Grantham Southern Quadrant Link Road Supplementary ...planning.southkesteven.gov.uk/SKDC/S15-2101/896219.pdf · Grantham Southern Quadrant Link Road Supplementary Environmental Statement

Grantham Southern Quadrant Link Road

Supplementary Environmental Statement

October 2015 Produced for Prepared by 209-215 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8NL T: 0207 803 2600


Supplementary Environmental Statement-October2015

© Mouchel 2015 i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title Grantham Southern Quadrant Link Road

Report Title Supplementary Environmental Statement

Revision 4.0

Status Final V2

Control Date October 2015

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

1.0 Final H Roberts July 15 N Kretschmer July 15 P Reid July 15

2.0 Draft H Roberts Sep 15 N Kretschmer Sep 15 P Reid Sep 15

3.0 Final H Roberts Sep 15 N Kretschmer Sep 15 N Venema Sep 15

4.0 Final V2 H Roberts

S Hales

Oct 15 N Kretschmer Oct 15 N Venema Oct 15

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

South Kesteven District Council Sylvia Bland

3 Hard

copies

5 CDs



© Mouchel 2015 ii

This Report is presented to Lincolnshire County Council in respect of the Grantham Southern Quadrant Link Road and may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this Report.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Report, Mouchel Limited is obliged to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of the services required by Lincolnshire County Council and Mouchel Limited shall not be liable except to the extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence, and this report shall be read and construed accordingly.

This Report has been prepared by Mouchel Limited. No individual is personally liable in connection with the preparation of this Report. By receiving this Report and acting on it, the client or any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise.



© Mouchel 2015 iii

Contents

Document Control Sheet............................................................................................... i

Contents ....................................................................................................................... iii

Tables ............................................................................................................................ v

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Context of the Assessment ................................................................................... 7

1.3 The proposed changes .......................................................................................... 7

2 Updated Impact Assessment ........................................................................... 10

2.1 Effects associated with the consented scheme ................................................... 10

2.2 Effects associated with the currently proposed scheme incorporating the proposed

changes to the consented scheme ............................................................................... 11

2.3 Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 11

3 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................... 23

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 23

3.2 The Consented Scheme ...................................................................................... 23

3.3 The currently proposed scheme .......................................................................... 23

4 Conclusions and Mitigation ............................................................................. 28

4.1 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 28

4.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 28

Figures ......................................................................................................................... 29

Annex 1 - Heritage Assessment ................................................................................ 30

1 Heritage Assessment (2015) ............................................................................ 31

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 31

1.2 The relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the

heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise ................................................. 31



© Mouchel 2015 iv

1.3 Local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate

desk-based assessment ............................................................................................... 32

1.4 Describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any

contribution made by their setting ................................................................................. 32

1.5 Where necessary, a field evaluation ................................................................... 32

1.6 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 33

1.7 Updated Assessment .......................................................................................... 34

1.8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 34



© Mouchel 2015 v

Tables

Table 2-1 – Significant effects of the GSQLR as identified in 2013 10

Table 2-2 – Assessment of the currently proposed scheme 12

Table 3 – Areas of Archaeological Mitigation 33

Table 4 – Table of impacts on Cultural Heritage Assets 35



© Mouchel 2015 6

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 In November 2013, South Kesteven Borough Council (SKBC) granted planning permission (Consent S13/0775/EIAFP) for a proposed Grantham Southern Quadrant Link Road (GSQLR).

1.1.2 The planning permission that was granted was for the “Construction of Southern Quadrant Link Road (SQLR) comprising a new 3km single carriageway road between B1174 Spittlegate Level and A52 Somerby Hill including a new bridge spanning the East Coast Main Line and River Witham. Works to include a new 5 arm roundabout at B1174 Spittlegate Level, improvements to the existing A52/B6403 roundabout, associated new junctions/access roads, new cycleway/footpath at Whalebone Lane, site compound/construction and storage areas, re-contouring of ground levels, formation of attenuation ponds and diversion of public right of way”.

1.1.3 The permission was made subject to a number of conditions, one of which, Condition 2, places a requirement on the promoter of the scheme, Lincolnshire County Council (LCC), to undertake the development in accordance with, amongst other documents and drawings, the Environmental Statement (Mouchel, March 2013) and Supplementary Environmental Statement (Mouchel, September 2013).

1.1.4 LCC is proposing a number of changes to the design of the consented scheme and is seeking approval to the changes under Section 73 (S73) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. An application can be made under S73 to vary or remove conditions associated with a planning permission. One of the uses of a Section 73 application is to seek a minor material amendment, where there is a relevant condition that can be varied1.

1.1.5 The proposed scheme incorporating the changes is shown in Figures 1059526-ENV-001a and 1059526-ENV-001b. They comprise:

Inclusion of an additional span at the eastern end of the proposed viaduct and changes to the extent of the approach embankments to the viaduct as a result of the inclusion of the additional span;

Re-alignment of a proposed access track to a proposed attenuation pond located east of the river and railway and north of the proposed viaduct;

Provision of an access track beneath the westernmost span of the viaduct to enable a wayleave for the electricity distribution company; and

Changes to the landscape mitigation.

1 Planning Practice Guidance.



© Mouchel 2015 7

1.1.6 For the avoidance of doubt, we refer to the development that was granted planning permission in 2013 as the ‘consented scheme’. The scheme being amended through the S73 process is referred to as the ‘currently proposed scheme’. It is noteworthy that the currently proposed scheme incorporates the elements of the consented scheme that are not being amended and, therefore, an assessment of the currently proposed scheme can be said to incorporate it in entirety and not just the amendments listed above in 1.1.5.

1.2 Context of the Assessment

1.2.1 The Environmental Statement for the consented scheme was prepared and submitted as part of the original planning application, it having been concluded the project comprised Schedule 2 development as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (the Regulations).

1.2.2 The Regulations state in paragraph 13 of Column 1 of Schedule 2 that the following is EIA development: “any change to or extension of development of a description listed in paragraphs 1 to 12 of column 1 of this table, where that development is already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed”. The currently proposed scheme is such a development.

1.2.3 The currently proposed scheme, comprising the consented scheme incorporating the proposed changes, has therefore been reviewed to establish if its construction and use would be likely to result in environmental effects which have not already been identified and considered in GSQLR-ES-March2013 and GSQLR-SES-September 2013. This review is presented in this Supplementary Environmental Statement (GSQLR-SES-September2015) which forms part of the relevant environmental information for the determination of the currently proposed scheme.

1.2.4 The review has established there would be no additional impacts to those identified in the GSQLR-ES-March2013 and GSQLR-SES-September2013 or material change in the order of identified impacts and their consequent effects.

1.2.5 The following sections of this GSQLR-SES-September2015 describe the proposed changes which form the focus of the S73 application and outline the findings of the review of likely environmental impacts which it is anticipated would result from the implementation and future use of the currently proposed scheme.

1.3 The proposed changes

1.3.1 The modified layout for the currently proposed scheme is shown in Figure 1059526-ENV-001b. Those parts of the consented scheme which would be modified as a result of the adoption of the proposed changes are indicated in blue in the figure.

1.3.2 The changes would be accommodated within the currently proposed land take for the consented scheme and would not involve a marked change in the scale or combined extent of the viaduct and its embankments.

1.3.3 The changes would not require the working areas, the timescales or the approach to the construction of the viaduct, the embankments and the associated works to be modified.



© Mouchel 2015 8

Changes to the proposed viaduct and approach embankments.

1.3.4 The consented four-span structure would be replaced with a five-span structure as shown in Figure 1059526-ENV-002a. This would involve modification to the number and location of piers and their foundations and to the approach embankments housing the east and west abutments at each end of the structure. Comparison of the number, location and form of the proposed piers and modified profiles for the approach embankments with those forming part of the consented scheme, is provided in Figure 1059526-ENV-002b.

1.3.5 The five-span viaduct would be 293m long compared to the 250m-long consented structure. The amended structure, including the proposed parapets, would be approximately 1m more elevated in the valley landscape. The eastern approach to the structure would also be some 3.5m wider than the consented proposal by virtue of the widening of the verge on the southern side of the main carriageway to allow for visibility around the left hand bend. The structure itself would be some 1.8m wider than the consented proposal by virtue of the widening of the verge each side of the main carriageway.

1.3.6 The newly proposed piers would be constructed from steel rather than concrete, as originally consented. Pier foundations would be set within a concrete plinth, as originally consented. The surface area occupied by each plinth would be 201m2 compared to 113m2 for the plinths included in the consented scheme. The steel piers would be smaller in width than the consented concrete piers.

1.3.7 Pier 1 would be located approximately 37m from the viaduct bearing on the western embankment. As shown in Figure 1059526-ENV-002b, the plinth would be located at existing ground level removing the need to grade the existing land profile, as required under the consented arrangement.

1.3.8 The centre of Pier 2 would be located approximately 17.5m to the west of the centre point of the consented position.

1.3.9 Pier 3 would be positioned in the same location as the consented arrangement, although due to the smaller plinth, the structure would be 2.4m further from the River Witham than the consented arrangement.

1.3.10 Pier 4 is an additional pier to the consented arrangement. The plinth would be positioned at existing ground level at the same chainage as the bearings of the consented arrangement and approximately 37m from the viaduct bearing on the eastern embankment.

1.3.11 The inclusion of the additional span would involve modification to the consented extent and scale of the approach embankments at the western and eastern ends of the viaduct. The differences in extent and profile are shown in Figures 105952-ENV-001b and 105952-ENV-002b. The figures demonstrate there would be small-scale modification to the extent and profile of the western approach embankment such that there would be no marked change in the scale and form of the engineered earthworks. They also demonstrate there would not be a marked change in the scale and form of



© Mouchel 2015 9

the eastern approach embankment although the change in length, extent and profile would be greater than for the western embankment.

Changes to the layout of the access to the attenuation pond east of the River Witham

1.3.12 The consented scheme allowed for an underpass through the eastern approach embankment to provide for maintenance access to the proposed attenuation pond north of the proposed road and east of the River Witham as indicated in Figure 105952-ENV-001a. The inclusion of an additional span allows sufficient space for this access track to be aligned beneath the additional span, avoiding the need for the construction of an underpass through the approach embankment. The amendments accordingly provide for omission of the underpass and re-alignment of the access track as indicated in Figure 105952-ENV-001b.

Provision of an access track to enable a wayleave for the electricity distribution company

1.3.13 It is proposed that a new access track to the western attenuation pond to the River Witham is provided to act as a wayleave for Western Power Distribution. Figure 105952-ENV-001a shows that the access to the attenuation pond continues northwards around its eastern edge, terminating at the boundary of the development.

