climafuel facility at malpass farm, rugby€¦ · key features of the approved proposals for the...

October 2013

PLANNING APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT - CHAPTER 8, LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Climafuel Facility at Malpass Farm, Rugby

RE

PO

RT

Report Number 12514190666.500/A.3

Distribution:

Warwickshire County Council - 2 copies (1 pdf)

SITA UK Ltd - 2 copies (1 pdf)

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd - 1 copy

Submitted to:

Warwickshire County Council Shire Hall Warwick CV34 3SA


October 2013 Report No. 12514190666.500/A.3 i

Table of Contents

8.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

8.1 Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 1

8.2 Baseline Environment ................................................................................................................................... 2

8.2.1 General Site Description ......................................................................................................................... 2

8.2.2 Landscape Baseline ................................................................................................................................ 2

8.2.3 Visual Baseline ....................................................................................................................................... 3

8.2.3.1 Residential Properties .......................................................................................................................... 3

8.2.3.2 Public Rights of Way ............................................................................................................................ 4

8.2.3.3 Transport Networks ............................................................................................................................. 5

8.2.3.4 Places of Work..................................................................................................................................... 5

8.3 Findings of the 2008 LVIA ............................................................................................................................ 6

8.3.1 Predicted Landscape Impacts ................................................................................................................. 6

8.3.2 Predicted Visual Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 6

8.3.3 Proposed Landscape Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 6

8.3.4 Landscape Impacts of the Revised Scheme ........................................................................................... 7

8.4 Review of Visual Impacts of the Revised Scheme ........................................................................................ 7

8.4.1.1 Visual Impact Mitigation Recommendations ...................................................................................... 13

8.4.1.2 Re-assessment of Mitigation and Enhancement Measures ............................................................... 13

8.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 13

TABLES

Table 8-1: Residential Properties – High, Medium and Low Sensitivity Visual Receptors .................................................. 3

Table 8-2: Public Rights of Way – High and Medium Sensitivity Visual Receptors ............................................................. 4

Table 8-3: Transport Networks – Medium/Low Sensitivity Visual Receptors....................................................................... 5

Table 8-4: Places of Work – Low Sensitivity Visual Receptors ........................................................................................... 6

Table 8-5: Impact on Residential Properties ....................................................................................................................... 8

Table 8-6: Impact on Public Rights of Way ......................................................................................................................... 9

Table 8-7: Impact on Transport Networks ......................................................................................................................... 11

Table 8-8: Impact on Places of Work ................................................................................................................................ 12


October 2013 Report No. 12514190666.500/A.3 ii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Malpass Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment


October 2013 Report No. 12514190666.500/A.3 1

8.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter considers the potential landscape and visual impacts of the revised Climafuel Facility (the

Facility) proposals at the Malpass Farm site, Rugby, Warwickshire (the Site). It should be read in

conjunction with the Malpass Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, August 2008 (2008 LVIA),

provided in Appendix A.

The changes considered relate to minor modifications to the previous planning approval, in terms of the form

of the main buildings (which are reduced in floor space and height), the layout of the roadways and parking,

the provision of fire fighting water tanks and alterations to the air handling system.

Potential impacts were considered against the currently consented proposals, planning reference no.

R410/08CM038, November 2010.

Key features of the approved proposals for the Site are as follows:

Western Process Building footprint: 17,393 m2;

Eastern Process Building footprint: 11,855 m2;

Height of buildings: 19.00 m; and

Hard standing areas: 16,501 m2.

Key features of the new proposals for the Site and hard standing areas are as follows:

Western Building footprint: 9,960 m2;

Eastern Building footprint: 7,713 m2;

Height of buildings: 15 m; and

Hard standing areas: 20,184 m2.

The reduction in scale and mass between approved and proposed scheme are as follows:

Reduction in Western Building footprint: 7,433 m2;

Reduction in Eastern Building footprint: 4,142 m2;

Reduction in buildings height: 4 m; and

Additions to hard standing areas: 3,683 m2.

8.1 Assessment Methodology

A review of the desk-based study was undertaken to establish any changes to the existing landscape and

visual resource, planning context and landscape designations. Information has been gathered from the

following sources:

Countryside Character Initiative Volume 4: East Midlands by the Countryside Agency, 1999;

Warwickshire County Council Structure Plan 1996-2011 (adopted 2002);

Rugby Local Plan (July 2006) saved policies;

The Warwickshire Landscapes Guidelines by Warwickshire County Council in conjunction with the

Countryside Commission (November 1993);

Landscape Assessment of the Borough of Rugby (Sensitivity and Condition Survey) by Warwickshire

County Council (April 2006);



Correspondence with Warwickshire County Council’s Access Information Officer (for PROW definitive

map search);

MAGIC (Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside) website;

Natural England website;

Extracts from English Heritage’s Record of Scheduled Monuments and from Images of England

website;

Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 scale Landranger series maps No 140 (Rugby);

Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 scale Explorer series map No 222 (Rugby and Daventry); and

Landmark Information Group for 10 k Raster Mapping.

It is acknowledged that revised guidance has been published by the Landscape Institute however, for

consistency the impact was considered using the same methodology used for the 2008 LVIA:

‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’, (GLVIA) by the Landscape Institute with the

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (Second Edition, 2002); and

‘Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland’ by the Countryside Agency

and Scottish Natural Heritage (April 2002).

This chapter considers the predicted impacts identified in the 2008 LVIA against the predicted impacts of the

revised scheme proposals.

8.2 Baseline Environment

8.2.1 General Site Description

The 6.4 ha Site is located 1.6 km to the northwest of Rugby town centre. The Site was previously used for

mineral extraction, which ceased in the 1970s and has since been backfilled and restored. The character of

the Site is influenced by the surrounding urban uses including; the Cement Works, Rugby to Nuneaton

Mainline Railway to the north, the Rugby Western Relief Road (WRR) and industrial units to the east of the

Site. A large vegetated clay heap is situated in the southwest corner of the Site, extending along the

western boundary, segregating the developable part of the Site from the adjacent River Avon corridor and

the Green Belt. A vegetated chalk mound located along the southern site boundary also encloses the Site

from the south. The naturally regenerated clay and chalk mounds create a vegetated backdrop to the

development, which would significantly limit visibility from viewpoints to the south.

8.2.2 Landscape Baseline

The currently approved proposals were assessed in the context of the existing Site conditions and the

surrounding landscape, which was identified as:

The local landscape character area was identified as an industrialised landscape;

Though the Site was largely re-vegetated, it is classified as ‘brownfield’ due to its previous use as a

quarry and landfill;

The character of the local landscape is dominated by the adjacent Rugby Cement Works; and

This type of industrialised land use has exerted an urbanising influence over the agricultural, rural

landscape to the west of Site.

The landscape character was considered to have the capacity to accept change due to its extensive

industrialisation. Agricultural landscape characters and the River Avon corridor are more sensitive to change

as its cultural pattern is intact.



The 2008 LVIA acknowledged that there would be a significant change to local landscape due to what is

currently an open green space would be replaced with modern buildings and associated hard-standing.

However, it was advised that the extent of change would be localised to a small portion of this local

landscape character type. It was concluded that the sensitivity to change was classified as low.

8.2.3 Visual Baseline

The 2008 LVIA identified visual receptors and categorised them into types. Full descriptions are listed in

Tables 8-1 to 8-4 with the locations of receptors shown in Appendix A, Figure 8-5. The receptor types

identified were as follows:

8.2.3.1 Residential Properties

There are few residential properties close to the Site. Properties more than 1 km from the Site are still likely

to have views of the Site; however activities on the Site would be barely discernible. Views are described in

Table 8-1.

Table 8-1: Residential Properties – High, Medium and Low Sensitivity Visual Receptors

Location Visual Receptor Detailed Location Description of View

A 226-256 Parkfield Road and 34-40 Lea Crescent

Two rows (16 no and 4 no) of terraced brick houses, backing onto the northern edge of the Site, but separated from it by the Rugby to Nuneaton Line. The nearest property is within 70 m of the boundary, yet within 120 m of the Western Process Building. High sensitivity. See Photos 3 (panorama) and 2 (both from the top of the clay mound) and 4 and 5 (from the developable part of the Site).

Views from rear of these properties are partially screened by garden fencing and vegetation, together with limited vegetation along the intervening railway line, but clear views are possible from first floor windows over these obstacles. The Site is viewed against the backdrop of the existing Cement Works.

B Long Lawford

The northeastern edge of this village lies on elevated land (90 m AOD) over 750 m west of the Site. Properties backing onto Thurnmill Road, and those off Steeping Road, Holbrook Road and Ashman Avenue are those with views over the adjacent countryside. Medium sensitivity. See Appendix A, Photo 1 (panorama).

Thurnmill Spinney and vegetation covering the clay mound on the Site screens views of all but the northern end of the Site, and then this is restricted to those properties furthest to the west and north of Long Lawford. Long Lawford has clear views of the taller buildings and chimney at the existing Cement Works.

C Home Farm

Isolated cluster of properties 800 m to the west of the Site and 200 m northwest of Long Lawford. Medium sensitivity. See Photos 1 and 6 (both from within the Site looking west) and Photo 7 (from the access road to this property looking back towards the site).

A courtyard development with only the easternmost property having views across a bend in the River Avon towards the northern part of the Site. Views to the south-east are dominated by the existing Cement Works and the backdrop of Rugby town centre on rising ground.

D Holbrook Grange

1.1 km from the Site’s western boundary, lying 200 m to the north of Long Lawford. Low sensitivity. See Appendix A, Photos 1 and 6.

A combination of intervening vegetation and distance from the Site make it barely discernible from this location, though it would still be visible.



Location Visual Receptor Detailed Location Description of View

E Peninsular Farm

This farm is accessed from Newbold on Avon via a track under the Rugby to Nuneaton railway. It lies 600 m to the northwest of the site and 500 m northeast of Long Lawford. Medium sensitivity.

This farm is located on the far side of a promontory of land contained by a bend in the River Avon. Only the tops of buildings at the farm are visible from the Site (see Appendix A, Photos 1 and 6). The Site is viewed against the backdrop of the existing Cement Works and Rugby town centre.

F Rugby Town Centre

Rugby is situated on rising ground to the southeast of the Site. Views to the Site are restricted to high rise properties, particularly blocks of flats off Rounds Gardens. Medium sensitivity. See Appendix A, Photos 3, 8 and 9.

Limited low level views of the Site due to intervening vegetation and elevated railway embankments, but views from 11-storey flats over 900 m from the Site are possible.

8.2.3.2 Public Rights of Way

Limited sections of five footpaths within 1 km of the Site would afford views of the northern part of the Site

and therefore are likely to have views of the proposed Facility. No public rights of way lie within the Site.

Most footpaths appeared to be frequently used. Views are described in Table 8-2.

Table 8-2: Public Rights of Way – High and Medium Sensitivity Visual Receptors

Location No

Visual Receptor Detailed Location Description of View

P1 Users of Footpath RB13e

This footpath lies between the River Avon and the western boundary of the Site, within 50 m of the Site. High sensitivity.

This footpath is separated from the northern part of the Site only by a hedgerow, which allows open views into the Site for users. See Appendix A, Photo 1.

P2

Users of Footpath RB4a and its continuation as Footpath R123a north of the parish boundary.

From Thurnmill Spinney northwards, this footpath follows low ground along the course of the River Avon, over 600 m west of the Site boundary. Medium sensitivity.

The peninsular of land (topped by Peninsular Farm) restricts views of the Site to a short length of this footpath. Most of those views are screened by vegetation along the course of the river. See Appendix A, Photo 7.

P3 Users of Footpath RB35.

This footpath also forms the access track to Home Farm and at its closest point is about 700 m from the western Site boundary. Medium sensitivity.

Vegetation along the course of the river screens some views to the Site, though elsewhere, intermittent views are still possible. See Appendix A, Photo 7.

P4 Users of Footpath R123.

Lying to the southeast of Holbrook Grange, this footpath is just less than 1 km from the Site boundary. Medium sensitivity.

Only intermittent views of the Site are possible from this distant footpath due to vegetation along intervening field boundaries and the course of the river, together with the obstruction of Home Farm.



Location No


P5

Users of Footpath R124 (including its continuation into Footpath R344).

This footpath runs along the northeastern edge of Long Lawford and at its closest point is within 750 m of the Site boundary. Medium sensitivity.

Views of the northern part of the Site are possible from this elevated footpath, over the tops of intervening vegetation.

8.2.3.3 Transport Networks

Visual receptors using the transport networks were assessed to be of lower sensitivity as their views are of a

transient nature, and therefore views should be directed to the road. Views immediately adjacent to the Site

were recorded in Table 8-3. Views from more distant roads in the centre of Rugby are noted as being

restricted by properties.

Table 8-3: Transport Networks – Medium/Low Sensitivity Visual Receptors

Location No


T1 Users of Parkfield Road/WRR

Forms the eastern boundary of the Site. Medium sensitivity.

Close proximity views of the Site from an elevated position, particularly as the new Malpass Roundabout being constructed as part of the WRR will form the Site entrance. The current bridge over the Rugby to Nuneaton Railway Line will be replaced by a new bridge further east.

T2 Users of Rugby to Nuneaton Railway Line

Forms the northern boundary of the Site. Low sensitivity.

The railway passes under Parkfield Road at grade, but trackside vegetation provides only intermittent views of the Site, however, where the railway passes on viaduct over the River Avon, clear but brief views into the Site are possible.

T3 Users of London to Birmingham Railway Line

Forms the southern boundary of the Site. Low sensitivity.

Adjacent to the Site, the railway is on embankment, but vegetation along this boundary, particularly on the chalk and clay mounds, restricts most views into the Site.

8.2.3.4 Places of Work

Visual receptors at their places of work were assessed to be low sensitivity and therefore less susceptible to

changes in their view. It was advised that only those industrial buildings to the east of Parkfield Road (Metso

Minerals and BRP (Rugby) Ltd) would have views of the Site as described in Table 8-4.



Table 8-4: Places of Work – Low Sensitivity Visual Receptors

Location No


W1 Metso Minerals and BRP (Rugby) Ltd

East side of Parkfield Road opposite the Site entrance. See Appendix A, Photos 11 and 12.

3-storey office buildings overlook the eastern edge of the Site only 40 m away from the Site boundary, though 72 m from the Eastern Process Building, with clear views into the Site.

