PLANNING APPLICATION 17/04668 – RESERVED MATTERS AND DISCHARGE OF CONDITIONS TO OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION 15/01218: EIA STATEMENT OF CONFORMITY

LAND NORTH OF A 421 TINGEWICK ROAD BUCKINGHAM

BDW NORTH THAMES

JULY 2018

Address and Registered office:74 Baynard Avenue, Flitch Green, Essex CM6 3FD T:07510 324756 W: www.wessexep.co.uk Company Number:10705557

1

Reserved matters application and Discharge of conditions for Tingewick Road: EIA Statement of Conformity to

Outline Planning Permission 15/01218/AOP-Land North of A421 Tingewick Road Buckingham Buckinghamshire

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this EIA Statement of Conformity is to review the detailed proposals for the reserved matters

submissions and tested against the technical chapters provided in the ES submitted to inform the outline planning

application to confirm that detailed design is in substantial accordance with the design parameters for scale, layout,

and landscape plus conformity with other matters provided within the ES.

1.2 This Statement of Conformity will confirm how the detailed design do not have a differing material effect on the

assessments and conclusions of the ES.

2.0 Location of the Development

2.1 The land is either side of Tingewick Road and summarised as follows:

Land north of the Tingewick Road

2.2 This is a rectangular arable field bounded to the north by a hedgerow and to the east by allotments. Field House

Children’s Day Nursery is to the west, and to the south are properties along the Tingewick Road. Tingewick Road

Industrial Estate to the east and to the north is the River Ouse and a wooded corridor of a disused railway line.

There is no public access into and across this part of the site nor subject to any environmental designations.

Land south of the Tingewick Road

2.3 This lies between Tingewick Road and the A421. It is contained by tree planting along the A421 to the south, by a

hedgerow along the Tingewick Road to the north, and by a wooded corridor of a disused railway line to the east. In

the north eastern part is the Scheduled Monument of St. Rumbold’s Well. The disused railway line to the east is a

Local Wildlife Site and provides a public footpath. Gawcott Road, Bath Lane, and Mitre Street provide residential

properties to the east and commercial premises adjoin in the south east.

2.4 A public footpath crosses the land between Gawcott Road and the A421.

3.0 Description of the Outline Planning Permission

3.1 The decision notice confirms the permission to be… Outline Planning Permission, to provide up to 400 Residential

Dwellings (including Affordable Housing), Open Space including Play Areas and sports and related recreation

facilities, Landscaping, New Vehicular and Pedestrian Accesses, Engineering (including Ground Modelling) Works,

Infrastructure Works (including Drainage Works and Utilities Provision) and Demolition (including Site Reclamation),

Car Parking and Lighting…and on land to the north and south of Tingewick Road.

3.2 Access was approved as a non-reserved matter thus leaving the following matters for reserved matters:

• Appearance

• Landscaping

• Layout

• Scale

3.3 As confirmed in the case officer report and recommendation (dated 7th August 2015);

2

“Compliance with the Buckingham Neighbourhood Plan policies, relevant saved AVDLP policies, and the core planning

principles of the NPPF, have been demonstrated in terms of preserving residential amenities, promoting sustainable

modes of transport, meeting the challenge of climate change, protecting the historic environment and flooding and

requiring good design indicating an absence of harm.

A S106 has been completed for the site on the 24 January securing the necessary infrastructure to mitigate the

development”.

3.4 The decision notice was issued on 24th January 2017

4.0 Summary description of the Reserved matters application ref 17/04668

4.1 The submitted application seeks …Approval of the details of the external appearance of the buildings, the

landscaping of the site, layout and scale for each phase or part of the development together with discharge of

conditions 2 (phasing) and 6 (design code).

Review of the ES

4.2 For the purposes of this reserved matters application, consideration is given to the likely significant effects

associated with the detailed design and comparison with the predicted effects within the ES

4.3 The ES, written in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations, provides a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected and a

description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment and contained within four

volumes.