1.3.14 This track will be formed of a 4m wide roadway with 1m verges and will also form part of the originally proposed diversion of footpath number L/Pon/3/1 as indicated in Figure 105952-ENV-001b.

Proposed changes to the landscape mitigation

1.3.15 Figures 1045388-ENV-VIS-005-E and 1045388-ENV-VIS-006-E show the proposed changes to the landscape mitigation for the currently proposed scheme in light of the changes to the viaduct, embankment and tracks.



© Mouchel 2015 10

2 Updated Impact Assessment

2.1 Effects associated with the consented scheme

2.1.1 The effects, including those identified as significant, associated with the consented scheme and as presented in the GSQLR-ES-March2013 and GSQLR-SES-September2013 are shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 – Significant effects of the GSQLR as identified in 2013

Environmental Aspects

Environmental Effects

Air Quality No significant effects were identified

Cultural Heritage Moderate to slight significant effects were identified for buried archaeological remains.

Slight significant effects upon built heritage assets were identified.

Moderate significant effects upon historic landscapes were identified.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

Positive significant impacts for Calcareous Grassland, Hedgerows, Trees and Woodland and Schedule 9 plants were identified. There are no residual negative significant impacts.

Geology and Soils No significant effects were identified.

Landscape and Visual Amenity

Significant impacts upon landscape character area LCA: A.

Significant effects upon visual receptors and public rights of way were identified.

Noise and Vibration

Four dwellings were identified as being subject to major adverse impacts.

Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Slight significant effects were identified upon the River Witham and the Lincolnshire Limestone aquifer.

Land Use and Community Effects

Moderate impacts were identified upon one farm holding, a slight adverse impact upon two farm holdings and a slight adverse impact upon a commercial property.

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts chapter considered impacts in relation to the consented scheme in combination with the Spittalgate and Southern Quadrant developments.

1) Significant impact upon the local Historic Landscape.



© Mouchel 2015 11

Environmental Aspects

Environmental Effects

2) Significant changes for visual receptors. 3) Significant cumulative loss of agricultural land.

2.2 Effects associated with the currently proposed scheme incorporating the proposed changes to the consented scheme

2.2.1 Table 2-2 schedules the findings of the review of anticipated impacts and effects for the currently proposed scheme taking into account the proposed design changes.

2.2.2 In undertaking this review we have considered the currently proposed scheme using the data available within GSQLR-ES-March2013 and GSQLR-SES-September2013. Each individual assessment in the existing ES for the consented scheme has been revisited to consider whether the currently proposed scheme is likely to have additional or different environmental effects compared to those of the consented scheme.

2.2.3 Methodologies for the assessment of the impacts are as per those presented within the GSQLR-ES-March2013 and the GSQLR-SES-September2013. In each environmental discipline considered below in Table 2-2, we have considered whether the methodology is still suitable and whether any different conclusions can be reached for the currently proposed scheme. However, as the methodologies presented in GSQLR-ES-March2013 and GSQLR-SES-September2013 are all considered to be adequate and do not need to be amended for the currently proposed scheme, they have not been repeated below.

2.2.4 For each environmental assessment, we have also considered the baseline data that is available (the “baseline data”) and presented within the relevant environmental information for the consented scheme. It has been concluded in each instance that the baseline data is adequate for the determination of the environmental effects and have identified within Table 2-2 why this is the case.

2.3 Alternatives

2.3.1 The EIA regulations require the “main alternatives studied by the applicant” to be presented within an Environmental Statement. No additional alternatives to those presented in the GSQLR-ES-March2013 have been considered in the development of the currently proposed scheme and, hence, the information contained within the GSQLR-ES-March2013 is still relevant.



© Mouchel 2015 12

Table 2-2 – Assessment of the currently proposed scheme

Environmental Aspect Justification

Air Quality Assessments undertaken relative to air quality reported in the GSQLR-ES-March2013 were focused on impacts on local air quality associated with traffic-related emissions of NO2 and PM10, impacts on regional emissions of CO2 and dust and traffic emissions associated with construction. Should the currently proposed scheme be approved there would no impacts beyond those identified relative to local air quality, regional emissions and construction dust reported in the GSQLR-ES-March2013. In the context of the baseline data and the methodology presented in the GSQLR-ES-March2013, the order of impacts for the currently proposed scheme is presented below.

Local air quality: the proposed design changes would not change the predicted traffic flows and characteristics associated with the consented scheme or the proximity of receptors to traffic using the proposed road. There would accordingly be no material change in the orders of impact or the consequent effects identified in the GSQLR ES March2013.

Regional emissions: the proposed changes would not have a material effect on the predicted traffic flows or characteristics within the network of affected roads upon which the assessment reported in the GSQLR-ES-March2013 is based. There would accordingly be no material change in the tonnage of CO2 identified or the consequent effect identified in the GSQLR ES March2013.

Construction: the proposed changes would not involve an increase in required working area in the vicinity of the amended parts of the consented scheme. Nor would there be any material change in the construction operations which would be undertaken or the timescales involved. As such there would be no material change in the risks associated with construction related dust and no need for mitigation measures beyond those identified for the consented scheme. There would, accordingly be no material change in the orders of impact or the consequent effects identified in the GSQLR ES March2013.



© Mouchel 2015 13


Given that the proposed changes do not amend any aspect of the consented scheme that can have a significant effect upon the assessment as presented in the GSQLR-ES-March-2013, it has been concluded that the baseline data is relevant and suitable to inform the assessment.

It has accordingly been concluded there would be no new impacts associated with the currently proposed scheme and no material change in the order of impacts and consequent effects identified in the GSQLR-ES March 2013. Furthermore, due to these conclusions being reached, it has not been considered necessary to update the assessment through additional site surveys or baseline collation.

Cultural Heritage Studies undertaken during the preparation of the GSQLR-ES-March2013 identified 11 sites and features of cultural heritage value located in the vicinity of the proposed viaduct, approach embankments, maintenance access to the attenuation pond east of the railway and the proposed energy utility easement. These are indicated in Figure 1059526-ENV-004. Implementation of the proposed changes would not involve any extension of the working areas originally identified as being subject to disturbance during construction for the consented scheme, and would not potentially have an impact on any sites and features beyond those identified during the assessment of the currently proposed scheme reported in the GSQLR-ES-March 2013. Nor would the relationship between the completed scheme, traffic using the proposed road and the identified sites and features be changed such that there would be any material change to impacts on the setting of the sites and features.

It has accordingly been concluded there would be no new impacts associated with the proposed changes and no material change in the order of impacts and consequent effects identified in the GSQLR-ES March 2013. Furthermore, due to these conclusions being reached it has not been considered necessary to update the assessment through additional site surveys or baseline collation. Included within Annex 1 to this Supplementary Environmental Statement is a collation of the cultural heritage assessment undertaken for the consented scheme. In light of the proposals for the currently



© Mouchel 2015 14


proposed scheme, this Heritage Assessment 2015 has been prepared to provide a single point of reference for assessment and mitigation proposals, and to provide sufficient information for the planning authority to be satisfied that all information required by the National Planning Practice Framework is present.


Designated sites, habitat types and evidence of fauna located in the vicinity of the proposed changes to the consented scheme are shown in Figures 1059526-ENV-005 and 1059526-ENV-006.

The impacts and the consequent effects predicted to arise if the changes were be implemented, are descried below.

Non-Statutorily Designated Sites

(see Figure 1059526-ENV-006)

In common with the consented scheme and incorporating the changes included in the Section 73 application, the currently proposed scheme, would involve a temporary and permanent loss of habitats contained within the Grantham BR Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). There would be no difference in the extent of the working areas required for construction of the currently proposed scheme compared to that required for construction of the consented scheme and, hence, no material difference in the extent of temporary habitat loss. There would also be no need to modify the originally proposed mitigation measures.

With regard to permanent loss, there would be a marginal difference in the small amount of the designated site that would be occupied by the completed concrete pier plinth at pier 3. An area of 200m2 would be lost compared to an area of 350m2 identified for the consented scheme.



© Mouchel 2015 15


Taking into account the marginal change in permanently lost habitat, it has been concluded there would be no change relative to the order of impacts and consequent effects identified in the GSQLR-SES-September2013. Furthermore, due to these conclusions being reached, it has not been considered necessary to update the assessment through additional site surveys or baseline collation.

Trees and Woodland


The consented scheme and currently proposed scheme would both require the removal of trees and woodland where the viaduct crosses the River Witham and the East Coast Mainline Railway. Provision is made for access to the attenuation pond east of the river and north of the proposed road, and the easement is to be provided for utility access.

Compared to the consented scheme, the currently proposed scheme would not involve a material increase in clearance of trees and woodland required to accommodate construction. Nor would they require any marked modification to the planting proposed as part of the consented scheme.

It has accordingly been concluded there would be no new impacts associated with the proposed changes and no material change in the order of impacts and consequent effects identified in the GSQLR-SES September 2013. Furthermore, due to these conclusions being reached it has not been considered necessary to update the assessment through additional site surveys or baseline collation.



© Mouchel 2015 16


Running Water


In common with the consented scheme, the implementation of the proposed changes would not require any direct working within the River Witham. Nor would there be a requirement for additional working areas such that the risks relative to working in the vicinity of the watercourse would be materially different.

It has accordingly been concluded there would be no new impacts associated with the proposed changes and no material change in the order of impacts and consequent effects identified in the GSQLR-SES-September-2013. Furthermore, due to these conclusions being reached it has not been considered necessary to update the assessment through additional site surveys or baseline collation.

Badger


In common with the consented scheme the currently proposed scheme would involve the loss of an outlier sett and supporting habitat and the incorporation of mitigation measures as detailed in GSQLR-ES March2013 (Section 8.6) .

It has accordingly been concluded there would be no new impacts associated with the proposed changes and no material change in the order of impacts and consequent effects identified in the GSQLR-SES September 2013. Furthermore, due to these conclusions being reached it has not been considered necessary to update the assessment through additional site surveys or baseline collation.



© Mouchel 2015 17


Bats


In common with the consented scheme the currently proposed scheme would involve the loss of 9 trees with the potential to support bats (although surveys in 2013 did not find any evidence of them being used as roosts) and the adoption of mitigation measures as detailed in the GSQLR-SES-September2013 (Table 1.7). Implementation of the proposed amendments would not involve the loss of any additional or fewer trees or structures with the potential to support bats.


