Sports Pavilion and older historic buildings of Cryfield Farm House are better integrated
into the rural landscape, primarily due to their scale, but also as a result of their vernacular
architecture, traditional building materials and accompanying tree and shrub planting.
The newly constructed Scarman Road, which runs through Central Campus West, has a
permeable grit surface with neither kerbs nor pavements. This softer style of construction
serves to maintain a more rural feel than would a more typically urban asphalt road.
However, the installation of traffic control signals at either end of this road, and its
engineered geometry introduce a distinctly urban element into what remains a
predominantly rural landscape.
The ten sports pitches to the south of this area and adjacent to Whitefield Coppice, although
maintaining a sense of greenery and openness, do introduce a significant number of white
posts, flagpoles and activity into the wider landscape. The terracing of the land to
accommodate the pitches has also created a distinctly manmade element than the more
naturally rolling topography of the wider landscape. Similarly the planting of a large number
of birch and conifers has introduced a style of landscape that is slightly at odds with the
wider agricultural setting.
Furthermore, when the pitches are all being used, there is the potential for a large number
of participants to be engaged in games within this area. Add to this, visiting spectators and
associated vehicle movements and the landscape character could become significantly
transformed. Thus the sense of tranquillity and peace, particularly in this area of the
campus, could be compromised during certain periods. However, during the 24 month
period that the site was surveyed and assessed prior to the preparation of this statement,
the level of use was at most times negligible and at no time sufficient to generate an
unacceptable level of nuisance.
Central Campus West essentially represents a landscape in transition from a distinctly rural
character, to a landscape that is still essentially green and open but increasingly
compromised by buildings and higher levels of activity.
Gibbet Hill
This part of the Main Campus has a suburban setting and is dominated by buildings, the
largest being the Biomedical Sciences Building. Smaller scale buildings including a twostorey cottage adjacent to Gibbet Hill Road, the 1960s Estates Office and the 1970s Maths
Houses make this an eclectic mix of structures which is further compromised by the
two-storey car park structure. There are few notable trees on this part of the campus. In
terms of the Main Campus Gibbet Hill seems the least planned and suffers from the poorest
quality of landscape. Like Central Campus East it exhibits the characteristics of a campus
style development however it does not benefit from the volume of green space or planting.
Westwood
Westwood has a suburban setting due to its proximity to the densely developed residential
areas of Canley. It has a well defined structure along its western edge where it is
dominated by a row of three-storey residential blocks. However it has a looser ad-hoc
arrangement within the main body of the site to the south east. Its diverse collection of
trees provides a parkland setting to the buildings and although the quality of many of these
structures is low the overall landscape quality is high due to the age and diversity of the tree
population. Its character could be described as informal, slightly institutional, a little
outdated and relatively tranquil, contrasting sharply with the more structured contemporary
style and high levels of activity associated with Central Campus East.
The western part of Westwood is dominated by sports facilities including the athletics track,
tennis courts and three artificial sports pitches. Although this is designated as Green Belt its
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 107
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
character is not rural due to the above uses and the presence of the fences, goal posts and
lighting masts.
7.4.5
Receptors and Sensitivity
Landscape Receptors are described within this section. These may be physical or natural
landscape resources or features that may experience an effect as a result of a change in
land use or management strategies.
It is important to note that the term ‘impact’ does not denote a positive or negative effect,
merely a change in the existing condition.
The Ability to Accommodate Change
Receptors may be affected directly or indirectly, loss of green space or vegetation through
conversion to built area being a direct effect, ongoing damage to vegetation as a result of
noise, dust or changes to the site drainage characteristics being indirect.
Indirect effects can be more difficult to predict, landscape receptors such as woodlands,
trees and hedgerows may be able to tolerate moderate change within their environments, so
long as light, water and nutrient inputs are maintained at sufficient levels.
Ponds and drainage channels are often able to accommodate minor change in their
environments. However, it is the degree to which environmental variables, such as surface
water runoff, polluted run off or shade, are altered, that would determine the significance
and nature of any effects.
Landscape receptors that may be directly affected by development are as follows:
Elements
•
Existing trees, woodlands, hedges and grassland which fall within areas to be
developed or where the effects of adjacent development are so significant that growth is
affected. May change as a result of development and management techniques;
•
Existing water bodies may be affected by silt or shade and quantity / quality of run off;
•
Existing watercourses;
•
Open grassland such as the hill top open space south of Brickyard Plantation;
•
Land still in agricultural use; and,
•
Pathways and circulation routes.
Landscape Characteristics
•
Sense of openness within the Main Campus;
•
Openness within Green Belt;
•
Clarity of Green Belt edge;
•
Character of the Main Campus, clarity of existing architecture may be improved or
diluted by addition of new buildings;
•
Existing open space which may be lost or reconfigured as a result of development. In
some cases, i.e. along Gibbet Hill Road this would be a positive change;
•
Nature of campus landscape due to changes in management techniques / planting
strategies. May also be positive if additional planting is carried out, or if character of
planting changes from manicured / ornamental to predominance of native species;
•
Tranquillity of rural landscape; and,
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 108
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
Scenic quality of rural landscape.
Landscape Character
•
Scale and density of suburban setting for Central Campus East, Gibbet Hill and
Westwood; and,
•
Scale, pattern and openness of rural setting.
Landscape Receptors that may be indirectly affected by development are:
Elements
•
Adjacent woodlands and hedgerows such as Whitefield Coppice which may be affected
in terms of species composition as a result of major ongoing effects of construction or
operation;
•
Vegetation adjacent to watercourses such as Westwood Brook and Canley Brook which
may be affected by changes to quantity and quality of surface water discharge; and,
•
Public footpaths running from Crackley Lane to Westwood Heath Road.
Characteristics
•
Tranquillity of rural landscape which may be subject to increased use.
Character
•
Pattern of rural landscape;
•
Woodlands, trees, hedges that form part of Arden Parkland landscape character and
which may be diluted as a result of vegetation loss; and,
•
Loss of mitigating effects of woodlands and open space within urban context.
Landscape Condition
Landscape Condition is a factor of the health, management and viability of the features that
constitute the landscape. The various landscape types have been assessed on the basis of
the following criteria:
Rural Areas
•
Is the landscape well managed?
•
Are its hedges, copses and blocks of woodland well tendered?
•
Does the current agricultural activity within these areas appear to be financially
sustainable or marginal?
•
Are current agricultural practices likely to maintain or threaten the landscape features?
•
Are the features that determine the landscape character in good health or under threat?
Urban Edge Areas
•
Is the landscape well managed?
•
Are its woodlands, hedges, copses and individual trees well managed?
•
Do the activities within these areas appear to be sustainable?
•
Are there areas that appear to have no active use?
Urban and Suburban Areas
•
Are the areas of public open space, verges, hedges, woodlands well managed?
•
Is the tree population young mature or in decline?
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 109
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The assessment of landscape condition was based only on visual inspection on the ground.
Landscape Condition – University Setting
Within the rural parts of the study area the landscape condition appears generally to be of a
high quality due to the fact that it is well managed and retains many of its characteristic
features including hedges, copses, blocks of woodland and historic watercourses.
The condition reduces in areas close to the urban edge such as around Park Wood
(NGR 284 771) and to the east of Burtons Green with land remaining green but
accommodating non-agricultural uses such as paddocks and sports fields.
Within the suburban context landscape condition is more variable, being at its lowest in
those areas where residential densities and levels of use are at their highest. Millennium
Wood and Tocil Wood, located to the southeast of the Main Campus, have a better
condition than Park Wood to the north.
Landscape Condition – Main Campus
Within Central Campus East the quality of the landscape is high, the University having
invested significant resources in it since the inception of the campus.
Within Central Campus West the condition varies relative to use. Those areas that have
already been taken out of agriculture, such as the playing fields and the amenity areas
around Heronbank are managed to a high standard. The rented agricultural land within
Central Campus West appears to be of moderate to low value in that it is likely to have
become increasingly unviable to produce crops on areas that are becoming fragmented as
successive development has encroached.
Within Gibbet Hill the landscape condition is moderate to poor primarily due to the lack of
open green space and the pressure placed upon it from other site activities.
At Westwood the landscape condition is high in that it contains a diverse and maturing tree
population.
Landscape Value
Landscape Value is assessed in terms of the importance of the resource at national,
regional and local level.
Landscape Value – University Setting
The rural setting is of high value in that it is designated as Green Belt and defined as an
Area of Special Landscape Character. However, it is not of exceptional value, either
nationally or locally, the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines – Arden, do not make specific
reference to this area as being representative of either the Arden or Arden Parklands
Character.
Higher values also relate to those areas where the rural landscape is acting as a buffer
between two settlements or two areas of different use. The landscape between the Main
Campus and Kenilworth therefore has a slightly higher value than other areas of Green Belt
in that it provides the sense of separation which is so important to the individuality of the two
settlements.
The suburban edge condition is of high value in that it well defined and as such is achieving
its intended function of containing the spread of development. Although the landscape
condition along this edge is not always of the highest quality it does act as a buffer or
cordon sanitaire to those areas that are truly rural.
Again the pockets and wedges of green space that traverse the suburban edge are highly
valued in that they provide a sense of space and separation between adjacent areas of
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 110
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
activity. The green wedges that encircle the University on its northwest and southeast sides
provide valuable breathing space between the Campus and the local areas of housing.
The value of the suburban setting is of variable quality, generally areas to the north of the
campus being lower in terms of their condition than those to the south around the A249 and
to the west around Burtons Green. There are only two areas that have statutory protection,
Canley Gardens Conservation Area and the linear conservation area alongside the A249.
However, poor condition does not necessarily imply poor value, an area of wasteland can
offer significant value in terms of activities and ecology. Although in condition terms Park
Wood appears to be of poorer quality it is likely that it provides a valuable resource as an
amenity within the dense housing area of Canley.
Landscape Value – Main Campus
Central Campus East contains a landscape of high value both in terms of its existing quality,
its level of use, and the setting that it provides to the buildings. There is a sense of balance
between buildings and landscape the campus retaining a character of a relaxed parkland
setting. However, significant infilling would compromise this sense of balance.
Central Campus West represents a landscape of medium to high value. Although
compromised by recent built development it is still predominantly green, contributing to the
sense of separation between Kenilworth and Coventry. The landscape value is diminished
by the fact that is no longer truly rural or suburban. The ad hoc nature of recent
developments, particularly the highly visible Heronbank, has devalued both the setting and
the character of this area of the Campus. The playing fields and the open spaces within the
Cryfield residences are a valuable resource for the University. However, those areas that
remain in agricultural use are currently of little value, they are unused by the students and
have marginal rental value in terms of their agricultural use.
Although the quantity and condition of the Gibbet Hill landscape are low, it does have a
reasonably high value, if only because the few areas of open space that do exist are a
pleasant contrast to the intensity of the built development.
The value of Westwood is relatively high in that it has a diverse maturing tree population
and, like Gibbet Hill, it provides an opportunity for users of the academic facilities to enjoy
the spaces around the buildings.
Enhancement Potential
The most significant opportunity is for the enhancement and creation of a more well defined
landscape character within Central Campus West, sensitively juxtaposed against the wider
Arden Parklands landscape.
Piecemeal development within Central Campus West has compromised the sense of place,
visual unity and balance. This part of the campus, while within the Green Belt, is no longer
truly rural or suburban. Moreover, the developments that have taken place have no
consistency either with each other or with the main campus, they are not truly representative
of a University, Business Park or residential development. Those areas that remain as
agricultural land have become more marginal in terms of their viability as encroachment has
increased.
A move towards a stronger suburban character would need to be visually separated from
the wider Arden Parklands landscape, to prevent the dilution of its own more rural character.
The requirement for visual separation, can provide new opportunities to create landscape
features synonymous with the Arden Parklands landscape character. Native species
woodland blocks with irregular boundaries, hedgerows with mature trees and field ponds
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 111
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
with associated vegetation, can all help to create a sense of place, whilst serving as visual
barriers to distant views from within the wider Arden Parklands landscape.
Compartmentalisation of the landscape within Central Campus West can draw on the scale
and grain of the field enclosures within the wider rural setting.
Opportunities also exist for the improved integration of the Lakeside and Heronbank
residences into the landscape. The careful placement and creation of the landscape
features mentioned above would help to achieve this.
Also as part of the proposals a long-term landscape management plan could be developed
and implemented to ensure that the desired aims of the landscape proposals were
achieved. This might highlight issues of visual screening, wildlife habitat and aesthetics.
The Arden Parklands landscape is not open in terms of its character. The introduction of
vegetation as screening would not therefore be inappropriate in this setting. Planting
associated with development would therefore have some enhancement potential in terms of
the wider landscape.
7.4.6
Visual Baseline
The methodology by which the visual baseline has been established is described in
Section 7.4.
Figure 7.1.7 indicates the potential visual envelope of the site. The brown outline on this
plan identifies the maximum extent from which views would be possible in a landscape
devoid of other buildings and vegetation. However, in reality from the majority of this area it
is not possible to view the University due to the screening effects of buildings, trees, hedges
etc. The 40 individual points identified on this plan are locations from which views of the
University are known to be possible due to on site investigation. Although it is possible that
there are a number of additional vantage points that have not been identified due to the
limitations of the survey in terms of accessibility, the methodology adopted should have
identified all of the significant view points and the vast majority of those that are less
significant
For the purposes of this study the visual envelope has been divided into four sectors:
•
The southern sector defined by Gibbet Hill Road and a line drawn through the edges of
Whitefield Coppice, Roughknowles Wood and Crackley Wood;
•
The western sector defined by the above blocks of woodland and Westwood Heath
Road;
•
The northern sector defined by Westwood Heath Road and Kirby Corner Road; and,
•
The eastern sector defined by Kirby Corner Road and Gibbet Hill Road.
The fact that the Main Campus is focused around the central highpoint at Brickyard
Plantation (NGR 296 757), which itself has a height of 15 to 20 m, means that the eastern
half of the Main Campus is largely hidden when looking from the west. However some of
the taller buildings (five storeys plus) within Central Campus East are still visible from the
west and northwest as they are taller than intervening buildings and vegetation.
Views from Southern Sector
These views are focused on the land south and west of Brickyard Plantation including the
sports fields and the sports pavilion. From isolated viewpoints it is possible to see the
rooftops of Heronbank and from the higher vantage points toward the southeast it is
possible to see the upper storeys of the Rootes Residences, the fly tower of the Art Centre
and the roof of the Rootes Complex. These views are almost entirely from public vantage
points.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 112
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The closest views are viewed from within the campus as the footpath from Crackley (W164)
crosses the sports fields and passes to the west of Cryfield House. Views from a
permissive footpath running alongside Canley Brook offer views of the Rootes Residences,
the Cryfield Residences and the Sports Pavilion.
Other close views are possible from Cryfield Grange Road which runs from the A429
Kenilworth Road to Roughknowles Wood at the junction with Crackley Lane (NGR 293 747).
For much of its length the road is either in cut or concealed by roadside hedges, but from
Cryfield Grange Farm (NGR 300 748), at a distance of 0.8 km, there are clear views of the
south eastern edge of the Main Campus including the white elevations of the four-storey
Tocil Residences, the tower of the Arts Centre, the roof of Rootes Complex, the two and
three-storey Cryfield Residences, Cryfield House, the Sports Pavilion and the sports
pitches. From this position it is also possible to see the rooftops of the recent development
at Heronbank.
As Cryfield Grange Road passes northward toward Roughknowles Wood, views into the
Main Campus become increasingly concealed by the roadside hedges, topography and
Whitefield Coppice. Along most of its length it is possible to see Cryfield House, the Sports
Pavilion and the goal posts on the sports pitches, but not those buildings further north, such
as Heronbank.
Other close views are possible from the backs of the approximately 15 private residences
that line the northwest side of the A249 Kenilworth Road or are served by Little Cryfield
Heights. The upper storey windows of these premises have clear views across the open
fields above Canley Brook toward the Cryfield Residences, Cryfield House, the Sports
Pavilion and the University Sports Fields. They would also experience views of those
buildings on the south-eastern side of Central Campus East i.e. the Rootes residences, the
tower of the Arts Centre and the roof of the Rootes Complex.
There are two public footpaths (W164 and W165) running in a north-easterly direction from
Crackley and Kenilworth. Limited sections of both paths provide open uninterrupted views
toward the Main Campus. From the more elevated sections of path W164 it is possible to
view the playing fields occupying the south-western sector of the campus. From the
elevated sections of the permissive path linking W164 and W 165 it is possible to view the
taller buildings within the main body of the campus, plus the playing fields to the southwest
of Cryfield House. From a small section of this path it is also possible to glimpse the roof
tops of Heronbank. Although these vantage points do provide views into the Main Campus
the extent of visibility is restricted by the screening effects of Whitefield Coppice.
These two paths are bisected by the disused railway which is now adopted as part of the
Coventry Way. For most of its length this path is in cutting so it is not possible to see any
part of the campus. However, there is a limited length of this route at its southern end
(NGR 295 737), from which it is possible to see the rooftops of the Main Campus.
From the A429 it is not possible to see the Main Campus apart from a limited section of less
than 50 m at Crackley (NGR 293 732) where there is a glimpse of the site through the
roadside hedge. However, the distance of this view makes the impact negligible
The furthest potential public vantage point is from Centenary Way to northeast of Crackley
as it runs across Kenilworth Golf Course (NGR 305 728). However, this is at a distance of
2.3 km and is largely hidden by vegetation within the golf course.
The furthest private vantage points are from a small number of houses on the northern side
of Crackley. Again at a distance of 3.0 km the effect of this view is minimal.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 113
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Views from the Western Sector
These views focus on the land to the north and west of Cryfield House and, in particular, on
the recently completed Heronbank development. From these vantage points it is possible to
see clearly the three to four storey elevations of the Heronbank residences. As with the
southern sector, incoming views relate almost entirely to public vantage points.
The closest views are from the footpath W165t which follows the northern boundary of
Central Campus West from Westwood Heath Road to Hurst Farm and Whitefield Coppice.
However these views are effectively screened by perimeter planting and earth mounding
within the campus boundary. From the western end of the path at Hurst Farm the University
is clearly visible, with views of Heronbank plus the fifth and sixth storeys of both the Library
and Sciences buildings.
Similar views are experienced from two gateways along Crackley Lane (NGR 282 757) and
from the private residential properties at Fish Ponds (NGR 282 758) The first of these
gateways provides access to the site of the County Fare which means that for a short period
these views would be experienced by a large number of viewers.
The next cone of vision is from Bockendon Road and Crackley Lane where views of
Heronbank can be seen through roadside hedgerows over a distance of 1.5 km. However,
this is restricted to isolated views through gateways. (NGR 281 766).
As the land rises from Bockendon Road towards Burton Green it is possible to view the
northwest side of the existing University Buildings and Central Campus West from the
footpaths that cross these fields (NGR 274 764) . However, visibility of the campus is
restricted due to the large number of field trees around Fishpools (NGR 283 760). More
open unrestricted views are possible from the higher slopes close to Westwood Heath
Road.
The stretch of Westwood Heath Road above Shilling Drive provides clear views of the
northwest boundary of the Warwickshire land including views of Heronbank (NGR 277 767).
The houses lining the east side of Cromwell Lane, Burtons Green (NGR 272 765) also have
open views of the west side of the Main Campus, although many of these views are filtered
by vegetation. From these vantage points it is, during the winter months only, possible to
see the top of the roofs of the existing two-storey Science Laboratory buildings that sit on
the hill top site at Gibbet Hill (NGR 306 753).
Although it should be possible to enjoy open unrestricted views of the Main Campus from
the west in reality these views are largely prevented by the collective effects of Whitefield
Coppice, Broadwells Wood, Roughknowles Wood and Whitefield Coppice.
The disused railway now forming part of the Coventry Way should allow good views of the
campus, but in reality the only stretch that does so is at the south-western corner of Black
Waste Wood (NGR 272 757). For most of its length this route is in cutting, but even where it
is not, dense woodlands or hedges prevent views north-eastward. This old railway line in
effect forms the absolute limit of the visual envelope. The only exception is at the northern
end of Red Lane Burton Green where the land rises above the old railway (NGR 268 757).
From this limited section of road it is possible to view the campus and the Warwick Business
Park but in reality this view cannot be enjoyed as the road is narrow at this point with no
facility for pedestrians.
Views from the Northern Sector
Within the northern sector the emphasis shifts with the majority of the views being from
private vantage points
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 114
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Public Views
From the public playing field above Park Wood (NGR 278 771) it would be possible to see
tall buildings of three storeys or more if they were erected on Central Campus West, but any
low level development is hidden by the current housing development to the south of Park
Wood.
Views from Charter Avenue are screened by Park Wood and Ten Shilling Wood. However,
between these two blocks of trees it is possible to see the upper storeys of the taller
buildings.
From within the residential areas north of Westwood Heath Road, within Canley and further
out within Tile Hill, potential incoming views are screened by houses, blocks of woodland
and garden vegetation. Similarly, from within the public areas of Westwood Business Park,
views of the Main Campus are not possible due to the screening effects of vegetation and
trees.
Private Views
While there are substantial numbers of residential and commercial properties located to the
north of the Main Campus the vast majority do not experience views of the site due to a
combination of the following factors:
•
Distance: Most are located more than 1.5 km from the centre of the University;
•
Screening effects of other buildings, particularly for two-storey properties; and,
•
Screening effects of vegetation: Limits visibility of everything below fourth storey.
In terms of private vantage points there are a number of residences that do provide views
into the site. However, these tend to be limited to upstairs windows and tend to be
restricted in number by other houses and by blocks of vegetation.
Properties that have been identified as having views include the following:
•
Approximately 20 properties within the development north of Westwood Heath Road.
(NGR 288 765) from where the top of the Library Building can be seen;
•
Approximately 15 properties on the south side of Charter Avenue (NGR 296 772) which
are able to view the all weather sports pitches to the west of Westwood; and,
•
A small number of properties facing onto Charter Avenue (NGR 288 774) from where
the Library Building can be seen.
Views from the Eastern Sector
As with the northern sector, the majority of the views relate to private vantage points
Public Views
South of Cannon Park Roundabout there are a few public vantage points from which parts
of the upper floors of the existing Main Campus buildings can be seen. In the main these
are screened by perimeter vegetation on the edge of the campus or by smaller buildings,
but where views do exist it is the fourth storeys and above that are seen.
From the upper levels of the Tesco car park at Cannon Park (NGR 305 766) it is possible to
see the roof of University House, and the fourth and fifth storeys of the Maths Department
and Engineering Department.
From Brill Close off De Montforte Way (NGR 305 763) it is possible to see the fourth and
fifth storeys of Engineering and the Library block plus the fly tower of the Arts Centre. In
summer these views are obscured by foliage.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 115
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
From Brandsford Avenue (NGR 305 763) it is possible to see the fly tower of Arts Centre,
the roof of Rootes complex, the fifth and sixth floor of humanities and the fourth to sixth
floors of the Library plus its fly tower. Views of lower levels are obscured by the two to
three-storey Claycroft residences and the perimeter vegetation.
From Canley Cemetery (South side only) (NGR 306768) it is possible to see the fourth and
fifth storeys of all major buildings including Engineering, Chemistry, Humanities, the Library,
the Arts Centre and the Rootes Building.
Private Views
While there are a large number of properties within close proximity of the campus, many
less than 1.0 km away, the number of properties with views of the existing buildings are
limited and have been assessed at less than 100 in total. This is due to the following:
•
Screening effects of other buildings, particularly for two-storey residences;
•
Screening effects of vegetation: Limits visibility of everything below fourth storey; and,
•
Topography: At a distance of 1.0 km the ground falls away to the east before rising
aging at Stivichall Common. This means that houses between 1.0 km and 2.0 km from
the site are obscured by landform.
Where residences do have windows from which it is provide views into the University these
are almost exclusively from upstairs windows. There are virtually no downstairs windows of
gardens that appear to provide views of the University Buildings.
Properties that have been identified as having views include:
•
Less than 50 houses within De Montforte Way, Cannon Park.(NGR 305 763);
•
Houses within Moreall Meadows (NGR 308755);
•
Less than five properties in the vicinity of Stivichall Common (NGR 312 762)
Internal and Outward Views
Central Campus East
Central Campus East is visually enclosed to the pedestrian or road user. However, the
degree of enclosure varies across the site. Around the core of the Main Campus, where the
Arts Building, Student’s Union, Library, Engineering and Physics Building are located, the
visual enclosure is very distinct, due to the height, mass and concentration of these
buildings. This is combined with a significant amount of ornamental tree and shrub planting
which serve to further limit the visual envelope.
As one moves eastwards, away from this central area, the density of buildings is slightly
reduced and larger areas of green space are introduced into the site, thus reducing the
intensity of visual enclosure. This is particularly apparent around the Maths, Statistics and
Computer Sciences building complex and the Rootes and Arthur Vick Residences.
From the southern area of Central Campus East, around the student residences buildings,
views are possible across to Tocil Wood Nature Reserve. Oblique views are also possible to
a wider agricultural landscape to the southwest towards Cryfield Grange,
From the upper storeys of the key buildings within this area it is possible to experience more
expansive visual envelopes. The key buildings are the tower of the Arts Centre, the
six-storey Library Building, five-storey Physics Building and Car Parks 7, 8, 8a and 15.
From the roofs and upper floors of these buildings it is possible to obtain views of the upper
storeys and roofs of residential properties and commercial premises to the north and east.
In particular this relates to the following:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 116
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
A small number of properties with Moreall Meadows;
•
Approximately 120 properties around De Montforte Way, Canley;
•
To the north of Charter Avenue, Tile Hill; and,
•
Approximately 20 properties to the north of Westwood Heath Road.
In the majority of cases it is only the roofs of these properties that are visible, a small
number having bedroom or upper floor rooms which can be seen and less that 50 with
windows at lower floor level.
Westerly views are prevented by the high ground and trees around Brickyard Plantation.
Toward the southwest it is possible to see the private residential properties at Cryfield
Heights, and a small number of properties on the north-eastern edge of Kenilworth
From the upper storeys of the four-storey Rootes Residences it is possible to obtain
extensive views out across the rural landscape of the Canley Brook toward the southwest.
From the top floor of Car Park 15 it is possible to obtain views south toward Burton Green
and the residential development and business park between Westwood Heath Road and
Westwood Way. It is also possible to obtain glimpsed views of a small number of residential
flats on Charter Avenue, Tile Hill.
Central Campus West
Central Campus West is located on higher, more exposed ground and subsequently has the
most expansive views: The principal views are from the top of the hill to the west of
Brickyard Plantation (NGR 297 757).
From the area around the sports pavilion there is a broad, predominantly rural view to the
south. This view takes in the terraced, manicured landscape of the sports pitches, with their
white posts and markings, the woodland block of Whitefield Coppice, the agricultural fields
with their dense hedgerows and mature trees, a few scattered farm buildings and, in the
distance, the woodlands and faint rooftops of residential properties on the edge of Crackley.
There is a row of approximately 15 residential properties on Cryfield Heights and Little
Cryfield which are clearly visible to the south across the valley of Canley Brook.
Whitefield Coppice and Roughknowles Wood block any distant views to the southwest all
year round from this area.
Another expansive view is possible from the area around Lakeside. This rural view takes in
agricultural fields, hedgerows with mature trees, woodland blocks, scattered farms and the
distant rooftops of houses to Burton Green. A distinctive feature on the horizon is the water
tower situated amongst these houses.
A further distant view is possible to the north from the raised area around Cryfield House.
This view is largely dominated by the buildings to Lakeside, however beyond these it is
possible to see the tree tops of Park Wood Nature Reserve and Ten Shilling Wood.
Amongst these blocks of trees a few rooftops are also visible.
The Gibbet Hill site is situated on the higher ground around Gibbet Hill. However, the
potentially expansive views have largely been blocked by substantial screen planting in the
form of non-native conifers to the northwest of the site. Views out to the south and east of
the residential properties around Moreall Meadows are limited by perimeter hedges and
trees. Glimpsed views of the wider landscape are still possible however, to the west and
north of the site, particularly during the winter months, and are possible for both road users
and pedestrians using this area.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 117
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
More local views are possible to Tocil Wood and the adjacent green spaces to the northeast
from some areas within Gibbet Hill site.
The main site at Westwood is visually enclosed to the pedestrian or road user. The
accommodation buildings, sport facilities and mature trees in this area provide a strong
sense of visual enclosure. There are, however, internal views made possible by the lower
density of buildings and the large areas of amenity grassland that run between them.
However, to the west of the main accommodation is an area of open green space which is
currently occupied by sports pitches. Although this area is contained by perimeter
vegetation it is possible to see a line of residences along Charter Avenue to the north. The
sports fields to the west of Westwood have a more open aspect, particularly to the north
where the rear of properties on Charter Avenue are visible. However, containing hedgerows
do restrict views up to a level of 5 m in all other directions.
Visual Receptors
The visual receptors related to each sector of the Main Campus are described below.
Parentheses denote visual aspects of the Main Campus.
Central Campus East
•
Students and staff using the University buildings and facilities;
•
Private residents of properties in Cannon Park (Buildings above four storeys only);
•
Private residents of properties on the A429 & Cryfield Heights (Buildings at the
southeast end of the Main Campus only);
•
Private residents of properties at Burtons Green (Library and Chemistry buildings);
•
Drivers travelling along Gibbet Hill Road;
•
Users of the Westwood Heath sports pitches (Buildings above four storeys to the north
of the Arts Centre);
•
Private residents at the ‘The Pools’ (Buildings above four storeys to the north of the Arts
Centre);
•
Walkers on footpath from Crackley (Buildings at the southeast of the Main Campus);
•
Walkers on path from Hurst Farm to Westwood Heath Road (Buildings above four
storeys to the north of the Arts Centre);
•
Users of site of County Fare, Crackley Lane (Buildings above four storeys to the north of
the Arts Centre);
•
Agricultural workers within the Arden Parklands Special Landscape Area. (Buildings
above four storeys);
•
Visitors to Canley Cemetery (Buildings above four storeys);
•
Users of Tesco’s Car Park at Cannon Park (Buildings above four storeys); and,
•
Pedestrians and Motorists on Brill Close and Brandsford Avenue, Canley (Buildings
above four storeys).
Central Campus West
•
Students and staff using the University buildings and facilities;
•
Private residents to properties on the A429 and Cryfield Heights, Gibbet Hill Road,
Westwood Heath Road, Burton Green, Cryfield Grange, Hurst Farm and The Pools;
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 118
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
Walkers, horse riders, and cyclists using the network of footpaths running from the
Coventry Way to Westwood Heath Road and Gibbet Hill Road;
•
Drivers and Cyclists on the A429, Gibbet Hill Road, Westwood Heath Road, Crackley
Lane, Bockendon Road and Cryfield Grange Road;
•
Users of the Westwood Heath sports pitches; and,
•
Agricultural workers within the Arden Parklands Special Landscape Area.
Gibbet Hill
•
Students and staff using the University buildings and facilities;
•
Residents of properties in Moreall Meadows;
•
Drivers on Gibbet Hill Road;
•
Residents of properties at Burtons Green (Roof tops only); and,
•
Agricultural workers within the Arden Parklands Special Landscape Area (Rooftops
only)
Westwood
•
Students and staff using the University buildings and facilities;
•
Residents of properties in Charter Avenue;
•
Drivers on Kirby Corner Road; and,
•
Office workers on upper floors of offices within Westwood Business Park (Sports
Facilities only).
Significance of View
The significance of the view is a factor of the duration for which it is experienced and the
extent of visibility i.e. full panorama or glimpse.
The duration of view varies for each receptor. Constant views, although filtered by existing
vegetation and buildings, are possible for:
•
Students and staff;
•
Private residents identified as having a view; and,
•
Workers in local commercial premises identified as having a view.
Glimpsed, occasional views are possible for the following:
•
Walkers, horse riders, and cyclists using public footpaths;
•
Motorists;
•
Users of the local sports pitches;
•
Agricultural workers; and,
•
Users of public open spaces such as the Tesco car park at Cannon Park and Canley
Cemetery.
Significant Views
The following section identifies those views that can be categorised as significant for one of
the following reasons. For the view to be classed as significant it must fulfil one or more of
the following criteria:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 119
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
Close: Less than 1 km;
•
Clearly visible i.e. not obscured by vegetation or other buildings; and,
•
Experienced by large numbers of people.
Public Views
•
From A249 Westwood Heath Road (NGR 276 767), (Experienced by large numbers of
people);
•
From Canley Cemetery (NGR 306 768) (Clearly visible / Close);
•
From Public Footpath Hurst Farm NGR 284754 (Close / Clearly visible);
•
From Cryfield Grange Farm NGR 300 747 (Clearly visible);
•
From the footpath adjacent to Roughknowles Wood from Cryfield Grange Road toward
Westwood Heath Road; and,
•
From footpath from Crackley NGR 295 742 (Clearly visible).
Private Views
•
From approximately 15 properties south of Cromwell Lane, Burtons Green (Clearly
visible);
•
From approximately 20 properties north of Westwood Heath Road;
•
From approximately 40 properties in Cannon Park (Close / Clearly visible);
•
From approximately 10 properties in Moreall Meadows (Close / Clearly visible); and,
•
From approximately 15 properties in Cryfield Heights (Close / Clearly visible).
Key Outward Views
In addition to identifying the key external visual receptors it is important to identify those
external landmarks that provide the campus with a point of reference, and those outward
views and panoramas that need to be protected.
Local Landmarks
•
The Water Tower at Burtons Green (NGR 272 764);
•
Blackwaste Wood (NGR 272 760);
•
Park Wood (NGR 282 772) / Ten Shilling Wood (NGR 292 773); and,
•
Stivichall Common (NGR 320 770).
Panoramas / View Corridors
•
Westward view from corner of Brickyard Plantation toward Kenilworth;
•
Westward view along Canley Brook from Tocil Ponds;
•
North-easterly view toward Park Wood and Ten Shilling Wood; and,
•
South-easterly view toward Stivichall Common.
7.5
Assessment of Impacts: Central Campus East
7.5.1
Description of Development
This area encompasses Development Zones 2 and 3 on the Parameters Plan showing a
2
total volume of development of 77,500 m , the maximum building height being five storeys.
The key development locations are:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 120
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
Adjacent to University House off Kirby Corner Road (NGR 297 765);
•
Milburn House off Kirby Corner Road (NGR 299 766);
•
South of University House and to the southwest of the Science Park (NGR 297 765);
•
South of University Road (NGR 296 764);
•
To the northeast of University Square (NGR 302 763);
•
To the north of the Swimming Pool (NGR 302 762);
•
To the southeast of the Rootes Complex (NGR 302 758);
•
To the west of the Arts Centre (NGR 299 758); and,
•
Southeast of Rootes Residences (NGR 301 756).
This represents an increase in built area of 18.5% and compares with several structures that
are of similar or greater height including the Library building (six floors + tower).
The associated landscape proposals would involve the retention and management of the
existing landscape resource rather than the introduction of extensive blocks of new planting.
The primary aim of the new landscaping would be to emphasise the structure of the original
campus plan through the reinforcement of the principal axes i.e. Library Road and University
Road. In addition there would be a major emphasis on the development of a greater sense
of cohesion with Central Campus West across Gibbet Hill Road.
Existing features of value such as trees, hedges and water features would be protected
during the course of the development in accordance with current good practice.
7.5.2
Impact on Landscape Setting: Central Campus East
Sensitivity of Receptors: Landscape Setting
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 7.
In setting terms the main receptors are the suburban residential zones on the western edge
of Coventry. The sensitivity to further development is low given that this area is already
largely developed to a high density.
The exceptions are the areas that fall within the wedge of Green Belt land that follows the
valley of Canley Brook. The sensitivity of these areas is high given that they provide a
valuable buffer between the University and the surrounding residential development, they
represent a significant resource in terms of open space provision and they provide a
valuable connection between Coventry City and the countryside.
In addition. the finger of open space and vegetation that follows Westwood Brook from Tocil
Ponds to its junction with University Road is a valuable part of the wider network of
landscape corridors linking the centre of Coventry with the Warwickshire Green Belt. As
such it has a high classification in terms of its sensitivity.
The Arden Parklands landscape character relates to adjacent areas of open countryside
along the western boundary of this zone. Although the character of this area is fragile and
has a high sensitivity to change, it is not directly affected by development within this part of
the Main Campus.
Magnitude of Effects: Landscape Setting
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 8
The magnitude of effect on the wider landscape would be minimal as the development is
principally concerned with infilling between existing buildings.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 121
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The exception is the proposed development between Tocil Lakes and the Rootes
residences, the southern extent of the existing campus buildings. The erection of buildings
up to three storeys within this area would have an effect on the Green Belt setting.
However, these effects would be only minor in nature when compared with the effects
arsing from the development proposed for Central Campus West, which is more closely
related with the Green Belt, and is significantly greater in terms of its scale.
Significance of Impact: Landscape Setting
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 9.
No impacts related to the landscape setting have been classified as severe or major.
There are no areas of development that compromise either the wider Green Belt or more
specifically the wedge of Green Belt that encircles the south-eastern boundary. The
resulting impact would therefore be classified as minor or negligible.
Given that the development is concerned with infilling and has a maximum height of five
storeys, which is no greater than the existing campus buildings, the effect on the character
of the wider landscape setting can be classified as minor or negligible.
In terms of the urban edge the impact is classified as moderately beneficial due to the fact
that the ad hoc expansion into the Warwickshire Green Belt that has been allowed to occur
over the last 20 years can be formalised as part of a coherent strategy, thereby providing a
better definition of the urban edge.
Mitigation
Within this part of the University mitigation is not required due to the low significance of
impact on the wider landscape setting.
Residual Effects: Landscape Setting: Central Campus East
There are no residual effects on landscape setting arising from the development in this area.
7.5.3
Impact on Site Landscape: Central Campus East
Sensitivity of Receptors: Site Landscape
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 7.
The existing Main Campus has a strong identity which could be compromised by
inappropriate or over development. Part of its character is the quality and quantity of the
open spaces between the buildings. The original buildings, the Arts Centre and the Rootes
residences give this part of the campus a strong sense of identity. The sensitivity in
architectural and townscape terms is therefore high. However this is moderated by the fact
that Central Campus East is already a campus development and as such, would not be
compromised by the addition of further academic accommodation.
The existing trees are important features in terms of the character of the Main Campus and
the ecological resource. Although there are no trees that are of national significance there
are specimens that are locally important, including the collection of Sorbus within Claycroft
residences. There are also several veteran Oak that are remnants from the former
hedgerows that predate the University. Nearly all of the existing trees were planted post
the 1960s and as such have the potential to develop into significant specimens as they
mature. Although none of the trees have been made the subject of a Tree Preservation
Order, they enjoy protection through the planning process, the assumption being that all
trees should be retained, unless there is an over riding reason for their removal. Although
the sensitivity of the trees is therefore classified as high, in reality they are already well
protected.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 122
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The site also includes several lengths of hedgerow that are classified as being species rich
including sections along the eastern and southern boundaries. These represent valuable
ecological corridors and should not be fragmented. Their sensitivity of these features is
high.
There are number of watercourses that pass through this area including Westwood Brook
and Canley Brook. In addition there are natural water features at Tocil Ponds and Claycroft
residences. Again the sensitivity of these features is classified as high.
Magnitude of Construction Effects: Central Campus East
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 8.
Construction effects are likely to be limited to loss of trees, loss of hedges and damage to
soils through compaction and water-logging, the effect of each potentially being high. Given
the relatively restricted nature of the available development sites, the pressure on these
landscape features could be significant.
Although the existing water features, ponds and main zones of structural vegetation fall
outside the development zones they could still be subject to indirect effects. Where
buildings are close to watercourses, accumulation of silt and / or migration of pollutants
could result in vegetation losses or changes in the ecosystem.
Magnitude of Operational Effects: Site Landscape
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 8.
In terms of the character of this part of the campus the magnitude of effect could be
moderate to high, particularly if a low rise dispersed strategy is adopted. Under this
scenario the character of the campus landscape could change due to the fragmentation of
the open spaces or the potential dilution in visual status of the 1960s architecture. However,
there is also the potential for beneficial effects in terms of an enhanced sense of
connectivity between buildings and the creation of more positive external space.
In terms of the trees, hedges and water features, the effects are likely to relate to the
construction phases of the project.
Significance of Impacts: Site Landscape
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 9.
There are no impacts that can be classified as severe or major, the most significant relating
to the character of the campus and the natural resources i.e. trees, hedges and
watercourses. However, the full nature of the effects would not be known until detailed
proposals for individual buildings have been developed.
Mitigation of Construction Effects: Site Landscape
The magnitude of the construction effects can be reduced to moderate or even low, through
effective site management and the adoption of appropriate construction techniques. The
introduction of BS 5837:2005 now requires that all planning applications are supported by a
comprehensive assessment of the arboricultural resource, a construction method statement
identifying how buildings would be erected without causing damage to trees and an
arboricultural implication study identifying what conflicts are likely to arise in the future
where trees are retained close to buildings.
When carrying out operations close to watercourses construction practices need to be
adopted which prevent the migration of silt into watercourses during the construction period.
In particular this applies to the proposed site of the Digital Laboratory (NGR 301 762) which
is immediately adjacent to Westwood Brook.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 123
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
In order to conserve topsoil structure practices need to be put in place to limit the area of
operations, minimise the amount of topsoil handling during wet weather and, where
necessary, relieve compaction post construction.
The magnitude of construction effects would therefore be determined by the manner in
which contractors deliver new development and the degree to which the University and
Statutory Authorities control their operations.
Mitigation of Operational Effects: Site Landscape
In terms of the quality of the external spaces it is possible to reduce the potential negative
effects of further development through design and planning. So long as the key spaces
and the key outward views are protected then the quality of the campus could be maintained
or enhanced.
The potential to introduce a number of landmark buildings would provide an opportunity to
give a greater sense of orientation and a better sense of place. The development of a
strong public realm strategy would allow the campus to benefit from key open spaces
focused around the principal axes of University Road and Library Road.
There is an opportunity to place a greater emphasis on an increased awareness of the sites
natural assets, specifically Westwood Brook which is at present an undervalued resource.
It would also be necessary to acknowledge and respond to the view corridors that give this
part of the campus its sense of place. The view south and southeast from the end of
University Road toward Stivichall Common needs to be retained in order to ensure that the
Main Campus retains visual links with its wider landscape setting.
All new developments would be supported by integral landscape proposals, which is likely to
add to the quality of the landscape resource. It is therefore likely that the quality of the Main
Campus landscape would be further improved as a consequence of the development.
One specific area of change and improvement would be along Gibbet Hill Road. At present
this effectively marks the edge to the Main Campus and although the sense of connection
has increased in recent years due to the construction of Radcliffe House, Heronbank,
Scarman and the Business School, the sense of the old campus edge still remains. As part
of this development it is proposed that the landscape treatment of spaces along this route is
geared toward an increased sense of connection across this road. This would involve the
removal of the low species poor hedges and the adoption of a traffic calmed approach. The
same philosophy would be applied to the section of Kirby Corner Road between Milburn
House and Westwood.
Summary of Residual Impacts: Site Landscape
Although the final impact would not be determined until detailed proposals for individual
buildings are developed, there are not likely to be any major short or long term negative
impacts with the strong possibility that there would be moderate or major beneficial impacts
in terms of the character of the campus.
7.5.4
Visual Impacts: Central Campus East
Visual Envelope
The visual envelope of the existing campus is extremely limited, unless structures exceed
four storeys. This is because all visual effects of development on this part of the Main
Campus are effectively screened as described below:
•
From the east, by the outer line of residences along De Montforte Way, Cannon Park
and by boundary vegetation between these housing areas and the Main Campus;
•
From the south, by Tocil Woods and by the vegetation following the Canley Valley;
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 124
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
From the west, by the high ground around Cryfield House, by the Brickyard Plantation
and by the existing University Buildings, specifically the Arts Centre, the Rootes
Residences and the Library; and,
•
From the north, by vegetation along Kirby Corner Road, by University House, the
buildings along the northern edge of the Science Park and by the Tesco’s shopping
complex at Cannon Park.
Sensitivity of Visual Receptors: Central Campus East
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 10.
The most significant external receptors are those to be found to the southwest, i.e. the 1015 residential properties at Cryfield Heights and walkers passing Cryfield Grange Farm.
Those residential properties located to the east and north are largely screened from the
campus by vegetation and / or other buildings. There is also a view from Canley Cemetery
which has a high level of sensitivity.
Magnitude of Visual Effects: Central Campus East
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 11.
Construction Effects
Crane jibs are likely to be the major construction effect lasting throughout the ten year
development period due to the volume of floor space that is to be delivered. Due to their
height the cranes would have a more significant impact than the permanent buildings, due
to the fact that they would be read against the skyline rather than the backdrop of the
existing buildings.
Tower cranes could be in the order of 31 m in height assuming a 4.7 m storey height, which
would put them above the height of both the tree canopy and the existing campus ridgeline.
This would mean that buildings located on the higher ground around the Arts Centre and
toward Gibbet Hill Road would be visible both from vantage points to the east, but also more
distant locations to the south and west, such as properties at Burtons Green and on the
southern fringe of Crackley. However buildings in this area are expected to be only three
storeys high, which would mean that the crane would only be in the order of 22 m high, and
so would be obscured from the West by Brickyard Plantation.
Those viewing construction at close quarters would be subjected to a high level of visual
effect. This applies to the office workers in the adjacent Science Park.
Operational Effects
The majority of the development is located around the inner core of the Main Campus and
would therefore be largely screened from view, either by vegetation or by other buildings.
No buildings would be expected to exceed the ridgeline of the tallest buildings of the existing
campus. If a four-storey building with a maximum storey height of 4.7 m were to be located
on the highest point of Central Campus East (to the west of the Arts Centre) it would have a
total height of 21.8 m, which exceeds the assumed height of Brickyard Plantation, thus
making this building visible from elevated vantage points to the south and west. However, it
is unlikely that a building of this height would be built in this location, thereby ensuring that
the existing skyline is not interrupted, with views from the south and west being unaffected.
Significance of Visual Impacts: Central Campus East
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 12.
There are no visual impacts that are classed as severe or major. There are four vantage
points where the visual impact of the development is likely to be moderate in terms of its
significance, with no receptors being subjected to major or severe levels of impact.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 125
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Moderate impacts may be realised at the following locations:
•
Canley Cemetery;
•
Properties at Cryfield Heights;
•
Sections of the footpath from Crackley to the Main Campus; and,
•
Cryfield Grange Farm.
From most, if not all, vantage points the new buildings would sit below the ridgeline of
existing buildings and for all vantage points further than 500 m from the University
boundary, the new buildings would be viewed against the backdrop of a higher existing
University ridgeline.
Although there are premises close to the Main Campus which would experience a high
degree of visual effect, their sensitivity to this change tends to be low. This applies to the
occupants of the Science Park who would experience a high level of impact during the
construction period but would be only moderately affected during the operational phases, as
the new buildings would be set within the context of the existing campus buildings.
7.5.5
Mitigation of Visual Impacts: Central Campus East
Given the height of the development it is not possible to mitigate the effects of the new
buildings by screening. This is illustrated by the existing campus buildings, several of which
exceed the canopy level of a now maturing campus landscape. From all vantage points,
visibility of buildings up to the third or fourth storeys is eliminated, but once above this datum
then the buildings are only likely to be obscured by other tall buildings.
Impact would be reduced significantly be reducing, where possible, the storey heights from
the maximum of 4.7 m used as the basis of this assessment, to the norm for academic
buildings of 3.5 m. The magnitude of effect would also be significantly reduced by locating
the tallest structures on the lowest ground, thereby ensuring that the ridgeline of the existing
campus is not exceeded. No buildings on the higher ground around the Arts Centre should
exceed 20 m in height so that buildings within Central Campus East are always screened
from the rural landscape by Brickyard Plantation.
In terms of outward views the effects of new buildings could be mitigated through detailed
design and in particular the protection of mid to long distance view corridors out into the
surrounding landscape, particularly toward Kenilworth and Stivichall Common.
7.5.6
Residual Visual Impacts: Central Campus East
As mitigation would not be expected to achieve meaningful reduction of the visual effects
the long term impact of development would be permanent. However, since no impacts are
considered to be severe or major this does not make the development unacceptable on
visual grounds.
7.6
Assessment of Impacts: Central Campus West
7.6.1
Description of Development
This area encompasses Development Zones 4,5,6 and 8 on the Parameters Plan showing a
2
total volume of development of 81,900 m , the maximum building height being four storeys.
2
This compares with an existing built footprint of 70,700 m and a maximum height of fourstoreys at the Heronbank Residences.
The key development locations are:
•
Southwest of Radcliffe House and southeast of Lakeside residences (NGR 296 759);
•
Between Lakeside and the north-western boundary (NGR 293 760);
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 126
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
Between the southern end of Lakeside and Whitefield Coppice (NGR 294 756) including
the proposed CHP Boiler House; and,
•
West of Cryfield House (NGR 294 756).
Large parts of this zone of the campus would remain free from development, including:
•
The playing fields;
•
The area immediately to the east of Whitefield Coppice;
•
The area to the north of Whitefield Coppice; and,
•
The hilltop west of Brickyard Plantation.
Although the built footprint within Central Campus West would increase significantly, the
area of green open space would, in percentage terms, remain high.
The landscape proposals for this area are described the Main Campus Masterplan. The
basic objective related to this area is to create a landscape structure that relates closely to
the wider landscape setting of the Arden Parklands.
This involves a process of compartmentalisation through the establishment of a new
network of hedgerows which link the existing blocks of vegetation, specifically Whitefield
Coppice and Brickyard Plantation, into the wider landscape. These new hedgerows would
be fully integrated with the sustainable urban drainage strategy, each hedge sitting
alongside an open ditch which then links into a connected system of swales, ponds and low
lying floodable areas. This would enable the drainage features of the site to become major
components of the landscape character.
In addition it is proposed that the low lying poorly drained area in the northwest corner of the
site is established as an area of short rotation coppice. This may be used to fuel the
adjacent biomass fired CHP boiler.
The landscape character of this part of the Main Campus would remain less manicured than
that adopted elsewhere. More relaxed management regimes would produce a landscape
that is based on meadows rather than closely cropped lawns, ensuring that the landscape
achieves a close fit with its surroundings. Taller grasses would also assist in meeting the
objectives of the sustainable urban drainage strategy, rain water being absorbed and
retained by the thicker sward of vegetation cover.
The visual qualities of this area would be maintained, the open hilltop to the west of
Brickyard Plantation being kept free of development, thereby protecting the panoramas from
this point toward Kenilworth and Burtons Green.
7.6.2
Impact on Landscape Setting: Central Campus West
Sensitivity of Receptors:
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 14.
Landscape Character
In setting terms the main receptor is the Arden Parklands landscape to the west, which
retains an open character due to its Green Belt status. The sensitivity of this landscape to
change is high given its historic context, its rural character, the lack of built development and
its role in preventing the coalescence of Coventry with other settlements, particularly
Kenilworth.
However, this landscape is not devoid of development, small to medium sized settlements,
including Kenilworth itself, together with Stoneleigh and Balsall Common forming part of its
historic fabric. More recent residential development such as the houses in Burton Green
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 127
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
and Cryfield Heights, have created a landscape that is never truly rural. Non-residential
developments such as Stoneleigh Park and Coventry Airport have also been
accommodated within this rural setting.
The key features of this landscape are defined by the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines
as:
•
Middle distance views enclosed by woodland edge;
•
Belts of mature trees associated with estate lands;
•
Many ancient woodlands often with irregular outlines;
•
Large country houses set in mature parkland;
•
Remnants of deer parks with ancient pollard oaks; and,
•
Thick roadside hedgerows often with bracken.
All of these characteristic features are classified as highly sensitive to change, their removal
or reduction having an impact on landscape character at a sub regional level. However at a
more local level, the landscape exhibits slightly different characteristics which are not truly
representative of those of the Arden Parklands. The landscape close to the Main Campus
is characterised by the following features:
•
Small to medium sized open fields enclosed by hedges of hawthorn, field maple and
hazel;
•
Gently rolling topography with shallow valleys, and low rounded hills;
•
Local watercourses including Canley Brook, Westwood Brook and Finham Brook;
•
A distinctive geometric field pattern;
•
Blocks of woodland (some ancient in origin) dominated by Oak and Ash but with
occasional stands of Beech, Lime and Pine;
•
Winding country lanes often set down between earth embankments;
•
Occasional buildings including isolated farms, ribbon style residential development
along key roads such as A249, Cromwell Lane and Burton Green, plus the existing
University buildings; and,
•
Varied land uses including sports fields, horse paddocks and private gardens in addition
to agricultural activities;
Those areas that are characteristic of the Arden Parklands are highly sensitive to change,
those that are not have a lesser degree of sensitivity, with those closest to the urban edge
being the least sensitive.
Green Belt Status
A key consideration is the need to maintain the openness of the Green Belt as defined by
planning policies at National, Regional and District Level. The protection of openness
makes this landscape highly sensitive to major development.
However, there are special circumstances that need to be considered in terms of the
sensitivity of this particularly zone of Green Belt.
•
The principle of developing in the Green Belt is already established on this site due to
the previous construction of Heronbank, Radcliffe House, Scarman House and the
Sports Pavilion. There is also a planning assumption that a degree of further
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 128
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
development would occur due to its designation as a Major Development Site within the
Warwick Local Plan.
•
The quality and character of the landscape at the edge of the Green Belt is
compromised by development and by uses that are not strictly part of the Arden
Parklands Character e.g. horse paddocks and football fields. However, peripheral
Green Belt which contains non agricultural uses still play an important role in that it acts
as a transition between urban areas and the truly rural landscape.
•
Where the Green Belt is reduced to a narrow corridor between two existing settlements
then its sensitivity must be at its highest, the narrower the gap the greater the need to
avoid coalescence. This applies to the narrow zone of rural landscape that separates
Coventry and Kenilworth.
Definition of Urban Edge
The clarity of the urban edge is one of the key factors determining the success of the Green
Belt. In some areas the threshold between suburban development and rural landscape is
clearly visible while in other areas it is compromised, small pockets of development
extending out from the main body of the suburbs into Green Belt land. Along Westwood
Heath Road this division is clear, while on Gibbet Hill Road it is not. The sensitivity of the
edge condition would normally be high, but along Gibbet Hill Road this level of sensitivity is
already compromised by past developments within the Green Belt, so the sensitivity of the
edge condition in this location is reduced from high to moderate.
Tranquillity
One of the key characteristics of the local landscape is its tranquillity, particularly when
compared with the relatively high levels of activity associated with the suburbs of a major
city such as Coventry.
Although the landscape is quiet, and is enjoyed because of that quietness, there are already
activities within and around the Main Campus which compromise that perceived level of
tranquillity.
Some of the local lanes, particularly Cryfield Grange Road and Bockendon Road are used
as cut-throughs by traffic moving from the A249 to Westwood Heath Road.
During certain hours the University Playing Fields already generate a level of noise that
impinges on the tranquillity of the surrounding countryside.
In the recent past construction activities have taken place in this area so it is not a part of
the Green Belt that has been for ever tranquil. However, this could be a reason to avoid or
minimise further development in that the area has already suffered loss of tranquillity and
should be allowed to recover.
Sensitivity in terms of tranquillity is therefore classified as high.
Magnitude of Effects on Landscape Setting: Central Campus West:
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 15.
Construction effects:
The major effect would be noise generated by construction activities and construction traffic.
This is assessed separately under other sections of the Environmental Statement. However,
the impact of this noise on the tranquillity of the local landscape is likely to be high.
The visual presence of cranes and construction activity would impact on the rural character
and on the openness of the Green Belt. Cranes are likely to remain in place at least
throughout the ten year period of the Development Plan, and very likely beyond.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 129
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The magnitude of the effect of the cranes would reduce if a lower more dispersed
development strategy were adopted.
There may be indirect effects on local landscape features, specifically individual trees,
woodlands, hedges and watercourses due to dust, silting up of water courses or changes to
the local drainage regime, however, the magnitude of these effects is likely to be low, so
long as sensitive construction methodologies are adopted.
Operational Effects
In terms of Planning Policy related to the Green Belt issues, the development would
inevitably have a high magnitude of effect on the degree of openness. However this is
moderated by the fact that development in this area already exists and that none of the
proposed development would be closer to the existing town of Kenilworth than exiting
University buildings. Although the scale of the proposed development is significant, in terms
of the total area of Green Belt, it is relatively modest.
The magnitude of effects would increase marginally if a lower more dispersed building
footprint were developed across the site. However, the difference would be negligible if
considered in terms of the wider Green Belt setting.
Landscape Character
In terms of the Arden Characteristics the effects would be as follows:
•
The development would not affect any woodland edges and as such would not affect
middle distance views;
•
It would not affect belts of mature trees;
•
It would not affect ancient woodlands;
•
It would not affect the mature parkland of large country houses;
•
It would not affect the remnants of deer parks with ancient pollard oaks; and,
•
It would not affect roadside hedgerows.
Although none of these individual characteristics are affected by the development the Arden
character is a rural landscape classification and so the magnitude of effect related to the
insertion of a group of three to four storeys academic buildings into this rural setting would
be high.
However, the magnitude effect reduces to moderate in terms of the landscape character
close to the site as this is less representative of the true Arden character.
There are positive effects arising from the development in terms of the landscape character
of the setting:
•
The development plan is based around a framework of hedged enclosures that are
consistent with the scale of the local field pattern;
•
All existing blocks of woodland are retained and connected by a new network of hedges
and ditches; and,
•
The open hill top west of Brickyard Plantation is retained.
Tranquillity
The tranquillity of the landscape would also be affected in the long term due to the
increased volume of activity on site, particularly related to vehicle movements, the
magnitude of this effect being moderate to high.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 130
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
In terms of the urban edge the effect of the new development would be to consolidate past
expansion of the city into the Warwickshire landscape. The boundary of development does
not extend significantly beyond that defined by the existing University buildings of
Heronbank and Cryfield, the proposed development filling the zone between these
buildings.
Significance of Impacts: Landscape Setting: Central Campus West
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 16.
No impacts are classed as severe due to the fact that the landscape is not of national or
international importance
Although there are landscape impacts that would normally be classed as major these are
reduced to a moderate classification for the following reasons:
•
The impact to Green Belt is reduced by the modest scale of the proposal and the fact
that this area of Green Belt is already compromised by development;
•
Impact on landscape character is reduced by the modest scale of the proposal, the fact
that the local landscape is not truly representative of the Arden character and by the
proposals for Arden features to be incorporated into the development; and,
•
Loss of tranquillity is reduced as a result of existing noise generating activities within
and around the site.
Mitigation of Landscape Impacts: Central Campus West
Construction
Impact in terms of loss of tranquillity could be reduced by controls in terms of construction
methodology. However, it is inevitable that throughout the period of construction noise from
building operations would affect enjoyment of the local landscape.
