ABBEY MANOR GROUP/SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD … Park MUD, Business Park... · ABBEY MANOR GROUP/SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD Mixed Use Development including Business Park and

ABBEY MANOR GROUP/SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD

Mixed Use Development including Business Park and Foodstore Land at Bunford Park, Bunford Lane, Yeovil

Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Report June 2017

Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary Page 2 www.wyg.com

Introduction

This Non-Technical Summary of an Environmental Statement (ES) has

been prepared on behalf of Abbey Manor Group and Sainsbury’s

Supermarkets Ltd. It supports a hybrid application submitted to South

Somerset District Council for development of a mixed use scheme for a

business park and foodstore on land at Bunford Park, Bunford Lane,

Yeovil.

The ES records an assessment of the likely significant effects of the

Proposed Development on the environment. The content of the ES has

been agreed with the Council, following consultation with stakeholders,

through a formal scoping exercise.

The aim has been to ensure a proper understanding by the public and by

the Council when making its decision on the planning application of the

predicted significant effects on the environment and the scope for

reducing them (‘mitigation’).

The general approach of the ES draws on the Town and Country

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, national

guidance and published guidelines on the preparation of ESs. It has

been prepared by a consultant team who have undertaken the detailed

assessment of likely significant environmental effects.

The scope of the assessment and topics agreed to be covered are as

follows:

• Landscape and Visual Impact (SRL Consulting)

• Heritage (WYG)

• Ecology (WYG)

• Socio-Economic (Indigo and WYG)

• Traffic and Transport (Connect Consultants)

Figure 1: Site Context


The Site

The Site at Bunford Park is situated on the western edge of Yeovil. The

site extends to 21.6ha. The Site is bordered by Dodham Brook to the

north west and to the north east by the A3088, western relief road. The

southern and western boundaries are defined by field boundaries and

Broadleaze Farm. It is currently undeveloped.

The majority of the Site is allocated in the adopted local plan for

development as a business park and benefits from an outline planning

permission for this business park use (‘the 2011 Consented Scheme’). A

small proportion in the south of the Site lies beyond the defined built up

area of Yeovil and also was not included in the previous planning

application.

A nearby site to the south, known as Bunford Heights, benefits from

outline planning permission for new houses. A further site, known as

Bunford Hollow, is also proposed for new houses immediately to the

south of Bunford Park. An application for this housing development is to

be submitted soon. Bunford Hollow has been considered as part of the

required cumulative assessment of likely significant effects in the ES.

Approximately 0.5 miles away to the west is Brympton d’Evercy, where

there are 23 designated heritage assets, including grade I listed Brympton

House and grade II* Registered Park and Garden.

The Site lies immediately adjacent to Somerset County Council’s Yeovil

Western Corridor Works on the A3088 which are programmed to be

delivered in summer 2017. The design of those works included the traffic

from the 2011 Consented Scheme, which has planning permission.

Comparisons with the 2011 Consented Scheme has been made

throughout the ES and is used as the baseline.

Figure 2: Site showing 2011 Consented Scheme Site


The Proposed Development

The application is submitted as a hybrid with some parts seeking full and

some outline planning permission. The application seeks full, detailed

planning permission for Phase 1:

• the main Site access;

• business park: 2,040sq m gross employment unit;

• 8,443sq m gross foodstore;

• petrol filling station; and

• related car parks, other infrastructure and landscaping.

Figure 3: Phase 1 Detailed Element

And outline planning permission for:

• secondary Site access;

• remainder of business park: 56,051sq m gross floorspace; and

• other related infrastructure and landscaping.

The business park part of the scheme seeks to provide a flexible range of

buildings to be attractive to the market. The split of uses is for offices,

research and development, light industrial and storage and distribution.

The main Site access is in the form of a 4-arm roundabout junction on the

A3088 Western Corridor. New pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities and

new bus stops will also be provided on the A3088. New pedestrian and

cycle routes are to be provided to connect the Site with the surrounding

area. A second Site access is to be provided off Watercombe Lane. This

also will serve the proposed housing at Bunford Hollow.

The landscape masterplan is designed to minimise landscape and visual

effects and includes on and off-site structural planting and seeks to

retention and improvement, where possible, of existing trees and

hedgerows. The off-site planting is in the form of new woodland structural

planting along the western edge of the Site, on land known as the ‘banana

field’. The existing mature oak trees and hedgerows with trees on site

have been retained and improved where possible.