8.3 Findings of the 2008 LVIA

The LVIA recognised that the Site does not lie in a designated or nationally protected landscape area, but

land to the west of the Site is Green Belt. It was predicted that the proposals would provide a northern

extension of long established industrial land uses typical of this area, and would be served by the newly

constructed Rugby Western Relief Road.

8.3.1 Predicted Landscape Impacts

It was estimated that 4.9 ha of rough grassland of relatively low diversity would be removed to accommodate

the proposals, the loss of which would be of negligible impact. However part of the area is designated as

an Eco-site, recognised for its nature conservation potential, the overall impact on landscape resource was

therefore assessed as slightly higher at minor adverse (low sensitivity & medium magnitude of change).

8.3.2 Predicted Visual Impacts

Existing vegetation would be retained and supplemented with intermittent planting along the adjacent railway

lines, which was assessed as an element which would visually contain the proposed facility from all but the

closest of sensitive visual receptors.

The report advised that significant visual impacts would be restricted to:

Twenty residential properties off Parkfield Road and Lea Crescent to the north of the Site;

Users of Footpath RB13e along the western Site boundary;

Users of Parkfield Road on the eastern Site boundary; and

To a lesser degree, workers in the office blocks to the east of the Site.

The overall visual impact was assessed as negligible/minor adverse with the exception of Footpath RB13e

which was assessed as major adverse in winter at year 1, downgraded to moderate adverse in winter at

year 15.

It was predicted that the potential overall impact would be minimised by implementing mitigation measures

around the site such as a screening bund along the northern boundary.

8.3.3 Proposed Landscape Mitigation

The loss of any natural vegetation would be limited to an area of commonly occurring rough grassland

habitat from the central part of the Site; however this does represent a substantial proportion of a designated

Eco site. Therefore compensatory mitigation was recommended outside the red line boundary of the

proposed facility. No further landscape mitigation measures are proposed beyond those identified in the

2008 LVIA.



8.3.4 Landscape Impacts of the Revised Scheme

Landscape impacts associated with the revised proposals have been assessed using the assessment

methodology identified in the 2008 LVIA for a consistent approach.

There have been no changes to existing land use since the 2008 LVIA was undertaken, therefore the

landscape sensitivity would remain Low. The new proposals would not differ significantly from the existing

proposals; therefore there would be no additional changes to the existing local landscape which were not

identified in the 2008 LVIA.

Though the actual building structure of the new proposals is smaller in scale, it is predicted that there would

be no shift in the magnitude of change, as what is currently an open green space would be replaced with an

urban development of modern buildings and associated areas of hard-standing. The extent of change would

still be localised to a small portion of this local landscape character type.

It is concluded that:

The sensitivity to change is classified as low;

The magnitude of change is classified as very low; and

The significance of impact on landscape character is assessed as negligible impact.

The landscape quality of the Site will not be diminished by the revised scheme as the proposals still

comprise modern buildings and urban features. The main areas of existing woody vegetation on the Site

would be retained and enhanced through sympathetic management.

8.4 Review of Visual Impacts of the Revised Scheme

The visual impact of the development proposals on the previously identified receptors, see Appendix A, 2008

LVIA, Section 4.2 was assessed. The existing landscape and topography around the Site limit close

proximity views, further to the northwest and southeast views may be afforded from approximately 1 km. To

the southwest, views are enclosed by the vegetated tipped clay and chalk mounds.



Tables 8-5 to 8-8 below detail the predicted visual impacts from each visual receptor identified in the 2008 LVIA.

Table 8-5: Impact on Residential Properties

Location Visual Receptor

Description of Impact during Construction Description of Impact during Operation (Winter Year 1)

Description of Impact during Operation (Winter Year 15)

A

226-256 Parkfield Road and 34-40 Lea Crescent

Garden fencing and vegetation to the rear of these properties, together with vegetation along the railway, would screen some low level views of the construction works. However, the use of cranes and the construction of the screening bund along the northern boundary would be particularly visible. Impacts have been assessed as major adverse (refer to Appendix A, Table 8.3, e.g., high sensitivity receptor, medium magnitude of change).

Views of the proposed Facility upon its completion would be a noticeable change to those currently experienced; from views of an open green space to those of the new buildings and young planting on the screen bund and to the east of the WRR roundabout. The screen bund would provide some immediate benefits, but a gap in this screen resulting from the retention of grassland habitat would provide clear views into the Site, particularly of the two storey office building. Impacts have therefore been assessed as moderate adverse.

Vegetation on the screening bund and to the north of the Site entrance would have matured thus improving its screening quality. Impacts would reduce over time, as the proposed Facility would become an accepted feature of the landscape. Impacts have therefore been assessed as minor adverse.

B Long Lawford

Construction activities at the northern end of the Site would be visible from a limited number of properties on the north-eastern edge of this village. Construction of the greater proportion of the site would be screened by the clay mound and Thurnmill Spinney. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

There would be a perceptible change in the views from these properties to the Site but only of the screen bund on the northern boundary and the northern extremity of the Western Process Building. Impacts would remain at minor adverse.

It is proposed to reinforce the existing hedgerow along the Site’s western boundary with scallops of tree planting which would in time screen views of the Site, reducing impacts to negligible.

C Home Farm

This cluster of properties would have a narrow field of vision between the clay mound on Site and the peninsular of land from the north (topped with Peninsular Farm), but would still be able to see construction activities on the northern part of the Site. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

Views over the shallow northern end of the clay mound on the Site would give visibility to the bund and the northern end of the Western Process Building. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

Additional tree planting along the western Site boundary would in time help to screen views into the Site from Home Farm, and though glimpses may be possible during the winter months, the change would be barely perceptible thus the impact would be negligible.






D Holbrook Grange

Although limited views of construction activities would be possible through the intervening vegetation, from this distance, (over 1 km) impacts are considered to be negligible.

The view of the Site from this property would be restricted, resulting in a barely perceptible change. Negligible impact.

Negligible impact.

E Peninsular Farm

Ground level views from this farm would be screened by the promontory of land to the east of the farm, so only restricted viewpoints would be available of the construction activities. Negligible impact.

Negligible impact as only a limited part of the Site would be visible from restricted locations on this farm.

Negligible impact.

F Rugby Town Centre

Minor adverse impact as views of the Site from the high rise flats at Rounds Gardens form only a small part of a wider view.

Only taller structures on the Site would be visible. Minor adverse impact.

The proposed Facility would become an acceptable feature of the wider view. Negligible impact.

Table 8-6: Impact on Public Rights of Way

Location Visual Receptor Description of Impact during Construction Description of Impact during Operation (Winter at Year 1)

Description of Impact during Operation (Winter at Year 15)

P1 Footpath RB13e

This footpath would only be visually separated from the construction activities on the Site by an existing hedge, therefore users would have close proximity, though filtered views of the construction of the Western Process building, and when viewed from the north (near the railway viaduct), the Eastern Process building to the south would also be visible. Impacts have been assessed as major adverse (refer to Appendix A, Table 8.3) i.e. high sensitivity receptor, medium magnitude impact.

Although the hedge would be reinforced with tree and shrub planting this would not be mature enough to be effective, therefore impacts of the proposed Facility on users of this footpath would remain at major adverse.

A combination of the hedge with its additional tree and shrub planting becoming a more effective screen (but mainly in summer) and acceptability of the proposed Facility as a feature of the landscape, would reduce impacts to moderate adverse.



Location Visual Receptor Description of Impact during Construction Description of Impact during Operation (Winter at Year 1)


P2

Footpath RB4a and its continuation into R123a

In locations where the screen of vegetation along the course of the river becomes more permeable, views of the construction works would be possible, particularly when cranes are used. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse (refer to Appendix A, Table 8.3) i.e. medium sensitivity receptor, low magnitude impact.

Views of the Site as experienced at construction would remain and impacts would not yet be mitigated, therefore they would remain at minor adverse.

Reinforcement of the hedge on the Site’s western boundary would reduce impacts to negligible.

P3 Footpath RB35

Gaps in intervening vegetation, particularly that extending from Thurnmill Spinney and along the river, would allow views of the northern part of the Site, with construction cranes being particularly visible. Minor adverse impact.

A perceptible change in the view would result in minor adverse

impacts remaining.

Screening along the western

Site boundary would help reduce impacts to negligible.

P4 Footpath R123

Intervening field boundaries, vegetation along the river, the obstacle of Home Farm and distance (about 1 km) all combine to ensure that impacts of construction activities on users of this path would be negligible.

Barely perceptible views of the proposed Facility leading to negligible impacts.

Negligible impact.

P5

Footpath R124 and its continuation into R344

Users of this elevated footpath would be partially screened from the Site by intervening vegetation, but some views over the top of this vegetation would be possible therefore the works would have a minor adverse impact on their amenity.

The further away users of this path move from the Site, the less the view of the Site would be perceptible, yet impacts have been assessed as remaining at minor adverse.

Additional planting along the Site’s western boundary would extend the screening effects of the clay mound to this northern part of the Site. Negligible

impact.



Table 8-7: Impact on Transport Networks


Description of Impact during Construction Description of Impact during Operation (Winter at Year 1)


T1 Parkfield Road/WRR

Views of construction activities on the Site would be clearly visible from the elevated position of this road which is in close proximity to the Site, but the driver’s/passenger’s view would only be transient and over a short length of this road. Impacts have been assessed as moderate adverse (refer to Appendix A, Table 8.3, e.g., medium sensitivity receptor, medium magnitude of change).

The proposed Facility would remain visible from this road particularly into the Site entrance, and the large mass of the process buildings would dominate views. The magnitude of change would not be reduced by the proposed perimeter planting as it would only just have been completed. Impacts have been assessed as moderate adverse.

Proposed planting to the perimeter of the Site would provide valuable screening but the proposed Facility would still be visible through the gates of the Site entrance. Impacts would remain at minor adverse.

T2 Rugby to Nuneaton Railway

Where gaps occur in the trackside vegetation, views of the construction of the proposed Facility and the northern screening bund would be possible. These views would be more open where the railway crosses on viaduct over the River Avon. The magnitude of change would be medium, thus resulting in a minor adverse

impact.

The northern screening bund would provide some screening of the Site from Year 1, but the proposed planting to the north of the site entrance would not be large enough to be an effective screen. Where it is proposed to retain grassland habitat, this would provide a gap through which views of the Site would be possible. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

Proposed planting on the screening bund and to the north of the site entrance would have matured sufficiently to screen most views of the Site, but the gap in this screen created by the retention of grassland would provide glimpsed views of the Site for users of the train. Impacts would reduce to negligible by Year 15.

T3 London to Birmingham Railway

Vegetation beside the railway either along the Site’s boundary or on the clay and chalk mounds would screen most views of the western part of the construction works, but there would still be open views of the construction of the Eastern Process building in the southeast corner of the Site. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

The proximity of the Eastern Process building to the southern Site boundary precludes the use of mitigation measures, therefore clear views of the rear of this building would be possible from the train. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

As the proposed Facility becomes an accepted feature of the landscape, impacts would reduce to negligible.



Table 8-8: Impact on Places of Work




W1

Metso Mineral and BRP (Rugby) Ltd

These business premises would have clear views across the full extent of the Site of the construction activities, though once the Eastern Process building has been constructed, this would screen works to the Western Process building. The magnitude of change has been assessed as high, therefore in accordance with Appendix A, Table 8.3, impacts have been assessed as moderate adverse.

Close proximity views of the manoeuvring apron in front of the Eastern Process building would result in a noticeable change in the existing view, therefore the magnitude of change would be medium resulting in a minor adverse impact. These premises would also be affected by increased traffic on the WRR.

There would be no room for mitigation measures along the eastern Site boundary though there will be planting off-Site undertaken as part of the WRR and this could provide some screening but not in winter, therefore impacts during winter would remain at minor adverse.



Though there is a reduction in the scale and mass of the proposed buildings, it is not predicted to

significantly change the visual receptor assessment results listed above in Tables 8-5 to 8-8. Receptors

within close proximity to the development will benefit from a reduction in building mass, though any

noticeable change will be negligible in comparison to the approved scheme.

Similarly views from greater than 1 km away will benefit from a slight reduction in scale, resulting in partially

improved screening of the development.

The visual impact of the new proposals upon residential properties, public rights of way, transport networks

and places of work receptors will remain unchanged from the 2008 LVIA.

8.4.1.1 Visual Impact Mitigation Recommendations

It was recommended that reducing the visual impact of the proposed developments would be achieved by:

Ensuring that the new buildings would be no higher than those adjacent;

Retained clay and chalk spoil mounds to the south and west which would continue to act as screens;

and

Existing planting outside the red line boundary would not be affected by the proposals and would

continue to provide screening to receptors beyond the site’s boundary

8.4.1.2 Re-assessment of Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

The principles of the original mitigation and enhancement measures remain relevant to the revised

development, despite a change in scale of the proposed buildings. By implementing the original measures,

the same degree of mitigation will be achieved with a slight reduction of visibility at close proximity views.

Further opportunities for mitigation planting have arisen due to the reconfiguring of hard standing areas north

and east of the proposed Eastern Building which will provide further screening along the eastern external

circulation routes. Applying the recommended edge mix will soften the eastern boundary and provide

additional natural habitat between facility and highway whilst enhancing the general landscape aesthetics

and ecological value.

8.5 Conclusion

Though proposals have been further developed, the context of the scheme remains as assessed in the 2008

LVIA. These considerations consist of:

The Site does not lie in a designated or nationally protected landscape area, but land to the west of the

Site is designated as Green Belt;

The proposals would provide a northern extension of long established industrial land uses typical of this

area and would be served by the newly constructed WRR;

Existing woody vegetation on the site would be retained and this, together with intermittent planting

along the adjacent railway lines will assist in visually containing the proposed facility from all but the

closest of sensitive visual receptors;

The new Facility buildings will be modern in appearance and light in colour, more akin to high quality

office/research facilities than industrial processing buildings;

The buildings and associated hard-standing would result in the removal rough grassland of relatively

low diversity, whose loss would be of negligible impact however; parts of the area are designated as an

Eco site and are recognised for nature conservation potential, hence being assessed as slightly higher

at minor adverse;



There will be no additional impact upon the landscape arising from the new proposals which were not

identified in the previous 2008 LVIA; and

The visual impact of the new proposals upon close range views will be slightly improved due to a

reduction in scale and building mass. All other receptors will remain unchanged.

The new proposals will see a reduction in building height, mass and footprint. Whilst some views will afford a

slight reduction in the overall building mass visible the proposals remain largely the same as those

considered within the 2008 LVIA. Therefore the 2008 LVIA remains relevant to the revised proposals and

valid to inform planning decisions.