White clawed crayfish Surveys reported in the GSQLR ES March2013 identified habitat suited to white-clawed crayfish within the River Witham within the application area. Subsequent surveys undertaken in October 2013 identified 13 white-clawed crayfish within the survey area. The findings of this survey were presented in the document ‘Grantham Southern Quadrant Link Road: White-Clawed Crayfish Survey’ dated 15th October 2013. Neither the consented scheme nor the currently proposed scheme would involve working within the watercourse. Both would be subject to the mitigation measures identified in the GSQLR SES March2013 (Table 1-9) ) and the mitigation measures in Section 5.3 of the October 2013 White Clawed Crayfish report namely:



© Mouchel 2015 18


Toolbox talks should be given to all contractors to make them aware of the presence of white-clawed crayfish and the legal implications of their presence;

Works in proximity to the River Witham should be subject to supervision by an experienced ecologist;

The areas of works should be kept to a minimum; Any works occurring close to the river banks should ideally be

programmed to take place between July and October; Where feasible, any works occurring adjacent to the river banks

should be carried out in small sections in succession; Measures should be installed to minimise siltation (such as the use of

silt blankets or meshes). These measures should be in accordance with the recommendations of the Environment Agency and Natural England;

Measures should be taken to prevent the pollution of the River Witham. These measures should be in accordance with the recommendations of the Environment Agency and Natural England;

No digging within the bed of the River Witham or to its banks should take place.




© Mouchel 2015 19


Geology and Soils The area within which the proposed amendments under the S73 application would occur do not contain contaminated sites which could potentially result in the release of contaminants into the environment. In common with the consented scheme, the currently proposed scheme would be subject to routine mitigation measures relating to the storage and handling of construction related materials including fuels, concrete and aggregates.

It has accordingly been concluded there would be no new impacts associated with the proposed changes and no material change in the order of impacts and consequent effects identified in the GSQLR-ES-March2013. Furthermore, due to these conclusions being reached it has not been considered necessary to update the assessment through additional site surveys or baseline collation.

Landscape and Visual Amenity (Visual Impact)

Parts of the proposed amendments included in the Section 73 application would appear in views available to 33 receptors out of a total of 53 residential, institutional, commercial and industrial receptors and 3 of 14 Public Rights of Way identified in the visual impact assessment reported in the GSQLR ES March 2013; i.e., those mentioned as having a view of the bridge or its embankments. The amendments to the viaduct and approach embankments as proposed in the currently proposed scheme would be the most prominent and discernible of the changes and would affect views for most of the 36 receptors. There would be no increase or reduction in the numbers of receptors with available views of the part of the consented scheme which would be modified by the proposed amendments.

Figure 1045388-ENV-VIS-005-E and 1045388-ENV-VIS-006-E show how modifications to the landscape mitigation is proposed along the currently proposed scheme length following the amendments proposed within this Section 73 application.

It has been concluded there would be no change in the order of visual impact specific to each of the 36 receptors should the proposed amendments be implemented. The conclusion takes into account the similarity in balance between the scale and form of the extended viaduct and approach



© Mouchel 2015 20


embankments included in the consented and currently proposed scheme, the small difference in the elevation of both within the valley landscape and the elevation and distance of the viewpoints experienced by the receptors. Furthermore, due to these conclusions being reached, it has not been considered necessary to update the assessment through additional site surveys or baseline collation.

Landscape and Visual Amenity (Landscape Character)

The GSQLR ES March 2013 concluded that the introduction of the viaduct and approach embankments across the valley landscape of the River Witham would have a significant effect on one of three Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) identified within the study area for the currently proposed scheme, LCA A: Grantham Scarps and Valleys. It further concluded there would be no significant effect on the other two LCAs; notably, LCA B: Kesteven Uplands and LCA C: Southern Kesteven Lincolnshire Edge.

The proposed amendments would not markedly change the originally identified order of impact and relationship of the viaduct, approach embankments and proposed planting in the context of the baseline landscape. It has accordingly been concluded there would be no change relative to the order of impacts and consequent effects identified in the GSQLR-ES-March2013.

It has accordingly been concluded there would be no new impacts associated with the proposed changes and no material change in the order of impacts and consequent effects identified in the GSQLR-ES March2013. Furthermore, due to these conclusions being reached, it has not been considered necessary to update the assessment through additional site surveys or baseline collation.

Noise and Vibration Operations: The proposed changes would not change the predicted traffic flows and characteristics for the currently proposed scheme, or the proximity of receptors to traffic using the proposed road, the factors upon which the assessment reported in the GSQLR-ES-March2013 is based. Nor would the small increase in elevation of the viaduct within the valley landscape result in any material change in



© Mouchel 2015 21


traffic-related noise. It has accordingly been concluded there would be no material change in the orders of impact or the consequent effects identified in the GSQLR ES March2013.

Construction: the proposed changes would not involve an increase in required working area in the vicinity of the amended parts of the consented scheme. Nor would there be any material change in the construction operations which would be undertaken or the timescales involved. As such there would be no material change in the risks associated with construction related noise and vibration and no need for mitigation measures beyond those identified for the consented scheme. There would, accordingly, be no material change in the orders of impact or the consequent effects identified in the GSQLR ES March2013.

It has accordingly been concluded there would be no new impacts associated with the proposed changes and no material change in the order of impacts and consequent effects identified in the GSQLR-ES March2013. Furthermore, due to these conclusions being reached it has not been considered necessary to update the assessment through additional site surveys or baseline collation.


Surface Water: The addition of a new span to the viaduct and reduction in the extent of the approach embankments would not result in a marked change in the approach to construction, or a marked increase in the surface area of carriageway and earthworks requiring drainage or the extent of specific drainage catchments included as part of the consented scheme.

Flood Risk: Positioning the pier and the change in the viaduct would not result in a significant change in the flow of the River Witham, or the runoff from the attenuation ponds.



© Mouchel 2015 22


Groundwater: The inclusion of a new pier and span would not result in a material change in the assessment upon groundwater because, as shown in Figure 1059526-ENV-002b, the foundations will penetrate less into the ground than the consented arrangement.



The currently proposed scheme does not require any land outside of the planning application boundary for the consented scheme.


Cumulative Impacts In light of the application for the Spitalgate Heath development since the GSQLR-March2013 was published, a new and updated Cumulative Impacts assessment is provided in Section 3 below to reflect the increased knowledge. It has been concluded there would be no new impacts associated with the proposed changes and no material change in the order of impacts and consequent effects identified in the GSQLR-ES March2013.



© Mouchel 2015 23

3 Cumulative Impacts

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The EIA Regulations state in Schedule 4 that cumulative significant effects on the environment need to be included in environmental statements.

3.1.2 There are a number of different categories of cumulative impact. For the purpose of this assessment the following two definitions will be adopted:

1. Those effects which arise from incremental changes caused by a combination of actions from other existing or planned developments and the Proposed Scheme. As separate developments, the impacts may not be significant. However, when considered together, they may become significant.

2. Those effects which arise from a combination of impacts identified by different environmental disciplines, within the same Proposed Scheme.

3.2 The Consented Scheme

3.2.1 Chapter 14 of the GSQLR-ES-March2013 identified and considered the significance of the environmental effects from the cumulative impacts of the GSQLR and the Spittlegate and Southern Quadrant developments.

3.2.2 Table 2-1 above identified that there were significant impacts upon three environmental elements; historic landscape, visual receptors and agricultural land. These significant impacts had been identified as significant for the combination of the Consented Scheme, the Spittlegate Development and the Southern Quadrant development and not for a combination of two of these schemes.

3.3 The currently proposed scheme

3.3.1 Since the GSQLR application was submitted, the Spittlegate development has been renamed as the King 31 development and the Southern Quadrant development has been renamed as the Spittalgate Heath development.

3.3.2 As the King 31 development was granted planning consent in 2010, the application documents were used in the cumulative impacts assessment within the GSQLR-ES-March2013 and hence no additional information is available to consider. It is therefore concluded that all the significant impacts associated with the King 31 development will remain as they were presented within the GSQLR-ES-March2013.

3.3.3 This assessment of cumulative impacts has therefore focused on whether the currently proposed scheme introduces any additional cumulative impacts associated with the changes within the Section 73 application, or whether additional detail is available on the Spittalgate Heath development.

3.3.4 An outline planning application (with all matters reserved) at Spittalgate Heath for a mixed use urban extension was submitted in September 2014 to South Kesteven District Council (SKDC). This application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement which included an assessment of cumulative effects.



© Mouchel 2015 24

3.3.5 In undertaking this cumulative impact assessment the application documents for Spittalgate Heath have been reviewed to identify any further information that is available to inform this assessment.

3.3.6 It is noteworthy at this point that the cumulative assessment within the GSQLR-ES-March2013 was based upon the main components of the scheme as they were known at that time. These components are identified in Section 14.2.4 of the GSQLR-ES-March2013 and were informed by the information available within the Southern Quadrant Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that was adopted by SKDC in February 2013.

3.3.7 We have therefore now undertaken a review of the SPD and compared it to the information contained within the planning application for the Spittalgate Heath development. The application was submitted on the 1st of September 2014 and is for the following development:

“Application for outline planning permission to develop the site as a mixed use urban extension comprising: up to 3700 dwellings including sheltered housing for the elderly and extra care accommodation in Class C2. Up to 110,000 sq m of employment space within use classes B1, B2 and B8. B1 30%, B2 35%, B8 35%. Educational facilities including a primary school and a secondary school. A local centre up to 8,000sq m including use classes A1 shops, A2 financial and professional offices, A3 restaurant, A4 public house, A5 takeaway, B1 police room, D1 health centre and creche, D2 community hall and gym. Associated open space, playing fields and changing rooms, childrens’ play areas, allotments, woodlands, wildlife habitat areas and sustainable urban drainage system. Roads, footpaths, cycleways, car and cycle parking. Utility services including electricity substations and pumping stations. (ALL MATTERS RESERVED)”

3.3.8 As the Spittalgate Heath planning application is an outline application with all matters reserved there are uncertainties about the detail of any eventual development. The assessment of cumulative impacts arising from the currently proposed scheme and the Spittalgate Heath development has therefore been made based upon the information that is available within the application documents.

3.3.9 The red line plan submitted with the Spittalgate Heath application (drawing number 3252-L-19) largely matches the parameters plan, which includes the majority of the GSQLR; the area of the bridge structure and its piers are excluded. The Aveling Barford factory is also excluded from the Spittalgate Heath application area, although was included within the SPD and hence this area was part of the consideration of cumulative impacts presented in GSQLR-ES-March2013.

3.3.10 Presented below is a review of the topics considered within the GSQLR-ES-March2013 updated as appropriate with any additional information within the Spittalgate Heath application documents

Air Quality

3.3.11 The air quality assessment undertaken in support of the Spittalgate Heath development has considered impacts upon five receptors as shown in their Table



© Mouchel 2015 25

C12.1 compared to the 3,513 receptors that were considered in the GSQLR-ES-March2013.