4.4 ES Volume 1 includes as assessment of the likely, significant effects on the following topics:

• socio-economics (i.e. effects on housing, employment, retail, health, and leisure);

• ecology;

• water and drainage;

• landscape character and visual amenity;

• historic environment;

• agriculture and soil resources;

• ground conditions;

• traffic, transport, and access;

• air quality;

• noise and vibration;

• services, infrastructure, and waste.

4.5 Volume 1 also includes a Description of the Development, Consideration of Alternatives and Cumulative Effects.

ES Volume 2 contains a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).

ES Volume 3 contains a Geo-Environmental Appraisal

ES Volume 4 contains a Transport Assessment (TA).

Socio economic

4.6 The ES socio economic chapter considered the following:

3

• housing;

• retail;

• economy and employment;

• health;

• education;

• community facilities;

• open space, allotments and sports provision; and

• community safety

WEP socio-economic response to ES

4.7 The detailed scheme provides for some 382 homes and aligned to the “HEDNA informed” housing mix and with

40% affordable homes and a self- build element of homes provided.

4.8 As expected by the ES, the detailed scheme provides a mix of homes consistent with planning policy and thereby

helps meet local housing needs within Buckingham.

4.9 The resulting impact from employment generated from the development, and the population arising from the

project, will create the same substantial/major benefit for Buckingham anticipated by the ES. This will be seen from

increased local investment in the town centre from those working at, or living in, new homes within easy access of

town centre services.

4.10 The impact on health and education services remains as predicted by the ES with negligible or neutral effect as

the detailed scheme delivers open space, and an expected number/ mix of homes consistent with the outline

planning permission. The detailed layout submissions align with the approved parameter plan and with health and

education commitments managed through s 106 obligations.

4.11 Commitment to the open space proposals set down by the outline scheme is continued with the detailed

proposals with LEAP and NEAP provision, junior football pitch, allotments and open space at St Rumbolds Park.

Habitat enhancement within the open spaces is provided plus scope for non-vehicular connectivity back to off-site

footpaths. The substantial/major beneficial effect is retained through the details provided

4.12 By the combination of design detail, mitigation and s 106 obligations, there is no departure from any of the

“Statement of Effects” found within the socio-economic chapter of the ES (see table 4.13 to the ES).

4

5

Ecology

4.13 The ES confirms there are no statutory or non-statutory sites of ecological interest within the site. The wooded

corridor of the disused railway line is designated as a ‘Local Wildlife Site’ and this lies outside of the site.

4.14 The ES confirms how the site comprises managed arable and grazing land with boundary hedgerows and trees

and that surveys for protected species, have been carried out. The ES states “Overall, it is considered to be of low

value in ecology terms and would benefit from habitat creation to enhance biodiversity”. (quote from para 5.5 of

the ES non-technical summary).

4.15 The ES confirms how the proposed development “retains hedgerows and trees and provides new planting to

compensate for some of the perimeter vegetation that would need to be removed to accommodate the proposed

access junctions. The proposals include new woodland, hedges, grassland, and wetland areas, and these will deliver

include a greater range of habitats and species diversity than can be presently found on the site. Once these habitats

have established this will provide long biodiversity benefits. The detailed design and long-term management of these

habitats can be secured through appropriate planning mechanisms”. (quote taken from para.5.6 of the ES on

technical summary)

“In conclusion, it is considered that the overall long-term effects of the Proposed Development on ecology and nature

conservation would result in minor to moderate beneficial effect”. (quote taken from paragraph 5.7 of the ES non-

technical summary)

Paragraph 5.75 to the ecology chapter states:

“With the implementation of the mitigation and enhancement scheme, as detailed in Section 5.0, the residual effects

on the above habitats and species are considered to be reduced to negligible and will therefore be insignificant”.

ACD ecology response to ES

4.16 Based on the detailed submissions with the reserved matters application, the following evidence of conformity

with the ES ecology chapters is offered:

4.17 Submitted with the reserved matters application is an Ecological Management Plan (EMP). This acknowledges

the surveys undertaken for the outline permission and then updated by a 2017 walk over survey. The EMP conforms

maintenance arrangements; methodology for retention and enhancement of existing habitats; new habitat creation

including that possible within SUDs.

