kings end farm communications mast - iema - home end farm...kings end farm mast – environmental...

April 2016

Kings End Farm Communications MastEnvironmental Statement Volume 1 Non Technical Summary

Kings End Farm Mast – Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary (April 2016)

11252445v1 P1

1.0 Introduction & Methodology

1.1 This document is a summary in non-technical language of an Environmental

Statement (‘ES’) prepared on behalf of New Line Networks LLC (‘NLN’)(‘the

applicant’). It accompanies an application for the development of a

communications mast at Kings End Farm (‘KEF’), near Richborough.

1.2 The proposed development does not fall within Schedule 1 or 2 of the Town

and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011

(the ‘2011 Regulations’). Notwithstanding, legal case law has prescribed that

other types of development could also be drawn into the Regulations where

they are similar in nature to any of the broad categories identified. Part 10 of

Schedule 2, for example, relates to a general topic of ‘Infrastructure Projects’

which has been shown historically to have been applied to a very wide range of

types of development. It is under this category that a communications mast

would most likely fall. For such developments, EIA is required in situations

where the development could give rise to significant environmental effects.

The scope of the ES has been agreed with Dover District Council (‘DDC’).

1.3 The document includes the following information: -

• Section 1.0 – background to the assessment process and the scheme;

• Sections 2.0 to 3.0 – description of the site and the current proposals;

• Sections 4.0 to 10.0 – a topic by topic review of the findings of the EIA;

• Section 11.0 – a review of whether other direct or indirect effects may

arise when the scheme is considered with other schemes in the area;

• Section 12.0 – details of how to obtain a full copy of the ES; and

• Section 13.0 – key plans.

The EIA Process

1.4 The ES sets out the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment (‘EIA’) of

the development.

1.5 The EIA process aims to ensure that any significant effects arising from a

development are systematically identified, assessed and presented to help a

local planning authority, statutory consultees and other key stakeholders in

their understanding of impacts arising from development. If measures are

required to minimise or reduce effects then these are clearly identified.

For this development, EIA has been carried out to consider the likely significant

effects that may arise during its construction and operation and due to its

potential relationship to future developments in the area. It has been

completed with regard to best practice and relevant legislation and has

addressed the following matters agreed with CCC as being required to assess


11252445v1 P2

the impacts of the development:-

1. Landscape and Visual Impact 5. Socio-Economics

2. Ecology and Nature Conservation 6. Archaeology

3. Built Heritage 7. Effects on transport, air quality, noise and ground conditions (construction/ deconstruction periods only)

4. Water Environment (including flood risk)

1.6 Likely effects are identified based on current knowledge of the site and

surroundings, desktop assessment, survey and fieldwork and information

available to the EIA team. All those matters that could be reasonably required

to assess the effects of the proposals are set out in the ES; this includes

effects arising from the scheme itself as well as those temporary effects arising

during the construction of the proposed development.

1.7 The EIA team has worked with the design team to ensure that the scheme for

which planning permission is sought incorporates those revisions or

modifications that are necessary or appropriate to avoid or reduce significant

adverse effects on the environment.

1.8 Consultation has also informed the EIA process in relation to the methods by

which the EIA has been carried out, as a means to seek environmental data, to

review the effectiveness of any identified mitigation measures and as a means

to keep interested bodies informed on the process of EIA undertaken.

Background to the Scheme

1.9 NLN (www.newlinenet.com) is a service provider which builds, operates and

commercialises point-to-point wireless networks between key financial trading

centres, while also providing communications capacity to meet a variety of

local needs. A core principle of NLN’s business model is the use of cutting

edge technology to achieve the high speed/low latency network performance.

This is achieved through a rigorous process of design, and an evaluative

process that drives continued technological innovation.

1.10 The proposed communications mast will serve a number of purposes, each of

which will deliver benefits to the growth of national and/or local sustainability

objectives. Primarily, the mast will provide facilities for firms requiring fast

communication links with international financial networks and, in addition it

offers the potential to offer facilities for digital TV/radio, mobile operators, blue

light services and fixed wireless broadband access.