Indirect landscape effects arsing from construction could be minimised by the control of site
operations and by construction methodology. The control of dust, silt and water borne
pollutants could minimise effects on the landscape features.
Operational
It is not possible to offset the impacts related to the loss of Green Belt or the reduction of its
openness.
The detailed design of the buildings, in terms of their final massing and layout could achieve
marginal reductions in terms of the area of Green Belt transferred from green space to built
footprint. A taller more concentrated layout would reduce the land take, but in doing so
would increase awareness of the campus when viewed from other Green Belt areas.
Similarly in terms of impacts on the Arden character, the conversion of green space to
development cannot be offset, although it can be marginally reduced by developing a less
dispersed footprint. However, there are plans to extend the features and characteristics of
the Arden landscape into Central Campus West, thereby reducing the magnitude of adverse
impact.
Tranquillity would inevitably be affected but the increase in noise could be reduced through
the layout and orientation of the buildings.
Residual Impacts
Since it is not possible to achieve a meaningful reduction in the effects of the development
through mitigation the impacts described above would remain residual.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 131
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
7.6.3
Impact On Site Landscape: Central Campus West
Sensitivity of Receptors: Site Landscape
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 14.
Character
The character of the site landscape at Central Campus West remains rural and as such is
moderately to highly sensitive to change. It still exhibits some of the individual Arden
Parkland characteristics i.e. contained by hedges, punctuated by blocks of woodland, has
gently rolling topography. However, for more than 20 years it has been subject to change,
new buildings in the form of Scarman, Radcliffe and more recently Heronbank, taking large
areas out of agricultural use. The historic hedgerows that subdivided this area into the
smaller field units that are truly characteristic of the Arden Landscape have been removed
producing a character that is much more expansive.
In its virgin state the landscape character would attract a high sensitivity rating but this is
reduced to low to moderate as a result of the presence of buildings and non agricultural
uses.
Features
In terms of the landscape features there are few individual trees or hedges due to the fact
that the land has been farmed, with many of the historic landscape elements already lost.
Notable exceptions do exist within the Cryfield residences and within the grounds of Cryfield
House, both of which contain ancient specimen oak. Where trees and hedges do exist,
mainly around the perimeter, they obviously attract a high sensitivity rating. In particular this
applies to the hedge that runs diagonally from Whitefield coppice to Brickyard Plantation
and the marginal vegetation that follows the line of the Canley Brook. There are also major
blocks of woodland in the form of Brickyard Plantation and Whitefield coppice, the latter not
strictly falling within the site but likely to be affected by changes in land use within it.
The old field ponds are also worthy of a high sensitivity rating particularly those found at
Cryfield residences and at the hilltop site to the west of Brickyard Plantation
More recent landscape interventions are of lower value and have a lower level of sensitivity.
The early phases of the man made lake at Heronbank have established a natural marginal
landscape which does have a moderate to high level of sensitivity. However, the more
manicured landscapes associated with Scarman, Radcliffe and Heronbank, detract from the
character of the wider landscape and as such have a low level of sensitivity.
Within Central Campus West there are specific areas that have a higher level of sensitivity
including the highly visible hill top west of Brickyard Plantation, the poorly drained area to
the north of Whitefield Coppice and the area running along the southern boundary adjacent
to Canley Brook.
Magnitude of Landscape Effects: Site Landscape: Central Campus West
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 15.
Construction Effects
The major effect would relate to the general change of character due to the volume of
construction activity, extending over at least ten years. However, this would be concentrated
on those areas designated as development zones, which remains only a small percentage
of the total area of Central Campus West. While the magnitude of effect would be high
locally, it would only be moderate in terms of the total landscape of this part of the site.
The Brickyard Plantation and Whitefield Coppice would not be directly affected by
construction activities as they fall outside the areas identified as ‘Main Areas for
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 132
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Development’, although they may suffer indirect effects in the form of dust, run off or
impeded drainage the magnitude of these effects being low.
As this area has been actively farmed over many years there are no trees that would be lost
to development. The group of trees around the hilltop pond west of Brickyard Plantation is
within an area that is earmarked for retention as open space.
In terms of hedges, there are two lengths that could be affected, the hedge connecting
Brickyard Plantation with Whitefield Coppice runs past an area designated for development
and could therefore suffer damage. Similarly, roadside hedges running from the Cryfield
Roundabout to the Sports Pavilion may be indirectly affected as a result of construction
traffic. None of the perimeter hedgerows around Central Campus West would be affected.
Water courses and water features would only be affected indirectly, either through silting or
through pollution if damaging chemicals are washed into the water bodies as a result of
surface water run off. No existing water features would be lost and a significant length of
new ditches would be added as part of the proposed sustainable drainage strategy.
The soil resource could be significantly damaged during construction due to its heavy clay
nature and poor drainage characteristics.
Operational Effects
In terms of the magnitude of the effects on the character of Central Campus West, these
would be classed as high, the change from a rural landscape to an area that is developed
would be a significant.
The degree of negative effect would be mitigated by the fact that buildings already exist in
this part of the Main Campus, the new buildings being concentrated in the areas that have
already been affected by development. The landscape associated with the new buildings
would have the potential to reduce the degree of the negative effects.
The increase in the level of activity, the change of use and the increase in vehicle activities
within this part of the site would have a high level of effect.
There is also the potential for an adverse change to the character of the onsite landscaping
if the ornamental highly maintained treatment that has been established at Central Campus
East is applied across Central Campus West.
However, there is also the potential for beneficial effects to be achieved through the new
landscape treatment of the site, specifically the introduction of new hedges, copses and
floodable areas. Within those areas that are not developed there is the opportunity to
reintroduce those features that are characteristic of the Arden landscape.
Significance of Landscape Impacts: Site Landscape
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 16
No impacts in Central Campus West are classified as severe in that they do not affect
features of national or international significance. Landscape impacts which are classified as
major are:
•
Change of character from rural landscape to campus; and,
•
Increased level of activity, use, vehicle movements.
There is the potential for a moderate level of impact related to loss of hedgerows if buildings
are located close to these features.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 133
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Mitigation of Landscape Impacts: Site Landscape
Construction Mitigation
The change of character due to the presence of cranes and vehicles, plus the general
volume of activity cannot be mitigated.
Indirect effects on existing woodlands, hedges and water features can be avoided through
sensitive design, good construction practices and the implementation of robust protection
measures. If the procedures identified in ‘BS 5837: 2005 Trees in Relation to Construction’
are followed then the level of vegetation loss should be minimal.
Similarly, potential damage to the soil resource can be minimised by enforcing restrictions
on working areas and by adopting sensitive working strategies which ensure that the soil is
moved the minimum number of times.
Operational Mitigation
It is not possible to offset the impacts related to the change of landscape character due to
scale of development. However, the proposed plan ensures that the more sensitive
features of the site are retained as open space. In particular this applies to the open hill top
site which would be retained as open grassland, the northwest corner of the site, which
would be established as willow and hazel coppice, and the southern boundary of the site
alongside Canley Brook, where the existing wetland ecosystems would be retained.
The level of impact of the new buildings could be reduced by adopting ‘green’ construction
strategies and by designing buildings that achieve best fit with the landscape. The use of
green roof systems would deliver many benefits in terms of reducing the visual impact of the
buildings, attenuating surface water runoff and satisfying National and Regional policy in
terms of the use of sustainable energy.
If biomass is adopted as a source of heat and power, the growth of short rotation coppice
could have an impact on the character of the site landscape. Although this would not be
consistent with the Arden Parklands character it would be a type of landscape for which
there is historic precedent in that low lying poorly drained areas were locally used to grow
willow and hazel coppice, prior to the process of enclosure.
In order to minimise the level of impact, a style of landscape needs to be adopted which
moves away from the highly manicured approach which has been used in the more
intensively used parts of the campus. While this manicured style is appropriate within the
existing parts of the campus, a slightly looser style, based on local indigenous vegetation
would achieve a better fit with the surrounding Arden landscape.
The introduction of a new landscape strategy that is structured around new lengths of
hedgerow would deliver a landscape that is a closer fit with the local landscape pattern of
small fields and blocks of woodland enclosed by hedges.
7.6.4
Residual Impacts: Site Landscape: Central Campus West.
Those impacts that would remain are therefore described as follows:
•
Change of landscape character from rural landscape to campus:
•
Increased level of activity.
•
Enhanced landscape structure which achieves a closer fit with the local Arden
Landscape.
•
Enhanced network of field drainage features connecting back into local water courses.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 134
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
7.6.5
Visual Impacts: Central Campus West
Visual Envelope
As the maximum height of the proposed buildings would not exceed four storeys the visual
envelope of Central Campus West is limited by the following topographic and natural
features.
•
To the east by Brickyard Plantation
•
To the west by Whitefield Coppice
•
To the south by the ridge occupied by the A249
•
To the northwest by the ridge occupied by Cromwell Road, Burtons Green
•
To the north by Park Wood, Tile Hill and Ten Shilling Wood
Up to two storeys the visual envelope is contained to the site itself as boundary hedgerows
already restrict inward views.
The existing buildings within Central Campus West would also screen new development
unless the new buildings are either taller than the existing structures or they are viewed in
front of these existing buildings.
Sensitivity of Visual Receptors: Central Campus West
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 17.
Those receptors subject to a high level of sensitivity are:
•
Residents of approximately 15 properties at Cryfield Heights / A249: Due to views of
the Main Campus across the valley of Canley Brook;
•
Walkers on footpath W164 from Crackley to Cryfield Grange: Due to the undulating
nature of the topography crossed by this path the campus is not always visible.
However, there are isolated vantage points where a significant view is possible;
•
Walkers on footpath W165x from Crackley Lane to Westwood Heath Road: Again the
undulating nature of the topography means that the visibility of Central Campus West
from this footpath is variable, the clearest views being from the elevated sections.
Once the path joins the north-western boundary of the University, visibility is severely
restricted by the boundary vegetation and by earth mounding which was introduced into
this area when Heronbank was constructed;
•
Drivers on Cryfield Grange Road have a high level of sensitivity to any structures that
exceed the screen provided by Whitefield Coppice. This would include structures
exceeding 20 m in height that are located on the lower parts of Central Campus West
i.e. around Heronbank and to the east of the coppice, and exceeding 10 m in height on
the high ground to the west of Brickyard Plantation; and,
•
Similarly walkers on footpath W165x as it runs from Cryfield Grange Road toward
Whitefield Coppice would be exposed to the same effects.
Magnitude of Visual Effects: Central Campus West
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 18.
Construction Effects
Effects would relate primarily to the visibility of cranes, construction activity at ground levels
being screened by the existing boundary hedges and, within the site, by the existing
buildings.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 135
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The cranes are likely to be visible throughout the majority of the ten year development
period and potentially beyond that, if further construction takes place. At peak construction
periods it would not be unreasonable to expect up to six tower cranes to be in operation.
In the worst case the jibs could potentially be in the order of 29 m above ground level.
Whitefield Coppice is in the order of 20 m high but is located on low lying ground the highest
edge of the coppice being at 85.0 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The highest point of
Central Campus West earmarked for development is at 84.0 m AOD, so the effective height
of Whitefield Coppice in terms of screening cranes related to these buildings is 11 m. In a
worst case it would therefore be possible for 18 m of crane jib to be seen above the canopy
line when viewing the site from the west. The magnitude of effect would be increased
further by the fact that the jibs would be viewed against the skyline rather than against a
backdrop of buildings or woodland. However, this only applies to the construction of
buildings that are on the highest ground to the northwest of Brickyard Plantation i.e. those
buildings that are in Zone 5 on the Development Parameters Plan. Buildings in Zones 4
and 6 are located on lower ground, which means that the screening effects of Whitefield
Coppice would increase. Cranes related to buildings on the lowest parts of Central Campus
West would receive the full 20 m of screening from Whitefield Coppice which means that on
these buildings the extent of the jib that would be visible above the tree line would reduce to
a maximum of 9 m.
The screening provided by Brickyard Plantation is more effective due to the fact that this
stand of trees is located on top of the hill. This means that its full height of 20 m is effective
in screening views of the cranes. The maximum extent of the jib that would be visible above
Brickyard Plantation would be 9 m. Cranes related to buildings on the lower parts of Central
Campus West would be screened from the east by Brickyard Plantation.
Heronbank would screen all construction activity to the south -east, including cranes up to
the height of its roof ridge which varies from 95.5 – 98 m AOD. However, because
Heronbank is located on low lying ground it would only be effective in screening cranes
related to buildings set at a similar ground level of 85.0 AOD. Cranes located on the higher
ground to the west of Brickyard Plantation would receive minimal screening from
Heronbank.
Operational Effects
The principal visual effects would relate to the new buildings with any structure above two
storeys having the potential to be seen from vantage points to the south and west. As
described above, Whitefield Coppice at 20 m in height would screen almost all of any four
storey high building if it is located on the lower parts of the site. However, those buildings
that are located on the higher ground to the northwest of Brickyard Plantation could exceed
the height of Whitefield Coppice by up to 9 m. This would mean that the upper two storeys
of a building located on this high ground could be seen from vantage points such as Cryfield
Grange Road. Views from the northwest would show the new buildings in the context of the
existing four-storey Heronbank Residences. Those buildings located on low ground to the
east of Whitefield Coppice and the northwest of Heronbank would be screened by either
these existing buildings or by vegetation. Those located on the highest ground west of
Brickyard Plantation, and with a storey height of 4.7 meters, could exceed the roof line of
the Heronbank Residences by up to 20 m, virtually their full height, although it is highly
unlikely that such circumstances would occur because the buildings would almost certainly
be set at a lower datum, and the storey heights are likely to be less than 4.7 m. It is
assumed that all for the sake of minimising visual effects that all roofs to new buildings
would be flat.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 136
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Minor effects could arise from car parking, roads and pathways and the users of these
areas, but the principal effects would inevitably relate to the buildings.
In terms of the outward views it is possible that some of the panoramas currently
experienced from the open hilltop would be curtailed if the new buildings are constructed
with storey heights of 4.7 m. However, if the storey heights are kept to 3.0 m and the
buildings are located on ground no higher than 90 m AOD, then these open panoramas
would be maintained.
Significance of Visual Impact: Central Campus West
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 19.
There are no visual impacts that have been assessed as being severe due to the fact that
none of the views affected are of national or regional significance.
Major impacts relate to the following vantage points:
•
Properties at Cryfield Heights and on the north side of the A249. These properties
would view the new development across an open valley at a distance of 1.25 km;
•
Walkers on the footpath from Crackley, although they would not be able to view the new
buildings continually when walking along this path there are vantage points from which
they would be clearly visible. During the construction period it could be possible to see
10 -15 m of crane tower exposed at any one time;
•
Walkers on the path from Crackley Farm to Westwood Heath Road. This is a long
distance view, the development being 1.25 km away;
•
Drivers on Cryfield Grange Road. It is highly likely that these viewers would see cranes
exposed above the canopy of Whitefield Coppice, and probable that they would see the
upper storeys of new buildings that are located on the higher ground around the open
hill top. However, this would depend on the storey heights and location of the individual
buildings;
•
Walkers on the path from Cryfield Grange Road running along the southeast edge of
Roughknowles Wood, who would also see both cranes and the top floors of four-storey
buildings over the top of Whitefield Coppice;
•
Walkers on the path from Featherbed Lane toward Hurst Farm, this path skirting the
north-western boundary. Although these viewers are very close to the development,
this path is heavily screened by existing hedges and trees, which significantly reduces
the level of impact, almost to a negligible level;
•
Walkers at Hurst Farm on the path to Featherbed Lane. Although the vegetation around
the western boundary does provide screening the cranes and buildings would be clearly
visible, particularly if the 4.7 m storey height is adopted; and,
•
Walkers on the permissive footpath around the site boundary. These viewers would be
subjected to a full view of the development at close quarters. Being a permissive route
it would be possible to restrict or prohibit access thereby removing the receptor;
Mitigation of Visual Impacts: Central Campus West
Visual impact would be reduced by minimising the storey heights of the buildings and by
locating the tallest buildings on the low ground.
In the case of those views from the west and north the impact would be mitigated by the
following:
•
The visual and screening effects of the existing Heronbank and Lakeside Residences;
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 137
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
The screening effects of existing boundary vegetation including the line of Oak planted
around the perimeter of the campus in 2000; and,
•
The screening effects provided by the existing mounding.
In terms of further mitigation, inward views would be softened and screened by new
plantings within and around the site. This would take the form of:
•
Reinforcement of the existing boundary hedges.
•
Installation of new hedges and tree belts, particularly along the south side of the road to
the Sports Pavilion;
•
Installation of new trees around the hilltop pond; and,
•
Possible planting of short rotation coppice on the north-western corner of the site.
Given the scale of the development, any further on site planting would not be effective in
terms of screening for at least 20 years.
The degree and acceptability of impact would be largely affected by the form and style of
architecture chosen for the new buildings, and in particular by the colour of the elevations.
This can be seen by the degree of impact arising from the white clad elevations of the 1960s
facades and the red brick, pseudo vernacular style of the Lakeside Residences.
Green roofs would have a marginal effect, particularly if the roof is pitched or sloped toward
the viewer. However, this would only have a visual effect if the level of the roof is lower than
the level of the viewer. The potential range of roof top levels is between 97 m AOD and
113 m AOD so the residents of Cryfield Heights at approximately 100 m AOD would benefit
from the installation of green roofs on those buildings that are located on lower ground.
Residual Visual Impacts: Central Campus West
From most potential viewpoints the visual impact during construction would be at a
moderate level, reducing to a minor level during the operational phase. The cumulative
effects of existing and new planting would quickly remove or minimise all views up to a
height of 10 m, the equivalent of between two and three storeys. Above this level some
screening would still occur as trees increase to 15 m after 20 years, however the screening
is likely to be less dense and less effective during the winter months. It is likely that the
upper storeys of structures greater than three storeys in height would therefore continue to
be seen for at least 20 years, and in extreme cases where a building with a maximum storey
height is located on the highest ground then the impact would be permanent. However the
number of vantage points experiencing these views in very small and is likely to be limited to
five locations, Cryfield Heights, Hurst Farm, Cryfield Grange Road, the footpath from
Cryfield Grange Road by Roughknowles Wood and an isolated stretch of the Crackley –
Campus footpath.
Outward Views
The introduction of new development would inevitably compromise internal views and views
out of the campus toward the open countryside. However, the development plan has been
based on the principle of minimising impact on inward views thereby ensuring that the open
aspects of the highest points of the Main Campus are maintained. The open panorama
toward Kenilworth is likely to maintained, but the view toward the water tower is likely to
blocked, dependent on the location and storey heights of the new buildings. In order to
maintain visibility of the water tower it would be necessary for the roof to be no higher than
99 m.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 138
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
7.7
Assessment of Impacts: Gibbet Hill Site
7.7.1
Description of Development
This area encompasses Development Zone 7 on the Parameters Plan showing a total
2
volume of development of 2000 m , the maximum building height being three storeys. This
2
compares with an existing built footprint of 42,920 m and a maximum height of two storeys.
New development is located on the site of the existing estates office adjacent to Gibbet Hill
Road
In terms of investment in the landscape, the focus in this area would be geared toward the
retention of key trees and hedgerows with supplemental planting added within context of
new development.
7.7.2
Impact on Landscape Setting: Gibbet Hill
Sensitivity of Receptors: Landscape Setting
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 21.
The potential receptors related to this part of the development are as already described for
Central Campus East and Central Campus West. However, due to the limited nature of the
development, both in area and in height, the text would only deal with receptors and effects
of a local nature.
Given that the site is surrounded of three sides by low density residential areas with Moreall
Meadows to the northeast and southeast and Cryfield Heights to the southwest, the
sensitivity to further development would be moderate.
The area of open space to the northwest is however, more sensitive to change in that it is
designated as Green Belt providing a valuable and viable green buffer between the
suburban edge of Coventry and the main University Campus. It also provides an important
connection in both ecological and pedestrian terms between inner city Coventry and rural
Warwickshire. The sensitivity of this area in Green Belt terms is therefore high. However in
character terms it is not representative of an Arden Parkland landscape which means that
its sensitivity is low.
Magnitude of Effects: Landscape Setting
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 22.
Construction effects
Given that the scale of development is limited to one building on the site frontage, it is
unlikely that either the suburban or rural setting would be affected by construction.
Operational effects
Similarly as the scale and height of the proposed development is minimal, and it replaces
existing structures of a similar scale, the effects would be negligible.
The area where the magnitude of effects may be slightly higher is on the south-eastern
boundary adjacent to the junction of Moreall Meadows and Gibbet Hill Road, the close
proximity to adjacent residential properties potentially increasing the scale of effects within
this area.
The green wedge between Gibbet Hill and Central Campus East is not affected by these
proposals.
Significance of Impact: Landscape Setting
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 23.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 139
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Given the limited nature of the development, the impact on the character of the setting is
classed as ‘negligible’ or no change.
In the case of the character of this area the construction of a new building as a replacement
for the modest architectural of the 1960s Estates Office could be seen as a minor beneficial
impact.
7.7.3
Mitigation
Due to the limited nature of the proposals no mitigation measures are necessary.
There would be no residual impacts on the landscape setting.
7.7.4
Impact on Site Landscape: Gibbet Hill Site
Sensitivity of Receptors
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 24.
The main receptors would be the existing landscape features, including the trees, hedges
and open space. The quality of the vegetation in the area defined for development is not
significant, being limited to roadside hedges which have been heavily trimmed in recent
years. It is possible that the hedge along the Gibbet Hill Road frontage has historic origins,
given that it follows an historic route.
There is a small pond to the north of the Estates Office which may be removed under the
proposals. Although not significant in terms of the wider campus it is locally important both
as an amenity feature and ecological resource. This pond could be replaced as part of the
development with the potential for the enhancement of the visual quality of the site
In addition the character of this part of the campus may change as a result of new
development. However, given that this part of the University has the lowest quality external
environment, the sensitivity to change is low, with the possibility that improvements could be
realised as part of the development proposals.
Magnitude of Effects: Site Landscape
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 25.
Construction effects
The limited area of the site means that damage could be caused to site vegetation during
the construction period. In particular this would relate to the hedgerow along the Gibbet Hill
Road and Moreall Meadows boundaries and the trees around the existing pond.
Operational effects
As the proposed development site occupies the site of an existing building, the effects on
the site vegetation should be minimal. The trees enjoy protection through the planning
process.
Similarly the effects on the character of Gibbet Hill would be low, new development
replacing a building of only modest visual quality.
New development would also be supplemented by an integrated package of landscape
improvement works which should help to raise the visual quality of Gibbet Hill Site to the
same levels as Central Campus East.
Significance of Impact: Site Landscape: Gibbet Hill Site
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 26.
The level of impact on the campus landscape arising from the development should be minor
or ‘negligible ‘.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 140
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Similarly the level of impact on the trees, hedges and pond should be minor although this
depends on the detailed planning of the development. If features are lost, none are likely to
be of high sensitivity which means that they can be replaced and improved upon.
Mitigation
Potentially adverse effects to the existing trees, hedges and pond would be minimised by
the adoption of sensitive construction methodologies. If features are lost they can be easily
replaced, thereby maintaining the existing landscape status of the site, or improving upon it.
Residual effects: Site Landscape: Gibbet Hill Site
There are likely to be no noticeable residual effects.
7.7.5
Visual Impacts: Gibbet Hill Site
Visual Envelope
Visibility of the Gibbet Hill Site is limited to the following views:
•
Inward views from the north are screened by Tocil Woods and by a line of Leyland
Cypress planted along the northern boundary. This would be reinforced within the next
20 years as the recently planted woodland to the south of Tocil Woods matures;
•
Views from the east and south are limited by the encircling residential development;
•
Views from the west and southwest are contained by roadside hedgerows along Gibbet
Hill Road; and,
•
Existing buildings within Gibbet Hill already act as view blockers, preventing views
across the site.
Sensitivity of Visual Receptors
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 24.
There are no visual receptors that would have a high sensitivity to development on Gibbet
Hill.
Due to the limited nature of the development the only properties that would be affected are
up to five houses at the western end of Moreall Meadows. However, these properties are
already well screened by boundary vegetation within the Main Campus.
There are also five properties that look onto the site from the west side of Gibbet Hill Road.
Again these properties are already well screened by vegetation.
The other potential group of receptors who view the site at close quarters are drivers on
Gibbet Hill Road. However, these views are curtailed by boundary vegetation and already
experience buildings in this location in the form of the existing Estates Office.
There are more distant receptors, particularly during the winter months when the encircling
trees are devoid of leaves. From the University Sports Pavilion and from the south sloping
fields below Burtons Green, it is possible to see the roof tops of structures that exceed two
storeys in height, i.e. approximately 10 m. However the remote nature of these views,
particularly at Burtons Green, makes the sensitivity of these receptors low.
Magnitude of Visual Effects: Gibbet Hill Site
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 25.
Construction
The major effect is likely to relate to the tower cranes, ground level construction activity
being largely hidden from view. The Development Parameters Plan shows a maximum of
three storeys which, assuming the worst case of 4.7 m storey heights, equates to 14.1 m.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 141
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The maximum crane height would be 22.1 m, with 12 m of tower and jib visible over the tree
tops.
It is possible during the construction period to view the tops of cranes from a wider visual
envelope, particularly if they are placed close to the perimeter of the site. It may well be
possible to view cranes jibs from vantage points to the north, particularly the sports pavilion,
from Cryfield House, and from the upper floors of the Rootes Residences on the southern
edge of Central Campus East. However, unlike Central Campus East and Central Campus
West the extent of the construction period is likely to be very short, due to the limited scale
of development, almost certainly no longer than 12 months.
Operational
A three-storey building could exceed the height of the existing Estates Office by up to 7 m if
storey heights of 4.7 m are adopted, which could be nearly twice the height of this structure.
However, this is unlikely to be the case, the additional height being more likely to be in the
order of 3.5 - 5 m. Given the screening effects of the site vegetation this should not have a
significant level of effect on the outlook of the five properties in Moreall Meadows and the
five properties on Gibbet Hill Road, unless the new building is located either on, or close to,
one of the boundaries. Given that this vegetation is currently only semi-mature the
screening effects that it provides would increase with time to eliminate most if not all views
of this development.
Significance of Visual Impact: Gibbet Hill Site
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 26.
There are no impacts that are classified as severe or major. Moderate impacts could relate
to the residents of Moreall Meadows and Gibbet Hill Road particularly during the
construction period. Moderate impacts would also relate to the Gibbet Hill Road frontage if
the new building is placed tight on this boundary.
Mitigation
It is not possible to mitigate the construction effects due to the height of the cranes, which
exceed the height of the tree canopy. However, for the receptors located at close quarters
or set at a lower level than the development site, the placement of cranes at the furthest
possible point from the viewer would reduce the angle of view, thereby minimising the level
of impact. This means placing the cranes as far as possible from the Gibbet Hill Road and
Moreall Meadow boundaries.
Due to the limited scale of this development and the small number of receptors affected, the
operational impacts can be successfully screened within 10 to 15 years by supplementing
the existing boundary planting.
7.7.6
Residual Visual Effects: Gibbet Hill Site
There are likely to be minimal residual impacts after ten years and no impacts after 20
years.
7.8
Assessment of Impacts: Westwood Site
7.8.1
Description of Development
This area encompasses Development Zone 1 on the Parameters Plan (Figure 2.6) showing
2
a total volume of development of 9,600 m , the maximum building height being three
2
storeys. This compares with an existing built footprint of 98,407 m and a maximum height
of three storeys.
The key development locations are:
•
To the north of the existing athletics track; and,
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 142
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
The northeast corner of this triangular site where existing buildings are to be replaced
with new three-storey academic buildings.
The strategy for Westwood landscape would principally be concerned with the protection of
the existing mature tree stock. Where new development is carried out further planting would
be installed with a view to reinforcing the existing ornamental character.
7.8.2
Impact On Landscape Setting: Westwood Site
Sensitivity of Receptors: Landscape Setting
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 28.
The potential receptors arising from this area of development are as described for Central
Campus East. However, due to the limited nature of the development and its location in a
busy suburban area, the effects would be of a local nature, affecting only a small number of
individual properties adjacent to the site.
Given that the triangular site is bounded to the north by the high density residential area of
Canley and to the south by a combination of University buildings, residential properties and
the Science Park, the sensitivity of the character to further development is low. The site
itself is of low visual and spatial quality which means that the proposed changes could
potentially make a more positive contribution to the character of the surroundings.
The area of open space and playing fields to the west has a high sensitive to change as it is
classed as Green Belt and designated as a Green Wedge in the Coventry Unitary Plan.
However, the current use of this area as playing fields, incorporating several artificial pitches
illuminated by floodlighting, means that this is far from rural or tranquil.
The character of the local landscape is only moderate sensitivity due to the fact that it is
currently occupied by sports fields, including artificial pitches, changing facilities and sports
related buildings.
Magnitude of Effects
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 29.
Construction
Construction effects in the form of noise, dust and general building operations are unlikely to
have a significant impact on the landscape setting, due to the level of activity in the local
area.
The construction of a building on the existing tennis courts does have the potential to
produce more significant effects, but these are unlikely to impact on the wider landscape.
Although the presence of cranes within the Green Belt would have a negative impact these
effects are likely to be short lived and are seen in the context of the existing floodlighting
masts.
Indirect effects including the pollution of the Westwood Brook and associated impacts on
flora and fauna are possible, although much less likely than on Central Campus East.
Operational
Given that the scale and height of the proposed development within the academic area is
minimal, and that it replaces existing structures of a similar size, the effects on the
landscape would be negligible.
The area where the magnitude of effects may be slightly higher is on the boundary adjacent
to Charter Way, Canley, the close proximity to adjacent residential properties potentially
increasing the scale of the effects that are felt within this area.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 143
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The green wedge between the Westwood athletics facilities and the low rise residential
development to the west is not affected by new development within the main body of
Westwood, but would be affected by development on the tennis courts, in that open land is
being taken out of the Green Belt. However, this is land that is already covered by hard
surface so the significance of the loss is diminished.
Given the limited nature of the development, the effect on the character of the landscape
setting is classed as low.
Significance of Impacts: Landscape Setting: Westwood Site
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 30.
Although loss of Green Belt is, by definition, of major significance, the scale of loss in this
instance is so low that the level of impact is only moderately adverse.
Similarly the introduction of a building into an area currently occupied by a tennis court,
within a wider local setting of artificial sports pitches, changing rooms and sports related
buildings, would only have a minor level of impact in terms of the character of the landscape
setting.
Mitigation
Loss of Green Belt cannot be offset or reduced by mitigation.
The minor level of impact in terms of landscape character can be offset in the medium to
long term through the introduction of further screen planting.
Residual Impacts: Landscape Setting: Westwood Site
Green Belt loss would therefore be permanent but the scale of loss is only moderate.
7.8.3
Impact On Site Landscape: Westwood Site
Sensitivity of Receptors: Site Landscape
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 28.
Westwood subdivides into two clearly definable character areas. To the east is the triangular
area occupied by the residential and academic accommodation. This is bounded to the east
by residential properties along Charter Avenue, to the south by the busy Kirby Corner Road
and to the west by the sports facilities. This is a densely developed part of the Main
Campus dominated by three-storey brick buildings set within a mature parkland setting. The
buildings have something of a tired appearance, with a slight sense of institutionalism. The
sensitivity of this area to change is low, with the potential for significant enhancement
through the introduction of new buildings, the creation of new external spaces and the
addition of new planting.
Within this area the significant receptors would be the existing landscape features, including
the trees and hedges that form part of the mature landscape. The quality of the vegetation
in this area is significant in that it offers the most mature landscape across the entire
campus, containing several fine specimen trees that are worthy of retention, either as
individual specimens or as part of larger groups. In addition a mature hedge runs along the
western boundary adjacent to the sports facilities.
Specific tree groups of note include:
•
A line of mature beech around the residential blocks to the west of the site;
•
A line of Oak along the western boundary;
•
A line of mature Scots Pine to the east of the Sports Building; and,
•
A mature Oak along Kirby Corner Road.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 144
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The sensitivity of these individual features is variable but many of the specimen trees are
highly sensitive to change.
To the west is the second character area which is dominated by the various sports facilities
including the athletics track and three artificial soccer pitches. This area is designated as
Green Belt but has the character of a developed site due to the visual effects of the fencing
and floodlighting. The area is subdivided by 5 to 6 m high deciduous hedgerows with
occasional trees of Oak and Ash.
The character of this area is moderately sensitive to change, it is not rural, it is not open
parkland, it is dominated by artificial pitches, tarmac courts, floodlighting and high fencing,
but it is still green and would be compromised by the introduction of a major building.
Magnitude of Effects: Site Landscape
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 29.
Construction
Given the high density of the existing buildings in this area, and the maturity of some of its
trees, there is the potential for damage to occur as a result of development, either directly in
the terms of actual tree removals, or indirectly in the form of damaging effects arising from
construction activities. These effects may be associated with the actual process of erecting
a building or they may be caused by associated activities such as the installation of
services, through the delivery of large components, or through the compaction of the ground
by vehicles. Given the restricted nature of the site, the limited number of access points and
the mature nature of the tree population the potential for damaging effects is high.
Within the sports area to the west the more restricted nature of the site vegetation means
that the potential for damage is only moderate or low
Operational Effects
The principal effect arising from the Westwood development would relate to the change of
character to the sports field area. However this is moderated by the fact that this area is
already compromised by the various artificial surfaces, flood lighting and fencing.
The introduction of new buildings, new external space and additional planting could have a
major positive effect on the quality and character of the academic area of Westwood.
In terms of damaging effects to the landscape features most are likely to occur during
construction rather than the operational phase, the area required for building being larger
than the footprint of the development. The magnitude of effect post construction is therefore
likely to be low.
Significance of Impact: Site Landscape
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 28.
There would also be a change in the character of the sports field area which would change
from a site which is entirely open to a site that is still open but contains a large
uncompromising building.
The other potential major impact is through damage to the existing tree stock.
There are opportunities for positive impacts, particularly through improvements to the quality
of the buildings and open spaces.
Mitigation
Although there are a large number of significant trees within Westwood, they enjoy
protection through the planning process. Through comprehensive assessment of the tree
stock, sensitive design and good construction practices it should be possible to maintain the
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 145
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
key trees while carrying out the proposed re-development of the site. In order to achieve
best fit with the trees it would be beneficial if development is carried out to the maximum
height of three storeys, rather than attempting to achieve lower heights through greater
dispersal. The magnitude of the impact on the trees should therefore be moderate or even
minor, but this would depend on the final arrangement of the buildings.
The restructuring of the site provides an opportunity to achieve a more coherent plan with
better circulation.
The level of significance arising from the development should be minimal, but this would
depend on the sensitivity with which the detailed design is prepared
Residual Effects: Site Landscape: Westwood Site
The presence of a major new building on the sports field site would marginally compromise
the quality of this area. However, through screen planting the effect of this building would
diminish to a negligible level within 10 to 15 years.
7.8.4
Visual Impact: Westwood Site
Visibility of the Westwood academic and residential area is limited. Key views are as
follows:
•
Inward views from the north are screened by the line of adjacent residential properties
on Charter Avenue;
•
Views from the east and south are limited by the Science Park and the University
buildings;
•
Views from the west and southwest are contained by boundary planting either side of
the athletics facility; and,
•
Existing buildings within Westwood already act as view blockers, preventing clear views
across the site.
Visibility of the Sports facilities is rather greater, although still relatively well contained. The
visual envelope of this area is limited:
•
To the north by the residential properties along the south side of Charter Avenue;
•
To the northwest by Park Wood and Ten Shilling Wood;
•
To the west and southwest by trees and hedges along Westwood Way and Mitchell
Avenue, although it does extend to the Westwood Business Park at higher level; and,
•
To the southeast by University House.
Sensitivity of Visual Receptors: Westwood Site
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 31.
The academic area affects only local receptors in the form of users of Kirby Corner Road
and the occupants of individual residential properties southwest of Charter Avenue and
southeast of Kirby Corner Road. For them the visual effects could be high due to the close
proximity of the development.
The sports fields have a wider visual envelope with a higher number of receptors who have
a moderate to high degree of sensitivity. Those directly affected are the occupants of
approximately 15 properties along the south side of Charter Avenue, with those having a
low or moderate sensitivity including drivers on Kirby Corner Road and Mitchell Avenue,
residents of properties north of Westwood Heath Road, office workers on the upper floors of
University House and in premises within Westwood Business Park and users of the
surrounding sports facilities
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 146
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Magnitude of Visual Effects
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 30.
Construction
Ground level construction activities are unlikely to generate a high level of effect due to the
screening effect of the surrounding trees. Within the academic area the tower cranes could
be 22 m high, which is likely to exceed the top of the tree canopy, extending the short term
zone of visual influence to areas such as Tesco’s at Cannon Park, the Canley Cemetery the
south side of Charter Avenue, upper floors of Westwood Business Park and the south facing
fields at Burtons Green. However, this is based on the unlikely assumption that the storey
heights are 4.7 m, if the more likely dimension of 3.5 m is used then the crane may well be
below the tree canopy.
Crane heights on the sports field area are likely to be in the order of 18- 20 m which means
that they would be hidden from vantage points to the southeast but would be visible from
vantage points north and west including properties south of Charter Avenue, and office
premises within Westwood Business Park. They would also be visible from the high ground
within Central Campus West to the west of Brickyard Plantation and may just be visible from
isolated vantage points to the southwest such as the footpath from Crackley Lane at Hurst
Farm. These would be short term effects, lasting a maximum of 12 months.
Operational
Within the academic area the new buildings are replacing older building stock so the visual
effect would be low, although it is possible that the storey heights would increase. However
at only three storeys these buildings would not exceed the height of the tree canopy, which
means that the visual envelope of this area would not expand beyond its current
boundaries.
A three-storey building on the sports fields would be screened from vantage points to the
south east, but would be visible from points to the north and west. Those experiencing the
greatest effects are the residents of 15 properties to the south of Charter Avenue, first floor
windows giving clear views toward this site.
The site is well screened to the south and west by 5 m high hedges but the upper half of the
building would be visible above these lines of vegetation from Mitchell Avenue, Kirby Corner
Road, the upper floors of University House and the office premises on Westwood Business
Park.
Significance of Visual Impacts: Westwood Site
Refer to Appendix C.3, Table 33.
No receptors would be subjected to impacts that could be described as significant or major.
The highest degree of visual impact would relate to the new building on the existing tennis
courts and the effect that this would have on 10-15 properties along the south side of
Charter Avenue. However, this only affects views from first floor rooms to the rear of these
properties, these views already being compromised by the fencing, goal posts and flood
lighting masts associated with the all weather pitches.
Within the academic part of Westwood the height and density of the proposed buildings
would not exceed that of the tree canopy the visual impact therefore being low.
During the construction period the visual envelope would be extended through the use of
cranes, which would be visible from locations to the west, including the athletics field and
the wider rural landscape. In addition it may be possible to see these from the backs of the
residential properties in Charter Avenue and from more elevated vantage points such as the
Canley Cemetery. However, views are likely to be limited to glimpses through the extensive
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 147
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
tree canopy that exists in this part of the campus. They are also likely to be of limited
duration due to the limited scale of the building works.
7.8.5
Mitigation of Visual Effects
The existing tree cover within the academic zone already mitigates many of the potential
visual effects of development. The retention of these trees through careful site planning and
through sensitive construction methodologies would ensure that visual impact is kept to a
minimum. Given the extent of the existing tree cover it would be difficult to improve the
effectiveness of the screening through further tree planting.
Within the sports zone screening up to 5 m is already effective due to the presence of
boundary hedges and trees. Retention of these hedges would again be ensured by careful
site planning and sensitive construction methodology. However, there is also an
opportunity to achieve effective screening above the 5 m level. Management of the existing
hedges would allow some trees, particularly the Oak and Ash, to achieve additional growth,
up to an eventual height of circa 20 m. This could eliminate all inward views of new
buildings within this area. Planting within the banked areas between the artificial pitches
could also reduce the impact of the new building when viewed from the north. There may
also be some benefit in planting along the northern edge of the playing fields, close to the
gardens of the affected properties in Charter Avenue. However, although this would
eliminate views of the new building, it would also affect enjoyment of the wider panorama
toward Kenilworth currently enjoyed by these residents.
7.8.6
Residual Visual Impacts: Westwood Site
There should be no residual impacts arising from the development within the academic
area.
Although visual impacts related to the sports field development would exist
post-construction it would be possible to mitigate these with a 15 year period through the
introduction of new belts of planting along the northern and western sides of this site.
7.9
Summary
•
Implementation of the University of Warwick’s Main Campus Masterplan would have
impacts in terms of openness of designated Green Belt. However, past building within
the Green Belt has already compromised its status and the additional effect arising from
the new development would not be significant;
•
None of the characteristics of the Arden Parklands would be removed or threatened by
implementation of the Masterplan. However, since Arden Parkland characteristics
relate to a rural condition, major development would, in effect, take land out of the Arden
Parklands and in that context would have a major adverse impact;
•
The landscape proposals comprised within the Masterplan are in line with the guidelines
for the management of the Arden Parkland and would, therefore improve the
relationship between the site and its setting;
•
The visibility of the proposed development would be minimal and from the majority of
the Green Belt the Main Campus would not be visible due to the screening effects of
Whitefield Coppice and other local woodlands. From the majority of residential areas
views of the University are limited to first floor windows of a small number of properties;
•
From vantage points where new development would be visible, this would be seen
against the backdrop of the existing Main Campus buildings with no new building
exceeding the ridgeline of the existing Main Campus;
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 148
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
The scale and distribution of new buildings would not significantly damage the character
and status of the existing Main Campus. Within the Central Campus West, Westwood
and Gibbet Hill sites, new development would provide the opportunity to raise the visual
quality of the Main Campus, providing a greater sense of cohesion and unification.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 149
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
This page is intentionally blank
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 150
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
8
Traffic and Transportation
8.1
Introduction
In consultation with the local highways authorities, Arup has produced a Transport
49
50
Assessment and a Travel Plan in support of the Main Campus Masterplan. This chapter
presents a summary of the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan in order to provide an
understanding of the transport context to the Main Campus Masterplan. This chapter is
structured as follows:
Section 8.2: Identifies the main planning policies relating to transport and the proposed
scheme;
Section 8.3: Provides a summary of traffic and transportation issues at the Main Campus;
Section 8.4: Provides a discussion of the proposals seeking to mitigate the transport and
traffic related impacts; and,
Section 8.5: Presents a summary of the Main Campus Masterplan Travel Plan.
8.2
Policy Framework
8.2.1
National Policy Framework
The Future of Transport: a Network for 2030
In 2004, the Government issued a white paper, The Future of Transport: a Network for
2030. This white paper sets out a 30 year vision for transport including a funding
commitment to 2015.
The white paper recognises that increased personal mobility is an important element in a
growing economy, but at the same time it makes the case that there is a need to explore
opportunities to reduce the need to travel and to choose modes of travel that have the least
impact on the environment. There is a particular emphasis on replacing short local car
journeys with walking, cycling and public transport trips in order to tackle local congestion,
pollution and road safety issues. The white paper recognises that workplace travel plans
can reduce commuter car driving by between 10% and 30% at an annual cost to the local
authority of £2 to £4 per head.
Planning Policy Guidance13 Transport (2001)
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG13) gives advice on the integration of planning
and transport in order to:
•
Promote more sustainable transport choices;
•
Promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public
transport, walking and cycling; and,
•
Reduce the need to travel, especially by car.
The document includes maximum levels of car parking provision in terms of ratios of car
parking related to either floor space or number of employees for different types of
development. It also recommends the use of travel plans to reduce driver-only car trips and
the introduction of physical infrastructure or enhanced services to encourage walking,
cycling and public transport.
Paragraph 38 states:
49
50
Main Campus Masterplan: Transport Assessment, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, 2007
Main Campus Masterplan: Travel Plan, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, 2007
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 151
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
“HE (Higher Education) and FE (Further Education) establishments are major
generators of travel and should be located so as to maximise their accessibility by
public transport, walking and cycling. Similarly, proposals to develop, expand or
redevelop existing sites should improve access by public transport, walking and
cycling.”
8.2.2
Regional Policy Framework
Regional Spatial Strategy and Regional Economic Strategy
Of significance to this application is the considerable emphasis placed on support for the
higher education sector as contained in both the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and the
Regional Economic Strategy (RES). Policies contained within the RES and RSS each place
reliance on the need to foster economic growth in the region in order to ensure that the
West Midlands does not continue to lag behind other parts of the UK and Europe.
The University of Warwick is operating in a changing national and regional educational and
economic context. This underpins its current rationale for expansion and promotes its
continued growth in its current location – facts which should carry significant weight in the
determination of this application.
There is an emphasis within the Regional Spatial Strategy on targeting improvements to
transport within the Major Urban Areas in order to offer a genuine choice to travellers and to
improve access to key services for non-car travellers. It also recommends strategies to
change travel behaviour:
"Changing people’s travel patterns requires a holistic approach. No single measure is
capable of effecting major change by itself; a successful behavioural change strategy
requires a coherent package of measures”.
The RSS also recognises that: "The availability of car parking has a major influence on the
means of transport people choose for their journey and their ultimate destination."
West Midlands Area Multi-Modal Study
The West Midlands Area Multi-Modal Study identified the need to improve facilities for public
transport, walking and cycling throughout the region and to make further use of behavioural
change strategies such as Travelwise to promote alternatives to the car. At the same time,
the Coventry Area Network Study made similar recommendations.
8.2.3
Local Policy Framework
West Midlands Local Transport Plan
The draft West Midlands Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2006-2011 recognises the national
objectives of increasing road safety, tackling congestion, improving accessibility and
improving air quality. It forecasts a growth of trips throughout the region of 13% by 2011
and sets an overall target that 5% of all trips would transfer away from the car over that
period.
The LTP reiterates policies from the Coventry Corporate Plan, Coventry Community Plan
and Coventry Best Value Performance Plan, for example the 'first steps for transport' in the
Community Plan are to:
• “Increase the frequency and availability of bus services;
• Increase park and ride service availability;
• Encourage more adults and children to walk, cycle or use public transport to
get to work or school;
• Increase the opportunities for safer cycling and walking."
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 152
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Warwickshire Local Transport Plan
The Warwickshire Local Transport Plan contains similar objectives to reduce traffic growth
and to promote the use of public transport by improving links and services. There are
similar targets (in line with national targets) to reduce the number and severity of road
accident casualties.
The Warwickshire LTP has a target to reduce the rate of traffic growth across the County to
1.5% per annum over the period of the plan. There is also a target to reduce car use by 1020% over five years within new developments where a travel plan is introduced. It has a
target of no overall reduction in the number of cycling journeys, and 5% increase in cycle
use on routes where improvements have taken place. There is a global target for 5%
increase in bus patronage across the County, with 10% increase in bus patronage on
'Quality Bus Initiatives'.
8.3
Baseline Conditions and Masterplan Strategy
8.3.1
Traffic
The local road transport network is shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure 7.2.1, and described
further below.
The Main Campus is bisected by Gibbet Hill Road, a local distributor that connects to the
A429 Kenilworth Road, running north south between Coventry and Kenilworth, and to
Stoneleigh Road which leads to the A46(T) Kenilworth Bypass. It give access between
Westwood Business Park, the Science Park, the University, recent residential developments
at Westwood Heath and the A46(T). To the north, Kirby Corner Road links to the A45, which
runs through the south of Coventry and links to Birmingham in the west, and the M45 in the
east.
The major roads in the southwest of Coventry suffer urban congestion problems during peak
periods. Coventry City Council have proposals to improve traffic conditions to the north of
the Main Campus at the junction of Charter Avenue and the A45, which is expected to
improve traffic conditions to the north of the Main Campus. Congestion associated with the
junctions of Gibbet Hill Road and the A429 Kenilworth Road, and Stoneleigh Road and the
A46 is expected to be improved as a result of development proposals at Stoneleigh Park
being brought forward by the Royal Agricultural Society of England.
Internally, the Main Campus is served by a number of accesses to the various sites. Central
Campus East is currently served by five vehicular accesses off Gibbet Hill Road and two off
Kirby Corner Road, with the main entry point via the Scarman Roundabout. Access points
are linked by University Road, the main internal distributor road, which provides circulation
between access points, car parks, buildings and provides the route for buses entering the
Campus.
Central Campus West is currently served by four accesses off Gibbet Hill Road, which are
linked by the internal Loop Road. The Westwood site is served by three vehicle access
points off Kirby Corner Road while the Gibbet Hill site is served by a single vehicle access
point.
8.3.2
Car Parking
The availability of car parking is one of the most significant criteria for determining the mode
of travel for commuter trips. As such the level of future car parking provision is considered
critical to the development of the transport strategy for the Main Campus.
The continued growth of the University of Warwick, in line with historic growth pattern, is
expected to see a total development of 171,000 m² Gross External Area (GEA) over the
next Masterplan period. This represents a 40% increase in built area and an anticipated
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 153
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
similar growth in staff numbers. If car parking provision and thus traffic generation for the
site (which is largely influenced by car parking provision) were to increase by a similar
amount then congestion would reach unacceptable levels even allowing for improvements
to local junctions.
The existing car parking provision has developed based on the University of Warwick’s 1994
Development Plan car parking standards and actual car parking provided is in line with the
1994 standards. However, car parking standards have, in recent years, become more
stringent under PPG13, which sets maximum levels of car parking provision. If the existing
development had the PPG13 standards applied to it then the actual car parking currently
provided would represent provision at a level of approximately 125% of the standard.
8.3.3
Public Transport
The University of Warwick is well served by buses with in excess of 400 buses per weekday
operating on routes that pass near to, or into, the Main Campus. Six bus services operate
along Gibbet Hill Road, with four of these routes penetrating Central Campus East. Over
250 buses pass by the Gibbet Hill site on each week day, while the nine services that
operate along Kirby Corner Road, provide in excess of 350 buses per weekday passing the
Westwood Site. Bus routes to Main Campus provide links to Leamington, Kenilworth,
Coventry City centre, Stratford and Warwick.
The nearest station to the University of Warwick is Canley Station, which is on the
Wolverhampton to Coventry railway line. Train services are regular and are generally at 20
minute intervals during the daytime on weekdays. The station is located approximately
2.5 km from the Main Campus. Coventry Station located close to the City Centre is
approximately 5.5 km from the Main Campus.
8.3.4
Pedestrian and Cycle Routes
There are pedestrian links along Gibbet Hill Road and Kirby Corner Road. Gibbet Hill Road
has an established footway along its east side and Kirby Corner Road has an established
footway on the south side and in part a footway on the north side of the carriageway. A
pedestrian/cycle link is provided from the University to the Cannon Park Shopping Centre
and to Millburn Hill Road. The Main Campus has various links to footpaths and bridleways,
as shown in Figure 7.1.5.
There are pedestrian links between buildings within each area of the Main Campus and
between areas of the Main Campus. Access between Central Campus East and Central
Campus West is via two signal controlled pedestrian crossings, with a third crossing on
Gibbet Hill Road located north of the Gibbet Hill Site. Two crossings located on Kirby
Corner Road allow movement to and from the Westwood Site.
There is one existing external cycle route linking to the University of Warwick this is a
National Cycle Network route, to Coventry City Centre to the north. This route runs along
Charter Avenue (east) and Lynchgate Road before entering the north of the Central
Campus. There is also a cycle route which links with the National Cycle Network route on
Lynchgate Road and this connects with Kenilworth Road to the east, via the residential
areas just north of the Main Campus.
There are limited formal cycle route links within the Main Campus. There is a formal cycle
route linking the Gibbet Hill site with the Central Campus and this route is shared with
pedestrians. There are further short lengths of cycle routes, which are generally located on
the periphery of the Central Campus. These provide links to the National Cycle Network
route to the north and University House to the west.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 154
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
8.4
Proposals
The expansion of the University over the ten year development period is expected to lead to
an increase in travel demand. This would be managed by the University of Warwick
working closely with the Highway Authorities at Coventry City Council, Warwickshire City
Council and the Highways Agency together with other transport bodies such as Centro and
the bus operators to develop the transport strategy.
Key transport issues for the University include the following:
•
Continuing development of the University’s sustainable transport strategy in the form of
the Travel Plan with a commitment to reduce the proportion of journeys to and from the
Campus by single occupancy private cars;
•
Integration of the Central Campus East and West sites across Gibbet Hill Road;
•
Provision, management and control of the internal road and footway/ cycleway networks
to serve the needs of the University;
•
Provision and management of car parking to serve the needs of the University; and,
•
Actions to ensure, where possible, that public transport provision is made for the on and
off-site travel needs of staff, students and visitors.
8.4.1
Traffic
Traffic modelling, which has been carried out in support of the development proposals,
shows that with the limited growth in traffic proposed for the development together with the
infrastructure improvements that the development can be accommodated without causing
unacceptable levels of congestion on the highway network.
In terms of specific aspects of the road network, the junction at Gibbet Hill Road and
Kenilworth Road has been shown to perform better in 2018 Masterplan proposals and
junction improvements in place, than the existing junction. The section of Gibbet Hill Road
in the Central Campus would have improved crossing facilities, better safety characteristics,
sufficient capacity to cater for the anticipated traffic growth from university and nonuniversity sources and does not create significant traffic congestion in the 2018 modelled
scenarios.
The following are among other proposals to accommodate traffic created by the
development:
•
Closure of the junction of Library Road and Gibbet Hill Road to all vehicles except
buses, cycles and pedestrians;
•
Creation of a pedestrian friendly shared use environment along Library Road.
•
Provision of a new roundabout at the junction of University Road South with Gibbet Hill
Road;
•
Improvements to Gibbet Hill Road with additional and safer crossings;
•
Improvements to the Gibbet Hill Road/Kenilworth Road junction in terms of pedestrian
facilities and capacity; and,
•
Provision of a link from Lynchgate Road into the University for the proposed Bus Rapid
Transit route and some university traffic.
8.4.2
Car Parking
The overall car parking strategy is to reduce the availability of car parking over time and to
charge for all parking for the site. Car parking for new developments would be provided at a
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 155
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
level significantly below the PPG13 maximum standard of one space per two members of
staff and one space per 15 students (with accommodation off site). In line with the national
and local policy agenda, the Transport Assessment proposes to limit the increase in car
parking to 9% of the existing provision, and to set a target to limit traffic generation to 12%
by the end of the Masterplan period. At the end of the ten year development period it is
anticipated there would be an additional 421 general car parking spaces and an additional
27 disabled spaces across the Main Campus. While the Masterplan represents an
increase of 40% in terms of built area and employee numbers, the increase in car parking
spaces is only a 9% increase.
The reduction of car parking availability, together with other measures included within the
Travel Plan, including increased cost of car parking, is expected to encourage staff and
students to use alternative, more sustainable, modes of transport. The management of
transport issues by the Travel Plan seeks to promote more sustainable travel choices
together with a framework for monitoring, and overseeing implementation
8.4.3
Public Transport
Public transport provision is central to the development of the Main Campus. In support of
the Masterplan, the following aspects are proposed in support of public transport links with
the Main Campus:
•
Supporting the proposed Bus Rapid Transit system being promoted by Coventry City
Council. This would link the Main Campus directly with Coventry Rail Station and the
City Centre. The Masterplan has made provision for this proposal to run through the
Main Campus;
•
Continuing to support the delivery of public transport services in support of its Travel
Plan, including the possible provision of an express service based on the South Park
and Ride service between the City Centre, the Rail Station and the University as a
precursor to the Bus Rapid Transit service;
•
Continuing to work with the Local Authorities and bus operators to provide high quality
infrastructure in the form of bus stops and shelters at the Main Campus;
•
Working with Local Authorities to upgrade public transport provision and support
proposals with a route through the centre of the Main Campus between Cannon Park
Shopping Centre and Central Campus West;
•
Reviewing the direct subsidy paid to bus operators in the light of ridership and
commercial viability, to ensure that adequate services are available to fulfil the needs of
staff and students; and,
•
The University of Warwick would support the development of a short messaging service
to mobiles allowing passengers to check punctuality.
Pedestrians and Cyclists
Within the Main Campus the great majority of trips are expected to continue to be made on
foot or by bicycle and this would also be true for local trips off-campus. In respect of
pedestrian movements, a comprehensive network of footways already exists within Central
Campus East with links to the Westwood and Gibbet Hill Sites. In addition, shared-use of
Library Road would provide a pedestrian friendly environment, available for cyclists. The
network of footways and cycleways proposed for the Main Campus would compliment the
improved crossings on Gibbet Hill Road.
Cycleways linking the Main Campus to the Westwood Site, Gibbet Hill Site and to the
Cannon Park Shopping Centre have already been established. These links would be
developed to create a new network that is integrated with the landscape within the Central
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 156
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Campus West and would connect the residential, social and academic facilities across both
Central Campus West and Central Campus East.
The University would give considerations to the management of pedestrian/cycle/vehicle
conflicts on the internal highway network and provide appropriate measures to enhance
sustainable transport provision and create a high quality transport environment that meets
the future needs of the University. The University supports the development of the National
Cycle Network route to Kenilworth and has agreed in principle to a permissive route across
University land.
Increasing the proportion of students resident on, or in the near vicinity of the Main Campus
would support use of non-motorised commuting, and Cycle parking would continue to be
provided at residential sites and individual destination buildings.
8.5
Travel Plan
In support of the Transport Assessment, a Travel Plan has been produced as a separate,
standalone document. This would be used to guide the University towards a more
sustainable future with respect to transport.
The Travel Plan covers a wide range of issues and is an organic document intended to
develop with time and respond to the changing transport environment. It has the following
general elements:
•
To encourage walking and cycling;
•
To encourage public transport use;
•
To encourage car sharing;
•
To manage car use and parking to encourage more sustainable travel choices;
•
To support the TravelWise scheme;
•
To regularly monitor transport modes/traffic generation/car parking provision against
targets; and,
•
For a Travel Co-ordinator to oversee development of the Travel Plan.
The University has undertaken a comprehensive travel survey of staff and students to
inform the Travel Plan. The Travel Plan sets out targets for improving the sustainable
transport characteristics of the University together with a programme of development
milestones and monitoring with measures and initiatives to assist in achieving the targets.
At the core of the Travel Plan would be a commitment by the University to reduce the
availability of car parking whilst encouraging other modes of travel including car sharing.
The plan would be developed and implemented in partnership with the Highway Authorities
balancing the needs of the University against its transport impacts on the local road
network.
In terms of support to sustainable transport the following indicative provision amongst other
aspects would be included within the travel plan:
•
Support the management of car parking to reduce availability and charge for all car
parking;
•
Support improved pedestrian and cycle facilities and routes;
•
Support to car sharing; and,
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 157
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
Support to public transport.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 158
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
9
Air Quality
9.1
Introduction
This chapter provides an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on local
air quality through identification of potential emission sources. It outlines the current
regulatory system relevant to air quality management, the baseline air quality conditions in
the area and the methodology used to assess air quality impacts. Potential changes to air
quality, as a result of the redevelopment proposals, have been considered in relation to the
UK Government’s Air Quality Strategy objectives to determine their significance. Where
appropriate, mitigation measures are outlined to ensure any adverse effects on air quality
are minimised or avoided.