October 2013 Report No. 12514190666.500/A.3

Report Signature Page

GOLDER ASSOCIATES (UK) LTD

Jon Alsop Timothy Fill Project Manager Reviewer

Date: 11 October 2013

CH, CD/SA/TF/te

Company Registered in England No.1125149 At Attenborough House, Browns Lane Business Park, Stanton-on-the-Wolds, Nottinghamshire NG12 5BL VAT No. 209 0084 92 Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.


October 2013 Report No. 12514190666.500/A.3

APPENDIX A Malpass Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

August 2008 8-i 07514640149.500 CEMEX (UK) Ltd Version A.0 Malpass

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 8.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT............................ 8-1

8.1 Introduction...........................................................................................8-1 8.1.1 Scope of Assessment ...............................................................8-1 8.1.2 Assessment Methodology.........................................................8-1 8.1.3 Significance Criteria..................................................................8-2

8.2 Baseline Conditions..............................................................................8-6 8.2.1 General Site Description...........................................................8-6 8.2.2 Landscape Character ...............................................................8-7 8.2.3 Visual Receptors.....................................................................8-12 8.2.4 Landscape Designations and Other Landscape Elements.....8-15

8.3 Potential Effects on Landscape and Visual Receptors.......................8-19 8.3.1 Scheme Proposals..................................................................8-19 8.3.2 Landscape Impact Assessment..............................................8-20 8.3.3 Visual Impact Assessment......................................................8-21

8.4 Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement Measures.............................8-28 8.4.1 Principles of Mitigation Measures ...........................................8-28 8.4.2 Building Design.......................................................................8-29 8.4.3 External Circulation Routes ....................................................8-30 8.4.4 Lighting ...................................................................................8-30 8.4.5 Mitigation Planting ..................................................................8-31 8.4.6 Residual Effects......................................................................8-33

8.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................8-33 LIST OF TABLES Table 8-1 Significance Criteria Table 8-2 Definition of Impact Significance for Landscape Impacts Table 8-3 Definition of Impact Significance for Visual Impacts Table 8-4 Residential Properties – High, Medium and Low Sensitivity Visual

Receptors Table 8-5 Public Rights of Way – High/Medium Sensitivity Visual Receptors Table 8-6 Transport Networks – Medium/Low Sensitivity Visual Receptors Table 8-7 Places of Work – Low Sensitivity Visual Receptors Table 8-8 Outline Construction and Operational Activities Table 8-9 Impacts on Residential Properties Table 8-10 Impacts on Public Rights of Way Table 8-11 Impacts on Transport Networks Table 8-12 Impacts on Places of Work

August 2008 8-ii 07514640149.500 CEMEX (UK) Ltd Version A.0 Malpass

Golder Associates

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 8-1 Site Location and Boundaries of National Landscape Character Areas

1:50,000 (@ A4) Figure 8-2 Regional Landscape Character Areas 1:25,000 (@ A3) Figure 8-3 District Landscape Character Areas 1:25,000 (@ A3) Figure 8-4 Local Landscape Character Areas 1:10,000 (@ A3) Figure 8-5 Location of Visual Receptors (and ZVI) 1:10,000 (@ A3) Figure 8-6 Landscape Planning Designations 1:10,000 (@ A3) Figure 8-7 Photograph Sheets 1 and 2 Figure 8-8 Landscape Masterplan (including Ecological Mitigation) – AutoCAD

1:2,000 (@ A3) Figure 8-9 Site Layout Plan LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 8-1 Character Type Description from ‘Warwickshire Landscapes Guidelines’ Appendix 8-2 Landscape Quality Evaluation Criteria

August 2008 8-1 07514640149.500 CEMEX (UK) Ltd Version A.0 Malpass

Golder Associates

8.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.1 Introduction

The following chapter presents the landscape and visual impact assessment for the proposed Climafuel Manufacturing Facility (the Facility) at the Malpass Farm, Rugby in Warwickshire (the Site), on behalf of CEMEX (UK) Ltd.

8.1.1 Scope of Assessment

This assessment describes the following:

• The establishment of baseline conditions, including identification of landscape character and designations relating to landscape; identification of receptors and the character of existing views that would be affected by the proposed scheme and identification of physical landscape features on and around the Site;

• Assessment of the impact of the proposed Facility on baseline conditions in relation to landscape and visual issues. Impacts will be assessed during construction, at completion and after 15 years (to assess the residual impact of the proposals); and

• A summary of mitigation measures proposed to offset or reduce identified impacts and enhancement proposals.

8.1.2 Assessment Methodology

A desk-based study was carried out to gather information on the existing landscape and visual resource, planning context and landscape designations. Information has been gathered from the following sources:

• Countryside Character Initiative Volume 4: East Midlands by the Countryside Agency, 1999;

• Warwickshire County Council Structure Plan 1996-2011 (adopted 2002); • Rugby Local Plan (adopted July 2006); • The Warwickshire Landscapes Guidelines by Warwickshire County Council in

conjunction with the Countryside Commission (November 1993); • Landscape Assessment of the Borough of Rugby (Sensitivity and Condition Survey) by

Warwickshire County Council (April 2006); • Correspondence with Warwickshire County Council’s Access Information Officer (for

PROW definitive map search) • MAGIC (Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside) website; • Natural England website; • Extracts from English Heritage’s Record of Scheduled Monuments and from Images of

England website; • Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 scale Landranger series maps No 140 (Rugby); • Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 scale Explorer series map No 222 (Rugby and Daventry);

and • Landmark Information Group for 10k Raster Mapping.


Golder Associates

The impact assessment methodology used in the preparation of this chapter has been developed from guidance given in the following documents:

• ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’, (GLVIA) by the Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (Second Edition, 2002); and

• ‘Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland’ by the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (April 2002).

In addition to the desktop study, field observations were also undertaken to assess the landscape character and structure of the Site and its surroundings. A visual impact assessment of the proposals was undertaken in November 2007 from land under the control of the client and from publicly accessible viewpoints around the Site such as roads and public rights of way.

The assessment of the likely impacts is considered in two separate but inter-linked parts. These are as follows:

• Landscape impacts relating to changes in the fabric, character and quality of the landscape. These could include direct impacts on specific landscape elements or features (such as loss of woodland or individual trees) or effects on landscape character and designated areas of landscape; and

• Visual impacts relating to specific changes in the character of available views and the effects of those changes on visual receptors (e.g. residents, users of public rights of way or recreational facilities). Visual impacts to the setting of cultural heritage features are also considered (e.g. Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) as these interests are protected by planning policy.

More detailed methodologies are described below for the landscape and visual impact assessments.

8.1.3 Significance Criteria

The following series of ‘significance criteria’ (Table 8-1) have been developed to help ascertain the level of impact significance (i.e. major, moderate, minor, negligible impact) and to provide a transparent and auditable decision-making process to the reader. It is important to note that the significance criteria have not been designed to be used as a prescriptive tool and have been used primarily for guidance purposes only.


Golder Associates

Table 8-1: Significance Criteria

Type of Impact

Rationale for Assessment of Significance

Major Adverse Impact

Where proposals would cause considerable deterioration in the existing view or landscape character. This may also refer to the loss of a large number of individual features or considerable damage to a landscape feature or area of high value.

Moderate Adverse Impact

Where proposals would cause a noticeable deterioration in the existing view or landscape character. This may also refer to loss of some individual landscape features or noticeable damage to a landscape feature or area of moderate value.

Minor Adverse Impact

Where proposals would cause a perceptible deterioration in the existing view or landscape character. This may also refer to loss of only minimal landscape features or negligible damage to a landscape feature or area of moderate value.

Negligible Impact

No discernible deterioration or improvement in the view or landscape character.

Minor Beneficial Impact

Where proposals would cause a perceptible improvement in the existing view or landscape character. This may also be concerned with the addition of a few landscape features or improvement of a minimal area of landscape value.

Moderate Beneficial Impact

Where proposals would cause a noticeable improvement in the existing view or landscape character. This may also be concerned with the addition of some landscape features or improvement of a noticeable area of landscape value.

Major Beneficial Impact

Where proposals would cause considerable improvement in the existing view or landscape character. This may also be concerned with the addition of a considerable number of landscape features or improvement of a large area of landscape value.

For both landscape and visual assessments, the effects of the proposed Facility that are considered minor adverse or negligible in their impact are regarded to be insignificant whereas moderate or major adverse impacts are regarded to be significant. Significance of effects in this assessment report has been determined based on context and intensity using the thresholds and criteria outlined above, and judgements made on levels of acceptable change.

8.1.3.1 Landscape Assessment Definitions

Although fieldwork was the principal basis for the characterisation process, initial reference was made to the Countryside Agency’s (now Natural England) ‘Countryside Character Initiative Volume 4 for the East Midlands (1999), which describes the regional character type. This is described in detail in Section 8.2 (Baseline Conditions).

The components of the landscape at a local level were analysed for further definition of local landscape character areas and types i.e. areas of discrete and homogenous characteristics. The criteria used to define potential adverse impacts upon the landscape character (falling into three categories of major, moderate or minor), are as follows:

• The character of the existing landscape (based upon the Countryside Agency (now Natural England) Guidelines);

• The quality (or condition) and value of the existing landscape (when making judgements);

• The ability of the landscape to accommodate change without adverse effects on its character (based on the sensitivity of the landscape); and

• The nature of predicted impacts (scale or magnitude of the impact).


Golder Associates

The sensitivity of the landscape to change can be classified as follows:

High: A landscape of particularly distinctive character, susceptible to relatively small changes;

Medium: A landscape of moderately valued characteristics reasonably tolerant to change; and

Low: A relatively unimportant landscape, the nature of which is potentially tolerant to substantial change.

The magnitude of change can be classified as follows:

High: Notable change in landscape characteristics over an extensive area; Medium: Moderate changes in a localised area; Low: Small change in any components; and Very low: Virtually imperceptible change of a temporary nature.

The significance of a landscape impact is determined by the combination of magnitude of the impact and the landscape’s sensitivity. Impact significance is defined in Table 8-2 below.

Table 8-–2: Definition of Impact Significance for Landscape Impacts

Sensitivity Magnitude High Medium Low

High Major Impact Major Impact Moderate Impact Medium Major Impact Moderate Impact Minor Impact Low Moderate Impact Minor Impact Minor Impact Very Low Minor Impact Negligible Impact Negligible Impact

8.1.3.2 Visual Assessment Definitions

Within the study area, key viewpoints from publicly accessible roads, footpaths and open spaces have been identified. The location of potential visual receptors, including residents, passing motorists, walkers, cyclists and equestrians were also identified. For the purposes of this assessment, visual receptors with broadly similar views have been grouped. Groups have been formed through the consideration of the location and sensitivity of individual receptors.

The sensitivity of receptors relates principally to the following three factors (with reference to GLVIA 2002):

• The location and context of the viewpoint; • The expectations and occupation or activity of the receptor; and • The importance of the view (which may be determined with respect to its popularity or

numbers of people affected). Using these factors the sensitivity of receptors can be classified according to receptor type as follows:


Golder Associates

High: Occupiers of residential properties less than 500 m from the Site whose views are affected by the proposed Facility and users of outdoor recreational facilities including walkers/cyclists on public rights of way within 500m of the Site, whose attention and interest may be focussed on the landscape;

Medium: Residences between 500 m and 1,000 m of the Site, users of recreational facilities (between 500 m and 1,000 m of the Site) not directly concerned with the environment, and motorists; and

Low: People at their place of work, or engaged in similar activities, whose attention may be focused on their work or activity and therefore may be potentially less susceptible to changes in view. Also receptors further than 1,000 m from the Site, and rail traffic.

The scale or magnitude of visual change has been made with reference to the following:

• The scale of change in the view with respect to the loss or addition of features in the view and changes in its composition including the proportion of the view occupied by the proposed Facility;

• The degree of contrast or integration of any feature or changes in the landscape with the existing or remaining landscape elements and characteristics in terms of form, scale, mass line, height, colour and texture;

• The duration and nature of effects, whether temporary or permanent, intermittent or continuous;

• The angle of view in relation to the main activity of the receptor; • The distance of the viewpoint from the proposed Facility; and • The extent of the area over which changes would be visible. The magnitude of change can be classified as follows:

High: Open view of the Site; panoramic view of most of the Site; occupying most of the view resulting in significant change in the existing view, and/or proximity to the Site;

Medium: Partial view of the Site; a clear view of part of the Site; partial view of most of it, or a distant view in which the Site forms a proportion of the wider view resulting in noticeable change in existing view, and/or proximity to Site;

Low: Poor view, or view difficult to perceive resulting in a perceptible change in existing views, and/or proximity to the Site; and

Very low: Poor view, difficult to perceive resulting in barely perceptible changes of a temporary nature.

In assessing the effect on views, consideration has been given to the effectiveness of mitigation measures, particularly where planting (existing or proposed) would be required for screening purposes. The two principal criteria that determine visual impacts as described above (the environmental sensitivity of the receptor and scale or magnitude of effect) have been used to make predictions of likely impacts arising from the proposals. The significance of adverse visual impacts is set out in Table 8-3 below.


Golder Associates

Table 8-3: Definition of Impact Significance for Visual Impacts

Sensitivity Magnitude High Medium Low

High Major Impact Major Impact Moderate Impact Medium Major Impact Moderate Impact Minor Impact Low Moderate Impact Minor Impact Minor Impact Very Low Minor Impact Negligible Impact Negligible Impact

8.2 Baseline Conditions

This section is divided into four parts. After the initial general site description, the second part describes the landscape character and scenic quality of the study area to understand how sensitive it is to accept change of the type and scale proposed. The third describes those visual receptors most likely to be affected by the proposals and the fourth covers, in greater detail, landscape designations and other landscape elements within the study area that may have a bearing on the landscape and visual assessment. This final section includes the following:

• Landscape Planning Policies and Designations; • Topography, Geology and Hydrology; • Land Use and Vegetation Cover; and • Historical and Cultural Components. 8.2.1 General Site Description

The study area is centred on a 6.4 ha site (National Grid Reference SP488761, site centred) located 1.4 km to the northwest of Rugby town centre on the northern side of the London-Birmingham Main Line opposite Rugby Cement Works, operated by CEMEX (UK) Ltd. The Site is ‘brownfield’ being the subject of past extraction and tipping activities, although it has been re-vegetated to form an unused open green space. The character of the Site is influenced by surrounding predominantly urban uses, not only the Cement Works, but other uses such as the Rugby to Nuneaton Mainline Railway bounding the Site to the north, and the Rugby Western Relief Road (WRR) (currently under construction) together with some industrial units to the east of the Site. The dominance of the Cement Works and the other industrial uses make the proposed Site appropriate for industrial development. A large mound of tipped clay, since vegetated rises in the south-west corner of the Site and extends along the western edge of the Site, segregating the developable part of the Site from the adjacent River Avon corridor and the Green Belt. The clay mound and an isolated mound of chalk on the southern Site boundary are covered in self-seeded scrub and trees, making a vegetated backdrop to the development area which also ensures that the Site is not widely visible from viewpoints to the south.