3.3.12 Given that the original air quality assessment contained within the GSQLR-ES-March2013 was based upon a traffic model that included the Spittalgate Heath development, it can be concluded that an assessment of cumulative impacts is inherently included within the original assessment of the consented scheme.

Cultural Heritage

3.3.13 The Environmental Statement for Spittalgate Heath identifies that archaeology, built heritage and historic landscape have been considered within the cultural heritage assessment. Of these none were stated to be significant in nature, although it does state that there would be an adverse, permanent impact upon the historic landscape. Beneficial impacts with mitigation are anticipated for archaeological assets and built heritage assets.

3.3.14 As presented in Table 2-1, the GSQLR-ES-March2013 identified that in isolation there would be moderate to slight significant effects for buried archaeological remains, slight significant effects upon built heritage assets and moderate significant effects upon historic landscapes. The cumulative assessment within the GSQLR-ES-March2013 identified that the combination of the Spittalgate Heath, King 31 and GSQLR developments would also have a significant impact upon the Historic Landscape.

3.3.15 It is therefore accordingly concluded that the currently proposed scheme and the Spittalgate Heath and King 31 developments in combination will have a significant impact on the local Historic Landscape, as identified in the GSQLR-ES-March2013. However, there is no additional information within the Spittalgate Heath application to suggest that the conclusion reached in the GSQLR-ES-March2013, namely that there are no significant impacts identified for archaeology and built heritage as a result of a combination of impacts with other schemes, is not still valid.


3.3.16 The Spittalgate Heath application did not identify any significant residual effects upon ecology and biodiversity. Recommendations were made for the nature of the bridge crossing over the River Witham (please note that this is the pedestrian bridge and not the GSQLR bridge) although as this is a reserved matter, any impacts this structure may have upon crayfish has not been presented at this stage. Mitigation measures as proposed in the White Clawed Crayfish October 2015 report, and as presented in Table 2-2 are therefore considered appropriate for the currently proposed scheme.

3.3.17 The Spittalgate Heath application documents identify that effects upon habitats are Negligible or Minor Positive with the exception of some bird species, notably breeding and wintering skylark, yellowhammer and linnet, although this will be a Minor effect and not significant.

3.3.18 The GSQLR-SES-September2013 concluded that there were no negative significant effects associated with the development of the consented scheme and that the impact upon breeding birds could be reduced through appropriate mitigation measures, as detailed in the GSQLR-SES-September2013 to a negligible impact.



© Mouchel 2015 26

3.3.19 It is therefore accordingly concluded that in the cumulative conclusions as presented in the GSQLR-ES-March2013 remain valid and there are no significant effects upon ecology and nature conservation as a result of the implementation of the currently proposed scheme.

Geology and Soils

3.3.20 The GSQLR-ES-March2013 did not identify any significant effects associated with geology and soils.

3.3.21 The Environmental Statement that accompanies the Spittalgate Heath planning application does not discuss or present any relevant information to further inform a cumulative assessment of geology and soils.

3.3.22 It is accordingly concluded that as no further information exists than was presented and considered in the GSQLR-ES-March2013, there are no cumulative impacts upon geology and soils.

Landscape and Visual

3.3.23 The Landscape and Visual assessment that accompanied the Spittalgate Heath application includes a cumulative assessment that considers the Spittalgate Heath scheme in combination with the King 31 development and the GSQLR.

3.3.24 The Spittalgate Heath application states in section 6.25 that there are combined effects arising from the loss of woodland and that there are “no other significant additional or combined effects upon landscape features arising from the SQLR project in addition or combination…”

3.3.25 The GSQLR-ES-March2013 (see section 14.7.5) stated that the effect of the consented scheme, the Spittalgate Heath development and the King 31 development would alter the landscape character at a broad level, but neither positively or negatively. Therefore, it is accordingly concluded that the additional information within the Spittalgate Heath application documents and the Section 73 submission do not alter the cumulative assessment within the GSQLR-ES-March2013 and no cumulative significant impacts upon landscape character are present.

3.3.26 With regard to visual impact, the GSQLR-ES-March2013 identified significant impacts in cumulative terms upon individual receptors at a detailed level.

3.3.27 Given that the Spittalgate Heath application is an outline application with all matters reserved, it is accordingly concluded that significant changes for individual receptors at a detailed level will remain a suitable conclusion for the currently proposed scheme as the application documents do not provide any further information on the location or appearance of the development than was available in the Supplementary Planning Document upon which the conclusions in the GSQLR-ES-March2013 were based upon.

Noise and Vibration

3.3.28 Similarly to the assessment of air quality, the noise assessment for the consented scheme was based upon a traffic model that included the Spittalgate Heath and King



© Mouchel 2015 27

31 developments and hence it can be concluded that noise impacts have already been considered in cumulative terms.


3.3.29 The GSQLR-ES-March2013 did not identify any significant cumulative effects upon road drainage and the water environment.

3.3.30 Similarly the application documents for the Spittalgate Heath development do not state that there are significant impacts upon the water environment although they do consider the construction and operational impacts associated with the schemes cumulatively.

3.3.31 The Spittalgate Heath assessment concludes that construction and operational impacts upon fluvial flood risk, groundwater flood risk, pluvial flood risk, surface water sewerage, water quality, groundwater quality and water supply are all of the same order of magnitude of impact in isolation as they are in combination with the GSQLR. Only foul water sewerage is considered to have a cumulative impact and this is due to other schemes associated with the growth of Grantham rather than the GSQLR which will not contribute to foul water sewerage.

3.3.32 It is accordingly concluded that there are no significant impacts upon road drainage and the water environment associated with the GSQLR cumulatively with other developments


3.3.33 The GSQLR-ES-March2013 identified that there was a significant impact upon arable land cumulatively with the Spittalgate Heath development. Given that the area of the Spittalgate Heath application site is broadly similar to that considered in 2013, and there will be a similar loss of agricultural land, it is accordingly concluded that there is a significant impact in the loss of arable land cumulatively with the currently proposed scheme and the Spittalgate Heath Development.



© Mouchel 2015 28

4 Conclusions and Mitigation

4.1 Mitigation

4.1.1 No new or amended environmental effects are likely for the currently proposed scheme and, therefore, the mitigation proposals as presented in the Schedule of Environmental Commitments within Chapter 15 of the GSQLR-ES-March2013 are still relevant alongside those presented in the GSQLR-SES-September2013 (which replaces Chapter 8 of the GSQLR-ES-March2013), the Supplementary Archaeological Information Report, October 2013 (1045388-REPARC-Archaegological Report v1) and the White-Clawed Crayfish Survey October 2013 report, all prepared by Mouchel.

4.1.2 However, even though no new mitigation types are proposed within this SES, the nature of the landscape mitigation for the currently proposed scheme needs to be slightly adjusted to allow for the changes presented in Section 1.3. The landscape mitigation proposals for the currently proposed scheme are presented in Figures 1045388-ENV-VIS-005-E and 1045388-ENV-VIS-006-E.

4.2 Conclusions

4.2.1 The proposed changes to the consented scheme for the Grantham Southern Quadrant Link Road have been reviewed to establish if it is likely there would be any significant effects on the environment as a result of the implementation and future use of the proposed road, comprising the consented scheme incorporating the currently proposed changes, which were not investigated and reported in the GSQLR-ES-March2013 and GSQLR-SES-September2013 considered by South Kesteven when planning consent was granted in 2013.

4.2.2 The review has established there would be no likely significant effects beyond those considered and reported in the GSQLR-ES-March2013 and GSQLR-SES-September2013 and that there would be no material change in the nature or order of impacts and effects reported in both documents.

4.2.3 It has, therefore, been concluded that the GSQLR-ES-March2013, the GSQLR-SES-September2013 and this Supplementary Environmental Statement contain the relevant environmental information, relating to the currently proposed scheme incorporating the proposed modifications, which the Council, as promoter of the GSQLR, is required to provide in support of its S73 application.



© Mouchel 2015

Figures

Whaleb one Lane

B1174

B6403

A52

RailwayTHE PROPOSED SCHEME

Grantham Southern Relief RoadA

P. Reid 07/07/2015

07/07/2015D. WarnerH. Roberts1:9000

DrawnBy:

GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:

105952-ENV-001a

0 100 200 300 400 500 60050 m

¯

LINCOLNSHIR E COUNTY COUNCIL - Th is m ap is b ased upon Ordnance Survey m aterial with th e perm ission of Ordnance Survey on b eh alf of th e Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyrig h t. Unauth orised reproduction infring es Crown copyrig h t and m ay lead to prosecution or c ivil proceeding s. 100025370 (2012).

Description:Project:Paper Size Drawing Number

Rev.Revision

Drawing 1st Approval1st Approval by: Date:

Date:Created by:Drawn/Designed by:

Scale@A3:

Revision Description DrawnBy:

GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:

GIS Drawing Creation

Amendment Details

TECHNICAL SERVICES PARTNERSHIPWITHAM PARK HOUSE,WITHAM PARK,WATERSIDE SOUTHLINCOLN LN5 7JNCustomer Service Centre : (01522) 782070

A First Issue DAW HR PR 07/07/2015

TEMPOR AR Y LAND TAKE

Th e carriageway will generally com prise a 7.3m wide running area with 1m wide h ard strips to eac h side.Th e carriageway inc luding length s of clim b ing lane will h ave a 10m wide running area and 1m h ard strips to eac h side. Th e sh ort section of link road from th e proposed new road to Wh aleb one Lane will taper from 7.3m at th e junction with th e new road to th e existing width of th e lane at th e m erg e.Th e proposed sc h em e will inc lude spec im en and feath ered tree planting . Furth er details on th e planting locations can be found on drawing s B/1045388-ENV-005 and B/1045388-ENV-006

Legend

DETENTION BASIN

!( R OAD DR AINAGE OUTFALLR IVER WITHAM BR IDGE

LAND TAKE (R ED LINE BOUNDAR Y)

KING 31/SPITTLEGATE DEVELOPMENT

TOPSOIL STOR AGESITE COMPOUNDCONTINGENCY AR EABR IDGE CONSTR UCTION AR EA

EAST COAST MAINLINER IVERPUBLIC FOOTPATH

SALTER FOR D WATER TR EATMENT WOR KS

SOUTHER N QUADR ANT DEVELOPMENT

Sheet

PR OPOSED SCHEME

A1

A1

A52

A52A607A607

A607

GRANTHAM¯

See Fig ure 001b for detail

PROPOSED SCHEME


P. Reid 06/07/2015

06/07/2015D. WarnerH. Roberts1:2,500

DrawnBy:

GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:

1059526-ENV-001b

Sheet 1 of 1LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL - This ma p is ba sed up o n Ordna nce Survey ma teria l with the p ermissio n of Ordna nce Survey on beha lf of the Controller of Her Ma jesty’s Sta tionery Office © Crown co p yright. Una uthorised rep ro duction infringes Crown co p yright a nd ma y lea d to p ro secutio n or civil p ro ceedings. 100025370 (2012).