The chapter is presented as follows:
Section 9.2: Presents an overview of relevant policy and guidance relating to air quality;
Section 9.3: Provides a discussion of the methodology for the air quality assessment,
including information on the dispersion model;
Section 9.4: Provides an assessment of baseline air quality conditions in the vicinity of the
Main Campus;
Section 9.5: Presents an assessment of the main air quality assessment related to the
Main Campus proposals;
Section 9.6: Provides an assessment of the significance of both the construction and
operational impacts;
Section 9.7: Provides possible mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts to local
air quality; and,
Section 9.8: Summarises any residual effects.
9.2
Policy Framework
9.2.1
The Land Use Planning Process
The land use planning process is a key means of improving air quality, particularly in the
long term, through the strategic location and design of new developments. Any air quality
consideration that relates to land use and its development can be a material planning
consideration in the determination of planning applications.
9.2.2
National Planning Policy
52
Planning policies particularly relevant to air quality are set out in PPG13 - Transport and
53
PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control , and in the Local Air Quality Management
54
guidance note on Air Quality and Land Use Planning .
PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004)
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23) is intended to
complement the new pollution control framework under the Pollution Prevention and Control
Act 1999 and The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000.
PPS23 sets out the Government’s core policies and principles on land use planning. It
contains an Annex on ‘Pollution Control, Air and Water Quality’ which considers the links
between the land use planning and pollution control systems and how the interaction should
52
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 2001
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 2004
54
Part IV of the Environmental Act 1995: Local Air Quality management: Policy Guidance, LAQM.PG(03), Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, February 2003
53
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 159
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
be dealt with in planning. Policies and advice contained within PPS23 (including Annexes)
should be taken into account in preparing policies (relevant to potentially polluting sites) by
Regional Planning Bodies, Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Planning Authorities and
in determining applications for planning permission. PPS23 also makes reference to
proposed development within designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA). It states
that whilst it is important that the possible impact on air quality to or in an AQMA is
considered, it is not the case that all planning applications for development inside or
adjacent to AQMAs should be refused if the developments would result in a deterioration of
local air quality as this could sterilise development.
PPG13: Transport (2001)
55
A revised version of PPG13 (Transport) was published in March 2001, updating the
Government’s transport planning policies, with the objectives of delivering an integrated
transport policy, extending transport choices and securing mobility in a way that supports
sustainable development. The aim is to integrate planning and transport at a number of
levels to promote more sustainable transport choices (for people and freight), to promote
accessibility to services and to reduce the need to travel, especially by car. PPG13 states
that local air quality is a key consideration in the integration between planning and transport.
This is particularly relevant in areas where the Government's national air quality objectives
are not expected to be met and air quality action plans are formulated. The PPG advises
that well designed traffic management measures are able to contribute to reducing local air
pollution and improving the quality of local neighbourhoods.
Local Air Quality Management Policy Guidance LAQM.PG(03)
56
Policy guidance note LAQM.PG(03) provides additional guidance on the links between
transport and air quality. LAQM.PG(03) describes how road transport contributes to local air
pollution and how transport measures may bring improvements in air quality. Key transport
related Government initiatives are set out, including regulatory measures and standards to
reduce vehicle emissions and improve fuels, tax-based measures and the development of
an integrated transport strategy.
LAQM.PG(03) also provides guidance on the links between air quality and the land use
planning system. The guidance advises that air quality considerations should be integrated
within the planning process at the earliest stage, and is intended to aid local authorities in
developing action plans to deal with specific air quality problems and create strategies to
improve air quality generally. It summarises the main ways in which land use planning
system can help deliver air quality objectives.
National Society for Clean Air (NSCA) Guidance – Development Control: Planning
for Air Quality
57
The revised 2006 NSCA guidance note ‘Development Control: Planning for Air Quality
responds to the need for closer integration between air quality and development control. It
provides a framework for air quality considerations within local development control
processes, promoting a consistent approach to the treatment of air quality issues within
development control decisions.
The guidance includes a method for assessing the significance of the impacts of
development proposals in terms of air quality and how to make recommendations relevant
to the development control process in light of this assessment. The need for early and
effective dialogue between the developer and local authority is identified to allow air quality
55
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 2001
Part IV of the Environment Act, 1995, Local Air Quality Management, Policy Guidance LAQM.PG(03), Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, 2003
57
Development Control: Planning for Air Quality, National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection,
National Society for Clean Air, 2006
56
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 160
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
concerns to be addressed as early in the development control process as possible. The
guidance also provides some clarification as to when air quality constitutes a material
consideration. The approach for assessing significance of air quality assessments
associated with a given development has been used in this assessment.
9.2.3
Regional Planning Policy
Relevant regional planning policy for the West Midlands is contained in the Regional Spatial
Strategy (RSS11).
West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy
58
The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy was published in June 2004, replacing
Regional Planning Guidance 11, and sets out a broad development strategy for the
Midlands. One of the underlying aims of the strategy is to protect and enhance the
environmental quality of the region, including air quality, as set out in Part C of Policy QE4:
Greenery, Urban Green-space and Public Spaces. This policy states that:
“Local authorities and others should also encourage patterns of development which
maintain and improve air quality…”
The document also states that:
“Local and sub-regional air quality reviews and assessment, Air Quality Management
Areas and action plans need to be taken into consideration in developing planning
policy.”
9.2.4
Local Planning Policy
Planning legislation has been updated under the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act which requires that Local Planning Authorities prepare a Local Development Framework
(LDF). Although both Coventry City Council and Warwick District Council are progressing
with development of their LDF, the local planning framework appropriate to the Main
Campus remains that of the Coventry Development Plan and the Warwick District Local
Plan.
Coventry Development Plan
59
The Coventry Unitary Development Plan was adopted in December 2001 and it contains
broad strategic planning policies for the City of Coventry. It replaces the Unitary
Development Plan, adopted in 1993.
The Coventry Unitary Development Plan includes Policy 3.8 regarding Air Quality, which
states:
“Where likely damage to air quality cannot be satisfactorily mitigated, development
would not be permitted.
Air quality…..would be monitored in line with national standards and, if parts of the
City breach these, an air quality management area would be identified and an action
plan produced to reduce levels of air pollution.”
Warwick District Local Plan
60
The Warwick District Local Plan was approved by the Council in May 2005, and contains
policies and maps showing designations and allocations.
The most pertinent policy in terms of air quality is Objective 2F: To protect and improve air
quality, which states;
58
Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands, RPG11, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, June 2004
Coventry Unitary Development Plan, Coventry City Council, December 2001
60
Warwick District Local Plan, Warwick District Council, May 2005
59
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 161
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
“3.24a Air quality is controlled by numerous factors, many of which are outside the
control of local authorities. We would seek, however, to maintain and improve local
air quality by guiding and controlling the location of new development, particularly
where this would have an impact upon public health or the natural environment.”
9.2.5
Air Quality Objectives and Limit Values
Air quality limit values and objectives are quality standards for clean air. They can be used
as assessment criteria for determining the significance of any potential changes in local air
quality resulting from the development proposals.
European Union (EU) air quality policy sets the scene for national policy. The air quality
‘framework’ Directive on Ambient Air Quality Assessment and Management came into force
in September 1996 and is intended as a strategic framework for tackling air quality
consistently, through setting Europe-wide air quality limit values in a series of daughter
directives, superseding and extending existing European legislation. The first four daughter
directives have already been placed into national legislation.
61
In a parallel national process, the Environment Act was published in 1995 . The Act
required the preparation of a national air quality strategy setting air quality standards and
objectives for specified pollutants and outlining measures to be taken by local authorities
through the system of Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) and by others “to work in
pursuit of achievement” of these objectives. A National Air Quality Strategy was published
in 1997 and subsequently reviewed and revised in 2000, as the Air Quality Strategy for
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and an addendum to the Strategy was
published in 2002. The objectives which were relevant to local air quality management have
been set in regulations (Air Quality Regulations 2000 and 2002), and have since been
updated into the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007, which have recently come into
force.
Some pollutants have objectives expressed as annual mean concentrations due to the
chronic way in which they affect health of the natural environment (i.e. effects occur after a
prolonged period of exposure to elevated concentrations) and others have objectives
expressed as 24-hour, one-hour or 15-minute mean concentrations due to the acute way in
which they affect health or the natural environment (i.e. after a relatively short period of
exposure). Some pollutants have objectives expressed in terms of both long-term and
short-term concentrations (e.g. nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter).
Table 9.1 sets out the EU air quality limit values and national air quality objectives for the
main pollutants relevant to this assessment.
Table 9.1: UK and EU Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines
Pollutant
Nitrogen dioxide
Averaging
Period
1 hour mean
Annual mean
Limit Value/Objective
3
200 µg/m , not to be exceeded
more than 18 times a year
th
(99.8 percentile)
3
40 µg/m
Date for
Compliance
st
UK
st
EU
st
UK
st
EU
1 Jan 2010
1 Jan 2010*
1 Jan 2010
1 Jan 2010*
Fine particulates
(PM10)
Measurement
61
Daily mean
3
50 µg/m , not to be exceeded
th
more than 35 times a year (90
percentile)
Basis
st
31 Dec 2004
st
1 Jan 2005*
(Stage 1)
UK
EU
The Environment Act 1995, HMSO, 1995
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 162
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Pollutant
technique:
Gravimetric
Averaging
Period
Annual mean
Limit Value/Objective
3
40 µg/m
Date for
Compliance
st
31 Dec 2004
st
1 Jan 2005*
(Stage 1)
Basis
UK
EU
* Changes have been proposed but are not yet included in regulations.
Performance against these objectives would be monitored where people are regularly
present and might be exposed to air pollution and it is the responsibility of each local
authority to undertake such duties. Each local authority is required to undertake a review
and assessment of local air quality. The process considers the current air quality situation
and the likely future air quality situation, assessing whether the prescribed objectives are
likely to be achieved by their target dates.
9.2.6
Dust Nuisance
Dust is a generic term which the British Standard document BS 6069 (Part Two) used to
describe particulate matter in the size range 1 – 75 µm (micrometers) in diameter. Dust
nuisance is the result of the perception of the soiling of surfaces by excessive rates of dust
deposition. Under provisions in the Environmental protection Act 1990, dust nuisance is
defined as a statutory nuisance. There are currently no objectives or guidelines for the
nuisance of dust in the United Kingdom, nor are formal dust deposition standards specified.
This reflects the uncertainties in dust monitoring technology and the highly subjective
relationship between deposition events, surface soiling and the perception of such events as
2
a nuisance. An informal criterion of 200-250 mg/m /day (as a monthly mean) however, is
often applied in the UK as an indicator of potential nuisance.
9.3
Assessment Approach
9.3.1
Methodology
The air quality assessment of the proposals contained within the Main Campus Masterplan
consists of the following:
•
A review of the existing air quality situation;
•
An assessment of the potential changes in air quality arising from implementation of the
Masterplan; and,
•
The proposal of mitigation measure, where appropriate, to ensure any adverse effects
on air quality are minimised.
The existing air quality situation has been reviewed through data available from Coventry
City Council and Warwick District Council air quality reviews and assessment documents.
Assessment of Impacts from Construction and Operation
Construction effects have been assessed through a qualitative assessment of potential
sources of air pollutant emissions from construction activities and through the formulation of
appropriate mitigation and control measures to be placed within a formal Code of
Construction Practice (CoCP).
62
The GLA London Best Practice Guide has also been used, which consolidates existing
guidance on emissions from construction and demolition activities and takes into account
the latest best practice and new techniques. It also requires the site manager or contractors
62
London Best Practise Guide: The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition, Greater London
Authority, 2006
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 163
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
to undertake a qualitative Air Quality Impact Evaluation, whereby the site is evaluated and
mitigation measures are proposed based on the outcome.
Operational air quality impacts from road traffic related to the proposals have been
assessed using a detailed air dispersion model, called CALINE4. This model updates the
CALINE3 model, which is recommended for use by the US Environmental Protection
Agency to predict air pollutant concentrations near roadways. Predicted pollutants
concentrations from the modelling have then been compared with the relevant air quality
standards and objectives. The pollutants assessed were nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine
particulate matter (PM10) as they are associated with vehicular emissions.
Pollutant concentrations have been forecast using CALINE4, as described above, which
calculates one-hour mean pollutant concentrations, based on a variety of inputs (as detailed
below).
Pollutant concentrations have been forecast for the following scenarios:
•
The baseline (existing) traffic scenario of 2004;
•
The 2008 ‘Do Minimum’ scenario with none of the proposed developments in place;
•
The 2008 ‘Do Something’ scenario with the proposed developments in place;
•
The 2010 ‘Do Minimum’ scenario with none of the proposed developments in place;
•
The 2010 ‘Do Something’ scenario with the proposed developments in place;
•
The 2018 ‘Do Minimum’ scenario with none of the proposed developments in place;
and,
•
The 2018 ‘Do Something’ scenario with the proposed developments in place.
The results of the dispersion modelling have been compared to the appropriate standards
and guidelines.
9.3.2
CALINE4 Model Input Data
The CALINE4 air dispersion model requires the following input data:
•
Traffic data (vehicle flows, average speeds and percentage of heavy goods vehicles);
•
Vehicle exhaust emission rates;
•
Background pollutant concentrations; and,
•
Meteorological data.
Further details on each of these inputs are described below.
Traffic Data
63
Local traffic data was obtained from the Arup Transport Assessment , including annual
average hourly flows, average traffic speeds and current percentages of heavy goods
vehicles on the local road network for each of the assessment scenarios.
The CALINE dispersion model requires roads to be split into a series of links, which
represent sections where traffic conditions are reasonably homogenous in regard to flow
and average speed.
63
University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan: Transport Assessment, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, September
2006
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 164
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Pollutant Emissions Rates
For each of the CALINE model links, pollutant emission rates from vehicles were calculated
64
using emission data provided in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) using
vehicle speeds and percentage of heavy goods vehicles on each link, along with the
relevant assessment years (2008, 2010 and 2018).
It is important to ensure the correct assessment year is selected when calculating emission
rates, as they are forecast to reduce with time due to improvements in vehicle emission
control technologies and legislative requirements.
Receptor Locations
Pollutant concentrations have been forecast at selected properties (from hereon, referred to
as receptors), where exposure of residents to atmospheric emissions from road traffic is
potentially the greatest. Pollutant concentrations decrease significantly with distance from a
road source and, provided that there are no other major sources in the vicinity,
concentrations are lower than at properties located further away from the receptors chosen.
Eighteen receptors were selected for this assessment, each of which being a property in
close proximity to the University Main Campus and primary access routes. The receptors
are all residential properties, comprising of a mixture of University halls of residence and
local housing. Front facades of the properties were taken as the receptor points. Table 9.2
describes the receptor locations in this assessment, which are further shown on Figure 9.1.
Table 9.2: Location of Receptors in Assessment
No.
Receptor Name
Location
Description
1
Gosford Halls of
Residence
Westwood Site
University Accommodation
2
Rootes Halls of
Residence
Central Campus East
University Accommodation
3
Hurst/Cryfield Halls of
Residence
Central Campus West
University Accommodation
4
Whitefields Halls of
Residence
Central Campus East
University Accommodation, Main
Campus
5
Tocil Halls of Residence
Central Campus East
University Accommodation, Main
Campus
6
116 Kenilworth Road
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
7
139 Kenilworth Road
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
8
1 Gibbet Hill Road
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
9
14 Gibbet Hill Road
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
10
15 Stoneleigh Road
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
11
20 Stoneleigh Road
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
12
Four Winds, Dalehouse
Lane
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
13
The Cottage, Dalehouse
Lane
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
14
Brook Farm, Stoneleigh
Road
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
15
Croyde House,
Dalehouse Lane
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
16
35 Stoneleigh Road
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
64
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Part 1 Air Quality, Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3
Environmental Assessment techniques, Highways Agency, February 2003
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 165
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
No.
Receptor Name
Location
Description
17
Wainbody Wind Farm
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
18
Newera Farm, Kings Hill
Southwest of Main Campus
Residential property
Ambient Background Concentrations
The modelling procedure requires that emissions from sources other than road vehicles are
taken into account. Consequently, values for the background pollutant concentrations are
required. Long-term (annual) mean background concentrations are available on the
65
national Air Quality Archive . For this assessment, the relevant values were added to the
predicted model results to determine of air quality objectives are likely to be met.
Background pollutant concentrations used in the assessment are shown in Table 9.4.
Meteorological Data
Meteorological files comprising sequential hourly meteorological data for 2000 to 2004 from
Coleshill meteorological station were used in the model. These sets of data are required to
assess the pollutant concentrations over the various time periods defined by the air quality
objectives (i.e. 1 hour, 24 hour and annual means).
The model was run using all five years of meteorological data, in order to provide the worstcase prediction of pollutant concentrations for all of the scenario models. In this
assessment, the results showed that 2003 was the worst-case meteorological year.
Model Data Processing
The modelling results were processed to calculate the averaging periods and percentile
values required.
Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from combustions sources (including vehicle exhausts)
principally comprise of nitric oxide (NO) and a small percentage of nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
The emitted nitric oxide reacts with oxidants in the air (mainly ozone, O3) to form NO2. As it
is only NO2 that is associated with human health impacts, the air quality standards for the
protection of human health are based on NO2 and not total NOx or NO. A suitable NOx:NO2
conversion needs to be applied to the modelled NOx concentrations, of which there are a
variety of different approaches to take.
66
Government guidance states that the use of any of the possible approaches to dealing
with NOx:NO2 relationships is acceptable. The method applied to the annual mean NOx in
this study is the approach set out in Government technical guidance document for air quality
4
review and assessment . This method is based on the observed ratios of NOx and NO2 at
roadside locations, but is applicable only to annual mean concentrations. To attain hourly
67
mean NO2 concentrations, the Derwent-Middleton correlation was applied to the hourly
mean NOx concentrations.
9.3.3
Significance Criteria
67
National Society for Clean Air (NSCA) guidance provides an approach for assessing the
significance of air quality effects associated with the development proposals. This approach
uses textual descriptions of significance, contained within a flow chart as shown in
Figure 9.2.
65
The National Air Quality Archive; http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/index.php
Part IV of the Environmental Act 1995: Local Air Quality Management: Technical Guidance. LAQM.TG(03),
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, February 2003.
67
National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection, Brighton, Sussex, UK. Clean Air 26, An empirical
function for the ratio NO2:NOx, Derwent R G and Middleton D R, 1996
66
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 166
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The approach assumes that the air quality effects have been assessed and quantified. The
significance of the effects is then assessed through a series of questions with closed (yes
and no) answers. Each question is addressed in descending order until the relative priority
that should be given to air quality considerations, in relation to the development proposals,
are determined.
Figure 9.2: Assessment of Significance of Air Quality Impacts
EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT:
YES
Assemble the air
quality impacts
(from Air Quality
Assessment)
Lead to a breach or significant1 worsening of
an EU limit Value? This could include
introduction of new exposure to cause a
breach?
OUTCOME:
YES
AQ an overriding
consideration.
NO
YES
NOTES:
1 Where the term
significant is
used, it would be
based on
professional
judgement of the
Local Authority
officer.
2 This could
include the
expansion of an
existing AQMA or
introduction of new
exposure to cause
a new AQMA to be
declared.
Lead to a breach or significant1 worsening of
an AQ Objective, or cause a new AQMA to be
declared2?
AQ a high
priority
consideration.
NO
Interfere significantly1 with or prevent the
implementation of actions within an AQ action
plan?
YES
AQ a high
priority
consideration.
NO
Interfere significantly1 with the implementation
of a local AQ strategy?
YES
AQ a medium
priority
consideration.
NO
Lead to a significant1 increase in emissions,
degradation in air quality or increase in
exposure, below the level of a breach of an
AQ objective?
YES
AQ a medium
priority
consideration.
NO
AQ a low priority
consideration.
Request additional mitigation?
NO
Are mitigation measures, where
required, adequate?
Reach decision
YES
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 167
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
9.4
Baseline Conditions
Baseline air quality conditions refer to the existing ambient concentrations of particular
substances that are already present in the environment. Such substances can emanate
from a variety of sources, including industrial processes, commercial and domestic
activities, traffic and natural sources.
This section describes the existing ambient air quality situation in the vicinity of the Main
Campus.
The following data sources have been used in this assessment:
•
Coventry City Council Update and Screening Assessment of Air Quality Report April
2006 (Draft);
•
Coventry City Council Air Quality Progress Report 2005;
•
Coventry City Council Air Quality Review and Assessment Round II: Detailed
Assessment 2004;
•
Coventry City Council Update and Screening Assessment of Air Quality Report May
2003;
•
Warwick District Council Progress Report, December 2005;
•
Warwick District Council Further Assessment – Local Air Quality Management, April
2006 (Draft); and,
•
National Air Quality Archive .
9.4.1
68
Air Pollution Sources
Industrial Processes
Industrial air pollution sources are regulated through a system of operating permits and
authorisations, which require stringent emission limits to be met in order to ensure that any
releases to the atmosphere are minimised or rendered harmless.
Regulated (or prescribed) industrial processes are classified as Part A or Part B processes.
Part A processes, regulated through the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)
system (EC Directive 96/91/EC on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) fall into two
categories – Part A1 processes which are regulated by the Environment Agency and
Part A2 processes which are regulated by the Local Authorities. Part A processes have the
potential for release of prescribed substances to air, land and water, and as such require an
IPPC permit to operate.
Part B processes are those regulated by the local authority through the Pollution Prevention
and Control (PPC) system under the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales)
Regulations 2000. Part B processes are smaller in scale than Part A processes and have
the potential for release of prescribed substances to air only, requiring a PPC authorisation
or permit to operate.
As the University of Warwick Central Campus is divided by two administrative boundaries
each Local Authority is responsible for the air quality in their area. Coventry City Council
69
currently list eight Part A1 processes, no Part A2 processes and 103 Part B processes
68
http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/laqm/laqm.php
Based on information in the Coventry City Council Air Quality Progress Report 2005, and the Coventry City Council
Updating and Screening Assessment 2006
69
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 168
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
70
while and Warwick District Council has 5 Part A1 processes , no A2 processes and 28
71
Part B processes .
Road Traffic
In recent decades, atmospheric emissions from transport, on a national basis, have grown
to match or exceed other sources in respect of many pollutants, especially in urban areas.
The principal pollutants (with regard to traffic emissions) that have been identified as being
of most concern in the UK Government’s national Air Quality and in Highways Agency
guidance are:
•
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2);
•
Fine particulate matter (PM10);
•
Carbon monoxide (CO); and,
•
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), especially benzene and 1,3-butadiene.
Vehicle emissions are currently considered to be the dominant source of air pollution in the
vicinity of the Main Campus. The assessment therefore focuses on vehicular impact, in
particular two key air pollutants emitted by road traffic: NO2 and PM10, as these are the two
pollutants of concern in both Coventry City Council and Warwick District Council.
9.4.2
Coventry City Council Review and Assessment of Air Quality
Coventry City Council has been appraising its air quality through a review and assessment
process involving assessment of current, and likely future air quality, against the seven key
pollutants for Local Air Quality Management as required by the Environment Act 1995.
Where air quality objectives are predicted to be exceeded, local authorities are legally
required to declare Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) covering at the very least the
predicted areas of exceedence. As a result of potential breeches of nitrogen dioxide
objectives predicted for 2005, in 2003 two AQMAs were declared for Coventry City Centre
and the Ball Hill area of the A4600 Walsgrave Road. A third AQMA was declared in 2004
after a detailed assessment demonstrated that the junction of Queensland Avenue and the
B4106 Allesley Old Road was likely to exceed annual mean objectives for nitrogen dioxide
by 2005. None of these AQMAs are within the Main Campus, the closest being the junction
of Queensland Avenue and the B4106 Allesley Old Road, located approximately 2.5 km to
the northeast of the Main Campus.
An Update and Screening Assessment undertaken in April 2006, has shown that a number
of new sites outside of the AQMAs are now exceeding the annual air quality limits for
nitrogen dioxide and therefore require detailed assessments. These areas are as follows:
•
Foleshill Road;
•
London Road / Tollbar Island;
•
Radford Road / Beake Avenue Junction;
•
Spon End / Hearsall Lane; and,
•
Stoney Stanton Road and Croft Road (City Centre).
None of these additional sites lie within 2.5 km of the Main Campus.
70
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Based on information in the Warwick District Council Progress Report 2005, and their List of Permitted Installations
http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C553410C-5DCD-425F-A19B59B3ADC8574E/0/AuthorisedProcessesWebPage_amendedJan06.pdf
71
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 169
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The Update and Screening Assessment conducted in 2003 suggested that there may also
be exceedances for the levels of PM10 in the original two AQMAs, although following
discussion with Defra, it was decided that only nitrogen dioxide required a detailed
assessment.
Local Air Quality Monitoring
In 2005, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels were measured at 19 sites within Coventry, the
closest approximately 1.5 km northeast of the Main Campus. Monitored NO2 concentrations
72
within the vicinity of the Main Campus, obtained from the 2005 Air Quality Progress Report
73
and the Update and Screening Assessment Summary are shown in Table 9.3.
Table 9.3:
NO2 Concentrations Measured at Nearby Monitoring Sites within
Coventry City
Site Location
Distance from
Development
Kenpass Highway/
Fletchampstead
Highway
Memorial Park
Siting
Reference
Siting
Category
Level
2004
3
(µg/m )
Annual
Mean 2005
3
(µg/m )
K1a
Roadside
30
28
K2
Roadside
n/a
62
K3a
Roadside
32
26
K4a
Roadside
30
33
K6a
Roadside
32
35
K7a
Roadside
34
37
K8a
Roadside
n/a
32
K9
Roadside
n/a
37
K9d
Roadside
n/a
33
AUN1
Background
n/a
21
AUN2
Background
n/a
20
AUN3
background
n/a
25
1.5 km
3.5 km
Baseline Pollutant Concentrations
74
The national ‘Air Quality Archive’ , operated by the National Environmental Technology
Centre, Defra, has produced estimated background air pollution data for 2004 for NO2 and
PM10 with projections for other years.
Estimated concentrations of NOx, NO2 and PM10 for national grid squares surrounding the
proposed development are presented in Table 9.4.
3
Table 9.4: Summary of Annual Mean Background Concentrations (µg/m )
Reference Area
Pollutant
2008
2010
Grid Reference: 429500, 276500
(Receptor 1)
Nitrogen oxides, NOx
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2
Fine particulate matter, PM10
27.0
18.2
21.2
23.9
17.4
20.6
Grid Reference: 429500, 275500
(Receptors 2 and 3)
Nitrogen oxides, NOx
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2
Fine particulate matter, PM10
21.9
16.2
19.8
20.1
15.7
19.3
72
Coventry City Council Air Quality Progress Report 2005, Coventry City Council, 2006
Update and Screening Assessment Summary, Coventry City Council, 2006
74
www.airquality.co.uk
73
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 170
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Reference Area
Pollutant
2008
2010
Grid Reference: 430500, 275500
(Receptor 4)
Nitrogen oxides, NOx
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2
Fine particulate matter, PM10
23.3
17.1
20.1
21.2
16.2
19.6
Grid Reference: 430500, 276500
(Receptor 5)
Nitrogen oxides, NOx
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2
Fine particulate matter, PM10
27.5
18.8
21.4
25.1
16.6
19.4
Grid Reference: 431500, 275500
(Receptor 6)
Nitrogen oxides, NOx
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2
Fine particulate matter, PM10
25.4
17.9
20.6
22.9
17.0
20.0
Grid Reference: 430500, 274500
(Receptors 7 and 8)
Nitrogen oxides, NOx
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2
Fine particulate matter, PM10
20.8
15.7
19.5
19.0
15.2
18.8
Grid Reference: 430500, 275500
(Receptor 9)
Nitrogen oxides, NOx
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2
Fine particulate matter, PM10
23.3
16.8
20.1
21.2
16.2
19.6
9.4.3
Warwick District Council Review and Assessment of Air Quality
Warwick District Council has also appraised air quality through review and assessment
process of current and likely future air quality against the seven key pollutants required by
the Environment Act 1995. Potential breeches of the nitrogen dioxide objectives for 2005 in
three locations were confirmed as a result of which, the following AQMAs were declared:
•
In Leamington Spa, encompassing several properties at the roadside of Bath Street,
High Street and Clemens Street;
•
In Warwick, encompassing several properties in the High Street and Jury Street; and,
•
In Barford, encompassing several properties along the A429 and properties in Church
Street close to its junction with the A429.
Further assessment, conducted in April 2006, highlighted that the Warwick AQMA needs to
75
be extended and that the Leamington Spa AQMA is still required . Despite proposed
modifications, the closest Warwick District AQMA would still be in the order of 8 km from the
Main Campus.
Local Air Quality Monitoring
In 2005, NO2 levels were measured at 27 sites within Warwick District. The nearest NO2,
PM10, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide monitoring is carried out approximately 9.5 km
south of the Main Campus, area in Leamington Spa. The monitored NO2 concentrations
closest to the development site were sourced from the Warwick District Council Air Quality
76
Progress Report 2005 and Further Assessment 2006, and are shown in Table 9.5.
75
Warwick District Council Local Air Quality Management: Further Assessment, Ref BV/AQAGGX0556/2405, Bureau
Veritas, April 2006
76
Warwick District Council Progress Report 2005, Ref CS/AQ/AGGX0556/2379, Casella Stanger, December 2005
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 171
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 9.5:
NO2 Concentrations (where available) Measured at Nearby Monitoring
Sites from the Warwick District Area
Distance from
Development
Site Location
Kenilworth – New
Street / Fieldgate
Lane Junction
3 km
Leamington Spa –
Hamilton Terrace
9.5 km
Siting
Reference
Siting
Category
Level
2004
3
(µg/m )
Annual
Mean
2005
3
(µg/m )
Roadside
56.6*
47.4
Background
27.9
26.3
2
Background
28.5
26.6
3
background
29.0
24.4
1
* Only 8 month’s data
Baseline Pollutant Concentrations
In the National Air Quality Archive operated by the National Environmental Technology
Centre, Defra has produced estimated background air pollution data for 2004 for NO2 and
PM10 with projections for other years.
Estimated concentrations of NOx, NO2 and PM10 for national grid squares surrounding the
proposed development are presented in Table 9.6.
3
Table 9.6: Summary of Annual Mean Background Concentrations (µg/m )
Reference Area
Pollutant
2008
2010
Grid Reference: 431500,
274500
(Receptors 10,11,16,17,18)
Nitrogen oxides, NOx
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2
Fine particulate matter, PM10
22.79
16.66
19.87
20.8
15.9
19.2
Grid Reference: 431500,
273500
(Receptors 12,13,14,15)
Nitrogen oxides, NOx
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2
Fine particulate matter, PM10
23.23
16.84
19.78
20.7
16.0
19.1
9.5
Impact Assessment
9.5.1
Construction Impacts
Atmospheric emissions from construction activities would be dependant on a combination of
the potential for emission (the type of activities) and the effectiveness of control measures.
In general terms, there are two sources of emissions that may provide the potential for
adverse environmental impacts:
•
Exhaust emissions from site plant, equipment and vehicles; and,
•
Fugitive dust emissions from site activities.
Exhaust Emissions
The operation of vehicles and equipment powered by internal combustion engines results in
the emission of waste exhaust gases containing nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile
organic compounds, and carbon monoxide. The quantities emitted depend on factors such
as engine type, service history, pattern of usage and composition of fuel. The operation of
site equipment, vehicles and machinery would result in emission to the atmosphere of
un-quantified levels of waste exhaust gases but such emissions are unlikely to be significant
- particularly in comparison to levels of similar emissions from road traffic.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 172
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Traffic related effects of construction would be realised along the traffic routes employed by
haulage vehicles, construction vehicles and employees. The principal construction activities
with transportation implications are:
•
Removal of materials from any demolition work;
•
Delivery of materials for new development; and,
•
Movement of heavy plant.
Entry to the construction site for labour and vehicles would be by dedicated access points
only. Construction traffic could have any impact on adjoining occupiers if not properly
controlled but mitigation measures would be able to reduce these impacts.
Fugitive Dust Emission
Fugitive dust emissions from construction activities are likely to be variable and would
depend upon type and extent of the activity, soil conditions (soil type and moisture) road
surface condition and weather conditions. Soils are inevitably drier during the summer
period and periods of dry weather combined with higher than average winds have the
potential to generate the most dust. Construction activities that are the most significant
potential sources of fugitive emissions are:
•
Demolition activities, due to the breaking up and size reduction of concrete, stone and
compacted aggregates;
•
Earth moving, due to the excavation, handling, storage and disposal of soil and subsoil
materials;
•
Construction aggregate usage, due to the transport, unloading, storage and use of dry
and dusty materials (such as cement powder and sand);
•
Movement of heavy site vehicles on dry untreated or hard surfaces; and,
•
Movement of vehicles over surfaces contaminated by muddy materials brought off the
site for example, over public roads.
Fugitive dust arising from construction activities is generally of particle size greater than the
human health-based PM10 fraction. The former relates to the amount of dust falling onto
and soiling surfaces (or rate of dust deposition) and the latter to the concentration of dust in
suspension in the atmosphere. If not effectively controlled, fugitive dust emissions can lead
to dust nuisance. Most of the dust emitting activities outlined above respond well to
appropriate dust control/mitigation measures and adverse effects can be greatly reduced or
eliminated.
The sensitivity of different land-uses and facilities to dust can be categorised from low to
high as shown in Table 9.7.
Table 9.7:
Examples of Dust Sensitive Facilities
High Sensitivity
Hospitals and clinics
Hi-tech industries
Painting and finishing
Food processing
Medium Sensitivity
Schools
Residential areas
Food retailers
Greenhouses and nurseries
Horticultural land
Offices
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 173
Low Sensitivity
Farms
Light and heavy industry
Outdoor storage
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The dust sensitive properties within the vicinity of the Main Campus are considered to be of
medium and low sensitivity, being a mix of schools, residential properties and offices.
Airborne dust has a limited ability to remain airborne and readily drops from suspension as a
deposit. Research undertaken for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
77
EPA) concluded that large particulate matter (particles over 30 µm in diameter), return to
the surface quite rapidly. Under average wind conditions (mean wind speed of 2-6 m/sec),
these particles, which comprise around 95% of total dust emissions were found to return to
78
the surface within 60-90 m of the emission source .
62
The recently published GLA London Best Practice Guide provides guidance for the control
of dust and emissions from construction and demolition activities. This document is a
London focussed document to provide consistent best practise for demolition and
construction sites across London, although the principles of best practise can be applied to
other areas outside London. The guide has a dual role in providing guidance to developers
as well as providing local authorities with standards against which to evaluate best
practicable means. One particular aspect of the guidance is that it requires site managers
or contractors to undertake a qualitative Air Quality Impact Evaluation. Depending on the
outcome of the assessment (high, medium or low risk), mitigation measures are then
proposed to control the air quality effects of construction or demolition, as detailed below in
Table 9.8.
Table 9.8:
Site Evaluation Guidelines
Site
Classification
Low risk sites
Classification Criteria
2
Development of up to 1,000 m of land;
Development of up to one property and up to a maximum of ten;
Potential for emissions and dust to have an infrequent impact on sensitive
receptors
Medium risk sites
.
2
Development of between 1,000 and 15,000 m of land;
Development of between ten to 150 properties;
Potential for emissions and dust to have an intermittent or likely impact on
sensitive receptors
High risk sites
2
Development of over 15,000 m of land;
Development of over 150 properties or;
Major Development referred to the Mayor/ and or the London Development
Agency;
Major development defined by a London borough (or local planning
authority);
Potential for emissions and dust to have significant impact on sensitive
receptors.
Adapted from the Best Practice Guidance, The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition
9.5.2
Operational Impacts
The main source of air quality impacts expected as a result of operation facilities included
within the Main Campus Masterplan would be from vehicles travelling to and from the Main
Campus. The effects of these traffic movements on air quality in the vicinity of the Main
77
Study by Arup Environmental for Department for Environment, Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral
Workings, HMSO, 1995
78
Cowheard et al, 1990. Control of Fugitive and Hazardous Dusts, Pollution Technology Review, Noyes Data
Corporation
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 174
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Campus has been assessed using the modelling approach described above in Section 9.3.
Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter, including background
concentrations, forecast from CALINE4 modelling for the years 2008, 2010 and 2018 are
presented in Appendix D.2.
Nitrogen Dioxide
The forecast annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations at all 18 receptors located
around the Main Campus are all within the national and EU annual mean objectives for all
years and scenarios modelled. In all cases, forecast concentrations decrease between
2004 and 2018 due to expected improvements in vehicle emission control technologies and
a reduction in background concentrations.
The highest nitrogen dioxide concentrations are forecast at Westwood Site for the ‘Gosford’
3
Hall of Residence receptor (Figure 9.1, Receptor 1) with equal concentrations of 20.3 µg/m
during 2008 for both the ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘Do Something’ scenarios. This therefore
suggests that the Masterplan makes no overall difference to the annual mean levels of
nitrogen dioxide at this particular location. A slight increase in the concentration is only
predicted for three of the eighteen receptor sites around the Main Campus.
The hourly mean nitrogen dioxide objective is also forecast to be met at all receptors in all
modelled scenarios. Across all receptors there is a predicted decrease in hourly mean
nitrogen dioxide concentrations from the baseline scenario to 2018 ‘Do Something’
scenario, however, all receptor locations also experience a slight increase in concentrations
from the 2018 ‘Do Minimum’ scenario to the 2018 ‘Do Something’ scenario.
Particulate Matter
10
The annual mean PM concentrations are predicted to be well within the national objective
across all receptors and modelled scenarios.
Predictions of the absolute daily average PM10 concentrations are very complex since a
wide variety of sources must be taken into account and these sources behave in different
th
th
th
ways. Therefore, it is difficult to compare the 35 and 7 highest daily means (90.4 and
st
98.1 percentiles respectively) to the objectives due to the lack of suitable background
values. However, the results of air pollutant concentration predictions, as provided in
Appendix D.2, allow the contribution of the ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘Do Something’ traffic to daily
average PM10 concentrations to be considered on a relative basis. The changes are
th
st
relatively small for both the 90.4 and 98.1 percentiles, which is unlikely to affect the
number of exceedences of the daily mean objective.
CHP Biomass Boiler
There are currently proposals for a biomass powered Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
Plant to be included within the scope of the Main Campus Masterplan. Using the air quality
modelling too ‘ADMS Screen 3’, it was assessed whether the potential emissions from the
plant would create significant contributions of air pollution for the surrounding area with the
proposed Masterplan in place. The input data for the model was provided by Talbott’s
Heating Ltd, which is summarised in Table 9.9.
Table 9.9
Summary of Model Inputs to Assess the Impact of Boiler Emissions
Parameter
Performance Criteria
1.06
Internal Diameter (m)
250
Gas Emission Temperature (°C)
3
13.20
Flue Volumetric Flow Rate (m /s)
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 175
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Parameter
Performance Criteria
Emission Data (Gs-1)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Particulate Matter (PM10)
2.70
1.50
The assessment showed the maximum impact on ground level concentrations of nitrogen
oxides (NOx) as a result of emissions from the CHP plant would be an increase in ground
3
concentration of NOx in the order of 5 µg/m . Based on the worst case assumption, that all
NOx converts to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and combining this with the results of the CALINE
assessment of air quality impacts from vehicular emissions (which includes the background
concentrations and the contribution of the road emissions), would give a total annual
3
average NO2 concentration of approximately 23 µg/m . This is well below the air quality
3
objective for the annual mean of 40 µg/m for nitrogen dioxide and an exceedence of this air
quality objective would not be expected. This represents is a ‘worst-case’ assumption and
actual impacts may be expected to be much lower.
The maximum impact from the CHP plant is predicted to be realised at a distance less than
200 m from the source. At this distance, the conversion of NOx to NO2 in the atmosphere
79
would be expected to be very low. Studies suggest that the conversion from NOx to NO2
at this distance would be less than 10% and hence the maximum expected increase in NO2
3
3
concentrations would be around 0.5 µg/m and typically less than 0.2 µg/m . On the basis
of this, the impact is considered to be not significant.
9.6
Significance of Predicted Impacts
9.6.1
Construction Impacts
According to criteria described in Table 9.8, the Main Campus Masterplan has been
classified as a high risk site because of the large number of residential properties in the
vicinity and the potential for emissions to have significant impact on sensitive receptors,
particularly residential properties located around the Main Campus which are closest to the
main access routes. However, adherence with best practice guidance, together with
implementation of the mitigation measures would help reduce the impact of the construction
activities to medium or even low risk. Proposed mitigation measures are further discussed
in Section 9.7.
9.6.2
Operational Impacts
The updated NSCA guidance provides further clarification on how to describe the
significance of the impacts predicted from the air quality modelling, specifically for the
pollutants NO2 and PM10.
Two tables are presented to describe set out examples of descriptors for magnitude of
change and significance (Table 9.10 and Table 9.11). The first step is to identify the
magnitude of change in ambient concentrations for NO2 and PM10 (Table 9.9) according to
the percentage change in annual mean concentrations (for both NO2 and PM10) and the
forecast change in the number of days where fine particulates would be expected to exceed
3
50 µg/m . The magnitude of change can then be used to assess the impact significance for
the two pollutants in relation to changes in the absolute concentration forecast from the
modelling with the proposed development in place (Table 9.11).
79
Janssen, L. H. J. M., Van Wakerman, J. H. A., Van Duuren, H., Elshout, A. J., 1987. A Classification of NO
Oxidation in Power Plant Plumes based on Atmospheric Conditions. Atmospheric Environment Vol. 22. No 1. pp. 4353. 1988
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 176
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 9.10: Descriptors for Changes in Ambient Concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide
and PM10
Magnitude of
Change
Annual Mean NO2 / PM10
Days PM10>50 ug/m
3
Very large
Increase/decrease > 25%
Increase/decrease > 25 days
Large
Increase/decrease 15-25%
Increase/decrease 15 -25 days
Medium
Increase/decrease 10-15%
Increase/decrease 10-15 days
Small
Increase/decrease 5-10%
Increase/decrease 5-10 days
Very Small
Increase/decrease 1-5%
Increase/decrease 1-5 days
Extremely Small
Increase/decrease < 1%
Increase/decrease < 1 day
Source: Taken from the NSCA 2006 guidance update
Table 9.11: Descriptors for Impact Significance for Nitrogen Dioxide and PM10 (taken
from the NSCA 2006 guidance update)
Air Quality Impact Significance Criteria
Absolute
Concentration
in Relation to
Standard
Extremely
Small
Very
Small
Small
Medium
Large
Very Large
Decrease with scheme
Above
Standard with
scheme
Slight
beneficial
Slight
beneficial
Substantial
beneficial
Substantial
beneficial
Very
substantial
beneficial
Very
substantial
beneficial
Above
Standard
without
scheme
Below with
scheme
Slight
beneficial
Moderate
beneficial
Substantial
beneficial
Substantial
beneficial
Very
substantial
beneficial
Very
substantial
beneficial
Below
Standard
without
scheme, but
not Well Below
Negligible
Slight
beneficial
Slight
beneficial
Moderate
beneficial
Moderate
beneficial
Substantial
beneficial
Well Below
Standard
without
scheme
Negligible
Negligible
Slight
beneficial
Slight
beneficial
Slight
beneficial
Moderate
beneficial
Increase with scheme
Above
Standard
without
scheme
Slight
adverse
Slight
adverse
Substantial
adverse
Substantial
adverse
Very
substantial
adverse
Very
substantial
adverse
Below
Standard
without
scheme Above
with scheme
Slight
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Substantial
adverse
Substantial
adverse
Very
substantial
adverse
Very
substantial
adverse
Below
Standard with
scheme, but
not Well Below
Negligible
Slight
adverse
Slight
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Substantial
adverse
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 177
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Air Quality Impact Significance Criteria
Well Below
Standard with
scheme
Negligible
Negligible
Slight
adverse
Slight
adverse
Slight
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Source: Taken from the NSCA 2006 guidance update
Well Below standard = <75% of the standard level.
‘Standard’ in the context of this table relates to specific air quality objective or Limit Value in question
As is evident from the results presented in Appendix D.2, negligible impacts are predicted
as a result of the proposed development. According to NSCA guidance and the flow chart
presented in Figure 9.2, the following can be noted:
•
Modelling shows that the proposed development does not lead to a breach of the
national objectives or EU limit values for either pollutant or cause a new AQMA to be
declared;
•
The proposed development would not interfere with or prevent the implementation of the
actions within any air quality action plan;
•
It is not anticipated that the proposed development would interfere with the
implementation of a local air quality strategy; and
•
Given the small scale of change in pollutant concentrations between with and without
scheme scenarios, the proposed development would not lead to a significant increase in
emissions.
Based on this, it is therefore considered that in the case of the proposed development, air
quality would be a low priority consideration.
9.7
Impact Mitigation
9.7.1
Proposed Construction Mitigation Measures
Prior to commencement of construction activities, a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP)
shall be agreed with the Local Authority to ensure adverse environmental effects on local
receptors are avoided. The CoCP would be expected to include the following air quality
mitigation measures:
•
Provision and use of wheel washing facilities to prevent mud from construction
operations being transported on to adjacent public roads;
•
Regular cleaning of hard-surfaced site entrance roads;
•
Ensuring that dusty materials are stored and handled appropriately (e.g. wind shielding
or complete enclosure, storage is away from site boundaries, drop heights of materials
are restricted, water sprays are used where practicable to reduce dust emissions);
•
Ensuring that dusty materials are transported appropriately (e.g. sheeting of vehicles
carrying spoil and other dusty materials);
•
Hoarding and gates to prevent dust breakout; and,
•
Appropriate dust site monitoring is included within the site management practices to
inform site management of the success of dust control measures used.
Thus the construction activities would be controlled to reduce as far as possible the potential
environmental impacts, thus limiting residual impacts.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 178
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Further site specific mitigation measures for high risk sites according to the Best Practice
Guidance (as identified in Section 9.5) can also be implemented. Such high risk mitigation
measures may include:
•
Prohibition of bonfires on site;
•
Site planning to carry out main dust causing activity in spring/autumn;
•
Planning of site layout by locating dust activity away from sensitive receptors;
•
Erection of solid barriers at the site boundary;
•
Hard landscaping of site haul roads and site roads to allow a camber to prevent
puddles;
•
Prohibition on idling vehicles;
•
Control and management of site run off;
•
Provision, regular inspection and cleaning of vehicle hard-standing areas;
•
Use of enclosed chutes and covered skips;
•
Wrapping of buildings to be demolished;
•
Re-vegetation of earthworks and exposed areas; and,
•
Limitation of dust generating activities on windy and dry days.
Implementation of the suggested mitigation measures above would help reduce the impact
of the construction activities to medium to low risk.
Since there are to be no significant effects of the proposed development upon operational
air quality, no further mitigation associated with operational air quality is considered
necessary.
9.8
Residual Impacts
With suitable mitigation measures in place, individual adverse impacts on local air quality
from construction activities associated with individual Masterplan components are expected
to be temporary. No long-term residual effects are expected as a result of the construction
of facilities associated with the Main Campus Masterplan.
In accordance with the significance criteria described in Figure 9.1, it has been determined
that implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan should be given a low priority in
consideration of the application for planning permission, as the increase in forecast pollutant
concentrations between ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘Do Something’ scenarios for each period are
negligible and well within the national and EU objectives.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 179
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
This page has been left intentionally blank
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 180
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
10
Noise and Vibration
10.1
Introduction
This chapter provides a review of the proposed scheme proposals in the context of the
potential noise and vibration related impacts. Included within the chapter are the results of
the baseline noise study which describes the existing noise climate around the site both in
terms of measured noise exposure levels as well as qualitative conditions, policies relevant
to the noise and vibration assessment and control, the results of the noise and vibration
assessment and associated mitigation measures.
The chapter is structured as follows:
Section 10.2: Provides a description of the planning, policy and legislative framework that
have informed and directed the assessment;
Section 10.3: Describes the approach adopted by the assessment of potentially significant
noise and vibration impacts;
Section 10.4: Provides a description of the baseline noise conditions;
Section 10.5: Assesses the potentially significant noise and vibration related impacts that
may result from the proposed scheme;
Section 10.6: Describes the mitigation measures to be adopted in order to reduce the
significance of potential impacts;
Section 10.7: Provides a description of residual noise and vibration impacts following
mitigation; and,
10.2
Policy Framework
10.2.1
Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise
The highest level noise guidance document from which most other relevant documents stem
80
is Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise . This document describes the
assessment of environmental noise sources and refers to the relevant assessment
procedures and control methods.
As part of the assessment procedure for EIA there is a requirement that significant effects
should be described and measures to control any significant adverse effects identified. The
relevant methods adopted for the assessment of each source of noise and vibration are
summarised below. Some of these describe specific requirements or thresholds for
amelioration.
10.2.2
Traffic Noise
An approach to assessing noise and vibration effects from roads is described in Volume 11
of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), relating to Environmental
81
Assessment . The DMRB approach to assessing noise impact is to compare the noise
levels for the ‘Do Something’ (with scheme) scenario against noise levels for the ‘Do
Minimum’ (without scheme) scenario. The method describes various levels of assessment
detail from Stage 1 to Stage 3. A Stage 1 assessment identifies noise sensitive locations
within 300 m of the scheme and includes a statement on the significance of changes in
noise level on local people and noise sensitive locations. A Stage 2 assessment goes
further by reporting the predicted ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘Do Something’ noise levels at noise
80
Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise, PPG 24, Department of Transport, 1994
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Environmental Assessment, Department of Transport,
1994
81
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 181
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
sensitive locations. Stage 3 is the most detailed level of assessment which includes a
process to quantify the numbers of people bothered by noise for the ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘Do
Something’ scheme. This highest level of assessment is usually associated with an
application for a highly developed scheme design which has already been assessed at
previous stages. For the purposes of this assessment, ‘Do Minimum’ and ‘Do Something’
noise levels have been calculated and a statement made as to the significance of the traffic
noise change at noise sensitive locations around the proposed development.
The DMRB recommends that in addition to an assessment of noise, the effects of vibration
should also be considered where possible. In the case of ground-borne vibration, the
likelihood of perceptible vibration being caused is particularly dependent upon the
smoothness of the road surface. Research has shown that vibration levels caused by heavy
goods vehicles travelling at 110 kph over a 25 mm hump could cause perceptible vibration
82
at up to 40 m from the road . It is unlikely that significant levels of vibration would be
generated therefore at distances greater than this.
The DMRB method for estimating the likelihood of airborne noise causing vibration nuisance
is based upon studies close to main roads where such problems can occur. These studies
were limited to receivers within 40 m of the road without screening. As an indication of the
scale of impact relative to noise effects, the DMRB guidance states that for a given level of
traffic noise exposure the percentage of people bothered ‘very much’ or ‘quite a lot’ by
airborne vibration is 10% lower than the corresponding amount for noise nuisance. Also,
the significance of any change in airborne traffic vibration can be considered proportional to
the significance of changes in traffic noise.
The criterion for acceptability of road traffic noise exposure at residential properties is
83
contained in the Noise Insulation Regulations , which enact part of the provisions of the
Land Compensation Act, 1973. This provides an entitlement for noise insulation measures
if noise levels are equal to or exceed 68 dB LA10,18hr at the building façade.
10.2.3
Construction Noise
Construction noise and vibration is temporary and cannot be assessed in the same way as
more permanent operational impacts. Potential noise and vibration impact from
construction must also be weighed against other factors such as the benefits that the
completed development (or road scheme) would bring to the local community. The national
guidance and policy does not propose any specific criteria for the setting of noise limits, or
criteria for construction works, as it is recognised that this must be judged against local
needs and conditions. The impact of construction noise and vibration is usually assessed
with reference to the following guidance and statutes:
BS 5228: Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites84
BS 5228 provides guidance on the assessment and control of noise from construction
operations. The Standard contains detailed information on noise reduction measures and
promotes the ‘best practicable means’ approach to control noise and minimise the impact on
local residents and construction workers.
Environmental Protection Act85
The Environmental Protection Act describes the duty of the Local Authority to take steps to
abate any noise impact, including that from a construction site, deemed to be causing a
statutory nuisance.
82
Watts, R.G., 1990.. Traffic Induced Vibration in Buildings, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Research
Report 246
83
HMSO 1988. Noise Insulation Regulations, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1988
84
BS 5228: Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites, British Standards Institution, 1997
85
HMSO, 1990. Environmental Protection Act, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1990
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 182
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Control of Pollution Act86
The Control of Pollution Act gives the Local Authority powers to serve a notice to the
developer requiring the control of site noise under Section 60 of the Act. This may include
specific controls to restrict certain activities identified as causing particular problems.
Conditions regarding hours of operation would generally be specified and noise and
vibration limits at certain locations may be applied in some cases. All requirements must
adhere to established guidance and be consistent with best practicable means to control
noise only as far as is necessary to prevent undue disturbance.
10.2.4
Building Services Plant Noise
To ensure that the proposed development does not have an unacceptable impact on the
surrounding area, appropriate noise targets would be specified based on the existing noise
87
climate. British Standard BS 4142 gives a method for determining the likelihood of
complaint from a new industrial development. Although the title of the Standard implies a
limited application to just industrial situations, the assessment methods it recommends are
often used to assess noise from building services plant from commercial premises. Fixed
plant of this nature is included within the scope of the Standard.
The Standard specifies a survey method to measure ‘the specific noise level’ (the
introduced noise) in terms of LAeq,Tr, and ‘the background noise level’ (the noise existing in
the absence of the specific noise level at the receiver location) expressed in terms of LA90,T.
Corrections are then made if the specific noise has a distinctive character, for example
through tonality or impulsivity. The corrected specific noise level is described as ‘the rating
level’ (LAr,T). To assess the likelihood of complaints the background level is subtracted from
the rating level and the following criteria applied:
•
If the difference is around +10 dB or more then complaints are likely;
•
If the difference is around +5 dB then this is of marginal significance; and,
•
If the rating level is more than 10 dB below the measured background level then this is a
positive indication that complaints are unlikely.
10.2.5
Site Suitability
The issue as to whether the site is suitable for the residential element of the proposed
development is addressed by using the guidance provided by PPG24. In the context of
introducing new residential development into potentially noisy areas the PPG24 introduces
the concept of Noise Exposure Categories (NEC). These are areas delineated by noise
contour lines within which certain planning actions are expected. These categories range
from A to D and assist local authorities to consider the suitability of applications near
transport related noise sources. Table 10.1 below describes noise levels that define the
boundaries of the NEC. Table 10.2 describes the planning action recommended for each
NEC Zone by PPG 24.
86
HMSO, 1974. Control of Pollution Act, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1974
BSI, 1997. BS 4142 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas, British
Standards Institution, 1997
87
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 183
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 10.1: Noise Exposure Category Noise Levels for Road Traffic Noise and Mixed
Noise Sources, LAeq,T
Period
Noise Exposure Category
A
B
C
D
0700 – 2300
< 55
55 – 63
63 - 72
> 72
2300 – 0700
< 45
45 - 75
57 - 66
> 66
Table 10.2: Expected Planning Action within NEC Zones
NEC Zone
Expected Planning Action
NEC A
Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning
permission, although the noise level at the high end of the category should not be
regarded as a desirable level
NEC B
Noise should be taken into account when determining planning applications and,
where, appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection
against noise
NEC C
Planning permission should not usually be granted
Where it is considered that permission should be given, for example because there
are no alternative sites available, conditions should be imposed to ensure a
commensurate level of protection against noise
NEC D
Planning permission should normally be refused
The NEC concept and classifications would be used in this report to examine the suitability
of the site for the residential aspect of the proposed development.
10.3
Assessment Approach
10.3.1
Terms of Reference
This assessment considers the effects of changes in noise and vibration associated with the
proposed scheme. Initial impacts may arise from land preparation and construction works
although these effects would be temporary. Permanent changes to the noise climate could
arise from the operation of the development as a result of changes in traffic patterns, the
introduction of new road infrastructure from noise sources associated with the use of
permanent plant for building services.
Based on the proposed plans the following potential noise changes have been identified:
•
Construction of the proposed development and infrastructure;
•
Road traffic noise from internal grid of roads within the proposed development and any
changes in traffic flow or composition on existing roads;
•
Plant machinery noise associated with buildings; and,
•
Noise from access to car park areas.
10.3.2
Methodology
For the determination of noise impacts related to construction activities and traffic noise,
prescribed prediction methodologies have been used to predict the likely noise exposures
based on forecast traffic data and construction activities. For permanent plant associated
with buildings or noise from commercial activities it is very difficult to predict noise levels
given the uncertainty as to the exact locations of the sources or the intensity of operation.
However, for these sources it is possible to establish target noise criteria or operational
constraints to ensure these sources do not have an adverse effect.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 184
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
10.3.3
Construction Noise Assessment Methodology
Noise and vibration from the construction of the proposed development and associated
88
infrastructure has been determined using British Standard 5228 . The Standard provides
information on the prevention and control of construction noise and vibration, and includes a
procedure for predicting construction noise. Calculations of noise levels at selected
receivers have been based on typical source noise levels, propagation distance, details of
the intervening ground cover, topography and screening. Given the limit of detail regarding
the construction methods at this stage, some aspects of the construction process have been
assumed based on typical construction operations for this type of development. It is
considered that these assumptions regarding the type of plant and operations are
representative of the type of construction that would take place for a large mixed-use
development, and would provide a sufficient level of accuracy for this assessment.
Vehicular Traffic Noise Assessment Methodology
The noise exposure arising from new or altered roads or increased traffic levels on existing
roads associated with the proposed development has been calculated using the Calculation
89
of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) method. The method creates a spatial model of the area
between the road and the noise sensitive receiver. The noise source levels generated by
the road are based on the volume, average speed and composition of the traffic. The
resulting noise levels at selected receiver locations are then calculated taking into account
the propagation distance, intervening screening and other effects.
Noise levels have been estimated at noise sensitive locations surrounding the proposed
development concentrating primarily on residential locations. Consideration has also been
given to the suitability of the site in noise terms for the proposed development. A baseline
noise survey has been carried out.
10.3.4
Scoping Report and Consultations
The scoping report identified the proposed methodology for undertaking the environmental
th
assessments in support of the Environmental statement and was issued on 16 December,
2005.
88
89
•
Baseline noise survey;
•
Construction noise assessment;
•
Operational noise assessment;
•
Community noise assessment;
•
PPG 24 noise assessment for new residential blocks;
•
Collation of traffic flow data for existing and future scenarios and an assessment of the
associated variation in noise levels;
•
Assessment of the likely change in noise levels at noise sensitive locations;
•
Assessment of potential noise and vibration impacts during demolition and construction;
•
Assessment of mechanical services noise;
•
Interpretation of the results and comparison of the likely impacts against relevant
guidance and national criteria; and,
•
Where appropriate, formulation of proposals for controlling noise and vibration during
construction.