The study area has been determined by a Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI), an approximate area within which, the building proposals (but not the 45 m high chimney stack) may have an


Golder Associates

effect on visual amenity. The extent of the ZVI (also referred to as the study area) is shown in Figure 8-5. The ZVI is determined principally by topography, but also by other factors such as vegetation and buildings. Given the Site’s location abutting the River Avon floodplain, views from the river are quite constrained.

8.2.2 Landscape Character

8.2.2.1 Landscape Character at the National Level

The Countryside Agency (now Natural England) in their publication ‘Countryside Character Initiative’ divided England into areas with particular combinations of geology, soil, plants, animals, settlement history, land use, scenery, heritage and culture. Each area has a defined local character, distinctiveness and sense of place, irrespective of administrative boundaries. The Site is situated in Character Area No 96 which comprises two sub-character areas Dunsmore and Feldon, as defined in ‘Volume 4: East Midlands’. The Site has more characteristics of the Dunsmore sub-character area. The boundary of this Character Area and the adjoining character areas are shown in Figure 8-1. The key characteristics for Area 96 – Dunsmore, as described by the Countryside Agency, are as follows:

• Farmlands with large geometric fields divided by straight hedges with many hedgerow trees;

• Generally well-wooded appearance but also extensive open arable farmland; • Heathland character still evident in woodland clearings and roadsides; • Plateau landscape open, flat, rather empty character with long views; • Plateau fringes more enclosed, with rolling landform and woodland more dominant; • Large ancient woodlands of high nature conservation value in the west; and • Strong urban influence in some areas. This description of general characteristics summarise broad features that are important to the study area’s landscape quality and distinctiveness. It provides a framework for local action to ensure that land is managed effectively and in particular that development integrates sensitively with its surroundings.

Natural England (formerly English Nature) have produced ‘Natural Area Profiles’ which also sub-divides the countryside into regions as identified by its unique combination of physical attributes, wildlife, land use and culture. The boundaries for these areas closely follow those of the Countryside/Joint Character Areas. The Site would therefore lie within Natural Area – No. 44, the Midland Clay Pastures. The characteristics of this Natural Area, as described on Natural England’s website, are as follows:

The Midland Clay Pastures is a gently undulating landscape that is underlain by Lias clay over the majority of the area. This clay produces heavy soils suitable for supporting good quality pasture. Woodland is sparsely distributed through the Natural Area but there are local concentrations south of Daventry and south and west of Coventry. Acid grassland and


Golder Associates

heathland are both of very localised and of limited occurrence on deposits of Northampton sand, and were formerly characteristic of sand and gravel deposits to the east of Coventry. Reservoirs are a feature of the eastern side of the Natural Area and have ornithological interest as well as associated marginal habitats of interest. Flood meadows, characterised by great burnet and meadow foxtail, occur on the regularly flooded alluvial soils within the headwaters of the Avon and Cherwell rivers.

8.2.2.2 Landscape Character at the Regional Level

The characteristics of Countryside Character Areas and Natural Areas as described by Natural England are at a national scale, and as such, use a broad-brush approach. However, a landscape character assessment has been carried out at the county level by Warwickshire County Council in conjunction with the former Countryside Commission titled Warwickshire Landscapes Guidelines (November 1993). This study examines the landscape in greater detail and picks up smaller-scale patterns and subtleties than the national assessments. The Guidelines divide Warwickshire into seven broad regional character areas, with the Site lying in Dunsmore. The Dunsmore character area is then sub-divided into three different landscape types, with the Site lying in the Plateau Fringe, although the transition into the High Cross Plateau only lies to the north of the River Avon. The general description of the Dunsmore Plateau Fringe as stated in the Guidelines is reproduced at Appendix 8-1, and the boundaries of the Warwickshire landscape types are shown on Figure 8-2. The overall character and qualities of the Plateau Fringe landscape type are described as ‘A rather variable, often large scale farmed landscape with a varied undulating topography and characterised by a nucleated settlement pattern of small, often shrunken villages’. The main characteristic features are described as follows:

• An undulating topography of low rounded hills and narrow meandering river valleys; • Large arable fields, often with a poorly defined field pattern; • Pockets of permanent pasture and smaller hedged fields, usually associated with more

steeply sloping ground; • A nucleated settlement pattern comprising loose clusters of buildings; and • Isolated, brick built farmsteads. The general management strategy for this Plateau Fringe landscape type is described as ‘Enhance the overall structure and key features within the farmed landscape’. The Site does not lie within an ‘Enhancement Zone’ so it is not considered that the structure and character of the landscape are in decline, however it is in an area marked as ‘other non-agricultural land’ referring to its past use as a landfill. Other specific management strategies within the Guidelines for this landscape type include the following:

• Conserve and restore all primary hedge-lines and manage them more positively as landscape features;

• Conserve the visual and ecological continuity of river corridors; • Encourage the development of wide field margins along streamlines and woodland

edges;


Golder Associates

• Enhance the continuity and wooded character of river and stream corridors; • Conserve and enhance tree cover within and around rural settlements; and • Enhance tree cover through large scale woodland planting on rising ground. 8.2.2.3 Landscape Character at the District Level

Warwickshire County Council has also carried out a landscape character assessment for the Borough of Rugby (April 2006). This district-wide guide looks in more detail at the countryside around the urban fringe of Rugby itself, and the Landscape Character Areas (LCA) and Landscape Character Types (LCT) identified are based upon the Warwickshire Landscapes Guidelines described above, though with some refinement. Four LCA occur in Rugby Borough as follows:

• Dunsmore; • Feldon; • High Cross Plateau; and • Mease Lowlands. In the Borough of Rugby assessment, the Site lies within the urban area of Rugby itself, but as with the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines, the area on the opposite side of the River Avon to the Site is identified as LCT Dunsmore Plateau Fringe. The character description is very similar to that in the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines (see Appendix 8-2), but the district study provides more detail on the sensitivity and condition of the landscape as follows:

• Sensitivity – Fragility: Cultural sensitivity is moderate due to the historic, coherent pattern within this LCT. Ecological sensitivity is low with the exception of the moderately sensitive steeper slopes of southern escarpment which fall towards Feldon and the highly sensitive River Avon.

• Sensitivity – Visibility: Visibility is generally moderate due to the presence of small woods and trees superimposed over a rolling topography. On the slopes of the southern escarpment, however, visibility is high.

• Overall sensitivity: With the exception of the southern escarpment and the River Avon, overall sensitivity is moderate, with visibility being the limiting factor

• Condition: To the north, the Plateau Fringe is generally in decline with the exception of an area of parkland between the River Avon and Long Lawford, and land around Church Lawford and King’s Newnham, where the condition is strong. The southern fringe or escarpment on the other hand, is not only highly sensitive, but also largely in strong condition, making this an important feature to the south of the town.

The characteristics that should be noted as being of relevance to the development of the proposed Facility are the ecological sensitivity of the River Avon and the area’s moderate visibility due to the presence of small woods, such as those on the clay mound and at Thurnmill Spinney (between the Site and Long Lawford to the west). When considering ways of reversing the declining condition of the landscape, it would be worth looking at those indicators that make the condition of the landscape strong around Holbrook Grange, which lies to the west of the Site.


Golder Associates

8.2.2.4 Landscape Character at the Local Level

A study of the more localised area around the proposed Site based upon observations made during the field study, further defined the description of landscape character to even greater detail than the district-based assessment. The basic components of landscape character for the study area are more closely related to land use and the four types identified are described as follows (see Figure 8-4 for demarcation of boundaries and Figure 8-7 for photo sheets):

Industrialised Landscape The Site lies in this landscape character type, which extends south beyond the Rugby Cement Works to include the Paynes Lane and Somers Road industrial estates, and also eastwards to encompass a small industrial estate off Parkfield Road (Metso Minerals and BRP (Rugby) Ltd), a large sewage works and a large engineering works site (GEC Alsthom turbine generators). There has been a Cement Works at Rugby since the 1850s and the proposed development Site on the opposite, northern side of the London-Birmingham Main Line railway was subject to quarrying after this date, with backfilling completed towards end of 1970’s. This western edge of Rugby has therefore developed around these industrial land uses over a long period of time. This has resulted in an urbanised landscape of large industrial buildings interspersed by open spaces surrounded by vegetation, some resulting from the restoration of former quarries, but also concentrated along the abundant railway lines. The whole area is dominated by the Cement Works, with its 115 m high chimney forming a prominent landmark, widely visible from the surrounding landscape.

Agricultural Landscape The western edge of Rugby is separated from the village of Long Lawford by farmland used for grazing (see Photo 1). This agricultural landscape, which coincides with the Green Belt designation, has been divided into two character types; the low lying land associated with the River Avon corridor (described later), and the higher pastures of rectangular shaped fields divided by hedgerows, dotted with isolated farmsteads, such as Home Farm, Peninsular Farm and Lawford Fields Farm. Further to the west, Holbrook Grange sits in a more wooded, parkland type landscape which gives it a more coherent appearance. This agricultural landscape character type sits at the interface between town and country, therefore views are often affected by urban influences, such as the urban edge of Long Lawford or the industrial edge of Rugby. The farmland does not have a wooded appearance, leading to an open landscape offering wide views.

Residential Areas The study area can be divided into three areas of residential landscape character type, with the New Bilton area of Rugby to the south-east of the Site, Long Lawford to the west and Newbold on Avon to the north. Newbold on Avon is primarily concentrated to the north side of the River Avon, but housing development (from the late 1950s) along Parkfield Road stretches southwards from the main settlement on higher ground contained by a bend in the river. This southern extremity of Newbold encroaches onto the northern edge of the Site (see Photo 2). New Bilton comprises predominantly rows of Victorian terraced houses in red


Golder Associates

brick, which contrasts with Long Lawford which has a high percentage of modern houses, particularly on its north-eastern edge.

River Avon Corridor and Associated Open Space This character area is defined by the meandering course of the River Avon as it flows from east to west, and its associated flood zone. As the area is subject to flooding, it is free of development and contains remnant pockets of meadowland which are vulnerable to change. Flood defences are a common feature, particularly around Newbold Grange school, where earth bunds are topped with native planting. The river corridor landscape character area consist not only of the river, but also of adjacent land uses such as sports grounds and allotments, which take advantage of the flat and fertile land by the river.

8.2.2.5 Landscape Quality

Landscape quality is assessed on the basis of a number of factors, including topography, vegetation and built features. The combined quality of these factors is assessed using the following scale, but refer to Appendix 8-2 for a more detailed description of landscape quality evaluation criteria:

1. Exceptional Landscape; 2. Highly Attractive Landscape; 3. Good Landscape; 4. Ordinary Landscape; and 5. Poor Landscape. The Site has been assessed as Ordinary Landscape Quality (Category 4) due to the past quarrying and infilling activities on the Site, and the strong visual influence of Cement Works to the south of the Site. Although the Site has been partially restored and is now taking on a more vegetated and wooded appearance akin to the adjacent farmland to the west, its quality is diminished by the presence of railway lines with overhead gantries, and the proximity of adjacent industrial premises.

Beyond the boundaries of the Site, this study has graded the landscape quality of the urban area also as Ordinary Landscape Quality particularly where industry dominates, but this rating rises to Good Landscape Quality (Category 3) where more open areas exist, such as where the River Avon corridor passes between urban areas. The landscape quality of the rural area to the west of the Site has also been judged to be of Good Landscape Quality, and although it has been designated in planning terms as Green Belt (thus of regional importance), it does not warrant the higher grading of Highly Attractive Landscape Quality (Category 2) because its condition is declining. This decline is evident where post and wire fencing now forms many field boundaries rather than hedgerows, and there has been a gradual loss of hedgerow trees. Where the condition of the landscape is strong, for example around Holbrook Grange, a grading in the higher landscape quality category is warranted.


Golder Associates

8.2.3 Visual Receptors

The principal visual receptors within the vicinity of the Site have been identified and are listed in Tables 8-4, 8-5 and 8-6 below, together with a description of their current views of the Site. The locations of receptors are shown on Figure 8-5. Photo locations are also shown on this Figure, with the photos reproduced at Figure 8-7 (Sheets 1 and 2). The distances given are between the closest visual receptor in a group and the closest point on the Site boundary. Receptors with broadly similar levels of sensitivity and/or location have been grouped for assessment purposes.

Given the Site’s varied topography, particularly the large clay mound to its southwest corner, and the railway embankments to north and south, the ZVI for the Site is constrained, only extending beyond approximately 1 km in two directions; to the northwest along the River Avon valley, and to the southeast towards the town centre of Rugby on rising ground (above 110 m Above Ordnance Datum).

8.2.3.1 Residential Properties

There are very few residential properties close to the Site, except for those on Parkfield Road and Lea Crescent to the north of the Rugby to Nuneaton Mainline Railway, with other residential visual receptors identified within the ZVI lying some distance from the Site within the New Bilton suburb of Rugby to the southeast or on the eastern edge of Long Lawford to the west of the Site. Properties more than 1 km from the Site such as Holbrook Grange to the north of Long Lawford are still likely to have views of the Site, but at this distance views of activities on the Site would be barely discernible. The sensitivity of visual receptors is therefore determined by their distance from the Site.

Table 8-4: Residential Properties – High, Medium and Low Sensitivity Visual Receptors

Location Visual Receptor Detailed Location Description of View A 226-256 Parkfield

Road and 34-40 Lea Crescent

Two rows (16no and 4no) of terraced brick houses, backing onto the northern edge of the Site, but separated from it by the Rugby to Nuneaton Line. The nearest property is within 70 m of the boundary, yet within 120 m of the Western Process Building. High sensitivity. See Photos 3 (panorama) and 2 (both from the top of the clay mound) and 4 and 5 (from the developable part of the Site).

