Shepper Planning Application for Growth 2018 · studio space which Government policy is seeking to...
116
AUGUST 2018 DOCUMENT Shepperton Studios Planning Application for Growth 2018 Environmental Statement Volume 1 (main text) 11
Transcript of Shepper Planning Application for Growth 2018 · studio space which Government policy is seeking to...
AUGUST 2018
DOCUMENT
Shepperton Studios Planning Application for Growth 2018
Environmental Statement Volume 1 (main text)
11
Environmental Statement – Volume One Main Text Shepperton Studios
August 2018
Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Approach and Methods 6
3. Site and Surrounding Area 17
4. The Proposed Development 24
5. Alternatives and Design Evolution 30
6. Planning Policy Context 32
7. Transportation 37
8. Air Quality 64
9. Hydrology 90
10. Summary and Conclusions 108
References 111
Sara Dutfield [email protected]
Client Shepperton Studios Limited
Our reference PINR3003 16 August 2018
3
1. Introduction
1.1 This document comprises the Environmental Statement [“ES”] prepared on behalf of
Shepperton Studios Limited [“SSL”] in respect of their proposals for the redevelopment
and expansion of Shepperton Studios in Spelthorne Borough.
1.2 The project subject to this ES comprises the partial redevelopment of the existing
Studios and their expansion onto land to the south, north-west and north of the
existing studios [“the Proposed Development”].
1.3 A planning application for the Proposed Development has been submitted to
Spelthorne Borough Council [“SBC”], pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 [“TCPA 1990”]. The application is submitted on behalf of SSL [“the applicant”].
1.4 The ES has been prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) [“EIA Regulations
2017”] and considers the likely significance of environmental effects of the Proposed
Development.
1.5 This ES describes the findings of the assessments, and the likely significance of
environmental effects (both positive and negative), which have been undertaken for
the Proposed Development on a range of environmental receptors. The assessment is
based on the description of development presented in Chapter Four and associated
plans/documents as reference. These assessments:
• Identify the likely environmental impacts
• Identify measures that are necessary to mitigate adverse significant impacts
• Predict the magnitude and significance of any impacts which will remain.
1.6 The ES is a document provided for the purpose of enabling decision makers to make an
assessment of the likely impacts on the environment arising from the Proposed
Development. The ES also provides stakeholders and the public with a basis on which
to make representations to the decision makers, as appropriate on the environmental
impacts of the Proposed Development. Further information on the assessment process
which led to the production of the ES is given in Chapter Two.
Background to the Proposals
1.7 The expansion and improvement of Shepperton Studios will be instrumental in helping
to meet the Government’s ambition for the urgent growth of inward investment in film
and High-end TV (HETV) production in the UK to 2025 and beyond.
1.8 There is substantial unmet international demand for large film productions with
budgets of over $100m to be shot in the UK-London as a leading global film location.
1.9 There is long-term real growth in the film and HETV sector both globally and in the UK.
4
1.10 The performance of this sector in the UK is constrained by the pressing shortage of
studio space which Government policy is seeking to address by expansion of sound
stages and skills.
1.11 Shepperton is an essential part of addressing this shortage and can do so in the
reasonable short-term1.
The Legislative Requirement and Purpose of Environmental Impact Assessment
1.12 The Proposed Development is of a scale which falls within Schedule 2 of the EIA
Regulations 2017. A screening request was submitted to SBC on the 6th June 2018. On
the 26th June 2018 a formal screening opinion was adopted, stating that the Proposed
Development should be classified as ‘EIA development’. A copy of the Screening
Opinion is provided at Appendix 1.1.
1.13 A scoping meeting took place with SBC and Surrey County Council on the 3rd July 2018,
and an informal scoping note (the Scoping Opinion) was provided on the 10th July 2018
(Appendix 1.2).
1.14 The ES has been prepared having regard to the EIA Regulations 2017 and associated
best practice guidance documents. In accordance with the EIA Regulations 2017, the ES
assessment is based upon the Scoping Opinion.
1.15 The purpose of the ES is to assess the likely significance of environmental effects of the
Proposed Development. In doing so it describes the baseline environmental conditions;
the options for development which have been considered and discounted; the design
of the Proposed Development; and provides an assessment of the likely significance of
environmental effects of the construction and operation phases of the Proposed
Development in respect of each environmental topic. Where it has not been possible
to design the Proposed Development to avoid adverse environmental effects, the ES
describes the mitigation measures that have been identified and incorporated into the
Proposed Development in order to reduce identified effects to less than significant
levels, where possible.
ES Structure and Content
1.16 The ES for the Proposed Development comprises:
• Volume 1 - Main Text (this document);
• Volume 2 - Technical Appendices and Figures.
• Volume 3 - Non-technical Summary (NTS);
1.17 The ES has been prepared by competent experts, fully qualified and experienced in
their technical fields. The credentials of those responsible for the preparation of the
technical Chapters are set out in the individual Chapters. The ES has been coordinated
1 See The Case for Space
5
by Sara Dutfield MRTPI, Director and Taylor Cherrett MRTPI, Associate Director of
Turley. Turley are holders of the IEMA Quality Mark.
1.18 The respective organisations who have contributed to the ES are presented below.
Table 1.1: ES Contributors
Chapter
Number
Chapter Title Expert Contribution
(consultant / practice)
1 Introduction Turley
2 Approach and Methods Turley
3 Site and Surrounding Area Turley
4 The Proposed Development Turley
5 Alternatives and Design Evolution Turley
6 Legislation and Planning Policy Context Turley
7 Transportation i-Transport
8 Air Quality Hydrock
9 Hydrology (Flood Risk and Drainage) Hydrock
10 Summary and Conclusions Turley
ES Figures and Technical Appendices
1.19 The ES includes various figures and technical appendices which the individual ES
Chapters rely on and make reference to and which have informed the EIA process.
These are included within the contents schedule.
6
2. Approach and Methods
Introduction
2.1 In accordance with Part 1, Regulation 4 (2) and Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2017,
the ES identifies and evaluates the likely significance of environmental effects arising
from the Proposed Development both in its own right and in combination with other
relevant developments (i.e. cumulative impacts) on:
“…population, human health, biodiversity, for example flora and fauna(with particular
attention to species and habitats protected under Directive 92/43/EEC(a) and Directive
2009/147/EC(b)), land (for example land take), soil (for example organic matter,
erosion, compaction, sealing), water (for example hydromorphological changes,
quantity and quality), air, climate (for example greenhouse gas emissions and impacts
relevant to adaptation), material assets, cultural heritage, including architectural and
archaeological aspects, and landscape”
2.2 The likely effects arising from the vulnerability of the Proposed Development to major
accidents or disasters are also considered in the ES in accordance with Part 1,
Regulation 5 (4) of the EIA Regulations 2017.
2.3 In accordance with Part 5, Regulation 18 and Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2017,
the ES includes the following information:
• A description of the location of the Proposed Development;
• A description of the physical characteristics of the Proposed Development
including where relevant, requisite demolition works, and the land use
requirements during construction and operational phases;
• A description of the main characteristics of the operational phase of the
Proposed Development;
• An estimate by type and quantity of expected residues and emissions such as air
and noise during the construction and operational phases
• A description of the reasonable alternatives studied by SSL, which are relevant to
the Proposed Development and its specific characteristics, and an indication of
the main reasons for the chosen option including a comparison of the
environmental effects;
• A description of the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment
(baseline conditions) and an indication of the likely evolution thereof without
implementation of the development as far as natural changes from the baseline
scenario can be assessed;
• A description of the factors referred to in regulation 4(2) likely to be significantly
affected by the Proposed Development;
7
• A description of the likely effects of the Proposed Development on the
environment resulting from, inter alia:
Construction and operation of the Proposed Development;
The use of natural resources (such as land, soil, water, biodiversity);
The emission of pollutants (such as noise and light);
The risks to human health, cultural heritage or the environment;
The inter-project cumulative effects taking account of other committed
developments;
The impact of the Proposed Development on climate (for example through
green-house gas emissions) and;
The technologies and substances used.
2.4 The description of effects will address any direct and indirect, secondary, cumulative,
trans-boundary, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and
negative effects of the Proposed Development.
2.5 A description of the forecasting methods or evidence used to identify and assess the
significance of effects of the Proposed Development will be presented as will a
description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce or, if possible, offset any
significant adverse effect and where appropriate of any proposed monitoring
arrangements.
2.6 The environmental topics are addressed under the headings detailed in column two of
Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Headings for the Environmental Statement
EIA Regulation Headings for the Environmental Statement
Population and
human health
Effects on the local population and human health will be
addressed in the Chapters which deal with transportation, air
quality and hydrology.
The supporting reports to the planning application, which sit
outside of the scope of this ES will also consider impacts on
population and human health, these being socio-economics,
landscape and visual impact, noise and vibration, and climate
change considerations.
Biodiversity There are considered no significant environmental effects in
relation to biodiversity with this confirmed by the Council through
informal scoping. As a result effects on biodiversity are considered
in a stand-alone report which accompanies the application.
Land Effects on land will be addressed in the ES Chapter through the
8
EIA Regulation Headings for the Environmental Statement
hydrology and flood risk chapter. The geo-environment report
which accompanies the planning application (but does for form
part of the ES – as agreed and confirmed through the informal
scoping process) also considers the effects of the proposal on land
use.
Soil Effects on soil will be addressed in the stand alone geo-
environment desk study report and is not within the scope of this
ES.
Water Effects on water will be addressed in the Chapters dealing with the
hydrology and flood risk.
Air, Climatic
Factors
Effects in respect of air and climatic factors will be dealt with in
Chapters dealing with air quality and flood risk / drainage.
The supporting reports to the planning application, which sit
outside of the scope of this ES will also consider impacts on
climatic factors, including primarily the Sustainability Assessment.
Material Assets Effects to material assets will be addressed through the supporting
reports to the application which sit outside of the scope of this ES.
These are principally considered within the heritage statement
and landscape and visual appraisal.
Cultural Heritage Effects on cultural heritage will be addressed in the heritage
statement, which sits outside of the scope of this ES.
Landscape Effects on landscape will be addressed in the landscape and visual
appraisal, which sits outside of the scope of this ES.
Interrelationship
between the
above factors
To be considered within each environmental topic area.
Vulnerability of
the proposed
development to
major accidents
or disasters
To be considered within the hydrology and flood risk and
transportation chapters.
2.7 All environmental topics have evaluated and identified the likely environmental effects
arising from the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development.
Mitigation methods, residual effects, and intra-project and inter-project cumulative
effects, have also been identified.
2.8 The design process has been influenced by the environmental impact assessment such
that mitigation measures have, where possible, been “embedded” into the scheme
9
Approach to Identifying Likely Significant Environmental Effects
2.9 The assessment process to identify likely environmental effects was undertaken by:
• Developing an understanding of the environmental baseline;
• Identifying environmental effects and evaluating their significance (generally by
evaluating magnitude of the effect and the sensitivity of the receptor);
• Considering whether cumulative effects will occur;
• Designing mitigation methods to minimise significant adverse effects; and
• Identifying residual effects.
Approach to Assessing the Significance of Environmental Effects
2.10 To assess the overall significance of an effect it is necessary to establish the magnitude
of the effect occurring i.e. the changes to the existing baseline conditions as a result of
the Proposed Development, and the sensitivity or importance of the receiving
environment or receptor.
2.11 Each environmental topic assessment has identified its own method to assess
significance of effects although each was broadly based on the following criteria from
IEMA on the approach to assessing significant environmental effects2.
Magnitude of Effect
2.12 The magnitude of potential effects (both beneficial and adverse) on environmental
baseline conditions was identified through the detailed consideration of the Proposed
Development taking into account the following:
• Relevant legislation, policy or guidelines;
• The degree to which the environment is potentially affected for example,
whether the quality is enhanced or impaired;
• The scale or degree of change from baseline conditions as a result of the
Proposed Development;
• The duration of the effect for example, whether it is temporary or permanent;
and
• The reversibility of the effect.