1.11 The KEF Mast will contribute to the provision of a high speed communication

network to support the operation and growth of finance businesses in the UK

and beyond. The finance services sector is a key driver of the UK economy

and will continue to be an increasingly important source of economic growth

and competitiveness. In addition to this, the mast will make a contribution to

the local economy with four key initiatives:-

1 Enhanced Communications Service – acting as a hub for a range of vital

local services that depend on microwave technology;


11252445v1 P3

2 Mast Sharing – NLN is committed to allowing the use of a single mast

structure by multiple users. This benefits local communities by actively

reducing the number of structures required and thereby reducing any

actual or perceived negative environmental effects that may exist where

a number of masts of this type emerge within a single location;

3 Community Reinvestment – NLN is committed to pursuing a community

reinvestment programme which may involve the early establishment of a

community fund to feed into local initiatives; and

4 Local Employment and Training - NLN intend to establish a local

maintenance and engineering field office close to the mast to act as a

source of local employment, training and apprenticeship initiatives.

2.0 Site & Surroundings

2.1 The site of the mast (centred on Grid Reference N161565 E631806) is part of

Kings End Farm and currently comprises flat open farmland. It is

approximately 1km north of Richborough, 1km south of the River Stour, and

1.5km west of the former Great Stour Richborough power station and industrial

development within the Sandwich Corridor. The coastline is approximately

3km to the west with the settlements of Ash and Sandwich to the south-west

and south-east and the coastal town of Ramsgate to the north-east.

Aerial Photograph of Area Surrounding the Development Site

Source: Google Earth

Location of Site

Sandwich

Former Richborough

Power Station

Richborough

Fort

Richborough

Discovery

Park

Wind Turbine and

existing tower sites

Ash

Ramsgate ��


11252445v1 P4

2.2 Historically, the site formed part of an area of reclaimed marshland associated

with the Wantsum Channel which once separated the Isle of Thanet from the

mainland. Notable exceptions to the low lying characteristic of the local area

include elevated land on which Richborough Roman Fort (a Scheduled Ancient

Monument) is located (1.5km to the south-east) and land approximately 4km to

the north that generally rises up to 50m AOD(‘above ordnance datum’).

2.3 The site is surrounded by field margins of up to 5m in width comprising a

variety of meadow grasses. Beyond the field margins on three sides (north,

west and south) wet ditches help drain the land towards the River Stour. Two

open sided livestock sheds and two silos are located to the east outside of the

site boundary. The guy ropes to the mast will be anchored in adjacent fields.

Site Boundary Plan

2.4 Access to the site is via a farm track known as Whitehouse Drove which

provides access to the local road network via Richborough Road (to the south).

The main railway line from Dover towards rail routes running along the north

Kent coast is approximately 1km from the site with the main trunk road network

(A256 running north-south) approximately 1.6km to the east.


11252445v1 P5

2.5 Other notable features in the surrounding area include high voltage power

lines, existing lattice masts (91m and 97m in height) and a wind turbine (72m in

height to tip of blade) to the north-east. To the east and south-east are large

industrial and business buildings forming Discovery Park and areas around the

former Power Station. Manston Airport, an airport that closed in 2014 and no

longer holds a CAA licence, is located approximately 4.3 km to the north.

Otherwise, the wider surrounding area is predominately agricultural in

character with grazed and arable fields, farm buildings/structures.

2.6 The Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area, and areas

identified as a Special Area for Conservation, a Ramsar wetland site and a Site

of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”), lie approximately 2km to the east.

3.0 Description of Development

3.1 The proposed development comprises a 2.5 metre wide three-sided guyed

communications mast of 305 metres (height) supporting a range of dish

antenna equipment, set within a fenced compound. Once erected, the wider

site will be capable of continued use for farming.

3.2 The Guys extend from the mast at eight levels at 75, 195 and 315 degree

angles, anchored at nine stay blocks at ground level, located 60 metres, 150

metres and 210 metres from the mast base. Bird diverters comprising wire

attachments will be affixed to the guys at regular intervals.

3.3 Static red aviation lighting will be installed at 51m intervals along the mast at

six levels, with two lights per level. The lighting will be in compliance with the

requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority (‘CAA’) which have been consulted

by NLN in advance of the submission of this application.

3.4 Nine metre Anti-twist frames, providing a walkway for access and maintenance

and fixing points for guys, protrude in three directions at heights of circa 155.5

metres, 188.5 metres, 221.5 metres, 260.5 metres and 293.5 metres.