Views from rear of these properties are partially screened by garden fencing and vegetation, together with limited vegetation along the intervening railway line, but clear views are possible from first floor windows over these obstacles. The Site is viewed against the backdrop of the existing Cement Works.


Golder Associates

Location Visual Receptor Detailed Location Description of View B Long Lawford The northeastern edge of this

village lies on elevated land (90 m AOD) over 750 m west of the Site. Properties backing onto Thurnmill Road, and those off Steeping Road, Holbrook Road and Ashman Avenue are those with views over the adjacent countryside. Medium sensitivity. See Photo 1 (panorama).

Thurnmill Spinney and vegetation covering the clay mound on the Site screens views of all but the northern end of the Site, and then this is restricted to those properties furthest to the west and north of Long Lawford. Long Lawford has clear views of the taller buildings and chimney at the existing Cement Works.

C Home Farm Isolated cluster of properties 800 m to the west of the Site and 200 m northwest of Long Lawford. Medium sensitivity. See Photos 1 and 6 (both from within the Site looking west) and Photo 7 (from the access road to this property looking back towards the site).

A courtyard development with only the easternmost property having views across a bend in the River Avon towards the northern part of the Site. Views to the south-east are dominated by the existing Cement Works and the backdrop of Rugby town centre on rising ground.

D Holbrook Grange 1.1 km from the Site’s western boundary, lying 200 m to the north of Long Lawford. Low sensitivity. See Photos 1 and 6.

A combination of intervening vegetation and distance from the Site make it barely discernible from this location, though it would still be visible.

E Peninsular Farm This farm is accessed from Newbold on Avon via a track under the Rugby to Nuneaton railway. It lies 600 m to the northwest of the site and 500 m northeast of Long Lawford. Medium sensitivity.

This farm is located on the far side of a promontory of land contained by a bend in the River Avon. Only the tops of buildings at the farm are visible from the Site (see Photos 1 and 6). The Site is viewed against the backdrop of the existing Cement Works and Rugby town centre.

F Rugby Town Centre

Rugby is situated on rising ground to the southeast of the Site. Views to the Site are restricted to high rise properties, particularly blocks of flats off Rounds Gardens. Medium sensitivity. See Photos 3, 8 and 9.

Limited low level views of the Site due to intervening vegetation and elevated railway embankments, but views from 11-storey flats over 900 m from the Site are possible.

8.2.3.2 Public Rights of Way

A number of public rights of way exist within the study area and the locations of these are shown on Figure 8-5. Although some footpaths lie in close proximity to the Site, users of the majority of footpaths in the study area have no views of the Site because, as is the case with Footpath RB4, they are tucked at the bottom of sloping ground which screens views outwards. Users of Footpath RB4, west of Parkfield Road, have no views northwards towards the Site as these are blocked by the rising embankments of the London to Birmingham Railway, although they do have close proximity views of the existing Cement Works (see Photo 10).


Golder Associates

Only limited sections of five footpaths within 1 km of the Site would have views of the northern part of the Site and therefore are likely to have views of the proposed Facility. No public rights of way lie within the Site boundary, so none would be physically affected by the proposals. At the time of the site visit, none of the footpaths were being used, but as most appeared to be well worn, this was taken as evidence that the network is frequently used. Receptors using the five footpaths are described below in Table 8-5.

Table 8-5: Public Rights of Way – High and Medium Sensitivity Visual Receptors

Location No


P1 Users of Footpath RB13e

This footpath lies between the River Avon and the western boundary of the Site, within 50 m of the Site. High sensitivity.

This footpath is separated from the northern part of the Site only by a hedgerow, which allows open views into the Site for users. See Photo 1.

P2 Users of Footpath RB4a and its continuation as Footpath R123a north of the parish boundary.

From Thurnmill Spinney northwards, this footpath follows low ground along the course of the River Avon, over 600 m west of the Site boundary. Medium sensitivity.

The peninsular of land (topped by Peninsular Farm) restricts views of the Site to a short length of this footpath. Most of those views are screened by vegetation along the course of the river. See Photo 7.

P3 Users of Footpath RB35.

This footpath also forms the access track to Home Farm and at its closest point is about 700 m from the western Site boundary. Medium sensitivity.

Vegetation along the course of the river screens some views to the Site, though elsewhere, intermittent views are still possible. See Photo 7.

P4 Users of Footpath R123.

Lying to the southeast of Holbrook Grange, this footpath is just less than 1 km from the Site boundary. Medium sensitivity.

Only intermittent views of the Site are possible from this distant footpath due to vegetation along intervening field boundaries and the course of the river, together with the obstruction of Home Farm.

P5 Users of Footpath R124 (including its continuation into Footpath R344).

This footpath runs along the northeastern edge of Long Lawford and at its closest point is within 750 m of the Site boundary. Medium sensitivity.

Views of the northern part of the Site are possible from this elevated footpath, over the tops of intervening vegetation.

8.2.3.3 Transport Networks

Visual receptors using the transport networks near the Site would be less sensitive to impacts of the development as their views are of a transient nature, particularly from trains, and car drivers’ views should be directed to the road. Roads and railways within the ZVI are described below in Table 8-6, with a description of their current views, but this only includes those immediately adjacent to the Site as views from more distant roads in the centre of Rugby are restricted by properties.


Golder Associates

Table 8-6: Transport Networks – Medium/Low Sensitivity Visual Receptors

Location No


T1 Users of Parkfield Road/WRR

Forms the eastern boundary of the Site. Medium sensitivity.

Close proximity views of the Site from an elevated position, particularly as the new Malpass Roundabout being constructed as part of the WRR will form the site entrance. The current bridge over the Rugby to Nuneaton Railway Line will be replaced by a new bridge further east.

T2 Users of Rugby to Nuneaton Railway Line

Forms the northern boundary of the Site. Low sensitivity.

The railway passes under Parkfield Road at grade, but trackside vegetation provides only intermittent views of the Site, however, where the railway passes on viaduct over the River Avon, clear but brief views into the Site are possible.

T3 Users of London to Birmingham Railway Line

Forms the southern boundary of the Site. Low sensitivity.

Adjacent to the Site, the railway is on embankment, but vegetation along this boundary, particularly on the chalk and clay mounds, restricts most views into the Site.

8.2.3.4 Places of Work

Visual receptors at their places of work should have their attention focussed on their work, therefore they are considered to be low sensitivity receptors and therefore less susceptible to changes in their view. Only those industrial buildings to the east of Parkfield Road (Metso Minerals and BRP(Rugby) Ltd) would have views of the Site as described below in Table 8-7.

Table 8-7: Places of Work – Low Sensitivity Visual Receptors

Location No


W1 Metso Minerals and BRP (Rugby) Ltd

East side of Parkfield Road opposite the Site entrance. See Photos 11 and 12.

3-storey office buildings overlook the eastern edge of the Site only 40 m away from the Site boundary, though 72 m from the Eastern Process Building, with clear views into the Site.

8.2.4 Landscape Designations and Other Landscape Elements

As stated above, information on the physical landscape components and landscape designations within the study area, which may be affected by the proposals, was gathered. This section describes those features of particular interest and should be read in conjunction


Golder Associates

with Figure 8-6. More detailed information on planning issues is contained within Chapter 4 of this Environmental Statement (ES), whereas information on sites of ecological and archaeological interest is contained in Chapters 7 and 9 respectively.

8.2.4.1 Landscape Planning Policies and Designations

The Site lies within the county of Warwickshire and within the administrative district of Rugby Borough Council. Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands RPG11 (June 2004) provides the planning policy context for the region, together with saved policies from the Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 (2002). The Rugby Borough Local Plan (adopted July 2006) provides current planning guidance at the local level. Full details of relevant planning policy in the area are given in Chapter 4.

The Rugby Borough Local Plan identifies the former Malpass Farm as an Employment Allocation under Policy ED2 for commercial use (Use Class B2A). This allocation was saved from the 1997 adopted Rugby Borough Local Plan and before that from the 1990 Rugby Borough Local Plan, but it has remained undeveloped supposedly due to problems of accessibility. However, with the current construction of the adjacent WRR, opportunities for development should be enhanced. The development brief for the Site (dated 1995) identifies an ‘amenity corridor’ to the western edge of the Site following the River Avon, which should be retained, and emphasises the importance of retaining the clay and chalk mounds for nature conservation interest.

Beyond the western Site boundary lies the West Midlands Green Belt as defined by Policy E2. The proposed Facility would not encroach upon this designation, but the proposals should ensure that ‘the rural and open character of Green Belts, which is intended to be their essential feature and the purpose for which land is included, is not compromised or threatened.’ This protection has been interpreted as including the screening of views of encroaching urban development from viewpoints within the Green Belt.

Policy E5 of the Rugby Borough Local Plan covers landscape and settlement character and ensures that ‘in assessing all applications for development, consideration will be given to the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines’. The relevant character assessment sections of the Guidelines are set out in Section 8.2.2.2 and management strategies for the Dunsmore Plateau Fringe Landscape Type would be implemented where possible within the development proposals.

The river corridor of the Avon is within the Environment Agency’s Flood Zone which is covered by Policy GP10 of the Rugby Borough Local Plan. (Refer to flood risk assessment in Chapter 6).

Areas to the south of the Site, including the Cement Works and industrial estates on Paynes Lane and Somers Road, have been designated as Strategically Significant Employment Sites


Golder Associates

under Policy ED5. With the proposed development of the Site, this zone would encompass a large section of the western edge of Rugby.

8.2.4.2 Topography, Geology and Hydrology

The Site lies close to the River Avon and by virtue of its valley-bottom position, the Site has a generally low elevation with the central flat area lying at approximately 90 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). To the southwest corner of the Site, and along its western flank, is a large mound of tipped clay, rising to 106 m AOD (16 m above surrounding ground levels), and this mound has become vegetated with scrub/woodland. To the centre of the southern Site boundary lies a shallow mound of tipped chalk (rising to 92 m AOD) which has re-colonised with calcareous flora and scrub/woodland of significant nature conservation interest. These rises in landform provide valuable screening from viewpoints to the south and west. The side slopes of the mounds support scrub and trees that add to the screening potential of the rising land, and thus forms a green backdrop to the proposed development on the Site. To the northern and southern Site boundaries, railways on embankments also enclose the Site.

The Site has been previously quarried for limestone and has been backfilled with Cement Kiln Dust (CKD). The underlying geology can be summarised as Jurassic Lower Lias strata underlain by Triassic deposits of the Penarth Group and Mercia Mudstone. The Lower Lias strata comprise the Blue Lias Formation. In the undisturbed eastern part of the Site, the Blue Lias is overlain by Quaternary River Terrace Deposits. The Penarth Group comprises a thin limestone formation known as the Langport Member, which is underlain by the Cotham Member and Westbury Formation of the Penarth Group. Parkfield Quarry to the south-west of the Site is a Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS). This large quarry exposes the upper portion of the Lower Jurassic, Lower Lias, Blue Lias sequence in Warwickshire. The base of the quarry is flooded, with the standing water supporting a rim of reed beds.

The River Avon, lying to the west of the Site, is the main drainage feature in the area and flows in a southerly direction past the Site. The River Avon is joined to the west of the clay spoil mound by a tributary, Sow Brook, which flows through the Cement Works to the south of the London to Birmingham Railway. Both the River Avon and Sow Brook are liable to flood (see Figure 8-6 for extent of flood zone).

8.2.4.3 Land Use and Vegetation Cover

The Site was previously quarried for limestone to supply the Rugby Cement Works on the opposite, southern side of the London-Birmingham Railway. The quarry was subsequently infilled with CKD and capped as a means of restoration. The Site has been re-colonised with scrub and trees on the clay and chalk spoil mounds, and with unimproved grassland, tall ruderals and encroaching scrub on the flatter areas of the Site. The trees on the mounds and along the railway lines create a wooded backdrop for the Site, which contrasts with the


Golder Associates

relatively open agricultural landscape to the west. An intermittent hedgerow with some mature trees forms a boundary across the eastern half of the Site. Only the land to the west of this boundary has been affected by mineral extraction and subsequent infilling. The Site has now assimilated into the landscape and the section west of this hedgerow has been selected as a potential Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (pSINC or non-statutory Ecosite 05/47) and is of high importance for butterflies. The development of the Site and the potential impact on trees, woodland and hedgerows on the Site would need to conform to Policy E9 of the Rugby Borough Local Plan. Several other areas of land around the Site have also been designated Ecosites, but only the Rugby to Nuneaton Railway (Ecosite 4/47), the Parkfield Quarry (Ecosite 09/47), the River Avon (Ecosite 10/47), and Parkfield Road Verge (Ecosite 71/47) have been also been identified as potential SINCs (refer to Figure 8.6 for the location of these and Chapter 7 for further details).

In addition to the vegetation on the Site itself, other visually significant vegetation outside the Site, which influences the ZVI, is shown on Figure 8-5, such as Thurnmill Spinney located on steep banks of the River Avon to the west of the Site.

Rugby Borough Council (Environment Officer – Trees and Biodiversity) have confirmed that there are no Tree Preservation Orders within the Site or its immediate vicinity.

8.2.4.4 Historical and Cultural Components

Malpass Farm was in operation from approximately 1890 to end of the 1970’s supplying limestone and clay to the Rugby Portland Cement Works, and prior to these extraction activities, the Site was agricultural fields. On the 1955 OS map, a tramway crossed the railway on the Site’s southern boundary to connect the quarry direct with the Cement Works. The Site was backfilled with CKD, and this was completed by the end of the 1970’s.

A Conservation Area exists in the heart of Rugby (Policy E10), but this is sufficiently distant from the Site (over 1 km) not to be affected by the proposed Facility. Several listed buildings existing within the study area, the nearest of which is an old canal tunnel arch (reference 8/138), over 800 m to the north-west of the Site boundary. Other listed buildings as shown on Figure 8-6 are listed below, but only Holbrook Grange would have views of the Site.

• 3/29 – Holbrook Grange, Little Lawford, Rugby (Grade II); • 8/10 – Church of St Botolph, Main Street, Newbold on Avon (Grade A); • 8/137 – The Vicarage, Main Street, Newbold on Avon (Grade II); • 8/139 – Manor House, 104 Main Street (north side), Newbold on Avon (Grade II); • 8/141 – 83 and 85 Main Street, Newbold on Avon (Grade II); • 8/1004 – Newbold Tunnel south portal on Oxford Canal (Grade II); and • 1/52 – 1 Bilton Road, Rugby (within town centre conservation area) (Grade II).