2.13 The following criteria provide a general definition for determining the magnitude of a
particular effect:
2 IEMA: The State of Environmental Impact Assessments in the UK: IEMA, 2011.
10
• High Magnitude – Total loss or major alteration to key elements or features of
the baseline conditions to the extent that post-development character or
composition of baseline conditions will be fundamentally changed.
• Moderate Magnitude – Loss or alteration to one or more key elements or
features of the baseline conditions to the extent that post-development
character or composition of the baseline conditions will be materially changed.
• Low Magnitude – Minor shift away from baseline conditions. Changes arising will
be delectable but not material; the underlying character or composition of the
baseline conditions will be similar to the pre-development situation.
• Negligible Magnitude – Very little change from baseline conditions. Change is
barely distinguishable, approximating to a ‘no change’ situation.
Sensitivity of Receptor
2.14 The sensitivity of the receptor is assessed with reference to the relative importance of
existing environmental features on or near to the Proposed Development, and by the
sensitivity of receptors which could be affected.
2.15 Criteria for the determination of sensitivity (high, medium, or low) were established
based on legislation, statutory designation, guidance and professional judgement.
2.16 The following criteria provide a general definition for determining the sensitivity of
receptors:
• Very High – The receptor has little or no ability to absorb change without
fundamentally altering its present character, is of very high environmental value,
or of international importance e.g. special qualities of a Special Protection Area
or National Park;
• High – The receptor has low ability to absorb change without fundamentally
altering its present character, is of high environmental value, or of national
importance e.g. special qualities of a Site of Special Scientific Interest or an Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);
• Moderate – The receptor has moderate capacity to absorb change without
significantly altering its present character, has some environmental value, or is of
regional importance, e.g. special qualities of a regionally important geological
site;
• Low – The receptor is tolerant of change without detriment to its character, is of
low environmental value, or local importance e.g. qualities of a hedgerow or
industrial areas; and
• Negligible – The receptor is resistant to change or is of little environmental
value.
11
Duration of the Effect
2.17 The duration of effects has been taken into consideration when determining the
overall significance of the effects. The timescales that will be used are shown at Table
2.2 (these timescales will be used unless otherwise stated, in accordance with
applicable guidance to the topic assessment):
Table 2.2: Duration of Effect
Timescale Definition
Short term An effect that will be experienced for 0-5 years
Medium term An effect that will be experienced for 5-15 years
Long term An effect that will be experienced for 15 years onwards
Significance of the Effect
2.18 The significance of effect can be determined by taking the magnitude of the likely
effect and the sensitivity of the receiving receptor. The significance of the likely effects
arising from the Proposed Development was categorised throughout the ES as follows
(unless stated otherwise within individual topic chapters):
• Major adverse;
• Moderate adverse;
• Minor adverse;
• None;
• Minor beneficial;
• Moderate beneficial; and
• Major beneficial.
Table 2.3: Example Matrix for Assessing the Significance of Effects
Magnitude
of Effect
Sensitivity of Receptor
Very High High Moderate Low Negligible
High Major Major Moderate Moderate Minor
Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Minor None
Low Moderate Moderate Minor None None
Negligible Minor Minor None None None
2.19 The above reflects the broad approach taken with respect to each topic. Where and
the extent to which assessments deviate from this approach, this is explained within
the relevant chapter.
12
2.20 Unless otherwise stated in each topic assessment, effects are considered to be
‘significant’ where the results of the magnitude and sensitivity equate to a moderate or
major adverse or beneficial effect.
Structure of ES Chapters
2.21 The ES Chapters are each broadly structured as follows.
Introduction
2.22 Each technical chapter of the ES begins by providing an overview of the subject area to
be addressed.
Legislation, Policy and Best Practice
2.23 Following the introduction, the ES chapter then identifies those elements of legislation,
policy and good practice guidance of relevance to the specific area of assessment. In
the interests of brevity, such reviews consist of the identification of relevant
documents. A summary of relevant provisions is either presented in the separate policy
chapter or in technical appendices. Appropriate cross references to assist the reader
are provided.
2.24 Relevant licences and permits required to construct, operate and maintain the
Proposed Development have been identified.
Assessment Methodology
Study Area
2.25 The study area of relevance to the environmental topic area has been defined in
narrative and through cross reference to plans. Reasoning for the selection of the study
area is presented.
Baseline Surveys
2.26 The means by which baseline environmental information has been gathered is defined
in each technical chapter. Desk based information sources were identified and where
consultation with statutory/non-statutory bodies has been undertaken in gathering
baseline information, a summary of the advice provided and subsequent action taken
is presented.
2.27 Where field surveys have been completed information is provided as to the location(s)
from which baseline information has been gathered, the frequency and duration of
surveys, and the survey techniques utilised particularly in respect of equipment used
and its calibration. Consistency or otherwise of survey activity with legislation, policy
and best practice guidance is confirmed and justified.
2.28 Where difficulties have been encountered in gathering relevant survey information the
details of those difficulties are confirmed.
2.29 Where external organisations have been consulted during the process of EIA details of
those consultations and the areas of agreement or otherwise pertaining to the scope of
or methodology for the assessment are set out.
13
Significance Criteria
2.30 Each environmental topic assessment describes how the significance of effects has
been identified and assessed. This follows the approach described above.
2.31 Through a series of tables, matrices and/or descriptions, the environmental topic
assessment confirms:
• How the magnitude of effect on the identified receptor is measured;
• How the sensitivity of the identified receptor to that impact is measured; and
• How the significance of the environmental effect on the identified receptor
having regard to both magnitude of impact and sensitivity of receptor is
calibrated.
2.32 A definition of each category of magnitude and sensitivity is provided, which may
follow the definitions described above. It is also confirmed whether these definitions
are based on published guidance or professional judgement.
2.33 What is considered to be a ‘significant environmental effect’ is confirmed within each
environmental topic area.
2.34 The assessment of significance also takes into account the duration of the effect as
shown at Table 2.2.
Baseline Conditions
2.35 A description of the baseline environmental conditions as they have been established
at 2018 is set out (the 2018 baseline).
2.36 Baseline environmental information has been gathered from a variety of sources
including desk based research, field-based survey work and consultation with relevant
statutory and non-statutory bodies. Consultation has been undertaken with a number
of organisations including SBC and Surrey County Council. Further details are provided
in the relevant technical chapters, in the Statement of Community Engagement and in
the Planning Statement which accompanies the application.
2.37 Professional judgement has been applied to predict the baseline conditions which are
likely to obtain at the date of the commencement of development (presently expected
to be 2019/2020 and the expected date of completion / full occupation of the
development (2031).
2.38 These are used as the basis for the assessment of effects in the construction and
operational phases respectively.
2.39 Professional judgement has also been used to present a description of the likely
evolution of the existing baseline conditions without implementation of the Proposed
Development in so far as natural changes from the baseline scenario can be assessed.
These are identified as the “do nothing” baseline conditions.
14
Matters which have been Scoped Out
2.40 Where matters have been scoped out these are described with a reasoned justification
along with a brief description of the (non-significant) type of effect which would be
encountered.
Embedded Mitigation
2.41 Each Chapter describes how the Proposed Development has been specifically designed
to avoid or minimise the occurrence of adverse significant environmental effects within
the specific environmental topic area having regard to both current (2018) baseline
conditions and those predicted for the construction and operational baselines. An
example of embedded mitigation is the incorporation of a tree belt to minimise visual
effects.
2.42 A distinction is drawn between those mitigation measures which are to be embedded
within the Proposed Development from the outset and those measures which may be
implemented at a specific point in the future (“additional mitigation”).
Assessment of Construction Phase Effects
2.43 Each chapter describes the likely significance of effects which are predicted to arise
during the construction of the Proposed Development. The assessment is against
baseline conditions predicted to obtain in 2020.
Assessment of Operational Phase Effects
2.44 Each chapter describes the likely significance of effects which are predicted to arise
during the operation of the Proposed Development. Each assessment considers the
operational impact of the Proposed Development in its entirety against the baseline
conditions predicted to obtain in 2031 which is when the Proposed Development is
expected to fully complete and occupied.
Assessment of Cumulative Effects
2.45 Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2017 requires a description of the likely significance
of effects resulting from cumulative impacts to be included in the ES. When considering
cumulative effects the ES provides information on how the potential effects of the
Proposed Development will combine and interact with the effects of other major
developments (‘inter-project cumulative effects’), and also assesses the potential
effects between topic areas of the Proposed Development (‘intra-project effects’).
Cumulative Assessment: Intra-Project Effects
2.46 Intra-project cumulative effects arise between the different environmental topics being
assessed for the EIA. The effects arise as a result of one topic assessment’s proposals
leading to an effect on another aspect of the environment. An example can be drawn
from the impacts of increased traffic movements which may have implications for air
quality and ecological receptors in terms of nitrogen deposition.
Cumulative Effects: Inter-Project Effects
2.47 Inter-project cumulative effects arise as a result of the Proposed Development
interacting with other major developments in the vicinity. An example of an inter-
project cumulative effect may result from the proposed construction traffic for the
Proposed Development using the same access routes as other construction traffic for
another un-related major project in the vicinity. The resulting effect may be an increase
15
in vehicles on the local road network and an increase in dust from construction
vehicles.
2.48 The assessment of inter-project cumulative effects has regard to the following
development proposals as agreed through correspondence with SBC following receipt
of the Scoping Opinion:
• Mineral working at Manor Farm, Ashford Road, Laleham – the mineral is to be
processed at the existing Queen Mary Quarry, Ashford Road, Laleham (Planning
Permission SP/2012/01132, granted by Surrey County Council on 23 October
2015).
• Charlton Lane Eco Park, Charlton Lane, Shepperton – waste management facility
comprising a gasification plant, anaerobic digestion plant, a recyclables bulking
facility, and a community recycling centre (SP13/01553/SCC, granted by Surrey
County Council on 25 September 2014)
• Proposed mineral working at Watersplash Farm, Gaston Bridge Road /
Fordbridge Road, Shepperton (Planning Application SP12/01487, awaiting
determination by Surrey County Council).
2.49 As per the Scoping Opinion, the cumulative effects are only to be considered in relation
to the effects of development on Transport and Traffic.
2.50 Likely cumulative effects have been considered against the current and predicted
baseline conditions in 2018 and 2020.
Mitigation
2.51 This section of each Chapter of the ES sets out the means by which any likely significant
environmental effects identified in the assessment of construction and operation
phase impacts is to be mitigated. The purpose of the mitigation measures is to prevent,
reduce or offset any likely significant environmental effects.
2.52 The proposed mitigation measures are presented in such a way that the reader is able
to relate the proposed measure back to the likely significant environmental effect
identified earlier (when assessed against the current and predicted baseline
conditions).
2.53 Within this section consideration is also given to the provision of any measures of
environmental enhancement over and above required mitigation.
Residual Effects
2.54 The final stage of assessment identifies any residual environmental effects and their
significance taking account of the application of the mitigation measures outlined
above. The assessment of residual effects is presented in narrative format with a
supporting summary table enabling the reader to understand the nature of the
predicted effect, the mitigation to be applied, and the residual effect, in each instance.
16
Monitoring
2.55 Where it is considered to be necessary, environmental topic areas have identified
proposals for on-going post construction monitoring. These may be needed for
example, where it is necessary to check the success of applied mitigation measures.
Limitations and Assumptions
2.56 If any difficulties have been experienced in completing the assessment these will be
confirmed along with any assumptions which have been made. Where it has been
necessary to base the assessment on “realistic worst case scenario assumptions”
appropriate definitions are provided.
References
2.57 A list of source references is presented at the end of this statement.
17
3. Site and Surrounding Area
Borough Context
3.1 The site lies within the administrative boundary of SBC in Surrey, which has a
population of approximately 95,000 people and covers circa 52 square kilometres to
the south west of Central London. It is a relatively small borough, 9.7 km’s long and
4kms wide with an overall area of 5,116 hectares. It is bounded by Heathrow Airport to
the north, the River Thames to the south and the London Boroughs of Hillingdon,
Hounslow and Richmond to the east, whilst the M25 runs close to its western
boundary.