Figure 4: Illustrative Combined Masterplan


Alternative Options

An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicants is required.

The alternatives considered have been in the context of the long standing

allocation of the majority of the Site for employment development. Thus,

the options have been focused on the ‘no-scheme’ option and the 2011

Consented Scheme.

With the ‘no-scheme’ option there will be neutral effects on ecology,

landscape, setting of nearby heritage assets, traffic and shopping effects.

The significant positive socio-economic effects arising from creation of jobs

and commerce in Yeovil will not happen. Thus, the ‘no-scheme’ option

would have a significant negative effect on the local economy of Yeovil.

The 2011 Consented Scheme will give rise to very similar significant effects

to the Proposed Development, notwithstanding the additional parcel of land

to the south included in the current hybrid application. However, the 2011

Consented Scheme has not happened, despite having planning permission

since 2011 and being marketed and promoted; it has not been viable to

start construction. The key difference with the Proposed Development is

the inclusion of a foodstore; its role is to pump prime by enabling the funds

to be released to construct the main Site access to facilitate the business

park to be delivered.

Figure 5: 2011 Consented Scheme Masterplan


Landscape and Visual

An assessment of the potential significant effects on landscape (physical

changes to landscape elements) and to the resulting landscape character

and visual effects (changes in people’s views) has been undertaken.

The 2011 Consented Scheme has been categorised as baseline and it is

assumed that it has been implemented. The difference in landscape and

visual terms between the 2011 Consented Scheme and the Proposed

Development has been assessed. A comparative zone of theoretical

visibility (ZTV) demonstrated that with the enlarged site to the south the

Proposed Development was unlikely to give rise to significant or different

effects from those arising from the 2011 Consented Scheme.

Consideration has been given to the effects on completion and 15 years

after completion with the benefit of planting mitigation both by day and by

night. Landscape mitigation proposals have been designed to minimise

these effects, integrate the scheme into the landscape and to provide

benefits to the wider landscape. The residual landscape and visual effects

have been assessed with 15 years’ growth of the landscape mitigation. The

following effects have been found:

During construction, a temporary, moderately significant adverse

landscape effect will arise to the aesthetic factors of the Site. This adverse

effect will reduce by being not significant on completion. Significant but

short-term temporary adverse visual effects will arise during

Figure 6: Comparative Zone of Theoretical Visibility

construction when seen from the roof terrace of Brympton House, and

moderately significant short-term temporary adverse visual effects

will arise on construction from Camp Road/West Coker Road Junction,

Brympton Avenue, Brympton d'Evercy parkland and Watercombe Lane.

The effects from both these receptors will reduce to being not significant 15

years after completion with the landscape mitigation as shown on Figure 7.


Figure 7: Landscape Mitigation Proposals


Heritage Effects

An assessment of the potential significant effects of the Proposed

Development on the significance of nearby heritage assets was undertaken.

It focused on the differences between the Proposed Development and the

2011 Consented Scheme.

There are no heritage assets on the Site. Using the ZTV described above,

four designated heritage assets were identified as requiring setting

assessments, as follows:

• Brympton d’Evercy Registered Park and Garden (grade II*):

• Entrance Gateway to Brympton House (grade II Listed Building);

• Brympton House (grade I Listed Building); and

• The Chantry/Dower House (grade I Listed Building).

In addition, Yeovil Airfield, a non-designated heritage asset, was also

identified as requiring a setting assessment.

Unmitigated, the Proposed Development would have negative impacts on

the setting and significance of the above heritage assets. These impacts

are at the lower end of the magnitude scale. When these impacts are

combined with their respective levels of heritage significance, this would

amount to effects ranging from intermediate adverse to neutral.

Effects of intermediate or greater significance are considered to be

significant in EIA terms.

Without mitigation, the effects of the Proposed Development on the setting

and significance of two designated assets, Brympton d’Evercy Registered

Park and Garden and Brympton House, are considered to be significant.

This would have been the same for the 2011 Consented Scheme. The

effects on the other heritage assets were not found to be significant.

Figure 8: Southern Elevation of Brympton House


The mitigation in the proposed masterplan seeks to minimise negative

impacts and adverse effects. This includes the structural woodland planting

of the ‘banana field’ described above, which was agreed mitigation planting

for the 2011 Consented Scheme with Historic England and the Council.

With this mitigation after 15 years, the Proposed Development would be

slightly less visible from within the Registered Park and Garden in views to

the north-east and south-east of Brympton House and considerably less

visible within the eastern setting of the Registered Park and Garden. The

mitigation planting also helps preserve the semi-rural character of the area.