4.18 Tables 7.2 and 7.3 to the submitted EMP usefully summarise the committed management plan during

construction and the five-year management plan. Section 8 to the EMP outlines the monitoring and review

obligations for the developer.

4.19 By the actions and obligations found within the submitted EMP the residual effects anticipated by the ES are

met.

Water and Drainage

4.20 As part of the outline planning application submissions and falling as part of the ES was the Flood Risk

Assessment. It concludes with the following:

6

• This FRA has identified no prohibitive engineering constraints in developing the proposed site for the propose

d residential usage.

• Assessment of fluvial flood risk shows the land, post development, to lie in Flood Zone 1 and hence be a prefe

rable location for residential development when considered in the context of the NPPF Sequential Test. Asses

sment of other potential flooding mechanisms shows the land to have a low probability of flooding from overl

and flow, ground water and sewer flooding.

• Means to discharge storm and foul water drainage have been established that comply with current guidance

and requirements of Anglian Water.

• Storm water discharged from development will be disposed of by way of SUDS measures to the existing water

courses within the site. Foul water will discharge to the existing Anglian Water network after reinforcement

works have been completed.

• The site is fully able to comply to NPPF guidance together with associated local and national policy guidance

Woods Hardwick response to FRA within the ES

4.21 The reserved matters drainage strategy follows the principles of the drainage strategy noted in Chapter 6 of the

Environmental Statement (ES Chapter 6) associated with the Aylesbury Vale District Council Application

15/01218/AOP.

4.22 Surface water flows will discharge via gravity fed system and then through a number of basins, before being

discharged directly into nearby watercourses at restricted discharge rates. This point is also noted in Paragraph 7.7

of ES Chapter 6. For health and safety reasons due to the proximity of the proposed adjacent properties; the basins

provided are now designed to be shallower with tanks situated beneath i.e. the drainage strategy principle remains

unchanged. Proposed surface water flows will discharge into the River Great Ouse and an adjacent ordinary

watercourse. The proposed development complies with the surface water discharge rates set for the site. Foul water

will discharge via a combination of a gravity fed system, 2 pumping stations and a rising main; which will in turn

provide a direct connection to Anglian Water Manhole Ref 0301 situated, to the east of the development site. The

results of an Anglian Water hydraulic modelling study confirmed that there is currently spare capacity within their

public foul sewerage network to accommodate the proposed development foul water flows without the need for

reinforcement to the existing sewer, also noted in Paragraph 7.28 of ES Chapter 6.

4.23 It is proposed to offer both surface water and foul water sewers for adoption under Section 104 of the Water

Industry Act. If Anglian Water do not wish to adopt the basins, a developer funded Management Company will

maintain the SuDS features. The future maintenance of the proposed development SuDS system is also noted in

Paragraph 7.9 of ES Chapter 6.

Landscape

4.24 Paragraphs 5.13 to 5.17 within the non- technical summary of the ES confirms the following:

The site is not covered by any landscape led quality designation at a national or local level, although the landscape to

the north of the site is located within the Local Landscape Area designation of the adopted Aylesbury Vale Local Plan.

The site’s landscape character is represented by an agricultural landscape alongside, and within the context of, the

established urban edge of Buckingham and the main transport route of the A421. It is considered that the Proposed

Development would not be an uncharacteristic element within that context.

The masterplanning process has sought to minimise the impact of development through the careful siting of built

development; the use of material, colours and finishes that would be related to Buckingham’s local character; and

the creation of a landscape framework of conserved hedges and trees and new perimeter planting.

7

Clear views of the Proposed Development would be largely restricted to a few localised viewpoints near the site, with

combination of landform, hedges and trees restricting clear views of the Proposed Development from the wider

landscape.

It is considered that the landscape and visual effects as a result of the Proposed Development would be localised and

limited in extent. Effects are judged to be initially no more that moderate adverse and these would then reduce to

minor adverse in the longer term on account of the maturing landscape framework.