3.2 The population is densely concentrated in the Borough’s main towns of Ashford,
Shepperton, Staines-on-Thames, Stanwell and Sunbury, which cover only 35% of the
Borough’s area. The other 65% is Metropolitan Green Belt, of which almost half is
either floodplain or reservoir.
3.3 There are three large employers within the Borough: Heathrow Airport, BP and
Shepperton Studios.
18
Figure 3.1: Borough Wide Context
19
Site Context
3.4 Shepperton Studios is located to the west of Littleton village, close to the boundary of
the parish of Shepperton. The Studios are strategically located some 9.7kms to the
south-west of Heathrow and 29 km’s to the south-west of central London.
3.5 The primary entrance to the site for vehicles and pedestrians is currently on the south side of Studios Road. There are on-road cycle routes in the vicinity of the site connecting Staines‐Upon‐Thames with Shepperton.
3.6 In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 40m from the site access serving locations in the Borough. Shepperton and Staines railway stations are located approximately 2.4 and 6.3km’s respectively offering regular connections to London Waterloo, Reading and Weybridge.
Figure 3.2: Site Context
20
The Existing Shepperton Studios Site
3.7 The existing Studio site is approximately 11 ha in area and accommodates more than
83,550 sqm (899,430 sqft) of floorspace.
It is contained by:
• Studios Road and the reservoir embankment to the north;
• the River Ash and its corridor of woodland to the south; and
• To the west and east, housing estates built on former Studios’ land and abutting
the Studio’s perimeter fence, known as Studios Estate and Magdalene Road
respectively.
Figure 3.3: Existing Studios Site
3.8 In addition to the primary entrance on Studios Road, access can also be gained from a
gate in the Studio’ southern boundary fence which leads to a path and bridges over the
River Ash corridor; this is only used by pedestrians and light vehicles to access the
backlots.
3.9 Littleton House is a locally listed building located within the existing studios site. The
Church of St Mary Magdalene, a Grade I listed building lies immediately to the east.
The Application Site
3.10 The total planning application site area (‘the Site’) extends to some 60 hectares,
comprising three distinct parts (see Figure 3.4):
• The existing Shepperton Studios site (11ha);
21
• 39 ha of land located to the south-west and north-west of the existing Studios
site including the existing backlots; and
• A segment of the River Ash corridor between Squires Bridge Road to the east
and the application boundary to the west (10ha).
3.11 The Site is bounded by:
the Queen Mary Reservoir to the north, which is formed by a continuous
grassed embankment rising approximately 10m above the studio ground level;
Shepperton Road to the south;
open arable fields (formerly gravel extraction sites) to the west, beyond which
is the Village of Laleham; and
the residential areas of Shepperton to the east.
3.12 The residential estate of Studios Road is excluded from the application site but lies in a
central position between the parcels of land forming the application site. It is also
served by Studios Road, the current main access to the Studios.
Figure 3.4: Application Site Plan
3.13 Topographically, the Site straddles the River Ash and extends across the floodplain at
approximately 12m AOD. The northern part of the Site abuts the embankment of the
Queen Mary Reservoir, which rises steeply above the site. Land at the extreme north
22
west of the Site rises to approximately 16m AOD in a shallow mound formation, with
the River Ash following this curved valley form3.
3.14 Parts of the Site have been subject to excavation and extraction works in recent
history, at times creating a series of flooded gravel pits. Following remediation works
this area is now predominantly flat.
3.15 The south eastern corner of the Expansion site incorporates the current Studio backlots
which occupy 7.9 hectares, bounded to the north by the River Ash corridor and to the
east and south by residential development, a small light industrial complex and
Shepperton Road.
3.16 The remainder of the Expansion site was formerly a horticultural nursery, known as
Laleham Nurseries. It comprises a collection of small buildings and glasshouses with
areas of hardstanding, which are now vacant and in a dilapidated state.
3 See Design and Access Statement for topographic and section detail
23
Figure 3.5: Plan of Expansion site
3.17 The River Ash corridor forms the final part of the application site and comprises 10ha
of the river, its associated banks and immediate surroundings.
3.18 Public access to the corridor can be gained from Squires Bridge Road and from Studios
Estate.
3.19 Centrally within the corridor there is a bridge connecting the existing Studio site with
the backlots. Whilst the bridge is open to the public, access to the Studio’s land either
side is only through access-controlled gates.
24
4. The Proposed Development
Description of Development
4.1 The formal description of the proposed development is:
“Outline planning permission with all matters reserved (except for principal points of
access) for the redevelopment and expansion of Shepperton Studios, comprising the
partial demolition and replacement of existing accommodation; construction of new
sound stages, workshops, office accommodation, entrance structures and reception,
security offices and backlots; creation of a new vehicular and pedestrian access from
Shepperton Road and the relocation of existing access off Studios Road; with associated
car parking; landscaping and ecological enhancements.”
Form of the Outline Application
4.2 The outline application is supported by a series of parameter plans which provide the
framework and set the principles for which future reserved matters applications will be
brought forward. The parameters are explained further below.
4.3 An Illustrative Masterplan with sections has also been prepared (Dwg No: 3542-FBA-
00-XX-DR-05_10-007) and is submitted for illustrative purposes only. It is not submitted
for formal approval. The illustrative layout demonstrates that the proposals can be
appropriately accommodated within the site, while respecting the amenity of adjacent
development.
Parameter Plans PP.1: Existing Site Layout and PP.2: Demolitions
4.4 The first two parameter plans show the existing site layout and the existing buildings which are proposed to be demolished.
Parameter Plan PP.3: Movement
4.5 The primary entrance to the existing Studio site for vehicles and pedestrians is currently on the south side of Studios Road, with onward connection to the wider highway network via New Road heading east, and via Squires Bridge Road heading south. A secondary vehicular access is currently provided from an existing roundabout junction between the B376 Shepperton Road and Littleton Lane although this is not used on a daily basis and services the backlots only.
4.6 The application seeks detailed approval of the proposed means of vehicular access into
the application site from the public highway. The proposals include the following:
Main access - a proposed new roundabout access on to the B376 Shepperton
Road; and
Secondary access – from Studios Road including reconfiguring the access
arrangements to the existing Studios Estate.
25
4.7 Internal access arrangements within the application site are reserved for subsequent
approval. Parameter Plan PP.3 confirms the proposed hierarchy and alignment of
pedestrian and vehicular circulation routes within the application site, and associated
‘limits of deviation’ are indicated. Importantly the secondary circulation routes will be
refined through subsequent reserved matters approvals, where the exact layout will be
confirmed.
4.8 The internal access arrangements also include a bridge crossing over the River Ash to
connect the different areas of the expanded Studio. The location of the bridge crossing
has been defined by the arboriculture and ecological work undertaken to ensure that
no harm is caused to the River Ash corridor in this locality.
4.9 The movement parameter plan also defines the approximate alignment of a network of
pedestrian routes through the River Ash corridor, providing a circular route from
Squires Bridge Road. A number of pedestrian only bridges are also identified on this
circular route.
Parameter Plan PP.4: Development Zones
4.10 Parameter Plan PP.4 identifies the development zones (including backlots and parking
areas). The edge of each development zone is identified, as is a limited level of
horizontal deviation for each in order to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility at
the reserved matters stage. In addition, parcels are proposed to be capable of being
amalgamated outside of the primary circulation routes.
4.11 A summary description of each main building type or land use proposed in the
application and its characteristics and function for screen based media production is
presented in Table 4.1 below:
Table 4.1: Types of Proposed Accommodation
Building Type Description
Sound stages Sound stages are large soundproofed buildings which offer
enclosed, high quality and technically controlled facilities for
shooting film and recording dialogue. They have structural elements
built in, such as lighting gantries and electrical infrastructure
designed for filming.
Workshops Workshops are used for the construction of sets and props. These
activities increasingly require higher head rooms and larger floor
areas. A number of recent productions have begun using workshops
as linear production lines where teams specialise in a certain
process and the set props move down the line in a production
process.
Offices Offices are used by staff employed by an individual production
company for the creative, managerial, financial and administrative
functions of a production.
Office-type space can also be used by productions for dressing
rooms, make-up and hair rooms, wardrobe, meeting rooms, flexible
26
utility spaces and for editing picture and sound.
They are also occupied by companies providing a range of media-
based support services to the production companies using
Shepperton Studios. A small amount of floorspace will be occupied
by SSL to manage, operate and maintain the site.
Backlot Open land used for the construction of exterior sets and filming
outdoor special effects. They also provide the flexibility for
temporary storage and for the parking of vehicles associated with
film and television production.
Development Yield
4.12 The proposed development includes the demolition of existing outdated
accommodation and the erection of new buildings, as defined by Parameter Plan PP.2 -
Demolition.
4.13 Each building type as defined above will be accommodated on both the existing
Studios and the expansion areas of the Site.
4.14 In order to retain flexibility to respond to the market over the lifetime of the outline
planning permission, consent is sought for the overall floorspace figures as shown at
Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Shepperton Studios floorspace (GEA) – for approval (1)
Accommodation Existing
(A)
Demolitions
(B)
Proposed
new (C)
Total
(A-B+C)
Net addition
(D)
m2 83,560 51,859 164,708 196,409 112,849
sq ft 899,432 558,206 1,772,902 2,114,129 1,214,696
(1) All figures GEA
4.15 An indicative breakdown of uses within that overall figure is provided at Table 4.3 to
illustrate one way in which the development could be built out. This is not submitted
for approval.
27
Table 4.3: Shepperton Studios indicative building types mix (GEA) – illustrative only (2)
Accommodation Existing
(A)
Demolitions
(B)
Proposed
new (C)
Total
(A-B+C)
Net addition
(D)
Stages
m2 20,837 10,006 67,902 78,733 57,896
sq ft 224,288 107,704 730,891 847,475 623,187
Workshops
m2 25,053 14,666 61,090 71,477 46,424
sq ft 269,668 157,863 657,567 769,372 499,703
Offices
m2 24,218 14,123 32,715 42,810 18,592
sq ft 260,680 152,018 352,141 460,803 200,122
Other (3)
m2 13,452 13,064 3,001 3,389 -10,063
sq ft 144,796 140,619 32,302 36,478 -108,317
(2) Based upon operational requirements of a film studio as known. Subject to variations within limits. Submitted for information only and not part of the planning application (3) Includes entrance structures, cabins, recycling, pass office etc
4.16 In line with the parameters approach adopted throughout the application only the
total floorspace figures are proposed for approval, with the breakdown of spaces
shown for illustrative purposes only
4.17 The illustrative masterplan shows that a total of 2,595 permanent surface car parking
spaces (with an additional 250 spaces for overflow parking) will be available within the
site to support the development. This would represent a net increase of 1,798 spaces
from the existing provision as show below.
Table 4.4: Car parking provision based on illustrative masterplan
Car Parking Existing Proposed Loss Proposed Total
Permanent 587 187 2,195 2,595
Temporary 460 460 250 250
Total 1,047 647 2,445 2,845
28
Parameter Plan PP.5: Heights
4.18 Parameter Plan PP.5 defines the maximum height of built form on each proposed
development zone. This parameter plan defines 4 height zones: +7m, +10m, +15.5m
and +21.5m measured Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) as shown on Parameter Plan
PP.8 - Levels. These heights are derived from SSL’s experience of production height
requirements in existing buildings both at Shepperton and Pinewood Studios; they
follow discussion with industry experts and production companies to understand
existing and potential future building size requirements, and they have regard to
adjoining land uses.
Parameter Plan PP.6: Green Infrastructure
4.19 A minimum of 3ha of the application site will comprise soft landscaping in addition to
the River Ash corridor and woodland to the north west of the site. A key design
principle of the landscape / ecology strategy is to achieve a net biodiversity gain.
4.20 The Green Infrastructure parameter plan defines the proposed areas of existing
landscaping planting to be retained, as well as areas of new planting and structural
landscaping.