Figure 9: View from Roof Terrace of Brympton House to Site

With the mitigation implemented, there would be a reduction in magnitude

of identified negative impacts and scale of effects for three heritage assets,

highlighted in bold in the table below:

Heritage Assets Heritage

Significance

Impacts –

Mitigated

Effects -

Mitigated

Brympton d’Evercy Registered Park

and Garden

High Slight negative

Minor adverse

Entrance Gateway High Negligible negative

Neutral

Brympton House Very High Negligible

negative

Minor

adverse

The Chantry/Dower

House

Very High Negligible

negative

Minor

adverse

Yeovil Airfield Medium Negligible negative

Neutral

Table 1: Summary of Residual Impacts and Effects

The Proposed Development would not give rise to any residual heritage

effects of sufficient scale to be considered significant in EIA terms. This

remains the case when the cumulative effects of Bunford Hollow are

considered.


Ecology Effects

The ecological effects of the Proposed Development on habitats and

associated flora and fauna have been assessed. It uses the findings of a

number of field surveys including detailed surveys on reptiles, great crested

newts, dormice, bats and badgers.

The habitats on Site are arable land (fields for growing crops), scrub/tall

ruderal vegetation, hedgerow with trees, treelines and ditches, see Figure

10. There are no statutory designated sites within 2km of the Site, one

statutory designated site 7km of the Site and 5 Local Wildlife Sites (non-

statutory sites) within 2km of the Site.

In terms of species, the surveys reveal:

• presence of a low population of slow worm of Site level importance;

• no great crested newts recorded, Site is considered to be of negligible

importance;

• no dormice were recorded, Site is considered to be of negligible

importance;

• the commuting and foraging bat value of the Site is considered to be of

up to District level owing in part to the frequency of rarer species

recorded on Site;

• there are a number and variety of badger setts and suitable habitats for

foraging of badgers within and adjacent to the Site, the Site is of Local

importance to badgers.

The masterplan design has sought to retain as much of the habitats of

importance within the Site and promote enhancement and connectivity

within the development. This has included retention of linear features,

including areas of green spaces and specific measures for bats, badgers

and birds.

Figure 10: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map


With the mitigation in place, both forming part of the design and specific

additional measures, the significant environmental effects from the

construction phase are an overall significant beneficial permanent

effect on hedgerows with lines of trees and broadleaved woodland in the

medium to long term and significant and permanent beneficial effect

on other habitats of local value.

There will be an overall habitat loss of 18.75 ha because of the Proposed

Development, a loss that predominantly equates to the loss of arable land

and those habitats assessed of being of importance within the context of

the Site only; the majority of this loss would have been lost with the 2011

Consented Scheme too. The loss of those habitats is not considered

significant in the context of the proposed mitigation, including 3.78ha of

native structural planting of the ‘banana field’. The additional gains in

planting proposed will result in an overall significant, beneficial and

permanent effect on the site value in the medium to long term.

Looking at effect on species during the construction phase, with the

proposed mitigation in place:

• the effect on roosting bats cannot be drawn in advance of the summer

surveys;

• no significant effect on foraging/commuting bats using the Site;

• no significant effect on the badger population using the Site.

Turning to the operation phase, again with the proposed mitigation in

place, the residual effect will be significant beneficial and permanent

on habitats within the Site in the medium to long term. This is different

conclusion than that assessed for the 2011 Consented Scheme owing to the

level of habitat connectivity throughout the Site with the Proposed

Development.

For species, with the mitigation in place including a management plan there

will be no significant negative effects and potential to result in an

overall significant, permanent positive effect in the medium to long

term for badgers. For foraging/commuting bats, with mitigation including

input into the final lighting design, there will be no significant negative

effect arising. The conclusions in respect of bats are not possible until the

summer surveys are available.


Socio-Economic Effects – Employment &

Training

An assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the

Proposed Development, both as a whole and the first phase only as

described above, has been undertaken. The purpose was to explain the

baseline position for the local area and South Somerset, identify, quantify

and assess the significance of the likely socio-economic effects coming from

the Proposed Development and consider cumulative effects.

The construction phase will generate three temporary effects for the entire

Proposed Development, as set out in the table below. The effects of the

first phase are also judged to be moderate beneficial; the scale of the

effect being smaller (133 person years, GVA of £9.0m).