Paragraph 1.13 of the ES Landscape Chapter states:

The criteria adopted for this LVIA for landscape effects and visual effects are defined as follows:

• Major – An effect that will fundamentally change and be in direct contrast to the existing landscape or views;

• Moderate – An effect that will markedly change the existing landscape or views but may retain or

incorporate some characteristics/ features currently present;

• Minor – An effect that will entail limited or localised change to the existing landscape/ views;

• Negligible- An effect that will be discernible yet of very limited landscape/views

Paragraphs 7.15,7.16 and 7.17 state:

At Year 1, it is judged that the impact of the Proposed Development would result in a moderate adverse landscape

effect (i.e. an effect that will markedly change the existing landscape but may retain or incorporate some

characteristics/features currently presents). It is assessed that these effects would, however, be confined to the

landscape of the site and immediate area, with no major adverse effects on the wider landscape. Within this LVIA it is

assessed that these Year 1 effects would not be significant

By Year 10 it is considered that site would be benefiting from a maturing landscape of habitats and it is concluded

that the landscape effects would reduce to minor adverse (i.e. an effect that will entail limited or localised change to

the existing landscape). These effects would continue to reduce in the longer term beyond Year 10.

In conclusion, it is considered that the magnitude of the landscape effects as a result of the Proposed Development

would be localised and limited in extent, and the Proposed Development would not result any unacceptable harm on

landscape character and no significant landscape effects would result.

Paragraph 8.6 states:

As a consequence of the site’s general containment within the landscape of the study area and the limited number of

clear open views from the wider landscape it is considered that the magnitude of visual change on receptors on the

wider landscape would be limited (i.e. negligible)

Paragraph 8.17 states:

St. Rumbold’s Well immediate context, as part of the proposed St. Rumbold’s Park would continue to be an open field

the wooded edge of the disused railway line, and views of existing properties and buildings at Bath Lane, Gawcott

8

Road and at High Acre Farm. Whilst new housing would be visible to the west set behind new trees and hedgerow

planting it is considered that this would be appropriate within this context and would not result in any significant

adverse visual effects on St Rumbold’s Well.

Paragraph 9.4 states:

It is concluded that the lighting effects would not result in a significant harmful effect on the overall night time skies

landscape. Effects would be localised to the local landscape and are judged to minor adverse at Year 1 and these

would reduce to minor adverse-negligible at Year 10 on account of the maturing landscape framework that would

further restrict light emissions.

Paragraphs 10.6,10.7 and 10.8 states:

The masterplanning process has resulted in a sympathetic and appropriate design which includes the careful siting of

the built form within the site and the conservation and enhancement of landscape habitats. A responsive and

sensitive approach has been adopted in relation to the site’s surrounding context to includes St. Rumbold’s Well, the

Conservation Area, and the Local Landscape Area.

The Year 1 landscape effects and visual effects on Area 1-2 are judged to be moderate adverse, reducing to minor

adverse at Year 10. The Year 1 landscape effects and visual effects on Area 3 are judged to be minor adverse,

reducing to negligible at Year 10.

The impact and consequential effects as a result of the Proposed Development would not give rise to any significant

landscape or visual effects

ACD Landscape response to ES

4.25 The Reserved Matters (RM) application scheme has been developed based on the Parameters Plan prepared in

support of the outline application and supporting Environmental Statement.

4.26 The important landscape elements identified within the parameters plan and forming part of the assessment,

such as the boundary vegetation along A421, Tingewick Road and the Old Railway Walk, are all being retained within

the RM application.

4.27 The developable areas have also remained within the built development area within the Parameters Plan, with

no development located within the eastern field associated with St. Rumbolds Park. In accordance with 8.17 of the

Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary (ES NTS), the retention of the existing field hedgerow and

development set back, fronting the field, would no result in any significant adverse visual effects on St. Rumbolds

Well.

4.28 The principle areas of open space within the Parameters Plan, including the new tree and hedgerow planting

are being provided as part of the RM application, along with a strong landscape strategy with tree lined avenues and

green corridors.

