NSC/5/3June 2014

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK CLASSIFIEDROAD)

SIDE ROADS ORDER 2013

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2013

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (No 2) 2014

EXCHANGE LAND CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF SPECIAL CATEGORYLAND

SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF

NICHOLAS JOHN ROWSONBSc(Hons)Hort, BLD, CMU, MloH

On behalf ofNorth Somerset Council

I n respect of

LANDSCAPE AND EXCHANGE LAND

NSC/5/3June 2014

1. PERSONAL DETAILS

1.1 My name is Nicholas John Rowson. I am employed by Atkins Limited as a

Principal Landscape Architect. I have practised as a landscape architect since

1983.

1.2 I am the Environmental Coordinator and lead appraisal Landscape Architect for

the South Bristol Link (lithe Scheme") and have worked on the Scheme in this

role since April 2011.

2 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS OVERVIEW

2.1 My evidence demonstrates that in making the Orders, due account has been

taken of all landscape, exchange land and heritage considerations and that the

Scheme would meet North Somerset Council's Scheme objectives.

Site Description

2.2 The Scheme (see Appendix 1) is within two distinct character areas, passing

from the rural hinterland within North Somerset, into the suburban areas in

south BristoL. The rural section of the route, from the A370 to Highridge

Common, lies within the Green Belt. In developing the Scheme and mitigation,

consideration was given to the designated landscape characters of the area.

Landscape Character

2.3 National Character Area and County and District wide assessments were taken

as a tool for design development, establishing if the Scheme is responding to

its context and informing development of appropriate mitigation.

2.4 Character areas considered were:

a) National Character Area 118: Bristol, Avon Valleys and Ridges (Appendix 2).

b) North Somerset Landscape Character Assessment SPD (adopted December

2005) (Appendix 3).

2.5 A full description of the character of the land along the proposed routealignment and surrounding area is provided within the Landscape and Visual

Impact chapter of the Environmental Statement (CD/4/2).

2.6 The route has been divided into 5 sections, illustrated on a scheme sections

plan (Appendix 4). The character of the route through these sections changes

1

NSC/5/3June 2014

from fields on flat flood plain north of the railway; through wooded valley and

steep fields from the railway to the A38; more rolling fields between the A38

and Highridge Common and to rising common land as the route enters the

urban fringe. The route becomes more suburban as it goes south.

3 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 In respect of planning policy, Mrs Janette Shaw provides evidence on planning

policy context.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

4.1 The final alignment of the Scheme and details of the engineering design are

provided in the evidence of Mr Philip Paterson (NSC/2/1).

4.2 A number of design principles have been considered in the design evaluation,

review and development. Design development following consultation and the

involvement of environmental disciplines in the Scheme, culminated with an

Environmental Statement and application which raised no objection from

statutory environmental bodies and which was approved by the two Local

Planning Authorities (CD/2/1, CD/2/2).

5 APPRAISAL OF THE SCHEME

5.1 Full details of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment are set out in the

Environmental Statement (CD/4/1 to CD/4n).

5.2 The Scheme layout and design features are provided in the Core Documents

(CD/2/19 to CD/2/23).

5.3 Landscaping proposals are shown on the Landscape Drawings (Appendix 1).

5.4 The Scheme provides appropriate and proportionate essential mitigation for

impacts on landscape character, visual amenity and biodiversity whilst

minimising the land take necessary to achieve those aims.

5.5 A number of trees will be affected by the Scheme. These have been assessed

and are considered to be of low value.

2

NSC/5/3June 2014

Relevant Planning Conditions

5.6 The conditions to the BCC and NSC Planning Approvals are contained in

CD2/1 and CD2/2 respectively. In terms of landscape, visual and heritage

considerations, the relevant conditions are tabulated in Appendix 5.

Landscape and Visual Considerations

5.7 See Section plan (Appendix 4) for location of each section.

Section 1: A370 to Railway Line

5.8 Proposals focus on screening views of the road and highway infrastructure

from the Ashton Court Estate; reinstating field boundaries whilst retaining the

landscape character.