Effect Scale of

effect

Significance Mitigation Residual

effect

Construction

employment

466 person

years

Moderate –

beneficial

Not required None

Gross value

added

£31.5m Moderate -

beneficial

Not required None

Construction

training

Not

quantified

Minor to

moderate -

beneficial

Not required None

Table 2: Construction Phase – Temporary Socio-Economic Effects

Once it is operational and fully occupied, the Proposed Development will

generate four different permanent socio-economic effects. All four will be

beneficial effect which will be enjoyed in perpetuity.

Effect Scale of effect Significance Mitigation Residual

effect

Employment effects

Permanent

jobs

2,499 to 3,090

FTE gross on

site jobs

Major –

beneficial

Not

required

Major -

beneficial

Net

additional

jobs

2,192 to 2,711

FTE net

additional jobs

Major -

beneficial

Not

required

Major -

beneficial

Economic effects Economic

Gross value

added

£93.5m to

£115.7m

Major -

beneficial

Not

required

Major –

beneficial

Training opportunities

Training &

skills

development

opportunities

Not quantified Moderate -

beneficial

Not

required

Moderate

beneficial

Table 3: Operational Phase – Permanent Socio-Economic Effects


The Proposed Development will create a major new employment hub which

will make a significant contribution to the delivery of jobs and economic

growth for South Somerset. The permanent jobs created by the Proposed

Development represents an increase of between 5.8% and 7.2% in the

number of full time equivalent (FTE) throughout South Somerset.

Once operational and fully occupied the first phase will generate four

different permanent socio-economic effects:

• permanent jobs: 190 FTE gross on site jobs of moderate beneficial;

• 167 FTE net additional jobs of moderate beneficial significance;

• £7.1m GVA of moderate beneficial significance; and

• Moderate beneficial training and skills development opportunities.

The assessment compares the socio-economic effects of the Proposed

Development with those of the 2011 Consented Scheme. For the

construction phase the findings were:

• Construction employment: 466 person years compared with 373 person

years for 2011 Consented Scheme; the build costs assumed to be 80%

of those of the Proposed Development.

• Gross value added: £31.5m compared for £25.2m for the consented

scheme.

• Broadly similar construction training opportunities.

The table below sets out comparison for the operational phase:

Permanent

effect

Proposed

Development

2011

Consented

Scheme

Comments

Operational phase – permanent socio-economic effects

Permanent jobs 2,499 to 3,090

FTE gross on site jobs

“Up to 4,000 to

5,000 jobs”

The high-level

estimate of gross on site employment for

the 2011 Consented Scheme is more

ambitious than

realistic.

Net additional

permanent jobs

2,192 to 2,711

FTE net additional jobs

No information

available.

Not possible to assess

based on information available for the 2007

Application.

Gross value

added

£93.5 million to

£115.7 million per annum in

perpetuity

No information

available.

Not possible to assess

based on information available for the 2007

Application.

Training and

skills development

opportunities

Not quantified Not quantified The Proposed

Development would have a larger effect

than the 2011

Consented Scheme, given the additional

inclusion of the new Sainsbury’s food store.

Table 4: Socio-Economic Effect – Comparison with 2011 Consented Scheme


Socio-Economic Effects – Shopping

The likely significant shopping effects of the proposed foodstore element

of the Proposed Development was assessed looking at the existing

shopping patterns and environment, notably of Yeovil Town Centre.

The Proposed Development includes a 8,443sq m gross, 5,108sq m net

foodstore to be operated by Sainsbury’s. The convenience goods

turnover of the store is assessed to be £37.1m; the comparison goods

turnover is assessed to be £13.9m per annum.

Yeovil Town Centre is categorised as a ‘Regional’ shopping centre and is

an important comparison goods destination with a comparison goods

turnover of £161.1m per annum. The main foodstore provision in Yeovil

includes Tesco Extra, Queensway, Asda, Preston Road and Morrisons,

Lysander Road. These three stores attract the highest share of main food

shopping in the defined study area.

Yeovil Town Centre demonstrates healthy levels of vitality and viability

with a good diversity of uses, broad base of key non-food anchor stores,

reduction in number of vacant units, evidence of investor confidence and

good levels of pedestrian activity. Yeovil Town Centre is judged to be a

receptor of moderate sensitivity to change.

No significant impacts relating to shopping have been identified at the

construction stage.