Rev.Revision



Scale@A3:


GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:


Amendment Details



¯Legend

AMENDED PROPOSALCONSENTED ARRANGEMENT

Amendment to layout of access to attenuation ponds

Increase in verge width

Underpass through the embankment

Additional Span

Changes to the Embankment

Provision of acess track to enable a Wayleave

RED LINE BOUNDARY

EAST COAST MAINLINERIVER

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF DIVERSION

1646426734

8358

2820Steel Piers

Access Toe

East Coast Main Line

Public Rig ht ofWay Access

Slope 1 in 2 typical Slope 1 in 2 typical

11324 11882

Over headcables to bediverted

293000 Between Bearing s

37000SPAN 5

1200057000SPAN 4

1200057000SPAN 3

1200057000SPAN 2

1200037000SPAN 1

Transition

Over HeadCables

Proposed Down Slow

D.F U .F U .S

N2 SafetyBarrier

N2 SafetyBarrierRoadLevel

East Abutm entWest Abutm ent

Transition

1.8m High H4a steel highcontainm ent parapet1.8m High

N2 steelparapet

Bearing Bearing

River Witham

WL 58.000m

Pier 1

Pier 2 Pier 3 Pier 4

VIADUCT SOUTH ELEVATION


P. Reid 06/07/2015

06/07/2015D. WarnerH. RobertsN.T.S.

DrawnBy:

GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:

1059526-ENV-002a

Sheet 1 of 1LINCOLNSHIRE COU NTY COU NCIL - This m ap is based upon Ordnance Survey m aterial with the perm ission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyrig ht. U nauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyrig ht and m ay lead to prosecution or civil proceeding s. 100025370 (2012).


Rev.Revision



Scale@A3:


GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:


Amendment Details



NoteAll dim ensions are shown in m m

1646426734

8358

2820Ste e l Pie rs

Acce ss T oe

East Coast Main Line

Public Right ofWay Acce ss

Slope 1 in 2 typical Slope 1 in 2 typical

11324 11882

Ove r he adcable s to bedive rte d

293000 Be tw e e n Be arings

37000SPAN 5

1200057000SPAN 4

1200057000SPAN 3

1200057000SPAN 2

1200037000SPAN 1

T ransition

Ove r He adCable s

Propose d Dow n Slow

D.F U.F U.S

N2 Safe tyBarrie r

N2 Safe tyBarrie rRoadLe ve l

East Abutme ntWe st Abutme nt

T ransition

1.8m High H4a ste e l highcontainme nt parape t1.8m High

N2 ste e lparape t

Be aring Be aring

Rive r Witham

WL 58.000m

Pie r 1

Pie r 2 Pie r 3 Pie r 4

VIADUCT ELEVATION COMPARISON


P. Reid 06/07/2015

06/07/2015D. WarnerH. RobertsN.T.S.

DrawnBy:

GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:

1059526-ENV-002b

Sheet 1 of 1LINCOLNSHIRE COUNT Y COUNCIL - T his map is base d upon Ordnance Surve y mate rial with the pe rmission of Ordnance Surve y on behalf of the Controlle r of He r Maje sty’s Statione ry Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised re production infringe s Crown copyright and may le ad to prosecution or civil proce e dings. 100025370 (2012).


Rev.Revision



Scale@A3:


GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:


Amendment Details



NoteAll dime nsions are show n in mm

LegendCURRENT PROPOSALCONSENT ED ARRANGEMENT

!(

!(

!(

63

28

43

54

62

88

84

21

66 65

19

CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS


P. Reid 06/07/2015

06/07/2015D. WarnerS. Hales1:3500

DrawnBy:

GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:

1059526-ENV-004

Sheet 1 of 10 50 100 150 200 25025 m

¯

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL - This m ap is based upon Ordnance Survey m aterial with the perm is s ion of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduc tion infringes Crown copyright and m ay lead to pros ec ution or civil proceedings. 100025370 (2012).


Rev.Revision



Scale@A3:


GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:


Amendment Details


A First Issue DAW SH PR 06/07/2015

A1

A1

A52

A52A607A607

A607

GRANTHAM¯

Legend

RED LINE BOUNDARY

HERITAGE ASSETS

GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALIES

!(

PROPOSED SCHEME

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

























DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDD

_̂

!.

!.!.

_̂ _̂_̂_̂ _̂

_̂ _̂_̂ k

k kk

k

!.

+ 3 87

645

92

1

Legend

PHASE 1 HABITAT MAP


J. North 08/07/2015

08/07/2015D. WarnerJ. NorthApprox. 1:1000

First IssueA DAW JN JN 08/07/2015

1059526-ENV-005

Sheet 1 of 10 50 10025 m

SI

¯

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL - Th is m a p is b a sed upon Ordna nce Survey m a teria l with th e perm ission of Ordna nce Survey on b eh a lf of th e Controller of Her Ma jesty’s Sta tionery Office © Crown copyrig h t. Unauth orised reproduction infring es Crown copyrig h t a nd m a y lead to prosecution or civil proceeding s. 100025370 (2012).


Rev.Revision



Scale@A3:


GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:


Amendment Details


A

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

_̂

!.!.!.

_̂̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂__̂kkkk

k!.

+

3

87

6452

19

¯

SEMI-NATURAL BROADLEAVED WOODLAND

DENSE / CONTINUOUS SCRUB

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

ARABLEASEMI-IMP ROVED NEUTRAL GRASSLANDSIRUNNING WATER

P ROP OSED SCHEME

RABBIT BURROWS!. BADGER SETT ENTRANCES

!. BADGER SIGNS

_̂ TREES WITH BAT ROOST P OTENTIAL1 - Syca m ore2 - Ash3 - Willow4 - Ash5 - Alder6 - Ash7 - Hawth orne8 - Hawth orne9 - AshMAN MADE FEATURES WITH BAT ROOST P OTENTIAL

SURVEY AREA

JAP ANESE KNOTWEED+OLD BIRD NESTSk

A1

A1

A52

A52A607A607

A607

GRANTHAM¯

RED LINE BOUNDARY

SITES OF IMPORTANCE FOR NATURECONSERVATION


P. Reid 06/07/2015

06/07/2015D. WarnerS. Hales1:15000

DrawnBy:

GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:

1059526-ENV-006

Sheet 1 of 10 40 80 120 160 20020 m

¯

LINCOLNSHIRE COU NTY COU NCIL - This m ap is based upon Ordnance Survey m aterial with the perm ission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyrig ht. U nauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyrig ht and m ay lead to prosecution or civil proceeding s. 100025370 (2012).


Rev.Revision



Scale@A3:


GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:


Amendment Details


A First Issue DAW LW PR 06/07/2015

Legend

GRANTHAM BR - SINC

A1

A1

A52

A52A607A607

A607

GRANTHAM¯

PROPOSED SCHEME

RED LINE BOU NDARY

SALTERSFORD VALLEY - SINC

SITES OF IMPORTANCE FOR NATU RE CONSERVATION (SINC)

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Whalebone Lane

8

B

3

2

A 1

4

5

6

C

25

26

28

27

47

4146

4544 43

40

39

13

12

1116

15

1420

17

19

18

21

2322

B1174

B1176

B6403

A1

A52

A52

A607A607

GRANTHAM

Railway

VISUAL RECEPTORS


P. Reid 06/07/2015

06/07/2015D. WarnerS. Hales1:15000

DrawnBy:

GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:

1059526-ENV-007

Sheet 1 of 10 200 400 600 800 1000100 m

¯

LINCOLNSHIRE COU NTY COU NCIL - This m ap is based upon Ordnance Survey m aterial with the perm ission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyrig ht. U nauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyrig ht and m ay lead to prosecution or civil proceeding s. 100025370 (2012).


Rev.Revision



Scale@A3:


GISBy:

ApprovedBy:

ApprovalDate:


Amendment Details


A First Issue DAW LW PR 06/07/2015

Legend

RECEPTOR GROU PS

PU BLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

MAIN TRANSPORT CORRIDORS

A1

A1

A52

A52A607A607

A607

GRANTHAM¯

PROPOSED SCHEME

RED LINE BOU NDARY

Species Rich Grassland Mix

Woodland Mix

Native low woodland /

Scrub Mix

Feathered trees

Legend

Existing Vegetation

Verge Mix

Wet Grassland Mix

Proposed hedgerow and

hedgerow trees

Public Right of Way

Site Boundary

Specimen trees

B

1

1

7

4

Indicative Plant Species List

Planting and grass species should reflect species

common to the locality and the following note is

provided as a guide only.

Main species would typically comprise:

Woodland Mix

Trees:

Acer pseudoplatanus (sycamore),

Aesculus hippocastanum (horse chestnut),

Castanea sativa (sweet chestnut),

Fagus sylvatica (beech),

Quercus robur (common oak)

Trees/ Riverside:

Alnus glutinosa (alder),

Betula pendula (silver birch),

Salix fragilis (crack willow)

Understorey:

Corylus avellana (hazel),

Cornus sanguinea (dogwood),

Prunus spinosa (blackthorn),

Rosa canina (dog rose),

Salix caprea (goat willow),

Sambucus nigra (elder)

Native low woodland / Scrub Mix

Trees:

Acer campestre (field maple),

Malus sylvestris (crab apple),

Prunus avium (wild cherry),

Ilex aquifiolium (holly)

Understorey species:







Specimen Trees



Quercus robur (common oak),

Feathered Trees



Crataegus monogyna (hawthorn),


Prunus avium (wild cherry)

Proposed hedgerows




Euonymus europaeus (spindle),

Ligustrum vulgare (wild privet),



Viburnum opulus (guelder rose)

Hedgerow trees






Specimen tree planting

within roundabout

Native low woodland and scrub

on embankments to soften

and integrate embankment

slopes

East coast main line

Specimen tree within roundabout

to mark entrance to proposed

development

Specimen tree and hedgerow

planting along B1174 to reflect

existing roadside planting

Native low woodland and scrub

on embankments with feathered

tree planting to the base to soften

and integrate embankment slopes.