4.21 Notably, the ancient woodland in the north western corner of the site is retained, and
is safeguarded from the development by the provision of soft landscape screening.
Furthermore, the River Ash corridor, which falls within the confines of the site
boundary, is to undergo restorative management to increase its ecological value. The
Ecological Appraisal provides a full summary of the ecological enhancements proposed
as part of the planning application. These enhancements may be secured by planning
condition or obligation, as appropriate.
4.22 Landscape areas are proposed to the boundaries of the site, in particular adjacent to
the rear of properties on Laleham Road, Cranwell Grove and Studios Estate. A large
area of landscaping is proposed on the western boundary of the expansion site, which
will consist of a circa 40m landscaped screen.
4.23 One water attenuation pond will be created in the north-west area of the expansion
site, in proximity to Development Zone D11. This will be designed to appeal to a range
of different aquatic, reptile and ornithological species through the incorporation of
design features such as fringing reed beds and marginal plant species. Swales will also
be created along the western boundary of the expansion site and to the south of
development zone D11 and these will feed into the attenuation ponds.
4.24 Full details of the potential landscape and ecological measures are set out within the
Ecological Assessment and Design and Access Statement.
Parameter Plan PP.7: Flood Protection
4.25 The proposed development will incorporate a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS)
ensuring that surface water discharge rates from the proposed development do not
exceed the existing level. For new buildings in the expansion site discharge rates will be
controlled to greenfield rates.
29
4.26 Elements of the SuDS include potential rainwater capture from permeable surface
areas and swales, attenuation ponds and wetland areas as defined on Parameter Plan
PP.7 – Flood Protection.
4.27 The flood protection parameters have been designed to provide protection of the site
and downstream from flooding based upon the current Environment Agency model. To
this has been added a further ‘risk’ allowance to give a worst and future proof case.
This will be agreed with the Environment Agency and controlled in a planning
permission by a suitable condition.
Parameter Plan PP.8: Levels
4.28 The majority of the site sits at around 12m AOD, with some areas of higher ground in
the North West parcel of the site.
30
5. Alternatives and Design Evolution
Legislative / Policy Context
5.1 Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2017 explains that an ES should contain a description
of the reasonable alternatives (for example in terms of development design,
technology, location, size and scale) studied by the developer, which are relevant to
the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main
reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental
effects.
5.2 Alternatives are often considered primarily in respect of the location of the Proposed
Development. In this case, however, the expansion of the existing studios can only be
provided immediately adjacent to the existing site as explained within “The Case for
Space” which supports the planning application. As such, alternative locations for this
growth to be accommodated do not form part of the assessment of alternatives in this
ES.
5.3 A series of design team meetings involving the project team have been held on a
regular basis to discuss and advise on design options and drive decision making.
Regular meetings have also been held with SBC and relevant consultees to inform the
development of the proposals. At each stage, design options have considered the
constraints, opportunities, and likely environmental effects.
5.4 This alternatives section describes the site-specific design (including size and scale) and
layout alternatives considered; it does not provide a review on the location of the
Proposed Development, which was selected prior to the environmental impact
assessment process. Further details of the design evolution in respect of the proposals,
particularly in respect of the illustrative masterplan are provided in the accompanying
Design and Access Statement prepared by Faulkner Brown. This section also provides a
comparison of the likely environmental effects for the alternative designs and layouts
considered.
5.5 The PDS includes the existing studio buildings and existing backlots. In preparing the
proposed plans a detailed review of the existing buildings, their relationship to one
another and to the site boundaries was undertaken. A series of design iterations have
been proposed and refined in consultation with the SSL team, as discussed in the
Design and Access Statement. These iterations have evolved as a result of operational
requirements in respect of film and HETV production, in particular the design
requirements for adjacencies of sound stages to offices and workshops, the flexibility
for groups of buildings to be used by a single production and the operational
requirements of transporting sets, props, crew and actors between various part of the
Studios. The proposals have therefore evolved as a result of operational requirements
rather than as a result of differences in the likely environmental effects of the
alternatives tested. The likely environmental effects of the alternatives tested would
be comparable between the options. This conclusion is reached on the basis that the
quantum of development proposed is the same for each of the alternatives tested,
with the alternatives comprising of various iterations of clusters of built development
31
that could come forward. The option proposed is considered to be the optimum in
respect of operational requirements and the context of the Proposed Development in
which it will be sited.
32
6. Planning Policy Context
Purpose of the assessment
6.1 This Chapter of the ES identifies the national and local planning policy relevant to the
site. This provides a basis for the subsequent assessment of the likely impact of the
Proposed Development against key planning objectives and policies.
6.2 Specific legislation, standards guidelines and best practice, which are applicable to
particular components of the ES, have been set out in the respective technical
Chapters. Certain planning policies are considered in more detail in those Chapters
where these are directly relevant and applicable to the issues being considered therein.
6.3 This chapter has been prepared by Turley.
Legislative framework
EIA Regulations
6.4 This ES has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EIA Regulations
2017 (Ref. 6.14).
6.5 It is accepted that the Proposed Development falls within Schedule 2 of the EIA
Regulations 2017, as an urban development project.
Local Planning Policy
The Development Plan (approved and emerging)
6.6 The development plan for SBC comprises:
Core Strategy and Policies DPD - Adopted February 2009
Allocations DPD - adopted December 2009
Local Plan 2001 - Saved policies
Adopted Proposals Map (2009)
6.7 The proposals map was adopted in 2009 at the same time as the Core Strategy and
Policies DPD (CS) but is a consolidated plan also showing all designations within the
Saved Local Plan and the Surrey Waste Plan. An extract of the adopted proposals map
is provided at Figure 6.1.
4 Ref. 6.1 – Document references are included at the end this volume for all Chapters
33
Figure 6.1: Local Plan Proposals Map
34
Core Strategy and Policies DPD
6.8 The CS includes a full suite of strategic and detailed development management policies
used in the determination of planning applications including matters in relation to:
• The general location of development
• Economy and Employment Provision (including identification as existing Studios
site as a key employment area)
• Community Needs
• Maintaining and Improving the Environment
• Climate Change and Transport
6.9 Appendix 1.3 identifies the relevant policies to the proposed development contained
within the Core Strategy.
Allocations DPD
6.10 The Allocations DPD contains no policies or allocations which are of relevance to the
determination of this planning application.
Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 Saved Policies
6.11 The Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 Saved Policies was adopted in April 2001; a
number of policies were ‘saved’ in 2007, subsequently updated in 2009, and therefore
remain part of the development plan. The ‘saved’ policies which are considered
pertinent to the consideration of the proposals include those in relation to Green Belt
and nature conservation.
6.12 Appendix 1.3 identifies the relevant policies to the proposed development contained
within the Local Plan 2001.
Other Material Planning Policy Considerations
The National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG, July 2018) (The Framework)
6.13 The Framework is a key part of the Government’s Plan for growth and the associated
reform of the planning system. Its publication, in July 2018, post-dates the
Government’s economic growth policies and industrial strategy and accordingly its
objective is clear, to assist in the recovery of the UK economy and to foster sustainable
economic growth with a clear strategy and Government support. Significant weight
should be attached to it.
6.14 The Framework sets out the purpose of the planning system as one of contributing to
the achievement of sustainable development, which is to be assessed on three
dimensions: economic, social and environmental (paragraph 8), taking local
circumstances into account (paragraph 9).
35
6.15 The economic policy guidance in the Framework places significant weight on the need
to support economic growth through the planning system. Paragraph 80 is clear that:
“Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and
productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for
development. The approach taken should allow each area to build on its strengths,
counter any weaknesses and address the challenges of the future. This is particularly
important where Britain can be a global leader in driving innovation”
6.16 The Framework references the Government’s Industrial Strategy in this regard, where
the priority of growing the Creative Industries, and in particular the film sector, is key.
Paragraph 82 goes on to recognise that there are specific locational requirements for
different sectors and that planning policies and decisions should make provision for
clusters of, amongst other things, creative industries.
6.17 The Framework reiterates previous national policy relating to the Green Belt and
confirms (at paragraph 144) that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to
prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 143 confirms that
inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not
be approved except in very special circumstances.
6.18 Paragraph 144 confirms that when considering any planning application, local planning
authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green
Belt, and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the
Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed
by other considerations.
6.19 The Framework contains guidance on a number of other themes. Those relevant to this
application are:
• Promoting sustainable transport
• Requiring good design
• Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
• Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
• Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Flooding SPD
6.20 The purpose of this document is to explain in more detail SBC’s policy on development
in areas of flood risk. Policy LO1 ‘Flooding’ is set out in the CS.
6.21 Detailed consideration of this SPD is provided by the submitted Flood Risk Assessment
and Drainage Strategy, including the Water Environment chapter of this Environmental
Statement.
36
Emerging Planning Policy
6.22 SBC is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan, which will provide a framework to
guide development in the Borough in a sustainable way over the emerging plan period
up to 2035. It will replace the current development plan when adopted.
6.23 A review of the Local Development Scheme (November 2017) indicates that the new
Local Plan is proposed to be adopted in September 2020.
6.24 It is expected that this planning application will be determined considerably before the
adoption of the new Local Plan and as a result the emerging Plan carries little to no
weight in the determination of this planning application.
Compliance with Development Plan
6.25 The Planning Statement which accompanies this planning submission provides a
detailed overview and assessment of the planning policy considerations pertinent to
this planning application. It undertakes the planning balance for the proposals.
6.26 It finds that the proposals would make a significant and critical contribution to the
maintenance and growth of the UK film and HETV industry in accordance with national
economic policy objectives and in support of strong, sustainable and balanced
economic growth, to which very substantial weight should be attached. In weighing
this contribution, the absence of any reasonable or practical alternative adds further
weight.
6.27 The proposals, therefore, accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and
Government policy in relation the Creative Industries.
6.28 Taken together, the benefits of the proposals outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by a
considerable margin, and as such they amount to very special circumstances sufficient
to justify a grant of planning permission.
37
7. Transportation
Purpose of the assessment
7.1 This Chapter of the ES assesses the likely significant effects of the development
proposal on the environment in respect of transport matters.
7.2 This chapter has been prepared by the following from i-Transport LLP:
• James Bevis MEng CMILT MCIHT – Partner
• Victoria Porter BSc (Hons) MSc MCIHT – Associate
• Duncan Findlay BEng (Hons) MCIHT MILT – Principal Consultant
7.3 A full Transport Assessment has been prepared in consultation with the officers of the
local highway authority, Surrey County Council (SCC). These discussions have included
agreeing the scope and methodology of the Transport Assessment.
7.4 Whilst the Transport Assessment has been used as source material, it primarily
identifies the development proposal’s compliance with national and local transport
policy in terms of
• a) its accessibility by non-car modes;
• b) the provision of safe and acceptable access; and
• c) setting out how the residual traffic impact (following mitigation) will be
acceptable.
7.5 In addition, a Framework Travel Plan has been produced, which sets out the measures
that will be introduced to reduce single occupancy car journeys.
7.6 The Transport Assessment does not fully assess the environmental impact of the road
traffic generated by the development proposal. The assessment of environmental
impact of the additional traffic requires assessment against different criteria.
Therefore, the assessment set out in this Chapter has been undertaken against the
criteria set out in the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s
Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (Ref: 7.1).
Legislative framework
National policy and legislation
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
7.7 The NPPF (ref: 7.2) was published in July 2018. Section 4 of the NPPF refers to the
promotion of sustainable transport and states that the transport system needs to be
balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about
how they travel. Paragraph 108 identifies the ‘three key transport tests’ and states:
38
“In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific
applications for development, it should be ensured that:
Appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have
been – taken up, given the type of development and its location;
Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and
Any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of
capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an
acceptable degree.” (Paragraph 108, Ref: 7.2)
7.8 When it comes to highways matters, development “should only be prevented or
refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway
safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.”