BS 5228 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites, British Standards Institution, 1977
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, Department of Transport and Welsh Office, HMSO, 1988
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 185
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
10.3.5
Source Data
The source data used in the noise assessments contained within this chapter are:
•
Baseline noise survey measurements; and,
•
Traffic flow forecast data.
10.3.6
Significance Criteria
Significance criteria used in the assessment are based upon recommendations made in
PPG 24 for noise nuisance arising from operation and road infrastructure changes.
90
Construction is assessed against standards recognised in BS 5228 . Furthermore
significance is linked to change in existing noise climate arising from the development.
Operation
The following significance criteria are used in the assessment of the change in noise levels
arising from the development at the University of Warwick.
Table 10.3: Noise Change Significance Criteria
Change in Noise Level, dB
Significance
Decrease of 3dB
Beneficial
Decrease < 3dB
No significance
Increase of <3dB
No significance
Increase of 3 – 5 dB
Minor significance
Increase of 5 -10 dB
Moderate significance
Increase > 10 dB
Major Significance
10.3.7
Direct / Indirect Effects
For the purposes of the noise and vibration assessment, direct effects are considered to be
those arising from construction or operation within 300 m of the proposed development.
Indirect effects are considered to be those arising at greater distances. Any such effects are
likely to be as a result of changes in traffic flow on roads around the proposed development.
10.3.8
Limitations, Constraints and Assumptions
The primary limitation in relation to this assessment is related to the detail of information
available relating to construction methods. The assessment of construction noise effects
has been based on basic assumptions of the likely construction activities that maybe
implemented and the processes and durations likely to take place. The relevant measures
to control disturbance are considered and the likely residual impacts identified.
10.4
Baseline Conditions
10.4.1
Study Area
Any noise or vibration effects associated with the Main Campus Masterplan are likely to be
greatest at positions immediately surrounding the site perimeter. The study area has
therefore been defined as the area immediately surrounding indicated as facilities to be
directly affected by the Masterplan at noise sensitive locations on the west, north and east.
Beyond these areas, noise impacts would be less significant due to distance, masking effect
of other noise sources, and screening by buildings.
Four permanent monitoring locations were selected around the Main Campus at locations
near the perimeter of current facilities, in areas were future development is proposed by the
Main Campus Masterplan, to represent the existing site boundaries. Four additional ad hoc
90
BS 5228 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites, British Standards Institution, British
Standards Institution, 1997
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 186
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
measurement locations were also selected to represent the nearest sensitive properties that
may be affected by the Masterplan. A plan showing the positions of the baseline
measurement survey positions is shown in Figure 10.1.
10.4.2
Identification of Sensitive Receptors
The University of Warwick Main Campus is, in the main, a self-contained site, surrounded
largely by open rural land. There are a few residential properties located off the southern
end of Gibbet Hill road on the opposite side of the road from the University Estates Office.
The following describes proximities of private residential properties to areas of potential
development on the Main Campus, as described in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3.
Westwood Site
The north boundary of the Westwood Site is bounded by the A45 Coventry Ring Road,
which is a busy road providing the main access to surrounding residential properties located
on and off it. The properties nearest to the proposed development of academic buildings in
this part of the site are approximately 40 m distant at their nearest and back on to the
potential area of development. The potential development in this area of the site consists of
two academic facilities and a small support facility.
Central Campus East
To the northeast of the Central Campus East there are some properties located in
cul-de-sacs off De Montfort Way that are approximately 300 m distant at their closest to a
potential new academic facility. The existing noise climate around De Montfort way is
dominated by distant traffic noise, with occasional local traffic giving rise to peaks in the
noise climate.
Proposed development to the south of Central Campus East falls at least 600 m away from
the nearest residential properties, which are located in Moreall Meadows. The development
in this part of the University campus consists of a range of academic, support and other
facilities. The existing noise climate around Moreall Meadows is dominated by distant traffic
noise, with local traffic giving rise to peaks in the noise climate.
Gibbet Hill Site
To the southeast of the site properties located off Moreall Meadows are located at a
distance of approximately 20 m at closest to a potential new academic facility on the
proposed development. There is a second academic facility proposed in this area but at a
much greater distance from nearby residential properties. Other areas of proposed
development in the southeast quadrant of the Main Campus are all in excess of 500 m
distant from residential properties. There are two residential and one academic facility
proposed in this area.
Central Campus West
Proposed development on the West of the University campus falls at least 300 m distant of
the properties off Westwood Heath Road. The nearest part of the development consists of
residential facilities. The existing noise climate in the area of Westwood Heath road is
dominated by road traffic noise, there are occasional trains audible in the distance.
The proposed development would potentially affect the noise climate of the area by altering
traffic patterns and various other noise sources associated with the construction and
operation of the proposed development.
Based on the proposal plans the following potential noise changes have been identified:
•
Construction of the proposed development and infrastructure (Noise and vibration);
•
Road traffic noise from internal roads within the proposed development and any
changes in traffic flow or composition on existing surrounding roads; and,
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 187
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
Plant machinery noise associated with the operational buildings.
10.4.3
Noise Monitoring Survey
th
th
A site visit was conducted around the Main Campus on 4 and 5 October 2005 for the
purposes of the assessment to measure existing noise levels. The site visit also identified
existing noise sources and provided an impression of the overall noise climate in each area.
Photographs were taken to provide a visual record of the different areas. Although potential
noise monitoring locations were identified from mapping information prior to the visit, the
final selection was made based on observations of the most exposed noise sensitive
locations and other activities occurring on the development that would materially affect the
noise climate.
Two noise monitoring stations were used to log noise levels over 24 hour periods at each of
the four permanent monitoring locations. Sample noise measurements were taken at four
locations during the daytime, evening and night time periods between 13:30 and 03:30 (ten
minute periods) to establish typical ambient noise levels and the lowest night-time ambient
noise levels close to the site.
Full details of the measurement periods and results are given in Appendix E.1. The general
91
noise measurement methodology followed was that described in BS 4142:1997 for
external locations.
Immediately before and after each series of measurements was carried out, the sound level
meter (SLM) calibration was checked using a sound pressure level calibrator. No significant
variation was recorded during the whole survey period. Wind speed was measured at each
location during the day using the anemometer and was well within acceptable limits for this
type of survey.
The sound level meter was mounted on to a tripod, at approximately 1.2 m above local
ground level. Measurements were taken at least 3.5 m away from any building facades or
other large surfaces to avoid the effect of reflected sound on the measured noise level. A
windshield was fitted over the microphone at all times during the survey period to reduce
any effect of wind-induced noise. Corresponding statistical analysis of the measured noise
was then carried out, and the following parameters recorded: LAeq, LAmax, and percentiles
LA90 to LA10.
All noise measuring instrumentation owned and used by Arup are checked for correct
calibration to traceable national and international standards on an annual basis. Routine ‘inhouse’ spot checks are also carried out at regular intervals as part of Arup’s Quality
Assurance policy, to provide additional confidence in measured noise data.
10.4.4
Survey Instrumentation
Noise Equipment:
•
Brüel & Kjær 2260 (Kit F and I) Type 1 precision integrating (SLM);
•
Brüel & Kjær Type 1 4231 SPL Calibrator; and,
•
Kestral Anemometer.
10.4.5
Measurement Locations
The measurement locations are described below and are identified in Figure 10.1.
91
BS 4142:1997 Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas, British Standards Institution,
1997
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 188
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Temporary Monitoring Locations
Location 1: Surrounding Central Campus West
Measurements were made on the footpath outside of number 2 Broadwells Crescent at a
distance of approximately 10 m from Westwood Heath Road. The predominant noise
source is distant traffic noise, although peaks in the noise climate arise from localised traffic
on Westwood Heath and the occasional vehicular movement on Broadwells Crescent.
Very occasional aircraft and train movements were heard at distance over the duration of
measurements undertaken.
Location 2: Surrounding Westwood Site
Measurements were undertaken outside of the first property on Sheriff Avenue which is
located at the junction with the A45 Ring Road. The measurement location was
approximately 10 m from Charter Avenue. Charter Avenue is the main thoroughfare
providing access to all housing in the area; Sheriff Avenue only provides access to the
localised housing.
The dominant noise source is distant traffic noise on the A45, peaks in the noise climate
arise from vehicular movements along Charter Avenue and includes local bus services.
Location 3: Surrounding Central Campus East
Measurements were undertaken on the verge on the opposite of the road from properties
located in Highwayman’s Croft, adjacent to De Montfort Way. The area is bounded by open
land and not close to any major roads.
The noise climate predominantly consists of distant traffic noise which at times is overcome
by birdsong.
Location 4: Surrounding Gibbet Hill Site
Measurements were undertaken on Stoneleigh Road at a distance of approximately 10 m
from the cross roads at the intersection between the A429 Kenilworth Road, Gibbet Hill
Road and Stoneleigh Road.
The noise climate is generally dominated by traffic on the A429 which is a busy arterial road
to Coventry. During peak traffic periods, traffic leaving the University via Gibbet Hill Road
and Stoneleigh Road dominated the noise climate.
Permanent Monitoring Locations
Location 5: Westwood Site
Monitoring equipment was setup on the roof of the administration office building within the
Westwood Site. The noise climate at this location was relatively quiet with the predominant
source of noise being distant road traffic. Other sources of noise were birdsong and very
occasional local traffic movements.
Location 6: Central Campus West
Location 6 was situated on the ground equidistant between Scarman House and Lakeside
apartments in Central Campus West. The dominant noise source was distant road traffic
noise with some audible noise from Gibbet Hill Road during the daytime period. In addition,
very occasional local traffic movements entering and exiting Lakeside Apartments and
Scarman House could be heard.
Location 7: Central Campus East
Location 7 was situated on the roof the Warwick Arts Centre in Central Campus East. The
noise climate here was dominated by local pedestrian movement during the day and distant
road traffic noise. Occasional local road traffic movement could also be heard.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 189
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Location 8: Gibbet Hill Site
Monitoring equipment was setup on the roof of the Estates Office at the Gibbet Hill Site.
The dominant noise sources during the daytime period were road traffic on Gibbet Hill Road
and distant road traffic noise from the A45 and A49. Some local traffic movements on the
access road to the Biomedical Building were also audible.
10.5
Impact Assessment
The following sections describe the approach used to estimate changes in noise level for
each type of noise source associated with the development. The changes in noise level
have been calculated at the closest noise sensitive facades surrounding the Main Campus.
Construction Noise and Vibration
Given the outline detail of proposals represented by the Main Campus Masterplan, detailed
study of construction methods is not possible at this stage. A noise assessment has been
undertaken based on assumed typical construction activities that may be associated with a
development of this kind. The results of the assessment are presented as noise maps for
indicative purposes (Appendix E.3). As the project progresses, the ‘Best Practicable Means’
of carrying out the work would be identified in accordance with the procedures described by
92
BS 5228 and for each Masterplan component, detailed construction method statements
would be developed. Where these methods are considered likely to cause increased noise
at the surrounding residential areas, Best Practicable Means would be used to identify noise
measures and specific details would be agreed with Local Authorities so that an appropriate
Construction Code of Practice may be developed (CoCP).
At this stage it has only been possible to perform a preliminary construction noise
assessment based on many assumptions regarding construction activities and durations of
the proposed development. Such an assessment would give indicative typical and worst
case noise levels at surrounding properties and highlight any requirement for construction
noise mitigation.
The Main Campus is to be developed in a number of phases and consists of numerous
pockets of development, spread over several locations around the University campus and
its perimeter. Each of the developments is relatively small and the majority are a
reasonable distance from properties that are not part of the University. It is unlikely that
construction activities would take place across the entire site simultaneously. For this
reason the entire development has been split into four sub-developments or sites according
to the geographical location within the campus. The locations of each site are defined in
Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 2.2.
For the purpose of assessment of noise and vibration impacts, development of each
Masterplan component is considered likely to comprise of up to six construction phases;
demolition, foundations and site preparation, piling, superstructure works, fit-out and
landscaping. Not all of the six phases would occur at each site and many of the phases
would only occur at one site.
Table 10.4 shows a summary of assumed phases that would take place at each site. These
assumptions have been based upon:
•
92
Comparison of the proposed development to the existing site (for example, where a new
building is to be built on the location of existing buildings it has been assumed that
demolition phase would be required); and,
BS 5228 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites, British Standards Institution, 1997
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 190
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
Size and type of building i.e., it has been assumed that the larger non-residential
developments would have piled foundations, while smaller or residential developments
would be brick-built with concrete foundations.
Site
Demolition
Foundations
and Site Prep
Piling
Superstructu
re Works
Fit-out
Landscaping
Table 10.4: Summary of Construction Phases at Each Development Site
Central Campus
West
Westwood Site
Central Campus
East
Gibbet Hill Site
During all stages of construction it is likely that there would be a static generator and
compressor running whenever the site is in operation. Fork lift trucks would be used
throughout construction to move materials. Vans and cars would also be present through all
phases of construction to deliver and remove equipment and personnel.
Demolition
Assessment of the proposed development has shown that it is likely that a demolition phase
would be required at the Westwood Site. Activities would include demolishing existing
buildings and breaking up existing foundations. Equipment likely to produce high noise
levels are bulldozers, excavators and pneumatic breakers.
Foundations and Site Preparation
Each building on each site would require a foundations and site preparation phase.
Bulldozers, dumper trucks, tipper lorries and concrete mixing/pouring equipment would be
used to make the sites suitable for construction to commence. Noise is likely to be greatest
where bulldozing is taking place although this would move around the site and would thus
be relatively short-lived.
Piling
For this assessment it has been assumed that all proposed residential buildings and smaller
academic/support/other buildings would be brick built. These buildings would therefore not
require a piling phase.
It has further been assumed that larger buildings and academic buildings would require
short bore piling foundations. This means that piling is likely to occur during construction of
some buildings on the Central Campus and Westwood Site. Use of concrete piles, dug
using a Rotary auger, is likely to be less intrusive than impact piling. However both methods
would need materials delivered by heavy goods vehicles.
Superstructure Construction
Superstructure construction would be required at each site and resulting noise levels would
be dependant on methods adopted. Cranes, pneumatic hand tools, back hoe excavators
would be expected to be used along with concrete pumps and mixers. The amount of
concrete to be pumped would increase if the building is constructed using a concrete frame
or floors. It is also likely that some of the buildings are constructed from traditional brick /
block constructions, in which event the most intrusive activities are likely to be material
deliveries by lorry.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 191
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Landscaping and Fit-out
Landscaping, fit-out and infrastructure would take place at all four sites as they progress in
development. Hand tools, back hoe excavators, bulldozers and road rollers would be
required at various times and depending on the amount of earth movement required; tippers
or dumper trucks would be required. Due to the different types and amounts of equipment
required, Fit-out and landscaping have be considered as separate phases in the
construction.
BS 5228 has been used to calculate the total 10-hour daytime sound power levels resulting
from each phase of construction at each site. In the absence of a developed construction
methodology at this stage, these typical construction methods for this type of development,
based on experience of other developments, have been assumed. These results show that
for the majority of sites’ foundations and site preparation are likely to be the noisiest phase,
except for the Westwood Site, where demolition may produce the noisiest activity. These
activities represent worst case phases.
The ‘SoundPLAN’ noise mapping software has been used to predict construction related
noise levels that would be experienced at non-university properties surrounding each site.
Individual maps have been created for worst and typical case construction phases at each
of the four Main Campuss. For the Central Campus where the majority of the development
is expected, additional worst and typical case noise maps have been created with the
source located at different buildings around the perimeter of the site. Details of the source
location for each noise map are shown in Appendix E.2.
For each source location, the construction activities have been represented by a point
source with a characteristic frequency spectrum dependant on the type of activity. For the
worst case demolition and foundation and site preparation phases, a frequency spectrum
typical of a bulldozer has been used. For the typical case fit-out phases, a frequency
spectrum typical of hand-tools has been used.
At the time of the assessment, topographic data describing the terrain at the site and
surrounding areas was not available, and constant ground elevation, representing a worst
case scenario with no noise natural attenuation features, was assumed.
The resulting noise maps are presented in Appendix E.3. The noise levels are presented in
terms of the 10-hour daytime noise level Ld in dB(A). The Ld levels are presented in 5 dB
bands. 5 and Figure 10.2 shows the number of non-university properties exposed to Ld
levels in the 55-60 dB(A), 60-65 dB(A) and 65-70 dB(A) noise bands.
Although there is insufficient information on the construction methodology at this stage of
the development the above methodology is expected to give a useful representation of
noise from construction.
Table 10.5: Residential Properties Exposed to Daytime Noise Levels in the Range 55
to 65 dB(A)
Site
Central
Campus
West
Building
1
2
Westwood
Site
1
Activity
No of properties exposed to Ld > 55
dB(A)
65 – 65 dB(A)
55 - 60 dB(A)
Foundations & Site Prep
0
11
Fit-out
0
0
Foundations & Site Prep
0
0
Fit-out
0
0
Demolition
28
35
Fit-out
0
0
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 192
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Site
Building
1
Central
Campus
East
2
3
Gibbet Hill
Site
1
Activity
No of properties exposed to Ld > 55
dB(A)
65 – 65 dB(A)
55 - 60 dB(A)
Foundations & Site Prep
0
0
Fit-out
0
0
Foundations & Site Prep
0
0
Fit-out
0
0
Foundations & Site Prep
0
0
Fit-out
0
0
Demolition
11
17
Fit-out
0
0
There are no properties predicted to experience noise levels in excess of 70 dB(A) and
works are expected to be restricted to daytime hours only. These maximum levels are at
least 5 dB(A) below the 75 dB(A) typically used as the criterion for the provision of
secondary glazing for construction projects, therefore indicative construction noise
assessments suggest that noise levels would be of no significance at properties located
outside of the University Estate.
10.5.1
Road Traffic Noise
The proposed development would result in changes to the road layout between the junction
of Scarman Road, Gibbet Hill Road and University Road and the junction of Gibbet Hill and
University Road as shown in Figure 2.2. Changes are expected to include:
•
Blocking the access from Library Road to Gibbet Hill road;
•
Constructing a roundabout at the southern-most junction of Gibbet Hill Road and
University Road; and,
•
Removing the one-way restriction on University road, allowing traffic to access this road
from both junctions with Gibbet Hill Road.
The recommended DMRB forecast scenarios have been considered; ‘Do Minimum’ and
‘Do Something’. For each scenario, a CRTN assessment of the roads in and around the
University Estate for the years 2004 (existing), 2008, 2010 and 2018 has been undertaken.
Traffic flow forecasts have been obtained from Arup. A receiver distance of 10 m from the
road has been assumed and no noise screening has been included in the assessment.
Traffic velocity data has been provided for Kirby Corner Road, Gibbet Hill Road and
Stoneleigh Road. Speeds of 51 kph have been assumed on all other roads. The road
network has been split into 44 sections. For each section an LAeq, 18hr has been calculated
using the forecast traffic flow data. The results are shown with a schematic of the road
network in Appendix E.4.
For most sections of road, differences in the noise environment between the ‘Do Something’
and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios are predicted to be less than 3 dB(A), and are therefore
considered of no significance. The exception is the section of University Road near the
southern-most junction with Gibbet Hill Road where an increase of 6 dB(A) is predicted for
the ‘Do Something’ scenario, which would be considered of moderate significance. This is
due to a large increase in the traffic turning right from Gibbet Hill Road at this junction. This
section of University road is however well within the boundary of the University Estate and
approximately 600 m from the nearest noise sensitive receivers on Highwayman’s Croft and
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 193
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
is unlikely to cause significant change to the noise environment at these receivers and
hence should be considered of no significance.
10.5.2
Plant Machinery Noise
The proposed developments are likely to introduce items of plant and equipment associated
with the various buildings and utilities on some of the buildings. This could be plant
associated with ventilation, heating or cooling requirements. The opportunity would be
taken at the design stage to limit the noise output from such equipment to a level that would
ensure that there would not be an adverse reaction from local residents.
The mechanism for control would be by specifying the noise performance of such
equipment when considering its suitability for use at this location or by designing appropriate
noise screening works. The proposed target levels for the plant would be that the rating
93
level (as defined in BS 4142 ) would be 5 dB(A) below the background noise level currently
existing at these sensitive locations. If this is not achievable full details would be provided to
94
justify why this is the case and an achievable noise level identified . The ambient noise
levels taken at the positions surrounding the site could be used to define the design noise
levels to the values shown in Table 10.6. By implementing these limits the effects of plant
noise associated with the proposed development would be not significant.
Table 10.6: Target Noise Levels for Plant Installed on Site
Reference Location
Target Noise Levels
Daytime, LAeq, 60 minutes
Night time, LAeq, 5 minutes
1. Broadwells Crescent.
Northwest boundary of site
41
27
2. Sheriff Avenue. North
boundary of site
47
27
3. Highwayman’s Croft.
Northeast boundary of site
28
25
4. Stoneleigh Way. Southeast
Boundary
49
23
5. Admin building. North
boundary of site
40
36
6. Close to Scarman Building.
West boundary of site
34
32
7. Warwick Arts Centre.
Centre of site.
42
38
8. Estates Building. South
boundary of site
33
29
10.5.3
Suitability for Residential Development
The proposed development includes two residential areas, to be situated to the northwest of
Scarman Road and to the east of the junction of Gibbet Hill Road and Cryfield Grange
Road. The nearest representative 24 hour noise monitoring locations to these sites are
Location 6 and Location 7 respectively. This data has been used to obtain daytime LAeq,
16-hr and night time LAeq, 8-hr for each of the proposed residential sites. These are
tabulated in Table 10.7 below:
93
BS 4142:1997 Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas, British Standards Institution,
1997
94
The requirements specified in Section 2.1 Step 2 of BCC Planning Guidance Note 1 would be met in this respect.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 194
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 10.7: Representative Daytime and Night-time Overall Noise Exposure Levels
for the Proposed Residential Developments
Noise Levels, dB(A)
Location
Daytime (16 hours,
07:00 – 23:00)
LAeq,16h
Noise Exposure Category
Night-time (8
hours, 23:00 –
07:00)
Daytime
Night-time
LAeq,8h
6
49
42
A
A
7
54
48
A
B
According to the criteria given in PPG24 the residential development Northwest of Scarman
Road is NEC Category ‘A’, both during the daytime and night time. Therefore, in
accordance with PPG 24, “Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting
planning permission”.
The residential site east of the junction of Cryfield Grange Road and Gibbet Hill Road is a
NEC Category ‘A’ during the day and NEC Category ‘B’ during the night time. Noise
Exposure Category ‘B’ encompasses a climate for which “noise should be taken into
account when determining planning applications and, where appropriate, conditions
imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise.” Therefore, in this case,
the noise climate should not prevent the granting of planning permission for this
development so long as it is considered during the design of the development, for example,
the specification of an appropriate building envelope which provides sufficient sound
insulation.
10.6
Impact Mitigation
General principles of construction site noise control would be followed according to the
95
guidance given in BS 5228: Part 1 . This requires that noise control measures would be
adopted according to ‘Best Practicable Means’ which includes measures such as
specification of plant equipment, hours of operation and HGV access routes. Specific noise
control practices could be agreed between the Contractor and the Warwickshire County
Council and Coventry Council if appropriate according to local requirements.
Construction noise may be reduced through provision of hoardings erected around the
perimeter of the site. In order to be effective at screening noise, this material would have a
mass per unit of surface area in excess of 7 kg/m². Plywood sheets attached to a suitable
scaffold frame are often used to create temporary screening for this purpose. If appropriate,
further screening would also be used to provide additional screening around long-term static
plant, such as generators, at locations where the boundary screening might not be effective
such as areas of raised ground where there might be line of site between source and
receiver.
Plant machinery such as generators or compressors would be positioned as far from noise
sensitive locations as possible and ideally in naturally screened positions. All plant
equipment would be adequately maintained to minimise noise emission. With these
measures in place it is considered that the residual effects would be not significant.
Experience has shown that construction noise can be largely mitigated by conducting a
sensitive public consultation exercise, which must start before the works on site commence.
A named person who can be contacted in the event of query or concern is also beneficial.
95
BS 5228 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites, British Standards Institution, 1997
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 195
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Continued public liaison throughout the works would alleviate many potential problems. The
parts of the development close to non-university properties may give rise to slight effects
during the initial stages of construction, particularly if piling is used for foundations, in which
event there maybe some short duration perceptible vibration and noise annoyance
experienced by residents. It should be noted that piling activities are likely to be short in
duration at any location and only undertaken during the normal working day and that whilst
vibration maybe perceptible it is highly unlikely to be of sufficient magnitude to give rise to
structural or cosmetic damage to properties.
Provided that the specification of any building plant and machinery results in target noise
criteria specified in Section 10.5.2 there would be no requirement for additional mitigation
from this range of sources.
The proposed development of these sites would not introduce any additional vibration
sources into the area. Any growth of traffic or site usage is not sufficient to expect there to
be any adverse vibration effects
10.7
Residual Impacts
It is considered that there would be no residual noise and vibration effects provided the
appropriate noise mitigation measures described above are put in place.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 196
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
11
Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Water Resources
11.1
Introduction
This chapter describes the assessment of potential environment impacts of the proposed
University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan with regards to water resources. The
chapter considers the current baseline conditions relating to surface and groundwater, and,
based on an understanding of the Main Campus Masterplan, predicts and assesses the
potential impacts on water resources.
This chapter adopts the following structure:
Section 11.2: Provides a description of the policy framework relating to water resources,
hydrology and hydrogeology;
Section 11.3: Describes the approach adopted by the assessment of impacts;
Section 11.4: Describes baseline hydrological and hydrogeological conditions at, and within
influence of the University of Warwick Main Campus;
96
Section 11.5: Provides a summary of the main findings of the Flood Risk Assessment
undertaken for the University of Warwick Main Campus;
Section 11.6: Describes the prediction and assessment of significance of potential impacts
to water resources;
Section 11.7: Identifies and describes mitigation measures to be adopted for potentially
significant impacts; and,
Section 11.8: Provides a description of residual impacts following mitigation.
The assessment of potential impacts relating to water courses is supplemented by findings
of a Flood Risk Assessment.
11.2
Policy Framework
11.2.1
National Policy
Water Framework Directive
97
The aim of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is to take a holistic approach to water
management, as water flows through a catchment from lakes, rivers and groundwater
towards estuaries and thence the sea. Surface and groundwater are to be considered
together, in both qualitative and quantitative terms. It’s key objectives are to prevent further
deterioration and protect and enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems and associated
wetlands, promote sustainable water consumption and contribute to mitigating the effects of
floods and droughts.
The WFD requires all inland and coastal waters to reach good status by 2015. This is to be
achieved through establishment of a river basin district structure. Within each district
98
environmental objectives would be set, including ecological targets for surface waters .
The Environment Act (1995)
99
The Environment Agency was established under the Environment Act (1995) . Under this
act the EA have the following duties;
•
Contribute to sustainable development;
96
University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan: Flood Risk Assessment, Ove Arup and Partners, August 2006
Water Framework Directive, Official Journal of the European Commission, European Commission, December 2000
98
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/wfd/index.htm
99
Environment Act, 1995, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office
97
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 197
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
Responsible for matters related to flood defences, for rivers demarcated as ‘main’
and groundwater;
•
Compile information related to pollution and follow developments in technology and
techniques; and,
•
Implement procedures for the identification, investigation and remediation of
contaminated land.
Water Resources and Pollution Control
The principal statutes of relevance to water resources and pollution control are the following:
100
101
•
The Water Act 2003 and Groundwater Regulations 1998 , which aim to improve
water resource management and promote water conservation;
•
The Water Act 1989 and the Water Industry Act 1991, which set out duties for public
water supplies and sewerage services; and,
•
The Water Resources Act 1991, which regulates water resources management, the
control of pollution to water resources, flood defence and the general control of
fisheries. The Water Resources Act specifies that causing or allowing polluting matter
to enter ‘controlled waters’ without permission is a criminal offence.
Water Supply
102
The Water Industry Act 1991 ensures that the provision of public water supply and
sewerage treatment is adequately regulated.
103
The Private Water Supplies Regulations came into force in 1992 and address the quality
of water from private supplies in England and Wales for drinking, washing, cooking or food
protection purposes. The Regulations supplement Chapter III of the Water Industry Act
1991. Parts II and III of the Regulations replace Parts II and III of the Water Supply (Water
Quality) Regulations 1989 as amended. The Regulations also implement Directive
80/778/EEC relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption.
The responsibility for enforcing the Private Water Supplies Regulations lies with local
planning authorities. As such, Local Authorities are responsible for regular monitoring and
sampling / analysis of the supplies in accordance with the Regulations. The quality is
defined by an acceptable range or limit, known as a Prescribed Concentration or Value for
specified parameters. Any non-compliance must be investigated by the local authority, and
remedial actions must be taken if there is a public health risk.
11.3
Assessment Approach
The impact of the proposed development on the local water environment is assessed in the
following desk based study.
11.3.1
Source Data
Baseline conditions of the water environment have been determined and described by
reference to the following sources of information:
•
1:10,000 Ordnance Survey Map, Sheet SP27/37, Pathfinder Series;
•
1:50,000 Ordnance Survey Map, sheet 139, Landranger Series;
100
Water Act, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 2003
Groundwater Regulations, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1998
102
Water Industry Act, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1991
103
Private Water Supplies Regulations 1992, Statutory Instrument 1991 No. 2790, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office,
1992
101
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 198
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
•
Geological maps published by the British Geological Society (BGS) including:
104
-
1:25,000 scale map of Bedrock Geology
;
-
1:25,000 scale map of Drift Thickness and Lithology
-
1:50,000 scale geological map:
105
;
Site investigation information on ground conditions from previous intrusive
106
investigations , including:
-
1994 Proposed New Car Park;
-
1983 Arts Centre and Social Studies buildings extensions;
-
1964 Original University of Warwick Site Investigation;
-
1991 New post-graduate residences;
-
1992 Manufacturing Systems Engineering building; and,
•
- 2002 Lakeside residences.
The Ground Conditions Chapter of this Environmental Statement;
•
The Flood Risk Assessment, produced by Arup
•
A Landmark Envirocheck Report for the Main Campus , which provides, among
others, comprehensive public domain information on EA licences and consents and
historical Ordnance Survey maps for the area;
•
Data held on the Environment Agency (EA) website relating to the indicative floodplain
mapping, water quality data and groundwater protection zones.
107
;
108
Based on this information it has been possible to:
•
Identify and locate all the significant existing and historic surface water and groundwater
features;
•
Describe the interaction between the surface water and ground water features;
•
Identify the 1 in 100 year floodzone associated with the main Campus;
•
Identify groundwater units, aquifers and possible sub surface flow paths; and,
•
Determine the existing water quality status in terms of the Environmental Quality
Standards (EQS).
11.3.2
Significance Criteria
Qualitative criteria for assessing the magnitude of the expected effect are given in
Table 11.1. Impacts may be permanent or temporary, and may have a negative
(detrimental) or positive (beneficial) impact on the environment. Impacts may have a local,
regional, national or international effect.
Table 11.1: Criteria for Impact Magnitude
Magnitude
Major
Impact
Permanent changes in the regional hydrological or hydrogeological
regime
104
Geology of the Coventry Area, Sheet SP 27/37, Map 1: Bedrock Geology, British Geological Society, 1990
Geology of the Coventry Area, Sheet SP 28/38, Map 3: Drift Thickness and Lithology, British Geological Society,
1990
106
Further details regarding Site Investigation data is provided in Chapter 13
107
University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan: Flood Risk Assessment, Ove Arup and Partners, August 2006
108
Envirocheck Report on University of Warwick, Grid Reference (429940, 275810), Reference 16812121-2-1,
Landmark Information Group, January 2006
105
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 199
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Magnitude
Impact
Medium
Permanent changes in the local hydrological or hydrogeological
regime
Some noticeable or temporary changes to the regional regime
Minor
Some noticeable or temporary changes to the local hydrological or
hydrogeological regime
Negligible
No perceptible changes to the hydrological or hydrogeological
regime
The sensitivity of the environment to each impact has been qualitatively assessed on the
basis of negligible, low, moderate or high descriptors. This has been based upon
experience and professional judgement with due reference to the effect magnitude criteria
above.
Both the ecological value and the hydrological value have been considered in determining
the area's sensitivity to change. A highly sensitive environment may be one which is
adjacent to a groundwater abstraction or other designated area, a moderately sensitive
environment may be an area of local importance but not designated, while a low sensitivity
environment may be represented by a water feature displaying low intrinsic water quality,
low ecological value and with no abstractions. Table 11.2 describes the significance criteria
adopted for the assessment.
Table 11.2: Impact Significance Criteria
Sensitivity
Effect Magnitude
Negligible
Low
Moderate
High
Major
Negligible
Minor
Moderate
Major
Medium
Negligible
Minor
Moderate
Moderate
Minor
Negligible
Negligible
Minor
Minor
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
11.3.3
Limitations, Constraints and Assumptions
The report is limited by the information that is currently available. The constraints and
limitations imposed by the information gathered have been documented. Site investigation
related directly to the water environment has not been undertaken at this time.
11.3.4
Consultation
Whilst undertaking the completion of this report the following organisations have been
consulted:
•
The Environment Agency;
•
Coventry City Council;
•
Warwickshire County Council;
•
Severn Trent Water; and,
•
The University of Warwick Estates Office.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 200
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
11.4
Baseline Conditions
11.4.1
Surface Water Features
The water features in this vicinity of the main Campus of University of Warwick are
described below and shown in Figure 2.4 and Figure 11.1.
Canley Brook
The most upstream extent of the Canley Brook is located approximately 3 km to the west of
the Central Campus. Canley Brook is designated by the EA as a Main River and begins by
flowing in a north-easterly direction for approximately 1 km, crossing the Coventry to
Birmingham Railway line before bearing eastwards for approximately 3 km. It then begins
to flow in an arc until it flows to the southwest through a low lying tract of land that separates
the Central Campus of the University from the Gibbet Hill Site, then continuing southwards
towards its confluence with the Finham Brook. It is joined by the Westwood Brook upstream
of the Tocil Lakes. The majority of the surface water runoff from the University Estate
eventually discharges to the Canley Brook
Westwood Brook
The watercourse that flows through the Central Campus East, to the east of Gibbet Hill
Road, is known as the Westwood Brook. The upstream extent of this watercourse is
located approximately 1.5 km northwest of the Main Campus. The watercourse begins by
flowing eastwards for approximately 1.2 km, before beginning to flow southwards for a
further 0.5 km, at which point it reaches the north of the Central Campus, at Kirby Corner
Road. The watercourse continues to flow as an open channel for approximately 100 m
through the grounds of the Varsity Pub before flowing into a culvert. This culvert transports
the flow for approximately 300 m underneath the Central Campus, before re-emerging into
an open channel and proceeding in a south-easterly direction. The Brook then arcs around
and flows to the southwest before discharging in the Canley Brook, upstream of the Tocil
Lakes. An unnamed tributary watercourse flows into the Westwood Brook, from the east,
downstream of the Central Campus.
Finham Brook
Finham Brook, designated as a ‘Main River’ by the EA, is a tributary of the River Sowe that
flows from the southeast to the northwest and flows into the River Sowe at Finham Sewage
treatment works. This watercourse is located 2.5 km south of the University Main Campus,
and is the receiving watercourse for the Canley Brook.
Tocil Lakes
The Tocil Lakes, located to the south of the Main Campus, were designed and constructed
109
in 1991 by the former National Rivers Authority (now the EA) . The Lakes are managed
by University of Warwick under the guidance of a 25 year management plan produced by
the EA. The lakes have been designed to act as treatment facilities to the water from the
Westwood Brook and Canley Brook, both of which collect surface water and treated effluent.
They also act as a natural wetland refuge and contain a range of habitats.
Heronbank Lake
The Heronbank Lakes are a series of four large linear ponds approximately 500m in length,
located within Central Campus West and enclosed by the Lakeside Residences, Heronbank
Residences, Warwick Business School and Radcliffe House. The artificial lakes feature
shallow and gently sloping margins, some of which are edged with wooden boards. The
northern end of the pond is separated from the remainder of the waterbody by an elm board
weir.
109
www.coventry-walks.org
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 201
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Minor Water Features
A total of fifteen water bodies have been identified at the Main Campus. In addition to the
Heronbank Lake and Tocil Lakes, a further thirteen smaller natural and artificial ponds and
lakes bodies are located across all four major areas of the Campus. Individual small and
medium sized lined ponds are to be found at the Westwood and Gibbet Hill Sites
respectively. A concrete lined ornamental water feature has been constructed within the
Central Campus East facing the Maths Building, while a larger, unlined pond lies to the east
of the Tocil Residences. The remainder of the ponds lie on the Central Campus West and,
with the exception of one small lined ornamental feature located in the vicinity of Radcliffe
House, are ‘natural’, unmanaged features.
11.4.2
Water Quality
Watercourses
110
Water quality data has been obtained from the Environment Agency and each
watercourse has been assessed in terms of its chemical water quality, its ability to support
life, the concentration of nitrates and phosphate levels. These indicators of water quality are
represented using the Environment Agency’s General Quality Assessment (GQA) system.
The GQA scoring system for chemical and biological water quality ranges from A - F, where
A represents very good quality and F represents bad quality. The GQA system for nitrates
and phosphates use a numerical score from 1 - 6, where 1 represents a very low
concentration and 6 represents excessively high concentrations.
Water quality data is shown in Table 11.3.
Table 11.3: Water Quality Data for Watercourses
Watercourse
Water Quality
Measurement
Location
GQA
(Chemical)
GQA
(Biology)
GQA
(Nitrate)
GQA
(Phosphate)
Finham Brook
Confluence with
Canley Brook
B
B
5
5
Canley Brook
Confluence with
Finham Brook
A
C
5
4
Based on the information presented in Table 11.3, it would appear that the chemical water
quality of the watercourses in the area is high, with the quality of water of the Canley Brook
at the confluence with the Finham Brook being recorded as Very High. This suggests that
the water flowing into the rivers is generally uncontaminated by chemical pollutants. This is
considered to reflect the rural catchment. Data collected on the Finham Brook, at the
confluence between the Finham Brook and the Canley Brook, suggests that the biological
health of these two watercourses is good.
It has been reported that signs of otters, water voles and white clawed crayfish have been
found within the River Avon catchment. These species have been identified within the UK
Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) as species requiring particular attention in terms of
conservation. Otters and Water Voles have also been included within the Local Biodiversity
Action Plan (LBAP). A more detailed discussion of impacts to aquatic habitats and species
is provided in Chapter 6.
All the watercourses in the area have high or very high measured concentrations of the
nutrients nitrate and phosphate. This is indicative of the rural nature of the river catchments
110
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 202
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
and the agricultural activity undertaken within them. Accordingly the area has been
classified as lying within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone.
There is no direct water quality data regarding the Westwood Brook, however, a good
indication of the environmental health of this watercourse can be given obtained using
observations from site visits and on nearby watercourses, particularly the Canley Brook and
the Finham Brook. Based on the measured water quality of these two watercourses, at
locations downstream of the inflow from the Westwood Brook, it is considered that the
chemical water quality of the Westwood Brook would also be expected to be high.
However, based on field observations, it is also expected that the watercourse is not
biologically rich due to the fact that it appears dominated by a low flow regime, resulting in
shallow depths at times of normal flows. Flows are also expected to be ‘flashy’ at times of
rainfall events, resulting in instances when the flow increases significantly over a short
period of time and then quickly falls back to normal conditions making it unfavourable to
most aquatic fauna.
In keeping with the observed water quality data it is expected that the nutrient
concentrations of the Westwood Brook are going to be high, due to diffuse pollution from
surrounding farmland.
Open Water Bodies
It has not been possible to obtain water quality data related to the open waterbodies within
the University Campus. Findings of the Amphibian Assessment (Appendix B.2) undertaken
as part of the wider suite of ecological assessments, has been used to inform the
assessment of surface water body quality.
The ecological assessment identified twenty separate waterbody features. The majority of
these are small artificial or semi natural ornamental features that have been landscaped and
probably have some kind of maintenance regime, which controls the amount and extent of
flora. However, some of these features support a healthy mix of aquatic, marginal and
bankside vegetation.
The amphibian survey yielded evidence of the presence of newts, toads and frogs living and
breeding within waterbodies within the Main Campus. In addition, fish and wildfowl were
also been recorded at some water bodies. Based on this information it is considered that
the water quality of the water bodies is ‘good’. Any restriction in the ecological status of the
waterbodies appears to be related to the landscaping of the water bodies, maintenance
regimes undertaken on the waterbodies and features such as roads that may impede
species migration routes, rather than the quality of the water contained within the features.
11.4.3
Water Abstractions
Details of the water abstractions in the vicinity of the University Campus have been obtained
as part of a Landmark Envirocheck Report. From this information it would appear that there
are four licensed abstractions from the Canley Brook within a radius of 2 km from the Main
Campus.
The Westwood Site is located within the ‘Total Catchment’ area of the groundwater ‘Source
Protection Zone’ for a public water supply borehole and there is another private licensed
borehole located within 2 km of the Main Campus.
11.4.4
Discharges and Pollution Incidences
Details of the discharge consents issued in the vicinity of the University Campus have been
obtained as part of the Landmark Envirocheck Report. Six discharge consents have been
issued by the EA for activities within a 2 km radius of the University of Warwick’s Main
Campus, all related to activities of Severn Trent Water. There are currently two permissible
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 203
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
discharges into the Canley Brook with details of a further four revoked discharge consents,
one into the Canley Brook and three into the Westwood Brook.
In addition to licensed discharges, details of two pollution incidences are reported in the
vicinity of the Campus. In 1995, oils found there way into a watercourse, approximately
1,000 m from the Main Campus. This caused a minor ‘Category 3’ pollution incident within
what is expected to be the Canley Brook. There is a further description of the Canley Brook
being polluted by petrol and/or diesel in 1999, again recorded as a minor incident.
It should also be noted that a Rolls Royce site, located within 1 km of the Main Campus,
operates integrated pollution control measures on its site, due to the potential risk materials
used.
11.4.5
Low Flow Regimes
The Canley Brook and Westwood Brook flow through areas of moderate development and
areas of a more rural nature. Both catchments are underlain by the Tile Hill Mudstone.
These two factors produce river systems with flow regimes that are fairly responsive to
rainfall events and have relatively small baseflow component. This regime can lead to
depleted flows during prolonged dry spells.
11.4.6
Geology and Hydrogeology
111
112
The relevant British Geological Survey (BGS) Sheet and Technical Report have been
inspected in order to understand the underlying geology across the Main Campus.
Figure 11.2 illustrates bedrock geology for the University of Warwick. The majority of the
northern extent of the University Campus is underlain by Carboniferous mudstone of the Tile
Hill Mudstone formation, inter-layered with sandstone deposits. This formation has been
classified a minor aquifer. These sandstone deposits form surface geological features at
various locations across the site running in east-west orientated bands. However, the vast
majority of the site is underlain by the mudstone component of the Tile Hill Mudstone
Formation which does not have water bearing potential.
Towards the south, particularly around to the west of the Central Campus, where the former
Cryfield House Farm is found, and at the southerly Gibbet Hill Site, the Kenilworth
Sandstone formation is found, also including a discreet layer of Gibbet Hill Conglomerate at
the southerly Gibbet Hill Site.
The site is shown to be bisected by the Princethorpe Fault, which runs approximately
west-east, following the line of the Scarman Residences, the Engineering building and the
Tocil Residences. A minor fault extends from this and bisects the western Central Campus
site.
113
British Geological Survey maps of drift deposits and solid lithology , show the absence of
drift and lithological features at the Main Campus, although alluvial deposits are shown
running in strips approximately east-west and north-south, following the orientation of
surface water courses.
Solid geology surrounding the site differs little from the range of features encountered
directly below the University. Predominant geology is formed by the mudstone layered with
bands of sandstone of the Tile Hill Mudstone formation, while from Gibbet Hill southwards,
the Kenilworth Sandstone formation becomes dominant, with its Gibbet Hill Conglomorate
lenses exposed in places.
111
Solid and Drift Geology Sheet 184, 1:50,000, British Geological Survey
Geology of the Coventry Area: Technical Report WA/89/29, British Geological Survey, 1990.
113
Geology of the Coventry Area, Sheet SP27/37 1:25,000, British Geological Survey
112
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 204
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Based on the available information for the site, the underlying geology is anticipated to be
as described in Table 11.4:
Table 11.4: Outline Description of Underlying Stratigraphy
Stratum
Description
Thickness (m)
Surface Materials
Made Ground
Silty, sandy clay.
Sometimes found with
rootlets and
construction related
debris
Sealed constructed surface or re-worked and ex-situ
superficial soil materials reworked.
1 – 2 m depth
Alluvium drift
Clay, silt and gravel
formed by river
deposition
Surface feature that is followed by existing
watercourses such as Canley Brook and Westwood
Brook
Weathered
material
Silty sandy clay
Up to 6 m thick
Apparently weathered deposits of mudstone and
sandstone from Kenilworth, Gibbet Hill and Tile Hill
formations
And / or
Bedrock Geology
Kenilworth
Sandstone
Massive, thick, coarse
grained persistent
sandstones with
subordinate lenticular
mudstones
Localised outcrops but none located within the
existing site. Although there is an outcrop located in
the vicinity of Cryfield House
Varying permeability within formation, dependent on
lithology
Gibbet Hill
Conglomerate
Conglomerate
Thin outcrop located to the south at Gibbet Hill
Found as part of Kenilworth Sandstone Formation
Water bearing lithology
Tile Hill
Mudstone
Formation
Sequence of
mudstones interbedded with thin
sandstone lenses.
Study site dominated by outcrops of mudstone, with
a lens of sand rich strata located to the north
Expected to extend to up to 300 m bgl at the
University
Considered an Minor Aquifer with horizontal water
flow possible in some weathered bands
Coventry
Sandstone
Sandstone and
mudstone
conglomerated
Not encountered at or in the vicinity of the University
of Warwick Main Campus
Water bearing lithology
Keele
Formation
Mudstone with
sandstone bands
Only proven by boring, with no known outcrops
Varying permeability with flow dominant in sandstone
bands
Previous site investigations undertaken on the Main Campus area, discussed in Chapter 13,
failed to find significant evidence of water in near surface materials. Below the surface,
superficial materials tend to be dominated by sandy silty clay, presumably formed from
weathered mudstone and alluvial deposits, extending 2 to 6 m to the Tile Hill mudstones
and sandstones. Owing to predominance of clay and silt and to its grading distribution, flow
in these superficial materials is expected to be poor.
Given the dominance of the Tile Hill Mudstone formation across the site, together with its
mix of relatively impermeable mudstone and sandstone bands, groundwater flow is
expected to be dominated by horizontal flow within the more permeable sandstone bands
and follow the local surface topography. It is therefore expected that at the northern
Westwood Site there would be a local flow of groundwater to the southeast. Similarly the
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 205
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
outcrop of Kenilworth Sandstone, located to the Central Campus West is expected to result
in localised flow again to the southeast while groundwater from Gibbet Hill is expected to
flow to the northeast.
Underlying the Tile Hill Mudstone are strata of water-bearing Coventry Sandstone and Keele
Formation. BGS maps show no outcrops of Coventry Sandstone within close proximity to
the Main Campus and it was not encountered in any of the site investigations considered.
The wider Coventry and Warwick region features no known outcrops of the Keele
Formation.
Environment Agency online records further indicate that the Westwood Site and the
northernmost extents of Central Campus East fall within the total catchment that contributes
to a public water supply borehole, although these still remain outside source protection
zones. In addition to public water supply boreholes, private abstraction boreholes are
located within the vicinity of the University of Warwick, the closest located within the
Westwood Business Park, located approximately 1.3 km up-gradient of the west of the Main
Campus.
Past and present land uses give no indication that groundwater quality may have been
lowered. The urbanisation of the local area has been facilitated by the gradual and careful
expansion of the University Main Campus and some business development. Prior to this
the area was greenfield.
11.4.7
Surface and Foul Water Drainage
Surface water runoff within the overall catchment is currently collected from both external
paved areas including roads (via gullies and channel drainage) and roof areas (via rainwater
down pipes). These gullies and down pipes are connected locally through numerous piped
systems, some of which discharge into the network of open drainage channel which cross
the University Estate and some discharge directly to open water features. Within the
Lakeside Residences and Heronbank surface water infrastructure are three below ground
3
detention tanks of 360, 150 and 90 m and their respective discharge rates are 10.6 l/s, 8.4
l/s and 5.0 l/s. These proprietary detention tanks control and attenuate the surface water
flows before discharging into the water feature lakes in that area.
A significant percentage of the site’s surface water runoff is pumped into the Westwood
Brook via a large pumping station, located in front of the Engineering Block on University
Road. This pumping station contains two lift pumps which discharge surface water runoff
into an adjacent breakhead chamber. This is not a storm ancillary and is in operation for all
surface water flows generated during precipitation in that part of the Campus catchment.
Two of the surface water detention tanks serving the Lakeside Residences have pumping
station ancillaries to lift the attenuated flows into breakhead chambers, for controlled gravity
discharges into the adjacent lakes.
In addition, a small surface water drainage sub-catchment is located on the Gibbet Hill Site.
The surface water system of pipes and open structures all outfall directly into the Canley
Brook.
11.5
Flood Risk
114
In accordance with PPS25 a full Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) of the site has been
undertaken. The findings of this document are described briefly below.
All sources of flooding have been considered within the FRA. Accordingly the following
considerations have been addressed and suitable mitigation measures have been put
forward which account for the changes proposed in the development plan.
114
University of Warwick Development Plan Flood Risk Assessment, Ove Arup and Partners, 2006
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 206
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
11.5.1
Fluvial Flooding
Part of the University catchment lies within the 100 year fluvial floodplain of the Canley
Brook. However, no above ground infrastructure lies within this floodplain. During
consultation with the Environment Agency it was agreed that no fluvial hydraulic modelling
would be required for the Canley Brook, as a previous study had adequately mapped the
floodplain
The Environment Agency did require fluvial modelling of the Westwood Brook as part of this
FRA, along its reach where it might influence development on the University Campus. On
this basis a 1-D hydraulic model was constructed for the Westwood Brook. Water levels
and flows were obtained for the 20%, 10%, 4%, 2% and 1% annual exceedence probability
AEP flood events (5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year return periods)
The model results indicate that the 1 in 100 year flow can be expected to remain within the
bank. However, when the flow is increased by 20% or 30% to allow for climate change
water begins to overlap the banks. This occurs in the vicinity of the junction between
University Road and Library Road. The flow would be out of the bank on the left tributaries
and may affect the Existing Academic Square.
11.5.2
Groundwater Flooding
Flood risk from high groundwater has been considered. However, based on the information
received from site investigation and geological reports it is not believed that high
groundwater is a significant problem in the area. Despite this, it is suggested that services
are installed at shallow depths to prevent them from being affected by groundwater and that
groundwater is considered particularly in the construction phase of the development.
11.5.3
Overland Flow of Surface Water
Flood risk from overland flow has been considered. Areas where potential problems could
exist have been identified based on the topography of the site and anecdotal reports.
However, the FRA has fed into the design process of the development plan by providing
appropriate drainage routes for surface water to direct it away from buildings.
11.5.4
Capacity Exceedence of Artificial Drainage Systems
Flood risks from the existing artificial drainage systems have been considered. It is not
believed that there is any historical problem associated with the existing drainage system,
however, the existing drainage system does rely on pumping stations. Surface water
drainage has been considered in the Masterplan over and above the flood risk assessment
and sustainable drainage systems, which mimic natural infiltration and reduce reliance on
the pumping stations, have been proposed.
11.5.5
Infrastructure Failure
In terms of infrastructure the following failures have been taken into consideration:
•
Flooding may occur as a result of a water main failure. To combat this finished floor
levels and building thresholds should be set with due regard for potential overland flow
paths;
•
Flooding may occur as a result of failure of a on site pumping station at either/or
Lakeside/Heronbank and Engineering Road due to loss of power during an extreme
storm event. Surface water drainage has been considered in the Masterplan over and
above the Flood Risk Assessment and sustainable drainage systems proposed; and,
•
Failure of a wooden dam construction at the Heronbank lakes. The risk of this can be
mitigated by modifying the dam structure and the configuration of the lakes so that the
lakes discharge in the opposite direction.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 207
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
11.6
Impact Assessment
The following provides a description of the key potentially significant impacts that the
proposed Main Campus Masterplan may cause with regard to the water environment.
Impacts have been predicted and assessed assuming simultaneous development of all
facilities and therefore may be considered to represent to worst case scenario.
It is accepted that an increase in the developed impermeable area may lead to an increased
risk of flooding. As a result, it is now a requirement to inform the planning process of how
flood risk is to be mitigated against at the time planning permission is sought. For the
University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan, flood risk is examined in detail in the Flood
115
Risk Assessment and summarised in Section 11.5. Issues related to flood risk would not
be addressed in this chapter unless other issues, not related to flooding, arise from a
particular activity.
11.6.1
Construction Phase
Construction works undertaken within undeveloped areas may lead to a reduction in the
ground surface permeability ability and thus a reduction in water infiltration. In the initial
stages of construction, this is caused by the movement of machinery compacting ground,
although as construction progresses, natural ground may becomes replaced by areas of
temporary or permanent hard-standing.
The effects of reduced infiltration are:
•
An increase in surface water run-off following rainfall events, leading to increased flow
rates in watercourses and flood risk. The impact of this would be moderate adverse in
significance;
•
A reduction in groundwater recharge and disruption of groundwater flow paths.
However, as the majority of the site is underlain by the relatively impermeable Tile Hill
Mudstone, surface water infiltration is not considered to support ground water flow and
the potential impact is considered negligible.
Earthworks and ground excavations may expose sub-surface waterbearing strata and
ground water seepage may require dewatering and off-site disposal. Seepage and
migration of groundwater may contribute to a lowering of local groundwater levels and
settlement within underlying strata. Owing to the insignificant rates of seepage reported
during previous ground investigations, the impact of this is likely to be negligible. Similarly,
the impact to groundwater levels and flow–paths, and interaction with surface waters, as a
result of dewatering or piling are expected to be negligible, due to the limited extent of
water bearing strata under the site.
Disposal of water from the dewatering process may cause pollution of surface waters.
Given adherence to best practice and the Environment Agency Pollution Prevention
Guidance Notes, the impact of this would be likely to be negligible.
Excavations may disturb sediment, which can be transported and deposited within
waterbodies and watercourse across and downstream of the Main Campus. Additional
sediment inputs may reduce visibility and light penetration, bury habitats and reduce
dissolved oxygen, ultimately harming aquatic life. Given the sensitivity of aquatic species at
the Main Campus, in particular great crested newts and water voles, this would be expected
to result in an impact of moderate adverse significance.
Construction activities may introduce the potential risk of surface water and groundwater
pollution from spillages or leakages of construction related materials. Spilt fuel and oils may
115
University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan: Flood Risk Assessment, Ove Arup and Partners, August 2006
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 208
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
potentially migrate into watercourses and groundwater, either through direct infiltration or via
mixing with rainwater run-off. While a significant spillage incident, located close to sensitive
receivers would result in an impact of major adverse significance, adherence to best
practice guidance through a Code of Construction Practice would reduce the risk, and the
impact of such an incident. Impacts of less significant spillages and more isolated receptors
would result in moderate adverse and minor adverse impacts. The impact caused by
residual spillages and contamination throughout the construction phase would be expected
to be negligible.
11.6.2
Operational Phase
Construction of individual facilities would inevitably result in the permanent loss of
permeable surface and replacement with finished hard-standing. The effects of reducing
the ground’s ability to allow water infiltration are:
•
An increase in quantity and flow of surface water run-off from rainfall events, leading to
increased flood risk. Given the scale of the proposed gross external area to be
developed, the impact of this may be considered moderate adverse in significance;
and,
•
A reduction in groundwater recharge, together with disruption of groundwater
flow-paths. As the Tile Hill Mudstone, which has been reported by site investigation
data to display low seepage rates, the potential impact is considered to be negligible.
A further result of the increase in impermeable surface may be a change in the quantity of
sediment, particularly sediment from roads contaminated with hydrocarbons, ultimately
discharged to surface watercourses and water bodies. Given the desire to minimise
increase in vehicle traffic at the Main Campus, and that the majority of traffic would use the
current road network, the significance of this impact is considered minor adverse.
Residual and ongoing release of contaminants to the surface water environment may be
expected as a result in increased human intervention and vehicular activity across
previously undeveloped areas. However, since the Main Campus Masterplan seeks to
minimise generation of additional vehicle traffic, increases in residual vehicular
contamination are expected to be minor. As vehicles would continue to be restricted from
environmentally sensitive areas the impact would be expected to be minor adverse in
significance.
The Main Campus Masterplan seeks to increase the numbers of staff and students at the
University of Warwick. An increase may result in a corresponding increase in local water
consumption and waste water production. As the water supply network of the West
Midlands is considered adequate to support the expected rise in population, the impact of
water consumption would be negligible. Provision of adequate onsite and offsite facilities
to manage waste water would ensure that the potential impact of waste water is minor
adverse.
11.7
Mitigation Measures
11.7.1
Construction Phase
Ground permeability can be retained by limiting ground compaction during the construction
process. In addition, materials can be used in the construction processes that are designed
to allow water to infiltrate, whilst being robust enough to allow building works to continue. In
addition, these mitigation measures would help prevent any increase in the risk of flooding.
Dewatering of the site is likely to have a negligible impact. However, dewatering should
only be undertaken when it is absolutely necessary and the effects of dewatering should be
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 209
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
monitored and checked regularly. The use of cut-offs is preferable but again should only be
used where appropriate.
The release of sediments to the water environment, during the construction phase can be
limited by the adoption of sediment control measures such as sediment traps and fences.
This would reduce the impact of increased sedimentation on the surface water environment
to minor.
Chemicals and fuel oils would be stored in a bunded area within the site compound. This
area would also be used for refuelling of the vehicles. The bund would be designed
116
according to CIRIA guidelines on Construction of Bunds for Oil Storage Tanks and the
design would be agreed with the Environment Agency prior to construction. The area would
be secured to prevent unauthorised access or vandalism and fuel tanks would be locked
when unattended. The bunded area would be constructed to ensure that no infiltration into
the ground could occur and that all drainage would be collected and passed through both a
petrol interceptor (fitted with a stop valve) and silt trap prior to discharge. Maintenance,
including regular inspection, of the bunded area would be undertaken.
All site personnel would be trained in both normal and emergency procedures in order to
reduce the likelihood and minimise the impact of a pollution incident.
Pollution control equipment would not only be stored in the site compound, but also on
machinery, as appropriate. Drip trays would also be carried and used on all machinery.