4.29 In accordance with the conclusion in 7.17 of the ES NTS, with the retention of the important landscape

elements and the new landscape structure, the proposed development detailed within the RM application, would be

localised and limited in extent and would not result in any unacceptable harm on landscape character and no

significant landscape effects would result.

9

4.30 In accordance with the conclusion in 8.6 of the ES NTS, the visual effects, as a result of the proposed

development over a 10-year period, would be minor adverse and would continue to be generally limited and

localised in extent and, in overall terms, would not result in any significant visual effects in the long term.

4.31 n accordance with the conclusion in 9.4 of the ES NTS, the proposed development will result in a minor adverse-

negligible lighting impact at Year 10 on account of the maturing landscape framework.

4.32 In conclusion, the impact and consequential effects of the RM application proposed development would not

give rise to any significant landscape or visual effects.

Historic Environment

A: Archaeology

4.33 Within the ES are the following key passages in respect of archaeology:

Para 7.3 states:

A programme of archaeological excavation and recording of the Roman enclosure will be undertaken following the

granting of planning permission. The detail and full scope of the programme will be discussed and agreed with

Buckinghamshire County Council following the granting of planning permission. These works will be implemented in

advance of construction commencing with the results being published following completion of the post-excavation

analysis.

Para 7.4 states:

The creation of the proposed park in the eastern field will ensure that the area of the setting immediately adjacent to

the monument and its associated archaeological remains (ridge and furrow and below ground Roman remains), will

be preserved in situ and will provide amenity value to the existing and new local community. There will be

opportunities for additional presentation and interpretation of the monument within this area which also has

amenity value to the local community. Therefore, the park area of the proposed development will have a moderate

beneficial impact on the setting and significance of St Rumbold’s Well.

Para 7.5 states:

The layout of the proposed development has been designed so as to ensure that the remains in the area of evaluation

Trench 15 and the geophysical survey anomalies located on the very eastern edge of the site that may be associated

with the Roman remains immediately to the east of the Proposed Development site are preserved in situ. The

remains that have been recorded to the east of the site appear to be associated with the spring that is located on the

edge of the plateau to the east of the Proposed Development Site. The field that the Proposed Development will be

located in makes no contribution to the significance of the Roman remains located to the east of the site and

therefore, there will be a negligible impact on the significance of the recently discovered remains

Para 9.3 states:

The archaeological investigation of the proposed development site has also recorded a small non-designated Roman

enclosure as well as the ploughed out remains of medieval ridge and furrow. There is also potential for as yet

unrecorded remains within the proposed development site which, if present are considered likely to be of low

10

sensitivity. The Project will have moderate adverse effects upon these remains if they are present. However, a

programme of archaeological excavation and recording of archaeological remains where necessary will be

undertaken.

Orion Heritage (Archaeology) response to ES

4.34 As outlined in the heritage chapter of the ES, a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for programme of

archaeological excavation of recording focussed on a small Roman enclosure, a possible secondary area of

archaeological remains and a strip along the eastern edge of the development area immediately adjacent to

Rumbold’s Park has been agreed with Buckinghamshire County Council. These works have been implemented in full

to the satisfaction of the County Council Planning Archaeologist. It has been agreed with the County Council that a

watching brief will be undertaken on the area immediately adjacent to the Roman enclosure excavation area when

groundworks commence in that Area.

4.35 The reserved matters proposed development retains the eastern field as open space thereby enabling the

preservation in-situ of the Roman remains known to be in this area. Discussions have been held with the

Buckinghamshire County Council Planning Archaeologist and also Historic England regarding the long-term

management and presentation of the scheduled well and also of the Roman remains preserved in the non-scheduled

area of Rumbold Park.

B. Conservation

4.36 Within the ES para 4.18 states:

The significance of the Conservation Area resides in its archaeological, historical and architectural interest. Its

significance resides primarily within itself rather than its setting. Its setting comprises the built-up areas of

Buckingham that are on all sides of the conservation area and beyond that, the surrounding countryside. The setting

of the conservation area has a mildly positive contribution to its setting in that it forms the context within which it is

experienced. As stated above, the conservation area is primarily experienced in the context of later 20th century/early

21st century residential, industrial and commercial buildings that form the rest of the town and in places open

countryside.