Section 2: Railway Line to Castle Farm and A38 (Bridgwater Road)

5.9 The Scheme mainly runs along the alignment of the landfill access road.

Engineered slopes and cut require some land take and loss of vegetation.

5.10 Proposals consist of a range of landscape and visual mitigation measures with

retained trees (Arboriculturallmpact Assessment (CD/4/3) protected.

Section 3: A38 to the edge of Highridge Common

5.11 Roundabout positioning enables remnant kilns to be retained at its centre. This

section the route is sinuous, discouraging high speeds and increasing usable

agricultural space either side.

Section 4: Highridge Common to King Georges Road

5.12 The strategy through the Common has been minimal soft land take by utilising

the existing Highridge Green where possible. The road should have minimal

visual impact in views from the larger part of the Common.

Section 5: King Georges Road and Queens Road junction to Hengrove Way

5.13 Along King Georges Road the Scheme requires removal of all 13 existing trees.

These will be replaced with 39 new trees, to form an avenue.

3

NSC/5/3June 2014

5.14 A shared footway/cycleway is proposed along the edge of the highway

boundary adjacent to the residential properties, maximising space available for

tree planting.

5.15 The proposed route through the reserved corridor requires the removal of a few

trees and ornamental species of low amenity value. Along this section a green

corridor is created using plants more familiar with an urban park. Trees and

shrubs will tend to be more ornamental and earth modelling more geometric in

form.

Conclusion

5.16 An iterative process of Landscape and visual impact assessment, supported by

consultation, has challenged and informed the design to ensure landscape

proposals are appropriate, proportionate and provide the requisite level of

impact mitigation. This has been confirmed by the lack of statutoryenvironmental body objection and by the granting of planning approval.

6 HIGHRIDGE COMMON EXCHANGE LAND

Details of Highridge Common, the commoners and their rights

6.1 The Common is registered under number B/CU3 with Bristol City CounciL. Plan

and Registration Act Record forms Appendix 6. It is approximately 8.9ha in

area and falls some 20m west to east. The higher part has views over the

southern suburbs of BristoL.

6.2 Highridge Common is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest. Mr Bowell

explains the ecological value of this land in his proof (NSC/6/1).

6.3 The road, Highridge Green, is included in the registered Common as isHighridge Road to the east of the King Georges Road junction. This represents

1.2ha of the registered Common.

Rights exercised over the Common

6.4 There are five Commoners' rights over the Common (Appendix 6). The land is

designated public access land used principally as an area of public recreation.

4

NSC/5/3June 2014

The Scheme's impact on the Common

6.5 During and following consultation in 2012, no alternative alignments were

suggested, however following consultation; a number of minor changes were

made to the alignment across the Common.

6.6 Land included in the CPO includes land required for the new highway and for

its construction. Appendix 10 shows the extent of this land.

6.7 On completion construction land, some 2,932m2, will be restored to grass. The

land will remain highway land; there being a need for unfettered access for

emergency and maintenance work.

Legal requirement for exchange land - Exchange land considerations

6.8 Land which is a part of common, to be acquired under CPO is subject to a

special parliamentary procedure unless a certificate in accordance with section

19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is provided (CD/6/2).

6.9 All registered common land has been included for the avoidance of doubt.

6.10 Registration is not conclusive in respect of the status as common land in the

case of highway however once registered i am advised that there is no scope

to deregister.

6.11 Circular 06/2004 (CDI6/5) states the requirements of suitable Exchange Land

as being:

(a) no less in area than the order; and

(b) equally advantageous to any persons entitled to rights of Common or to

other rights, and to the public

6.12 The Circular says that in determining whether the offer land meets the criteria

above the Secretary of State may have regard to the relative size and proximity

of the exchange land when compared with the land identified for compulsory

purchase.

6.13 The CPO provides for the Commoners' existing rights to apply to the exchange

land.

5

NSC/5/3June 2014

The part of the Common to be compulsorily acquired for SBL

6.14 The extent of common land required for the Scheme is as shown in Appendix

7 The area totals some 11,652m2 (plots referenced on the CPO plans

(CD1/1)).