3.5 There are six dish antenna proposed at various heights and orientations. Each

dish antenna is 3.7m in diameter, and 1.8m in depth. The dishes will be

located at 301.4 metres, 300 metres, 291.4 metres, 286 metres, 194 metres

and 184 metres.

3.6 The mast base is set on a concrete foundation within a fenced compound, 13m

x 15.8m in size (c.206sqm). The compound will contain four equipment

cabinets and a generator, in caged enclosures on a raised steel support

platform and concrete base, along with cable management systems, and a

vehicular parking / turning space. The mast compound is enclosed by a 2.4m

high palisade security fence. The compound will be surrounded by

landscaping comprising a mix of hawthorn and wildflower planting.


11252445v1 P6

3.7 The mast compound is located c.191m to the west of Whitehouse Drove and a

stone access track will be constructed across the current field.

3.8 The mast itself is of a galvanised steel construction, while the guys are of a

spiral strand steel construction. The mast block and the nine stay blocks are of

concrete construction.

Construction Methodology

3.9 A construction management plan has been prepared. Works will take 24

weeks with a projected completion date of Spring 2017 (assuming works

commence in Autumn 2016). The period shall be preceded or will overlap

(where appropriate) with a period of geo-archaeological boreholes to be sunk

prior to below ground construction works (foundations) taking place.

3.10 Works will take place during normal construction hours. Construction times are

anticipated to comprise Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm; Saturday 8am to 1pm;

and no work on Sundays or bank holidays.

3.11 The enabling works will require the construction of a temporary road and work

area. Foundations for the mast and cable guys will be piled. Initially a crane

will be used to erect the mast sections. To complete the mast above 90m a

self-erecting crane will be used attached to the mast to lift items from ground

level. Guys to stabilise the structure will be attached as the mast is erected.

Once complete any dishes and lights will be attached and any temporary

buildings and construction facilities will be removed.

3.12 The Contractor will comply with all obligations and duties placed onto it by the

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. A Construction

Environmental Management Plan will be prepared to establish how the

construction will be managed to avoid, minimise and mitigate any adverse

effects on the environment and existing surrounding communities.

Deconstruction

3.13 It is the intention of the applicant that the Kings End Farm mast is a permanent

structure, and there are no plans to remove it. However, in the event that the

mast is to be removed, this ES has considered the impact that this would have.

3.14 The theoretical decommissioning of the mast would effectively undertake the

construction programme in reverse and would therefore comprise 24 weeks.

All the same precautions and protection measures would be in place as

described in respect of the construction process.

3.15 It must be concluded that all effects identified during the construction period in

respect of all environmental issues considered in the ES would be likely to be

the same during the deconstruction period. It would be reasonable to assume

that the same mitigation measures would be put in place; or any such

measures as would be appropriate to comply with necessary legislation or best

practice in place at the time of the works. As all anticipated construction


11252445v1 P7

effects identified throughout this ES are capable of being appropriately

mitigated, it must be assumed that a similar conclusion would be reached in

respect of the deconstruction process.

Alternatives Considered

3.16 The ES has considered a range of alternatives and including the likely effects

should the development does not come forward (‘no development’ scenario’).

Site Location

3.17 The assessment explains the need to locate the mast at KEF. NLN’s business

seeks to use the latest in telecommunication technology, to enable the delivery

of high speed/high frequency point to point communication. NLN is focused on

the delivery of additional infrastructure (i.e. dishes, masts, structures where

required) on the straightest direct routes between key centres. The KEF site is

on a direct line of sight between the financial markets in London and Frankfurt

and is uniquely positioned to facilitate the delivery of this enhanced network.

Illustration of the Direct Line of Sight between London and Frankfurt

Height of the Mast

3.18 Line-of-sight propagation is a characteristic of the type of narrow beam/low

power communication microwaves that would be transmitted by the KEF mast.

These waves generally cannot travel over the horizon and behind/through

obstacles; i.e. they can be affected by the effects of ‘earth-bulge’. The height

of masts therefore needs to be such that they allow the transmission of waves

to the next structure ‘along the line’ without being affected by obstructions.

3.19 Site also requires consideration of the Fresnel Zone (ellipse shaped areas

along the direct line of sight between two radio masts); which must be

unimpeded in order for the radio link to work effectively.