Once the new store is trading the potential significant effects on Yeovil

Town Centre have been considered looking at change in turnover of

existing shops in the centre and on investment decisions in the centre.

The change in market share of Yeovil Town Centre is assessed to be

-2.1% and impact on potential 2020 turnover of Yeovil Town Centre

-5.9%.

The Proposed Development would not delay or prejudice any potential

investment or proposals in the centre, in particular any extension to the

Quedam Centre, should it come forward.

Taken together, the effect on Yeovil Town Centre is considered to be

minor adverse. Accordingly, no mitigation measures are suggested.


Traffic & Transport Effects

The likely significant effects in relation to the accessibility of the Proposed

Development and traffic activity during construction and from the

completed development on road safety and highway capacity have been

considered.

The assessment has used a future assessment year of 2028, which aligns

with the County Council’s traffic model. That traffic model has included

the traffic from the 2011 Consented Scheme. It forms part of the

baseline conditions and has been included in the design of the County

Council’s Western Corridor Improvement Works.

The Proposed Development benefits from accessibility by non-car modes:

the existing infrastructure and walk/cycle routes makes foot and cycle an

attractive mode of travel to the Site and the Site is accessible by bus.

Looking at the construction phase, based on the construction method

statement the vehicle movements associated with the Proposed

Development are assessed to be negligible.

The likely effect on walking, cycling and public transport resulting from

the Proposed Development (with mitigation in place in the form of new

signal controlled pedestrian crossings, together with the proposed new

bus stops and foot and cycle links) is judged to be of long term, minor

beneficial effect of minor significance.

The impacts on all junctions that will be affected have been assessed and

either no change or a reduction in driver delay (and a corresponding

reduction in stress) was identified compared with the baseline position;

the latter included the traffic from the 2011 Consented Scheme. As such,

the Proposed Development has been assessed as having a long term,

low beneficial effect of moderate significance.

Owing to the accident data for the existing local roads, the sensitivity of

road safety was judged to be high. The decrease in traffic compared

with the baseline for weekdays and modest increase during the Saturday

peak hour means that the change in traffic road safety will be negligible.

Overall, the residual cumulative impacts of development are low

beneficial of minor significance on non-car accessibility; low

beneficial of moderate significance on traffic and negligible on road

safety.


Overall Conclusions

The ES has examined in detail the likely significant effects of the Proposed

Development on the environment. The assessment concludes the Proposed

Development can proceed without causing unacceptable level of impacts

and effects on either the local or wider environments. The overall residual

effect will be positive in some areas.

The ES has identified a number of likely significant primary effects arising

from the Proposed Development post mitigation. In simple terms, these

can be summarised as follows:

• A moderate beneficial effect on landcover, specifically on trees and

hedgerows, 15 years after planting; some adverse landscape effects

will remain 15 years after planting, but these are assessed not to be of

EIA significance despite the additional land in the south of the Site

beyond the 2011 outline planning permission site.

• A minor adverse effect on the setting and significance of Brympton

d’Evercy Registered Park and Garden, albeit not of EIA significance.

• On the setting and significance of Brympton House and The

Chantry/Dower House minor adverse effects, again not of EIA

significance.

• A permanent, significant benefit in the medium to long term to

hedgerow habitats.

• On construction employment and GVA a temporary, beneficial effect

of moderate significance.

• A minor to moderate beneficial effect which is temporary on

construction training opportunities.

• On operational employment, gross, on site, and net additional jobs and

GVA there is assessed to be a permanent, major beneficial effect.

• A permanent, moderate beneficial effect on district wide training

and skills development opportunities.

• A minor adverse shopping effect on Yeovil Town Centre, albeit not of

EIA significance.

• On non-car access a minor, long term beneficial effect.

• The effects on junction capacity and road safety are assessed to be

low beneficial of moderate effect to negligible.

All other significant effects from the Proposed Development post mitigation

are judge to be neutral or negligible.

Overall the Proposed Development is judged as being likely to give rise to

major to moderate positive socio-economic effects in terms of

temporary and permanent job creation and GVA and minor to moderate

positive effects on permanent training and skills development, landscape,

hedgerow habitats and non-car access. Minor adverse shopping effects

on Yeovil Town Centre and on the setting and significance of Brympton

House and Brympton d’Evercy Registered Park and Garden, albeit not of

magnitude of EIA significance.

Documents

ABBEY MANOR GROUP/SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD … Park MUD, Business Park... · ABBEY MANOR GROUP/SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD Mixed Use Development including Business Park and