Golder Associates

8.3 Potential Effects on Landscape and Visual Receptors

8.3.1 Scheme Proposals

The red line boundary of the proposed Facility encloses an area of 6.65 ha and is contained wholly within the area designated under Policy ED2 of the Rugby Borough Local Plan. For a detailed description of the nature, purpose and characteristics of the proposed Facility during both construction and operational phases, please refer to Chapter 3 of this ES. In summary, a suite of outline activities has been identified that may result in impacts, and these are presented in the following table:

Table 8-8: Outline Construction and Operational Activities

Phase Description of Activity Construction Site Access: From Parkfield Road off an arm of the new roundabout constructed as

part of the WRR. The level of the roundabout is higher than the existing ground levels within the Site.

Construction Site Clearance: Demolition of buildings would not be required for the proposed Facility. It is intended to use only the relatively flat part of the Site, thus retaining those areas of the Site with the greatest potential for nature conservation. The proposed Facility footprint is predominantly vegetated with grassland, tall ruderals and encroaching scrub and this would be removed as part of the reduced dig. Part (70 m) of the hedgerow crossing the eastern half of the Site would be also removed to accommodate the proposed Facility.

Construction Site Establishment: A site compound for the contractor would be established on the proposed car park area to the northeast of the site entrance. Security fencing would be erected around the construction site (partially following the red line boundary) and this would then become a permanent fixture (to comply with PPC regulations).

Construction Construction Contract: This will involve the construction of the Facility which would consist of two separate buildings; the Eastern Process Building (114 x 112 m, under a flat roof to a maximum height of 21 m to the curved edge parapet) and the Western Process Building (158 x 118 m, also 21 m high). A 45 m high stack would also be constructed at the southern end of the Western Process building. The new buildings would be surrounded by areas of new hard-standing (approximately 1.7 ha of concrete) to allow free-flow of traffic from Parkfield Road into the Site and around the Facility. Construction activities would include the import of materials, the use of cranes, and the temporary use of task lighting towers (prior to the erection of permanent lighting fixtures). Surface water storage and treatment would be carried out in a new, large storage lagoon (approximately 0.2 ha in surface area, with a maximum holding capacity of 8,200 cubic metres) to the north of the Site, adjacent to a maximum 4 m high screening bund, parallel to the northern Site boundary. A 25 x 7/15 m (L-shaped), pitched roofed, two-storey (8 m high) office would be constructed to the north of the site entrance, with a car parking area to the northwest of this building; 22 spaces plus 1 disabled space. Parking for 6 HGVs will also be provided to the north of the proposed car park. A weighbridge office, 2 weighbridges and electricity substation will also be provided at the site entrance.

Operation The buildings would be operational for a minimum of 25 years, though this would be dependent on waste contracts. Access to the Site would be required throughout the day and night.

The Proposed Facility is shown on Figure 8-9. The construction of the Facility would be completed within 18 to 24 months. If the Facility was granted permission, it should be


Golder Associates

operational in 2010 at the earliest. The red line boundary has been drawn tight around the proposed Facility, though the retained areas of nature conservation interest will continue to be under the control of CEMEX.

8.3.2 Landscape Impact Assessment

8.3.2.1 Impact on Landscape Character

The effects of the proposed Facility on landscape character and quality should be viewed in the context of the existing site conditions and the condition of the surrounding landscape. The Site lies within a local landscape character area identified as an industrialised landscape, and though the Site has now been re-vegetated and assimilated into the landscape, it is still classed as ‘brownfield’ given its extensive previous use as a quarry and landfill. The character of this local landscape character area is dominated by the adjacent Rugby Cement Works, and it is this land use that has exerted an urbanising influence over the agricultural, rural landscape character found to the west of the Site.

The landscape character of the industrialised landscape has been assessed as being able to accept change as it has undergone extensive industrialisation, and hence change, in the past. In contrast, the agricultural landscape type and the River Avon corridor would be more sensitive to change as its cultural pattern is intact, though some features are in decline, such as hedgerows. These existing and contrasting land uses as currently defined in the study area are, even with the proposals, likely to remain for the near future, making change in landscape character unlikely. The sensitivity of the industrialised landscape (including the Site area) to change has therefore been classified as low, as it is a relatively unimportant landscape, the nature of which is potentially tolerant to substantial change.

The magnitude of change has been classified as medium, because what is currently an open green space would be replaced with urban development of modern buildings and associated hard-standing. The extent of change would be localised to a small portion of this local landscape character type. The significance of impact on landscape character has therefore been assessed as minor adverse (in accordance with Table 8-2 – low sensitivity and medium magnitude of change).

In the assessment of landscape quality outlined above, the Site and it urban surroundings was graded as Category 4 – ‘Ordinary’ landscape (refer to Appendix 8-2), with the more open areas of the Green Belt and the River Avon corridor adjacent to the Site assessed as ‘Good’ landscape (Category 3). The landscape quality of the Site would not be diminished with the proposed Facility as the currently unused, flat area of rough grassland and tall ruderals would be replaced with modern buildings providing a valuable economic land use. The main areas of existing woody vegetation on the Site would be retained and it is likely these would be enhanced through sympathetic management.


Golder Associates

8.3.2.2 Impact on Landscape Resource

Restoration of the former quarry, following its infilling with CKD, has resulted in a re-vegetated site, with extensive scrub and trees on the clay and chalk spoil mounds and rough grassland on the flatter areas of the Site. The more wooded parts of the Site would be retained, together with extensive areas of grassland identified as being valuable for breeding butterflies (see Chapter 7) though small percentages of these areas would be affected by the proposals. The proposed Facility would occupy approximately 6.4 ha of the poorer quality rough grassland. As the area to the east of an existing hedgerow crossing the Site is designated as an Ecosite, the Facility would result in the loss of 4.9 ha of this designated area, which would equate to 43% of the Ecosite’s total area (11.27 ha). 70 m of existing hedgerow from the eastern part of the Site would also be removed as a result of the proposed Facility.

In summary, the loss of natural vegetation would be limited to an area of commonly occurring rough grassland habitat from the central part of the Site, however this does represent a substantial proportion of a designated Ecosite. The anticipated impact on the landscape resource of the Site is therefore predicted to be minor adverse. Such a loss would warrant compensatory mitigation and it is recommended this is carried out through the enhancement of the more valuable habitats that exist outside the red line boundary of the proposed Facility. Improvements could be achieved through sustained management and monitoring of these habitats, particularly to encourage conditions suitable for the breeding butterfly interest on the Site.

8.3.3 Visual Impact Assessment

This section of the chapter considers the potential visual impacts of the proposals on previously identified visual receptors. The development of the Site has the potential to affect both the extent and quality of these existing views.

The nature of the existing landscape and topography around the Site results in visual horizons for the proposed buildings close around the Site, except to the northwest and southeast where visual horizons extend just over 1 km (see Figure 8-5). To the southwest, visual horizons are formed by the tipped mounds of clay and chalk, and this is aided by existing vegetation. Within this restricted visual envelope there are few residential properties in close proximity to the Site. The major visual detractor in the area is the existing Cement Works with its 115 m high chimney, but by virtue of its visibility in its surroundings, the chimney is used as a landmark in the landscape, aiding people’s orientation. By comparison, the proposed stack would be 45 m high.

Mitigation of predicted visual impacts would be achieved through ensuring that the new buildings would be no higher than those adjacent, for example the existing three-storey Metso Minerals buildings on the eastern side of Parkfield Road. Both of the new Process buildings would be a maximum of 21 m above existing ground levels (AEGL). The biofilters would


Golder Associates

discharge treated air into metal hoods to be collected and ducted to the new 45 metre high stack located south of the Western Process Building. The resultant emissions to air via the stack will naturally disperse and not be visible. However, under certain conditions (e.g. cold, damp winter mornings) a ‘visible’ plume will be present above the height of the stack.

The retained clay and chalk spoil mounds to the south and west of the new development would continue to act as screens, and existing planting outside the red line boundary would not be affected by the proposals and, as such, would continue to provide screening to receptors beyond the Site’s boundary. The addition of modern, functional buildings in this location would extend the industrial land uses to this western edge of Rugby and would not detract from the visual amenity of the area.

The series of tables below analyses the likely impacts arising from the proposals for each receptor identified in Tables 8-4, 8-5, 8-6 and 8-7 previously. The final two columns titled ‘Description of Impact during Operation’ are taken at Year 1 and Year 15 to demonstrate the influence of mitigation planting which will have had time to mature.


Golder Associates

Table 8-9: Impacts on Residential Properties




A 226-256 Parkfield Road and 34-40 Lea Crescent

Garden fencing and vegetation to the rear of these properties, together with vegetation along the railway, would screen some low level views of the construction works. However, the use of cranes and the construction of the screening bund along the northern boundary would be particularly visible. Impacts have been assessed as major adverse (refer to Table 8.3, e.g., high sensitivity receptor, medium magnitude of change).

Views of the proposed Facility upon its completion would be a noticeable change to those currently experienced; from views of an open green space to those of the new buildings and young planting on the screen bund and to the east of the WRR roundabout. The screen bund would provide some immediate benefits, but a gap in this screen resulting from the retention of grassland habitat would provide clear views into the Site, particularly of the two storey office building. Vapour plumes from the stack would also be visible under certain atmospheric conditions, but the proposed Facility would be viewed against the backdrop of the existing Cement Works. Impacts have therefore been assessed as moderate adverse.

Vegetation on the screening bund and to the north of the Site entrance would have matured thus improving its screening quality. Impacts would reduce over time, as the proposed Facility would become an accepted feature of the landscape. Impacts have therefore been assessed as minor adverse.

B Long Lawford Construction activities at the northern end of the Site would be visible from a limited number of properties on the north-eastern edge of this village. Construction of the greater proportion of the site would be screened by the clay mound and Thurnmill Spinney. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

There would be a perceptible change in the views from these properties to the Site but only of the screen bund on the northern boundary and the northern extremity of the Western Process Building. Impacts would remain at minor adverse.

It is proposed to reinforce the existing hedgerow along the Site’s western boundary with scallops of tree planting which would in time screen views of the Site, reducing impacts to negligible.


Golder Associates




C Home Farm This cluster of properties would have a narrow field of vision between the clay mound on Site and the peninsular of land from the north (topped with Peninsular Farm), but would still be able to see construction activities on the northern part of the Site. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

Views over the shallow northern end of the clay mound on the Site would give visibility to the bund and the northern end of the Western Process Building. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

Additional tree planting along the western Site boundary would in time help to screen views into the Site from Home Farm, and though glimpses may be possible during the winter months, the change would be barely perceptible thus the impact would be negligible.

D Holbrook Grange

Although limited views of construction activities would be possible through the intervening vegetation, from this distance, (over 1 km) impacts are considered to be negligible.

The view of the Site from this property would be restricted, resulting in a barely perceptible change. Negligible impact.

Negligible impact.

E Peninsular Farm

Ground level views from this farm would be screened by the promontory of land to the east of the farm, so only restricted viewpoints would be available of the construction activities. Negligible impact.

Negligible impact as only a limited part of the Site would be visible from restricted locations on this farm.

Negligible impact.

F Rugby Town Centre

Minor adverse impact as views of the Site from the high rise flats at Rounds Gardens form only a small part of a wider view.

Only taller structures on the Site would be visible therefore discharges from the stack are likely to be visible in certain conditions. Minor adverse impact.

The proposed Facility would become an acceptable feature of the wider view. Negligible impact.


Golder Associates

The table below presents the likely impacts arising from the proposals for each public right of way receptor identified in Table 8-5 previously.

Table 8-10: Impacts on Public Rights of Way




P1 Footpath RB13e

This footpath would only be visually separated from the construction activities on the Site by an existing hedge, therefore users would have close proximity, though filtered views of the construction of the Western Process building, and when viewed from the north (near the railway viaduct), the Eastern Process building to the south would also be visible. Impacts have been assessed as major adverse (refer to Table 8.3) i.e.. high sensitivity receptor, medium magnitude impact.

Although the hedge would be reinforced with tree and shrub planting this would not be mature enough to be effective, therefore impacts of the proposed Facility on users of this footpath would remain at major adverse.

A combination of the hedge with its additional tree and shrub planting becoming a more effective screen (but mainly in summer) and acceptability of the proposed Facility as a feature of the landscape, would reduce impacts to moderate adverse.

P2 Footpath RB4a and its continuation into R123a

In locations where the screen of vegetation along the course of the river becomes more permeable, views of the construction works would be possible, particularly when cranes are used. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse (refer to Table 8.3) i.e. medium sensitivity receptor, low magnitude impact.

Views of the Site as experienced at construction would remain and impacts would not yet be mitigated, therefore they would remain at minor adverse.

Reinforcement of the hedge on the Site’s western boundary would reduce impacts to negligible.

P3 Footpath RB35 Gaps in intervening vegetation, particularly that extending from Thurnmill Spinney and along the river, would allow views of the northern part of the Site, with construction cranes being particularly visible. Minor adverse impact.

A perceptible change in the view would result in minor adverse impacts remaining.

Screening along the western Site boundary would help reduce impacts to negligible.

P4 Footpath R123 Intervening field boundaries, vegetation along the river, the obstacle of Home Farm and distance (about 1 km) all combine to ensure that impacts of construction activities on users of this path would be negligible.

Barely perceptible views of the proposed Facility leading to negligible impacts.

Negligible impact.

P5 Footpath R124 and its continuation into R344

Users of this elevated footpath would be partially screened from the Site by intervening vegetation, but some views over the top of this vegetation would be possible therefore the works would have a minor adverse impact on their amenity.

The further away users of this path move from the Site, the less the view of the Site would be perceptible, yet impacts have been assessed as remaining at minor adverse.

Additional planting along the Site’s western boundary would extend the screening effects of the clay mound to this northern part of the Site. Negligible impact.


Golder Associates

The impact of the proposed Facility from the transport networks around the Site is summarised below, and should be read in conjunction with Table 8-6 above.

Table 8-11: Impacts on Transport Networks




T1 Parkfield Road/ WRR

Views of construction activities on the Site would be clearly visible from the elevated position of this road which is in close proximity to the Site, but the driver’s/passenger’s view would only be transient and over a short length of this road. Impacts have been assessed as moderate adverse (refer to Table 8.3, e.g., medium sensitivity receptor, medium magnitude of change).