Access maintained along

Public Right of Way (LPon/2/1) Detention ponds seeded

with wetland grass mix

to assist integration

East coast main line

River Witham

Woodland planting around River Witham to

reflect native riverside species, improve

biodiversity and to marry into areas of existing

vegetation

Access maintained along

Public Right of Way (LPon/2/1)

Proposed diverted PRoW

Proposed diverted PRoW

Note: Refer to Drawings 1045388-ENV-VIS-003 to 004

for Visual Receptor Details

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL - Reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the

permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office

© Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to

prosecution or civil proceedings. OS Licence 100025370

TECHNICAL SERVICES PARTNERSHIP

5th FLOOR

MILL HOUSE

BRAYFORD WHARF NORTH

LINCOLN, LN1 1YT

Customer Service Centre : (01522) 782070

Lincolnshire

COUNTY COUNCIL

Paper Size

Description:

X-Refs & Blocks used in this Drawing

B/

Amendment Details

Drawn/Designed by:

Revision: Description: DrawnBy:

ApprovedBy:

CAD Drawing CreationCreated By:

Drawing 1st Approval

Highways Alliance

Date:

Date:

CADBy:

ApprovalDate

1st Approval by:

Rev.

Project:

(Do not scale from this drawing)

Revision.

Scale:(@A1)Primary:

Secondary:

Certificate No. FS20705

BSI

Southern Quadrant Link Road

Landscape Mitigation

L.Wood

L.Wood 05.09.2015

H.Roberts 07.09.2015

(Sheet 1 of 2)

1:2500

APPROVED FOR GENERAL ISSUE

FOR THIRD PARTY USE, THIS DRAWING SHALL BE DEEMEDCURRENT ONLY AT THE DATE OF APPROVAL. PLEASE CHECK

FOR AMENDMENTS BEFORE USE

First Issue

PRoW Revised and Updated

General Amendments

General Amendments

Revised Highway Alignment

1045388-ENV-VIS-005 E

A LW LW JT 28.02.2013

13.03.2013

14.03.2013

18.03.2013

07.09.2015HRLWLW

RM RM JT

JT

RM

RM

RM

RM

JT

B

C

D

E

Species Rich Grassland Mix

Woodland Mix

Native low woodland /

Scrub Mix

Feathered trees

Legend

Existing Vegetation

Verge Mix

Wet Grassland Mix

Proposed hedgerow and

hedgerow trees

Public Right of Way

Site Boundary

Specimen trees

A

5

2

A

5

2

B

6

4

0

3

B

1

1

7

6

Whalebone Lane

Indicative Plant Species List

Planting and grass species should reflect species

common to the locality and the following note is

provided as a guide only.

Main species would typically comprise:

Woodland Mix

Trees:

Acer pseudoplatanus (sycamore),


Castanea sativa (sweet chestnut),


Quercus robur (common oak)

Trees/ Riverside:

Alnus glutinosa (alder),

Betula pendula (silver birch),

Salix fragilis (crack willow)

Understorey:







Native low woodland / Scrub Mix

Trees:



Prunus avium (wild cherry),

Ilex aquifiolium (holly)

Understorey species:







Specimen Trees



Quercus robur (common oak),

Feathered Trees






Proposed hedgerows




Euonymus europaeus (spindle),

Ligustrum vulgare (wild privet),



Viburnum opulus (guelder rose)

Hedgerow trees






Specimen trees to provide

feature planting within

roundabout

Hedges with trees along new extension

of Whalebone Lane to reflect character

of retained section

Public Access maintained

along Whalebone Lane

Hedges with trees to assist landscape

integration and provide screening of the

road alignment

Extensions of the existing Whalebone Spinney

to create a new woodland block and reinforce

landscape character

Note: Refer to Drawings 1045388-ENV-VIS-003 to 004

for Visual Receptor Details

TECHNICAL SERVICES PARTNERSHIP

5th FLOOR

MILL HOUSE

BRAYFORD WHARF NORTH

LINCOLN, LN1 1YT

Customer Service Centre : (01522) 782070

Lincolnshire

COUNTY COUNCIL

Paper Size

Description:

X-Refs & Blocks used in this Drawing

B/

Amendment Details

Drawn/Designed by:

Revision: Description: DrawnBy:

ApprovedBy:

CAD Drawing CreationCreated By:

Drawing 1st Approval

Highways Alliance

Date:

Date:

CADBy:

ApprovalDate

1st Approval by:

Rev.

Project:

(Do not scale from this drawing)

Revision.

Scale:(@A1)Primary:

Secondary:

Certificate No. FS20705

BSI

Southern Quadrant Link Road

Landscape Mitigation

L.Wood

L.Wood 05.09.2015

H.Roberts 07.09.2015

(Sheet 2 of 2)

1:2500

E1045388-ENV-VIS-006

APPROVED FOR GENERAL ISSUE

FOR THIRD PARTY USE, THIS DRAWING SHALL BE DEEMEDCURRENT ONLY AT THE DATE OF APPROVAL. PLEASE CHECK

FOR AMENDMENTS BEFORE USE

First IssueA

LW LW HR 07.09.2015

PRoW Revised and Updated

General Amendments

General Amendments

B

C

D

RM

RM

RM RM

RM

RM JT

JT

JT 13.03.2013

14.03.2013

18.03.2013

LW LW JT 28.02.2013

Revised Highway AlignmentE



© Mouchel 2015

Annex 1 – Heritage Assessment



© Mouchel 2015

1 Heritage Assessment (2015)

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 At the request of the Planning Authority, South Kesteven District Council (SKDC), an updated heritage assessment has been undertaken as part of the Section 73 application. This sets out the methodology that was followed when the cultural heritage assessment was originally undertaken for the GSQLR-ES-March2013. Following this, an updated assessment of the impacts of the currently proposed scheme on cultural heritage assets is set out.

1.1.2 The GSQLR-ES-March2013 was accompanied by an assessment of impacts upon cultural heritage assets. This was informed by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance, Historic England guidance and similarly complies with guidance for the Planning Authority within the National Planning Practice Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states:

“In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation”.

1.1.3 SKDC are therefore required to ensure that any application accords with this requirement in advance of determination. This Heritage Assessment (2015) is intended to demonstrate and to provide comfort to SKDC that sufficient information and assessment has been undertaken.

1.1.4 In accordance with the points set out within Paragraph 128 of the NPPF, the following four obligations have been extracted and have been addressed in turn within this Heritage Assessment (2015). To logically address the chronological approach taken they have been considered in the following order:

The relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise;

Local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment;

Describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting; and

Where necessary, a field evaluation.

1.2 The relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise



© Mouchel 2015

1.2.1 In undertaking the assessment in 2013 Mouchel consulted the following:

Grantham Local Library

Lincolnshire Archives

Lincolnshire County Historic Environment Record (HER)

National Monuments Record

Previous published reports including archaeological assessment reports including:

o EIA scoping report Jacobs 2009

o Grantham Southern Quadrant: Archaeological Assessment – Archaeological Project Services 2011;

o Evaluation reports related to a series of trial trenches excavated along Saltersford Lane by Heritage Lincolnshire in 1993 in preparation for a widening of the lane;

o excavation reports of an area in the western corner of the waterworks undertaken in 1995 by Archaeological Project Services (APS).

1.2.2 The resulting findings were assessed by the Mouchel cultural heritage team who are appropriately qualified and experienced to assess the importance of heritage assets and are a Registered Archaeological Organisation with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.

1.3 Local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment

1.3.1 After consulting the information sources identified in Section 1.2 above, 100 assets were identified for further consideration. A desk based assessment of the impact of the implementation of the currently proposed scheme is included below in Table 4

1.4 Describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting

1.4.1 Included within Table 4 is an evaluation of the significance of the assets along with a discussion of how a contribution is made by their setting.

1.5 Where necessary, a field evaluation

1.5.1 The following have been undertaken and presented within the application documents for the consented scheme:

Walkover surveys by a fully qualified and competent Mouchel cultural heritage team member undertaken in November 2012 and December 2012.

A geophysical survey undertaken by APS in January and February 2013

Trial Trenching undertaken by Archaeological Project Services in May and June 2013



© Mouchel 2015

Trial Trenching undertaken by Archaeological Project Services in September and October 2013.

1.5.2 The findings of these assessments were presented within the GSQLR-ES-March2013, within an addendum to the ES which was submitted in July 2013 and within a Supplementary Archaeological Information Report, October 2013 (1045388-REPARC-Archaegological Report v1).

1.6 Mitigation

1.6.1 Following the completion of the desk based assessment, the cultural heritage chapter of the Environmental Statement and the field evaluation mitigation was agreed for the consented scheme as proposed in Section 4 of the Supplementary Archaeological Information Report, October 2013. The type of mitigation and their location is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 – Areas of Archaeological Mitigation

Areas of Archaeological Mitigation

Trench Number

Type of Impact Type of Archaeological Mitigation

Archaeological Summary

Trenches 3 and 4

Site compound

Topsoil stripping to create a site compound

Strip, Map and Sample

Possible Iron Age ditches sealed by 0.3m of topsoil.

Trench 5 Topsoil stripping for embankment construction


Roman building overlain by 0.40m of alluvial deposits and 0.22m of topsoil.

Trench 6 Topsoil stripping for embankment construction


Iron Age/Roman enclosures sealed by 0.39m of topsoil.

Trench 7 Topsoil stripping for temporary work compound and embankment construction


Iron Age/Roman enclosures sealed by 0.20m of subsoil and 0.22m of topsoil.

Trenches 8 and 9

Topsoil stripping for temporary work compound


Roman road? Smithing activity, Roman pit, ditches, curvilinear feature overlain by 0.15m to 0.24m of subsoil and 0.20m of topsoil.

Trench 10 Topsoil storage area


Roman pit? Overlain by 0.20m of topsoil.

Trenches 11 and 12

Topsoil stripping for temporary


Roman buildings and occupation layer overlain by



© Mouchel 2015

work compound and embankment construction

0.10m of subsoil and 0.33m of topsoil.

Trench 13 Excavation of drainage pond

Detailed excavation

Roman building, yard/trackway overlain by 0.25m of topsoil.

Trench 19 Excavation of road cutting


Enclosure overlain by 0.30m of topsoil.

1.6.2 The Strip, Map and Sample was carried out under archaeological control with a toothless ditching bucket. The resulting surface was cleaned and inspected for archaeological remains. If archaeological remains are identified and likely to be damaged by contractor’s operations, archaeological excavation and recording would be undertaken. However, if there will be no further impact, archaeological remains would be protected from plant movements, etc., by a layer of terram and road stone. If no archaeological remains are revealed as they remain sealed by subsoil deposits, no further mitigation would be required.

1.6.3 The methodology for the archaeological mitigation was set out in a Written Scheme of Investigation approved by the Heritage Trust for Lincolnshire/SKDC and secured by a planning condition. The areas of archaeological investigation and requirements for any protective measures will also be set out in the Construction Management Plan.