(Paragraph 109, Ref: 7.2)
7.9 Paragraph 110 sets out the prioritisation of pedestrians, cyclists, those with reduced
mobility, safety, security, creating attractive places, allowing for the efficient delivery
of goods and access by service and emergency vehicles, and the accommodating of
charging for plug-in vehicles. There is also requirement for the assessment of
movement impacts – including vehicular, pedestrians, cyclists and other non-
motorised users (Paragraph 111, Ref: 7.2).
Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
7.10 The NPPG (ref: 7.3) is a government published web-based planning guidance resource
that was launched in March 2014 and replaced several previous guidance documents,
including the DfT’s ‘Guidance for Transport Assessment’ (2007).
7.11 In relation to Transport, the NPPG identifies that:
“Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements are all ways of assessing and
mitigating the negative transport impacts of development in order to promote
sustainable development. They are required for all developments which generate
significant amounts of movements.” (ID42 – 002, ref: 7.3)
Transport Assessments and Statements can be used to establish whether the residual
transport impacts of a proposed development are likely to be ‘severe’, which may be a
reason for refusal, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.” (ID42 –
005, Ref: 7.3)
Surrey Transport Plan (LTP3)
7.12 Surrey Transport Plan (LTP3) (Ref: 7.4) sets out the transport challenges that face
Surrey and the proposed transport strategy from 2011 – 2026. The LTP3 sets out the
following vision:
“To help people to meet their transport and travel needs effectively, reliably, safely and
sustainably within Surrey; in order to promote economic vibrancy, protect and enhance
the environment and improve the quality of life.” (Ref: 7.4)
39
7.13 The vision is supported by four key objectives:
• Effective transport: To facilitate end-to-end journeys for residents, business and
visitors by maintaining the road network, delivering public transport services
and, where appropriate, providing enhancements;
• Reliable transport: To improve the journey time reliability of travel in Surrey;
• Safe transport: To improve road safety and the security of the travelling public in
Surrey; and
• Sustainable transport: To provide an integrated transport system that protects
the environment, keeps people healthy and provides for lower carbon transport
choices.
7.14 The LTP3 sets out a number of strategies to achieve the above objectives and these are
summarised in the following points below:
• Congestion: SCC’s congestion strategy is to improve the reliability of journeys
and to reduce delays for all transport modes on key routes;
• Freight: SCC’s freight strategy is ‘to assist in the effective transportation of goods
whilst minimising the impact of large goods vehicles on the environment and its
residents. This will be attained in conjunction with freight operators and trade
bodies and will be implemented by the following objectives:
‒ Provide up-to-date information to the freight industry to enable more
effective, reliable, safe and sustainable deliveries;
‒ Reduce the adverse impact of lorries on congestion, air quality and road
safety in urban areas; and
‒ Reduce incidences of lorries diverting along unsuitable lower category
roads when not being used for access.
• Parking: SCC are committed to reducing congestion caused by parked vehicles by
making the best use of the parking space available, fair parking regulations and
the provision of appropriate parking where required;
• Passenger Transport: SCC’s passenger transport strategy aims to promote shift
towards sustainable modes of travel whilst improving confidence in passenger
transport;
• Travel Planning: SCC have identified Travel Planning as having an important role
to play in terms of ensuring effective, reliable, safe and sustainable travel
behaviour in the culture of organisations in Surrey; and
40
• Rail: Rail infrastructure is to be developed to maintain competitiveness and
economic growth, whilst reducing environmental impact and accommodating for
population growth.
Surrey Cycling Strategy (2014 – 2026)
7.15 The Surrey Cycling Strategy (Ref: 7.5) sets out the proposed approach to cycling within
Surrey from 2014 to 2026, with the primary aim of increasing the number of cycling
journeys within the County. A number of measures are set out within the document to
achieve this, including:
• Providing comprehensive cycle training;
• Work in partnership with developers and other partners to deliver more cycle
infrastructure; and
• Set aside appropriate funding to support cycle infrastructure.
7.16 Guidance on cycle design is also set out within the document.
Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD (February 2009)
7.17 The Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD (Ref: 7.6) was released in February 2009
as part of the Local Development Framework, setting out the Council’s core strategy
and detailed policies.
7.18 There are seven strategic policies, of which climate change and transport is included. In
relation to transport, the strategy covers two related aspects:
• The location of the development: ensuring the development is located where it
reduces the need to travel and in particular reduce the need to travel by car.
• Promoting initiatives to encourage users of developments to be less dependent
on the car, including promoting non-car based travel and requiring travel plans
and improvements to access by alternatives to the car when permitting traffic
generating development.
7.19 Shepperton Studios is referenced as Spelthorne’s major commercial site and an area of
significant employment floorspace. The spatial strategy enforces the idea that
employment capacity will be maintained and refers to Shepperton studios in terms of
employment growth through existing commitments.
Assessment methodology
Methodology
7.20 With regard to the environmental impacts of road traffic that require assessment, the
Spelthorne Borough Council ‘EIA Scoping Advice Note’ dated 10 July 2018 (Ref: 7.8)
states:
‘For the proposed redevelopment and expansion of the Shepperton Studios complex it is
recommended that the ES chapter focus on the categories of impacts listed below.
Other impacts such as noise, vibration, air quality, ecology and visual amenity would be
41
addressed by either other ES chapters (air quality), or by the relevant standalone
technical report submitted with the planning application (e.g. visual amenity, ecology,
noise, etc.).
• Community severance;
• Driver and pedestrian delay (in the former case based on the findings of the
standalone TA);
• Accidents and safety;
• Fear and intimidation of road users and pedestrians.’ (Para 9, Ref: 7.7)
7.21 The methodologies used to assess the impact of the development proposal for these
matters are set out below.
Community severance
7.22 Severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it
becomes separated by a major traffic route. The assessment of severance pays full
regard to specific local conditions, in particular the location of pedestrian routes to key
local facilities and whether crossing facilities are provided or not.
7.23 The IEMA Guidelines (Ref: 7.1) suggest that a 30%, 60% and 90% increase in traffic flow
will respectively have a ‘slight’, ‘moderate’ and ‘substantial’ change in severance.
However, allowance needs to be made for the presence of existing crossing facilities.
Driver and pedestrian delay
7.24 Traffic delays to non-development traffic can occur:
• At the site entrances where there will be additional turning movements;
• On the highways passing the site where there may be additional flow; and
• At key junctions on the nearby highway network.
7.25 Values for delay are based upon computer junction assessment programs: ARCADY for
roundabouts and mini-roundabouts, PICADY for priority junctions and LINSIG and
TRANSYT for traffic signal-controlled junctions.
7.26 The development proposal will bring about increases in the number of vehicle and
pedestrian movements. In general, increases in traffic levels are likely to lead to
greater increases in delay to pedestrians seeking to cross.
7.27 The IEMA Guidelines (Ref: 7.1) recommend that rather than rely on thresholds of
pedestrian delay; the assessor should use judgement to determine whether there will
be a significant impact on pedestrian delay.
Accidents and safety
7.28 Personal injury accident data for the most recently available five-year period (1 January
2013 to 31 March 2018) has been obtained. A summary of the accidents is included in
Section 4.8 of the Transport Assessment.
42
7.29 The impact of additional traffic from the proposed redevelopment of the site is
discussed in terms of magnitude of increase, the existing accident record and the effect
of off-site highway and transportation works.
Fear and intimidation of road users and pedestrians
7.30 A further impact that traffic may have on pedestrians is fear and intimidation. This
impact is dependent on the volume of traffic, its HGV composition and its proximity to
people and/or the lack of protection caused by factors such as narrow pavement
widths.
7.31 The IEMA Guidelines (Ref: 7.1) suggest thresholds based on 18-hour daily flow, 18-hour
HGV flow and vehicle speeds, as shown on Table 7.1:
Table 7.1: Fear and intimidation thresholds
Degree of Hazard Average traffic
flow over 18-hour
day
(vehicle / hour)
Total 18-hour
HGV flow
Average speed over
18-hour day
(mph)
Extreme 1800+ 3000+ 20+
Great 1200-1800 2000-3000 15-20
Moderate 600-1200 1000-2000 10-15
Study area
7.32 The study area for the Transport Assessment has been discussed and agreed with
Surrey County Council through the scoping discussions that were undertaken in June
2018 (see consultation below). The study area is shown on Figure 7.1 and in terms of
the assessment in this Chapter includes the following links on the highway network:
Table 7.2: Study area
Link Name
1 Studios Road
2 Squires Bridge Road
3 New Road
4 Charlton Lane
5 Charlton Road
6 Ashford Road
7 Spelthorne Lane
8 B376 Laleham Road (east of Squires Bridge roundabout)
43
Link Name
9 B376 Laleham Road (west of Squires Bridge roundabout)
10 Littleton Lane
11 B375 Chertsey Road
12 B375 Chertsey Bridge Road
13 Weir Road
14 B375 Bridge Road
15
B376 Shepperton Road (between Littleton Lane and proposed site access
roundabout)
16 B376 Shepperton Road (west of proposed site access roundabout)
17 The Broadway
18 B376 Staines Road
19 Studios Road (within Studios Estate)
20 New link road through site
Surveys
7.33 In order to identify the existing traffic flows on the local highway network, fully
classified turning counts (with queue lengths recorded at five-minute intervals) have
been undertaken on 6 June 2018 and 3 July 2018 between 0700 – 1000 and 1600 –
1900 at the following junctions within the study area agreed with SCC:
• Studios Road / Main Access to Shepperton Studios (priority junction);
• Studios Road / Access to Car Park (priority junction);
• Studios Road / New Road / Squire’s Bridge Road (priority junction);
• Charlton Road / Charlton Lane / New Road (priority junction);
• B376 Laleham Road / Fairview Drive / Squire’s Bridge Road (mini-roundabout);
• B376 Laleham Road / Littleton Lane / B376 Shepperton Road / Existing Service
Access (roundabout);
• B375 Chertsey Road / B375 Chertsey Bridge Road / Littleton Lane (roundabout);
• B375 Bridge Road / Weir Road (signals);
• B376 The Broadway / B376 Staines Road (mini-roundabout); and
• Spelthorne Lane / Charlton Road / Ashford Road (mini-roundabout).
7.34 Automated Traffic Counters (ATCs) were also been placed on Studios Road and the
B376 Shepperton Road for a 7-day period in order to record link traffic volumes and
speeds.
44
7.35 In addition, SSL has provided the following data:
• Gatehouse records (Appendix V, Ref: Transport Assessment); and
• Annual staff data (Appendix W, Ref: Transport Assessment).
Consultation
7.36 A formal pre-application process has been undertaken with Surrey County Council, as
highway authority. Meetings have been held with officers of SCC as well as continued
discussions via telephone and e-mail during the preparation of the Transport
Assessment and this ES Chapter.
7.37 The scope of the Transport Assessment was agreed with SCC prior to this Chapter being
prepared and topic specific technical notes, particularly with regard to traffic impact
parameters, have also been issued to SCC for comment.
7.38 The scoping process is summarised as follows:
• A TA scoping note was issued to SCC on 13 June 2018 (Transport Assessment,
Ref: Appendix B);
• A meeting was held with SCC on 19 June to discuss the scoping note (Transport
Assessment, Ref: Appendix C);
• A traffic generation, distribution and assignment technical note was submitted
to SCC on 27 June 2018;
• Subsequent discussions by email and phone were undertaken to discuss that
note (Transport Assessment, Ref: Appendix D);
• The traffic generation, distribution and assignment technical note was
subsequently finalised and agreed with SCC on 11 July (Transport Assessment,
Ref: Appendix E); and
• Separate discussions have also been held with SCC with regard to their thoughts
on the highway improvements needed in the local area.
7.39 In addition to the above scoping discussions, a comprehensive public consultation
process has been undertaken including the following:
• Staff and Tenant Workshops on 28 June 2018;
• Immediate Neighbours Workshops on 28 June 2018 and 4 July 2018;
• Public Exhibition on 11 July 2018;
• Meeting with Laleham Residents Association on 19 July 2018; and
• Meeting with Charlton Residents Association planned for 16 August 2018. .