3.20 For the KEF mast, the need to transmit data across the English Channel to a

site in Belgium (the next ‘line of sight’ link along the London-Frankfurt

communications path) has to have regard to the distance along which the

signal needs to travel; as well as the effect of earth bulge; and the difficulties


11252445v1 P8

associated with transmission over water. With these issues in mind,

calculations have identified the need for a structure at a height of 305 metres.

Illustration of Geometric Line of Sight, Fresnel Zone and 'Earth Bulge'

Site Selection

3.21 NLN carried out a detailed site search in late 2014/early 2015 in the area of the

East Kent coast in the vicinity of Sandwich using the following parameters:-

1 A need to be located within proximity to the coast to make maximum

benefit of the Fresnel Zone whilst also avoiding sensitive ecological sites

immediately adjacent to the Dover coast;

2 Avoiding areas with clear environmental restrictions e.g. flood risk areas;

3 Ensuring the site can be easily accessed for construction;

4 Agricultural land was given a higher priority as farming can continue once

the mast is constructed;

5 Seeking to avoid proximity to major infrastructure routes for reasons of

health and safety;

6 Avoiding land identified for the National Grid Richborough Connection

Project; and

7 Seeking to avoid immediate proximity with major built up

areas/residential areas.

3.22 The KEF site performs well against the above criteria.

Design Evolution

3.23 The nature of the mast purpose described above prescribes to a significant

degree the form of the mast which is the subject of the EIA. However, various

discussions and requirements throughout the consultation and design process

have influenced the detailed form to ensure any identified significant impacts

on the environment are mitigated against. This includes the incorporation of

bird diverters to reduce the risk of bird collision with the mast proposed mast;

the inclusion of a 2.3 metre landscaping strip surrounding the compound to

soften the visual effect of the equipment; and inputs into the construction

methods to reduce the potential for adverse effects on the drainage ditches

surrounding the fields.


11252445v1 P9

4.0 Landscape and Visual Impact

4.1 An assessment has been carried out of the effect of the mast on existing

landscape character and on views towards the site. The assessment

methodology draws upon key guidance from the Landscape Institute and the

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.

4.2 Landscape character has been defined by that guidance as:-

"A distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape

that makes one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse."

4.3 Changes to landscape character can arise as a result of changes to the fabric

of a landscape (e.g. through the loss of key elements or features) and from

changes to the way in which the landscape is perceived or appreciated.

Changes to a view occur when changes occur to the dominance of particular

features, to a skyline, due to the creation of a new visual focus or from other

changes relating to scale or enclosure.

4.4 The extent of the study area was established through desk-based study to

define the Theoretical Zone of Visibility (‘TZV’) (i.e. where views of the

proposed development would be obtained if there were no screening provided

by buildings, other structures and vegetation) and fieldwork.

4.5 As a result of testing and analysis, the majority of the assessment within the

landscape and visual impact chapter focusses on the effects on visual

receptors up to and within approximately 5km of the site. Some illustrative

viewpoints have been taken from beyond the 5km perimeter.

Visual and Landscape Receptors within 5km of the Site


11252445v1 P10

4.6 A number of representative viewpoints have been used as the basis for the

assessment; the location of these were agreed with Dover District Council.

Representative Viewpoints

4.7 The assessment found that there would be a moderate adverse effect on the

Ash Level and Richborough Castle landscape character areas deriving

primarily from the extent of the visual effect across these areas. These effects

are not considered to be significant due to the visibility of other large scale

buildings and infrastructure, the limited physical effects and the reversible

nature of the effects on aesthetic and perceptual aspects.

4.8 In relation to Richborough Castle, the slender nature of the mast means that,

whilst visible, the proposed development would not affect visitors’ ability to

interpret the historic landform and strategic siting of the fort.

4.9 There was a moderate adverse visual effect on residents at Quex Park and

Castle Cottages (views from the rear of the properties) and on visitors to

Richborough Roman Fort and a number of locations on the surrounding public

footpath network where there are unscreened views of the mast. Proposed

mitigation relating to the colour of materials will help to reduce the visual

prominence of the compound and structures within it in these views.

4.10 With regard to landscape and visual impact, and taking into consideration the

scale of the proposed development the extent of the TZV, it is considered that

the proposed site is an appropriate location to establish such infrastructure.

This position is based on the susceptibility of the receiving landscape to

change, the distance of the proposed development from sensitive visual

receptors and the precedent for large scale infrastructure development within

the local area.