All repair and maintenance work to machinery would be carried out off site, where
practicable. Only emergency repairs would be carried out on site.
These procedures should reduce the risk of a large spillage and ensure that the impact of
day to day activities is negligible.
11.7.2
Operational Phase
The permeability of ground can be retained in developed areas by using appropriate
materials for areas of hard-standing that allow infiltration and by landscaping so that areas
of natural vegetation are retained. If these measures are combined with an appropriate
drainage system, as discussed in the FRA, the impact of the development can be reduced
to negligible, in terms of both groundwater recharge and flood risk.
Contamination of watercourses by day to day releases of contaminants and sediments can
be mitigated against by employing petrol interceptors and sediment traps within the design
of the surface drainage system designed for the site. The installation of these would ensure
that the impact of the development is negligible.
The expected increase in water use and waste water production can be mitigated against by
ensuring that the service suppliers are informed of detailed Masterplan proposals as they
evolve. This would ensure that their future planning takes the expansion of the University
into account and so the level of service is not affected.
11.8
Residual Impacts
Without appropriate mitigation measures the most significant impact on the water
environment related to the proposed developments would be the effect of sediment releases
on aquatic flora and fauna, during construction. This can be mitigated against by employing
appropriate sediment control measures during construction. All other impacts of the
development are likely to be negligible even without further mitigation.
116
P A Mason, H J Amies, G Sangarapillai et al, 1997. Construction of Bunds for Oil Storage Tanks, CIRIA R163
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 210
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
12
Ground Conditions and Contamination
12.1
Introduction
This chapter describes the ground conditions at the University of Warwick Main Campus
and the potential implications in terms of delivering the Masterplan in terms of ground
contamination. The chapter is structured as follows:
Section 12.2: Provides a discussion of the planning, policy and legislative requirements that
have informed the assessment of potential impacts to ground conditions;
Section 12.3: Discusses the approach to the assessment of environmental impacts relating
to ground conditions at the site;
Section 12.4: Provides a description of the baseline ground conditions at the site, including
an outline assessment of the potential for the site to include statutory
117
contaminated land ;
Section 12.5: Assesses the potential impacts of the proposed development on ground
conditions at the University of Warwick site;
Section 12.6: Describes appropriate mitigation measures in order to reduce the potential for
the proposed Masterplan to impact upon ground conditions; and,
Section 12.7: Provides a description of potential residual impacts that may be expected
following implementation of proposed mitigation measures.
12.2
Policy Framework
12.2.1
National Planning Framework
Land contamination is regulated under the following legislation: Part IIA of the
Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990; the Water Resources Act of 1991; the Water Act
of 2003 and national and local planning controls. Relevant national and local policies
relating to ground contamination have been referenced as a basis for the assessment and
principal legislation and policies are described below.
Environmental Protection Act, 1990
National legislation on contaminated land is principally contained in Part IIA of the
Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (Part IIA), which was retrospectively inserted as
118
Section 57 of the Environment Act 1995 in April 2000 through Circular 02/2000. The
Part IIA legislation endorses the principle of a ‘suitable for use’ approach to contaminated
land, where remedial action is required only if there are unacceptable risks to health or the
environment, taking into account the use of the land and its environmental setting.
The legislation places a responsibility on a Local Authority to determine whether the land in
its administrative area is contaminated and describes a Risk Assessment methodology to
support such identification. Three components are required in order to describe a pollutant
linkage:
A ‘contaminant’: A substance which is in, on or under the land and which has the potential
to cause harm or to cause pollution of controlled waters;
117
Section 78A(2) defines contaminated land for the purposes of Part IIA as “any land which appears to the Local
Authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition that (a) significant harm is being caused or there is a
significant possibility of such harm being caused; or (b) pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be,
caused”.
118
Environment Act 1995 (c. 25), Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), 1995
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 211
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
A ‘receptor’:
Either a living organism, a group of living organisms, an ecological system
or a piece of property; or a controlled water, and,
A ‘pathway’:
One or more routes or means by or through which a receptor is being or
could be exposed to, or affected by, a contaminant.
The risk assessment process defines land as ‘contaminated’ where it is satisfied that the
pollutant linkage:
“(i)
is resulting in significant harm being caused to the receptor in the pollutant
linkage,
(ii)
presents a significant possibility of significant harm being caused to that
receptor,
(iii)
is resulting in the pollution of the controlled waters which constitute the
receptor, or
(iv)
is likely to result in such pollution.” (Paragraph A.19)
For land to be determined as ‘contaminated land’, all three elements (i.e. source, pathway
and receptor) of a pollutant linkage must be present.
Water Resources Act 1991
Section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 relates to ‘Anti-pollution works and
operations’ and entitles the Environment Agency (EA) to serve a Works Order on a person
or persons who ‘caused or knowingly permitted’ pollution of controlled waters (which
includes both surface waters and groundwater). The Water Resources Act further provides
the broad description of ‘Controlled Waters’ upon which this, and subsequent legislation, is
based.
Water Act 2003
The Water Act of 2003 gives powers to the Environment Agency that enable it to better
manage the balance of water supply and quality between the needs of society and the
environment. The Water Act revises definitions in Part IIA of the EPA 1990 (referred to
above) by defining contaminated land in terms of ‘significant pollution’, rather than simply
‘pollution’. The Act also clarifies that groundwater above the saturated zone (perched
waters) are not ‘controlled waters’.
Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS 23): Planning and Pollution Control
Remediation of historic land contamination is largely managed through the planning regime.
119
Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS 23) discusses specific issues related to Planning and
Pollution Control and Annex 2 specifically deals with development on land affected by
contamination, describing the roles of the parties involved in the development process, the
information to be provided where ground contamination is known, or suspected to be an
issue, and the process of assessing planning applications and imposing planning conditions.
Paragraph 49 of Annex 2 describes how Local Planning Authorities need to be satisfied that
the development does not create or allow the continuation of unacceptable risk arising from
the condition of the land in question or from adjoining land. In particular, it should satisfy
itself that existing significant pollutant linkages would be broken by removing the source,
blocking the pathway or removing receptors and that the development would not create new
pollutant linkages by changing or creating exposure pathways, for example creating new
pathways to groundwater by site investigation drilling or piling.
119
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2004
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 212
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
PPS 23 further provides a wider definition of unacceptable risk to that of Part IIA, extending
to consider current and future risks, while the range of receptors is also wider and includes
general fauna and flora, landscape and amenity.
Paragraph 55 of Annex 2 describes Local Planning Authority (LPA) responsibilities with
respect to contaminated land:
“The LPA should be satisfied, therefore, that the risks have been properly assessed
and, if there is an unacceptable risk, the options appraised sufficiently to identify a
viable remediation scheme that would reduce the risks to acceptable level, just as it
would with a full application. Outline permissions should not be granted until the LPA
is satisfied that it understands the contaminated condition of the site and that the
proposed development is appropriate as a means of remediating it.”
12.2.2
Regional Planning Framework
West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG 11)
120
The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy provides no specific guidance for
development with respect to contaminated land. Nevertheless, Policy QE1 on Conserving
and Enhancing the Environment requires that local authorities and other agencies should
ensure plans, policies and proposals:
“iii)
protect and where possible enhance other irreplaceable assets and those of a
limited or declining quantity, which are of fundamental importance to the
Region’s overall environmental quality, such as specific wildlife habitats
(Annex B), historic landscape features and built heritage, river environments
and groundwater aquifers;”
Development Plans and other strategies contain policies that promote environmental
improvements as a means of regenerating areas of social, economic and environmental
deprivation (Policy QE.2).
12.2.3
Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996-2011
121
Policy ER.1 in the Warwickshire Structure Plan , relating to ‘Natural and Cultural
Environmental Assets’ describes that Local plans should therefore include policies and land
allocations which ensure that:
“…development meets all appropriate pollution control, ground water protection,
water conservation and flood control requirements”.
Policy ER.2 on Environmental Impact of Development further requires that:
“The environmental impact of all proposed development on human beings, soil,
fauna, flora, water, air, climate, the landscape, geology, cultural heritage and material
assets must be thoroughly assessed, and measures secured to mitigate adverse
environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local plans should include policies to
ensure this takes place.”
In requiring that contaminated land should be remediated prior to further development at a
site, Policy ER.2 continues:
“The impact of existing sources of environmental pollution on the occupants of any
proposed new development should also be taken into account. All assessment of
environmental impact should take account of, and where possible seek to reduce,
uncertainty over the implications of the proposed development. If adverse impacts
cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development would not be permitted”.
120
121
Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands: RPG 11, Government Office for the West Midlands, June 2004
Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996-2011, Warwickshire District Council
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 213
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
12.2.4
Local Planning Framework
Coventry Development Plan 2001
122
Policy EM6 in the Coventry Development Plan
development on contaminated land as follows:
2001 specifically relates to permitting
“only if any measures for remediation and protection required to ensure the health
and safety of the development proposed and its users are identified and
implemented”
“3.20 Where there is reason for concern that a source of contamination on or near the
development site would, having regard to the nature of the development proposed,
threaten health and safety the applicant would be responsible for the carrying out an
investigation of conditions by a competent body…”
Warwick District Local Plan
Policy relating to contaminated land within the Warwick District Local Plan
within policy DP9 referring to pollution control:
123
is described
“Development would only be permitted which does not give rise to soil contamination
or air, noise, radiation, light or water pollution where the level of discharge, emissions
or contamination could cause harm to sensitive receptors.
Where there is evidence of existing land contamination, it would be necessary to
ensure that that the land is made fit for its intended purpose and does not pose an
unacceptable risk to sensitive receptors”.
12.3
Assessment Approach
12.3.1
Methodology
The review of primary national and local policy relating to ground conditions and soil
contamination above describes the requirements for identifying contaminated land and
developing land so that it is fit for its intended purpose and does not pose an unacceptable
risk to sensitive receptors. This assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from the
proposed development, relating to ground conditions and contamination, has been
undertaken with the aim of addressing the proposals for development of the University of
Warwick, as described by the Masterplan, against the relevant policy issues.
Primarily, the assessment recognises the presumption against undertaking development in
any area where the presence of contamination at the site is capable of representing a risk to
public health or the environment. The assessment therefore assesses baseline conditions
with respect to the potential for areas of the University of Warwick to be classed as
‘contaminated land’. Baseline geological and hydrological conditions at the site are
described, while potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors are identified from
the best available sources. Based on this information, a qualitative risk assessment
identifies the potential for a pollutant linkage capable of resulting in significant harm or
significant risk of significant harm, as required by national and local policy.
The assessment then further considers the potential for implementation of the Main Campus
Masterplan to affect this situation. Potential changes in contaminants, pathways and
receptors, both resulting from temporary construction activities and from the long-term use
of the University on delivery of the Main Campus Masterplan are considered. A further
qualitative risk assessment is made to identify the potential for development to introduce a
pollutant linkage capable of resulting in significant harm or significant risk of significant
122
123
Coventry Unitary Development Plan, Coventry City Council, December 2001
Warwick District Local Plan, First Deposit Version, November 2003. Approved May 2005
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 214
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
harm. Significance criteria have been developed in order to qualify the extent of risk. This
is included in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1: Significance Criteria for Impacts to Ground Conditions
Degree of
Significance
Ground Condition and Contamination Criteria
Severe
Severe irreversible detrimental effect to human health or irreversible
reduction in the quality of a potable groundwater or surface water resource of
local, regional or national importance.
Irreversible or severe detrimental effect on animal or plant populations.
Irreversible detrimental effect to nationally important geological feature.
Irreversible detrimental effect to building structure resulting in collapse or
demolition.
Major
Irreversible moderate detrimental effect to human health. Temporary or
irreversible reduction in the quality of a potable groundwater or surface water
resource of local, regional or national importance.
Irreversible or severe temporary detrimental effect on animal or plant
populations.
Irreversible detrimental effect to nationally important geological feature.
Irreversible detrimental effect to building structure resulting in collapse or
demolition.
Moderate
Long-term minor or short-term moderate detrimental effect to human health.
Slight or moderate, local-scale reduction in the quality of potable groundwater
or surface water resources of local, regional or national importance,
reversible with time.
Reversible widespread reduction in the quality of groundwater or surface
water resources used for commercial or industrial abstractions.
Medium-term, reversible detrimental effect on animal or plant populations.
Medium-term, reversible detrimental effect to nationally important geological
feature.
Detrimental effect to building structure requiring remedial engineering works.
Minor
Short-term minor detrimental effect to human health.
Temporary, slight or moderate detrimental effect in the quality of groundwater
or surface water resources that are used for, or have the potential to be used
for, commercial or industrial abstractions.
Short-term, reversible detrimental effect on animal or plant populations.
Short-term, reversible detrimental effect to nationally important geological
feature. Detrimental effect to building structures not requiring remedial
engineering works.
Negligible
No appreciable impact on human, animal or plant health, potable
groundwater or surface water resources or geological feature of importance.
12.3.2
Source Data
The information used to establish the baseline ground conditions for the assessment has
comprised:
•
124
125
Geological maps and technical reports published by the British Geological Society
(BGS) including:
124
-
1:25,000 scale map of Bedrock Geology
;
-
1:25,000 scale map of Drift Thickness and Lithology
-
1:50,000 scale geological map:
125
;
Geology of the Coventry Area, Sheet SP 27/37, Map 1: Bedrock Geology, British Geological Society, 1990
Geology of the Coventry Area, Sheet SP 28/38, Map 3: Drift Thickness and Lithology, 1990
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 215
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
-
The relevant BGS technical report for the Coventry area;
126
127
•
A Landmark Envirocheck Report for the University Campus which provides, among
others, comprehensive public domain information on Environment Agency licences and
consents and historical Ordnance Survey maps for the area;
•
Data held on the Environment Agency (EA) website, including groundwater zone maps;
and,
•
Site investigation information on ground conditions from previous intrusive investigations
including:
128
-
1994 Proposed New Car Park
-
1983 Arts Centre and Social Studies buildings extensions
-
;
1964 Original University of Warwick Site Investigation
;
130
;
131
-
1991 New post-graduate residences
-
1992 Manufacturing Systems Engineering building
-
2002 Lakeside residences
12.3.3
129
;
132
; and,
133
.
Limitations and Assumptions
The assessment assumes that the historical maps and site investigation data reviewed
provide a reasonable indication of the potential for ground contamination beneath the site.
However, it is possible that ground contamination may exist beneath the site arising from
land uses or events not revealed on or adjacent to the site by the available mapping and
intrusive studies.
No additional boreholes, trial pits or other sampling of the ground has been undertaken to
investigate environmental ground conditions within the site boundary as part of this
assessment. The results of previous geotechnical site investigations have been used as a
supplementary data source and where appropriate, their results extrapolated for other areas
of the University of Warwick site. However, independent validation of these reports has not
been completed.
12.4
Baseline Conditions
12.4.1
Geology
The relevant British Geological Survey (BGS) Sheet and BGS Technical Report including
1:25,000 maps of bedrock geology and drift lithology have been inspected in order to gain
an understanding of the underlying geology across the University Campus. Figure 11.2
illustrates bedrock geology for the University of Warwick.
The majority of the Main Campus, including the Westwood Site and Central Campus is
underlain by Carboniferous mudstone of the Tile Hill Mudstone formation, which is interlayered with sandstone lenses. These sandstone deposits form surface geological features
126
Geology of the Coventry Area: Technical Report WA/89/29, British Geological Survey, 1990
Envirocheck Report on University of Warwick, Grid Reference (429940, 275810), Reference 16812121-2-1,
Landmark Information Group, January 2006
128
Proposed New Car Park: Geotechnical Appraisal – Factual Report, Integrated Geotechnical and Environmental
Services Ltd, December 1995
129
Warwick University Estates Office: Extensions to Arts Centre Phase III and Social Studies Building, Factual Report,
Exploration Associates Ltd, 1983
130
University of Warwick, Report on Site Investigation, Felix J Samuely and Partners, 1964
131
New Post Graduate Residences, University of Warwick, Factual Report on Ground Investigation (H1174-A),
Exploration Associates, June 1991
132
New Manufacturing Systems Engineering Building, University of Warwick, Interpretive Report on Ground
Investigation (112422), Exploration Associates, November 1992
133
Ground Investigation for Lakeside Residences II at University of Warwick, Coventry, Report No. 238, Peel and
Fowler, April 2002
127
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 216
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
at various locations across the site, running approximately in east-west orientated bands.
Towards the south of the Campus, including areas of Central Campus West where the
former Cryfield House Farm is found, and at the southerly Gibbet Hill Site, the Kenilworth
Sandstone formation, which overlies the Tile Hill Mudstone, is indicated to outcrop at the
surface, with a discreet layer of Gibbet Hill Conglomerate shown to outcrop at the southerly
Gibbet Hill Site.
Underlying the Kenilworth Sandstone and Tile Hill Mudstone formations are sandstones of
the Coventry Sandstone formation and Keele formation, however the thickness of the Tile
Hill Formation in this region is considered to be between 250 m and 300 m thick. BGS
maps indicate no outcrops of Coventry Sandstone in the vicinity of the University Main
Campus, and no outcrops of the Keele Formation in the Coventry and Warwick region.
The site is shown to be bisected by the Princethorpe Fault, which runs in an approximate
west-east direction, following the line of the Scarman Residences, the Engineering Building
and the Tocil Residences. A minor fault extends from this and bisects the western Central
Campus site.
134
British Geological Survey maps of drift deposits and solid lithology , show the absence of
drift and lithological features at the Main Campus. However, the larger scale 1:50,000 BGS
map of combined bedrock and surface geology indicates alluvial deposits running in strips
approximately east-west and north-south, following the orientation of surface water courses.
Solid geology surrounding the site differs little from the range of features encountered
directly below the Main Campus. Predominant geology is formed by the mudstone layered
with bands of sandstone of the Tile Hill Mudstone formation, while from Gibbet Hill
southwards, the Kenilworth Sandstone formation becomes dominant, with its Gibbet Hill
Conglomorate lenses exposed in places.
Based on the combination of previous site investigation data and other geological
information for the site, the geology underlying the University of Warwick is anticipated to be
as described in Table 12.2:
Table 12.2: Outline Underlying Stratigraphy
Stratum
Description
Thickness (m)
Surface Materials
Made Ground
Silty, sandy clay.
Sometimes found with rootlets
and construction related debris
Sealed constructed surface or re-worked and
ex-situ superficial soil materials reworked
1 – 2 m depth
Alluvium drift
Clay, silt and gravel formed by
river deposition
Surface feature that is followed by existing
watercourses such as Canley Brook and
Westwood Brook
Weathered
material
Silty sandy clay
Up to 6 m thick
Apparently weathered deposits of mudstone
and sandstone from Kenilworth, Gibbet Hill
and Tile Hill formations
And / or
Bedrock Geology
134
Geology of the Coventry Area, Sheet SP27/37 1:25,000, British Geological Survey, 1991
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 217
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Stratum
Description
Thickness (m)
Kenilworth
Sandstone
Formation
Massive, thick, coarse grained
persistent sandstones with
subordinate lenticular
mudstones
Localised outcrops but none located within the
existing site. Although there is an outcrop
located in the vicinity of Cryfield House
Varying permeability within formation,
dependent on lithology
Contains lenses of Gibbet Hill Conglomerate
Tile Hill
Mudstone
Formation
Sequence of mudstones interbedded with thin sandstone
lenses.
Study site dominated by outcrops of
mudstone, with a lens of sand rich strata
located to the north
Expected to extend to up to 300 m bgl at the
University
Considered an Minor Aquifer with horizontal
water flow possible in some weathered bands
Coventry
Sandstone
Sandstone and mudstone
conglomerated
Not encountered at or in the vicinity of the
University of Warwick Main Campus
Water bearing lithology
Keele
Formation
Mudstone with sandstone
bands
Only proven by boring, with no known outcrops
Varying permeability with flow dominant in
sandstone bands
12.4.2
Previous Site Investigation Data
Site investigations undertaken at various locations across the University of Warwick’s Main
Campus over the period since it was established in 1964 have been used to inform the
understanding of ground conditions at the site. These investigations, undertaken in
preparation for construction of various structures, provide geotechnical borehole and trial pit
information on areas illustrated in Figure 12.1 and are summarised below:
University of Warwick Site Investigation, 1964135
This investigation, undertaken at the centre of Central Campus East, around the current
Library and Engineering Buildings, included drilling 18 boreholes to a maximum depth of
12 m below ground level (bgl). Made ground was not encountered and the ground
conditions were found to comprise alluvial and other weathered deposits to a maximum
depth of 3 m bgl, beyond which the mudstone and sandstone were encountered. Water
was encountered during boring through the mudstone and sandstone but quantities were
recorded as ‘light’.
Soil and water were not subject to specific chemical testing but the results reported and field
observations made provided no evidence to support the presence of soil or water
contamination. Soil samples were tested to assess foundation vulnerability and it was
summarised that sub-soil was ‘not aggressive to ordinary Portland cement’.
Arts Centre and Social Studies Buildings Extensions, 1983136
As part of a geotechnical ground investigation at the Central Campus East, 11 boreholes
were sunk to depths ranging between 2.5 m and 5.1 m bgl at the site of the current Arts
Centre and Social Studies Building.
Investigations discovered Made Ground, comprised of between 0.6 m and 2.9 m of fill
material, overlying stiff, fissured silty clay which rapidly became thinly laminated mudstone,
within which boreholes were halted. Two boreholes were terminated in coarser siltstone
and sandstone found at a similar depth. Groundwater was not encountered and the
135
University of Warwick, Report on Site Investigation, Felix J Samuely and Partners, 1964
Warwick University Estates Office: Extensions to Arts Centre Phase III and Social Studies Building, Factual Report,
Exploration Associates Ltd, 1983
136
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 218
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
investigation logs and report provides no evidence in support of the presence of
contamination at the site.
Post-graduate Residences, 1991137
Three boreholes were drilled at the southeast of the Central Campus East, currently location
for the Arthur Vick residential accommodation. Made ground, comprising of surface
materials thought to have been locally re-worked during construction and adjacent locations
was discovered overlying weathered silty clay. Weathered bedrock mudstone and siltstone
was found at all locations prior to termination of drilling on discovery of sandstone at depths
between 3.5 m and 7.6 m bgl. Groundwater was not observed in the made ground and
superficial weathered clay, although it was encountered emanating from the sandstone layer
in two of the boreholes. The investigation report provides no evidence in support of the
presence of contaminated material at the site.
Manufacturing Systems Engineering Building, 1992138
A total of five boreholes were drilled to depths between 3.5 m and 4.0 m bgl at the current
location of the International Manufacturing Centre, located at the centre of the Central
Campus East. Made ground, comprising of fill material moved during previous construction
activity on adjacent sites was discovered above a layer of between 2.3 m to 2.5 m of alluvial
material. These superficial deposits overlaid weathered mudstone with sandstone bedrock
strata discovered at between 2.8 and 3.5 m bgl. Groundwater ingress was encountered,
generally emanating from the sandstone layer between 2 m and 3 m below ground level.
Although no specific chemical testing was carried out, the investigation provided no
evidence in support of the presence of contaminated material at the site.
Proposed New Car Park, 1994139
Five trial pits were dug into the location now occupied by Car Park 15 in Central Campus
East, to depths up to 3.2 m bgl. The excavated pits showed a surface of made ground,
possibly disturbed materials from previous construction, overlying sandy, silty clay, with
weathered sandstone and mudstone encountered at between 1.1 and 2.1 m deep.
Although no specific chemical testing was carried out, the investigation reports provide no
evidence in support of the presence of contamination at the site.
Ground Investigation for Lakeside Residences II, 2002140
This investigation, located within Central Campus East comprised 10 boreholes to a
maximum depth of 4.45 m bgl together with 23 trial pits to depths of 3.6 m bgl. This
investigation found a surface material of sandy silty clay, sometimes in the form of reworked
made ground as a result of fill from adjacent construction activities, grading with increasing
depth into a very weak inter-bedded mudstone, siltstone and sandstone. Seepage from the
superficial fill material was not observed, with most boreholes and trial pits reported as dry.
The investigation reports provide no evidence in support of the presence of contamination at
the site.
Site Reconnaissance Survey, 2006
th
A site reconnaissance survey was carried out on 16 March 2006 in order to identify specific
evidence of potential soil contamination. The walk-over survey included areas of the
137
New Post Graduate Residences, University of Warwick, Factual Report on Ground Investigation (H1174-A),
Exploration Associates, June 1991
138
New Manufacturing Systems Engineering Building, University of Warwick, Interpretive Report on Ground
Investigation (112422), Exploration Associates, November 1992
139
Proposed New Car Park: Geotechnical Appraisal – Factual Report, Integrated Geotechnical and Environmental
Services Ltd, December 1995
140
Ground Investigation for Lakeside Residences II at University of Warwick, Coventry, Report No. 238, Peel and
Fowler, April 2002
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 219
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Central Campus, Westwood Site and Gibbet Hill Site targeting locations identified from
historical mapping as both sensitive locations and potential sources of contamination.
No specific areas of potential contamination were identified from the walkover survey. All
chemical storage areas and electricity sub-stations surveyed were in visibly good condition,
adequately bunded and without visible signs of soil contamination or spillage. With the
exception of areas adjacent to recent construction, undeveloped land was free from visible
evidence of made ground and no further sources of potential contamination either within, or
on the periphery of the University land were observed.
12.4.3
Hydrogeology and Hydrology
Previous site investigations undertaken on the Main Campus area (as described above)
failed to find significant evidence of water in near surface materials. Below the surface,
superficial materials tend to be dominated by sandy silty clay, presumably formed from
weathered mudstone and alluvial deposits, extending between 2 and 6 m bgl to the Tile Hill
mudstones and sandstones. Owing to the predominance of clay and silt and to its grading
distribution, flow in these superficial materials is expected to be poor and not water-bearing.
Given the dominance of the Tile Hill Mudstone formation across the site, together with its
mix of relatively impermeable mudstone and sandstone bands, groundwater flow is
expected to be dominated by horizontal flow within the more permeable sandstone bands
and to follow the local surface topography. The Tile Hill Mudstone formation is reported to
comprise a high proportion of silt and, though classified by the Environment Agency as a
Minor Aquifer, is not expected to support significant groundwater flows given the
composition in terms of silt and fine sand. Although ultimately underlain by sandstones of
the Coventry Formation and the Keele Formation, which are considered capable of
supporting significant groundwater flows, the thickness of the Tile Hill Formation is
described as varying between 250 m and 300 m, and vertical migration to these sandstone
layers is not expected.
It is therefore expected that at the northern Westwood Site there would be a local flow of
groundwater to the southeast. Similarly the outcrop of Kenilworth Sandstone, located to the
Central Campus West is expected to result in localised flow again to the southeast while
groundwater from Gibbet Hill is expected to flow to the northeast.
141
Environment Agency online records indicate that the Westwood Site and the
northernmost extents of Central Campus East fall within the total catchment that contributes
to a public water supply borehole, although these still remain outside source protection
zones. In addition to public water supply boreholes, private abstraction boreholes are
located within the vicinity of the University of Warwick, the closest located within the
Westwood Business Park, located approximately 1.3 km up-gradient of the west of the
Central Campus.
A number of watercourses and water bodies are to be found within influence of the Main
Campus. These are presented in Table 12.3 and illustrated in Figure 11.1.
141
www.environment-agency/maps/
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 220
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 12.3: Surface Water Features within and Surrounding the University of
Warwick
Watercourse
Notes
Canley Brook
Originating to the south of Coventry, it flows flow in a gentle arc through the
low lying tract of land separating the Central Campus from the Gibbet Hill
Site, before continuing southwards to the Finham Brook
A small unnamed watercourse flows from the east of Whitefield Coppice and
joins the Canley Brook near Cryfield Grange
Westwood Brook
Flows through the Central Campus to the east of Gibbet Hill Road
Transports via a culvert for approximately 300 m underneath the Central
Campus, before remerging into an open channel
Discharges into the Canley Brook upstream of the Tocil Lakes
Tocil Lakes
Located to the south of the Central Campus East
Designed to act as treatment facilities to water from the Westwood Brook and
Canley Brook
Provides refuge for protected species and supports a range of habitats
Heronbank
Lakes
Located towards north of Central Campus West
Comprise of two manmade landscaped lakes with a total length in the order
of 500 m
Minor
Waterbodies
Lined ornamental ponds located at all of the four main areas of the Main
Campus
Unlined small and medium sized ponds located
12.4.4
Historic Uses and Potential Site Contamination
The potential for occurrence of ground contamination at the site is considered to be directly
related to past and current use of land at, and in the immediate vicinity of, the Main
Campus. The following Section discusses the potential presence of sources of ground
contamination based on an assessment of historic site use.
Site Overview
Ordnance Survey Maps dating back to 1905/1906 show the site, with the exception of the
Old Brickyard Plantation, to be undeveloped and comprised of agricultural land. The site
itself appears to have been occupied by few residential properties, comprising only of
Cryfield House Farm, Tocil House Farm, Gibbet Hill Farm and cottages adjacent to the Old
Brickyard Plantation. While maps from 1938 show no further signs of development, maps
dated 1955 illustrate a significant increase in residential properties surrounding the current
Main Campus and the establishment of the footprint of the Coventry Teacher Training
College on the northerly Westwood Site. With the exception of the farms discussed above,
the Central Campus and Gibbet Hill Site appear to have remained undisturbed and used
only for agriculture prior to establishment of the current University Buildings.
There is no known contamination at the site and results of geotechnical site investigations
carried out at five locations across the Central Campus show no evidence supporting the
presence of pollution or contamination, although this aspect was not the primary focus of
th
any of the investigations. In addition, a site reconnaissance survey, carried out on 16
March 2006 identified no specific evidence of soil contamination, relating to current site
activities.
Central Campus East
With the exception of Tocil House Farm and surrounding agricultural land, the University of
Warwick appears to have been the first development on Central Campus East. Starting with
construction of the Library and Engineering Building, the site has gradually been developed
since 1964 to include academic and social facilities, administrative offices, access roads
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 221
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
and car parks, and a Central Boiler House and electricity substation. Other areas remain
landscaped recreational land including the Tocil Lakes, which were constructed at the south
of the Central Campus.
Results of geotechnical site investigations conducted at a number of locations across the
Central Campus East between 1964 and 2002 have provided no further evidence for soil
contamination beyond suggesting the presence of reworked fill material from adjacent
construction activities and no known areas of contamination were identified.
A potential source of contamination at the site is the Central Boiler House and the
associated adjacent electricity sub-station. Potential contamination at the Boiler House may
result from fuel and oil spills, ash disposal and transformer oil spillages from the electricity
sub-station, although there is no evidence to support this gathered from the site walk-over
survey. While chemical storage areas and smaller scale electricity sub-stations are found at
other locations across the Central Campus East, during site visits these were all observed to
be in good condition, securely bunded and showing no visible evidence in support of
contamination.
Potential localised contamination may be present below the site of the previous Tocil House
Farm, which was removed for development of the University’s Tocil Residences. While
historical storage and spillage of fuel oils and agricultural chemicals, together with
demolition activities have the potential to introduce contamination, although no evidence to
either confirm or deny this view has been gathered.
Central Campus West
Historical OS maps dated between 1905 and 1973 show the western side of Gibbet Hill
Road to be undeveloped, occupied only by the Cryfield House Farm and agricultural land
and Old Brickyard Plantation. Development of University facilities started in the mid 1970s
since when, a number of residential halls and academic facilities have been established.
Geotechnical site investigations for the Lakeside Residences, conducted in 2002, provided
no evidence to support the presence of previous activity or associated contamination at the
site. While items of inert construction waste were recorded in surface materials, these are
considered to result from construction activities on adjacent sites and no evidence of
previous in-situ activity was found.
To the south of Central Campus West are the University Sports Pitches which, although
originally requiring land to be levelled, retain the land’s undeveloped character.
While it is considered possible that the Old Brickyard Plantation may originally have been a
clay pit used by a brick works shown on historical Ordnance Survey maps, historic mapping
also shows the area to have been a plantation since before 1906 and neither the presence,
or composition of fill material is currently considered to represent a source of contamination.
Previous use of Cryfield House Farm is considered to have had the potential to introduce
localised soil contamination through storage and spillage of fuel oils and agricultural
chemicals. The buildings of Cryfield House Farm remain intact and have now been
absorbed into the University infrastructure.
Westwood Site
Physically separated from the Central Campus area, the Westwood Site did not form a part
of the original University development but was included with the absorption of the Coventry
Teacher Training College in 1977-78. While original dates of establishment of activity
remain unknown, historical maps of 1938 show the site to be yet undeveloped, OS maps
dated 1955 clearly show building footprints. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that by 1945
the site had been occupied by a parachute factory.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 222
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The site is currently location for residential and academic facilities together with wider
recreational areas including tennis courts and an athletics track. There further remain areas
of landscaped gardens.
Owing to an absence of site investigation data for the Westwood Site, the presence or
absence of soil contamination remains unknown. Changes in building footprints shown on
historic Ordnance Survey maps suggests that Westwood may be the only part of the site at
which redevelopment has already taken place. As a result, surface fill material may contain
demolition waste including possible construction asbestos and hydrocarbons remaining from
previous oil storage tanks.
Gibbet Hill Site
Historical maps show that prior to inclusion within the earliest phase of the University
development in 1964, the elevated Gibbet Hill area remained occupied only by Gibbet Hill
Farm. Subsequent expansion has resulting in increased development of offices and
academic facilities.
While an absence of site investigation data for the site is unable to confirm the absence or
otherwise of contamination at Gibbet Hill, previous agricultural use and possible
redevelopment of the farm’s buildings presents the possibility of localised contamination
caused by uncontrolled storage and use of domestic and vehicle fuel and agricultural
chemicals.
Possible Offsite Contamination
Historic Ordnance Survey maps show that a site located to the immediate north of Central
Campus West has been occupied for small industrial use since prior to 1905. Originally
location for a brickworks, use had changed to that of a sawmill by 1968, which remains its
current use. Potential ground contamination resulting from use in timber processing may
result from spillage of chemical preservatives used to treat timber and potential infiltration
into the subsoil.
A landfill site is known to be located adjacent to the south of the Central Campus West’s
boundary with Canley Brook and was licensed by the EA between 1987 and 1991 to accept
inert waste. Site reconnaissance was unable to identify the extent of this feature but its
physical separation by the Canley Brook, date of closure and the nature of materials
accepted suggest that it is unlikely to present a contamination risk.
Surrounding the boundary of Central Campus East, land-use is, and historically has been,
primarily residential. Historical maps have provided no evidence of potentially
contaminating sources with the exception of a sewage works, displayed on maps published
since 1955, just beyond the site boundary adjacent to the Tocil residences.
Owing to the residential use in surrounding areas, there appears to be no potential sources
of contamination adjacent to the Westwood Site.
Table 12.4: Potential Sources of Contaminations
Area
Westwood
Site
Previous
Contaminating
Activity
Potential
Contamination
Sources
Possible redevelopment
activities resulting in mixing
demolition waste with ground
material
Asbestos and fuels
(hydrocarbons)
Spillage of fuels used in
boilers and heating
Fuels (hydrocarbons)
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 223
Comments
Only areas subject to previous
redevelopment
Presence of demolition waste
unconfirmed
Presence of demolition waste
unconfirmed
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Area
Central
Campus
East
Previous
Contaminating
Activity
Potential
Contamination
Sources
Spillage of heating fuels used
at the Central Boiler House
and other unknown locations
Spillage from electrical
sub-stations Electrical
Gibbet Hill
12.4.5
Fuels (hydrocarbons)
Transformer Oils
(Polychlorinated
biphenyls)
Hydrocarbons
Transformer facilities appear clean
and adequately bunded
Spillage of agricultural
chemicals at Tocil House
Farm
Migration from off-site
sewage works
Fuels (hydrocarbons)
No development expected on Tocil
House Farm Footprint
Sulphates, ammonia,
nitrates and
phosphates
Spillage of fuels and
agricultural chemicals at
Cryfield House Farm
Migration of off-site
contamination from landfill
south of Canley brook
Hydrocarbons,
pesticides, herbicides
Separated from University Campus
by Canley Brook
No known contamination
No development expected on
footprint of Cryfield House Farm
Migration of off-site
contamination from saw-mill
to north of boundary
Organic solvents and
preservatives
Polyaromatic
Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons
Pesticides, herbicides
Spillage from chemical
storage at various locations
Central
Campus
West
Comments
Landfill contaminants
Spillage of fuels agricultural
chemicals at Gibbet Hill Farm
Storage facilities appear clean and
adequately bunded
Separated from University Campus
by Canley Brook
No known contamination
No known evidence of contaminant
migration
No development expected on
Gibbet Hill Farm footprint
Current Contaminant Pathways
In order to assess the whether baseline soil contamination may represent a risk to human
health, ecology and controlled waters, the following Section discusses potential current
contaminant pathways that might provide a link between contaminant sources discussed
above, and potential receptors.
Leaching with Groundwater
There is no evidence that ground conditions at the Main Campus may support leaching of
contamination with groundwater. Site investigation reports show surface soil to comprise
primarily of well graded silty clays which, in comparison with more granular sands and
gravels, provide low permeability and limit groundwater flow and contaminant leaching. The
lack of vertical and horizontal groundwater flow is supported by previous site investigation
data, which reported that in the majority of trial pits and boreholes, groundwater seepages
were not observed in the superficial materials.
Below the superficial material, the Tile Hill Mudstone is considered capable of providing
local flow paths for groundwater, particularly in weathered sandstone and siltstone bands.
Nevertheless, for the majority of borehole and trial pit investigations penetrating the Tile Hill
Mudstone considered by this assessment, seepage was not observed and holes remain
‘dry’.
Although the site is ultimately underlain by water bearing sandstone layers of the Coventry
Formation and the Keele Formation, there are no outcrops of water bearing soils within the
University Campus. The thickness of the Tile Hill Mudstone, as described by the BGS
142
Technical Report is considered sufficient to provide an aquaclude between surface
contamination and the aquifer and building foundations are not expected to extend into the
142
Geology of the Coventry Area: Technical Report WA/89/29, British Geological Society, 1990
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 224
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
aquifer. Although building foundations depths are unconfirmed, they are considered unlikely
to exceed the depth of the Mudstone stratum.
The potential for contamination to leach with groundwater is therefore considered to be low,
owing to the limitations of groundwater flow in surface materials.
Transport along Buried Services
While results of previous site investigations have suggested that superficial soil materials at
the site have low permeabilities and support only low rates of groundwater leaching, high
permeability gravel used as bedding for sub-surface water and gas utilities introduces
contamination paths capable of transferring contaminant or contaminated groundwater at far
higher rates. In the case of the University of Warwick, buried services may provide a
potential pathway for sub-surface transportation of contamination.
Airborne Pathways
Airborne transmission of soil contamination does not currently represent a significant
contaminant pathway. While asbestos particles are suited to airborne transmission, there is
no known asbestos contamination at the Campus. Owing to the possibility of previous
demolition and redevelopment, it is considered possible only for the Westwood Site. In the
absence of physical excavation, containment of soil contamination beneath either sealed
made ground or landscaped amenity land limits susceptibility to airborne pathways.
Mixing with Surface Waters
Direct mixing of contaminated soil with surface water, either directly through mixing
contaminated soil with surface waters, or via rainfall run-off to adjacent areas is not
expected. The University Campus comprises no known areas of contaminated land, and
with the exception of surrounding agricultural areas, surfaces remain either sealed made
ground, or landscaped amenity land and not susceptible to erosion.
Direct Transportation of Contamination
Direct transportation of contaminated land is not currently expected. In the absence of
construction activities, excavation of soil, or accidental travelling of unmade ground is not
practiced.
12.4.6
Current Contamination Receptors
In order to complete the assessment of the site’s risk to human health, ecology or controlled
waters, the potential for receptors to be influenced by the pollutant-receptor pathway must
be examined. The following discussion identifies potential receptors of contamination at the
site.
Human Beings
The University provides a sensitive location in terms of human occupation and utilisation.
Residential premises are located across the Central Campus and the Westwood Site, while
all areas are routinely occupied for educational and administrative purposes.
Ecological Systems
Ecological systems are present at various locations across the University and discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 6. Notable ecological communities include species using
watercourses and water bodies across the Main Campus, in particular the Canley Brook, the
Tocil Lakes and the remaining 18 standing water bodies.
Agriculture and Crops
A proportion of the site, along with and much of its surroundings, are comprised of
agricultural land.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 225
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Property and Buildings
The University is the location for a number of built structures and is surrounded to the north
by residential and commercial development of Coventry.
Controlled Waters
Surface waters at the University include the Tocil Lakes, Canley Brook and Westwood
Brook and are described in detail in Section 12.4.3.
12.4.7
Existing Risk of Contamination
Based on the available information, there is no evidence to suggest that implementation of
the University of Warwick’s Main Campus Masterplan, or individual aspects contained within
it, are constrained by the presence of soil contamination. In addition to a lack of evidence
supporting the presence of contamination, ground conditions and other environmental
factors are not considered to provide suitable pathways capable of transporting
contamination to suitable receptors. While transport via the network of buried services may
provide a pathway for migration, wider exposure beyond buried services, to allow exposure
to humans, controlled waters and wider ecological receptors, is constrained by low
permeability soil conditions.
The absence of a suitable source, pathway, receptor relationship removes the possibility of
the site posing a significant risk to human health, environmental conditions or controlled
waters.
In the absence of evidence suggesting the introduction of potentially degrading
contamination and pathways, soil conditions are not considered to represent a risk to the
integrity of current building foundations.
12.5
Impact Assessment
In order to assess the potential environmental impacts relating to ground conditions and
contamination, the following section describes the expected changes in contamination,
pathways and receptors that may be realised at the site resulting from implementation of the
Masterplan. Through consideration of the change in the key parameters which determine
the extent of environmental risk, environmental impacts are described for the scheme.
12.5.1
Changes in Potential Contamination Sources
Construction activities related to the Main Campus Masterplan may have the potential to
introduce contamination into the current ground conditions through a number of means.
Redevelopment of current facilities, as proposed by the Masterplan, would provide the
potential for potentially contaminated demolition waste to be introduced into ground
conditions. Of particular concern would be the potential for contamination to be introduced
through mixing asbestos from construction materials and hydrocarbons and waste resulting
from heating systems and services.
A further potential contamination source during construction activities may be provided
through the need for construction plant, vehicles and compounds. Construction related
infrastructure would provide potential sources of contamination, notably through storage and
spillage of fuel of plant and facilities. Construction damage to facilities and services may
provide further sources of contamination to be introduced to soil at the site.
Potentially the most notable impact to soil contamination at the site would be through loss of
natural soil surface and increase in the amount of inert made ground that would be
encountered at the site. In addition to the provision of built structures, roads, parking and
other infrastructure would result in a large increase in the area covered by, albeit inert,
made ground.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 226
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The need for construction activities is expected to require the use of fill material for
earthworks. Owing to the lack of absence for contamination of on-site materials, use in-situ
soil is not considered to represent a significant risk to ground conditions, although reused
materials should be chemically tested to confirm there suitability. Similarly, where import of
off-site fill material is required, use of regulated sources would provide no additional risk.
12.5.2
Changes in Transmission Pathways
Earthworks and excavations required during construction activities may introduce the
potential to expose current subsurface soil contamination and provide airborne pathways.
Notably, due to the nature of construction activities, the physical size of this pathway may be
most significant to construction workers and to visitors to the site. Exposure of
contamination to wind and dry weather also increases the risk of both wind-born and surface
run-off transmission of contamination. While dry and windy construction conditions could
increase airborne contamination to adjacent land, heavy rainfall on exposed earthworks can
erode contaminated soil or mobilise contamination and carry it to other areas, surface
waters or sensitive receptors.
It is not considered that leaching of groundwater-borne contamination is likely to increase
either as a result of construction activities, or implementation of the Main Campus
Masterplan provisions. Superficial fill material is not expected to change its properties and
retain its low vertical and horizontal permeability. While piling and boring within the Tile Hill
Mudstone is conceivable, this is not expected to exceed depths of 15 m below ground level
and the aquaclude preventing migration of surface contamination to the underlying
waterbearing strata of Coventry Sandstone and the Keele Formation would be maintained.
However, if piling depths are to exceed these limits, or the minor aquifer is encountered
shallower than expected, consideration should be giving to foundation options that limit
vertical movement of perched groundwater and avoid the creation of vertical migration
pathways.
It is expected that the increase in built facilities at the University Campus would result in an
increase in associated underground utilities. As a direct consequence, the sub-soil
contamination migration pathways, in the form of the bedding gravel surrounding gas, water
and other piped services, may also increase. Development would also result in a long-term
increase in the quantity of sealed made-ground which, while effectively capping potentially
contaminated soil, would also serve to increase the paved area and pathway for
transmission of by surface water and rainwater run-off.
12.5.3
Changes in Potential Receptors
Implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan would see an increase in both human
receptors during construction, and in long-term residents and occupants of the completed
facilities. In contrast to the increase in human population, the extent of agricultural land at
the University would decrease. Consequently, the extent of built environment and in
particular, building foundations would increase.
Proposals described in the Masterplan are not expected to result in any change to the
controlled waters or ecological receptors in the vicinity of the Main Campus.
12.5.4
Significance of Impacts
In order to assess the significance of impacts on ground conditions resulting from
implementation of the University of Warwick’s Masterplan, the potential changes in sources,
pathways and receptors anticipated by development are considered below. Criteria
described in Table 12.1 have been used as the basis for estimating the significance of
impacts identified.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 227
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Construction Impacts
In the event of encountering contaminated soil at the site, remediation may be necessary.
The remediation strategy adopted would depend on the scale and characteristics of
contamination and in most cases may result in the need for either off-site disposal of
contaminated materials and replacement with inert fill and/or treatment in situ. As the Code
of Construction Practice would be expected to require that materials are transported by a
licensed waste carrier to an appropriate waste management facility, it is expected that offsite impacts caused by the need for disposal are determined to represent negligible
impacts. Earthworks required for the construction of individual facilities may require the
import of material. Where this is drawn from regulated sources or adjacent land subject to
investigation prior to construction, the impacts are expected to be negligible.
The current Main Campus Masterplan includes proposals for demolition and redevelopment
of a number of University facilities. Given the potential presence of contaminants within the
fabric of structures earmarked for redevelopment, demolition and redevelopment activities
may result in introduction of contamination to the ground through mixing of construction
debris with the surrounding soil. Given the limited redevelopment proposals, the result of
introducing additional contamination through demolition is determined to represent a minor
adverse impact.
During construction, earthworks activities would require excavation of surface materials.
The proximity of construction workers and site users with potentially contaminated areas
may represent a direct health risk which should be mitigated by use of site management
controls. In this event, the potential for human health to be damaged by means of inhalation
and ingestion of airborne contamination is determined to represent a minor adverse
impact.
Wind-borne transmission and rainwater run-off of contaminated soil, where exposed to sun,
wind and rain, also presents a risk to the surrounding environment. Where construction is
carried out in the vicinity of surface waters and residential residences, such migration of
exposed soil this would be expected to represent a minor adverse impact.
The potential for ground contamination to be introduced through construction plant and
associated activities would be related to the timescale and geographic distribution of
construction activities expected. Owing to the scale of the Masterplan, the potential for
spillage of oil, fuel and other construction related substances to contribute to ground
contamination is expected to represent a minor adverse impact.
Operational Phase Impacts
Long-term impacts to human health are not expected to be significant as the site surface
would be sealed and end users protected from direct exposure to any potential ground
contamination. Similarly, long-term impacts to controlled waters are not expected as
contamination encountered during construction activities would be identified, removed and
treated.
Implementation of the Masterplan would result in a reduction in natural surface soil
conditions and see an increase in Made Ground. Given the inert nature of construction
materials this Made Ground would provide a negligible impact on ground conditions.
The increased potential for migration of potential current or future soil contamination through
pathways provided through the provision of increased underground services would
represent a minor adverse impact. Although the presence of contamination at the site is
not considered to represent a risk, construction activities would be expected to make a
substantial contribution to increasing the quantity of underground utilities and potential
contamination migration pathways. The result of this would be to increase the potential for
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 228
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
future pollution incidents to result in contamination and hazards to health, ecosystems and
controlled waters.
Increased human access to and use of the Main Campus would accordingly increase the
potential for accidental spillage of potentially contaminating materials. Owing to the end
land-uses proposed by the Masterplan focussing on academic and residential uses,
materials would not be expected to represent significant risk to human health or ecology and
the impact from potential events is determined to be minor adverse.
12.6
Impact Mitigation
12.6.1
Mitigation During Construction
The assessment has determined that there is no evidence to support the presence of
contaminated land within the University of Warwick. However, owing to the absence of
chemical site investigation data for the entire campus, the presence of local pockets of
pollution cannot be eliminated. It is recommended that in order to mitigate the potential for
future environmental impacts relating to contaminated land and ground conditions,
precautionary mitigation measures be adopted.
Prior to construction, environmental site investigation data should be obtained to identify the
potential presence of soil contamination. In the event of discovery of areas of soil
contamination, a remediation strategy would be required for each area found.
Construction activities, including any remediation deemed necessary, would require the
Contractor’s adherence to a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). The CoCP would
describe the range of measures to mitigate potential impacts of construction activities and
be developed in accordance with all relevant legislation for the protection of surface water
and groundwater prior to commencement of site activities. The CoCP would include:
•
Site health and safety provisions and training, including those for workers, visitors and
surrounding people;
•
Locations of site construction compounds;
•
Methods to limit unauthorised access to areas of excavation;
•
Measures for handling and storage of contaminating materials including fuels in line with
current EA guidance and good practice;
•
Regulations for transport and disposal of materials, including contaminated soil;
•
Approved sources of inert fill for use in earthworks; and,
•
Appropriate measures for management of dust, contaminated dust, drainage and
rainwater run-off.
While there is no evidence of contamination at the site, due care and consideration must be
given to the treatment of made ground during redevelopment work. While reuse of inert
demolition material would result in a lower impact to off-site disposal facilities, construction
must take adequate measures to ensure all potentially contaminated fill is removed for
controlled disposal. Prior to demolition activities, the University’s Asbestos Register should
be consulted and surveys of individual buildings undertaken to identify the presence of
asbestos or other potentially contaminating material.
Where encountered, adequate provision must be made to ensure that such contaminated
demolition materials and contaminated spoil arisings are disposed of to a licensed site in
covered vehicles, under Duty of Care. Similarly, groundwater must be disposed of to foul
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 229
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
sewer under consent, or stored securely prior to controlled discharge to a licensed
wastewater treatment plant.
12.6.2
Mitigation During Operation
Management of the developed Main Campus throughout its lifetime would require
adherence to site management controls. In particular, the risk of introducing new
contaminants that may represent a risk to human health, ecological receptors or controlled
waters would require that handling and storage of material is carried out according to best
practice guidelines and in accordance with Environment Agency and Health and Safety
regulations.
12.7
Residual Impacts
The previous undeveloped nature of much of the Main Campus and the absence of known
contamination at the site provides limited risk of contamination at the site. Through ensuring
that prior to construction of individual Masterplan components, environmental site
investigation data is obtained and construction activities are directed accordingly, no further
impacts to ground conditions are expected.
Providing that appropriate mitigation measures are successfully implemented during
construction of individual facilities, and subject to the results of specific investigations
beneath footprints of proposed buildings, implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan is
not expected to result in a significant risk to the health and safety of site workers, end users
or site neighbours from contaminated ground remaining on the site. In addition, there
should be no significant impact to construction materials.
Residual long-term impacts to soil conditions would further be prevented with
implementation of the following measures:
•
Adequate site management controls would ensure that potentially contaminating
materials are handled and stored according to best practice guidance, and accordance
with Environment Agency requirements;
•
Leaks and spills of materials are investigated in a timely and full manner to ensure
appropriate remediation of impacts; and,
•
Adjacent sites do not introduce potential soil contamination which is capable of causing
trans-boundary impacts.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 230
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
13
Services
13.1
Introduction
This chapter provides a summary of a review of the existing utility services at, and within the
vicinity of, the University of Warwick’s Main Campus. In addition to identification of the
baseline utility services, it seeks to assess the impacts of implementation of the Main
Campus Masterplan on service provision.
This chapter is structured as follows:
Section 13.2: Describes the general approach adopted by the discussion of services and
utilities;
Section 13.3: Provides a description of the current situation relating to services and utilities
at the Main Campus; and,
Section 13.4: Provides a description of the potential impact of the Masterplan on services
and utilities, together with any strategies and measures for mitigation of
impacts.
13.2
Approach
The assessment of services and utilities at the Main Campus has been informed by
consideration of the following services:
•
High Voltage Electricity;
•
Gas;
•
Water; and,
•
Foul and surface water drainage.
13.2.1
Consultation
Details of the existing utility plant and infrastructure at the University of Warwick’s Main
Campus have been obtained from utility operators, together with details of the University of
Warwick’s own on site utilities.
The assessment of impacts to services has been informed through consultation with
statutory and non-statutory consultees, including the following:
•
The Environment Agency;
•
Coventry City Council;
•
Warwick District Council;
•
Warwickshire County Council;
•
Severn Trent Water;
•
Energy Services (part of the E.ON Group) (the local electricity distribution company);
and,
•
National Grid (Transco) (the local gas distribution company);
13.2.2
Source Documents
In addition to information resulting from consultations, this chapter has been informed by
records held by the University of Warwick relating to services within the Main Campus, and
the following documents:
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 231
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
143
•
The University of Warwick Services Strategy
;
•
The Main Campus Flood Risk Assessment
•
The University of Warwick Foul and Surface Water Drainage Scoping Study
144
; and,
145
13.2.3
.
Limitations
The increased utility demands have been based on the proposed increases in floor area for
different types of buildings, as proposed by the Main Campus Parameters Plan, presented
as Figure 2.6.
13.3
Baseline
13.3.1
Electricity
The University of Warwick currently has an agreement for an authorised electricity supply
capacity for 9.8 MVA. The University also operates a gas powered Combined Heat and
Power (CHP) plant which provides a further electrical input, dependant on heating demands.
Although the CHP plant contributes to the electrical supply, the authorised supply capacity
agreement currently allows for failure of the CHP without exceeding the authorised supply.
Power is distributed from the Boiler House around the Main Campus by the University’s
private ring mains and a network of 23 substations. From these electricity substations, low
voltage electricity is supplied to the academic, residential and other facilities.
13.3.2
Gas
Primary gas provision from the National Grid is via a fifteen inch medium pressure gas main
which runs from Westwood Heath Road through the Main Campus along the general line of
Gibbet Hill Road to Kenilworth Road to the south. Supplies are taken from the gas main at
a number of locations including the following sites:
•
The Westwood Site;
•
The Gas House, in the vicinity of the Boiler House;
•
The Rootes Residences; and,
•
The Gibbet Hill Site.
The primary uses of gas at the Main Campus are heating and electricity generation.
Heating for the Central Campus East, the Scarman, Lakeside and Heronbank Residences
and Radcliffe House is supplied from the existing CHP plant Boiler House via the
University’s ‘district heating’ network, which currently consists of a series of radial spurs
from the existing Boiler House. Other individual facilities are heated by gas fired boilers
although with ongoing development of the Main Campus district heating network, these
boilers are gradually being phased out.
13.3.3
Water Supply
Severn Trent Water, the local water distribution company, runs an 18” water main from
Westwood Heath Road at the north of the Main Campus, along the general line of Gibbet
Hill Road, to Kenilworth Road to the south. Supplies are taken from the water main at the
following locations:
•
The Westwood Site;
•
A main connection near the Main Campus Boiler House;
143
University of Warwick: Services Strategy, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, August 2006
University of Warwick Development Plan: Drainage Strategy. Foul & Surface Water Drainage Scoping Study, Ove
Arup and Partners Ltd, September 2004
145
University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan: Flood Risk Assessment, Ove Arup and Partners, August 2006
144
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 232
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
The Gibbet Hill Site.
In addition, the Central Campus area can be ‘back fed’ from a Severn Trent Water
transmission main which runs to the south of Cryfield adjacent to the sports pitches.
Water is distributed around the Main Campus via the University’s own water distribution
network.
13.3.4
Foul Water Drainage
Foul water sewerage, owned by a combination of the University of Warwick and Severn
Trent Water serves the Main Campus foul water catchment area, divided into three
sub-catchments.
The first sub-catchment to the north of the Main Campus is drained by a public foul water
sewer that arrives at the University via Westwood Way and weaves its way through the
Warwick Science Park. This sewer is considered to serve the University foul water
infrastructure draining the Science Park, Westwood Campus, Lakeside Residences and the
Warwick Business School.
The second sub-catchment serves the Central Campus and comprises a number of foul
water drains connecting into two distinct private sewers which discharge into a University
owned foul water pumping station located at the rear of the Arthur Vick Residences.
The Gibbet Hill Site is believed to be served by a gravity sewer discharging into Severn
Trent Water’s pumping station or the system located behind the Arthur Vick Residences.
13.3.5
Surface Water Drainage
Surface water drainage at the University of Warwick’s Main Campus is addressed
146
specifically by the Flood Risk Assessment for the area, developed by Arup .
The Main Campus catchment covers an estimated total area in the order of 200 hectares, of
which approximately 50% of the catchment is developed and impermeable. For the purpose
of Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and surface water management, the Main Campus
catchment was divided into two main sub-catchments; the Westwood Brook Sub-catchment
and the Whitefield Coppice Sub-catchment. Both sub-catchments ultimately drain to the
south of the Main Campus and into the Canley Brook, which itself flows in into the Finham
Brook.
Surface water runoff within the overall catchment is currently collected from both external
paved areas including roads (via gullies and channel drainage) and roof areas (via rainwater
down-pipes). These gullies and ‘down-pipes’ are connected locally through numerous piped
systems, some of which discharge into the network of open drainage channel which cross
the Main Campus and some discharge directly to open water features. Within the Lakeside
and Heronbank Residences, surface water infrastructure includes three below ground
detention tanks which control and attenuate the surface water flows before discharging into
the Heronbank Lake.
Some of the Main Campus’ surface water runoff is pumped into the Westwood Brook via a
pumping station located on University Road. This is in operation for all surface water flows
generated during rainfall events in that part of the Main Campus catchment.
13.4
Impact Assessment
13.4.1
Electricity
Based on a proportional increase in gross external floor area, it is estimated that
implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan would result in an overall electricity
146
University of Warwick Main Campus Masterplan: Flood Risk Assessment, Ove Arup and Partners, August 2006
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 233
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
demand increase from 7 MVA to between 12 and 15 MVA. It is anticipated that the
environmentally responsible design of the future buildings would limit electrical demand to
the lower end of the estimated range however, given the current authorised supply capacity
of 9.8 MVA, a shortfall of 2.2 – 5.2 MVA is still expected. Rather than increase the
authorised supply capacity requested from the National Grid, it is intended that increased
on-site supply is generated through installation of a biomass-powered CHP plant.