45
Significance criteria
7.40 The following significance criteria have been used in this Chapter:
Table 7.3: Significance criteria
Significance criteria Description of criteria
Substantial beneficial Significant local scale or moderate to significant regional
scale improvement in transport terms
Moderate beneficial Moderate local scale improvement in transport terms
Minor beneficial Minor local scale improvements in transport terms
Negligible No appreciable impact in transport terms
Minor adverse Moderate local scale adverse impact in transport terms
Moderate adverse Moderate changes in transport terms. Severe temporary
adverse impact in transport terms
Substantial adverse Substantial changes in transport terms. Permanent adverse
impact in transport terms.
Baseline conditions
Overview
7.41 Existing transport conditions are set out in Section 4 of the Transport Assessment and a
summary is set out below.
7.42 Shepperton Studios is located to the west of Littleton village, close to the boundary of
the parish of Shepperton. The Studios are strategically located some 9.7kms (6 miles)
to the south-west of Heathrow and 29kms (18 miles) to the south-west of central
London.
7.43 The primary entrance to the site for vehicles and pedestrians is currently on the south
side of Studios Road. There are on-road cycle routes in the vicinity of the site
connecting Staines‐Upon‐Thames with Shepperton.
7.44 In terms of public transport, there are two bus stops located approximately 40m from
the site access serving locations in the Borough. Shepperton and Staines railway
stations are located approximately 2.4kms and 6.3kms (1.5 and 3.9 miles), respectively,
offering regular connections to London Waterloo, Reading and Weybridge.
7.45 A review of the PIA data obtained from SCC does not suggest a particular highway
safety problem in the local area.
Baseline Traffic Flows
7.46 The traffic flows (24-hour AADT) have been derived from traffic surveys undertaken in
June 2018.
46
7.47 Weekday peak period (0700 – 1000 and 1600 – 1900) fully classified traffic counts were
undertaken at junctions across the study area on 6 June 2018, along with 7-day
Automated Traffic Counts (ATCs) placed on the B376 Shepperton Road and Studios
Road. In order to establish surveyed 2018 average daily traffic flows across the study
area, factors were obtained from the ATC data in order to calculate 24-hour daily flow
from the peak period turning counts.
7.48 It should be noted that on the day of the traffic survey, the existing Shepperton Studios
site was operating on an above Average Operational Day. Therefore, in order to
establish 2018 AADT flows for the local highway network, traffic associated with the
operation of Shepperton Studios was factored to reflect an Average Operational Day
(24-hour period) at the Studios using annual records of Gatehouse data obtained from
SSL.
Table 7.4: 2016 and 2018 baseline traffic flows
Link Ref Link Name 2018 AADT flows (24 hour 0000 - 0000)
Total HGVs % HGVs
1 Studios Road 1,621 57 3.5%
2 Squires Bridge Road 11,459 282 2.5%
3 New Road 11,896 296 2.5%
4 Charlton Lane 9,821 223 2.3%
5 Charlton Road 16,912 409 2.4%
6 Ashford Road 11,645 245 2.1%
7 Spelthorne Lane 4,845 63 1.3%
8
B376 Laleham Road (east of
Squires Bridge roundabout) 12,285 180 1.5%
9
B376 Laleham Road (west of
Squires Bridge roundabout) 14,078 369 2.6%
10 Littleton Lane 13,358 480 3.6%
11 B375 Chertsey Road 6,859 198 2.9%
12 B375 Chertsey Bridge Road 20,642 459 2.2%
13 Weir Road 12,142 222 1.8%
14 B375 Bridge Road 11,697 185 1.6%
15
B376 Shepperton Road
(between Littleton Lane and
proposed site access
roundabout)
14,243 427 3.0%
16
B376 Shepperton Road (west of
proposed site access
roundabout)
14,243 427 3.0%
47
Link Ref Link Name 2018 AADT flows (24 hour 0000 - 0000)
Total HGVs % HGVs
17 The Broadway 12,269 251 2.0%
18 B376 Staines Road 12,625 238 1.9%
19
Studios Road (within Studios
Estate) 1,169 49 4.2%
20 New link road through site 0 0 0.0%
Predicted significant effects
7.49 The assessments of both the construction and operational phases presented in the
following paragraphs are based on a slightly higher quantum of development than the
Masterplan seeks consent for (a difference of circa 3,000 sqm.). As such, the
assessment is robust and presents a worst-case scenario of the likely situation. The Air
Quality assessment presented at Section 8 of the ES is based on this same worst-case
assessment.
Effect during construction phase: short to medium
2020 Construction Traffic Flows
7.50 2020 AADT Baseline Flows (i.e. without construction traffic) were derived using
Average Day TEMPRO NTM traffic growth factors (2018 – 2020) for the Spelthorne 012
mid-output area which were applied to the 2018 AADT flows. It is assumed that the
existing operation of Shepperton Studios will not change as part of this assessment and
therefore the traffic growth factors have not been applied to existing traffic associated
with the Studios (i.e. the existing Shepperton Studios traffic has been discounted
before the growth factors were applied, and then re-added to the ‘growthed’ 2018
traffic to create the 2020 Baseline Flows).
7.51 The daily construction traffic for the proposed development is as follows:
• 100 cars;
• 10 LGVs; and
• 70 HGVs.
7.52 The above construction traffic has been assigned to the local highway network in
accordance with the agreed distribution/assignment (it is assumed that construction
access will be taken from both the B376 Shepperton Road and Studios Road) and then
added to the 2020 AADT Baseline Flows.
48
Table 7.5: 2020 construction traffic impacts
Link Name
AADT flows (24 hour 0000 - 0000)
2020 Without Development 2020 With Development Net Impact
Total HGVs %
HGVs
Total HGVs %
HGVs
Total HGVs Total %
Change
HGV %
Change
1 Studios Road 1,631 57 3.5% 1,768 118 6.7% 137 61 8.4% 106.4%
2 Squires Bridge Road 11,735 288 2.5% 11,742 291 2.5% 7 3 0.1% 1.0%
3 New Road 12,176 303 2.5% 12,305 361 2.9% 130 58 1.1% 19.2%
4 Charlton Lane 10,066 228 2.3% 10,076 233 2.3% 11 4 0.1% 1.8%
5 Charlton Road 17,319 419 2.4% 17,438 473 2.7% 119 54 0.7% 12.9%
6 Ashford Road 11,755 239 2.0% 11,852 292 2.5% 97 54 0.8% 22.6%
7 Spelthorne Lane 4,870 65 1.3% 4,892 65 1.3% 22 0 0.5% 0.0%
8
B376 Laleham Road (east of
Squires Bridge roundabout) 12,591 184 1.5% 12,602 189 1.5% 11 4 0.1% 2.3%
9
B376 Laleham Road (west of
Squires Bridge roundabout) 14,422 378 2.6% 14,433 383 2.7% 11 4 0.1% 1.1%
10 Littleton Lane 13,688 492 3.6% 13,708 492 3.6% 20 0 0.1% 0.0%
11 B375 Chertsey Road 7,031 203 2.9% 7,031 203 2.9% 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
12 B375 Chertsey Bridge Road 21,072 471 2.2% 21,092 471 2.2% 20 0 0.1% 0.0%
13 Weir Road 12,378 228 1.8% 12,394 228 1.8% 15 0 0.1% 0.0%
49
Link Name
AADT flows (24 hour 0000 - 0000)
2020 Without Development 2020 With Development Net Impact
Total HGVs %
HGVs
Total HGVs %
HGVs
Total HGVs Total %
Change
HGV %
Change
14 B375 Bridge Road 11,988 189 1.6% 11,993 189 1.6% 4 0 0.0% 0.0%
15
B376 Shepperton Road
(between Littleton Lane and
proposed site access
roundabout)
14,596 438 3.0% 14,627 442 3.0% 31 4 0.2% 1.0%
16
B376 Shepperton Road (west
of proposed site access
roundabout)
14,543 434 3.0% 14,555 439 3.0% 13 5 0.1% 1.1%
17 The Broadway 12,574 256 2.0% 12,574 256 2.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
18 B376 Staines Road 12,938 244 1.9% 12,951 248 1.9% 13 5 0.1% 2.0%
19
Studios Road (within Studios
Estate) 1,198 50 4.2% 1,198 50 4.2% 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
20 New link road through site 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 - -
50
7.53 The IEMA Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic sets out that
‘highway links should be assessed when traffic flows have increased by more than 30%
or other sensitive areas are affected by traffic increases of at least 10%’ (Ref: 7.1)
7.54 Paragraph 3.20 of the IEMA guidelines (Ref: 7.1) sets out that “locations would include
accident blackspots, conservation areas, hospitals, links with high pedestrian flows, etc.
Normally it would not be appropriate to consider links where traffic flows have changed
by less than 10% unless there is a significant change in the composition of traffic, e.g. a
large increase in the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles.”
7.55 Table 7.5 identifies that no link will experience an increase in AADT of more than 10%
due to construction traffic. The following links will however experience an increase in
HGV demands of more than 10%:
• Link 1 – Studios Road;
• Link 3 – New Road;
• Link 5 – Charlton Road; and
• Link 6 – Ashford Road.
7.56 These links have therefore been assessed in more detail, as set out below.
Community severance
7.57 Severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it
becomes separated by a major traffic route. The IEMA Guidelines suggest that a 30%,
60% and 90% increase in traffic flow will respectively have a ‘slight’, ‘moderate’ and
‘substantial’ change in severance.
7.58 With construction traffic, none of the links will experience an increase in all vehicle
AADT of more than 30%, and only Studios Road will experience an increase of HGV
demands of more than 30% - a 106.4% increase is predicted.
7.59 However, the land to the north of Studios Road is pastural land associated with the
adjacent reservoir, i.e. does not separate the community.
7.60 On this basis, the impact of construction traffic in community severance terms will be
negligible.
Driver and pedestrian delay
7.61 The impact of construction traffic during the peak hours of operation of the highway
network will be de minimis for two reasons:
• Firstly, construction traffic arriving at the site mainly occurs before the morning
peak hour, and similarly construction traffic leaving the site mainly occurs before
the evening peak hour; and
• Secondly, the overall number of construction vehicles, once spread across a day,
results in a low impact in any peak hour period.
51
7.62 On this basis, the impact of construction traffic in driver and pedestrian delay terms
will be negligible.
Accidents and safety
7.63 A detailed review of the existing accident record of the local highway network is
included in Section 4.8 of the Transport Assessment. This does not identify any
particular accident ‘blackspot’, nor does it suggest any particular safety issue with large
vehicles (e.g. HGVs) using the local highway network.
7.64 Given the de minimis traffic impacts due to construction traffic, the development
proposal will have a negligible impact on accidents and safety due to construction
traffic.
Fear and intimidation of road users and pedestrians
7.65 The construction traffic due to the development proposal will not result in any of the
thresholds set out in Table 7.1 being breached. On this basis the development
proposal will have a negligible impact in fear and intimidation terms on pedestrians
using Studios Road – it will remain a relatively lightly trafficked road.
Effect during operational phase: long term
7.66 2031 AADT Baseline Flows (i.e. without development traffic) were derived using
Average Day TEMPRO NTM traffic growth factors (2018 – 2031) for the Spelthorne 012
mid-output area which were applied to the 2018 AADT flows. It is assumed that the
existing operation of Shepperton Studios will not change as part of this assessment and
therefore the traffic growth factors have not been applied to traffic associated with the
Studios (i.e. the existing Shepperton Studios traffic has been discounted before the
growth factors were applied, and then re-added to the ‘growthed’ 2018 traffic to
create the 2031 Baseline Flows).
7.67 The Average Operational Day trip generation of the proposed development for the
morning and evening peak periods is set out in the TA. This has been factored to 24-
hour flows using the factors derived from the ATCs and then assigned to the local
highway network using the agreed distribution/assignment. This has then been added
to the 2031 Baseline Flows to create 2031 “with development” traffic flows. Traffic
associated with the existing Shepperton Studios operation has been discounted from
this assessment to prevent double counting as the proposed development will replace
the existing operation.