The Council's considerations for suitable exchange land

6.15 In considering potential exchange land the Council has had regard to the

following:

a) Capable of direct connection to the existing Common and/or existing

highways or rights of way;

b) Capable of creating a comparable visual character;

c) Preferably pasture, to provide scope for creating comparable botanical

interest;

d) Not having existing general public access, whether by right or usage, other

than along public rights of way;

e) Providing sufficient area;

f) Capable of being used by the Commoners in a way which is consistent

with their rights; and

g) Capable of being used by the public in a way which is consistent with their

rights and current custom of using the land.

Quantum Of Exchange Land Required

6.16 Some 11,651 m2 of common land is required for the construction of the

Scheme. 5033m2 of designated SNCI, requires essential ecological mitigation

consideration. Preferred ecological mitigation, agreed with the relevantAuthorities is grassland translocation.

6.17 Exchange land should be not less than that lost and 'equally advantageous'.

Where this situation does not exist, if simply replaced on a 1: 1 basis, then the

ratio of exchange land to land lost can be increased to compensate.

6

NSC/5/3June 2014

6.18 Consideration must be given to the ecological attributes of the land which forms

an important component of its value. Mr Bowell will address this (NSC/6/1).

6.19 Consideration must be given to the direct loss of common land and the adverse

impact to public enjoyment and use arising from severance. The ratio of

exchange land being offered was increased to address this.

6.20 Consideration has been given to noise impact (see NSCn/1) on the enjoyment

of the Common and exchange land and of the relative narrowness of the

physical connection between the two.

6.21 Various options for exchange land were considered (Appendix 8) but many

were considered unsuitable. Two areas of potentially suitable replacement land

were identified. These are shown in Appendix 9 and on the public consultation

leaflet (CD/2/3).

6.22 At the time of the public consultation, whilst both options were considered

potentially suitable, neither had been confirmed as appropriate.

Option 1 -Area approx 23,531 m2 (2.02x area lost)

6.23 Option 1 land comprises CPO land parcels 04/08 and 04/19 to 04/22 inclusive.

6.24 The land is pasture with hedgerow and trees to field perimeters. It is flat and

contiguous with the common. Pasture is species rich un-improved grassland,

with areas of semi-improved grassland. Appendix 11 shows the area of SNCI

grassland lost. It was considered Option 1 met, or was capable of meeting, the

tests set out above.

6.25 It was recognised that benefits of passive security, maintaining the relationship

of road to common and connectivity would be offset by increased traffic noise

which would impact on the enjoyment of use of land closest to the road. In

addition, the area to be set aside for translocation of SNCI turfs (some 5046m2)

would need to be fenced and unavailable for public use whilst turfs establish.

6.26 Grassland to the south and west of plot 04/19 is suitable to translocate SNCI

grassland and, once established, offers the necessary essential mitigation and

ecological equivalence, thus justifying the additional area taken. It is sensible to

also designate the translocation area as common land.

7

NSC/5/3June 2014

6.27 In the context of the existing common land and the character, extension of the

exchange land to existing boundaries and the retention of existing boundary

hedgerows is justifiable.

Option 2 - Area approx 13,300m2 (1.14x area lost)

6.28 This area comprises pasture with hedgerows and hedgerow trees. A significant

row of trees and vegetation forms the central field boundary and to the east and

west boundaries of the area.

6.29 This option provides a narrow access from the existing Common. With only

some existing field boundaries, fence lines across the two fields would be

required to form new boundaries. The extent of this area and width of the link to

the existing Common were established following discussion with the Burnells,

who own part of the area.

6.30 For Option 2 it is recognised that noise impact is not of the same magnitude as

for Option1.

6.31 In terms of ecological equivalence, Option 2 land is less preferable for the

translocation of turfs from the SNCI; as explained by Mr Matthew Bowel!.

Public consultation

6.32 Prior to public consultation, a more detailed assessment of suitability of the two

options had not been undertaken. Formal public consultation was undertaken in

February 2013 (see CD/2/5).