11252445v1 P11

5.0 Ecology and Nature Conservation

5.1 The EIA includes an assessment of the potential impacts on nature

conservation and biodiversity. These have had regard to a number of statutory

Acts and Directives which provide legal protection for habitats and species:-

1 Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended);

2 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006; and

3 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

5.2 The legislation provides protection for designated sites, such as Sites of

Special Scientific Interest, and prevents harm to a range of species and their

habitats. Specific measures are set out for breeding birds, rare flora and

fauna, and European Protected Species (‘EPS’). There are also requirements

for lists of ‘Habitats and Species of Principal Importance for the Conservation

of Biodiversity’ to be maintained for England and Wales. In addition, the

National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 118) provides the context for

nature conservation considerations, stating that in determining decisions local

planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. The

same policy objectives are taken into existing local policy in Dover.

5.3 The assessment of the effects of the development on ecology and nature

conservation has been undertaken in line with current guidance produced by

the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM, 2006).

5.4 Four statutory designated sites and one non-statutory designated site, and

various species are identified to be within the proposed development’s

potential ecological zone of influence. In terms of ecological features at the

site, the following table considers their value:-

Sensitive Ecological receptors for assessment

Ecological Receptor Biodiversity Value

The Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA International

Sandwich Bay and Hacklinge Marshes SSSI National

Ash Level and South Richborough Pasture LWS County

Notable Invertebrates Local

Bats Local

Brown Hare Local

Water Vole County

Wintering and Migrating Birds Local

Breeding Birds Local

Common Reptiles Local

5.5 The assessment identified the potential for significant impacts to occur on:-

1. Ash Level and South Richborough Pasture Local Wildlife Site 4. Barn Owls

2. Aquatic invertebrates 5. Peregrines

3. Water Voles 6. Reptiles


11252445v1 P12

5.6 The nature of the impact on the Ash Level and South Richborough Pasture

Local Wildlife Site relates to the risk of pollution and/or the spread of non-

native invasive plant species in the ditches and streams within the designated

site. The effects on the populations of water voles, barn owls, and peregrines

are due to the risks arising from potential pollution, physical damage to habitat

and disturbance (during construction). Whilst the potential for impact on

reptiles is negligible, the legal protection afforded to individual animals means

that a worst case scenario was taken into account.

5.7 For all the impact identified, mitigation and management measures have been

identified which, if implemented successfully, will effectively remove these

significant effects. Therefore the residual effects of the mast on valuable

ecological receptors is considered to be insignificant.

6.0 Built Heritage

6.1 An assessment has been undertaken to establish the likely significant built

heritage effects of the mast. Through a review of mapping, fieldwork and

correspondence with Dover Council, heritage assets within 5km of the site that

have a visual relationship with the site have been identified. Those assets

outside of the 5km radius but which have the potential to maintain a visual

relationship with the mast were also included.

Heritage Assets included in Assessment

6.2 The assessment has shown that the scheme would result in, at worst,

moderate adverse daytime effects on setting which reduces to negligible


11252445v1 P13

adverse effects on the significance of heritage assets. The effects of the mast

at night would be less than during the daytime.

6.3 The assessment has established that the scale, design and position of the

mast will have the greatest effect on the setting of the Richborough Saxon

Shore Fort and Castle (Scheduled Monument and Grade I listed). This is a

result of the proximity to the proposed mast (the site lies c.1km to the north-

east of the SM and c.1.4km to the Fort) and the sensitivity of the asset.

6.4 The mast would clearly be seen within the setting of the monument. However,

there are a number of factors to take into account including its distance from

the Fort; and its location in a landscape that is not highly sensitive and

preserved (pylons, wind turbine, smaller masts and the former power station

already exist). It is noted that the Discovery Park is currently a prominent

feature within its setting, as is the intrusive noise of the A256. Given this, the

effect of the proposed mast on the setting of the Fort would be moderate

adverse.

6.5 Whilst the mast may introduce a moderate adverse effect on its setting, the

setting of the Fort does not contribute materially to its significance given that it

has changed beyond easy recognition since the Roman period. The

introduction of the mast within the existing modern landscape would not

impede a visitor from understanding the importance of the Fort. The

magnitude of change to the significance of the asset would be negligible

adverse, given that the setting is not considered to contribute materially to the

significance of the monument.