1.7 Updated Assessment

1.7.1 Set out below in Table 4, is the updated assessment of impacts on cultural heritage assets arising from the currently proposed scheme. Of the 100 assets originally identified in the GSQLR-ES-March2013, 19 of these assets have been excluded from the assessment and these are presented in Table 5 along with an explanation for their exclusion.

1.8 Conclusion

1.8.1 We have considered the impacts of the currently proposed scheme on cultural heritage assets in light of assessment work undertaken for the consented scheme and in light of guidance provided by Historic England and within the NPPF.

1.8.2 Impacts upon heritage assets have been assessed in terms of their significance and their setting and mitigation has been proposed in both Table 3 and Table 4 to reduce the scale of the impacts.



© Mouchel 2015

Table 4 – Table of impacts on Cultural Heritage Assets

Mouchel Reference No

Site Name Site Type Designation Value Impacts from

construction and operation

Magnitude of Impact (Unmitigated)

Recommended mitigation

Magnitude of Impact (Mitigated)

Impact Rating

1 Double

ditches,

possibly a

Roman Road,

east of

Spittalgate

Heath Farm,

Londonthorpe

and Harrowby

Without

Ditch, Road None Medium Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Potential for discovering associated features during construction. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Minor Proposed landscape design in the form of planting will soften the appearance of the proposed scheme but there will remain a visual impact.

Minor Slight

6 Ring ditch

east of the

Great North

Road

Ring ditch,

Barrow

None Medium Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located within the working area. Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.

Major Excavation of

feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

Moderate Moderate



© Mouchel 2015

is to be

determined.

7 Bowl Barrow

450m west of

St Guthlac's

Church

Barrow Scheduled Monument

High Topography and existing planting protects the monument from the visual intrusions of the new road. The new road will further separate the monument from other associated features within its landscape (ie possible bowl barrow, Site 6) but this it is already separated from much of its landscape by later field boundaries, the B1174 and the railway.


Minor Slight

8 Early Neolithic

flint scatter,

Salter's Way,

Londonthorpe

and Harrowby

Without

Artefact

scatter

None Negligible Potential for

discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.

Together with the

barrows (Site 6 and

7), the area is

Minor Archaeological

trial trenching

along proposed

route to

determine

presence,

condition,

character and

Slight Slight



© Mouchel 2015

probably part of a

larger prehistoric

settlement which the

construction of the

road will truncate

thereby damaging

the site and its

landscape setting.

extent of

associated

archaeological

remains.

Archaeological

watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

9 Bronze Age

Flint scatter,

Salter's Way,

Londonthorpe

and Harrowby

Without

Artefact

scatter


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.

Together with the

barrows (Site 6 and

7), the area is

probably part of a

larger prehistoric


construction of the

road will truncate

thereby damaging

the site and its

landscape setting.

Moderate Archaeological

trial trenching

along proposed

route to

determine

presence,

condition,

character and

extent of

associated

archaeological

remains.

Archaeological

watching brief

to be

maintained

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

during ground

breaking works.

10 Iron Age

pottery found

at Saltersford

Findspot None Negligible Potential for

discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction. This

findspot is located

within the site

compound and so

potential remains

could be damaged or

destroyed through

the movement of

vehicles etc. The

area is probably part

of a larger prehistoric


construction of the

road will truncate

thereby damaging

the site and its

landscape setting.


trial trenching

along proposed

route to

determine

presence,

condition,

character and

extent of

associated

archaeological

remains.

Archaeological

watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Minor Minor

11 Possible

Romano

British

Settlement None Medium Potential for

discovering

associated features


trial trenching

along proposed

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

settlement

indicated by a

Dolphin

Brooch and

hoard of 4th

century coins

and finds during

construction. The


of a Roman


construction of the

road will truncate

thereby damaging

the site and its

landscape setting.

route to

determine

presence,

condition,

character and

extent of

associated

archaeological

remains.

Archaeological

watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

13 Bronze ingot

found near

Saltersford


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.

Together with the

barrows (Site 6 and

7), the area is

probably part of a

larger prehistoric


construction of the


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

road will truncate

thereby damaging

the site and its

landscape setting.

14 Anglo Saxon

pottery found

W of

Saltersford

Artefact

scatter


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Minor Minor

15 The Aveling

Barford Ltd

Factory, Albert

Street,

Grantham

Factory,

Machine

Shop

None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Permanent visual impact on setting.


Minor Minor

16 Flint

arrowhead

found near

Saltersford


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

17 Little Ponton

Hall park,

Little Ponton

Park None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Permanent visual impact on setting. The landscape will be further separated from its wider rural setting but the later field boundaries, the B1174 and the railway already detract from this setting.


Minor Minor

18 Roman

Inhumation

Cemetery,

Water

Treatment

Plant,

Londonthorpe

and Harrowby

Without

Burial,

Cemetery

None Medium Potential for

discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction. The


of a Roman


construction of the

road will truncate

thereby damaging

the site and its

landscape setting.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Minor Minor

19 An Inhumation

and Coffin of

Burial None Low Potential for

discovering


trial trenching

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

Circa AD180-

220

associated features

and finds during

construction. The


of a Roman


construction of the

road will truncate

thereby damaging

the site and its

landscape setting.

along proposed

route to

determine

presence,

condition,

character and

extent of

associated

archaeological

remains.

Archaeological

watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

20 Possible site

of Houghton

Deserted

Medieval

Village,

Londonthorpe

and Harrowby

Without

Deserted

settlement

None Medium Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Permanent visual impact on setting.


Minor Slight



© Mouchel 2015

21 Possible Site

of Causennis

Roman

Settlement

Artefact

scatter,

Cremation,

Ford,

Inhumation,

Settlement,

Town


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction. The


of a Roman


construction of the

road will truncate

thereby damaging

the site and its

landscape setting.


trial trenching

along proposed

route to

determine

presence,

condition,

character and

extent of

associated

archaeological

remains.

Archaeological

watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Minor Minor

22 Houghton

Paper Mill

(Paper Mill

Farm),

Londonthorpe

and Harrowby

Without

Paper mill,

Water Mill



Minor Slight



© Mouchel 2015

23 Bronze Age

scraper, edge

of Witham,

Londonthorpe

and Harrowby

Without


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Minor Minor

24 A fragment of

Bronze Age

rapier found at

Saltersford in

Little Ponton

and Stroxton

parish


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Minor Minor

25 Flints, bank of

the River

Witham

Flint scatter None Negligible Potential for

discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Minor Minor

26 Anglo Saxon

scramasax

and industrial

waste found in

Findspot,

Industrial

site, metal

working site


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

River Witham

at Saltersford

during ground

breaking works.

27 Stone axe

found at

Saltersford

Waterworks


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Minor Minor

28 Holloway, east

of the railway,

Londonthorpe

and Harrowby

Without

Holloway/

ditch

None Low Potential for

discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction. The

proposed scheme

will run through this

feature thereby

damaging or

destroying it.

Moderate Topographic

and

photographic

survey of

feature prior to

construction.

Minor Slight

29 Grantham

Waterworks

Waterworks None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Moderate Proposed landscape design in the form of planting will soften the appearance of the proposed scheme but there will

Minor Slight



© Mouchel 2015

remain a visual impact.

30 Officers'

Mess, Former

RAF

Spitalgate

Officers’ Mess

Listed building, Grade II

Medium Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Negligible Proposed landscape design in the form of planting will soften the appearance of the proposed scheme but there will remain a visual impact.

Negligible Slight

35 Middle Bronze

Age

spearhead,

south of

Spittlegate

Heath Farm,

Londonthorpe

and Harrowby

Without


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.

Unknown Archaeological

watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Unknown Unknown

37 Spittalgate

Heath Farm

Farm None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Minor Proposed landscape design in the form of planting will soften the appearance of the proposed scheme but there will

Minor Slight



© Mouchel 2015

remain a visual impact.

38 Railway

viaduct

Bridge None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Moderate Proposed landscape design in the form of planting will soften the appearance of the proposed scheme but there will remain a visual impact.

Moderate Slight

39 Roman

Ermine Street,

south of

Lincoln, in

North and

South

Kesteven

Pit?, Ditch?,

Road

None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Proposed scheme at north-east end of route and working areas will cut through this feature thereby damaging it. Potential for associated features and finds. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Major Strip, map and

record

Proposed

landscape

design in the

form of planting

will soften the

appearance of

the proposed

scheme but

there will

remain a visual

impact

Moderate Slight



© Mouchel 2015

41 RAF

Grantham and

Spitalgate,

Airfield,

Barracks,

Pill box,

Alan

Williams

Turret


Minor Proposed landscape design in the form of planting will soften the appearance of the proposed scheme.

Minor Slight

42 Jurassic Way Routeway None Medium Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Proposed scheme at north-east end of route and working areas will cut through this feature thereby damaging it. Potential for associated features and finds. Permanent visual impact on setting.


record

Proposed

landscape

design in the

form of planting

will soften the

appearance of

the proposed

scheme but

there will

remain a visual

impact.

Moderate Moderate

43 Great North

Railway

Railway None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Road will span over railway. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Moderate Photographic

record of

railway and its

setting in this

Minor Slight



© Mouchel 2015

area prior to

construction.

Proposed

landscape

design in the

form of planting

will soften the

appearance of

the proposed

scheme.

47 Site of Former

Spittlegate

Heath Farm

House None Low Site will be damaged or destroyed through construction works and working areas.


record.

Archaeological

monitoring

during

construction.

Moderate Slight

48 Site of “The

Whalebone”

Plantation/

woodland

None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Potential for wall to be damaged by landscaping and working areas during construction. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Major Proposed

landscape

design in the

form of planting

will soften the

appearance of

the proposed

scheme but

Moderate Slight



© Mouchel 2015

there will

remain a visual

impact.

49 Site of

“Isolation

Hospital”

Hospital None Low Site will be damaged or destroyed through construction works and working areas.


record.

Archaeological

monitoring

during

construction.

Moderate Slight

50 Site of

raceground

Raceground None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Proposed route will truncate this feature (although it is unlikely that evidence relating to the feature survives). Permanent visual impact on setting.


monitoring

during

construction.

Minor/

Negligible

Slight

53 Romano-

British pottery,

River Witham

(exact location

unknown)

Artefact

scatter


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Minor/

Negligible

Slight



© Mouchel 2015

54 A Roman road

running from

Grantham

(Saltersford)

to Donington.

Road None Medium Feature will be damaged or destroyed during construction and within working areas. Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Major Strip map and

record.

Archaeological

watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Proposed

landscape

design in the

form of planting

will soften the

appearance of

the proposed

scheme.

Moderate Moderate

55 Roman road

running from

the Six Hills to

Grantham.