Para 7.6 considers views towards Buckingham including views to the spire of the town church. It states:

Development will not be visible in views of the church spire from the south west along the A421. The spire can be

seen in views from Tingewick Road. However, again due to the screening effect of the hedges that bound the

Proposed Development along Tingewick Road, an observer will see limited parts of the proposed development in

places to the right of the spire. The Proposed Development will not impinge with this view which will also be in

keeping with an experience of moving from a rural to an urban environment which is what an observer would expect

to experience as the move toward the church and the town. Consequently, the proposed development will have a

negligible impact on the setting of the church and its contribution that it has to the church’s significance.

11

Para 7.8 states:

The listed buildings that are within the study area and just beyond it, have no intervisibility with the proposed

development site. Their setting is the urban form of Buckingham within which they stand, and this will be unaffected

by the proposed development. Therefore, there will be a negligible impact on listed building.

Under Statement of Effects, Para 9.4 states:

The proposed development will have a negligible effect on designated built heritage assets.

Pegasus Heritage (Conservation) response to ES:

4.37 A Design Code has been submitted which addresses eleven key design principles sort by condition 6 to the

outline planning permission.

4.38 3D modelling has tested the proposed housing layout to ensure the effective protection of key views towards

Buckingham as set out in the Design and Access statement to the outline planning permission. This is illustrated by

the “View Corridors” provided within the Design Code.

4.39 Within the Design Code the following numbered paragraphs give further explanation:

6.5 The View Corridor character area encompasses the primary street and is focused on views that face east

towards St. Rumbold’s Park and the view of Buckingham Church, and west towards open countryside. This is

achieved via a series of west to east running streets that allow glimpsed and framed views along their routes.

Additionally, the linear park along the northern boundary ensures more open views towards Buckingham are

allowed. The use of views and landmarks will help people to navigate around the scheme, while delivering a

design that responds and relates to its setting

7.6 Key frontages such as those following the tree lined avenue through the development will be particularly

prominent and critical to the appearance of the development. Important views towards Buckingham Church

spire and the open countryside to the west are maintained through Area 1 and the northern part of Area 2

through proposed routes that run in roughly west to east direction

7.11 The linear open space along the northern boundary links up to the large open space on the western

boundary. This open space is strategically located here to ensure that views of Buckingham Church are

maintained

4.40 By attention to careful design detail and disposition of buildings and open space, the heritage principles to be

addressed are achieved. The negligible impacts anticipated from the ES are therefore assured from the detail

submitted.

Agriculture and Soils Resources

4.41 The ES conforms how “The land mainly has heavy soils with slow subsoil permeability. Land with these soils is

most limited by soil wetness. A small area in the north has medium textured soils with

very stony subsoil, which are most limited by droughtiness. Agricultural land is of grade 3 quality: 6.3 ha of subgrade

3a and 15.0 ha of sub-grade 3b. The specific land grades of the three sites within the survey area are detailed within

the report.

12

If the site is to be developed, the soils at the site represent a moderate quality resource for re-use in landscaping if

handled carefully to avoid compaction damage”

BDW Agriculture and Soils Resources response to ES

4.42 The Construction Environment Management Plan addresses the reuse of stripped top soil in compliance with

The Construction Code of Practice for Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (Defra 2009).

Ground Conditions

4.43 The Geo-Environmental Phase 1 Desk Study confirmed in paragraphs 11.1 and 11.2 the following:

A small works and 2 masts situated to the south‐east of the site and to the east of Gawcott Road. Further

assessments to establish the baseline conditions on site will be required at the detailed design stage. However,

development of a residential nature surrounds the works forming the suburb of Mount Pleasant and therefore it is

considered that these features provide a low rating for risk.