6.6 Overall, the assessment has shown that the, at worst, negligible adverse

effects of the development proposals on the significance of surrounding

heritage assets will comply with statutory requirements and NPPF and local

plan polices to preserve or enhance the settings and significance of heritage

assets. This is because a negligible effect is so small and unimportant that it is

insignificant. Thereby, the significance of the heritage assets would be

preserved. In conclusion, the assessment confirms there would be no

significant environmental effects on above ground heritage assets.

7.0 Water Environment

7.1 An assessment has been carried out of the effect of the mast on flood risk,

surface water drainage, groundwater, water quality and water resources.

There is a wide range of international and national legislation relevant to the

assessment of potential impacts to hydrology and drainage. There are also

guidance and policy documents concerned with mitigating potential impacts.

7.2 The potential effects of the development have been identified using

professional experience guided by the baseline assessment, professional

judgement and stakeholder consultation. Mitigation measures have been


11252445v1 P14

developed for each identified impact based on professional experience and

informed by best practices.

7.3 The River Stour lies to the north of the site, and the landscape surrounding the

site is characterised by flat, low-lying marshland that has been historically

drained for agriculture. The Richborough Stream is located approximately

250m to the south of the site running in a west to east direction, and a series of

filled ditches/watercourses act as field drainage and surface water runoff

interceptors around the site.

7.4 The significance of impacts from risk of flooding from river and tidal sources

were considered negligible. However, as a precautionary approach, the

finished levels of the key platforms within the proposed compound were

proposed to be elevated to well above the identified flood elevations. The

maximum flood level during such scenario would be 1.93m AOD and the

proposed elevation for the key platforms are 2.80 and 3.25m AOD. Stone

access track is proposed to sit at elevation of 2m AOD which is still above the

considered flood elevation.

7.5 The proposed development is not identified to be at risk of groundwater,

surface water and reservoir flooding.

7.6 Due to the closeness of the proposed access track and the drainage ditch at

the north of the site, the integrity, stability and maintenance of the ditches may

be at risk. A minimum 5-metre buffer zone is advised to be maintained

between the temporary access routes and stone access route within the site.

7.7 To ensure that no runoff potentially containing sediment/solids or hydrocarbons

from the proposed development can enter field ditches and watercourses

during the construction period or during subsequent operation, a series of

mitigation options have been identified.

8.0 Socio-Economic Effects

8.1 The assessment of the effects of the mast on socio-economics has examined

construction and operational employment, the labour market, local community

and deprivation, tourism and recreation, local communication services and the

UK financial services sector. Since there are no generally accepted criteria for

assessing the significance of socio-economic impacts, these have been

assessed based on the scale of any increase over the existing position, as well

as the nature and context of the impact.

8.2 The most significant socio-economic effect of the development relates to the

role of the high quality communication infrastructure in helping to strengthen

the financial services sector in the UK, with a particular focus in supporting

growth in the UK financial technology market. This sub-market relies upon

high quality infrastructure to support growth and competitiveness in changing

global markets, meaning the development of the communication infrastructure


11252445v1 P15

within Dover will play a role in helping to maintain the position of the UK as a

pre-eminent financial destination on the world stage.

8.3 The local communication functions supported by the proposed development

will also provide beneficial socio-economic effects to communities in the north-

eastern part of the District surrounding the site. The development of such

technology and forms of communication is vital to accommodating the function

of local business and residential communities, and will contribute to growing

the local economy in Dover.

8.4 Alongside the high quality communication facilities supported by the scheme at

the local and national level, the proposed development will also have a positive

effect on the area by providing employment and training opportunities over the

construction and operational phases of the scheme. These employment roles

include a range of specialist technical occupations, although the overall impact

of the employment supported by the development is assessed to be minor over

the construction phase and negligible over the operational phase.

8.5 The proposed mast is also expected to create an adverse effect that relates to

a range of tourism and recreation sites in the north-eastern part of the District

in close proximity to the development, which are expected to be adversely

affected by the scheme in regard to visual impacts and a temporary increase in

road traffic in the local area through the construction phase of the scheme.

However this adverse socio-economic effect of the development is assessed to

be negligible in scale.

8.6 Given no significant adverse socio-economic effects were identified, the

assessment concluded no major measures are required to mitigate any

adverse effects of the scheme. However NLN have committed to ensuring that

communities surrounding the site are able to share in the fiscal benefits of the

scheme to help mitigate any potential adverse effects of the development.