In the event that further evaluation were to indicate that a biomass CHP plant was not viable
and the supplementary CHP plant were to be gas-fuelled, an increased authorised supply
capacity of 3.0 MVA would be required from the National Grid.
A load increase of this scale is determined to require reinforcement of the distribution
networks and possible upgrade of primary switchgear. A load study would be required at
assess the extent of upgrades required to the University of Warwick’s internal electricity
network. The existing network would be extended and new substations provided for the
new development areas. New cables would be routed along the line of roads and
substations located to suit the proposals.
Energy Efficiency
The University of Warwick has adopted an overall policy to reduce energy consumption and
increase energy efficiency, for which the University has been accredited by the Energy
Institute under the Energy Efficiency Accreditation Scheme. This has been achieved
through the installation of a combined heat and power (CHP) plant and associated district
heating network feeding the Central Campus area. This has now been extended to take in
other facilities including Scarman House and Radcliffe House, Lakeside and Heronbank and
the Arthur Vick Residences and would be further extended to take in the Rootes
Residences.
Proposed new facilities would be designed to reduce energy and water consumption and
increase energy efficiency, as set out in Building Regulations Part L: 2006. Measures would
include insulated and air tight structures, efficient responsive heating and water heating
systems, appropriate glazing and shading, controlled ventilation, energy efficient lighting
and appliances, passive or energy efficient cooling, water efficient appliances and passive
solar design.
13.4.2
Gas
Gas consumption at the Main Campus is primarily required to power the current central
CHP plant and as power sources for heating the individual facilities that are not yet included
within the Main Campus’ district heating network.
Implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan is expected to result in an increase the
demand for heating and hot water by up to 13.5 MW to 22.0 MW. With the current gaspowered CHP plant providing 16 MW of power, a combination of biomass-powered and
gas-powered CHP plant is proposed in order to support the additional heating requirements.
In addition to CHP provision, a minor gas-powered boiler may also be provided in the
vicinity of the Rootes Residences. Located on the opposite side of the district heating ring
to the existing Boiler House, this would increase the efficiency of the system and allow for
provision of additional heating in advance of commissioning of a biomass-powered plant.
The minor gas-powered plant would connect to the existing gas main which runs down
Gibbet Hill Road. It is considered that the existing gas main in Gibbet Hill Road has
sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional gas requirements of the boiler and would
not significantly affect consumption or require major infrastructure modifications.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 234
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
13.4.3
Biomass
In addition to a minor gas-powered boiler, the majority of additional CHP requirements is
expected to be met by a biomass-powered plant which would provide a total thermal
capacity to 21 MW. The biomass-powered CHP plant would be sized to be as efficiently as
possible in order to meet the contrasting peak demand periods of summer for electricity, and
winter for heat.
A biomass-powered CHP plant would require a larger plan area than that of a conventional
boiler house in order to allow for transportation, storage and automatic feeding systems. In
addition, issues including biomass supply chains and the additional traffic and visual
intrusion would need to be addressed. On the basis of broad appraisal of visual, landscape
and air quality impacts, a preferred location has been identified for the biomass powered
CHP plant, as shown on Figure 13.1.
13.4.4
Water Supply
Water supplies to new facilities would be fed by extending the existing water supply
network. It is estimated that implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan would result in
an increase in water demand by up to 22 l/s.
A detailed analysis of the existing network capacity and demand would be required to
identify sections of the networks which require upgrading or alternatively new connections
could be made to the existing Severn Trent main.
13.4.5
Foul Water Drainage
The design of sewerage infrastructure shall be in accordance with the current edition of
147
Sewers for Adoption . Where connections to public sewerage are to be made (foul and
surface water sewers) they should be subject to an early submission of a Severn Trent
Water ‘Developer Enquiry’ to determine the correct location and permissible discharge rate
of the connection. For existing sewer connections to be reused, flow rates should be
agreed with Severn Trent Water. Flow rates would likely be maintained at existing levels
and reduced if possible.
13.4.6
Surface Water Drainage
The widespread implementation of sustainable drainage systems would be integral to the
Main Campus surface water management strategy. This would provide the platform to
mimic the response of the existing catchment and its surfaces and ultimately, negating any
increased off-site flood risk.
A sustainable drainage methodology for managing surface water runoff would focus on
three key areas; controlling surface water quantity, improving surface water quality and
providing added development amenity value. It is anticipated that sustainable drainage
techniques shall be adopted throughout future development plans to manage and control
surface water runoff.
In an attempt to ensure the Main Campus sustainable drainage system mimics natural
characteristics of the catchment, the surface water management train would ensure that
storm runoff is addressed by a number of key measures during transport to the surface
water system. This would be achieved by adopting a blend of natural and proprietary
sustainable drainage measures, complemented by traditional drainage techniques, including
the following:
•
147
Natural structures formed with natural materials and integrated into the landscape.
They include swales, infiltration trenches, open channels, detention basins (dry
features) and balancing ponds (wet features); and,
Sewers For Adoption 6th Edition, WRc, March 2006.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 235
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
Proprietary measures including a range of manufactured techniques that include porous
or pervious surfacing, cellular below ground storage systems, rainwater harvesting
systems, traditional detention tanks, flow control devices and pipework.
It should also be noted that integration with the proposed landscape architecture is essential
for the successful implementation of sustainable drainage on any development site and this
would be inherent to the University sustainable drainage implementation. Outline
sustainable drainage proposals are described in Figure 13.2.
13.4.7
Utility Infrastructure Diversions
Utility company infrastructure generally runs along the line of existing main roads and is not
expected to be affected by construction of the new facilities associated with the Main
Campus Masterplan.
The proposed roundabout junction on Gibbet Hill Road, near the Warwick Arts Centre, may
however require diversion of the medium pressure gas main and water main, subject to
finalisation of detailed design of the roundabout. Furthermore, modifications to the junction
between Gibbet Hill Road and Kenilworth Road may also require diversion of the medium
pressure gas main and the water main, again subject to detailed junction design.
At this stage it has not yet been possible to identify in detail the service diversions that
would be required for individual services at the Main Campus owing to the need for
construction of new facilities. Components of the Main Campus Masterplan that are
expected to require diversions have been identified as described below:
•
Buildings requiring no diversions of known services;
•
Buildings requiring diversions of known services; and,
•
Buildings requiring significant amount of diversions, where the location or shape of the
building should be re-planned.
The potential for proposed construction structures to require service diversion is indicated in
Figure 13.1
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 236
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
14
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
14.1
Introduction
This section discusses the potential archaeological and cultural heritage issues in relation to
Implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan.
This chapter is presented as follows:
Section 14.2: Provides a description of the planning and policy framework against which the
Masterplan has been evaluated;
Section 14.3: Describes the approach and methodology adopted by the assessment;
Section 14.4: Presents baseline archaeological and cultural heritage information;
Section 14.5: Provides a description of the predication and assessment of potentially
significant impacts relating to archaeological resources and cultural heritage;
Section 14.6: Describes mitigation required in order to reduce the significance of identified
impacts; and,
Section 14.7: Provides a description of potential residual environmental impacts relating to
archaeology and built heritage.
14.2
Policy Framework
14.2.1
National Planning Framework
Statutory protection for archaeology is principally provided by the Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Areas Act (1979) as amended by the National Heritage Act (1983). The
Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport maintains a schedule of nationally important
sites and areas.
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 contains the primary
legislation controlling development within the historic environment. It provides for the listing
of buildings of special architectural or historic interest by the Secretary of State and for the
designation of areas of special architectural or historic interest (conservation areas) by local
planning authorities. It also provides for the desirability of preserving or enhancing the
character and appearance of listed buildings and their settings and for the consideration of
the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of conservation
areas and their settings.
148
Planning Policy Guidance 15 (PPG15) sets out policies for the identification, protection
and development control of buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historic
environment, for example parks and gardens, battlefields, listed buildings and the wider
149
historic landscape. It compliments PPG16 relating for archaeology , and sets out the need
for effective protection for all aspects of the historic environment which should be valued
and protected for their own sake.
PPG15 highlights the special regard to matters including the desirability of preserving the
setting of the building, which is often an essential part of the building's character And may
further impact upon the economic viability of historic buildings.
The wider historic landscape is also dealt with in PPG15. In defining planning policies,
authorities should take account of the historical dimension of the landscape as a whole
148
Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the historic environment, Department of the Environment, September
1994
149
Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and planning, The Stationery Office, November 1990
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 237
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
rather than concentrate on selected areas. Adequate understanding is an essential
preliminary and authorities should assess the wider historic landscape at an early stage in
development plan preparation. Plans should protect its most important components and
encourage development that is consistent with maintaining its overall historic character.
150
Planning Policy Guidance 16 (PPG16): Archaeology and Planning (1990) is the key
planning guidance and consolidates previous Government advice to local authorities on the
safeguarding of the archaeological resource within the planning process. PPG16
emphasises the fragility and finite nature of archaeological remains and the desirability of
preserving such remains in situ where appropriate. However, it recognises that preservation
in situ is not appropriate mitigation in all cases and that archaeological field investigation
and preservation by record may be acceptable in some instances. PPG16 also highlights
the importance of early consultation with the local authority in the development process and
suggests a framework for the process of archaeological mitigation.
14.2.2
Regional Planning Framework
West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG11)
151
Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) 11 sets out general policy guidelines for the West
Midlands Regions, including the area under study here.
Policy QE5 concerns the ‘Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment’, and
recommends the management of change in such a way as to protect and enhance local
distinctiveness. Particularly pertinent is part B:i, which highlights the historic significance of
‘historic rural landscapes and their settlement patterns’.
Policy QE6: ‘The conservation, enhancement and restoration of the Regions landscape’
highlights diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character. Part i recommends that a
consistent approach is taken across local planning authority boundaries, and the
minimisation of disruption through noise and light pollution is also mentioned.
Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996-11
The Warwickshire Structure Plan lists as an overriding purpose the need to nurture
“Warwickshire's legacy of distinctive towns and villages, countryside, environmental wealth
and heritage which continue to make it an attractive place in which to live, work and visit”.
This aim is highlighted by two policies:
Policy ER1: Natural and Cultural Environmental Assets: states that development would only
be permitted where it is consistent with protection of the environmental assets of the County
and respect for the character and quality of its towns and countryside. The Structure Plan
therefore includes policies and land allocations which ensure that development does not
involve the loss or damage of internationally, nationally, regionally or locally important or
designated sites and areas.
Policy ER2: Environmental Impact of Development: states that the environmental impact of
all proposed development on human beings, soil, fauna, flora, water, air, climate, the
landscape, geology, cultural heritage and material assets must be thoroughly assessed, and
measures secured to mitigate adverse environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local
plans should include policies to ensure this takes place. The impact of existing sources of
environmental pollution on the occupants of any proposed new development should also be
taken into account. All assessment of environmental impact should take account of, and
where possible seek to reduce, uncertainty over the implications of the proposed
development. If adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development
would not be permitted.
150
151
Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and planning, The Stationery Office, November 1990
Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands: RPG 11, Government Office for the West Midlands, June 2004
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 238
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
14.2.3
Local Planning Framework
There are a range of policies relating to the historic environment set out in the Coventry
Development Plan and the Warwick District Local Plan, covering archaeological sites and
monuments, conservation areas, listed and locally listed structures, the historic landscape
and historic parks and gardens. The policies have been reviewed in relation to the
proposed development and pertinent sections are summarised below.
Coventry Development Plan 2001152
Policy BE15: Archaeological Sites, highlights the presumption in favour of the preservation
in situ of remains of national importance and of their setting, together with the need for
access and study. There are no known Scheduled Monuments or remains of national
importance within the Main Campus. Policy B15 also discusses archaeological remains
(known or suspected) of less than national importance which may be adversely affected by
development. The policy sets out the preference for in situ preservation, states that
development would only be permitted if the benefits of that development outweigh the likely
harm and requires that all practicable measures of assessment, recording and protection
are to be taken. Policy B15 also states that the need for the proper assessment of the
archaeological effects of any development proposal prior to its determination is crucial. Any
archaeological scheme of works, assessment and any further mitigation deemed necessary,
would require the approval of Coventry City Council.
Policies BE8, 9 and 10 relate to Conservation Areas. The nearest Conservation Area to the
University Main Campus is at ‘Kenilworth Road’, some 100 m east of the boundary of the
Gibbet Hill Site. Conservation Areas are designated due their special architectural or
historic interest. Kenilworth Road has recently been extended to take account of the
development behind no 54 Kenilworth Road. The ‘Ivy Lane’ Conservation Area is also
within the vicinity of the Main Campus, although would be unaffected by the proposed
development.
Policies BE9 and BE10 consider development and demolition within a conservation area.
Although no such changes are proposed by the development, the potential impact on the
wider setting such as views to and from them, of the conservation area is considered.
Policies related to Listed Buildings are set out in BE11, 12 and 13 in relation to change of
use and alteration or extension. No such changes would be taking place within the
proposed development.
Locally Listed Buildings are discussed in policy BE14. In addition to statutory Listed
Buildings, buildings of local architectural or historic interest deemed worthy of conservation
would be maintained. Criteria for inclusion of buildings on the ‘local list’ are based on
criteria for compilation of the statutory list, although recognise local rather than national
aspects of significance and the historic development of buildings within the City. Such
buildings would be a consideration during the determination of planning proposals.
Policy GE14: concerns the protection of landscape features, and highlights the need to
protect features of value to the amenity or history of a locality, including mature woodlands,
trees, hedgerows, ridge and furrow meadows and ponds.
Warwick District Local Plan153
Policy DP4 Archaeology is similar to BE15 in relation to the protection of nationally
important archaeological remains against development. The need for adequate information
about the archaeological resource in advance of the determination of planning application is
152
153
Coventry Unitary Development Plan, Coventry City Council, December 2001
Warwick District Local Plan, First Deposit Version, Warwick District Council, November 2003. Approved May 2005
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 239
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
again stressed, as is the need for an agreed programme of investigation preceding
development.
Policy DA10 relates to the protection of Conservation Areas, their character and
appearance. Only Conservation Areas at ‘Kenilworth’ and ‘Kenilworth St John’s’ are
pertinent to the proposed development.
Policy DAP6 in the Warwick District plan describes the importance of protection of Listed
Buildings against alterations and extensions which may which would adversely affect their
special architectural or historic interest, integrity, character or setting. Developments which
would adversely affect the setting of a Listed Building would not normally be permitted. The
policy notes that new buildings and alterations should be designed to respect the setting of
Listed Buildings, following the principles of scale, height, massing, alignment and the use of
appropriate materials.
The importance of the historic landscape is reflected in Policy Objective 2C to protect and
enhance the historic environment, which recognises that the historic environment
contributes to the achievement of economic, environmental and social aims.
Policy DP3 regarding the natural and historic environment and landscape builds on the
Policy Objective 2C through describing criteria that development proposals would be
expected to demonstrate including those relating to the protection and enhancement of
features of historical and archaeological significance, and the protection and enhancement
of local landscape and historic character.
Policy DAP 13 seeks to protect Historic Parks and Gardens. A number of Parks and
Gardens in Warwick District are registered on both the English Heritage or the Warwick
District List, although none are in the vicinity of the Main Campus Masterplan development.
14.2.4
Other Discipline Standards and Guidance
Standards and guidance also followed in the preparation of the assessment include:
•
The Standards and Guidance of the Institute of Field Archaeologists Guidance for DeskBased Assessment (1994, revised 2001);
•
Model Briefs and Specifications for Archaeological Assessments and Field Evaluations
(ACAO 1993); and,
•
The Management of Archaeological Projects (1991) as prepared by English Heritage.
14.3
Approach and Methodology
The assessment involves the identification and assessment of the impacts of the Main
Campus Masterplan on known and potential archaeological remains.
The Main Campus comprises topographically of a creek valley with high elevations on either
side of the valley, and exists within a rich ecological environment. The University of
Warwick Estate is known to contain landscapes with archaeology relating to the prehistoric,
particularly the Iron Age, Roman and medieval periods. Implied within this understanding is
the likelihood that further areas would contain sub-surface archaeology. In addition, there
are a number of heritage resources in the form of Listed and non-listed Buildings which are
seen as having potential significance.
In addition, new construction and landscape proposals can affect the setting of historic
structures, as well as having an impact on historic landscape features such as field
boundaries and routes. Sites within the landscape would have greater value if they form a
group or add context to other sites within an area. Development proposals which break up
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 240
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
the grouping or context by intersecting sites and historic areas would also be considered to
have an adverse effect.
The significance of the archaeology and cultural heritage would be assessed in accordance
with relevant planning guidance, local plan policies, and local archaeological research
strategies.
14.3.1
Source Data
A range of sources have been accessed to provide a comprehensive understanding of
archaeological and heritage resource, and the impacts that the proposed development may
have on aspects of these.
Archaeological, Listed Building and Conservation Area Data
Data was collected from both Coventry City Council and Warwickshire County Council’s
Historic Environment Records for an area including extending in the order of 1 km beyond
the Main Campus boundary to provide the archaeological context for the site. National
designations relating to Historic Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Monuments and Battlefield
Sites were provided by English Heritage and internet based constraints mapping
154
websites . A gazetteer describing archaeological sites and features within the study area
is presented in Appendix F.1.
Further information has been drawn from an assessment undertaken on behalf of Warwick
155
University in 1996 . This report was one of several key sources of information and
contained a significant body of data taken from excavations carried out within the University
Grounds.
Built Heritage data regarding Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings was obtained from
Historic Environment Records and Local Authority Development Plans. In addition, data
156
was collected where necessary from English Heritages ‘Images of England’ website .
Archival Research
The assessment has drawn on historic maps and documentary sources for the area, held at
the Coventry City Local Studies Library and Warwickshire County Council.
Historic cartographic resources were reviewed to chart the development of the landscape
considering hedgerows, routeways and habitation sites as well as to examine for features
which may no longer be present.
Aerial Photographic Interpretation
Aerial photograph interpretation was undertaken by AirPhoto Services Ltd. Aerial
Photograph (AP) evidence allows the mapping of archaeological sites or natural features
evident as crop, grass or vegetation marks; shadows cast by upstanding earthworks and
features seen in relief. Sources of data include aerial photographs held in the National
Library of Air Photographs (NLAP) at Swindon, the Unit for Landscape Modelling,
Cambridge.
Site Visits
Site reconnaissance visits were made to the study site and surrounding locality. The
Campus was visited to view the setting of proposed development and to gain an
understanding of the topography and current land-use. Locations of existing archaeological
and heritage features were visited and any extant features of potential historic interest and
areas of apparent survival or truncation noted. The wider issues of setting pertaining to the
built heritage and features of the historic landscape were also viewed.
154
www.magic.gov.uk
Archaeological Evaluation, S & D Smith, 1996, Department of Continuing Education, Hill. University of Warwick,
1996
156
www.imagesofengland.org.uk
155
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 241
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
14.3.2
Assessment Methodology
There is no established methodology for assessment of significance of impacts to
archaeological and cultural heritage assets. Assessment is made based upon knowledge
of existing assessment practices and professional judgment to predict the likely extent and
significance of potential impacts.
Heritage resources may be nationally or locally designated. As such, features of interest
may appear in national or local heritage records or may be identified in the course of the
assessment. The importance of an archaeological or heritage receptor is based on a
number of criteria including its designation and/or contribution to educational or cultural
appreciation, as described in Table 14.1.
Table 14.1: Importance of the Receptor
Importance
Equivalent to:
International / |National
World Heritage Site
Scheduled monument
Grade I or II* listed building/structure
Site of national importance
Regional
Registered Park and Garden
Registered Battlefield
Conservation Area
Grade II listed building/structure
Site/feature/structure of regional or county importance
District
Site/feature/structure with district value or interest for education or
cultural appreciation
Local
Site/feature/structure with local (parish) value or interest for educational
or cultural appreciation
Negligible
Site/feature/structure with no significant value or interest
The sensitivity of the receptor to absorb and accept change of the type and scale proposed
has also been considered. This includes matters such as tranquillity, retention or loss of
distinctiveness, rarity and conservation interests.
14.3.3
Types of Impacts
Archaeology
Archaeological resources comprise the cumulative remains of human culture over much of
the last 500,000 years. Below ground archaeological remains are vulnerable to a number of
different impacts. Fundamentally, any activity that disturbs or destroys archaeological
remains can have a direct negative impact to the resource. Impacts can occur from
activities such as ground consolidation causing damage to buried archaeological deposits,
loss of access to archaeological resources including buried deposits restricting the potential
for future research, physical excavation, removal, alteration or damage to archaeological
resources. Indirect negative impacts can include the contamination of resources and
changes to the groundwater regime.
Beneficial impacts may also occur and include the protection of the resource, increased
knowledge resulting from recording and analysis of archaeological sites undertaken as part
of the mitigation strategy and the improvement of the setting of a feature. There is also the
opportunity to involve and inform the local community about the findings of the
archaeological investigations.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 242
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Direct impacts have been considered within the footprint of development where impacts on
the archaeological resource may occur, primarily during construction, due to ground
disturbance. Other direct physical destruction and disturbance can occur over a longer
period of time caused, for example, by compaction and desiccation.
Buildings
There is a great deal of overlap between the visual assessment of properties and
settlements and the built heritage. The built heritage takes account of the assessment
undertaken on the landscape and visual amenity of the development as discussed in
Chapter 7.
The heritage resource contributes to the character of the townscape. Individual buildings or
areas are valued for their overall significance, rarity, exemplary form or style or historic
associations and condition. Heritage resources include Conservation Areas, Listed
Buildings and any locally designated buildings or structures of interest.
Impacts to heritage may occur during construction, through introduction of temporary
structures, temporary land-take and demolition. Impacts that may occur during operation
include the permanent loss or alteration of structures, introduction of new buildings,
infrastructure and the provision of new landscaping resulting in the alteration of the
landscape and its setting.
Impacts may be adverse or beneficial. In some cases the opportunity exists to enhance the
setting and architectural character of a building, to promote access and appreciation of the
area as a whole, and to improve the understanding of a building’s or areas history as a
result of the works.
Historic Landscape
Historic features such as field patterns, hedgerows, routeways, parkland and woodland are
a result of specific historical development and are often the factor which unifies other
disparate elements into a coherent and identifiable landscape. Like archaeological sites
and features of built heritage interest, historic landscape features are vulnerable to physical
loss that may be caused by construction activity. Landscape features are particularly
vulnerable to severance caused by, for example, temporary haul roads or the introduction of
new structures. However, like other heritage aspects, there can also be the opportunity for
the positive enhancement of landscape features by, for example, the sympathetic planting of
new areas to blend with existing elements.
14.3.4
Assessment of Significance
The approach used to assess significance of the impacts is determined by two variables; the
importance of the receptor, as described in Table 14.1 above and the magnitude of change
upon the receptor. This takes into account the severity of impact of the proposals together
with the vulnerability of the receptor to change. Table 14.2 summarises the type of change
and its magnitude.
Table 14.2: Magnitude of Change
Magnitude of
Change
Description of Change
High
Complete destruction/demolition of site or feature.
Change to the site or feature resulting in a fundamental
change in our ability to understand and appreciate the
resource and its historical context and setting.
Medium
Change to the site or feature resulting in an appreciable
change in our ability to understand and appreciate the
resource and its historical context and setting.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 243
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Magnitude of
Change
Description of Change
Low
Change to the site or feature resulting in a small change in
our ability to understand and appreciate the resource and
its historical context and setting.
Negligible
Negligible change or no material change to the site or
feature. No real change in our ability to understand and
appreciate the resource and its historical context and
setting.
Significance of environmental effects is assessed according the matrix approach described
by Table 14.3. The effects may be either adverse or beneficial, depending on the nature of
the impact. It should be noted that the assessment is made prior to mitigation, which may
be proposed in order to reduce the severity of, or remove, and adverse impact.
Table 14.3: Significance of Effects
Magnitude
of Change
International/
National
Regional
High
Severe
Major
Major
Moderate
Minor
Medium
Major
Major
Moderate
Minor
Minor or
none
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Minor
Minor or
none
None
Negligible
Minor
Minor or
none
None
None
None
14.3.5
Regional
Local
Negligible
Evaluation Criteria
The scale and seriousness of the effects on the heritage resource in specific terms would be
assessed as described by Table 14.4.
Table 14.4: Evaluation Criteria
Magnitude of Effect
The proposals would:
Major adverse (negative)
effect
Result in the loss of or damage to heritage assets and no
adequate mitigation can be specified
Be highly intrusive and would seriously damage the setting of the
heritage resource such that its context is seriously compromised
and can no longer be appreciated or understood
Be strongly at variance with the form scale and pattern of a
heritage resource or conservation area
Be in serious conflict with government policy for the protection of
the heritage resource as set out in PPG15 or PPG16.
Moderate adverse
(negative) effect
Be out of scale with or at odds with the scale pattern or form of the
heritage resource or conservation area.
Be intrusive in the setting (context) and adversely affect the
appreciation and understanding of the resource.
Result in loss of features such that their integrity of the heritage
resource is compromised, but not destroyed and adequate
mitigation has been specified.
Be in conflict with local or regional policies for the protection of the
heritage.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 244
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Magnitude of Effect
The proposals would:
Slight adverse (negative)
effect
Have a detrimental impact on the context of a heritage feature
such that its integrity is compromised and appreciation and
understanding of it is diminished.
Not fit perfectly with the form scale pattern and character of a
heritage resource or conservation area.
Be in conflict with local policies for the protection of the local
character of the heritage resource.
Negligible effect
Maintain existing historic features in the townscape.
Have no appreciable impacts either positive or negative on any
known or potential heritage assets.
Result in a balance of positive and negative impacts.
Not result in severance or loss of integrity context or understanding
within a historic landscape.
Not be in conflict with and do not contribute to policies for the
protection or enhancement of the heritage.
Slight beneficial (positive)
effect
Restore or enhance the sense of place of a heritage feature
through good design and mitigation.
Remove or mitigate visual intrusion (or other indirect impacts) into
the context of heritage features such as that appreciation and
understanding of them is improved.
Not be in conflict with national regional or local policies for the
protection of the heritage.
Marginally enhance the integrity understanding and sense of place
of a site or group of sites.
Moderate beneficial
(positive) effect
Provide potential for significant restoration of characteristic
features or their setting through the removal, relocation or
mitigation of existing damaging or discordant impacts on the
heritage resource.
Contribute to regional or local policies for the protection or
enhancement of the heritage resource.
Enhance the integrity, understanding and sense of place of a site
or group.
Major beneficial (positive)
effect
Result in the removal relocation or substantial mitigation of very
damaging or discordant existing impacts (direct or indirect) on the
heritage.
Result in extensive restoration or enhancement of characteristic
features or their setting.
Form a major contribution to government policies for the protection
or enhancement of the heritage resource.
Remove or successfully mitigate existing visual intrusion such as
that the integrity understanding and sense of place of a site or
group of sites is re-established.
14.3.6
Consultations
In consultation with the City Archaeologist for Coventry and the County Archaeologist for
Warwickshire it was agreed that a thorough review of aerial photographic material was
required to supplement the existing knowledge of the locality. The significant prehistoric
remains found during recent work at the Westwood Athletics Track (discussed below), were
also highlighted. The University Estate’s built heritage was also discussed with the
Coventry City Conservation Officer, English Heritage and the Twentieth Century Society.
14.3.7
Limitations
The assessment is based on the information provided at the time of assessment. The
Warwickshire County Historic Environment Records are updated on a continual basis and,
therefore should not be regarded as definitive. There also remains the possibility that some
sites remain undetected beneath the ground and await discovery.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 245
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Internal access has not been sought to any of the historic structures which are not already
open to the public. Some extrapolation of view points has therefore been made and the
assessment from the visual intrusion assessment utilised.
14.4
Baseline Conditions
14.4.1
Geology and Topography
The topography of the University Campus is influenced by geological formations which
underlie it and by the number of brooks and tributaries which run to Finham Brook to the
south. The University Campus ranges in elevation with Cryfield Grange located on a domed
hill at 98 m AOD, falling away to the various watercourses that intersect the landscape.
Gibbet Hill is located on the second highest point of the study area, with the lowest points at
Tocil Wood and along the southern boundary of the Cryfield sports pitches. The remainder
of the campus is relatively flat or gently sloping and grades in height from 80 to 90 m AOD.
The majority of the northern extent of the University Campus is underlain by Carboniferous
mudstone of the Tile Hill Mudstone formation, inter-layered with sandstone deposits which
outcrop at various locations across the site running in east-west orientated bands. Towards
the south, particularly around to the west of the Central Campus around Cryfield House
Farm, and at the Gibbet Hill Site, Kenilworth Sandstone formation is found. This also
includes a discreet layer of Gibbet Hill Conglomerate at the Gibbet Hill Site.
157
British Geological Survey maps of drift and lithology , shows alluvial deposits running in
strips approximately east-west and north-south, following the orientation of surface water
courses. These alluvial deposits of clay, silt and gravel are formed by river deposition and
follow existing watercourses such as Canley Brook and Westwood Brook
Some areas of made ground between one and two metres thick have been noted from
previous site investigation and other geological information for the site. This made ground
often of silty sandy clay is likely to represent construction activity. Further detail is provided
in Chapter 13 regarding Ground Conditions and Contamination.
14.4.2
Surface Watercourses
Within the University Campus, Canley Brook, originating to the south of Coventry, flows in a
gentle arc through the low lying tract of land separating the Central Campus from the Gibbet
Hill Site, before continuing southwards to the Finham Brook. A small unnamed watercourse
flows from the east of Whitefield Coppice and joins the Canley Brook near Cryfield Grange.
Finham Brook is a tributary of the River Sowe and flows from the southeast to the northwest
into the River Sowe. Finham Brook is located approximately 2.5 km from the University
Central Campus and acts as the receiving watercourse for waters of the Canley Brook.
The Westwood Brook flows through the Central Campus to the east of Gibbet Hill Road.
The Brook is culverted for approximately 300 m underneath the Central Campus, before
remerging into an open channel. It discharges into the Canley Brook upstream of the Tocil
Lakes. These lakes are located to the south of Central Campus East and are designed to
act as treatment facilities to water from the Westwood Brook and Canley Brook.
14.4.3
Archaeological and Historical Background
Figure 14.1 describes locations of archaeological sites in the immediate vicinity of the
University of Warwick Main Campus. Figure 14.2 locates the historic buildings and
buildings listed from the Scheduled Monument Record (SMR). The combined Figure 14.3
looks at the range of recorded SMR sites and potential archaeological sites in the area of
the proposed developments as understood via evaluation reports and Aerial Photograph
research. The SMR sites are referenced in a Gazetteer (Appendix F.1) and depicted on the
157
Geology of the Coventry Area, Sheet SP27/37 1:25,000, British Geological Survey
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 246
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
map to show how they relate to the topography of the study area. Sites are colour coded to
particular periods and demonstrate the variation of site types located within the region.
An understanding of the archaeological and built heritage baseline, including elements of
the historic landscape, is discussed below. Sites from the Archaeology Gazetteer are
recorded below in squared brackets and highlighted in bold. Site numbers, corresponding
with the Built Heritage Gazetteer, (Figure 14.2) are recorded in rounded brackets.
Approximate historical periods are described based on the information provided in
Table 14.5.
Table 14.5: Definition of Archaeological Time Periods
Time period
Approximate Date Range
Prehistory
Palaeolithic
450,000 - 12,000 BC
Mesolithic
12,000 - 4,000 BC
Neolithic
4,000 - 2,000 BC
Bronze Age
2,000 - 600 BC
Iron Age
600 BC - AD 43
Romano-British
AD 43 - 410
Anglo-Saxon (early medieval)
AD 410 - 1066
Medieval
AD 1066 - 1485
Post Medieval
AD 1485 - 1914
Modern
1914 - present
Prehistoric
The earliest find within the research catchment of the study area is a flint tool [3236] dating
to the Palaeolithic period (c.450 000 to 12 000 BC). This was located some 500 m
southeast of Crackley Hill, situated southwest of the University Main Campus. Stone tool
assemblages from the Palaeolithic period tend to be the dominant evidence for human
activity. Several Mesolithic flint scatters have also been recorded, one some 600 m east of
Crackley Wood [8354].
A stone tool scatter located northwest of Cryfield village contained both Mesolithic and
Neolithic tool assemblages [8346] and indicates that settlement in the area was relatively
consistent through these time periods. However it is not until the Neolithic period that the
development of permanent settlement, the cultivation of crops and the herding of domestic
animals occurred. With increased settlement by Neolithic peoples came the development of
religious and status concepts. Technological changes included the development of polished
axes. Several Neolithic find sites are recorded for the area however apart from site 8346
noted above, these are mainly isolated finds. A broken axe with a polished edge was found
in grounds of the Training College in what is now the Westwood Site [3150], an axe in the
Coventry Museum was recorded from the area although the exact location is not known
[3163]; another axe was located 500 m east of Crackley Hill [3235]. Additional Neolithic
flaked lithics occur within the region of the University. These include a flint [3155] from a
garden in Cryfield Lane, Kenilworth, and another isolated flint from further north [3248].
An additional significant prehistoric occupation site is located near Cryfield Farm House and
dates to the Mesolithic of Neolithic periods [8208]. An evaluation was carried out by the
University of Warwick’s archaeology Field Unit in 1997. This evaluation combined
assessment through geophysical survey, aerial photographs and excavation. This site
contained at least two areas which contained significant archaeological features and
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 247
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
deposits. The interpretation of the Cryfield Farmhouse area is that there was prehistoric
activity at the site and that there may be a more intense area of settlement and activity in
close proximity. The area called Cryfield is located on the highest topographical feature
within the study area, provides good views over the surrounding landscape and easy access
to material resources such as water, and food making it appealing to prehistoric and early
medieval peoples.
During the Bronze Age the population of Britain increased, with settled communities
becoming more politically and socially active. Areas of farmed land increased, creating new
levels of wealth, and with this wealth land owners were able to compete for status and
status objects. A number of sites dating to the Neolithic and early Bronze Age period are
recorded around the Main Campus. These include debitage material, (the left over flakes
from the stone manufacture process), from the north of Kenilworth [4429], flint scrapers
located near Stoneleigh Road, Gibbet Hill [4836], and a flint scatter found 700 m east of
Roughknowles Wood [8353] to the south of the University Main Campus. A mound located
near Cryfield has been suggested by Hill (Warwick University Masterplan, 2005) as being a
Bronze Age burial mound. Additional assessment work is required before this statement
can be confirmed however it is likely that a significant and continual settlement existed at
Cryfield which began during the prehistoric period.
Evidence for increased use of the landscape occurs during the Iron Age period with a
definitive occupation site being located in Tocil Wood [3865]. Rescue excavation works
undertaken in 1985/86, in advance of a road widening scheme, revealed a ditch, berm and
bank, and a line of post holes which have been interpreted as a defensive structure. This
structure continued in use during the Roman period as the site contained stratified deposits
158
of Roman artefacts .
An additional feature has been recorded on aerial photographs (see Appendix F.3) and is
located on the Westwood site within the University [8636]. Land use at the Westwood Site
during the Iron Age has been interpreted as being defined by two distinct areas or
enclosures which were initially detected on the vertical aerial photographs and is described
as being ‘banjo shaped’. This feature was further defined as being living enclosures during
turf removal when Wappenbury ware (the name is taken from pottery fragment styles
associated with a Belgic camp at Wappenbury) and an axe-head of Roman or late Iron Age
date was recovered. The northern enclosure of the banjo was interpreted as being the living
area containing huts and the southern may have served as the stockyard. Further
excavations were undertaken in 2002 by S. Hill. During this time the remains of up to 14
round houses, distinguished by their post-holes, and other discreet archaeological features
were located in the northern area. The southern area had been heavily stripped during
levelling of the running track, which meant that only the bottom of the ditches could be
defined during the excavation.
Additional finds from the Iron Age include a Stater (a coin) dating to the Iron Age period
[10083] located several kilometres to the west of the Main Campus, gold coins found to the
south of Westwood Heath [6636] to the west of the University, a coin found 500 m south of
Whitefield coppice [6922] to the southwest of the University and a scatter of coins (staters)
in the area of Crackley Wood [9599] several kilometres to the south.
Several sites are listed in the Historic Environment Register (HER) as being of Prehistoric in
origin but without details of a specific period. These sites include a scatter of flint flakes and
cores found in a field near Gibbet Hill road [3154] and several points, scrapers and flakes
were recovered from a garden north of Stoneleigh Road [3156].
158
Archaeological Evaluation, Department of Continuing Education, Hill. S & D Smith, 1996, University of Warwick,
1996
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 248
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Field walking by the University, as part of continual archaeological research of the area
around Cryfield Farm House, has located a number of lithic tools. These finds and a
number of curvilinear and rectilinear features observed on aerial photos and assessed
during field walking are included on an inventory in the 1996 report by Hill and Smith.
Further sites dating to the prehistoric period, which are located in the Main Campus
Masterplan indicate likely locations of further sites, and are based on an interpretation of the
existing archaeological baseline. Given the extent of sites found near the Westwood Site, it
is likely that a cemetery site exists nearby but this area has not conclusively been defined.
Cryfield and Tocil Wood are also highlighted as areas which were once significant
occupation sites and which continued to be used for various purposes in the Roman period.
Romano-British
The impact of Rome was felt throughout England as the Romans organised the local
farming villages into providing resources for their army, introduced a new type of house (the
villa), built fortifications, and established an extensive road network. A Roman Road is
located to the east of Coventry, stretching south from High Cross to Chesterton. The
Roman presence at the University is confirmed by the fragments Roman pottery which has
been recovered from the surrounding fields of Cryfield Village [8362]. To the north of
Cryfield Village at Cryfield Farm House within University grounds several mosaic fragments
were located which may indicate the site of an important Roman building [8360]. A multiperiod site incorporating Mesolithic and Neolithic finds also included Roman pottery
assemblages to the south of Cryfield Village [8320] and a Tocil Wood as mentioned above.
A dispersed Roman coin hoard which included a brooch hoard was located 400 m southeast
of The Pools, Stoneleigh, outside the University study area [9856]. These sites and finds
provide evidence of a sustained Roman presence within the landscape of the study area.
Anglo-Saxon
After the Roman withdrawal from Britain, and following the general collapse of the Roman
Empire across Europe, northern European groups began moving across into Britain. Native
Britons were assimilated into this new culture. A single piece of pottery dating to either the
prehistoric or ‘migratory’ period of early Saxon settlement was located 600 m east of
Crackley Wood, to the south and outside the University grounds [8361].
The area now inhabited by the University of Warwick is to the south of Coventry, a city with
probable Saxon origins. The place name of Coventry is thought to derive from the Old
English ‘Cofan treo’ meaning ‘Cofa’s tree’. Further evidence of the early settlement of the is
the site of a pagan cemetery at Baginton (1 km east of the Main Campus), and the Old
English name derivation of the River Sherbourne (meaning a bright or shiny water course).
Medieval
The Doomsday Survey of 1086 indicates that Coventry was a small community. The parish
of Stoneleigh is also mentioned as being of around the same size.
The area within which the University of Warwick now sits was covered by the Manor of
Stoneleigh, gifted in 1154 to a community of Cistercian monks. The abbey managed land at
a number of ‘granges’ within the area, including grade II listed Cryfield Grange Farmhouse
(1) which is still in existence within the University campus, albeit largely rebuilt in the early
th
19 century. The Cryfield site was the first area given to the monks of Stoneleigh; however,
the monks apparently found the proximity of the road too distracting, and resettled to the site
of the current abbey. Listing text refers to the farm as having originally been a demesne
farm of Henry II.
During this period a number of Medieval farms and manors were established but later
became depopulated due to changes in the local economy and regions of economic and
political influence. These locations include the deserted village of Stoneleigh [3151], the
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 249
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
site of the deserted village of Cryfield Grange [2853], the deserted village of Hurst [2919],
and the deserted medieval settlement of Mislead [2923]. These settlements are generally
thought of as being extremely responsive to outside circumstances. This cause of desertion
is sometimes determined by defining the approximate date of desertion and often relates to
the aftermath of the Plague when labour was scarce and landlords would evict their tenants
and reorganise their estate.
Additional features from the medieval landscape include mooted sites which surrounded
manor houses [2017], ornamental features such as ponds and fish ponds [2860; 8348], and
monastic sites [8351]. Canley Moat (referred to above) was recorded to be tenanted by
John Parks, whose descendant Henry Parks was born there in 1815. Henry Parks later
became the Colonial Secretary of New South Wales, Australia and developed the idea of a
federated nation of Australia. As referenced in the SMR notes, Cryfield is said to have been
the site of a royal residence called Buryside [2852] although this site was later given to
Stoneleigh Abbey. An evaluation report undertaken by Warwick University in early 2006
records possible earthworks associated with Sownes Moat to the southeast of the Iron Age
enclosures near the Westwood Site.
Industries such as pottery and brick making developed during the medieval time period.
Pottery discovered in the vicinity of the Westwood Site has been dated to the 13th century
and is considered to be overfired kiln waste in the form of jugs and pitchers [3938].
Adjacent to this site is an area of land called Potters Field. The area is underlain by red clay
which produces good quality pottery. The area is located close to water, and the woods
provided a constant source of charcoal for kiln firing. Similarly Tocil Wood, once known as
Potters Field Coppice also contains access to clay, water and charcoal sources. Tocil lakes
are recorded as historic puddle ponds to access clay, indicating sustained use in the area.
Several medieval watermill sites are also recorded for the area. These include the predicted
site at Birches Wood Farm [2854] to the west of the University grounds. The possible
Bronze Age mound located near Cryfield Farmhouse is located within a field called Mill Hill
Field. This mound may also indicate that a windmill was once situated there. Several
ponds existed within the area one of which has been filled in and was determined by
159
geophysical survey .
It was probably during medieval times that the historic pathways, as described on
Figure 14.2, were defined. The roads which run through the University land would have
followed the rough alignment of these paths. It is also likely that these paths developed as
routeways to various village and resource sites during the prehistoric period. Further
remnant features of the medieval landscape include Kings Wood, [9945] formerly known as
The Frith, and Crackley Wood [9951]. Both these features are located to the south of the
University Estate. It is noted in the aerial photographic assessment (Appendix F.3) that an
area of broad medieval ridge and furrows was located on AP 5 but this area has now been
built over. Adjacent further areas of ridge and furrows are likely to date to the postmedieval.
The assessment of landscape and visual impacts, described in Chapter 7, defines the
landscape as being Arden countryside. Significantly, an Arden landscape is an ancient
landscape of small irregular shaped fields, enclosed by Hedgerows with winding lanes and
historic woodland. The patterning of the fields and road systems around and within Warwick
University is likely to date to the medieval period, and possibly earlier, as people situated
themselves in the rolling landscape to farm livestock and agriculture and move between
adjacent settlements and resources.
159
Archaeological Evaluation, Hill. S & D Smith, Department of Continuing Education, University of Warwick, 1996
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 250
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Post Medieval
‘Practicioner in the Mathematiques’, John Goodmine’s 1597 map of Stoneleigh, gives a
detailed pattern of field names for the area, except for those sections which are held freely
by other landowners. Therefore a large section of what is now University land to the south
of Gibbet Hill Road is not detailed. Two buildings are shown directly adjacent to Gibbet Hill
Road; it is possible that one of these buildings was on the site of either the current Cryfield
Grange Farmhouse, or Cryfield House Farmhouse (4). To the west of Gibbet Hill the land
appears to have been largely wooded, making up the area later shown in a 1766 map as
‘Roughknowles’, ‘Bordwells’, ‘Monkshayes’ and ‘Mattmakers’ woods. Westwood Heath
makes the western boundary of the study area.
The ‘Survey of the Manor and Parish of Stoneley’ from 1766 comprises records of tenancy
and borders for the whole of the estate. ‘The Gibet’ is marked on the east side of Turnpike
Road or Cannocks Hill, now known as Kenilworth Road. On the western side a farmstead is
shown; this farm is still in existence on the Gibbet Hill site (14). To the west the area is
shown to be split into fields, interspersed by wooded areas including what is now Tocil
Woods 100 m west of the farm (the wood is un-named on the map). The previously
mentioned puddle pools related to early industry are marked. To the north of Gibbet Hill is
an area marked as Canley, and a number of buildings are in evidence. Cryfield Grange
Farmhouse (1) is shown to the southwest of the farm, and east of a large wooded area with
a number of different section names, including Rough Knowles and Great Monks Hayes to
the north. To the west of these wooded areas, ‘The Hurst’ corresponds with a numbers of
farms still extant, of which South Hurst Farm is listed grade II (2). There are more unnamed
farms in the area which correspond with Tocil House Farm (no longer extant) and Cryfield
House Farm (4) as shown in Photograph 14.1. Kirby Corner is named on this map, and a
number of buildings cluster to the north of the junction.
Photograph 14.1: Cryfield House Farmhouse
The area has changed little as shown on the 1886 Ordnance Survey (OS) First Edition,
although the London and North West Railway Coventry/Leamington branch cuts through to
the east of, and parallel to, Kenilworth Road, and Kenilworth/Berswell branch running from
northwest to southeast and bisecting the wood formerly known as Great Monks Hayes, but
now named Crackley Wood. The Kenilworth to Berswell Branch of the London North
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 251
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Western Railway line [6990] is recorded on Warwickshire County’s Historic Environment
Record, as is the site of the signal box [9642] which is situated on the 1886 OS on the
Common at Kenilworth. The Kenilworth Road is shown to have wooded areas to either
side. Gibbet Hill Farm (14) is named, and appears to be in much the same form as on the
estate maps, including the two pools on the farmland. The proliferation of puddle pools in
the general area is much clearer on this map. A mooted site is shown to the north of where
the gibbet stood.
To the northwest of Gibbet Hill, Westwood Heath has become a village along the west –
east road, and boasts a school, church and reading room as well as a number of dwellings.
There is also a brick works close to Kirby Corner. Evidence of an historic brick industry is
found further southeast on Gibbet Hill Road in the wooded area known as ‘Old Brickyard
Plantation’ [8366]. To the north, the village of Canley appears to have changed little since
the map of 1766. Canley Hall Farmhouse (grade II listed), (8), the group of buildings
making up Ivy Farm (grade II listed), (9/10/11), and Canley Hall Farmhouses (dated earlier
than Canley Hall Farmhouse, and probably the original farmstead, grade II listed), (12). To
the northwest of Canley village a mooted site is shown, alongside two buildings, the Moat
House and Barn (grade II listed), (13).
The industrial heritage of the region, which began in the medieval periods with the extracting
of clay for pottery manufacture, increased with large-scale quarrying across the landscape.
Sites such as ‘Pit Field’ [2876] which is marked on a map dating to 1766 illustrate that the
economic resources of the area were exploited locally and probably over a number of
decades. A marl pit [2921] is suggested by documentary evidence and was probably begun
much earlier than is recorded. Several gravel pit sites are recorded for the region and are
marked on the 1886 OS map. These include the pit situated 500 m east of the Milburn
Viaduct [6936], and one situated 100 m east of St Joseph’s Convent School in Kenilworth
[6945]. The extractive sites are Tocil Wood were worked into the Post-medieval period.
Brick manufacturing was a stable industry for the region and several sites are recorded on
the 1886 OS map including the area north of Ladyes Hill, Kenilworth [3275]. A further
brickworks site is located at the Old Brickyard [8365], north of the railway line and west of
Fletchhamstead Bridge. The OS 1905 edition shows no further change within the area in
question.
Modern
The OS Map of 1926 charts development to the northwest of the current Main Campus,
notably along the line of the Kenilworth road; these houses are predominantly detached
dwellings, and mark the beginning of the expansion of Coventry to the south. This
th
development continued throughout the early part of the 20 century, mainly as a result of
the expansion of Coventry County Council’s boundaries in 1928 and 1931 to include most of
Stoneleigh.
The 1938 OS Map indicates new buildings along Gibbet Hill Road, to the southeast of
Gibbet Hill Farm, and a large amount of development to the northeast along Kenilworth
Road. The site of the puddle pools is not shown as a result of loss of OS revision records,
although Gibbet Hill Farm has retained the same form as shown on the First Edition. There
is also a sewage works shown to the north of Tocil Wood, which was taken over by the
Corporation of Coventry in 1928 and known as Canley Works. The emergence of sewage
works in the area was a sign of further development. The area to the west of Gibbet Hill has
remained open, with field patterns and farm locations as shown in earlier OS editions, and
the only change is that the Brick Yard shown in the First Edition close to Kirby Corner has
become a Saw Mill.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 252
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
A series of circular buildings and octagonal structures were located to the north of the
University, south of Tile Hill Lane, which are recorded as Second World War defences
[6752]. A further Second World War site for the region is located west of Gibbet Hill Road,
east of the Main Campus [9648].
The OS 1955 edition shows residential development at the south-eastern end of Gibbet Hill
Road, east of Gibbet Hill Farm on both sides of Kenilworth Road. Other than this, the
landscape to the west remains largely unchanged until Westwood Heath. Here a sports
facility has been constructed, with sports grounds on the south side of Westwood Heath
Road and southeast of Kirby Corner Road. To the northern end of Kirby Corner Road, a
newly constructed Teachers Training College is shown. This building, later to become part
of the University of Warwick, was originally constructed in the 1950s. To the north and east
of the College, development in Canley has subsumed Canley as a village, with a cemetery
and further housing to the south of Fletchhamstead Highway, and extending south to meet
Kenilworth Road.
The OS edition 1968-69 does not chart the early development of the University of Warwick,
which implies that mapping was completed prior to their construction. Here, the historic
farms are still the main built features. There are a number of University buildings which
predate this OS edition; they are not mapped until the editions of 1973-1977.
The historic features of hedgerows and possible early historic trackways, identified in
Figure 14.2, continued into the post-medieval period and have the potential to indicate not
only the layout of old field and property boundaries but indicate the location where additional
sub-surface archaeological sites may be located. Historic features such as Gibbet Hill Road
can be traced back at least to the 16th century and are important elements in the
understanding of the historical development of the wider landscape. The aerial photograph
assessment depicts a number of features which date to the post-medieval period including
steam driven plough areas, post-inclosure landscapes of agricultural field boundaries and
the extensive system of water management features that lie adjacent to Canley Brook near
Cryfield and which helped to form the eroded beds of former watercourses (see
Appendix F.3).
The Early Development of the University
The development of the University of Warwick within the area was begun in 1964, with a
Royal Charter granted in March 1965 and the development plan prepared by Arthur Ling
and Alan Goodman of Grey, Goodman and Associates published in 1964. The first
buildings on the Central Campus were completed in 1965, of particular note being the
‘multipurpose building’ designed by Grey, Goodman and Associates, which was to house
various departments during the University of Warwick’s early years.
The practice of Yorke, Rosenburg and Madall had a significant input into the early buildings,
including Rootes Hall (16), the first Hall of Residence, in 1965 (Photograph 14.2) and the
University Library. Rootes Hall, which forms a group with the Rootes Social Building and
Benefactors Hall, has been identified as architecturally interesting. The first building on the
Gibbet Hill Site was the Centre for Mathematics.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 253
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Photograph 14.2: Rootes and Benefactors Halls when First Built
The OS Map of 1973-1977 shows early University buildings. The Gibbet Hill Site is fully
utilised with the Houses for Visiting Mathematicians (15) (Photograph 14.3) shown at the
north of the site, and an area of plantation has been added to the eastern edge of the
construction area. At the western end of Gibbet Hill Road the Central Campus has become
evident. The ‘Teacher Training College’ is now the College of Education, and buildings
housing women’s residences by architects W. S. Hattrell and Partners have been
constructed to the west of the site.
Photograph 14.3: Detail of the Maths Houses at Gibbet Hill Site
The University continued to grow following this first stage of development in the 1960s and
early 70s, with further academic and residential buildings being built on campus during the
70s and 80s, and the Warwick Arts Centre and Student Union in 1974 and 1975
respectively. These buildings were situated on the central campus, and are shown on the
1993 OS edition. On the Gibbet Hill Site, the Medical school and research buildings have
expanded during the 1990s. OS 1993 also charts the development of housing to the north
and east of the Gibbet Hill Site, which by the OS edition of 1995 surrounds the north-eastern
boundaries of the site. By 1999, the footprint of the main academic buildings within the
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 254
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Gibbet Hill Site has changed; development of the site continued throughout the 1990s and
predominantly in 2001.
14.4.4
Conservation Areas
There are four designated Conservation Areas within the locality, the closest two of which
are shown in Figure 14.2. The University Estate, and thus the proposed Main Campus
Masterplan, does not fall within any of these.
The closest to the development site is Kenilworth Road Conservation Area, to the east of
the University. The Conservation Area encompasses land to either side of the Kenilworth
Road from south of Gibbet Hill Road, to the edge of Coventry city centre, and includes the
lower part of Gibbet Hill Road (not the Gibbet Hill Site) and the War Memorial Park.
Ivy Lane Conservation Area is 500 m to the northeast of the University Estate, and
comprises the historic Hamlet of Canley, including listed buildings Canley Hall Farm and Ivy
Farm.
Kenilworth Conservation Area and Kenilworth St John’s Conservation Area are both with in
the centre of Kenilworth, and as such would be unaffected by the University Development.
14.4.5
Aerial Photograph Assessment
Aerial photography assessment has identified the Iron Age settlement and land-use site
(excavated by Hill in 2002) located at the Westwood Site (Appendix F.3, AP1). Further
ditches in the central and southwest of the area (AP 3 and 9) indicate possible further premedieval buried features. The extensive water systems set up to manage the floodplain
south of the central campus playing fields and west of Cryfield Grange were visible in AP 5,
6 and 7. Former land boundaries were identified across several areas (Appendix F.3, AP 2,
AP 4, AP 10 and AP 11) whilst a former track-way is visible as a negative mark in the
cropland of AP 11.
The assessment has highlighted the impact of the University on the relict ancient landscape.
Boundaries, tracks and managed woodland are indicative of a former arable/pastoral landuse. Outside the campus, this arable landscape of field patterns and route-ways remains.
14.5
Impact Assessment
This section describes the potential for known, likely and predicted sites to be impacted
upon by development across the University grounds.
Figure 14.4 illustrates the location of areas of indicative development and indicative
locations for structural landscaping. In order to define impact assessments the impact area
has been divided up into five impact zones (Area 1 to Area 5) as defined in Figure 14.4 and
described below:
Area 1:
Encompassing the Westwood Site;
Area 2:
Encompassing the northern portion of Central Campus West;
Area 3:
Enclosing the southern portion of Central Campus West, from the southern
edge of the Heronbank Lakes;
Area 4:
Including the Central Campus East; and,
Area 5:
Encompassing the Gibbet Hill Site.
Both forms of proposals (new build and landscaping) are identified as sources of potential
risk to sub-surface archaeology. It is understood that these proposed developments would
have differing levels of construction impact. The level of truncation to existing archaeology
varies across the University Grounds.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 255
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The baseline data has indicated the type and nature of sites to be found in the area. Of
note is the Iron Age settlement located near the banjo shaped feature at the Westwood Site
(8636) and the cluster of sites associated with Cryfield House Farm, (8362; 8348; W-2924;
8347; 8350; 8360; 8351; 8346) which are located at about 90 m AOD on the high point
above Canley Brook. Whilst none of these sites in the central west section of the University
(Figure 14.4) would be impacted upon, this cluster provides additional information with
regards to likely significant site types and the environment in which they may be
encountered.
Extrapolating out from this information it is considered likely that further crop mark features
and significant flint scatters, Roman finds and medieval features would be located in areas
of high topography above the local watercourse of Canley Brook.
A summary of the potential impacts on archaeological resources and cultural heritage at the
University Main Campus is provided in Table 14.6.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 256
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Table 14.6: Summary of Potential Impacts on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Site
Site Details
Significance
Likely
Truncation
Evaluation
Criteria
Duration of
Impact
Requires
Mitigation?
Yes.
The end
boundary of
any
development
should be
well defined
so as to
avoid the site
Yes
Area 1 (Westwood Site)
Proposed Development and Landscaping
C-8635
Sownes Moat
Moderate
Minimal,
although
possible tree
root damage
Moderate
Adverse
(negative)
This site sits
on the
boundary of
proposed
landscaping
C-8636
Banjo shaped
enclosure possibly
Iron Age – centre of
landscaping
(Landscaping north)
Moderate
potential
There has
been previous
impacts
through
construction
of playing
fields and
previous
archaeological
excavation
Moderate
Adverse
(negative)
AP 1
Based on Figure
15.4 this area also
impacts on further
surviving features of
the Iron age
enclosure, med
settlement and crop
mark features
identified in Aerial
Photograph
assessment
Moderate to
major
This area has
sustained
previous
impact
through the
construction
of playing
fields and
University
buildings.
Moderate
Adverse
(negative)
There is a
need to
determine
how much of
the site
remain
unexcavated
as the area is
proposed for
further new
build and
landscaping
Further reworking of the
landscape
may impact
upon subsurface
features
during
construction.
If not
mitigated
appropriately
impact would
have a
permanent
negative
effect on
identified
archaeological
resource.
Yes
Area 2 (Northern extent of Central Campus West)
Proposed development of new buildings and landscaping. Area north and immediately south of
Scarman Road and Resident Block
AP 2
Based on an
understanding of the
flint scatter (SMR
8345) located
adjacent to this area
it is predicted that
there is a medium to
high likelihood of
sub-surface
archaeological
features being
located within area
of proposed
development and
landscaping.
Minor to
Moderate
Minor
landscaping
truncation
likely limited
to top 200 mm
through
landscaping
Moderate
Adverse
(negative)
During
construction
activity
Yes
Area 3 (Southern extent of Central Campus West)
Proposed Development of new buildings and landscaping. Cryfield Farm House
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 257
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Site
Site Details
Significance
Likely
Truncation
Evaluation
Criteria
Duration of
Impact
Requires
Mitigation?
During
proposed
development
construction
and
landscaping
During
proposed
development
construction
and
landscaping
Yes
During
proposed
development
construction
and
landscaping
Yes
W-2925
Linear Features
Moderate
Minimal
Moderate
Adverse
(negative)
AP 3; 45,
6 and 7.
Medium to high
likelihood of subsurface
archaeological
features being
located.
Moderate
Moderate
Adverse
(negative)
Likely
archaeolo
gical
features
A possible barrow
(or natural) feature
discussed in the
Main Campus
Masterplan
Moderate
The southern
section of this
area may
have been
truncation
through
construction
of playing
fields.
Minimal
Moderate
Adverse
(negative)
Yes
Area 4 (Central Campus East)
Proposed Landscaping. North of Tocil Wood Nature Reserve Park
Tocil Wood, a
historic wood with
potential for
prehistoric
archaeology
C-4592
14.5.1
Moderate
Nil to minimal
for the most
part but
moderate
where
extraction pits
have been
located
Minor
adverse
During any
vegetation
clearance and
ground
breaking
works
Yes
Built Heritage
The only grade II listed building within the University Estate is Cryfield House Farm (4),
although others in the vicinity may be affected by the development. Table 14.7 describes
impacts to built heritage within, and in areas surrounding the University of Warwick Main
Campus.