The former London & North Western Railway (now dismantled) is situated adjacent to the north eastern site

boundary. Potential contaminants include: degreasing solvents, PCBs from engines and electrical equipment, heavy

metals, waste ash/clinker, oils and fuels. Further assessment of the site’s soils will be required at the detailed design

stage to establish baseline conditions. The same residential development as mentioned in the previous section (in

Mount Pleasant) is shown to extend to the boundaries of the dismantled railway, to the south‐east of the site and

therefore it is also considered that this feature provides a low rating for risk.

There are no former land uses identified on site, apart from that mentioned above, that are potentially contaminative

or likely to be prohibitive to the planned development. The contaminative risk at the site is therefore considered to be

low.

BDW Ground conditions response to ES

4.44 BDW have had a contamination study undertaken by the Rolton Group. Results of this confirm the following as

the most notable features:

“…. a slight risk to future householders from near-surface soils containing elevated Lead on the northern land parcel.

The concentrations of Lead are not so high that soils need to be removed from site. The measured Lead

concentrations would be suitable to be present in soils in public open spaces areas or parkland.

It is recommended that the existing topsoil in the northern parcel of the site is either removed from private gardens

or suitably covered in private gardens. If removed from private gardens the topsoil may be used in public open space

and landscaped areas. Alternatively, the existing topsoil may be covered by suitable clean topsoil imported to site or

obtained from the southern site parcel in accordance with the guidance and recommendations of BRE 465 (Ref. 8.20).

The thickness of any topsoil capping will need to be designed according to what topsoil source is to be used and it is

recommended that this is undertaken as part of the site-wide soil management and earthworks exercise.

No other precautions are required with respect to presence of contaminants in soils”.

“The site is located in an area where Basic Radon protection measures are required to new houses.

The site investigations have shown no other plausible sources of hazardous gases likely to pose a significant risk to

the development or residents. Gas monitoring has confirmed the absence of Methane and only low concentrations of

Carbon Dioxide typical of sites underlain by limestone.

13

There is considered to be no requirement to provide any form of additional gas protection above the required Basic

level of Radon precautions. Design, detailing and construction of the gas precautions should be undertaken in

accordance with BRE 211 (Ref. 8.9”).

4.45 Planning condition 29 to the outline consent prevents the commencement of development prior to the

submission and approval of a contaminated land assessment. Development will therefore progress in accordance

with the recommendation from the Rolton survey which will be submitted for formal approval.

Traffic, Transport and Access

4.46 Access is not a reserved matter but was approved with the outline planning permission. The submitted layout

and details show a consistency with the Transport Assessment submitted with the outline planning application,

including intentions for footpaths.

4.47 The implementation of the reserved matters application is bound by the transport obligations within the

section 106 agreement and which includes matters related to public transport enhancement: a “strategic transport

contribution” to mitigate traffic impacts on the A421 and Buckingham Town Centre and a “sustainable transport

contribution” for the construction of a 3-metre-wide pedestrian route connecting from the development to

Buckingham town centre.

4.48 Under the obligations of the s 106 a Travel Plan is required to be submitted and approved prior to development

commencement.

Woods Hardwick response to Traffic, Transport and Access within the ES

4.49 Woods Hardwick Infrastructure LLP to confirm that the conclusions made within approved Transport

Assessment (TA) under Aylesbury Vale District Council Application 15/01218/AOP; follow the principles of the those

noted in Chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement (ES 11) supporting the same application.

4.50 The TA was drafted in accordance with requirements set out in the Department for Transport (DfT) publication

‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’. The TA contains a full audit of the surrounding highway network including

details of the site location relating to public transport, walking, cycling networks; in addition to national and local

road networks (9.2, ES 11). Chapter 4 of the TA also includes an ‘Accident Review’, assessing all incidents reported

over a five-year period up to the end of May 2013; and concludes that the addition of development traffic will not

significantly compromise the performance of the existing road system (9.3, ES 11).

4.51 Junction modelling results for the existing Castle St/Bridge St/A422 mini roundabout, which incorporated the

use of classified turning counts are provided in the TA; the results of which identify the need for mitigation to

accommodate future traffic. By proposing alterations to the existing junction geometry, the analysis results for the

new layout show betterment is achievable. The TA notes that local traffic will increase as a result of the

development; however, the impact on the environment is considered negligible (9.3, 9.5, 9.6 and 9.8, ES 11).