Although the form that this local community contribution will take is still under

discussion with local council and community leaders, this measure may involve

the establishment of a fund that feeds into initiatives presently being

undertaken by local communities, with the potential to link this fund directly

with the ongoing revenue stream generated by the new communications

infrastructure.

9.0 Archaeology

9.1 The historic environment includes a range of features resulting from human

intervention in the landscape, varying in scope from buried archaeological

remains up to late 20th century industrial and military structures.

9.2 The archaeology assessment considers the potential impact of construction of

the project on known and potential archaeological heritage assets and

evaluates the significance of the impact; assesses the impacts of the operation

of the mast on designated archaeological heritage assets including


11252445v1 P16

consideration of their settings; identifies measures for avoiding or mitigating

potential impacts; and detail any residual impacts that cannot be mitigated.

9.3 The only prehistoric remains recorded within the study area are a number of

undated, pits, ditches and gullies, some of which contained Iron Age pottery

and a number of flint artefacts and fragments of burnt flint recorded on

Richborough island c. 700m to the south of the study site.

9.4 The study site is located within the Wantsum Channel. This former seawater

channel is thought to have formed during the Mesolithic period as sea levels

rose following the end of the last Ice Age.

9.5 Other nearby assets include the scheduled Roman fort and settlement of

Richborough (see above section on Built Heritage). There are also 14

scheduled monuments within 5km of the proposed development site.

9.6 The assessment establishes that the site has the potential to contain deposits

of geo-archaeological interest relating to the origins, evolution and silting of the

Wantsum Channel. The site is considered to have low potential for occupation

remains of all archaeological periods due to its location within the Wantsum

Channel. If present, such deposits are likely to be extensive and so only a

small proportion of them will be impacted upon. Consequently, the magnitude

of change to these remains will be minor and therefore, the proposed

development will have a negligible adverse impact on archaeological remains.

9.7 The development will have no direct impacts on any designated archaeological

heritage assets or their settings. The assessment has concluded that there will

be no more than negligible adverse impacts on the settings of a number of

designated archaeological heritage assets of the assets in question.

10.0 Other Construction/De-Construction Effects

10.1 The assessments provided at Sections 4.0 to 9.0 above relate to those matters

where there is potential for significant environmental effects to arise during the

construction, operational and (theoretical) decommissioning (de-construction)

phases. The scoping of the EIA with DDC also identified that there is the

potential for transportation, air quality, noise and ground conditions to be

affected during the construction and de-construction phases (with no effects

anticipated or likely during the operational phase). The effects were

considered to have the most potential to arise due to traffic generated from

delivery vehicles to the site or construction activities. An assessment has been

carried out to review the issues. As stated above, the effects during the

construction and de-construction phases are likely to be the same or similar.

Existing (baseline) Conditions

10.2 The site is located off Whitehouse Drove: a single track road off Richborough

Road. The track has been well maintained as it links to current farm buildings.


11252445v1 P17

Photographs of Richborough Drove and access track to site

10.3 The nearest major road is the A256 with signs towards Sandwich. Whitehouse

Drove links to the A256 via Richborough Road and Ash Road. Ash Road is a

minor road in a mixed rural/residential area.

10.4 The site is not located in a defined Air Quality Management Area. There are

currently no unusual noise or vibration sources in the vicinity of the site. The

site is located over 500 metres from the nearest inhabited building.

10.5 Ground investigations confirm the site comprises a number of flat and level

fields crossed by drainage ditches. The site is underlain by Tidal Flat Deposit

(clay and silt to depths of between 6.7-9.3 metres), over the Thanet Formation

(sand, silt and clay at depths of between 9.2-12.4 metres).

Potential Effects and Mitigation

Traffic

10.6 The estimated schedule of deliveries/traffic movements show the majority of

movements during the construction period would take place in Weeks 1 and 2.

Approximate Number of Vehicles Anticipated During Construction Period

10.7 Transportation to and from the site will be conducted by suitably sized haulage

vehicles and a minimal-sized crane. The anticipated route is shown below:-

020406080

100120140160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Week

Nu

mb

er

of

Veh

icle

s


11252445v1 P18

Anticipated Route to Whitehouse Drove from main highway network

10.8 The traffic flows during the construction period are generally low; with the

majority of movements occurring in Weeks 1 and 2. Any effects during that

period may have temporary adverse effects but will be very short term in

extent. A range of traffic management measures will be put in place to ensure

that the effects are unlikely to be significant.