The proposed Facility would remain visible from this road particularly into the Site entrance, and the large mass of the process buildings would dominate views. The magnitude of change would not be reduced by the proposed perimeter planting as it would only just have been completed. Impacts have been assessed as moderate adverse.

Proposed planting to the perimeter of the Site would provide valuable screening but the proposed Facility would still be visible through the gates of the site entrance. Impacts would remain at minor adverse.

T2 Rugby to Nuneaton Railway

Where gaps occur in the trackside vegetation, views of the construction of the proposed Facility and the northern screening bund would be possible. These views would be more open where the railway crosses on viaduct over the River Avon. The magnitude of change would be medium, thus resulting in a minor adverse impact.

The northern screening bund would provide some screening of the Site from Year 1, but the proposed planting to the north of the site entrance would not be large enough to be an effective screen. Where it is proposed to retain grassland habitat, this would provide a gap through which views of the Site would be possible. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

Proposed planting on the screening bund and to the north of the site entrance would have matured sufficiently to screen most views of the Site, but the gap in this screen created by the retention of grassland would provide glimpsed views of the Site for users of the train. Impacts would reduce to negligible by Year 15.

T3 London to Birmingham Railway

Vegetation beside the railway either along the Site’s boundary or on the clay and chalk mounds would screen most views of the western part of the construction works, but there would still be open views of the construction of the Eastern Process building in the southeast corner of the Site. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

The proximity of the Eastern Process building to the southern Site boundary precludes the use of mitigation measures, therefore clear views of the rear of this building would be possible from the train. Impacts have been assessed as minor adverse.

As the proposed Facility becomes an accepted feature of the landscape, impacts would reduce to negligible.


Golder Associates

The impact of the proposed Facility from places of work adjacent to the Site is assessed below, and should be read in conjunction with Table 8-7 above.

Table 8-12: Impacts on Places of Work




W1 Metso Mineral and BRP (Rugby) Ltd

These business premises would have clear views across the full extent of the Site of the construction activities, though once the Eastern Process building has been constructed, this would screen works to the Western Process building and the stack further to the west. The magnitude of change has been assessed as high, therefore in accordance with Table 8.3, impacts have been assessed as moderate adverse.

Close proximity views of the manoeuvring apron in front of the Eastern Process building would result in a noticeable change in the existing view, therefore the magnitude of change would be medium resulting in a minor adverse impact. These premises would also be affected by increased traffic on the WRR.

There would be no room for mitigation measures along the eastern Site boundary though there will be planting off-Site undertaken as part of the WRR and this could provide some screening but not in winter, therefore impacts during winter would remain at minor adverse.


Golder Associates

In summary, twenty residential receptors (226-256 Parkfield Road and 34-40 Lea Crescent at Location A) would experience major adverse impacts during construction of the proposed Facility, with minor adverse impacts being experience at three other residential receptor locations (Locations B, C and F) during this period. Construction impacts would also be major adverse for users of Footpath RB13e (Location P1) and moderate adverse for users of Parkfield Road (Location T1) and workers at Metso Minerals/BRP (Rugby) Ltd (Location W1).

Once operational, the Facility would continue to have an impact at Year 1, but only on residents at Parkfield Road (Location A - moderate adverse), users of Footpath RB13e (Location P1 - major adverse) and drivers/passengers along Parkfield Road (Location T1 - moderate adverse), all of which would be in close proximity to the Facility. For all other visual receptors, the proposed Facility would have a minor adverse or negligible impact on their visual amenity during operation at Year 1.

By Year 15, residual impacts would only be experienced at four receptor locations; the same three locations as at Year 1 (Location A - minor adverse, Location P1 - moderate adverse and Location T1 - minor adverse), plus workers at Metso Minerals/BRP (Rugby) Ltd (Location W1 - minor adverse).

8.4 Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

8.4.1 Principles of Mitigation Measures

Mitigation proposals have been developed on the basis of the following key objectives:

• To secure a new use for a former ‘brownfield’ site; • To integrate new industrial buildings into the local landscape; • To improve the visual quality of the existing site on surrounding sensitive visual

receptors; • To maximise the ecological diversity of the Site and its value to wildlife (through

management of areas inside and outside the red line boundary); • To provide a land use that maximises the economic return for the client; and • To deliver a high quality and sustainable development of lasting benefit. The proposed Facility promotes a sustainable, productive land use for a former ‘brownfield’ site. The proposals would create an extension of industrial uses from an area of established industrial development, on a site that is currently partially screened by existing topography and vegetation. Extensive areas of existing trees and scrub outside the red line boundary would be retained, particularly that on the retained clay and chalk spoil mounds to the south-west, western and southern boundaries of the Site. In addition, areas of grassland suitable for breeding butterflies would also be retained outside the red line boundary, along the western edge of the proposed Facility and in the northeast corner of the Site.


Golder Associates

The impact of the proposed Facility on landscape resources has been assessed as minor adverse as the Facility would take 4.9 ha of rough grassland designated as a 11.27 ha Ecosite. It is therefore proposed to implement a series of planting mitigation proposals and habitat creation measures within the red line boundary and sympathetically manage existing habitats outside the red line boundary (but still located within the blue line boundary). The proposed mitigation measures would seek to extend and enhance the existing habitats described above, outside the red line boundary. Tree/scrub planting measures would also help to reduce visual impacts for identified visual receptors in close proximity to the Site who would otherwise experience high levels of visual impact. In addition, a screen bund on the northern Site boundary would provide immediate mitigation of adverse impacts experienced by residential receptors to the north of the Site on Parkfield Road and Lea Crescent.

The mitigation measures that CEMEX is committed to undertake, are illustrated on Figure 8-8, together with ecological management techniques to be implemented outside the red line boundary. These combined measures have been developed in the light of the predicted impacts of the proposals on the surrounding landscape, and with the aim of achieving the objectives outlined above.

The footprint of the new Facility would be restricted to the flatter, more easily developable areas of the Site, and by locating the bulk of the buildings to the southern half of the Site, they would take advantage of the screening qualities of the retained clay and chalk spoil mounds for viewpoints from the west. With successful implementation, the mitigation measures have the potential to improve, or at least maintain, the current landscape quality and value of the area through the provision of modern buildings set against a backdrop of woodland.

8.4.2 Building Design

8.4.2.1 Elevations

The design of the Facility buildings has adopted simple, clean and yet robust lines (refer to ES Chapter 3 Architectural Elevations, Figures 3-6i and 3-6ii). The principal aim of the design has been to balance the industrial purpose of the building in an innovative manner, with the local landscape character. It has been the intention to design modern buildings with clean, uncluttered lines, more akin to an office/research facility rather than looking like an industrial processing plant.

The new buildings must fit in with other buildings in the area, for example, the existing Cement Works, and as this is clad in light coloured materials, this has been used as a reference for the new construction. A non-reflective, matt finish would be used for the metal cladding in a colour similar to ‘Goosewing Grey’ (Colourcoat HPS200 by Corus). Cladding with a predominantly horizontal profile would be used to give the visual illusion that the buildings are lower than they actually are. Both process buildings would be 21 m high. Where possible, internal drainage systems for rainwater pipework will be used, so the


Golder Associates

buildings would have clean, modern outlines. The biofilters and associated pipework would be located on the roof of the buildings but would be hidden from view behind the curved 6 m high upstanding perimeter parapet, which would extend the height of the buildings from 15 m at roof level to 21 m maximum.

The office building would utilise a similar suite of materials to that proposed on the main buildings. The L-shaped, two-storey office building would be located to overlook the site entrance and weighbridge area, and would be orientated to retain the line of an existing hedgerow, and hence to provide some screening from the Malpass Roundabout.

8.4.2.2 Roof Design

Both process buildings would provide a large surface area (3 ha) of roof that would generate a large amount of surface run-off, and this water would be collected and used within the process for the manufacture of Climafuel. Once used in the process, the water would go through a treatment plant and then to a storage lagoon at the northern end of the Site for eventual discharge to the River Avon.

8.4.3 External Circulation Routes

Roads and areas of hard-standing would be constructed in concrete as the light colour would blend in with the materials used on the proposed buildings. The surface would need to be impervious to ensure any spillages could be collected and treated prior to discharge off-Site. Car parking would be provided close to the office building, with 30 spaces plus 1 disabled space immediately to the north of the office. Parking for 6 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) would also be provided to the north of the car park area.

8.4.4 Lighting

High pressure sodium down-lighter units would be mounted on the external walls of the new buildings at a maximum height of 6 m above the perimeter road surface to project light downwards at an angle of at least 70° to the horizontal. These would provide a satisfactory level of illumination (1 to 2 lux) to satisfy safety, security and access requirements without producing upward reflected light that could be a nuisance. On the northern and southern elevations of the Western Process building and on the eastern elevation of the Eastern Process building, Climafuel imports and blended product outputs will use the manoeuvring areas in front of these elevations throughout the day and night. Higher levels of illumination will be required in these areas, primarily where there is a vehicle/machine or vehicle/person interface that needs to be protected. The wall mounted fittings would be augmented with column mounted fittings to the rear of these manoeuvring areas to provide an illumination level of approximately 5 to 10 lux. Column mounted light fittings would also be installed around the site entrance, weighbridge area and car parking.


Golder Associates

Internal lighting in the buildings would be provided, but natural lighting within the industrial processing buildings would be maximised through the provision of high level translucent wall cladding. Given the potential for light pollution to emanate from these panels, particularly from the western elevation of the Western Process building over the adjacent Green Belt, at the end of the working day, lights would be reduced to a security level of approximately 5 lux to minimise this impact. The office block would only have windows on its southern and western elevations to minimise light pollution to adjacent sensitive receptors.

8.4.5 Mitigation Planting

8.4.5.1 Bund Construction

Along part of the northern boundary of the Site, it is proposed to construct a 4 m high screening bund using material generated from the excavation of the storage lagoon and other site generated material. The bund would be 130 m long, between an existing retained grassland area that is important for breeding butterflies adjacent to the western Site boundary and a similar area of retained grassland lying to the east of a former hedgerow across the Site. The bund would be offset 12 m from the boundary with the Rugby to Nuneaton Railway line.

A 4 metre high bund is unlikely to screen the maximum 21 m high buildings on the Site, but to ensure that the bund in itself would not become an intrusive feature, its height has been limited, but at this height it would screen HGVs (4 m high) moving around the Site. The northern side slopes of the bund would be graded to a maximum of 1 in 3 so it could be planted and maintained with ease. The southern elevation could be made much steeper to maximise its benefits for breeding butterflies. The bund would be shaped to reflect the curves of the adjacent lagoon and to wrap around the western Site boundary. The top of the bund would be gently curved to shed water and prevent ponding. The overall width of the bund would therefore vary between 25 m and 60 m.

Tree and shrub planting would only be carried out to the north facing side of the bund, and topsoil would be limited to planting pit preparation in this area. The establishment of grass on the south facing slope would consist of a low growing grass seed, mixed with 4% wildflowers, all sown into subsoil. Sowing into subsoil would reduce soil fertility which would ensure wildflowers are not out-competed by aggressive grasses.

The soil handling operations and construction of the bund would be conducted in dry conditions to minimise compaction and yet to provide adequate support for the capping layers and to maintain the structural integrity of the bund.

8.4.5.2 Plant Species

The proposals include 0.9 ha of tree/scrub planting, 0.8 ha of grassland habitat and a limited amount of ornamental tree and shrub planting around the office block and car park. Planting


Golder Associates

is proposed to the north side of the bund, to the north of the site entrance and to the south of the WRR roundabout. In all but the ornamental areas, plant species have been chosen based upon their ecological value, their occurrence in the locality (with reference to the National Vegetation Classification (NVC)) and their reliability of establishment under a variety of soil conditions. The proposed plant species would consist of native species of regional provenance where possible, but as a minimum, of British provenance. Transplant material of height range 300-600 mm, either cell grown of bare root stock, would be used. Some standard trees would also be used occasionally within planting areas, to provide impact in the early years. These would be 250 to 300 cm high and would conform to BS 3936 Part 1, and would be either oak or ash. In the two larger areas of planting, along the northern Site boundary, it is proposed to use an edge mix to form a 5 m wide belt of scrub around their perimeter. The planting mixes would include the following species:

Woodland Mix (stocking rate of 2,500 plants per ha, i.e., 2 m centres)

Acer campestre Field maple 10% Betula pendula Silver birch 10% Corylus avellana Hazel 10% Fraxinus excelsior Ash 25% Malus sylvestris Crab apple 5% Prunus avium Cherry 10% Quercus robur Oak 30%

Edge Mix (stocking rate of 4,450 plants per ha, i.e., 1.5 m centres)

Acer campestre Field maple 5% Betula pendula Silver birch 5% Cornus sanguinea Dogwood 5% Corylus avellana Hazel 20% Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn 35% Frangula alnus Alder buckthorn 5% Ilex aquifolium Holly 5% Malus sylvestris Crab apple 5% Prunus spinosa Blackthorn 10% Viburnum opulus Guelder rose 5%

8.4.5.3 Planting Techniques

Trees and shrub species would be planted directly into previously prepared pits or cultivated topsoil, incorporating 30 gms of approved slow release fertiliser per planting station. Soil improver would be utilised if recommended by soil analysis prior to planting. Plants will be protected by rabbit-proof fencing and/or guards (designed to Forestry Enterprise specification) and staked appropriately. Rabbit proof stiles and gates would be provided to permit access for maintenance.


Golder Associates

8.4.5.4 Maintenance

All newly planted areas would receive a minimum of 5 years maintenance (which is the usual obligation imposed as part of the planning permission). Weed control will be carried out in planted areas during this period to aid establishment by reducing competition. Typically, this would involve maintaining a 600 mm weed and grass-free zone around each planting station through the application of a translocated herbicide. The intervening grass areas would be cut throughout the growing season. Once the canopy has closed, shading will control competing ground growth but colonisation with woodland ground flora would be encouraged. During the 5-year establishment period, all failed plant material will be replaced as necessary to maintain stock levels.

Newly sown grass areas will be cut once or twice during the first year after sowing, depending on establishment and growth rates. Some spot treatment to control pernicious weeds may be required. An annual cut in late summer (with all arisings removed) would become the norm, though an additional cut may be carried out, dependent upon the monitoring of the floristic composition of the sward.

8.4.5.5 Long Term Management

If required by the Local Planning Authority, a long term management plan for the Site will be prepared. This could include areas outside the red line boundary, to guide the management of existing retained habitat such as the woodland and scrub on the clay and chalk spoil mounds, thus promoting their long term well being and enhancing its ecological diversity.