4.52 The Transport Strategy within the TA includes the mitigation of residual impact; initially through improvements

to the local public transport network, walking and cycling facilities, and then through provision of new or expanded

roads. The TA concludes that the impact of the currently proposed development is insufficient to support an

enhancement scheme in isolation; as such it has been discussed and agreed with BCC that a financial contribution

towards existing services could be payable. (9.7, ES 11).

14

Air Quality

4.53 Air quality featured in Chapter 12 of the ES and under the heading “Assessment of Effects” , it confirms “As

outlined within the Potential Effects section there is the potential for dust nuisance problems to occur within 350m of

the construction site boundary. However, the significance of the dust impacts following appropriate best practice

mitigation measures is considered to be ‘negligible’.

“The significance of the impact of the additional traffic associated with the proposed development has been assessed

as ‘negligible’, following the completion of the development in 2024”.

Under the heading Statement of Effects, it says: - “Since the significance of the development impacts is ‘negligible at

all locations by the development completion date in 2024, it is concluded that air quality does not constrain the

development of the Site as proposed”.

BDW Air quality response to ES

4.54 A Construction Environment Management Plan is submitted to address the means to minimise dust activities

and sources of air pollutants close to “sensitive receptors” as recommended by the ES.

Noise and Vibration

4.55 Noise and vibration is considered in chapter 13 of the ES and “A Statement of Effects” is provided in section 9.

Direct and indirect noise and vibration

9.1 Noise levels as a result of the construction works will be minimised by implementing the mitigation methods

advised above, via the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

9.2 With mitigation the impact of the construction phase of the Proposed Development would not be

significant. The following tables summarise the noise residual effects:

Direct noise and vibration levels on the proposed dwellings

9.3 The assessment indicates that only those properties facing on to the Tingewick Road and the A421 would require

standard thermal double glazing as mitigation. The effect of road traffic noise would be considered to be negligible.

15

BDW Noise response to ES

4.56 Confirmation is provided to the application of thermal double glazing for units facing Tingewick Road and the

CEMP is submitted to conform to the ES guidelines for noise reduction.

Services and Infrastructure and Waste

4.57 The ES considers these matters in chapter 14.

4.58 In respect of services and infrastructure, and the potential constructional effect on services is assessed as “nil

and not significant” subject to good working practices to minimise the risk of network outages to the lowest practical

level.

4.59 About operational effects, the ES confirms: - “The service supply companies are developing phased

enhancements to their infrastructure, to ensure the availability of capacity and robustness of the network as

development phases progress”.

4.60 Under “Statement of Effects” 8.1 confirms: - “It may be summarised that no significant adverse environmental

effects will result in relation to services from the development proposals”.

4.61 In respect of waste the ES confirms: - “the Proposed Development will be designed to:

(i) Minimise the production of waste during construction.

(ii) Segregate, recycle, reuse and dispose appropriately of all construction wastes

(iii) Provide facilities within the proposed development to encourage the composting,

recycling and appropriate disposal of household wastes in accordance with local and

national policy.

As a result of the planned implementation design and mitigation proposals, no residual

environmental effects are anticipated.”

It may be summarised that no significant adverse effects will result in relation to waste from the

development proposals and effects would be minor adverse.

16

BDW- Services and Infrastructure and Waste response to ES

4.62 The Construction Environment Management Plan will address the ES scope for mitigation for the above

matters. No detailed proposals are offered to make any effect other than anticipated by the ES.

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 The above summarises show the submitted planned detail, pursuant to the outline planning permission. Further

assessment by those qualified in the disciplines allied to each matter within the ES chapters, confirms no added likely

significant effect compared to the construction, operational and residual effects assessed in the ES that supported

the outline planning permission.

5.2 As a result of the analyses referred to above the cumulative effect of the overall detailed submission remains

consistent with the overall impact assessment provided within the ES to the outline planning permission.