Table 14.7: Listed Buildings Potentially Impacted
No
Site Name and
Importance
Significance
of Effect
Evaluation
Criteria
Duration of
Impact
Mitigation
Required
1
Cryfield Grange
Farmhouse
Grade II Listed
Moderate
Slight
adverse
Construction:
construction traffic
noise and volume
Operation:
possible visual
intrusion
Yes
2
South Hurst Farm
Grade II Listed
Moderate
Slight
adverse
Construction:
construction traffic
noise and volume
Operation:
possible visual
intrusion
Yes
3
Dale House
Farmhouse
Grade II Listed
Moderate
Negligible
effect
Construction:
traffic noise and
volume
No
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 258
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
No
Site Name and
Importance
Significance
of Effect
Evaluation
Criteria
Duration of
Impact
Mitigation
Required
4
Cryfield House
Farmhouse
Grade II Listed
Moderate
Moderate
adverse
Construction:
Construction traffic
noise and volume
Operation: visual
intrusion
Yes
5
Wainbody Wood
Farmhouse
Grade II Listed
Moderate
Negligible
effect
Construction:
Construction traffic
volume
No
7
Hill Farmhouse
Grade II Listed
Moderate
Negligible
effect
Construction:
Construction traffic
volume
No
8
Canley Hall Farm
Grade II Listed
Moderate
Negligible
effect
Construction:
Construction traffic
volume
No
9
Ivy Farm
Grade II Listed
Moderate
Negligible
effect
Construction:
Construction traffic
volume
No
12
Canley Hall
Farmhouses
Grade II Listed
Moderate
Negligible
effect
Construction:
Construction traffic
volume
No
13
The Moat House
and Barn
Grade II Listed
Moderate
Negligible
effect
Construction:
Construction traffic
volume
No
14
Gibbet Hill
Farmhouse
Unlisted but
deemed to be of
local importance
Minor
Slight
adverse
Construction:
Construction traffic
noise and volume
Operation: visual
intrusion
Yes
15
Houses for Visiting
Mathematicians
Unlisted but
deemed to be of
local importance
Minor
Slight
adverse
Construction:
construction traffic
noise and volume
Operation: visual
intrusion
Yes
16
Rootes Hall
Unlisted but
deemed to be of
local importance
Minor
Slight
adverse
Construction:
construction traffic
noise and volume
Operation: visual
intrusion, change
to setting
Yes
Kenilworth Road
Conservation Area
Locally significant
area
Minor
Slight
adverse
Construction:
Construction traffic
noise and volume
Yes
Ivy Farm
Conservation Area
Locally significant
area
None
Negligible
effect
Construction:
Possible increase
in traffic volume
No
14.6
Impact Mitigation
It is recommended that an Archaeological Resource Management Plan be developed in
order to manage the overall archaeological strategy throughout the expansion of the
University. This document would provide the framework by which the archaeological
investigation works would be developed.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 259
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
In order to enhance our understanding of the archaeological component of the historic
landscape and to ensure that the appropriate recording is made of the archaeology prior to
construction the following techniques are recommended. These are by no means exclusive
and other methods may be utilised as they are required. These methods would be used
across the development zones which have identified archaeological remains, and also
across locations where no survey work has been possible. These mitigation techniques
would include:
•
Earthworks survey;
•
Field survey to identify surface features;
•
Further geophysical survey;
•
Surface artefact collection; and,
•
Trial trenching.
14.6.1
Area 1 (Westwood Site): Proposed Development and Landscaping
This area would require further survey and possibly trial trenching to identify the surviving
archaeological potential of the area in advance of development. Where possible it is
recommended that areas with sub-surface potential be protected through building up the
land surface to create the landscaping layer and that ground penetration is restricted.
14.6.2
Area 2 (Northern Central Campus West): Proposed Development and
Landscaping.
The location of a lithic scatter in the immediate region of this Area indicates the likelihood
that further material may be found in areas with little truncation. The aerial photograph
assessment also identified possible archaeological features in this area. Further survey and
some trial trenching would be required to further identify the archaeological potential of this
area. A watching brief may be required in some areas during topsoil stripping and ground
breaking works.
14.6.3
Area 3 (Southern Central Campus West): Proposed Landscaping
This area has the potential to contain further information about the use of the landscape by
Prehistoric peoples, Romans and in the medieval period. It is recommended that areas of
known significance be protected as much as possible through building up of land. Further
survey and likely trial trenching would be required to assess the archaeological potential.
14.6.4
Area 4 (Central Campus East): Proposed Landscaping
This area has been identified as an historic wood with potential Iron Age and Roman
features and sub-surface archaeology. Impacts are indicated to be outside the area defined
during excavation, however any ground breaking activities which would occur in this area
would require detailed survey and trial trenching to identify the likely nature of sub-surface
archaeological features. Where possible, areas should be retained as natural landscaping.
14.6.5
Area 5 (Gibbet Hill Site): New Building Development
This area has been truncated through previous construction activity. It is unlikely that
archaeological material would be located in this area. Mitigation measures relate to the built
environment however a watching brief for potential archaeology is recommended.
It is possible that these evaluation methods may result in the need for further mitigation
works, either via changes to design and/or further archaeological investigation.
Further consultation would be undertaken with the Local Authorities and local Archaeology
Officers. An archaeological written scheme of investigation would be developed for
agreement with these stakeholders. This would include recording mechanisms and
provision for the analysis, dissemination and deposition of results of the work.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 260
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
14.6.6
Built Heritage
Mitigation proposals for potential impacts to built heritage are described in Table 14.8.
Table 14.8: Mitigation Proposals and Residual Impacts
Site
No.
Mitigation
Site name
Construction
Operation
Residual
impact
1
Cryfield Grange
Farmhouse
Provision of adequate
screening measures around
construction sites
None
Negligible
2
South Hurst
Farmhouse
Provision of adequate
screening measures around
construction sites
None
Negligible
4
Cryfield House
Farmhouse
Provision of adequate
screening measures around
construction sites
Provision and
retention of natural
screening to
northwest of
Farmhouse site
Slight visual
intrusion,
becoming
negligible with
the maturing
screening
measures
14
Gibbet Hill
Farmhouse
Provision of adequate
screening measures around
construction sites
None
Negligible
15
Houses for
Visiting
Mathematicians
Provision of adequate
screening measures around
construction sites
None
Negligible
16
Rootes Hall
Provision of adequate
screening measures around
construction sites
Mitigation by
design, use of
sympathetic
materials and
styles in new build
Slight visual
intrusion from
new build to rear
Kenilworth Road
Conservation
Area
Provision of adequate
screening measures around
construction sites
None
Slight increased
noise from
increased traffic
flow on Gibbet
Hill Road
Loss of significant archaeological features in the landscape, such as field boundaries and
historic pathways, contributes to the alteration and redefinition of land-use at the University
of Warwick’s Main Campus. Where formerly the landscape was used opportunistically by
Prehistoric and early medieval peoples with minimal impact to landscape features, the land
has now since been transformed through extractive activities, development of road systems,
housing and the placement and growth of the University itself. All these activities contribute
to a definition and understanding of the area of Main Campus through time but also
contribute to a loss of information about what the previous landscapes meant to prehistoric
and historic peoples and how that land was used. Construction in this area would mean
permanent loss of sub-surface archaeological features. Mitigation is aimed at recording and
interpreting the archaeological record as much as possible in order to preserve an
understanding of past land-use.
14.7
Residual Impacts
Residual impacts, following mitigation, are described in Table 14.8 above. In general,
residual impacts are expected to range between negligible and slight in terms of
significance. Slight visual intrusion would be expected to impact upon the grade II listed
building Cryfield House Farmhouse, although provision of screening is thought capable of
mitigating this further. Visual intrusion is also expected upon Rootes Hall, the rear of which
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 261
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
is earmarked by the Main Campus Masterplan for new structures. The increase in traffic
flow is also considered capable of resulting in slight increased traffic noise to the Kenilworth
Conservation Area.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 262
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
15
Human Population
15.1
Introduction
This chapter presents the method, assumptions and findings of the socio-economic impact
assessment of the proposed expansion of the University of Warwick, which has been
undertaken by SQW Limited.
15.1.1
Purpose
The University of Warwick commissioned SQW Limited through Turley Associates to
undertake a socio-economic impact assessment of the proposed expansion of the
University as an input to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the proposals.
160
SQW undertook the following (set out in Section 7.9 of the Environmental Scoping Report
[October 2005] for the EIA):
•
Impact on employment creation (including direct / indirect, permanent / part-time jobs
and any displacements);
•
Impact on skills training and development;
•
Impact on business tourism (as a result of cultural, conferencing and sporting facilities);
•
Opportunities for inward investment;
•
Implications for area regeneration and social inclusion;
•
Implications for safety and security of the local communities;
•
Implications for the quality of life of the local communities; and,
•
Other spin-offs from the proposed development, both quantifiable and unquantifiable
(e.g. image, social cohesion).
The study did not include an assessment of the ‘safety and security of the local
communities’ as the meaning of this requirement was unclear in the context of the proposed
expansion of the University.
The study has drawn on SQW’s previous study of the existing regional impact of the
University, however also been concerned with the proposed extension of the Main Campus
rather than the University as a whole. The potential impact would be assessed in the
context of the economic structure and prospects of the Warwick-Coventry area and the
West Midlands region as a whole and the EIA would also examine the direct and indirect
impacts arising from construction as well as the operational phase of the proposed
development.
15.1.2
Scope
The scope of the socio-economic impact assessment of the proposed expansion of the
University of Warwick is governed by the Environmental Scoping Report. The aim of the
Environmental Scoping Report is to identify the potential environmental impacts (both
positive and negative) that could be associated with the expansion proposals and to outline
the work required in undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The Environmental Scoping Report outlines the scope of the Socio-economic Impact
Assessment to be undertaken by SQW Limited (Section 7.9) including:
“Terms of Reference and Methodology (7.9.1)
160
University of Warwick Masterplan Application: Environmental Scoping Report. Ove Arup and Partners Ltd,
December 2005
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 263
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The assessment would predominantly comprise a desk top study and would address
the potential impacts of the proposed development within the West Midlands Region
and beyond.
Baseline Data (7.9.1)
“The University currently generates substantial social and economic benefits, both
directly and indirectly, as a result of its current operation. See SQW’s first report on
the ‘Regional Impact of the University of Warwick’ (2005/06)”
Issues to be examined in the socio-economic assessment could include:
• Impact on employment creation (including direct / indirect, permanent / parttime jobs and any displacements)
• Impact on skills training and development
• Impact on business tourism as a result of cultural, conferencing and sporting
facilities
• Opportunities for inward investment
• Implications for area regeneration and social inclusion
• Implications for the safety and security of the local communities
• Implications for the quality of life of the local communities
• Other spin-offs from the proposed development both quantifiable and
unquantifiable (e.g. image and social cohesion)
“The assessment should be undertaken against policy guidance at the national,
regional and local levels and the relevant best practice and guidance
The EIA should also specify assumptions used in the assessment and identify any
data gaps as well as any limitations of the study.
Any consultation undertaken as part of the assessment should also be reported.
The EIA should identify any potential impacts during construction and operation of the
proposed development.
The EIA would also assess the significance of the likely impacts against the criteria
stated in Table 7.1 of the Scoping Report (see above).
Any potential cumulative impacts arising as a result of other nearby developments
should also be identified as far as possible”
The Environmental Scoping Report also requires the socio-economic impact assessment to
consider any mitigation measures that may be necessary to limit or remove any potentially
harmful impacts of the proposed development at the local and/or regional levels (Section
7.9.3). It should also consider any potential residual impacts following mitigation.
15.1.3
Method
SQW Limited has translated the requirements of the Environmental Scoping Report into a
comprehensive study method for this assignment.
Context consultations
Consult websites, key plans and reports and specialists in
the key regional agencies and local authorities as required:
• Government Office for the West Midlands
• West Midlands Regional Assembly
• Advantage West Midlands
• Warwickshire County Council
• Warwick District Council
• Coventry City Council
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 264
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Economic context review
Assess economic development reports for the West
Midlands, Warwickshire, Warwick and Coventry, assess any
component issues separately and restructure the issues as
appropriate
Policy context review
Review spatial planning, economic development and
regeneration policies for the West Midlands, Warwickshire,
Warwick and Coventry
Implications for impact
See “issues to be examined … in the socio-economic
assessment” (above)
Client meetings
Draft and final report meetings as required
SQW Limited has drawn on publicly available statistical information and on published
reports and website information from the key agencies and local authorities involved at the
local and regional levels in the potential socio-economic impact of the proposed expansion
of the University of Warwick (see above). It has only proved necessary to consult the
University of Warwick and Turley Associates to undertake this desk-based study (see
Appendix G.1). Various documents and plans from the key agencies and local authorities
involved have been reviewed to undertake the study (see Appendix G.2).
15.1.4
Structure
The rest of this chapter is structured to reflect the technical and consultative processes
through which the University of Warwick Expansion Socio-economic Impact Assessment
was undertaken:
Section 15.2: Baseline conditions;
Section 15.3: University expansion;
Section 15.4: Economic impact;
Section 15.5: Policy context;
Section 15.6: Wider impact; and,
Section 15.7: Summary of findings and recommendations.
15.2
Baseline Conditions
This section of the report provides a baseline of the current social and economic benefits
that are generated both directly and indirectly by the University of Warwick. The first part
looks at the regional, sub-regional and local economies to ground the University within its
economic context and includes a summary of the statistical information from the Census
2001 and other government sources. The second part of this section provides a summary
of the SQW report, the ‘Regional Impact of the University of Warwick’ (Final Report May
2006) which was commissioned to obtain an independent view of the economic and social
impact of the University.
15.2.1
Economic Context
Introduction
This section provides an overview of the economic and social characteristics of the area
surrounding the University of Warwick based on the review of national, regional and local
statistics. The University of Warwick crosses the boundaries of Warwick District and the
Metropolitan Borough of Coventry and therefore both are explored within this section.
Warwick District lies in the heart of Warwickshire, covering an area of over 22,200 hectares.
Royal Leamington Spa, Warwick, Kenilworth and Whitnash are the four primary towns which
are surrounded by extensive rural land. The district has a strong local economy with high
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 265
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
numbers of skilled people and a number of major employers located in the area. Warwick in
particular has an important visitor economy built around the high quality rural environment
and the historic character of the town.
Coventry is a City and a Metropolitan Borough. It is the eighth largest city in England and,
as well as sharing the University of Warwick campus with its neighbouring district, it also
houses the expanding University of Coventry. Despite the decline of manufacturing, the city
is still an important centre for the motor industry with the headquarters for Jaguar alongside
a number of other car manufacturing companies. Although varying in economic and social
profile, both Warwick and Coventry are important centres to the West Midlands.
Employment
According to the mid-year population estimates in 2005, the resident population of Warwick
District and Coventry were 136,000 and 304,200 respectively. In Warwick, almost 65% of
this resident population is of working age, while the proportion is slightly lower in Coventry at
63%. The age profile of both Warwick and Coventry imitates closely that of the profile for
the West Midlands.
Compared to the West Midlands and the UK as a whole, Warwick has a higher proportion of
working age people who are economically active and in employment, displayed in
Table 15.1. In total, Warwick has 68,300 economically active people, of which nearly 81%
are in employment. Coventry has 147,800 economically active people of which 76% are in
employment, compared to 77% across Great Britain. This as a proportion of the working
age population falls below both the regional and national averages.
Examining the economically inactive within the two districts illustrates these differences
further. Whereas Warwick stands in line with the regional and national averages in terms of
the proportion of economically active people who are unemployed, Coventry has a higher
than regional and national average.
Table 15.1: Economically Active Population (January 2005 - December 2005)
Economically
active161 %
Economically
active in
employment %
Economically
active,
unemployed %
Economically
inactive %
Warwick District
80.9
76.8
4.8
19.1
Coventry Met Borough
75.8
70.9
6.1
24.2
West Midlands
77.4
73.4
5.0
22.6
Great Britain
78.4
74.5
4.9
21.6
Source: Annual Population Survey 2005
To understand unemployment in more detail, the number of Job Seekers Allowance (JSA)
claimants in Warwick and Coventry can be studied. Again, Warwick shows lower
unemployment levels than the regional and national trends with only 1.6% of the resident
working age population claiming JSA benefits (August 2006), compared to 3.9% in
Coventry, 3.4% in the West Midlands and 2.6% across Great Britain.
161
Economically active numbers and percentages are based on the working age population.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 266
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Average gross weekly earnings (earnings by workplace in 2005) are significantly higher in
Coventry at around £453 compared to the regional average (£402.50), and to a lesser
extent, the UK (£432). Warwick is also above average with gross weekly earnings
averaging at £440. Interestingly, when looking at earnings by residence, Coventry drops
below the regional and national average at £403 which may relate to the relatively high
proportion of economically inactive people within the city, or indicative of a high proportion of
the workforce on higher earnings living outside of the city centre. In contrast, Warwick has a
significantly higher average gross weekly earning by residence at £495, compared to £405
and £433 at a regional and national level, respectively.
Economic Structure
In the past both Warwick and Coventry have had a heavy reliance on manufacturing,
particularly, in relation to the automotive industry. Increased competition, primarily from
outside of the UK, has meant the share of employment in manufacturing has dropped
markedly in the County of Warwickshire over recent years. Showing similarities to the
Southeast economy and elsewhere, finance and business services have taken over across
the county and the West Midlands as a whole.
This is not to say manufacturing has disappeared altogether, but instead the nature of the
sector has changed with a move into higher value added manufacturing activities. The RES
expected to see net increases in employment within the high-tech corridors associated with
this new, higher value-added economic activity. The percentage of employee jobs in
manufacturing was higher at 17%, than the national average (12%) in 2005. Coventry
follows this trend with 16% of employee jobs in the manufacturing sector. Warwick shows a
percentage more in line with the national average, at 11%, as described in Graph 15.1.
Warwick has grown particularly strong in terms of the computing, and business and
professional service sectors, with a higher proportion of employment involved in the
knowledge-intensive sectors compared to the regional average. This in turn has allowed the
establishment of sector specific clusters, for example, the developing ICT cluster in the
Coventry Solihull Warwick triangle.
On the whole, the West Midlands has managed to regenerate and attract substantial
investment following the decline of traditional industries and new types of companies and
jobs have been created. The University of Warwick, alongside other Higher Education
Institutions and research establishments has an important role in linking the new economy
to the growing high tech and supporting services sector.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 267
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Graph 15.1: Proportion of Resident Working Age Population by Broad Industrial
Sector (January 2005 - December 2005)
Tourism-related
Other services
Industrial sector
Public admin,
education and health
Finance, IT and other
business activities
Transport and
communications
Distribution, hotels
and restaurants
Construction
Manufacturing
UK
West Midlands
0.0
5.0
Coventry M. District
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
% of employee jobs
Warwick District
Source: Annual Population Survey
Skills
The difference between the districts is again exaggerated when exploring employment by
occupational grouping. Based on persons in employment, Graph 15.2 displays the
162
proportion within each occupational grouping . Coventry has a significant proportion of
employment in the ‘elementary occupations’ group but elsewhere the district follows the
regional and national trends more closely. In Warwick, there is more variation, for example,
162
Occupational groupings are sources from the annual population survey (January 20 05 to December 2005) are
based on SOC 2000 major groupings
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 268
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
the percentage of ‘process plant and machine operatives’ is much lower at 4% compared to
the regional and national averages at nearly 10% and 8%, respectively. In contrast, there is
a higher proportion of employed people working as ‘managers and senior officials’ (19%)
and within ‘professional occupations (16%). This in essence, ties in with the higher
proportion of employees in Warwick working with the supporting services sector and fewer
in the manufacturing sector compared to Coventry.
Graph 15.2: Employment by Occupation (January 2005 – December 2005)
Warwick district
Coventry M.District
West Midlands
Great Britain
Proportion of all persons in employment (%)
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Managers
and senior
officials
Professional
occupations
Associate Administrative Skilled trades
professional & secretarial occupations
& technical
Personal
service
occupations
Sales and Process plant Elementary
customer
& machine
occupations
service occs
operatives
Occupation
Source: Annual Population Survey 2005
Warwick has a highly skilled labour force with nearly 41% of the working age population
qualified to National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) 4 and above, compared to 23% for the
West Midlands and 27% nationally. The proportions of those with NVQ3 and above, and
NVQ2 and above, are also considerably higher than the regional and national average. In
contrast, Coventry shows little variation from the regional and national averages. (Refer to
Figure 15.2).
Table 15.2: Level of Qualifications (January 2005 - December 2005)
Warwick
District
Coventry
Metropolitan
Borough
West
Midlands
Great Britain
NVQ4 and above
40.9
25.4
23.0
26.5
NVQ3 and above
60.9
41.1
39.9
44.4
NVQ2 and above
73.1
59.3
59.6
62.9
NVQ1 and above
82.8
72.6
74.1
77.2
Source: Annual Population Survey 2005
Economic and Social Deprivation
The spatial distribution of deprivation amongst the two districts, using the Index of Multiple
Deprivation (IMD) from 2004, is shown in Figure 15.1. It immediately becomes apparent
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 269
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
163
that Coventry has many more Super Output Areas (SOAs) which are ranked within the
20% most deprived in England than Warwick (66 in total). These SOAs are predominately
located to the northeast and southeast of Coventry as well as a smaller area of deprivation
to the northwest of the University itself.
In terms of ranking local authorities, Coventry has improved since 2000 to the relative
position of 63rd out of 354 (where 1 is the most deprived). The results also show that the
city is relatively less deprived than other large cities such as Birmingham, Derby, Liverpool,
Leicester, Manchester, Nottingham and Wolverhampton. However, this increase in
affluence is thought to have been coupled with a widening gap between the rich and poor in
the city.
The District of Warwick shows fewer clusters of high deprivation. Pockets of high
deprivation are evident but in fact only one SOA features in England’s top 20% most
deprived which is in the east of the Crown ward in the Lillington area. The University is
situated within an SOA which is in the 20% least deprived of the country.
15.2.2
‘The Regional Impact of the University of Warwick (SQW, 2006)’
This section looks specifically at the impacts of the University of Warwick. What becomes
immediately clear is the significant contribution the University makes and therefore gives an
indication of the impact future expansion would have to the local economy and wider region.
164
The SQW report outlined the economic impact of the University by examining direct
expenditure into both the local and regional economies, as well as indirect or induced
impacts. Direct expenditure was broken down by payroll, University spending on
purchases, and student spending. Accounting for all three, for the academic year of
2004-2005, the University was estimated to contribute £151 million directly to the local
economy (of Warwick and Coventry), and £189 million directly to the regional economy (the
West Midlands). The total direct impact for 2004-05 is summarised in Table 15.3.
Table 15.3: Total Direct Impact (2004/2005 Academic Year)
Item
Contribution
Payroll
£70,871,722
University purchases
£14,219,987
Student Union expenditure
£2,211,191
Student expenditure
£63,716,829
Total local impact
£151,019,729
Payroll
£94,692,333
University purchases
£28,117,096
Student Union expenditure
£2,702,875
Student expenditure
£63.716.829
Total regional impact
£189,229,130
Source: SQW Final Draft Regional Impact Assessment (2005:10)
The figures in this table underestimate the overall impact of the University because they do
not account for indirect and induced impacts produced by re-spending in the economy. For
163
164
Super Output Areas are a spatial scale, smaller than ward level from which statistical data can be analysed.
The Regional Impact of the University of Warwick, SQW, 2006
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 270
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
example, staff would spend their wages in the local and regional economy which would in
turn generate further employment and business activity. When these multiplier effects for
2004-2005 are combined with the contribution through direct impacts, the total local
economic impact is estimated as £181 million and the total regional economic impact as
£284 million, summarised in Table 15.4.
Table 15.4: Total Economic Impact (2004/2005 Academic Year)
Geographical
impact
Direct impact
Indirect impact
Total direct and
indirect
Local economic
impact
£151,019,729
£30,203,946
£181,223,674
Regional economic
impact
£189,229,130
£94,614,565
£283,843,694
Source: SQW Final Draft Regional Impact Assessment (2005:10)
Note: Indirect impact uses a 1.2 multiplier for local multiplier effect, and a 1.5 multiplier for the regional multiplier
effect based on research undertaken of similar studies.
Impact can also be represented through calculating an estimate of employment generated
by the University. In addition to the direct 3,037 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs generated
by the University in the local area and 3,861 in the region, direct and indirect spending
would also create further employment. It is estimated an additional 3,809 FTE jobs are
generated in the local economy and 6,549 FTE jobs in the West Midlands. It must be kept
in mind that these estimates of economic impact are only indicative and cannot be precise.
Important to assessing the impact of the University and its importance to the region, is its
contribution to the growth of a skilled labour base. According to 2003-2004 records, the
proportion of Warwick graduates progressing into employment or further training is high, at
94%. 17% of these graduates remain resident in the West Midlands which implies that the
University is providing up to 1,200 graduates and postgraduates for regional employers.
Therefore the University is attracting talented young people of which a significant proportion
stays resident in the region after graduation.
Other economic impacts include the wider initiatives the University of Warwick runs or
partners with and the role these have in the local and regional economies. The University
has developed strong connections with knowledge and business enterprises which not only
add to the profile of the region but have direct impact through business-university
collaborative contracts and knowledge transfer. The Lambert Review of Business University
Collaboration in December 2003 commented on the success of Warwick in this area of
development. Over the period of 2002-2003 to 2004-2005, the University entered into over
1,000 contracts for various kinds of knowledge transfer services of which almost 200 were
with organisations in the West Midlands and the average value of each contract, around
£0.25 million.
The University of Warwick is also involved in a number of other regional initiatives, for
example, the University of Warwick Science Park which provides business support and
property opportunities. Also, the Mercia Institute of Enterprise initiative, led by the
University, has enrolled over 5,000 students in the West Midlands in various enterprise and
entrepreneurial programmes. These examples demonstrate the regional role the University
plays in business and knowledge development activities, and its part in promoting inward
investment for the region by attracting expanding or relocating businesses. The University
actively promotes the region by acting as an ‘aggressively commercial institution’ and is
prepared to market its capabilities to potential inward movers.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 271
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
As part of a socio-economic baseline, it is of course important to understand the University’s
impact on society. As well as initiatives targeted at promoting business partnerships and
collaboration, the University has also developed strong links with the community. These
include the Warwick Arts Centre which holds a number of events and activities for schools.
The Centre for Lifelong Learning is another example, providing adult education and other
study courses for members of the community.
15.2.3
Conclusion
The SQW report clearly identifies the University of Warwick as a key contributor to both the
local and regional economy. The impacts of the University’s spending and employment for
the local and regional economies relates directly to the scale of the University and is
therefore key in understanding the potential socio-economic impacts of the proposed
expansion of the campus. The expansion needs to be considered in the context of the
changing economic activity, for example, the move from traditional industries to knowledge
based activities and business and financial services in recent years. The differences
between the economic and social profiles of Coventry and Warwick also need to be taken
into consideration when assessing the impacts of the expansion and in ensuring the benefits
are distributed evenly.
15.3
University Expansion
This section of the report summarises the key features of the expansion proposals in the
University of Warwick Masterplan (December 2005) and includes an overview of the Case
for Expansion prepared by the University of Warwick (version 7, July 2006).
15.3.1
University Expansion Needs Analysis
The University’s Vision
The University’s ambition is to build a ‘Campus for the 21st Century’ at which researchers
working in state-of-the-art facilities challenge and extend the boundaries of human
knowledge and understanding, where students and researchers of all backgrounds and all
nations study and live, which is an asset for the region and is, nationally, a key component
of the Science City initiative. Since it was founded in 1965, the University has grown, both
intellectually and physically, into one of the UK’s leading higher education institutions and it
now needs to make a step-change in its capacity and capability to engage in cutting-edge
research. The aim is to become a world-leading university. The proposed development is
driven by research requirements, but it would also enhance the University’s local and
regional impacts in a number of other ways.
Research
165
In the last five years, research income has more than doubled to £58m and the University
plans to triple research income to over £150m by 2016. The new campus would support
high-risk, high-impact research in novel fields of scientific interest and where the results of
that research can be translated into products and services that improve the health and
economic well-being for people and businesses nationally, regionally and locally. It would:
165
•
offer the very best facilities for research
•
provide a non-academic environment makes it a place at which researchers want to live
•
be capable of meeting the demands placed upon it by Government, students, business
and industry and local communities
•
provide an atmosphere which encourages academic rigour but which is, at the same
time, a fun place to be.
Statement of Accounts for the Year Ended 31 July 2005
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 272
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Enterprise and Innovation
The University has a strong tradition of working in collaboration with business and industry
and of playing an active role in national, regional and local economic life. In 2001, the Prime
Minister described the University as ‘a beacon among British universities for its dynamism,
166
quality and entrepreneurial zeal.’
The University has a portfolio approach to Enterprise
and Innovation which reflects the broad strengths and capabilities of the institution. At the
core of the strategy is the intention to maximise benefit to the sub-region, region and the
UK. Further, the strategy seeks to embed activities within the University and with key
stakeholders, and to move towards continuity and sustainability of activities allowing new
approaches to knowledge and technology transfer.
The University’s approach is based around the close relationships forged with regional
communities of interest and reflects the views of Lord Sainsbury, the Science and
Innovation Minister, who recently said:
“Building strong partnerships between local authorities, Regional Development
Agencies, universities, the business community and other stakeholders should be a
167
common focus for regional efforts to promote science and innovation.”
The University plans:
•
expanded collaborations with major UK companies;
•
Warwick Digital Laboratory: A major new Warwick Manufacturing Group initiative, this
would be a unique collaborative Research and Development centre with a focus on the
application of digital technology and methodologies to manufacturing, medicine and
health and product development;
•
Warwick Medical School: WMS would continue an existing series of programmes, and
engage in new activities, which would reach out to health and medical related
companies and users/practitioners in healthcare provision;
•
Warwick Broadband: The University would be establishing a pioneering new programme
of activity based around a Broadband TV Channel. to reach out to various communities
of interest;
•
that the new campus would attract businesses to establish their own research
laboratories at Warwick; and,
•
to double the number of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs
168
) it runs.
The Campus as a Community Asset
The University is committed to sharing its resources and facilities with the non-academic
community, especially people living in the area immediately surrounding the campus. This
would include:
•
enhanced community education activity
•
expansion of continuing professional development
•
encouraging school children from traditionally under represented groups to attend
courses and, eventually, enter HE
•
providing access to cultural and sporting facilities
166
Rt Hon Tony Blair MP, Prime Minister, 4 January 2001
Second Annual ‘Science Cities’ Summit, 24 May 2006 (DTI Press Release DTI/NW/026/06)
168
KTPs are designed to increase the sharing , and the exchange of, knowledge, technology and expertise between
the business community and higher education institutions
167
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 273
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
15.4
Economic Impact
This section of the report assesses the University and student expenditure which could be
generated by the proposed University expansion and estimates the likely direct and indirect
economic and regional and local employment impact. It also includes an estimate of the
likely construction employment associated with the proposed University expansion.
Direct and indirect expenditure impacts have been calculated using the same methodology
169
as that adopted for the previous SQW study of the regional impact of the University as a
whole. This methodology is explained in Appendix G.1 in order to apply this methodology,
estimates of the additional expenditure generated by operation of the campus are
170
required and two basic assumptions have been made, taken from the University’s plans:
•
Research grants and contracts would increase to £115m per annum by 2019-2020; and,
•
The number of students would increase to 20,000 FTEs by 2019-2020.
In order to move from these basic assumptions to estimates of direct expenditure impacts
the assumptions shown in Table 15.5 have been made have been made
Table 15.5: Assumptions
Category
Assumption
Assumed
increase
Research grants
96%
Student numbers (FTEs)
24%
Higher Education Funding Council for England & Teacher Training Agency Grants
Teaching
increase in line with student
numbers
24%
Research
increase in line with research grants
96%
Teacher Training Agency
no change
Specific Grants:
no change
Deferred capital
no change
Academic Fees and Support Grants
increase in line with student
numbers
24%
Research Grants and Contracts
increase in line with research grants
96%
Other Operating Income 2004/05
169
170
Residences, Catering and Conferences
increase in line with student
numbers
24%
Other Services Rendered
increase in line with research grants
96%
Released from Deferred Capital Grants
no change
Retail Operations
increase in line with student
numbers
24%
Post-Experience Centres
average of research grant and
student increase
60%
Other Income
average of research grant and
student increase
60%
Endowment Income and Interest
Receivable
average of research grant and
student increase
60%
Expenditure
Constant proportion of income
50%
The Regional Impact of the University of Warwick, SQW Limited, Finale Report, May 2006
Constructions costs an employment are dealt with separately
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 274
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Category
Assumed
increase
Assumption
Wages and salaries
Constant proportion of expenditure
50%
Student Union Expenditure
increase in line with student
numbers
24%
Expenditure impacts have then been calculated assuming that expenditure patterns arising
from the new campus would mirror those analysed in the previous study for the academic
year 2004-2005. In particular:
•
University expenditures by location of supplier would not change;
•
staff places of residence would be the same as at present;
•
the distribution of new students would also be constant in terms of:
-
full-time/part-time balance;
-
resident in University or private accommodation;
-
residential district; and,
-
the proportion which would be resident in the region/local areas before entering the
University.
Four types of expenditure impacts have been estimated and these are shown in Table 15.6.
171
A breakdown by geographical area has also been given where possible .
Student
Union
purchases
16.76
n/a
1.45
0.003
18.22
Coventry
22.68
n/a
5.61
0.22
28.51
Warwick & Coventry
(local impact)
39.44
15.29
7.06
0.23
62.02
Other West Midlands
13.26
n/a
6.90
0.04
20.20
Total West Midlands
(regional impact)
52.69
15.29
13.97
0.27
82.22
Total direct
impact
University
purchases
Warwick
Wages and
salaries
Student
expenditure
Table 15.6: Direct Expenditure Impacts (£m) in 2019-20
Central estimates for multipliers have been made at 1.2 for local impacts and 1.5 for
regional impacts. Limited sensitivity analysis has also been undertaken. The combined
direct and indirect expenditure impacts after allowing for multiplier effects are shown in
Table 15.7. The additional jobs have been calculated by applying average GVA per job
estimates to the expenditure impacts.
Table 15.7: Direct and Indirect Expenditure (£m) and Employment Estimates
Multipliers
Local 1.2
Regional 1.5
171
Local 1.3
Regional 1.8
Local 1.1
Regional 1.2
Warwick
21.86
23.68
20.04
Coventry
34.21
37.07
31.36
This is not feasible for student expenditure.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 275
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Multipliers
Local 1.2
Regional 1.5
Local 1.3
Regional 1.8
Local 1.1
Regional 1.2
Warwick & Coventry
(local impact)
56.07
60.75
51.40
Other West
Midlands
30.30
36.36
24.24
Total West Midlands
(regional impact)
86.37
97.10
75.64
Local
1,958
2,121
1,794
Regional
3,015
3,390
2,641
Additional jobs
It is important to put the estimates of the direct and indirect employment impact of the
proposed expansion of the University into the context of the current economically active
population at the local and regional levels. On the low multiplier assumptions (1.1 local / 1.2
regional), the net additional local employment impact of the proposed University expansion
represents about 0.87% of the existing economically active population in the Warwick &
Coventry area and the regional impact represents about 0.11% of the existing economically
active population in the West Midlands. On the high multiplier assumptions (1.3 local / 1.8
regional), the net additional local employment impact represents about 1.02% of the existing
local economically active population and the regional impact represents about 0.14% of the
existing regional economically active population (see Table 15.8).
Regional
West Midlands (includes
local)
15.4.1
2,472,300
77.4
3,015
0.12
3,390
0.14
2,641
0.11
% of Economic
Active
0.87
1.2)
1,794
Extra Jobs
(local 1.1 regional
1.02
% of Economic
Active
2,121
Extra Jobs
0.95
(local 1.3 regional
1.8)
1,958
% of Economic
Active
77.3
Extra jobs
206,800
(local 1.2 regional
1.5)
% of Working Age
Population
Local
Warwick & Coventry
Existing
Economically Active
Table 15.8: University Expansion Employment Impact in Regional and Local Context
Construction Employment Impact
The development of the university campus would generate a significant amount of
temporary economic activity in the local area. Estimates of construction impact are
traditionally derived through an understanding of likely expenditure on materials and labour
and include the costs associated with site preparation and servicing and landscaping, as
well as build costs for the floorspace accommodated. For this exercise, the designs and
cost estimates are not sufficiently advanced to provide estimates of cost for landscaping.
Accordingly, we have based the calculation on built floor area alone. We have used
published cost indices to estimate the construction value of this floor space.
To calculate the number of jobs generated, an estimate of construction cost is required for
each type of accommodation. The rate adopted for the calculations represents the median
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 276
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
172
value of the range suggested in the published Tender Price Index . As a detailed
breakdown of accommodation is not available at this stage, the cost ranges adopted are
those which most closely match the use types suggested in the Masterplan.
For the on site student housing, it has been assumed that units would be part of a large
budget scheme with en-suite accommodation. It has been assumed that the off site student
accommodation would be realised in smaller schemes of 40-100 units with mid-range
specifications, some with en-suite bathroom and kitchen facilities. All prices have been
adjusted to reflect average rates in the West Midlands.
It is estimated that a temporary employment requirement of over 2,510 direct construction
job years assuming an average output per worker in the construction sector of the order of
£100,000 per annum (based on an SQW estimate drawn from earlier unpublished research
173
with a rounded adjustment to current day prices using published Tender Price Indices ).
This is equivalent to between 2,510 working on site for 1 year, or 251 working full-time over
a ten year period or 167 over a ten year period. Neither of these extremes of duration would
be the impact in reality, as the incidence of impact would depend on the phasing of the
construction programme, but they do illustrate the likely short-term importance of
construction employment to the sub-regional economy. This is equivalent to 1 Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) job per £1 million expenditure on construction for a ten year build
programme.
Jobs (10 years)
FTE Construction
Temporary
Construction Jobs
Years
£1,188
£77,187,500
772
76
Other
23,000
887
1,105
£996
£22,908,000
229
23
Support
26,000
696
1,174
£935
£24,310,000
243
24
Student
Accommodation
(On Site)
57,000
826
1,261
£1,044
£59,479,500
595
60
Student
Accommodation
(Off Site)
54,000
1,078
1,409
£1,244
£67,149,000
671
68
Totals
225,000
£251,034,000
2,510
251
15.4.2
2
2
Cost
Construction
1,392
(/m )
Cost
983
2
65,000
(m )
Academic
GEA
(/m )
Cost Range
Building Type
Table 15.9: Estimate of Construction Employment for University Expansion
Conclusion
Overall, the estimated economic impact of the proposed expansion of Warwick University is
positive and significant at the local and regional levels with potential net additional
employment of up to 2,121 FTE jobs in the Warwick and Coventry area and up to 3,390 FTE
jobs in the West Midlands (including the local area). Another 167 FTE jobs in the
construction industry and its supply chain are estimated to be generated during the ten year
development programme. The local impact represents an increase of about 30% on the
existing local employment impact of the University and about 1.02% of the existing local
172
173
David Langdon ed. (2006); Spon’s Architects and Builder Price Book Taylor & Francis, London p702,717 - 720
David Langdon ed. (2006); Spon’s Architects and Builder Price Book Taylor & Francis, London p702,717 - 720
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 277
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
economically active population. The regional impact represents an increase of about 20%
on the existing regional employment impact and about 0.14% of the existing regional
economically active population.
15.5
Policy Context
This section of the report reviews current policy guidance for economic development and
spatial planning within Warwick, Coventry and the West Midlands. Understanding the
direction of policy at all spatial and government levels sets the context for the socioeconomic impact assessment of the proposed expansion of the University of Warwick.
The visions and objectives of the local, sub-regional and regional economic development
and spatial planning strategies are essentially all interlinked. Business cluster development,
promoting new economic activity, ensuring high quality environments and securing effective
infrastructure are clear themes within these strategies.
15.5.1
Regional Policy Context
Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)
The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), published in 2004, (previously RPG
11) aims to guide the preparation and implementation of local authority plans and local
transport plans to ensure they deliver a coherent framework for regional development. It
also informs the development strategies and policy programmes of other public agencies
and organisations as well as acting as a framework for the Regional Economic Strategy,
which is reviewed later in this section of the report.
The West Midlands is a diverse region reflecting the urban and rural mix, the multicultural
population and the variety of business and employment activity. It provides the region with
opportunities and challenges, both of which the RSS attempts to address. The vision of the
West Midlands is:
“one of an economically successful, outward looking and adaptable region, which is
rich in culture and environment, where all people, working together, are able to meet
their aspirations and needs without prejudicing the quality of life of further
generations”
Developed from this vision and other primary socio-economic and sustainability objectives,
174
the key spatial strategy objectives of the RSS are:
174
•
to make the Major Urban Areas of the region increasingly attractive places where
people want to live, work and invest;
•
to secure the regeneration of the rural areas of the region;
•
to create a joined up multi-centred regional structure where all areas / centres have
distinct roles to play;
•
to retain the Green Belt but to allow an adjustment of boundaries where this is
necessary to support urban regeneration;
•
to support the cities and towns of the region to meet their local and subregional
development needs;
•
to support the diversification and modernisation of the region’s economy while ensuring
that opportunities for growth are linked to meeting needs and reducing social exclusion;
•
to ensure the quality of the environment is conserved and enhanced across all parts of
the region;
Full details on the spatial strategy objectives can be found in the RSS p16:Paragraph 3.14
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 278
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
•
to improve significantly the region’s transport systems; and,
•
to promote the development of a network of strategic centres across the region.
In meeting these objectives, there are a number of challenges which would need to be
addressed to achieve the vision for the region. In particular, the West Midlands region
currently suffers from a decentralisation of population and investment away from the Major
Urban Areas as well as insufficient economic activity in rural areas. The four major
challenges identified for the region are:
•
Urban renaissance – developing the Major Urban Areas to increase their ability to meet
their own socio-economic needs and to counter the unsustainable outward movements
of people, employment and investment;
•
Rural renaissance – addressing the major changes that challenge the traditional roles of
the rural areas;
•
Diversifying and modernising the region’s economy – ensuring the opportunities for
growth are linked to meeting needs and reducing social exclusion; and,
•
Modernising the transport infrastructure of the West Midlands – supporting the
sustainable development of the region.
The RSS states the importance of the West Midlands and its future in both the context of
Europe and within the UK. Creating an ‘advanced and diverse economy’ with a ‘competitive
position within Europe and the World Markets’ is in line with the vision for the University in
its hope to attract increased inward investment and develop itself further as a world-class
research centre. On a more local scale, the RSS identifies Coventry and Solihull as
important players in establishing an important growth engine for the West Midlands with
links further afield particularly with the Southeast and the East Midlands. This sits within a
wider objective to create a ‘joined up multi-centred regional structure’, that is, a wellnetworked region but where each individual centre has a role to play.
More specifically for the University, Policy PA4 of the RSS outlines the importance of Higher
Education / Further Education and research establishments in cluster development. The
strategy states that development plans should facilitate the appropriate expansion of higher
education, further education and economic clusters and ensure that the education, training
and research potential of the region can be realised. It states furthermore that Universities
should focus on developing their research and development capabilities, accompanied by
further collaboration with businesses and especially with knowledge-based industries. This
would require detailed and well-structured partnerships with all those involved including
Local Planning Authorities, the University and the support from inward investment agencies
to ensure targeted marketing.
The role of HE / FE and research establishments in business cluster development works
towards a broader vision to diversify the regional economy through modernisation and
increased competitiveness. In this forward-thinking, the HE, FE and research
establishments would also have an important part to play in developing the skills and
abilities of the regional population through improving access to education, training and
employment opportunities.
The region’s Higher Education Institutions thus form an integral part of working towards the
vision and the key spatial objectives outlined at the beginning of this section. Business
cluster development, regional competitiveness and modernisation, and skills and
employment development are important but the HE institutions would play an influential role
in achieving all aspects of the RSS either directly or indirectly.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 279
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Regional Economic Strategy (RES) – 2004-2010
Advantage West Midlands (AWM) published an updated RES in 2004, ‘Delivering
Advantage’, which built on the previous ‘Creating Advantage’ (1999) and subsequent
‘Agenda for Action’ (2001) strategies. Again, the strategy works alongside the other
strategies that affect policy making within the region, closely integrated with the RSS in
particular. It is estimated that £100 billion of public sector resources would be invested in
the region over the next five years of which £20 million would be specifically targeted at
economic development. The vision for 2010 is that:
“The West Midlands is recognised as a world-class region in which to invest, work,
learn, visit and live and the most successful in creating wealth to benefit of its people”
(RES page 4)
Of particular relevance to the University the RES sets out to develop a region that has:
•
a diverse and integrated business base;
•
a strong innovation culture;
•
a wide choice of job opportunities;
•
a highly qualified and motivated student population;
•
universities, schools and colleges that work in close partnership; and,
•
high numbers of young entrepreneurs.
The RES states the main barrier to meeting these objectives is that the West Midlands, at
present, remains static in its economic position within the UK and Europe. One of the top
five priorities of the RES is to achieve the vision and meet the objectives that are most
relevant to the University, and to address the ‘enterprise challenge’ and the ‘skills’
challenge. The former has a strong focus on young people and developing entrepreneurs
and in turn a dynamic enterprise culture. The latter is more specific in its target to fully equip
people with all the skills they require and to provide the employers of the region with the
skilled workforce they need. The other three priority areas to address to achieve the vision
are the ‘manufacturing’, ‘transport’ and ‘economic inclusion’ challenges.
To address these priority challenges, the RES sets out its targets to develop a diverse and
dynamic business base, promote a skilful region, create the conditions for growth, and
regenerate communities. The first point of a diverse and dynamic business base, means
universities would have a role to play in promoting innovation through both developing a
skilled population, and by investing in research and development. Despite the high number
of companies (52%) in the region participating in ‘innovative activities’, investment in
research and development is currently low and participation in Higher Education in the West
Midlands is below the national average. Thus retaining and increasing the number of
graduates, as well as expanding higher level skills in general, would also contribute to
improving the region and aiding the development of the desired ‘enterprise and
entrepreneur culture’. In particular, the development and delivery of foundation degrees
would be encouraged to provide a more efficient route into higher level qualifications.
However, the RES strongly suggests these improvements in Higher Education should be
market-led, driven by informed employer demand. This is partly to ensure the workforce is
equipped with the necessary skills for employers but also to raise awareness of high value
employment opportunities within the region. Higher Education and research establishments
are considered crucial in developing business clusters in the region, and to create links with
new economic activity. This new economic activity and output from these institutes should
be shown in a net increase in employment within the highlighted high tech corridors,
especially within higher value-added industry and commercial activities.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 280
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Overall, these objectives would work towards creating ‘a highly skilled, innovative and
adaptable workforce to attract and support the growth of high value jobs and wealth-creating
businesses … this would lead to increased income for all our workforce, and ensure that all
our people have the skills they need to take advantage of job opportunities’ (RES page 28).
This would need to be supported by a number of other delivery mechanisms outlined in the
RES, for example, the support of business cluster development and investment through
developing world-class infrastructure, marketing and improvement in image to national and
international audiences and more socio-economic focused measures such as reducing
economic disparities within the region.
The West Midlands Regional Skills Partnership - Introduction and Priorities 2005
The Regional Skills Partnership (RSP), under Advantage West Midlands, is made up of a
mix of employers, skills providers and public organisations. It builds upon the ‘people and
skills’ theme of the RES and sets out to provide:
• Every adult basic employment skills and opportunities to progress
• Every employer the skilled people they need and encourage investment in
workforce development
• A strong knowledge-based economy in the West Midlands and promote a
strong enterprise and entrepreneurial culture.
Based upon principles within the Framework for Regional Employment and Skills Action
(FRESA, 2005), the RSP seeks to ‘push’ more people into employment with higher level
skills, and ‘pull’ changing markets, increasing demand for skills from employers and
individuals, improved leadership and managements, and increased enterprise and
entrepreneurial skills. These priorities reflect the learning and skills sections of the RSS and
the RES with particular relevance for Higher Education and research institutes.
15.5.2
Local Context
Warwickshire Structure Plan: 1996 – 2011
The Warwickshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 was adopted in 2001 and reflects
national and regional policy at county level. It forms part of the statutory development plan
within which planning applications are decided. Its overall aim is to:
“promote a pattern of development that enables the housing, employment, leisure,
recreation and transport needs of the community to be met without reducing the
capacity of the environment to satisfy needs of present and future generations”
The towns of Warwick, Leamington, Stratford-upon-Avon and parts of Northwest
Warwickshire are regarded by the RSS as part of the ‘central crescent’ of towns around the
metropolitan core of the region. These towns have seen rapid growth but there is a
continuing need within the county to enable economic growth and change and bring new
industry into areas which have been in decline. The RES suggests a need for growth in
inward investment to increase regional competitiveness. Warwickshire would need to
provide two large sites for industrial and commercial investment to achieve this, but
sustainable large sites are scarce.
Warwickshire Local Transport Plan – 2006 to 2011
The Warwickshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) was published in July 2000, looking ahead to
March 2006. It has now been reviewed to develop a provisional LTP for the period from
April 2006 to March 2011. It underwent public consultation during September 2005 and was
finally submitted to government at the end of March 2006. It builds upon the vision from the
‘Warwickshire County Council Business Plan (2005-2007)’ which was “to make
Warwickshire the best place to live and work”.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 281
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The five primary objectives underpinning the LTP were to:
• promote lifelong learning and personal development
• promote health and social care of our citizens
• improve the environment
• reduce crime and improve safety of the community
• develop and maintain a vibrant local economy which promotes employment
and property for all.
To meet these objectives the LTP applies the core elements used in the 2000 LTP, two of
which are particularly relevant to this review. The first is to ‘seek a transport system which
would promote full employment and a strong, sustainable local and subregional economy’.
Any proposed development, such as the proposed expansion of the University, would need
to take account of the linkages with the wider area and ensure that the infrastructure is
improved rather than degraded. The second objective is to ‘reduce the impact of transport
on the environment through management and control of adverse impacts’. This element is
relevant to the University and the wider surrounding area because the University is located
within the Warwick Green Belt where environmental considerations are important.
The strategic priorities of the LTP, particularly the emphasis on the North / South corridor,
Solihull, Coventry and the Warwick High-Tech cluster (SP2) are important in securing longterm regeneration and economic stability and prosperity. Appropriate transport and
infrastructure measures would have to be implemented to achieve this. The local priorities,
particularly to the emphasis on implementing transport and infrastructure measures in
Warwick, Royal Leamington Spa, Kenilworth and Whitnash (LP5) would facilitate and
support the regeneration of the High-Tech cluster including the University of Warwick.
Coventry Development Plan 1996-2011 (adopted 2001)
The Coventry Development Plan (CDP) (2001) is the second Unitary Development Plan
(UDP) for the City of Coventry Metropolitan District and replaces the 1993 UDP. It outlines
the policies for physical development and the use of land taking account of socio-economic
factors. As Coventry is part of the same subregional economy as Warwickshire and
significant numbers of residents commuting between Coventry and Warwick, it was
important that the Warwickshire Structure Plan and the CDP complement each other. The
Structure Plan was prepared at the same time as the Coventry UDP following the
publication of RSS and so there is close coordination and various joint initiatives between
them.
Coventry UDP Policy SCL9 is specific to the University of Warwick. The University of
Warwick Science Park and the ‘post-experience’ centres on the campus are mentioned as
examples of the role the University plays in the business community. The UDP clearly
states that the expansion of the University would be encouraged where feasible to
encourage direct employment opportunities subject to environmental and infrastructural
impact. It also hopes that the University would continue to contribute to the social, cultural
and community facilities of the area as part of the ‘support [of] new, expanded and improved
education facilities in suitable locations where the environmental impact of the proposal is
acceptable in the nearby area’ (Coventry UDP page 158).
Central Campus East, the Westwood site and Gibbet Hill form the Coventry City part of the
University of Warwick campus. Central Campus East and Gibbet Hill include some land for
further development. The Westwood site is unlikely to accommodate any further major
development. Central Campus West would be the main expansion area of the campus
within the County of Warwickshire and would accommodate mainly residential
accommodation.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 282
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Warwick District Council Local Plan – Revised Deposit Version 1996 - 2011
The First Deposit Version of the Warwick District Local Plan was approved in 2003 and
underwent extensive public consultation. A revised deposit version was then approved in
2005 and underwent further public consultation. The report of the Public Inquiry which was
held between April and September 2006 has not yet been published.
The joint vision of the Revised Local Plan (2005) and the Warwick District Community Plan
2001-2003 is for “Warwick District to be safe, healthy, fair and prosperous now and into the
future”. The four main aims of the Core Strategy of the Revised Local Plan are to:
• “maintain high and stable levels of economic growth
• provide effective protection of the environment
• make prudent use of natural resources
• encourage social progress which recognises the needs of everyone.”
The objectives for each of these aims influence the nature and scope of planning policies in
the District particularly the control of the location and nature of new development. The
Local Plan aims to meet the employment needs of the whole community, stemming from
both in-migration and growth in the resident population of the District and to make provision
to release up to 132 ha of employment land between 1996 and 2011. Other objectives
include meeting housing needs, enhancing the vitality of town centres, promoting the
regeneration of deprived areas and promoting sustainable tourism.
The Revised Local Plan (2005) targets the four main towns of Royal Leamington Spa,
Warwick, Kenilworth and Whitnash for most future development but highlights various sites
for significant development, including the University of Warwick, in the rural hinterland.
Policy SSP2 of the plan is specific to Warwick University and recognises it as a key
education and research facility within one of the High-Tech Corridors identified in the RSS.
The University campus is located within the designated Warwick Green Belt where
appropriate, limited infilling and redevelopment for employment purposes would only be
permitted. Policy SSP2 recognises that most of the University’s previous development has
occurred in the Coventry part of the campus but the then University development plan
outlines a need for some facilities in the Warwick part of the campus within the Green Belt.
The previous Local Plan, adopted in 1995, promoted further development of the University.
It set the framework for the University Development Plan 1994-2004 which has not yet been
fully implemented and continues to provide a framework within which proposals for the
development of the University are considered.
The Core Strategy of the Revised Local Plan (2005) states that development on greenfield
land would only be permitted where it significantly contributes to the objectives of the
strategy. Where development is essential, a high standard of mitigation and/or off-site
compensation would be sought. The University would therefore have to ensure high
standards of design to achieve this aim and provide an attractive place for people to live and
work.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 283
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Warwick District Community Plan 2020
175
The Local Strategic Partnership, the ‘Warwick Partnership’ , published the second
community plan, ‘Warwick Community 2020’, following a review of the first community plan
(2001-2003). The second community plan adopts the same long-term vision as the Local
Plan for “Warwick District to be safe, healthy, fair and prosperous now and into the future”.
It sets out to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area over
the next 15 years.
The Community Plan recognises the sound local economy of Warwickshire, the good quality
education institutions and the strong voluntary and cultural sector. It sets out various key
themes and more specific objectives which aim to achieve a safer, healthier, fairer and more
prosperous community. The objectives include redressing any imbalance in access and
participation within the population, reducing crime and anti-social behaviour, providing more
accessible and sustainable housing and providing lifelong learning and more opportunities
for skills development.
Under the theme of ‘economic growth’, the Community Plan aims to continue the
regeneration of the district’s town centres, including Kenilworth. It also seeks a match
between the supply of jobs and a suitably skilled workforce. It aims to continue to promote
investment and collaborative working in the key areas of the economy and, in doing so, to
tackle areas of deprivation through continued socio-economic regeneration.
15.5.3
Conclusion
The University of Warwick forms an integral part of the future economic development of
Warwick, Coventry and the West Midlands as a whole. Employment, skills and business
cluster development are mentioned throughout regional policy guidance as vital to boosting
economic growth and increasing competitiveness. Increasing the number and retention of
graduates would contribute to an enterprising and entrepreneurial culture and higher skill
levels. Further collaboration between the education, research and business communities is
also sought to support business cluster development.
Regional policies support appropriate expansion of Higher Education, Further Education
and research establishments to ensure that the education, training and research potential of
the region can be realised. This approach is echoed in local policies. The City of Coventry
foresees and supports the expansion of the University of Warwick where feasible and
Warwick District recognises the possibility of future university development within the
limitations of the Warwick Green Belt. The Masterplan for the proposed landscaped
extension of Warwick University campus could have a beneficial economic and community
impact and enhance the local environment as an exception to Green Belt policy.
15.6
Wider Impact
This section of the report examines the wider impact of the proposed expansion of the
University of Warwick based on the review of the baseline conditions, the university
expansion proposals, the economic impact of the proposed expansion and the regional and
local policy context presented in earlier sections. It looks first at the existing regional
economic impact of the University and the policy context for the proposed University
expansion. It then addresses the various categories required for the Socio-economic
Impact Assessment of the Environmental Impact Assessment (see Section 1: Introduction).
175
The Warwick Partnership is the new Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) for the district. The key agencies involved
are Warwickshire Police, Primary Care Trust, Warwick District Council, Warwickshire County Council and the Council
for Voluntary Service. Within the LSP there are seven steering groups forming under the themes of community safety,
health, community learning, business and economy, culture, housing and environment.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 284
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
15.6.1
Regional Economic Impact of the Existing University
SQW’s study of the ‘Regional Impact of the University of Warwick’ (May 2006)
demonstrated the significant contribution the University makes and indicates the impact
future expansion would have to the local economy and wider region. The University was
estimated to contribute £151 million directly to the local economy (of Warwick and Coventry)
and £189 million directly to the regional economy (the West Midlands) in 2004-05. Including
indirect and induced impacts, as well as direct impacts, the total local economic impact is
estimated as £181 million and the total regional economic impact as £284 million.
The University of Warwick’s ambition is to build a ‘Campus for the 21st Century’ at which
researchers working in state-of-the-art facilities challenge and extend the boundaries of
human knowledge and understanding, where students and researchers of all backgrounds
and all nations study and live, which is an asset for the region and is, nationally, a key
component of the Science City initiative. The University aims to develop Warwick as a
world-class university and as a resource for the local communities in surrounding areas.
The educational, cultural and leisure facilities of the extended campus would be shared by
academics, students and local people alike.
The University of Warwick is now a major business and is estimated to contribute a total of
176
about £500m a year to the regional economy.