6.33 A total of 77 people responded to the consultation with a clear preference for

Option 1. A number of environmental bodies' also submitted formal comment;

the majority expressing a preference for Option 1.

6.34 Option 1 land was confirmed as the preferred option for a number of reasons:

a) Opening up the land to public use will have less potentially adverse impact on

residential properties than would Option 2;

b) The land has a similar relationship between road and common land as does

the existing Common;

c) Option 2 is more remote and disconnected visually and physically from the

existing Common than is Option 1. Option 2 would have needed to be larger

8

NSC/5/3June 2014

to provide for turf translocation, but this does not overcome the remoteness of

the land from the rest of the Common, rather compounding it;

d) Option 1, in meeting the tests, provides a greater exchange area than does

Option 2. This recognises the limited degree of contiguity with the existing

Common, some adverse noise impacts on land closest to the Scheme and

that part of the area will not be immediately available for public use. Mr Adam

Lawrence addresses noise effects in his proof (NSC/9/1);

e) Option 1 has greater inherent openness than Option 2. It is flatter and has

greater equivalence in terms of the visual quality and the views out from the

common;

f) The character of Option 2 is very different. Hedgerows are mature with mature

trees. Some would of necessity be lost. It was considered that to open up

Option 2 would have significant environmental implications such that planning

approval might reasonably have been withheld.

g) Access for maintenance and management will be easier for Option 1;

h) Option 1 provides continuity and a much greater level of passive security

compared to Option 2;

i) Part of the Option 1 is suitable to take translocated turfs from the area of the

SNCI affected by the Scheme;

6.35 I do not consider that Option 2, even if enlarged in size, would meet the tests of

being equally advantageous to the public.

6.36 Appendix 12 provides a photographic record of the two options from public

rights of way and of the access points from the common;

6.37 Appendix 7 shows the extent of common land subject to CPO and the extent

of Exchange Land comprising Option 1 .

Conclusion

6.38 I consider the location and extent of Option 1 is appropriate and justified, being

equally advantageous to the public and those entitled to rights of common and

other rights.

9

NSC/5/3June 2014

7 OPEN SPACE AND EXCHANGE LAND

Open Space North of the Railway Line

7.1 Some land identified by The Ashton Vale Temple Meads scheme as open

space (Appendix 13) will be required for the Scheme.

7.2 The extent of that open space land required for the Scheme north of the railway

line is 36,534m2 and comprises CPO plots 01/15 to 01/18 inclusive.

7.3 The proposed exchange land is of a similar physical nature to that lost, could

be used for similar recreational purposes and has public access (Appendix

13).

7.4 The 38,182m2, of exchange land proposed is over 1: 1 to ensure the statutory

minimum requirement. The actual amount of land available to the public,

comprising exchange land and flood compensation land, will be some63,245m2. As such I consider the proposal meets the statutory tests.

Open Space within the Reserved Corridor

7.5 183m2 of land within the reserved corridor is not owned by BCC and thus

potentially open space to be acquired under the scheme (Appendix 14). This is

below the 209m2 threshold set under Section 19(1 )(b). I consider the proposal

meets the statutory tests.

Conclusion

7.6 i consider that the location and extent of the proposed areas of exchange land

for Highridge Common and for other open space is appropriate and justified

and that the three certificates should be issued.

8 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

8.1 From baseline studies (Appendix 15) and archaeological investigations,

potential for further archaeological remains within the scheme footprint is

considered low.

10

NSC/5/3June 2014

Consultations

8.2 Consultations have been held with a number of local authority and statutory

heritage consulte8s who raised a number of heritage issues. The potential to

mitigate these impacts was considered and, where appropriate, included in the

design.

Conclusion

8.1 No heritage objections were made to the application or CPO based on the

implementation of mitigation measures set out in the ES.

9 CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS

9.1 I address in my proof those individual objections that pertain to exchange land,

landscape or heritage matters.

10 CONCLUSIONS

10.1 I consider that the land take for landscape, for exchange land and other

mitigation measures is appropriate and essential to deliver the necessary

Scheme mitigation, consistent with planning policy.

11