8.4.6 Residual Effects

Any residual visual and landscape effects of the proposed Facility would have a negligible impact by Year 15.

8.5 Conclusions

The 6.4 ha Site, lying on the western edge of Rugby overlooking the River Avon valley, is a former quarry and landfill site with re-vegetated spoil mounds of clay and chalk to the southwest corner and southern Site boundary and a central flat area of rough grassland. The Site lies within the Dunsmore national landscape character area (as defined by the former Countryside Agency) and at the county and borough levels, the landscape character is also described as Dunsmore, but more specifically the Plateau Fringe (in accordance with the Warwickshire Landscapes Guidelines and the Landscape Assessment of the Borough of Rugby).

The Site does not lie in a designated or nationally protected landscape area, but land to the west of the Site is designated as Green Belt. The proposals would provide a northern


Golder Associates

extension of long established industrial land uses typical of this area and would be served by the newly constructed WRR. Existing woody vegetation on the Site would be retained and this, together with intermittent planting along the adjacent railway lines, will assist in visually containing the proposed Facility from all but the closest of sensitive visual receptors.

The new Facility buildings will be modern in appearance and light in colour, more akin to high quality office/research facilities than industrial processing buildings. The buildings and associated hard-standing would result in the removal of 4.9 ha of rough grassland of relatively low diversity, whose loss would be of negligible impact, but as part of this area is designated as an Ecosite (and potential Site of Importance for Nature Conservation), and hence is recognised for its nature conservation potential, the overall impact on landscape resource has been assessed as slightly higher at minor adverse.

Significant visual impacts on opening of the proposed Facility will be restricted to twenty residential properties off Parkfield Road and Lea Crescent to the north of the Site, users of Footpath RB13e along the western Site boundary, users of Parkfield Road on the eastern Site boundary, and to a lesser degree, workers in the office blocks to the east of the Site. The potential impact, however, will be minimised through the implementation of mitigation measures, such as a screening bund along the northern boundary, which would lead to improved screening provision around the Site.

August 2008 Version A.0 07514640149.500

Golder Associates

FIGURES

8-1Figure

Date

Project No.

Created by

File No.

July 2008

07514640149

C.M.

8-1

Title

Site Location Plan and National Landscape Character AreasCEMEX Climafuel Manufacturing FacilityMalpass Farm QuarryScale 1:50,000 @ A4

®Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital mapdata © Crown copyright 2002. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS96 - Dunsmore and Feldon94 - Leicestershire Vales95 - Northamptonshire Uplands

KEY

96

94

95

The Site

Date

Project No.

Created by

File No.

14.07.08

07514640149

C.M.

8-2

Title

Regional Landscape Character AreasCEMEX Climafuel Manufacturing FacilityMalpass Farm Quarry1:25,000 @ A3

DUNSMORE CHARACTER AREA - PARKLANDS LANDSCAPE TYPE

HIGH CROSS PLATEAU CHARACTER AREA - OPEN PLATEAU LANDSCAPE TYPE

DUNSMORE CHARACTER AREA - PLATEAU FRINGE LANDSCAPE TYPE

RIVER AVON AND SWIFT

PROPOSED SITE BOUNDARY

DUNSMORE CHARACTER AREA - PLATEAU FARMLANDS LANDSCAPE TYPE

HIGH CROSS PLATEAU CHARACTER AREA - VILLAGE FARMLANDS LANDSCAPE TYPE

FELDON CHARACTER AREA - IRONSTONE FRINGE LANDSCAPE TYPE

Reproduced from Explorer 1:25,000 scale by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. rown Copyright 1998 Licence No 100017807

KEY

8-2Figure

Date

Project No.

Created by

File No.

14.07.08

07514640149

C.M.

8-3

Title

District Landscape Character AreasCEMEX Climafuel Manufacturing FacilityMalpass Farm Quarry1:25,000 @ A3

DUNSMORE CHARACTER AREA - PARKLANDS LANDSCAPE TYPE

HIGH CROSS PLATEAU CHARACTER AREA - OPEN PLATEAU LANDSCAPE TYPE

DUNSMORE CHARACTER AREA - PLATEAU FRINGE LANDSCAPE TYPE

RIVER AVON AND SWIFT


DUNSMORE CHARACTER AREA - PLATEAU FARMLANDS LANDSCAPE TYPE

HIGH CROSS PLATEAU CHARACTER AREA - VILLAGE FARMLANDS LANDSCAPE TYPE

FELDON CHARACTER AREA - VALE FARMLANDS LANDSCAPE TYPE

Reproduced from Explorer 1:25,000 scale by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. rown Copyright 1998 Licence No 100017807

KEY

8-3Figure

Reproduced from 1:10,000 scale by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery OfficeCrown Copyright 1998 Licence No 100017807

Date

Project No.

Created by

File No.

14.07.08

07514640149

C.M.

8-4

Title

Local Landscape Character AreasCEMEX Climafuel Manufacturing FacilityMalpass Farm Quarry1:10,000 @ A3

RIVER AVON CORRIDOR AND ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE

RESIDENTIAL AREAS

AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE

INDUSTRIALISED LANDSCAPE


KEY

8-4Figure

250 m offset

500 m offset

1 km offset

Reproduced from 1:10,000 scale by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery OfficeCrown Copyright 1998 Licence No 100017807

Date

Project No.

Created by

File No.

14.07.08

07514640149

C.M.

8-5

Title

Location of Visual ReceptorsCEMEX Climafuel Manufacturing FacilityMalpass Farm Quarry1:10,000 @ A3

SECTIONS OF ROADS AND RAILWAYS VISIBLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT

SECTIONS OF FOOTPATHS VISIBLE TO THE PROPOSALS

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

RESIDENTIAL VISUAL RECEPTORS

APPROXIMATE ZONE OF VISUAL INFLUENCE (ZVI - Area from which building proposals are likely to be visible, excluding 45 m high stack)


KEY

PHOTO LOCATIONS

PLACES OF WORK VISUAL RECEPTORS

VISUALLY SIGNIFICANT WOODLAND

RB13c

B

W1

P1

T1

2

W1

T1T2

T3

T3

RB

35

R124

R12

3

R123

R123a

RB

4a

RB

4a RB4

RB4

RB4

RB

13e

RB13b

RB

13c

RB13b

RB

13d

RB13

RB13a

RB13c

RB13

R344

RB

14

R127

R127

R126

RB5

RB15

RB5

RB

5RB4

RB4

RB5a

RB4

RB5b

RB5b

RB5

RB5

RB

5

RB13b

B

B

D

C

E

F

A

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P2

8-5Figure

R124

1

2

3

9

5

4

7

8

6

1211

10

250 m offset

500 m offset

1 km offset

Date

Project No.

Created by

File No.

14.07.08

07514640149

C.M.

8-6

Title

Landscape Planning DesignationsCEMEX Climafuel Manufacturing FacilityMalpass Farm Quarry1:10,000 @ A3

8-6Figure

Reproduced from 10,000 scale by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. rown Copyright 1998 Licence No 100017807

REGIONALLY IMPORTANT GEOLOGICAL SITE (POLICY E7)

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY FLOOD ZONES (POLICY GP10)

STRATEGICALLY SIGNIFICANT EMPLOYMENT SITE (POLICY ED5)

URBAN EDGE (POLICY B1) AND GREEN BELT (POLICY E2)

EMPLOYMENT ALLOCATION (POLICY ED2)


KEY

LOCAL NATURE RESERVE (POLICY E7)

LISTED BUILDINGS

POTENTIAL SITES OF IMPORTANCE FOR NATURE CONSERVATION (pSINC)/ECOSITES

OPEN SPACE (POLICY LR4)

10/47

3/29

3/29

8/10

8/139

8/138

8/10004

8/1418/137

1/52

05/47North

05/47South

105/4710/47X

09/47

4/47Y

105/4771/47

06/47X

06/47X

105/47

74/47

71/47

250 m offset

500 m offset

1 km o

ffset

Photo 1: On the western site boundary the ground slopes towards the River Avon offering extensive views across the valley farmland which coincides with the adjacent Green Belt.

Photo 3: Panorama from the clay mound, from within an open glade area. Elevated views to north and west, across Newbold to the left and Rugby to the right.

Photo 6: From central northern part of the site looking west, with the rising ground of the clay mound on the left.

Photo 5: In amongst the regenerating scrub at the northern end of the site, looking towards houses on Parkfield Road.

Photo 4: View from central flat part of the site, looking north towards houses on Parkfield Road, with vegetation along the railway screening most ground level views.

Photo 2: Taken from top of clay mound looking north-east towards houses at southern end of Newbold, off Parkfield Road and Lea Crescent.

North-east edge of Long Lawford

Holbrook Grange

Home Farm

Peninsular Farm

River Avon

Chalk mound

Metso Minerals

Newbold Grange High School

Flats at Rounds Gardens

Holbrook Grange

Home Farm

Peninsular Farm

Date

Project No.

Created by

File No.

14.07.08

07514640149

C.M.

8-7-1

Title

Photograph Sheet 1 of 2CEMEX Climafuel Manufacturing FacilityMalpass Farm QuarryNot to Scale

8-7aFigure

Date

Project No.

Created by

File No.

14.07.08

07514640149

C.M.

8-7-2

Title

Photograph Sheet 2 of 2CEMEX Climafuel Manufacturing FacilityMalpass Farm QuarryNot to Scale

8-7bFigure

Photo 7: From bend in Footpath RB35 (track to Home Farm) looking east towards the northern part of the site (marked by pink dotted line) with Parkfield Road above the River Avon viaduct.

Photo 12 (on the right): Panorama from northern edge of chalk mound on developable part of the site, looking east towards Parkfield Road with Metso Minerals beyond.

Photo 11 (to the right): From the eastern edge of the clay mound looking east, with the industrial building of Metso Minerals beyond the chalk mound (on the right).

Photo 10 (to the left): The mass of Rugby Cement Works towering over Footpath RB4 as it runs along the south side of the London-Birmingham Railway.

Photo 9: Further west into the centre of the site overlooking the boundary to the RWRR construction site. A greater proportion of Rugby town centre is visible from this position.

Photo 8: Overlooking site clearance works being carried out as part of the Rugby Western Relief Road, looking towards the visually enclosing embankment of the London-Birmingham Railway, with the tops of flats within Rugby town centre just visible.

August 2008 Version A.0 07514640149.500

Golder Associates

APPENDICES

August 2008 Version A.0 07514640149.500

Golder Associates

APPENDIX 8-1

CHARACTER TYPE DESCRIPTION FROM ‘WARWICKSHIRE LANDSCAPES GUIDELINES’

August 2008 07514640149.500 CEMEX (UK) Ltd Version A.0 Malpass

Golder Associates

REGIONAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREA – DUNSMORE, WITH LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPE – PLATEAU FRINGE This is a rather variable landscape with a varied undulating topography of low rounded hills, broad valleys and short, steep slopes around the fringe of the Dunsmore plateau. For the most part the Plateau fringe is an intensively farmed landscape with a fragmented or poorly defined field pattern which tends to emphasise the large scale nature of the underlying landform. In places, however, there are pockets of pastoral farmland where the generally more intact field pattern creates a smaller scale landscape character.

Plateau fringe landscape occur in two belts on either side of the main Dunsmore plateau. The first which is closely associated with the Avon Valley includes the area running from Bubbenhall through Wolston and Long Lawford to Clifton upon Dunsmore. The second includes the southern fringe of the Dunsmore plateau from Princethorpe to Hillmorton, the lower part of the Leam valley and the area of hill country to the east of Leamington. The large expanse of open water at Draycote reservoir lies within this area.

Small nucleated villages are a characteristic feature of the Plateau fringe. These give the landscape a settled character which contrasts with the sparsely populated nature of the adjoining Plateau farmlands. Many of the villages in the Avon valley, such as Ryton-on-Dunsmore, Wolston and Long Lawford, have expanded considerably with the addition of much modern residential development. The opposite is true in the Leam valley, where most of the villages have seen little new development and still retain much of their original character.

The River Avon and the River Leam are special features within this landscape. Due to the nature of the surrounding landform, however, neither river corridor is particularly distinct and often the alluvial floodplain is very narrow. This impression is emphasised by the fact that large arable fields often sweep down to the river’s edge. Pockets of river meadowland still survive in places, notably on the Avon at Brandon and Little Lawford and on the Leam between Marton and Birdlingbury.

August 2008 Version A.0 07514640149.500

Golder Associates

APPENDIX 8-2

LANDSCAPE QUALITY EVALUATION CRITERIA

August 2008 07514640149.500 CEMEX (UK) Ltd Version A.0 Malpass

Golder Associates

Landscape Quality Evaluation Criteria Quality Classification

Evaluation Criteria

Exceptional • Very attractive, unique or outstanding landscape character with clearly distinctive characteristics;

• Widespread use of materials of good quality in keeping with local vernacular;

• Very strong structure, characteristic patterns and balanced combination of features;

• Good condition – appropriate management and land use; • Distinct features worthy of conservation; • Unique sense of place; • No detracting features; • Landscapes that are nationally recognised with National Park or Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty Status. Highly Attractive • Very attractive landscape with distinctive features and elements;

• Evident use of materials of good quality in keeping with local vernacular; • Strong structure, characteristic patterns and balanced combination of

features; • Appropriate management for land use with limited scope to improve; • Distinct features worthy of conservation; • Strong sense of place; • Occasional detracting features; • Designated locally as Special Landscape Areas or similar for their quality.

Good • Attractive landscape with some distinctive features; • Recognisable structure, characteristic patterns and combinations of features; • Scope to improve management for land use; • Some features worthy of conservation; • Sense of place; • Some detracting features.

Ordinary • Typical, commonplace and unremarkable landscape with limited variety or distinctiveness;

• Distinguishable structure, characteristic patterns comprising local features; • Scope to improve management for land use; • Some features worthy of conservation; • Some detracting features.

Poor • Monotonous and uniform landscape often in decline; • Weak or degraded structure; • Lack of management has resulted in degradation; • Frequent dominant detracting features; • Disturbed or derelict land requires treatment.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd

Cavendish House

Bourne End Business Park

Cores End Road

Bourne End

Buckinghamshire

SL8 5AS

UK

T: [+44] (0) 1628 851851

Caption Text

climafuel facility at malpass farm, rugby€¦ · key features of the approved proposals for the...

Documents