Air Quality

10.9 The general construction of the mast is unlikely to give rise to any effects in

respect of air quality or dust. The main risk of adverse air quality effects is as a

result of transportation movement; albeit the anticipated transport effects (as

described above), mean that the potential for effects is very low.

Notwithstanding best practice measures will be employed to ensure the

potential for effects on air quality are kept at a minimum.


11252445v1 P19

Noise and Vibration

10.10 The main potential noise and vibration sources during the construction period

are from plant noise and general construction activity (including piling) and

from vehicular traffic. The anticipated plant to be used during the construction

period has been measured to give rise to noise levels of between 70 and 83

decibels when measured 10 metres from the plant or machinery – none would

be in use continuingly.

10.11 As stated above, the nearest occupied residential receptor to the site is over

500 metres from the site. It is therefore not anticipated that the temporary

construction noise would give rise to significant effects. Notwithstanding best

practice measures will be employed during the construction period to reduce

the potential for any adverse effects affecting nearby residents.

Ground Conditions

10.12 The site can accommodate the mast structure without significant effect on the

ground conditions. The report concluded that the site includes no

exceedences of potential ground contamination that may present harm to

human health. Significant effects are continued unlikely.

11.0 Cumulative and Residual Effects

11.1 The table below reviews whether the inter-relationship between effects arising

from the development may give rise to additional impacts not previously

identified. It also considers whether effects may arise when the development

is considered alongside other schemes or proposals in the surrounding area,

the likelihood of the other developments proceeding and the ability or necessity

of the applicant to mitigate any such effects for those other sites.

Summary of Effects with Mitigation in Place

Environmental Topic

Effects during Construction/ De-construction

Effects during Operation

Cumulative Effects

Landscape and Visual Impacts

Some minor adverse impacts

Moderate to minor adverse impacts on landscape and visual features

Visual effects during operational period may reduce in significance

Ecology and nature conservation

No residual impacts No residual impacts None anticipated

Heritage Moderate adverse impacts on Richborough Fort and Castle, all others negligible to minor adverse

Negligible to moderate adverse impacts on setting of heritage assets, negligible impact on significant of impacts

Potential for the adverse effects on setting reducing to minor adverse on overall significance

Water Environment No residual impacts No residual impacts None anticipated.

Socio-Economics Minor beneficial impacts

Minor beneficial impact on the UK

Minor beneficial effect anticipated to


11252445v1 P20

Environmental Topic

Effects during Construction/ De-construction

Effects during Operation

Cumulative Effects

financial services, all others minor beneficial to negligible

be strengthened, but not change from moderate

Archaeology No residual impacts Negligible impacts None anticipated.

11.2 A range of mitigation measures have been identified throughout the ES which

are capable of being enforced through planning conditions in relation to the

development.

11.3 Some minor negative residual effects remain in relation to specific sensitive

receptors in relation to landscape and visual impact and heritage. However,

these must be balanced against the significant beneficial environmental effects

in relation to socio-economic receptors.

11.4 The relationships between the effects identified on site do not give rise to a

need for additional mitigation measures in relation to the development. There

are no cumulative effects arising from the development when considered with

other developments in the surrounding area and the overall conclusion is that

the proposed development will not result in unacceptable adverse effects.

12.0 Availability of the Environmental Statement

12.1 A paper or electronic (CD Rom) copy of the full ES can be obtained from:-

• Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 14 Regent’s Wharf, All Saints Street,

London N1 9RL (Tel: +44(0)20 7837 4477)

12.2 Information on the planning application and the ES can also be viewed on the

website of DDC at:-

http://www.dover.gov.uk/

All comments on the ES (and planning application) should be issued to DDC

directly.


11252445v1 P21

13.0 Key Plans

Site Layout Plan

Proposed Mast Compound Layout


11252445v1 P22

South Elevation – Site Compound

Wide Elevation

Dish Details


11252445v1 P23

Land Uses During Construction

Cover image: Image of Kings End Farm Mast from viewpoint approximately 4.5km northeast of site, near Cliffs End

kings end farm communications mast - iema - home end farm...kings end farm mast – environmental...

Documents