Road None Medium Works along feature (Saltersford Lane) will directly impact the feature through groundworks. Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Potential for discovering associated features


record.

Archaeological

watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Moderate Moderate



© Mouchel 2015

and finds during construction. Permanent visual impact on setting.

59 Stable Block

At Cold

Harbour Farm

Stables Listed building, Grade II


Negligible Proposed landscape design in the form of planting will soften the appearance of the proposed scheme but there will remain a visual impact.

Negligible Neutral

60 Daily Mail

Farm

Farm, House


Moderate Proposed landscape design in the form of planting will soften the appearance of the proposed scheme but there will remain a visual impact.

Minor Slight

61 Dry stone wall Wall None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Potential for wall to be damaged by landscaping and working areas during construction.

Moderate Photographic record of wall and setting prior to construction. Avoid and protect feature during construction. Reinstate wall

Minor Slight



© Mouchel 2015

Permanent visual impact on setting.

following works where necessary.

62 Dry stone wall Wall None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Potential for wall to be damaged or removed by landscaping and working areas during construction. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Moderate Photographic record of wall and setting prior to construction. Avoid and protect feature during construction. Reinstate wall following works where necessary.

Minor Slight

63 Air raid shelter Air raid shelter

None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Potential for shelter to be damaged by construction works, landscaping and working areas. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Major Level 2 historic building record of building and its setting prior to construction.

Moderate Slight

64 Ruined

building

Building None Low Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Permanent visual impact on setting.

Moderate Photographic record of building in its setting prior to construction works commencing. Proposed landscape

Minor Slight



© Mouchel 2015

design in the form of planting will soften the appearance of the proposed scheme but there will remain a visual impact.

65 Building Building None Low Damage or destruction of asset through construction works for piers/ working areas.

Major Level 2 historic building record of building and its setting prior to construction. This may require some clearance of debris and overburden but this should be done under archaeological supervision.

Moderate Slight

66 Quarry? Quarry? None Low Damage or destruction of asset through construction works for piers/ working areas.

Moderate Photographic and topographic record of site prior to construction works commencing.

Minor Slight

67 Farm

Buildings at

Grange Farm

Farm building

Listed building, Grade II

Medium Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument.

Negligible Proposed landscape design in the form of planting will soften the

Negligible Slight



© Mouchel 2015

Permanent visual impact on setting.

appearance of the proposed scheme but there will remain a visual impact..

68 Church of St

Guthlac

Church Listed Building, Grade I

High Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Permanent visual impact on setting.


Minor Slight

69 Old

Schoolhouse

House Listed building, Grade II



Minor Slight

70 Little Ponton

Hall and

Service Range

House Listed building, Grade II


Minor Proposed landscape design in the form of planting will soften the appearance of the proposed

Minor Slight



© Mouchel 2015

scheme but there will remain a visual impact.

71 Stables and

Coach house

at Little

Ponton Hall

Outbuilding Listed building, Grade II



Minor Slight

72 Pigeoncote at

Little Ponton

Hall

Outbuilding Listed building, Grade II*

High Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Permanent visual impact on setting.


Minor Slight

73 Scatter of

prehistoric flint

and post-

medieval

pottery

Artefact Scatter


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Slight Slight



© Mouchel 2015

74 Scatter of

prehistoric flint

Artefact Scatter


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Slight Slight

75 Scatter of

prehistoric flint

and medieval

artefacts

Artefact Scatter


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Slight Slight

76 Scatter of

prehistoric flint

Artefact Scatter


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Slight Slight

77 Scatter of

prehistoric flint

and post-

medieval

pottery

Artefact Scatter


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Slight Slight



© Mouchel 2015

78 Scatter of

Roman and

post-medieval

pottery

Artefact Scatter


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Slight Slight

79 Scatter of

medieval

pottery

Artefact Scatter


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Slight Slight

80 Scatter of

medieval

pottery

Artefact Scatter


discovering

associated features

and finds during

construction.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Slight Slight

81 Linear feature Linear feature

None Low Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located along the proposed route. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.

Moderate Excavation of

feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

is to be

determined.

82 Sub-

rectangular

enclosure

Enclosure? None Low Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located along the proposed route. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.


feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

is to be

determined.

Minor Minor

83 Pits? Pits? None Low Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located along the proposed route. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.


feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

battery but this

is to be

determined.

84 Pits? Pits? None Low Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located along the proposed route. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.


feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

is to be

determined.

Minor Minor

85 Enclosure? Enclosure? None Low Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located within the working area. Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.


feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

is to be

determined.



feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

is to be

determined.

Minor Minor

87 Enclosure? Enclosure? None Low Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located along the proposed route. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.


feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

is to be

determined.



feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

is to be

determined.

Minor Minor



feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

is to be

determined.

90 Pits? Pits? None Low Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located within the working area. Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.


feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

is to be

determined.

Minor Minor

91 Enclosure? Enclosure? None Low Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located along the proposed route. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.


feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

is to be

determined.

92 Linear

feature?

Linear feature



feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

is to be

determined.

Minor Minor

93 Circular

feature

Circular feature

None Low Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located within the working area. Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.

Moderate

Excavation of

feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Possibility that

feature is not a

ring ditch but a

searchlight

battery but this

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

is to be

determined.

94 Scatter of

prehistoric

flints, Roman

and medieval

pottery

Artefact Scatter

None Negligible Potential for damage to associated features and finds during construction and use of site compound.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Slight Slight

95 Scatter of

prehistoric

flints and

medieval

pottery

Artefact Scatter

None Negligible Potential for damage to associated features and finds during construction and use of site compound.


watching brief

to be

maintained

during ground

breaking works.

Slight Slight




feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Minor Minor

97 Possible

enclosure

Enclosure None Low Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located within the proposed site


feature prior to

commencement

Minor Minor



© Mouchel 2015

compound. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.

of construction

works.


None Low Feature will be damaged or destroyed since it is located within the proposed site compound. Potential for discovering associated features during construction.

Moderate Trial trenching

to determine

character of

feature (ie not

pipeline). If of

archaeological

significance,

excavation of

feature prior to

commencement

of construction

works.

Minor Minor

99 Church of St

Wulfram

Church Listed Building, Grade I

High Temporary construction impacts on setting of monument and long distance views. Permanent visual impact on setting.


Minor Slight



© Mouchel 2015

100 Grantham

Conservation

Area

Area Conservation Area

High Temporary construction impacts on setting of area and long distance views. Permanent visual impact on setting.


Minor Slight



© Mouchel 2015

Table 5 – Heritage assets identified, but excluded from the assessment

Mouchel

Reference

No

Site Name Grid reference Site Type Description Reason for no impact

assessment and omission from

Table 4

2 Prehistoric cropmark enclosure, Grantham

SK 9169 3407 Enclosure Prehistoric cropmark enclosure Outside of scheme boundary

3 Iron Age settlement activity, Gorse Lane/B1174 Junction

SK 9187 3406 Gully, Pit, Post hole, Boundary Ditch, Ditch. Ditched enclosure, Field System, Settlement

Iron Age Settlement activity. Two sub rectangular ditched enclosures and a field system were recorded amongst other features

Outside of scheme boundary

4 Undated features, Gorse Lane/B1174 Junction

SK 9195 3407 Linear feature, Quarry

A geophysical survey and scheme of trial trenching recorded two undated features, one of which was linear. The linear feature was thought to relate to the construction of a bowling green in the north eastern corner of the site. The other feature is thought to be a possible quarry pit.


5 Site of former brick and tileworks, Papermill Lane, Grantham

SK 92095 34264

Brick Kiln, Brickworks, Clay pit, Tile Kiln, Tileworks

Brick and tileworks, comprising kilns and clay extraction pits, depicted on the OS County Series map of 1905. The kilns are not depicted on the later OS map of 1956. The buildings were probably demolished during the building of the Aveling-Bradford factory in the 1930s

Built over

12 Bronze Age Pottery, Papermill Lane

SK 9230 3435 Artefact Scatter Two cinerary urns and one small vessel found when building Number 33 shop of Mr Hornsby’s works near Paper Mill Lane.

Find spot, built over



© Mouchel 2015

31 Medieval and post medieval pottery, Saltersford Road

SK 928 345 Artefact Scatter Medieval pottery found in a garden Find spot

32 Undated ditches and gully, probably dating to medieval or post medieval era

SK 9282 3465 Ditch, gully A watching brief was undertaken during groundworks on land between Bridge End Road and Saltersford Road prior to development. Two undated ditches and a gully were uncovered.

Features preserved by record, area now developed

33 Romano British pottery found SE of Saltersford

SK 9283 3310 Artefact Scatter Romano British pottery found SE of Saltersford Findspot

34 Iron Age pottery found SE of Saltersford

SK 9283 3310 Artefact Scatter Iron Age pottery found SE of Saltersford Findspot

36 Drystone wall demarcating parish boundary

SK 93662 34135

Wall Dry stone wall marking parish boundary as identified by Jacobs assessment in 2009

Not impacted by development

40 Depression noted in field east of Spittlegate Heath Farm

SK 93905 34150

Quarry? Depression noted from aerial photographs, possible quarry.

Not impacted by development

44 Site of Bungalow noted on historic maps

SK 93530 34198

House First shown on the 1931 OS map, it is present on the 1994 map, but not on the survey of 2000

Site demolished

45 Site of Limekiln SK 93697 34177

Kiln Shown on the 1sr edition OS map (1890). Now the site of Spittlegate Heath Farm

Built over

46 Site of Limekiln SK 93767 34233

Kiln Shown on the 1sr edition OS map (1890). Now the site of Spittlegate Heath Farm

Built over

51 Spittlegate Lodge, South Parade

SK 9193 3469 House Spittlegate Lodge is a Grade II listed easrly 19th century house built on an L shaped plan




© Mouchel 2015

52 Romano British pottery sherd

SK 92589 33699

Findspot A Bronze Age scraper and a sherd of samian ware pottery found on the edge of Witham

Find spot

56 Possible prehistoric or Roman enclosure seen as cropmarks

SK 9361 3289 Enclosure Possible prehistoric or Roman enclosure seen as cropmarks


57 Possible Bronze Age round barrow with a central pit seen as cropmarks

SK 9179 3307 Barrow Possible Bronze Age round barrow with a central pit.


58 Possible mound of unknown date seen as cropmarks

SK 9443 3306 Mound A probably mound of unknown date. It has been ploughed out but is visible as a cropmark.


Documents

Grantham Southern Quadrant Link Road Supplementary ...planning.southkesteven.gov.uk/SKDC/S15-2101/896219.pdf · Grantham Southern Quadrant Link Road Supplementary Environmental Statement