The key elements of this are:
University Employees
The University employs around 4,000 permanent staff and a further 7,500 temporary or
project staff. Most of these employees live in Leamington Spa, Kenilworth, Warwick and
Coventry, purchase goods and services in those towns and support local activities. In
addition, many more local people are employed in companies on the University Science
Park and its satellite innovation centres at Binley, Warwick and Blythe Valley
Students
There are now nearly 16,000 students at the University, a large proportion of whom live off
campus in Leamington Spa, Kenilworth or Coventry. All of these, plus other students who
shop or socialise in these towns, contribute to the local economy. It is estimated that, on
average, each of our 3,800 international students contributes between £5k and £10k per
year to the local economy
Knowledge Transfer
The University has a massive influence on local businesses through its collaborative
ventures and knowledge transfer activities.
15.6.2
Policy Context for University expansion
The vision for the West Midlands in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) is
“an economically successful, outward looking and adaptable region, which is rich in
culture and environment, where all people, working together, are able to meet their
aspirations and needs without prejudicing the quality of life of further generations”.
The spatial strategy objectives include the retention of the Green Belt with some adjustment
of boundaries where necessary, support for the region’s cities and towns and support for the
diversification and modernisation of the region’s economy while meeting needs and
reducing social exclusion.
The vision of the Regional Economic Strategy (RES) for 2010 is:
“The West Midlands is recognised as a world-class region in which to invest, work,
learn, visit and live and the most successful in creating wealth to benefit of its people”.
176
The Economic Impact of UK Higher Education Institutions, Universities UK, 11 May 2006
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 285
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Key features include developing a diverse and integrated business base, high numbers of
young entrepreneurs, a strong innovation culture, a wide choice of job opportunities, a
highly qualified and motivated student population and universities, schools and colleges that
work in close partnership.
The Coventry Unitary Development Plan (UDP) states that the expansion of the University
would be encouraged where feasible within the Coventry part of the campus to encourage
direct employment opportunities subject to environmental and infrastructural impact. The
Warwick Revised Local Plan (2005) recognised Warwick University as a key education and
research facility and that the then emerging University development plan outlined a need for
some new facilities in the Warwick part of the district in the Green Belt. The proposed
landscaped extension of campus could benefit the economy, community and environment.
The Warwick Community Plan seeks a match between the supply of jobs and a suitably
skilled workforce. It aims to continue to promote investment and collaborative working in the
key areas of the economy and, in doing so, to tackle areas of deprivation through continued
socio-economic regeneration.
15.6.3
Employment Change
Both Warwick and Coventry have had a heavy reliance on manufacturing particularly the
automotive industry whilst finance and business services have become increasingly
important across Warwickshire and the West Midlands as a whole. The RES expects a net
increase in employment within the high-tech corridors associated with the new, higher
value-added, economic activity. The University of Warwick with other Higher Education
Institutions and research establishments has an important role in linking the new economy
to the growing high tech and supporting business services sector.
The University of Warwick provided 3,037 FTE jobs in direct employment in the local area
and 3,861 FTE jobs in the region in 2005 together with an additional 3,809 FTE indirect and
induced jobs in the local economy and 6,549 FTE indirect and induced jobs in the region in
2005 (‘Regional Impact of the University of Warwick’, SQW, 2006). The University Science
Park is one of the leading science parks and employed 1,794 staff in 2005. The University
of Warwick also entered into just over 1,000 contracts for various kinds of knowledge
transfer services in the three years from 2002/3 to 2004/5. It also assisted over 500 small
businesses in the region between 2002 and 2005 through its operation of European
Regional Development Fund business support programmes.
This socio-economic impact study has estimated that the proposed expansion of the
Warwick University campus could generate between about 2,600 and 3,400 direct and
indirect jobs across the West Midlands (representing between about 0.11% and 0.14% of
the regional economically active population). This would include between about 1,800 and
2,100 direct and indirect jobs in Warwick and Coventry local area (representing between
about 0.87% and 1.02% of the local economically active population). It has also estimated
that about another 167 FTE jobs would be generated in the construction industry over the
ten year development period of the University expansion.
Implications of Economic Impact: Employment Change
The estimated direct and indirect employment impact of the proposed expansion of Warwick
University (up to 3,400 FTE jobs regionally including up to 2,100 FTE jobs locally)
represents an increase of about 20% on the existing regional employment impact of the
University (about 17,250 FTE jobs) and an increase of about 30% on the existing local
employment impact of the University (about 6,900 FTE jobs). The high quality mix of jobs
on the University Science Park (about 1,800 jobs in 2005) and the effect of the University’s
other enterprise initiatives would increase the estimate of the existing impact and marginally
reduce the estimated growth in impact with the proposed University expansion.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 286
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Although the estimated direct and indirect employment impact of the proposed University
expansion is proportionately lower than the relative growth in the existing impact of the
University, it is nonetheless significant at the regional scale (up to 0.14% of the regional
economically active population) and particularly at the local scale (up to 1.02% of the local
economically active population). Although these effects would be spread over the ten year
development period of the proposed University expansion, it is likely that the build-up of
additional jobs in the University itself and therefore in its supply chains would be front-endloaded. This suggests that the estimated economic impact would be felt in some relatively
marked shifts in the structure and vitality of the local economy particularly in the short term.
The scale and range of the estimated employment impact of the proposed University
expansion are substantial and are likely to have a significant effect on the structure and
vitality of the local and regional economy. The proportions of additional floorspace
proposed for academic and for other support functions are broadly similar and suggest there
could be a similar balance in the proportions of academic and other direct jobs within the
overall economic impact. This would be weighted by a mix of predominantly non-academic
jobs within the indirect and induced impact of the university expansion although it would be
likely to include a significant proportion of professional and managerial jobs.
Overall, the proposed University expansion is likely to boost the established shift in the
structure of the local and regional economies from traditional manufacturing industries
towards the knowledge based and service sectors which could be more pronounced with
the local area. It is also likely to boost business confidence in the region and the local area
and increase its attractiveness to local investment, inward investment and business tourism.
This would require a substantial increase in the quality and range of workforce skills but it is
also likely to include an increase in the numbers of lower skilled occupations which would
benefit the relatively disadvantaged sections of the community and the relatively deprived
areas within the Warwick and Coventry local area.
Significance of Likely Impact: Employment Change
It is likely that the estimated economic impact of the proposed expansion of Warwick
University would be ‘major’ in the local area and ‘moderate’ elsewhere in the region
according to the significance criteria presented in Table 3.5. The scale of direct and
indirect employment generation would be significant in the local area and a similar scale of
impact would be dispersed more widely elsewhere in the region. ‘Major’ effects are
described as “likely to be important considerations at a regional or district scale but, if
adverse, are potential concerns to the project … Mitigation measures and detailed design
work are unlikely to remove all of the impacts …”. ‘Moderate’ effects are described as “not
likely to be key decision making issues … [although] the cumulative effect of such issues
may lead to an increase in the overall impacts on a particular area or on a particular
resource”. They represent issues where impacts would be experienced but mitigation
measures and detailed design work may ameliorate or enhance some of the consequences
…”.
It is likely that, on balance, the estimated economic impact of the proposed University
expansion would be positive. The scale of additional employment and mix in the quality of
jobs that are likely to be generated can be expected to contribute to improvements in local
and regional productivity and competitiveness, to assist in the growth of knowledge based
and service industries and to provide a range of employment opportunities for lower skilled
and less advantaged workers and their households particularly in relatively deprived areas.
Indeed, it can be expected that the expansion of Warwick University and its various
activities would enhance its already well-established functions as an engine of the regional
and particularly the local economies.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 287
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
However, there must also be some caution about the potential negative effects of the
estimated economic impact of University expansion. These could include the risks of
increasing pressures on local labour supply for existing businesses and services, increasing
pressures on local business support and supply services, increasing pressures for additional
housing, facilities and services and particularly increasing pressures on transport needs
associated with the growth in employment and economic activity. As envisaged by the
significance criteria (noted above), these negative effects could to some extent be reduced
by mitigation measures and the detailed and design and operation of the extended campus
and associated development.
Potential Cumulative Impact: Employment Change
The estimated direct and indirect employment impact of the proposed University expansion
can be expected to build up steadily over the ten year development but (as noted above) it
is likely that the build-up of additional jobs in the University itself and therefore in its supply
chains would be front-end-loaded. This suggests that the estimated economic impact would
be felt in some relatively marked shifts in the structure and vitality of the local economy
particularly in the short term but it would be important to monitor the pace of development
and its effects in order to identify any unexpectedly rapid and/or adverse effects and to take
corrective action. Nonetheless, the cumulative positive and potential negative impacts of
increasing economic activity and additional employment can be expected to advance in step
with the process of campus development and the build-up of University activity.
Suggested Mitigation: Employment Change
The mitigation measures that would be required to help manage the potential economic
impact of the proposed University expansion should include measures to maximise the
potential benefits as well as measures to minimise or eliminate the potential negative
effects. It is immensely important that the University of Warwick, its partners and
stakeholders and particularly the local authorities and regional agencies involved should act
together to secure the greatest possible benefit and synergy from the very substantial
investment of money and other resources that it being proposed as part of the University
expansion.
Supportive mitigation measures should include a range of economic development,
enterprise and innovation and community regeneration initiatives to realise the potential
benefits of the proposed University expansion to local and regional economic growth and
local business activity as well as local labour force skills and community interests. The
University of Warwick has already demonstrated its commitment and capabilities in
contributing to the economic and community development of the Warwick and Coventry
area as well as the West Midlands and UK in general. The local authorities have also
demonstrated their intentions and commitment through their various strategies and plans
(summarised above) but it is important that these policies are reviewed and updated as
soon as the University expansion plans are approved to ensure that they measure up to the
new opportunities.
Responsive mitigation measures should also be considered to reduce the potential negative
effects of the proposed University expansion. They should include a range of spatial
planning, integrated transport and economic development measures to manage the risks of
increasing pressures on the local labour market, local business and community services,
associated development housing and local services and associated movement needs. The
University of Warwick should work with the local authorities and regional agencies involved
to monitor the pace of development and its cumulative effects on local and regional
economic and community interests and to identify anticipatory and corrective measures
were they are needed. The University should, in particular, seek to recognise the likely
cumulative effects of campus extension and activity and wherever possible regulate the
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 288
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
pace of development to enable potential negative effects to be reduced and ameliorated.
Any potential residual impact should be identified and minimised by this process.
15.6.4
Skills Training
The baseline analysis presented earlier in this report found that Coventry has a significant
proportion of employment in ‘elementary occupations’ and that Warwick has a relatively high
proportion of people working as ‘managers and senior officials’ or in ‘professional
occupations. SQW’s recent study of the ‘Regional Impact of the University of Warwick’
found that the University is attracting talented young people and that a significant proportion
stays in the region after graduation (up to 1,200 graduates and postgraduates per year).
This provides a varied resource of highly skilled people for the local and regional labour
markets which enhances the growth and development potential of the many businesses and
public services at both regional and local levels.
The estimated economic impact of the proposed expansion of Warwick University suggests
that there would be a continuing shift from traditional to knowledge based and service
industries and that labour force skills would need to be upgraded accordingly. The West
Midlands Regional Skills Partnership (RSP) provides basic employment skills and
opportunities for every adult to attain the skills that employers need in a growing knowledgebased economy. Graduates from the University contribute a range of high quality skills and
business management capabilities to the local and regional economy every year, the
Warwick Business School trains graduates capable of managing leading businesses whilst
other graduates occupy important and much needed roles in the public services.
The University of Warwick also contributes to the local and regional economy by sharing its
resources and facilities with the local business and resident communities especially in the
areas immediately surrounding the campus. The proposed University extension would offer
increasing access to resource and facilities for the local community such as the University
library and a range of academic and vocational courses including the specialist needs of
professionals, businesses and organisations.
Implications of Economic Impact: Skills Training
It can be expected that the University expansion would help to raise and widen the skills of
the regional and local labour markets at the same time as generating a range of
employment and business opportunities in Warwick, Coventry and the rest of the West
Midlands. This uplift in the skills and opportunities for people and companies would
challenge and stretch the capacity of existing education and training organisations
particularly in the local area. It would also significantly increase the human capital and
development potential of the local and regional economies. But it could also increase the
competition for labour resources particularly for local businesses and put some smaller and
more traditional firms particularly in relatively deprived areas around the University at a
relative disadvantage.
Significance of Likely Impact: Skills Training
It is likely that the significance of the estimated impact of University expansion on available
skills and skills requirements would be ‘major’ at both the regional and local levels
according to the significance criteria presented in Table 3.5 because labour is much more
mobile than many of the other factors that would be affected by University expansion.
‘Major’ effects are described as “likely to be important considerations at a regional or district
scale but, if adverse, are potential concerns to the project … Mitigation measures and
detailed design work are unlikely to remove all of the impacts …”. The skills impacts are
likely to be mainly positive although they would place demands on the capacities of local
education and training organisations which would need to be enlarged and adequately
resourced.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 289
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Potential Cumulative Impact: Skills Training
The estimated employment and skills impact of the proposed University expansion would
probably build up steadily over the ten year development although it could be front-endloaded. The cumulative positive and potential negative impacts of increasing employment
and skilled labour requirements can be expected advance in step with the process of
campus development and the build-up of University activity. However, it is likely that any
uneven build-up of activity, employment and labour skill needs would be absorbed more
easily than other factors in the local and regional economy because of the relative mobility
of labour and the flexibility of commuting patterns across the region.
Suggested Mitigation: Skills Training
The West Midlands Regional Skills Partnership (RSP) should work with the University of
Warwick, local authorities, other public agencies, business organisations and education and
training providers to manage the labour skills effects of proposed University expansion.
They would need to gear up the mix and capacity of education and training services to
anticipate and address the significant increase in the supply and demand for higher quality
labour and business skills in the local area and elsewhere in the region that is likely to
accompany the proposed expansion of the University and its activities.
15.6.5
Business Tourism
The University is a major venue for conferences and training courses and offers a wide
choice of high quality meeting spaces. It also offers 900 hotel-standard student bedrooms
to accommodate conference delegates and training course participants particularly during
the university vacations. It can be expected that the scale of conference facilities and
delegate accommodation would be increased as part of the proposed University expansion
and that the increasing scale, variety and specialisation of academic, research and other
activities at the University would enhance its attractiveness as a venue for conference
business.
Implications of Economic Impact: Business Tourism
The expected increase in conference and training course activities at the University would
play an important part in helping to develop the local and regional economies by providing
an increasing range of opportunities for disseminating academic knowledge and promoting
research commercialisation in the growing knowledge based sectors. The role of the
University in this aspect of regional and local economic development complements its other
activities in promoting enterprise, innovation and technology transfer and should be
exploited as much as possible by local authorities, regional agencies, commercial
companies and business organisations throughout the area. The wider implications of
increasing business tourism such as generating additional local visitor spending should not
be overlooked.
Significance of Likely Impact: Business Tourism
The significance of the potential impact of University expansion on business tourism is likely
to be ‘moderate’ at both the regional and local levels within the significance criteria
presented in Table 3.5, because its direct effects on business activity and associated
employment would be relatively modest at the local level and its indirect effect on economic
development at the regional level would be relatively dispersed.
‘Moderate’ effects are described as “not likely to be key decision making issues …
[although] the cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall
impacts on a particular area or on a particular resource”. They represent issues where
impacts would be experienced but mitigation measures and detailed design work may
ameliorate or enhance some of the consequences …”.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 290
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Potential Cumulative Impact: Business Tourism
As with the other potential effects of the proposed expansion of the University, the effects on
business tourism are likely to build up steadily over the ten year development but (as noted
above) the build-up of additional business tourism activity is likely to be front-end-loaded.
Indeed, business tourism is part of a complex mix of direct and indirect effects of University
expansion which it is difficult to anticipate at this stage when the expansion proposals are
still in a broad conceptual form.
Suggested Mitigation: Business Tourism
It is unlikely that there would be any negative effects of the proposed University expansion
on business tourism. The University itself is the main provider of business tourism facilities
in the area although its activities may in some ways limit the opportunities for other
providers, such as hotels and colleges. It is likely that the cumulative effects of increasing
academic, research and business activities as the University expansion progresses would
also increase the demand for other sources of business tourism provision in the area.
15.6.6
Inward Investment
The University of Warwick is involved in various initiatives to promote enterprise, innovation
and inward investment including, in particular, the University Science Park which is located
on the northern side of the main campus next to the Coventry urban edge. The Science
Park provides a range of sites and premises for high technology businesses together with
business support and technology transfer services. Another example of the University’s
business initiatives is the Mercia Institute of Enterprise which has enrolled over 5,000
students in the West Midlands in various enterprise programmes. These examples
demonstrate the regional role that the University plays in promoting business development
and promoting inward investment by attracting expanding or relocating businesses to the
region.
Business inquiries and surveys by inward investment agencies demonstrate that proximity
to a high quality research university is an important criterion for many businesses seeking to
expand and/or relocate. The marketing material that many regions and countries produce to
attract inward investment invariably seeks to emphasise the quality of local science and
technology capabilities and higher educational provision. Warwick has the advantages of
good road, rail and air communications and attractive residential areas nearby as well as a
strong university to attract inward investors to the area. The University has capitalised on
this potential and is considered by many to be an aggressively commercial institution that is
prepared to market its capabilities to potential inward movers.
The University’s vision for the future includes the injection of Research & Development
funding from businesses to help build a world-class science research campus with
specialisms in both the physical sciences and the social sciences. It aims to persuade local
and in-coming businesses to establish their own research laboratories at the Science Park
or elsewhere in Warwick. The University has also succeeded in attracting national agencies
and three independent agencies in the education and health sectors to the Warwick
campus. The Government has recently decided that the National Institute for Learning,
Skills and Innovation (NILSI) and the NHS Resource Centre for Patient and Public
Involvement would be based at Warwick University.
Implications of Economic Impact: Inward Investment
The University’s success in attracting inward investment, including several major national
agencies, to the Warwick campus and the University Science Park illustrate how it has been
playing a key role in regional economic development through enterprise innovation and
support and high technology property development. The proposed expansion of the
University campus is likely to provide further incentives and opportunities to attract further
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 291
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
inward investment to Warwick and Coventry that would also benefit the wider regional
economy. The employment generation, business networks and technical excellence of
further significant inward investment would all contribute to encouraging the growth of
knowledge based industries that can interact with the Universities teaching and research
activities.
Significance of Likely Impact: Inward Investment
The significance of the potential impact of inward investment to the University campus, the
University Science Park and the Warwick and Coventry area is likely to be ‘major’ at both
the regional and local levels within the significance criteria presented in Table 3.5, because
of its catalytic effects on the development of a modern knowledge based economy.
‘Major’ effects are described as “likely to be important considerations at a regional or district
scale but, if adverse, are potential concerns to the project … Mitigation measures and
detailed design work are unlikely to remove all of the impacts …”. The inward investment
impacts are likely to be mainly positive although they would increase pressures on local
labour markets, associated business and community services, associated housing and retail
development and particularly the local and regional transport networks.
Potential Cumulative Impact: Inward Investment
The rate of development to accommodate inward investment within the University campus,
the University Science Park and the surrounding area would depend on the timing of
enquiries and successful investment and development projects and the availability of
suitable sites and infrastructure rather than the pace of the proposed University expansion
scheme. The potential cumulative impact of inward investment schemes is therefore difficult
to anticipate but it can be assumed that the successful progress of University expansion
would continue to enhance the conditions which are favourable to in-coming business
initiatives.
Suggested Mitigation: Inward Investment
The successful development of major inward investment projects in an environment of
growing University teaching and research activities and associated knowledge based
business development is likely to have generally beneficial effects on the development of
the regional and local economies. The full potential of these benefits would need to be
maximised through University and public sector support and assistance to in-coming
businesses aimed at ensuring the new companies are securely embedded into the local and
regional economy as quickly and effectively as possible. However, the potential disbenefits
of major inward investment schemes would also need to be identified and minimised as far
as possible by the same processes as newcomer support to ensure the conditions that can
maximise effective integration and minimise any associated pressures in local infrastructure
and resources.
15.6.7
Economic Regeneration
Economic regeneration is an important local issue in many parts of Coventry but it is a much
177
less significant issue in Warwick. Coventry has 66 SOA areas within the 20% most
deprived in England which are mostly on the northeast and southeast sides of the town and
some distance from the University campus but there is one smaller area of deprivation on
the southwest side of the town near the campus. Warwick has fewer areas of high
deprivation and the SOA within which the University is situated is among the 20% least
deprived in the country.
Warwick University’s reputation for entrepreneurialism is based on its ability to translate
research into practical benefits for the economy and local communities. The Warwick
177
Super Output Areas are a spatial scale, smaller than ward level from which statistical data can be analysed.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 292
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Manufacturing Group and the Warwick Business School are examples of this approach and
contribute to economic development encouraging the establishment and growth of
knowledge based businesses which help to bring high profile and dynamism to local
economies beyond their direct economic impacts. The University currently has a portfolio of
almost 50 patents which generates licensing income as well as innovation and enterprise in
the local economy. The University is becoming more active in establishing high technology
spin-out firms which have raised around £8.5 million in venture capital and now employ a
total of 122 staff.
The Warwick University Science Park, owned jointly with Coventry City Council,
Warwickshire County Council and the West Midlands Enterprise Board, has formed 30 new
high-technology, high growth, spin-out companies with a current turnover exceeding £7
million which make a substantial contribution to the regional economy. The Birmingham
Science City initiative is generating enhanced economic growth through investment in
research infrastructure and new opportunities for knowledge transfer between the region’s
universities and industry. Warwick University has embarked on a major capital investment
programme, funded by Advantage West Midlands, through this initiative in three sectors of
strategic regional importance: energy, advanced materials and translational medicine.
The University has a tradition of working with business and playing an active role in national,
regional and local economic development. It aims to strengthen and diversify its activities in
business liaison, innovation, research exploitation and entrepreneurship in order to support
economic growth and regeneration. This approach includes the public, private and
voluntary sectors and seeks to maximise the benefits to the local area, the region and the
nation in terms of direct and indirect economic and social benefits including technology
transfer, support for high technology and high growth companies, work experience and
enterprise training.
Implications of Economic Impact: Economic Regeneration
The effects of the University of Warwick’s various initiatives to promote enterprise and
innovation are likely to benefit highly skilled and talented graduates who are highly
motivated to establish and develop their own high technology businesses than lower skilled
individuals who find themselves changing jobs or out of work and turn to starting their own
business through self-employment. There is therefore the basis for a paradox between the
University’s highly commercial approach to commercialising higher education skills and
research capabilities and the need to regenerate the economies and communities of the
various areas of multiple deprivation in Coventry, some of them close to the University itself.
The proposed expansion of the Warwick campus is likely to increase and accelerate the
University’s activities in enterprise and innovation and thereby benefit the growth of
knowledge based industries in both the local and the regional economy. It is unlikely,
however, to adversely affect the regeneration of the deprived areas of Coventry although it
would do little to address their needs. Nonetheless, there may be some marginal benefits
for disadvantaged people in these deprived areas because of the generation of indirect
economic activity and employment creation in the supply chains and support services that
serve the University and feed the high technology, knowledge based economy.
Significance of Likely Impact: Economic Regeneration
The significance of the potential impact of University expansion on local economic and
community regeneration is likely to be ‘moderate’ at the local level and ‘minor’ at the
regional level within the criteria in the significance criteria presented in Table 3.5, because
the high technology initiatives of the University would have only marginal and indirect effects
on the fortunes of disadvantaged people in the deprived areas of Coventry.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 293
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
‘Moderate’ effects are described as “not likely to be key decision making issues …
[although] the cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall
impacts on a particular area or on a particular resource”. ‘Minor’ effects are described as
the “impacts [that] may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be of importance in the
decision making process”.
Potential Cumulative Impact: Economic Regeneration
The rate of build-up of the potential benefits of the proposed expansion of the University
campus on the local economic and community regeneration of Coventry and Warwick are
difficult to foresee at this stage because the effects of the University’s activities on local
regeneration are likely to be marginal. However, where potential benefits can be directed to
disadvantaged people and deprived areas they are likely to be generally in-step with the
overall pace of development of University expansion and linked particularly to specific
initiatives which have not yet been identified.
Suggested Mitigation: Economic Regeneration
Although there may be few directly negative effects of the proposed University expansion on
the economic and community regeneration of Coventry and Warwick, supportive mitigation
should aim to identify aspects of the estimated positive economic impact that can be
directed to benefit disadvantaged groups, individuals and local areas. It would therefore be
important for the University to consider possible measures to recruit people from deprived
areas to suitable jobs that arise on the extended campus and to ensure that appropriate and
affordable means of access to these employment opportunities are made available to target
groups. It would also be important for Coventry City Council to consider how far measures
such as these can be supported by public sector initiatives such as appropriate skills
training in local regeneration areas and to incorporate them in its economic and community
development programmes.
15.6.8
Social Inclusion
The concentration of areas of multiple deprivation in Coventry and the much lower incidence
of deprivation in Warwick and Warwick University’s reputation for entrepreneurialism
(mentioned above) also set the context for considering the effects of the proposed
expansion of the University on social exclusion. Problems of social exclusion are likely by
178
definition to be focussed on the 66 SOA areas in Coventry within the 20% most deprived
in England. These are located mostly on the northeast and southeast sides of the town and
some distance from the University campus but there is one smaller area of deprivation on
the southwest side of the town near the campus. The potential paradox between the
University’s highly commercial approach to higher education and research, and the need to
regenerate the economies of local communities, may affect the impact of the expansion on
social exclusion.
Warwick University encourages schoolchildren from traditionally under-represented groups
to apply for its courses and plays a leading role in raising aspiration activities in Coventry
and Warwick. It contributes to local community development through initiatives such as the
Warwick Arts Centre, the Centre for Lifelong Learning, Sport for Warwick and Warwick
Volunteers as well as its economic initiatives and academic courses. These initiatives are
likely to be expanded and extended as the University expands and would help to promote
social inclusion in the deprived areas of Coventry as well as benefiting local communities in
general. However, there is a potential tension between the aims of the University
Expansion Masterplan which seeks to locate the main areas of development where they
would have least visual impact on surrounding areas and improving transport access
between the campus and local communities including the deprived areas of Coventry.
178
Super Output Areas are a spatial scale, smaller than ward level from which statistical data can be analysed.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 294
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Implications of Economic Impact: Social Inclusion
The University’s various initiatives to support local community development in Coventry and
Warwick, particularly amongst the disadvantaged groups and deprived areas in Coventry,
would continue to assist social inclusion and are likely to expand as the University itself
expands. The proposed University expansion is unlikely to have adverse effects on social
inclusion (as with local regeneration) and it would probably offer some specific benefits
through the expansion of current community development initiatives and more generally
through the growth in employment and prosperity which is likely to be generated. However,
the limited and indirect road and footpath links between the University Campus and the
surrounding areas of Coventry, including some of its deprived areas, would limit community
benefits.
Significance of Likely Impact: Social Inclusion
The significance of the potential impact of University expansion on social inclusion is likely
to be ‘moderate’ at the local level and ‘minor’ at the regional level within the significance
criteria presented in Table 3.5, because the limited accessibility between the campus and
surrounding neighbourhoods would limit the potential community benefits.
‘Moderate’ effects are described as “not likely to be key decision making issues …
[although] the cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall
impacts on a particular area or on a particular resource”. ‘Minor’ effects are described as
the “impacts [that] may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be of importance in the
decision making process”.
Potential Cumulative Impact: Social Inclusion
The rate of build-up of the potential benefits of the proposed expansion of the University
campus on social inclusion are difficult to foresee at this stage (as with local regeneration)
because the effects of the University’s activities on community development in deprived
areas are likely to be marginal. However, where potential benefits can be directed to
disadvantaged people they are likely to be in-step with the overall pace of development of
University expansion and linked particularly to specific initiatives which have not yet been
identified.
Suggested Mitigation: Social Inclusion
Supportive mitigation should aim to identify aspects of the estimated positive economic
impact of the proposed University expansion that can be directed to benefit disadvantaged
groups and individuals particularly in the deprived areas of Coventry. It would therefore be
important for the University to consider possible measures to extend its community
development activities specifically into the deprived areas of Coventry and to ensure that
appropriate and affordable means of access to community facilities and activities on the
campus are made available to target groups. It would also be important for Coventry City
Council to consider how far accessibility can be improved between the University campus.
and the deprived areas of the city and how the University’s community initiatives can be
supported through its economic and community development programmes.
15.6.9
Community Life
The University of Warwick is committed to sharing its resources and facilities with the nonacademic community, especially people living in the area immediately surrounding the
campus. The University campus is already used extensively by local people and local
community groups for education, arts and sports activities and the University envisages that
st
the ‘Campus for the 21 Century’ proposed as part of the University expansion plans would
offer greater access and provide greater benefit to the local community. The University
plays a leading role in the Coventry Partnership and several of its theme groups and has set
up a working group to provide support to the local community in Canley.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 295
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The University’s Community Education Programmes, for example, provides courses for
adult learners, Open Studies courses, Part-time Degrees, tuition in 15 languages, short
courses for local businesspeople and provision for the specialist needs of professionals,
businesses and organisations. The Warwick Arts Centre comprises a concert hall, two
theatres, a cinema and the Mead Gallery and it also takes the arts out into the community
including outreach events for local schools. The University Sports Centre has high quality
facilities which are available for use by the public and the University campus hosts various
local sports organisations, the Greater Warwickshire Youth Games. More than 1,400
students are registered with Warwick Volunteers which arranges volunteering in local
communities.
Implications of Economic Impact: Community Life
The proposed expansion of Warwick University is likely to expand and extend the
University’s various education courses and arts and sports facilities which are already open
to local people in addition to the estimated economic impact of the University expansion. As
with local regeneration and social inclusion, a key factor in the effectiveness of these
initiatives would be the extent to which they are easily accessible to people in surrounding
neighbourhoods and particularly to people in the deprived areas of Coventry.
Significance of Likely Impact: Community Life
The significance of the potential impact of University expansion on community life is likely to
be ‘moderate’ at the local level and ‘minor’ at the regional level within the criteria in the
significance criteria presented in Table 3.5 because the potential expansion of the
University’s various education courses and arts and sports facilities is likely to have a mainly
local impact in Coventry limited by the accessibility of the campus to surrounding
neighbourhoods.
‘Moderate’ effects are described as “not likely to be key decision making issues …
[although] the cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall
impacts on a particular area or on a particular resource”. ‘Minor’ effects are described as
the “impacts [that] may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be of importance in the
decision making process”.
Potential Cumulative Impact: Community Life
The rate of build-up of the potential benefits of the proposed expansion of the University
campus on community life are difficult to foresee at this stage (as with local regeneration
and social inclusion) because the effects of the University’s activities on community
development in deprived areas are likely to be marginal and the accessibility of the campus
and its publicly available facilities to surrounding neighbourhoods is limited. However,
where potential benefits can be directed to disadvantaged people they are likely to be instep with the overall pace of development of University expansion and linked particularly to
specific initiatives which have not yet been identified.
Suggested Mitigation: Community Life
Supportive mitigation should aim to focus on the University’s various education courses and
arts and sports facilities that can be extended as part of the proposed University expansion,
that can be directed to benefit local communities and that can be made more accessible to
people in surrounding neighbourhoods and other areas of Coventry. Coventry City Council
should consider how far accessibility can be improved between the University campus the
rest of the city and how its community development programmes can support the
University’s involvement in local community life.
15.6.10 Other Effects: Image and Reputation
Other effects of the proposed University expansion include the wider contribution that the
Warwick University can continue to make in developing the local, regional, national and
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 296
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
international image and reputation of Warwick and Coventry as a centre of academic and
research excellence and enterprise and innovation in the growth of the knowledge economy.
The University can also continue to enhance the image of Warwick and Coventry as an
expanding regional centre for the arts and culture as well as business and industry. The
st
expanding ‘Campus for the 21 Century’ would benefit the image and prestige of Warwick
and Coventry as a leading centre for business and governance in the West Midlands.
Implications of Economic Impact: Image and Reputation
The proposed expansion of Warwick University would help to enhance the image and
reputation of Warwick and Coventry as a leading regional centre in the West Midlands. This
could have a significant impact on business confidence in the local area and across the rest
of the region and is likely to encourage investment in new and existing economic activities,
in urban development and redevelopment and in the improvement of commercial and
community facilities and transport infrastructure. It is important that the benefits of raising
the profile of the area are felt by all sections of the community, including disadvantaged
people and deprived areas, and by other parts of the region. The University, the local
authorities and other public and private sector organisations would need to develop their
partnership activities to ensure that this can be achieved.
Significance of Likely Impact: Image and Reputation
The significance of the potential benefits of University expansion on the image and
reputation of Warwick, Coventry and the rest of the West Midlands is likely to be ‘major’ at
the local level and ‘moderate’ at the regional level within the criteria in the significance
criteria presented in Table 3.5, because the impact on business confidence is likely to
enhance the potential for additional investment at the local and regional levels.
‘Major’ effects are described as “likely to be important considerations at a regional or district
scale but, if adverse, are potential concerns to the project … Mitigation measures and
detailed design work are unlikely to remove all of the impacts …”. ‘Moderate’ effects are
described as “not likely to be key decision making issues … [although] the cumulative effect
of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall impacts on a particular area or on a
particular resource”.
Potential Cumulative Impact: Image and Reputation
The estimated economic impact of the proposed University expansion can be expected to
build up steadily over the ten year development but it is likely that the build-up of additional
jobs in the University itself and therefore in its supply chains would be front-end-loaded. It
can be expected, however, that the build-up of an enhanced image and reputation of
Warwick, Coventry and the rest of the West Midlands would follow the various stages of the
ten year University expansion programme and that the benefits in growing business
confidence and investment intentions would build-up in the later stages.
Suggested Mitigation: Image and Reputation
Supportive mitigation should aim to promote the growing image and reputation of Warwick,
Coventry and the rest of the West Midlands as the University expands and to exploit the
potential benefits by focussing on business perceptions and investment intentions. The
University of Warwick should develop its partnership with the local authorities, public
agencies and business organisations to realise the opportunities.
15.7
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
This section of the report draws together the key findings and recommendations of the
socio-economic impact assessment of the proposed expansion of the University of Warwick.
It draws attention to the aspects that are likely to benefit the region and the local area,
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 297
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
others that may need mitigation in order to minimise the potential impact of university and
others that may need further investigation.
15.7.1
Baseline Conditions
The SQW report clearly identifies the University of Warwick as a key contributor to both the
local and regional economy. The impacts of the University’s spending and employment for
the local and regional economies relates directly to the scale of the University and is
therefore key in understanding the potential socio-economic impacts of the proposed
expansion of the campus. The expansion needs to be considered in the context of the
changing economic activity, for example, the move from traditional industries to knowledge
based activities and business and financial services in recent years. The differences
between the economic and social profiles of Coventry and Warwick also need to be taken
into consideration when assessing the impacts of the expansion and in ensuring the benefits
are distributed evenly.
15.7.2
University Expansion
The University’s ambition is to build a ‘Campus for the 21st Century’ at which researchers
working in state-of-the-art facilities challenge and extend the boundaries of human
knowledge and understanding, where students and researchers of all backgrounds and all
nations study and live, which is an asset for the region and is, nationally, a key component
of the Science City initiative. The aim is to become a world-leading university. The
proposed development is driven by research requirements, but it would also enhance the
University’s local and regional impacts in a number of other ways.
The University of Warwick Masterplan, 2005 puts forward a vision, strategic framework, core
development proposals and supporting strategies for the extension of the university campus
2
on the southern edge of Coventry. It proposes 171,000 m of net additional floorspace to
extend the University’s academic and other facilities, support functions and student
2
accommodation (with an additional 54,000 m of student accommodation off site within the
Coventry urban area). This includes some redevelopment within the existing campus and a
landscaped extension of the campus into the adjoining Warwick Green Belt.
The University of Warwick Masterplan proposes the development of the main campus of the
University of Warwick at Coventry over a period of ten years to 2018 as part of an Outline
Planning Application for the University Estate. The campus straddles the boundary between
the City of Coventry and the County of Warwickshire (including Warwick District). The
Warwickshire part of the campus is in the Green Belt (where university development may be
permitted as an exception to policy).
15.7.3
Economic Impact
Direct and indirect expenditure impacts have been calculated using the same methodology
as adopted for the University as a whole in the recent study of the Regional Impact of the
University of Warwick (SQW, May 2006).
On the low multiplier assumptions (1.1 local / 1.2 regional), the net additional local
employment impact of the proposed University expansion is estimated at 1,794 FTE jobs in
the Warwick and Coventry area and the regional impact is estimated at 2,641 FTE jobs in
the West Midlands (including the local area). On the high multiplier assumptions (1.3 local /
1.8 regional), the net additional local employment impact is estimated at 2,121 FTE jobs and
the regional impact is estimated at 3,390 FTE jobs.
On the low multiplier assumptions (1.1 local / 1.2 regional), the net additional local
employment impact of the proposed University expansion represents about 0.87% of the
existing economically active population in the Warwick & Coventry area and the regional
impact represents about 0.11% of the existing economically active population in the West
Midlands. On the high multiplier assumptions (1.3 local / 1.8 regional), the net additional
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 298
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
local employment impact represents about 1.02% of the existing local economically active
population and the regional impact represents about 0.14% of the existing regional
economically active population.
The impact of the proposed University on construction employment is estimated at 167 net
additional FTE jobs over the ten year construction period. These net additional jobs include
an element of indirect job creation in the supply chains to the construction industry. They
are essentially temporary, even though they extend over a ten year period, and so they
have not been added to the main estimates of net direct and indirect additional employment
arising form the proposed expansion of the Warwick University campus.
15.7.4
Policy Context
The University of Warwick forms an integral part of the future economic development of
Warwick, Coventry and the West Midlands as a whole. Employment, skills and business
cluster development are mentioned throughout regional policy guidance as vital to boosting
economic growth and increasing competitiveness. Increasing the number and retention of
graduates would contribute to an enterprising and entrepreneurial culture and higher skill
levels. Further collaboration between the education, research and business communities is
also sought to support business cluster development.
Regional policies support appropriate expansion of Higher Education, Further Education
and research establishments to ensure that the education, training and research potential of
the region can be realised. This approach is echoed in local policies. The City of Coventry
foresees and supports the expansion of the University of Warwick where feasible and
Warwick District recognises the possibility of future university development within the
limitations of the Warwick Green Belt. The Masterplan for the proposed landscaped
extension of Warwick University campus could have a beneficial economic and community
impact and enhance the local environment as an exception to Green Belt policy.
15.7.5
Wider Impact
SQW’s study of the ‘Regional Impact of the University of Warwick’ (May 2006)
demonstrated the significant contribution the University makes and indicates the impact
future expansion would have to the local economy and wider region. The University aims
to develop Warwick as a world-class university and as a resource for the local communities
in surrounding areas. The assessment of the wider impact of the proposed expansion of the
University Campus at Warwick is set in the context of spatial planning and economic
development strategies at the regional and local levels.
The estimated direct and indirect employment impact of the proposed expansion of Warwick
University (up to 3,400 FTE jobs regionally including up to 2,100 FTE jobs locally)
represents an increase of about 20% on the existing regional employment impact of the
University (about 17,250 FTE jobs) and an increase of about 30% on the existing local
employment impact of the University (about 6,900 FTE jobs).
Employment Change
It is likely that the estimated economic impact of the proposed expansion of Warwick
University would be ‘major’ in the local area and ‘moderate’ elsewhere in the region
according to the significance criteria presented in Table 3.5. The scale of direct and indirect
employment generation would be significant in the local area and a similar scale of impact
would be dispersed more widely elsewhere in the region. On balance, the estimated
economic impact of the proposed University expansion is likely to be positive. The
mitigation measures that would be required to help manage the potential economic impact
of the proposed University expansion should include measures to maximise the potential
benefits as well as measures to minimise or eliminate the potential negative effects.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 299
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Skills Training
The University expansion is likely to raise and widen the skills of the regional and local
labour markets at the same time as generating a range of employment and business
opportunities in Warwick, Coventry and the rest of the West Midlands. It would significantly
increase the human capital and development potential of the local and regional economies.
But it could also increase the competition for labour resources particularly for local
businesses and put some smaller and more traditional firms particularly in relatively
deprived areas around the University at a relative disadvantage. It is likely that the
significance of the estimated impact of University expansion on available skills and skills
requirements would be ‘major’ at both the regional and local levels because labour is much
more mobile than many of the other factors that would be affected by University expansion.
Business Tourism
It can be expected that the scale of conference facilities and delegate accommodation
already provided by the University would be increased as part of the proposed expansion
and that the increasing scale, variety and specialisation of academic, research and other
activities at the University would enhance its attractiveness as a venue for conference
business. This would play an important part in helping to develop the local and regional
economies by providing an increasing range of opportunities for disseminating academic
knowledge and promoting research commercialisation in the growing knowledge based
sectors. The significance of the potential impact of University expansion on business
tourism is likely to be ‘moderate’ at both the regional and local levels because the direct
effects on business activity and associated employment would be relatively modest at the
local level and its indirect effect on economic development at the regional level would be
relatively dispersed.
Inward Investment
The University’s success in attracting inward investment, including several major national
agencies, to the Warwick campus and the University Science Park illustrate how it has been
playing a key role in regional economic development through enterprise innovation and
support and high technology property development. The proposed expansion of the
University campus is likely to provide further incentives and opportunities to attract further
inward investment to Warwick and Coventry that would also benefit the wider regional
economy. The significance of the potential impact of inward investment to the University
campus, the University Science Park and the Warwick and Coventry area is likely to be
‘major’ at both the regional and local levels because of its catalytic effects on the
development of a modern knowledge based economy.
Economic Regeneration
Economic regeneration is an important local issue in many parts of Coventry but it is a much
less significant issue in Warwick. The effects of the University of Warwick’s various
initiatives to promote enterprise and innovation are likely to benefit highly skilled and
talented graduates more than lower skilled individuals. The University’s approach to
commercialising higher education skills and research capabilities may not directly meet the
need to regenerate the economies and communities of the various areas of multiple
deprivation in Coventry, some of them close to the University itself. There may be some
marginal benefits for disadvantaged people because of the generation of indirect economic
activity and employment creation in the supply chains and support services that serve the
University and feed the high technology, knowledge based economy. The significance of
the potential impact of University expansion on local economic and community regeneration
is likely to be ‘moderate’ at the local level and ‘minor’ at the regional level because the high
technology initiatives of the University would have only marginal and indirect effects on the
fortunes of disadvantaged people in the deprived areas of Coventry.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 300
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
Social Inclusion
Problems of social exclusion are likely to be focussed in the various deprived areas of
Coventry on the northeast and southeast sides of the town some distance from the
University and on the southwest side of the town near the campus. Warwick University
encourages schoolchildren from traditionally under-represented groups to apply for its
courses and contributes to local community development through initiatives such as the
Warwick Arts Centre, the Centre for Livelong Learning, Sport for Warwick and Warwick
Volunteers. The proposed University expansion would probably offer some specific benefits
through the expansion of current community development initiatives. The significance of the
potential impact of University expansion on social inclusion is likely to be ‘moderate’ at the
local level and ‘minor’ at the regional level because the limited accessibility between the
campus and surrounding neighbourhoods would limit the potential community benefits.
Community Life
The University campus is already used extensively by local people and local community
groups for education, arts and sports activities and the University envisages that the
‘Campus for the 21st Century’ would offer greater access and provide greater benefit to the
local community. The proposed expansion of the University is likely to expand and extend
the University’s various education courses and arts and sports facilities which are already
open to local people in addition to the estimated economic impact of the University
expansion. The significance of the potential impact of University expansion on community
life is likely to be ‘moderate’ at the local level and ‘minor’ at the regional level because the
expansion of the University’s community development initiatives is likely to have a mainly
local impact in Coventry limited by the limited accessibility to surrounding neighbourhoods.
Image and Reputation
Other effects of the proposed University expansion include the wider contribution that the
Warwick University can continue to make in developing the local, regional, national and
international image and reputation of Warwick and Coventry as a centre of academic and
research excellence and enterprise and innovation in the growth of the knowledge economy.
This could have a significant impact on business confidence in the local area and across the
rest of the region and is likely to encourage investment in new and existing economic
activities, in urban development and redevelopment and in the improvement of commercial
and community facilities and transport infrastructure. The significance of the potential
benefits of University expansion on the image and reputation of Warwick, Coventry and the
rest of the West Midlands is likely to be ‘major’ at the local level and ‘moderate’ at the
regional level because the impact on business confidence is likely to enhance the potential
for additional investment at the local and regional levels.
15.7.6
Key Recommendations
The mitigation measures identified as part of the assessment of the wider impact of the
proposed expansion of Warwick University are summarised here as the key
recommendations of this socio-economic impact assessment.
Supportive mitigation measures for employment change should aim to realise the potential
benefits of the proposed University expansion to local and regional economic growth and
local business activity as well as local labour force skills and community interests.
Responsive mitigation measures should also be considered to reduce the potential negative
effects of the proposed University expansion. They should include a range of spatial
planning, integrated transport and economic development measures to manage the risks of
increasing pressures on the local labour market, local business and community services,
associated development housing and local services and associated movement needs.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 301
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
The West Midlands Regional Skills Partnership (RSP) should work with the University of
Warwick, local authorities, other public agencies, business organisations and education and
training providers to manage the labour skills effects of proposed University expansion.
They would need to gear up the mix and capacity of education and training services to
anticipate and address the significant increase in the supply and demand for higher quality
labour and business skills in the local area and elsewhere in the region that is likely to
accompany the proposed expansion of the University and its activities.
It is unlikely that there would be any negative effects of the proposed University expansion
on business tourism and so supportive mitigation measures would be needed to realise the
potential opportunities. The University itself is the main provider of business tourism
facilities in the area although its activities may in some ways limit the opportunities for other
providers, such as hotels and colleges.
The full potential of attracting inward investment would need to be maximised through
University and public sector support and assistance to in-coming businesses aimed at
ensuring the new companies are securely embedded into the local and regional economy as
quickly and effectively as possible. However, the potential disbenefits of major inward
investment schemes would also need to be identified and minimised as far as possible by
the same processes to ensure the conditions that can maximise effective integration and
minimise any associated pressures in local infrastructure and resources.
Supportive mitigation for local economic and community regeneration should aim to identify
aspects of the estimated positive economic impact that can be directed to benefit
disadvantaged groups, individuals and local areas. The University should consider possible
measures to recruit people from deprived areas to suitable jobs that arise on the extended
campus and to ensure that appropriate and affordable means of access to these
employment opportunities are made available to target groups. Coventry City Council
should consider how public sector skills training could be provided in local regeneration
areas and how to incorporate them in its economic and community development
programmes.
Supportive mitigation for social inclusion should identify aspects of the economic impact of
the proposed University expansion that can be directed to benefit disadvantaged groups
and individuals particularly in the deprived areas of Coventry. The University should
consider possible measures to extend its community development activities specifically into
the deprived areas of Coventry.
Supportive mitigation for the community life aspects of the proposed University expansion
should focus on the various education courses and arts and sports facilities that can be
extended to benefit local communities and that can be made more accessible to people in
surrounding neighbourhoods and other areas of Coventry. Coventry City Council should
consider how far accessibility can be improved between the University campus the rest of
the city and how its community development programmes can support the University’s
involvement in local community life.
Supportive mitigation for the potential enhanced image and reputation of Warwick, Coventry
and the West Midlands should exploit the potential benefits by focussing on business
perceptions and investment intentions. The University of Warwick should develop its
partnership with the local authorities, public agencies and business organisations involved in
the proposed University expansion to realise these opportunities.
15.7.7
Conclusions
Overall, the estimated economic impact of the proposed expansion of Warwick University is
positive and significant at the local and regional levels with potential net additional
employment of up to at 2,121 FTE jobs in the Warwick and Coventry area and up to 3,390
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 302
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
FTE jobs in the West Midlands (including the local area). Another 251 FTE jobs are
estimated in the construction industry during the ten year development programme. The
local impact represents an increase of about 30% on the existing local employment impact
of the University and about 1.02% of the existing local economically active population. The
regional impact represents an increase of about 20% on the existing regional employment
impact and about 0.14% of the existing regional economically active population.
The significance and nature of the various aspects of the potential impact of the proposed
expansion of the University of Warwick (major / moderate / minor and, on balance, positive /
negative) has been assessed at the local and regional levels as follows:
Table 15.10: Significance and Nature of Potential Impacts
Significance and
nature of impact
Local impact
Regional impact
Employment change
Major – mainly positive
Moderate – mainly positive
Skills training
Major – mainly positive
Major – mainly positive
Business tourism
Moderate – mainly positive
Moderate – mainly positive
Inward investment
Major – mainly positive
Major – mainly positive
Economic regeneration
Moderate – mainly positive
Minor – mainly positive
Social inclusion
Moderate – mainly positive
Minor – mainly positive
Community life
Moderate – mainly positive
Minor – mainly positive
Image and reputation
Major – mainly positive
Moderate – mainly positive
The mitigation measures identified to address the range of impacts of the proposed
expansion of the Warwick University campus are mainly supportive (in order to realise
potential positive impact) but some are responsive (in order to reduce or avoid negative
impacts). Most of the mitigation measures would involve continued partnership action
between the University of Warwick, Warwick District Council, Coventry City Council, the
various public agencies at the county and regional levels and local companies and business
organisations.
The University of Warwick would need to extend its various local education, enterprise,
innovation, business tourism, inward investment and community development initiatives to
help maximise the potential impact of the proposed University expansion. The local
authorities, other public agencies and local business organisations would need to consider
how their strategies, policies and programmes could support the mitigation measures
identified and how best they could work with the University of Warwick to improve
integration and accessibility between the Main Campus, adjoining areas and other deprived
areas elsewhere.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 303
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
This page has been left intentionally blank
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 304
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
16
Summary and Interaction of Effects
16.1
Introduction
A key principle of the EIA process is that significant environmental impacts resulting from
the proposed development should be identified, evaluated and presented within the
Environmental Statement (ES). All impacts, including neutral impacts, have been recorded
within the ES in order to provide a comprehensive information source for consultees and
determining authorities in assessing the environmental implications of introducing the
proposed development.
This chapter therefore considers the interaction of effects and cumulative effects which have
the capacity to impact upon both local and regional features.
The chapter is structured as follows:
Section 17.2: Provides a summary of impacts associated with the Main Campus
Masterplan; and,
Section 17.3: Describes the interaction of impacts
16.2
Summary of Impacts
In determining the interaction of effects and cumulative impacts, it is helpful to summarise
residual impacts. In turn, residual issues at an individual subject level can then be
considered in tandem with other topics to identify further influences on decision making.
The following section summarises both beneficial and adverse residual effects identified
within the Environmental Statement.
16.2.1
Ecology
Implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan is expected to result in a range of
temporary and long-term effects on various aspects of the natural environment. In terms of
impacts, the assessment has identified a range of beneficial impacts resulting from
landscape and management proposals included within the Masterplan. Among these are a
long-term, positive impact on the Tocil Wood and old Brickyard Plantation.
Adverse impacts are expected to be realised through the partial loss of broadleaved
plantation from the east of the Westwood Site, the loss of arable land to development and
landscaping proposals and the loss of hedges along Gibbet Hill Road, although this is a
species-poor and heavily manicured hedgerow of low ecological value.
Long-term benefits are expected through retention of marginal areas and the use of
sustainable drainage to alleviate problems of flooding currently experienced by Canley
Brook. A further beneficial impact is expected from management of aquatic habitats,
including removal of invasive species and creation of wetland features in support of the
sustainable drainage strategy.
With regards to species, great crested newts would experience a long-term, positive
residual impact at the County level as a result of the habitat enhancement works resulting
from the development proposals.
Aquatic wildlife, including water voles, otters and, if present, white-clawed crayfish, would
further be expected to benefit from the increased range of suitable habitat through the
provision of sustainable drainage features and their effects on the current drainage regime
at the site.
While bats are expected to experience a beneficial impact as a result of the habitat
improvements to wildlife corridors across the site, despite the removal of arable habitats,
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 305
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
creation of a variety of replacement habitats would result in a beneficial residual impact.
However, skylark, yellowhammer and song thrush may experience a permanent, adverse
residual impact due to the availability of arable habitat on adjacent land.
The affects of noise pollution on breeding birds during construction is largely unavoidable,
but would only impact on areas adjacent to current construction site and the birds are likely
to recover the following breeding season.
16.2.2
Landscape and Visual Impact
While implementation of the University of Warwick’s Main Campus Masterplan may result in
a number of impacts on landscape, including effects on the openness of the land currently
representing Central Campus West, past building within this area has already compromised
its landscape character and the additional effect arising from further development is not
expected to be significant.
The landscape proposals for the development are in line with the guidelines for the
management of the Arden Parkland and would, therefore improve the relationship between
the site and its setting.
Visibility of the proposed development would be expected to be minimal as from the majority
of the surrounding rural land the campus is not visible due to the screening effects of local
woodlands. From the majority of surrounding residential areas, increased visibility is
expected to be limited to first floor windows of a small number of properties. From public
vantage, the development would be seen against the backdrop of the existing campus
buildings, with no new building exceeding the ridgeline of the existing campus.
The scale and distribution of new buildings would not significantly damage the character and
status of the existing campus. Within Central Campus West, Westwood and Gibbet Hill,
new development would provide the opportunity to raise the visual quality of the campus,
providing a greater sense of cohesion and unification.
16.2.3
Air Quality
Given the commitment to provision of appropriate mitigation, individual adverse impacts on
local air quality from construction activities associated with individual Masterplan
components are expected to be temporary. No long-term residual effects are expected as a
result of the construction of facilities associated with the Main Campus Masterplan.
It has further been determined that air quality impacts, as a result of implementation of the
Main Campus Masterplan, should be given a low priority consideration in the planning
appraisal, as the predicted increase in forecast pollutant concentrations in the event of
implementation of the Masterplan would be negligible and well within the national and EU
objectives. Furthermore, combined operational effects of vehicular transport emissions and
stack emissions from a biomass-fired combined heat and power plant would not contribute
to significant changes in the ambient air quality.
16.2.4
Noise and Vibration
It is considered that there would be no residual noise and vibration effects provided the
appropriate noise mitigation measures described above are put in place.
16.2.5
Water Resources
Without appropriate mitigation measures the most significant impacts on the water
environment related to the proposed developments is the effect of sediment releases on
aquatic flora and fauna, during construction. Such construction related impacts are
expected to be effectively mitigated by employing appropriate sediment control measures
during construction. All other impacts of the development are likely to be negligible even
without mitigation.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 306
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
16.2.6
Ground Conditions and Contamination
The previous undeveloped nature of much of the Main Campus and the absence of known
contamination at the site provides limited risk of contamination at the site. Through ensuring
that prior to construction of individual Masterplan components, environmental site
investigation data is obtained and construction activities are directed accordingly, no further
impacts to ground conditions are expected.
Providing that appropriate mitigation measures are successfully implemented during
construction of individual facilities, and subject to the results of specific investigations
beneath footprints of proposed buildings, implementation of the Main Campus Masterplan is
not expected to result in a significant risk to the health and safety of site workers, end users
or site neighbours from contaminated ground remaining on the site. In addition, there
should be no significant impact to construction materials.
16.2.7
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Impacts on archaeological and cultural heritage resources at the Main Campus are
expected to result largely from possible disturbance to in-situ resources during earthworks
and other intrusive works associated with development of new buildings. Adverse impacts
may be realised through development of facilities disturbing archaeological resources at the
Westwood Site and in the vicinity of Scarman House.
In the long-term, slight visual intrusion would be expected to impact upon the grade II listed
building Cryfield House Farmhouse, although provision of screening is thought capable of
mitigating this further. Visual intrusion is also expected upon Rootes Hall, the rear of which
is earmarked by the Main Campus Masterplan for new structures. The increase in traffic
flow is also considered capable of resulting in slight increased traffic noise to the Kenilworth
Conservation Area.
16.2.8
Human Population
The overall economic impact of the proposed expansion of Warwick University is expected
to be positive and significant at the local and regional levels with creation of up to at 2,121
full time equivalent (FTE) jobs in the Warwick and Coventry area, and up to 3,390 further
FTE jobs in the West Midlands. Another 251 FTE jobs are estimated in the construction
industry during the ten year development programme. The local impact represents an
increase of about 30% on the existing local employment impact of the University and about
1.02% of the existing local economically active population. The regional impact represents
an increase of about 20% on the existing regional employment impact and about 0.14% of
the existing regional economically active population.
16.3
Interaction of Effects
The interaction of effects relates to inter-relationships that can arise between different
environmental factors at the design stage, during construction, or following commissioning
of a development. It is a useful means of identifying ‘indirect’ or ‘secondary’ environmental
effects, and the consequences of decision making in one subject area that might give rise to
effects in other areas. Such effects can be either permanent or reversible. Three key areas
have been identified within which interactions could occur:
•
The interaction of construction-related factors with material aspects of the human and
built environment - primarily short-term, reversible construction impacts;
•
The interaction of construction impacts with the semi-natural environment; and,
•
The interaction of the scheme, once it becomes operational, on both the built and
natural environment.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 307
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007
Environmental Statement:
Volume 2:
Main Text
16.3.1
Construction Phase (Human and Built Environment)
Activities associated with the scheme’s construction phase have the potential to result in a
range of impacts to the human and built environment. Primary among these would be the
production of fugitive dust, rainwater runoff and construction noise. Nevertheless, noise
assessment has concluded that neither enabling works associated with the site preparation,
nor construction activities would give rise to significant adverse effects. Dust control would
also be exercised through adherence to appropriate site controls which together, it is
expected, would ensure that effects to the human environment, in terms of the University’s
residential population, and the surrounding residential areas of Cannon Park and Canley,
would not realise significant impacts.
The construction phase would also create a demand for employment which could lead to
direct and induced contributions to the local economy and local demand for skilled and
semi-skilled labour.
16.3.2
Construction Phase (Natural Environment)
While the Main Campus Masterplan describes the framework for development over a ten
year period, it is anticipated that construction of individual components of the Masterplan
would be completed in significantly less time. Nevertheless, construction activities may
have the potential to interact and result in effects on the natural environment. Construction
would see a range of potential interactions through construction noise, airborne emissions
from vehicular traffic and fugitive dust. Given the proximity of the Main Campus, particularly
aspects of Central Campus West, with the rural Arden Parklands landscape, the combined
noise, dust and visual effects may contribute to some disturbance to the natural
environment.
16.3.3
Operational Phase (Built and Natural Environment)
Operation of the expanded University Main Campus would be expected to allow the
University of Warwick to continue to contribute to the local socio-economic setting, through
the direct and indirect provision of jobs and employment.
Long term impacts to the surrounding human environment are most likely expected to result
from the combination of vehicular emissions and vehicular noise. The assessments of
individual effects of these have shown predicted impacts to be not significant, suggesting
that the interactive effect would not contribute nuisance to the human environment.
Furthermore, consideration of the potential effects of operation of a biomass-powered
combined heat and power plant has also shown the effects, in combination to those
resulting from vehicular traffic, to be not significant.
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\02.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\001 WARWICK ES 2007 06 19.DOC
ES001
Page 308
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 20 June 2007