52
Table 7.6: 2031 operational traffic impacts
Link Name
AADT flows (24 hour 0000 - 0000)
2031 Without Development 2031 With Development Net Impact
Total HGVs %
HGVs
Total HGVs %
HGVs
Total HGVs Total %
Change
HGV %
Change
1 Studios Road 1,686 58 3.4% 2,389 105 4.4% 703 47 41.7% 81.3%
2 Squires Bridge Road 13,147 323 2.5% 12,794 312 2.4% -353 -11 -2.7% -3.3%
3 New Road 13,609 336 2.5% 14,664 394 2.7% 1,056 58 7.8% 17.2%
4 Charlton Lane 11,317 257 2.3% 11,409 260 2.3% 92 4 0.8% 1.4%
5 Charlton Road 19,406 467 2.4% 20,370 522 2.6% 964 54 5.0% 11.6%
6 Ashford Road 13,365 278 2.1% 13,844 319 2.3% 671 54 5.1% 20.5%
7 Spelthorne Lane 5,553 73 1.3% 5,744 73 1.3% 293 0 5.4% 0.0%
8
B376 Laleham Road (east of
Squires Bridge roundabout)
14,159 207 1.5% 14,251 211 1.5% 92 4 0.6% 1.8%
9
B376 Laleham Road (west of
Squires Bridge roundabout)
16,186 425 2.6% 16,007 421 2.6% -179 -3 -1.1% -0.8%
10 Littleton Lane 15,376 553 3.6% 15,640 553 3.5% 264 0 1.7% 0.0%
11 B375 Chertsey Road 7,911 228 2.9% 7,911 228 2.9% 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
12 B375 Chertsey Bridge Road 23,777 530 2.2% 23,949 530 2.2% 264 0 1.1% 0.0%
13 Weir Road 13,980 256 1.8% 14,114 256 1.8% 205 0 1.5% 0.0%
53
Link Name
AADT flows (24 hour 0000 - 0000)
2031 Without Development 2031 With Development Net Impact
Total HGVs %
HGVs
Total HGVs %
HGVs
Total HGVs Total %
Change
HGV %
Change
14 B375 Bridge Road 13,484 213 1.6% 13,543 213 1.6% 59 0 0.4% 0.0%
15
B376 Shepperton Road
(between Littleton Lane and
proposed site access
roundabout)
16,408 491 3.0%
16,904 488 2.9% 497 -3 3.0% -0.7%
16
B376 Shepperton Road (west
of proposed site access
roundabout)
16,408 491 3.0%
16,402 485 3.0% 54 -2 0.3% -0.5%
17 The Broadway 14,150 289 2.0% 14,144 283 2.0% -5 -5 0.0% -1.6%
18 B376 Staines Road 14,542 273 1.9% 14,601 276 1.9% 59 2 0.4% 0.8%
19
Studios Road (within Studios
Estate)
1,348 56 4.2% 1,348 56 4.2% 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
20 New link road through site 0 0 0.0% 823 15 1.8% 823 15 n/a n/a
54
7.68 The IEMA Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic sets out that
‘highway links should be assessed when traffic flows have increased by more than 30%
or other sensitive areas are affected by traffic increases of at least 10%’ (Ref: 7.1)
7.69 Paragraph 3.20 of the IEMA guidelines (Ref: 7.1) sets out that “locations would include
accident blackspots, conservation areas, hospitals, links with high pedestrian flows, etc.
Normally it would not be appropriate to consider links where traffic flows have changed
by less than 10% unless there is a significant change in the composition of traffic, e.g. a
large increase in the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles.”
7.70 Table 7.6 identifies that just one link will experience an increase in AADT of more than
10% with operational traffic, this is Studios Road. A further four links will also
experience an increase in HGV demands of more than 10% (albeit not an overall
increase in AADT of 10%). These are:
• Link 1 – Studios Road
• Link 3 – New Road; and
• Link 5 – Charlton Road; and
• Link 6 – Ashford Road.
7.71 These four links have therefore been assessed in more detail, as set out below.
7.72 In addition, the Transport Assessment identifies a number of local junctions that will
experience increased queuing and delay as a result of the additional peak hour traffic
generation of the site when operational. These impacts have also been assessed
below.
Community severance
7.73 Severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it
becomes separated by a major traffic route. The IEMA Guidelines suggest that a 30%,
60% and 90% increase in traffic flow will respectively have a ‘slight’, ‘moderate’ and
‘substantial’ change in severance.
7.74 With the operational traffic, Studios Road will experience a 41.7% net change in AADT
However, it will remain a relatively lightly trafficked route and has pastural land to the
north, i.e. it does no bifurcate the existing community.
7.75 On this basis, the impact of operational development traffic in community severance
terms will be negligible.
Driver and pedestrian delay
7.76 A detailed assessment of the operation of the local highway network without and with
development traffic is set out in Sections 6 to 9 of the Transport Assessment. A
summary of this assessment is set out in Table 7.7:
55
Table 7.7: Capacity assessments – without mitigation – summary
Junction Operation in 2023
Without
Development
Operation in 2023
With
Development
Impact Without
Mitigation
Existing Studios
Road Site Access
Below capacity Below capacity Negligible
Existing Studios
Road Car Park
Access
Below capacity Below capacity Negligible
Proposed
Shepperton Road
Site Access
Roundabout
n/a Below capacity Negligible
Proposed New
Studios Road Car
Park Access
n/a Below capacity Negligible
Proposed New
Studios Estate /
Studios Road
Priority Junction
n/a Below capacity Negligible
Studios Road /
New Road /
Squire’s Bridge
Road Priority
Junction
Close to capacity Over capacity Moderate adverse
Charlton Road /
Charlton Lane /
New Road Priority
Junction
Over capacity Over capacity with
an increase in
queuing and delay
Minor adverse
B376 Laleham
Road / Fairview
Drive / Squire’s
Bridge Road
Roundabout
Over capacity Below capacity (as
a result on the
new link road
through the site
and a
redistribution of
Shepperton
Studios traffic)
Moderate
beneficial
56
Junction Operation in 2023
Without
Development
Operation in 2023
With
Development
Impact Without
Mitigation
B376 Laleham
Road / Littleton
Lane / B376
Shepperton Road
/ Existing Service
Access
Roundabout
Over capacity Over capacity with
an increase in
queuing and delay
Minor adverse
B375 Chertsey
Road / B375
Chertsey Bridge
Road / Littleton
Lane Roundabout
Below capacity Below capacity Negligible
B375 Bridge Road
/ Weir Road
Signals
Over capacity Over capacity with
an increase in
queuing and delay
Minor adverse
B376 The
Broadway / B376
Staines Road
Roundabout
Over capacity Over capacity with
an increase in
queuing and delay
Minor adverse
Spelthorne Lane /
Charlton Road /
Ashford Road
Roundabout
Over capacity Over capacity with
no noticeable
increase in
queuing and delay
Negligible
7.77 Overall, without mitigation, the operational impact of the development proposal in
driver and pedestrian delay terms will be minor adverse.
Accidents and safety
7.78 A detailed review of the existing accident record of the local highway network is
included in Section 4.8 of the Transport Assessment. This does not identify any
particular accident ‘blackspot’, nor does it suggest any particular safety issue with large
vehicles (e.g. HGVs) using the local highway network.
7.79 However, given the impacts in terms of queuing and delay set out above, the
operational impact of the development proposal in terms of accidents and safety will
be minor adverse without mitigation.
Fear and intimidation of road users and pedestrians
7.80 The operational impact of the development proposal will be negligible in terms of fear
and intimidation on the following basis:
• No link will experience a more than 10% increase in AADT total traffic flow other
than Studios Road;
57
• The AADT total traffic flow on Studios Road will be below a level that breaches
the lowest ‘moderate’ level of impact identified in Table 7.1;
• No link will experience an increase an increase in AADT total traffic flow that
results in it moving from one category in Table 7.1 to another, e.g. from
‘moderate’ to ‘great’;
• No link will experience a total HGV flow that exceeds the lowest ‘moderate’
threshold in Table 7.1.
Scope of mitigation
Construction
7.81 As part of the reserved matters applications that will come forward following this
outline consent, full details of construction methods and programme will be required,
and SSL will be required to implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)
secured by way of a planning condition and Section 106 Agreement.
7.82 The CTMP will need to include details of prescribed routes for construction traffic and
may include other measures such as defined time periods for construction vehicle
movements. The full details of any CTMP will need to be agreed with SCC at the
relevant time.
Completed development
7.83 The development proposal will bring forward local highway improvements that
resolve/significantly improve existing conditions, i.e. the highway network will operate
with reduced queuing and delay ‘with development’ (and with the associated highway
improvement schemes) than it will ‘without development’. The development proposal
is therefore beneficial in traffic impact terms.
7.84 It is noted that a key concern of local residents is existing traffic speeds, particularly
through Shepperton, Laleham and Charlton. In addition to dealing with capacity issues,
the proposed highway schemes will also address this issue – the proposed roundabouts
for the new Shepperton Road access, at the Studios Road / New Road / Squire’s Bridge
Road junction and the Charlton Road / Charlton Lane / New Road junction will also
introduce a speed reducing feature.
7.85 The village of Charlton will benefit from the proposed highway improvements at the
junctions of Charlton Road/ Charlton Lane/ New Road and Charlton Road/ Ashford
Road/ Spelthorne Lane which are located either side of Charlton village. Both junctions
are shown to operate below capacity in the future year with development scenario
and, as such, the proposed schemes will deliver a level of betterment for the village of
Charlton which would not otherwise exist in the without development scenario with
both junctions shown to worsen from their current state which is already known to be
over capacity.
7.86 The proposed improvement at the Charlton Road/ Ashford Road/ Spelthorne Lane
junction will also improve pedestrian crossing facilities which are incorporated into the
new signalised junction design.
58
7.87 Softer measures including Gateway features for the village of Laleham will also
encourage safe and considerate driving through the village as well as encouraging
drivers to use alternative routes. The introduction of pedestrian crossings to aid
pedestrians crossing the road as well as disincentivising drivers from travelling through
the village of Laleham, will provide further benefit to residents and improve highway
safety and the environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
7.88 In addition, a FTP has been prepared for the proposed redevelopment and expansion
scheme, in support of and in accordance with these goals.
7.89 The FTP is an important management tool and, when implemented as part of the wider
transport strategy, the FTP and the targets and measures set therein will facilitate a
modal shift away from private car use towards more environmentally sustainable
forms of travel. Where private car use remains, the FTP will encourage more
sustainable use of this mode through car sharing.
7.90 The FTP prepared in respect of the redevelopment and expansion scheme sets the
principles for travel planning at the Shepperton Studios site and is based on
information known at the time of submission of the outline planning application. The
FTP builds on the Travel Plan already in place at Shepperton Studios and looks to
update and reshape this to reflect the development proposals and to take it forward
into the future. Once outline consent is granted, the FTP will replace the existing Travel
Plan.
7.91 To this end, some measures referred to in the FTP are already in place but will be rolled
out across the whole, expanded site, as and when the expansion proposals come
forward.
Residual effects assessment
7.92 The residual transport impacts of the development proposal, following mitigation, is
set out in Table 7.9.
Construction
7.93 The development proposals will have a negligible impact during the construction phase
without mitigation. The proposed Construction Traffic Management Plan is
nevertheless ‘good practice’ and will control inter alia the size, timing and routing of
vehicles. The residual impact will remain negligible.
Operation
7.94 Without mitigation, the operational traffic generated by the development proposal will
have a minor adverse impact in terms of:
• Driver and pedestrian delay; and
• Accidents and safety.
7.95 Mitigation is proposed through local junction improvements, and this analysis is set out
in Sections 8 and 9 of the Transport Assessment. The ‘with mitigation’ operation of
local junctions is summarised in Table 7.8:
59
Table 7.8: Capacity assessments – with mitigation – summary
Junction Impact
Without
Mitigation
Proposed
Mitigation
Operation in
2023 With
Development
and With
Mitigation
Impact
With
Mitigation
Existing Studios
Road Site Access
Negligible n/a Below capacity Negligible
Existing Studios
Road Car Park
Access
Negligible n/a Below capacity Negligible
Proposed
Shepperton Road
Site Access
Roundabout
Negligible n/a Below capacity Negligible
Proposed New
Studios Road Car
Park Access
Negligible n/a Below capacity Negligible
Proposed New
Studios Estate /
Studios Road
Priority Junction
Negligible n/a Below capacity Negligible
Studios Road / New
Road / Squire’s
Bridge Road
Priority Junction
Moderate
adverse
New
roundabout
junction
Below capacity Minor
beneficial
Charlton Road /
Charlton Lane /
New Road Priority
Junction
Minor
adverse
New
roundabout
junction
Below capacity Moderate
beneficial
B376 Laleham Road
/ Fairview Drive /
Squire’s Bridge
Road Roundabout
Minor
Adverse
n/a Nil Detriment Negligible
B376 Laleham Road
/ Littleton Lane /
B376 Shepperton
Road / Existing
Service Access
Roundabout
Minor
adverse
Improvements
to junction
including
additional
approach lane
on the
eastbound
approach
Below capacity Moderate
beneficial
60
Junction Impact
Without
Mitigation
Proposed
Mitigation
Operation in
2023 With
Development
and With
Mitigation
Impact
With
Mitigation
B375 Chertsey
Road / B375
Chertsey Bridge
Road / Littleton
Lane Roundabout
Negligible n/a Below capacity Negligible
B375 Bridge Road /
Weir Road Signals
Minor
adverse
Improvements
to the signal
junction
Nil Detriment Negligible
B376 The
Broadway / B376
Staines Road
Roundabout
Minor
adverse
Geometric
improvements
to the
roundabout
Capacity
Improvement
Negligible
Spelthorne Lane /
Charlton Road /
Ashford Road
Roundabout
Minor
Adverse
Signalisation of
Junction
Below Capacity Moderate
Beneficial
7.96 Overall, with mitigation, the development proposal will have a minor beneficial impact
on the operation of the local highway network in terms of driver and pedestrian delay.
7.97 The highway improvements will also help to address highway safety matters. In
addition, the proposed roundabouts at the Studios Road / New Road / Squire’s Bridge
Road junction and the Charlton Road / Charlton Lane / New Road junction will slow
vehicles down on New Road and Squires Bridge Road and address local concerns in this
regard. On this basis, the development proposal will have a minor beneficial impact in
terms of accidents and safety.
61
Table 7.9: Summary Table
Construction/
Operational
Impact Impact Mitigation Residual
Impact
Significance
Adverse /
Beneficial
Local,
Regional,
National
Direct/Indirect (D/I)
Permanent/Temporary
(P/T)
Period (ST/MT/LT)
Impact
Significance
Adverse /
Beneficial
Local,
Regional,
National
Direct/Indirect (D/I)
Permanent/Temporary
(P/T)
Period (ST/MT/LT)
Operational
Driver and
Pedestrian
Delay
Minor Adverse Local D, P, MT/LT
Junction
improvements
Travel Plan
Minor Beneficial Local D, P, MT/LT
Operational Accidents
and safety Minor Adverse Local D, P, MT/LT
Two new
roundabouts, on
New Road /
Squires Bridge
Road
Minor Beneficial Local D, P, MT/LT
62
Cumulative Effects Assessment
7.98 It is noted that the NPPG (Ref: 7.3) definition of committed development is as follows:
“development that is consented or allocated where there is a reasonable degree of
certainty will proceed within the next 3 years”
7.99 In terms of committed development, SCC has not identified any local schemes that
fulfil this definition and specially need to be included in the traffic impact analysis of
the development proposal.
7.100 However, SBC has identified the following schemes in their response to the
Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping request (Ref: 7.9):
• “Mineral working at Manor Farm, Ashford Road, Laleham – the mineral is to be
processed at the existing Queen Mary Quarry, Ashford Road, Laleham (Planning
Permission SP/2012/01132, granted by Surrey County Council on 23 October
2015).
• Charlton Lane Eco Park, Charlton Lane, Shepperton – waste management facility
comprising a gasification plant, anaerobic digestion plant, a recyclables bulking
facility, and a community recycling centre (SP13/01553/SCC, granted by Surrey
County Council on 25 September 2014)
• Proposed mineral working at Watersplash Farm, Gaston Bridge Road /
Fordbridge Road, Shepperton (Planning Application SP12/01487, awaiting
determination by Surrey County Council).”
7.101 The potential traffic impact of these schemes has been reviewed with reference to the
material that accompanied the various planning applications. This is summarised in
Table 7.10 below.
Table 7.10: Local Schemes Traffic Generation
Daily HGV
generation
Hours of
Operation
Peak Hour
HGVs
Peak Hour
Cars
Operational
at Time of
Traffic
Surveys?
Manor Farm,
Ashford Road,
Laleham (ref:
SP/2012/01132)
300 0730 to 1800 28.6 n/a Partly
Charlton Lane Eco
Park, Charlton
Lane, Shepperton
(ref:
SP13/01553/SCC)
n/a n/a n/a n/a Yes
63
Daily HGV
generation
Hours of
Operation
Peak Hour
HGVs
Peak Hour
Cars
Operational
at Time of
Traffic
Surveys?
Watersplash Farm,
Gaston Bridge Road
/ Fordbridge Road,
Shepperton (ref:
SP12/01487)
n/a n/a 20 19 No
7.102 On this basis:
• The majority of the traffic generation of the two schemes that are committed in
NPPG terms is already included in the peak hour traffic flows measured by the
local surveys;
• The remaining scheme (Watersplash Farm) is not committed in NPPG terms
because it does not have planning permission;
• Notwithstanding this, the peak hour traffic generation of Watersplash Farm is
low – less than one vehicle per minute – and once distributed across the network
the additional demands at an individual location will be (at worst) close to de
minimis; and
• However, a robust approach to background traffic growth has been taken within
the TA. This allows for the growth in population and employment in the local
area, i.e. it more than allows for the modest peak hour increases in traffic
resulting from includes the additional workings at Manor Farm, Laleham and the
proposed (not committed) workings at Watersplash Farm.
7.103 On this basis, the developments identified by SBC have been robustly allowed for in the
traffic flow figures (observed traffic flows and the traffic growth factors from TEMPRO),
i.e. there is no additional cumulative impact that needs to be allowed for that isn’t
already assessed within the rest of this Chapter.
Monitoring
7.104 Monitoring of travel patterns and impacts will be undertaken as a result of the
implementation and operation of the Travel Plan for the proposed development. This
will include surveys of mode of travel, number of vehicles movements and travel
attitudes. The results of these surveys will be shared and discussed with the local
highway authority, and the Travel Plan will be kept under constant review.
64
8. Air Quality
Introduction
8.1 This chapter presents the findings of an air quality assessment relating to the
redevelopment and expansion of Shepperton Studios. It assesses the significance of
likely impacts from the construction and operational phases of the Proposed
Development on local receptors.
8.2 This chapter considers the impacts from operational traffic movements, construction
traffic movements and construction dust. Concentrations of NO2 and PM10 and PM2.5
will be determined at sensitive receptors nearby and compared against relevant
National Air Quality Objectives [NAQO].
Development Plan
Local Policy: Spelthorne Borough Council
8.3 Spelthorne Borough Council (SBC) Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan
Document (as adopted on 26 February 2009) (ref 8.1) seeks to improve the air quality
of the borough and minimise harm from poor air quality through Policy EN3 below:
“Supporting appropriate measures to reduce traffic congestion where it is a contributor
to existing areas of poor air quality.
Requiring an air quality assessment where development:
(i) is in an Air Quality Management Area, and
(ii) generates significant levels of pollution, or
(iii) increases traffic volumes or congestion, or
(iv) is for non-residential uses of 1000 m² or greater, or
(v) is for 10 or more dwellings, or vi involves development sensitive to poor air
quality.
Refusing development where the adverse effects on air quality are of a significant scale,
either individually or in combination with other proposals, and which are not
outweighed by other important considerations or effects and cannot be appropriately
and effectively mitigated.
Refusing development where the adverse effects of existing air quality on future
occupiers are of a significant scale which cannot be appropriately or effectively
mitigated and which are not outweighed by other material Considerations.”
65
National policy and legislation
European Union Legislation
8.4 The overriding policy document which governs air regulation is the EU Council Directive
on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe [2008/50/EC] (ref 8.2), which came
into force in 2008, and provides statutory guidance on air quality. This presents
statutory requirements for the protection of human health and ecosystems through
long and short-term limit values for: oxides of nitrogen [NOx], nitrogen dioxide [NO2],
sulphur dioxide [SO2], particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microns
[PM10], particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns [PM2.5] carbon
monoxide [CO], lead, benzene and ozone [O3]. The above legislation replaces the EU’s
previous Three Daughter Directive.
8.5 The 4th Daughter Directive 2004/107/EC (ref 8.3) sets target values, where exposure is
to be reduced to as low as reasonably possible, for arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PaH] within ambient air.
8.6 In addition, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution [COMEAP] (ref 8.4),
the World Health Organisation [WHO] (ref 8.5) and the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe [UNECE] (ref 8.6) provide medical and scientific evidence of the
health risks to the general public and recommended concentration limits.
United Kingdom Legislation
8.7 The above EU limit/target values within the EU Directives 2008/50/EC and
2004/107/EC (namely, the Fourth Daughter Directive) were transposed into UK Law as
part of the Air Quality Standards Regulations (ref.8.7) which came into force in 2010.
8.8 These regulations set out how the government has interpreted the above directives
and sets out Air Quality Objectives [AQOs] that are maximum ambient pollutant
concentrations that are not to be exceeded either without exception or with a
permitted number of exceedances over a specified timescale. One of the main
additions to these was the addition of regulatory framework on PM2.5.
8.9 The Air Quality Strategy 2007 Volume 1 (ref 8.8) outlines the national AQOs that should
be achieved. Whilst central government is ultimately responsible for meeting these
objectives, part of the Environment Act 1995 (ref 8.9) dictates that a local authority is
required to assess and periodically review their compliance with the non-binding
objectives and any areas that repeatedly exceed the allowed limits should be
designated Air Quality Management Areas [AQMA]. All National Air Quality Objectives
applicable to this assessment have been presented in the table below:
Table 8.1: Selected National Air Quality Objectives
Pollutant
Period
NAQO
Limit
Values
Allowable
exceedances Description units
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
µg/m3 Annual mean 40 n/a
µg/m3 1 hour mean 200 18
66
Particles (PM10) µg/m3 Annual mean 40 n/a
µg/m3 24-hour mean 50 35
Particles (PM2.5) µg/m3 Annual mean 20 n/a
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NOx as NO2) µg/m3
Annual mean
for protection
of ecosystems
30 n/a
8.10 The UK government have produced a draft of their Clean Air Strategy 2018 (ref 8.10)
which presents how it will tackle source of air pollution, protecting nature and boosting
the economy.
8.11 Through the Local Air Quality Management [LAQM] system local authorities are
required to assess air quality in their area and designate AQMA if improvements are
necessary. Where an AQMA is designated, local authorities are required to produce an
air quality action plan describing the pollution reduction measures it will put in place.
8.12 In order to determine if an air quality assessment is required, Defra Local Air Quality
management (LAQM) Technical Guidance 2016 (ref 8.11) and the IAQM Land-use
Planning & Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (ref 8.12) and the Highways
Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (ref 8.13) is used as guidance.
8.13 SBC has designated the whole of its borough as an AQMA. SBC released their 2005 Air
Quality Strategy “Action Plan” (ref 8.14) which proposes actions to ensure that the
future development of land will not adversely impact on air quality. In order to achieve
this, SBC propose the following measures in section 6.7.2 of the plan:
“Where development may have a significant impact on air quality, either
due to processes carried out or potential traffic generation, the applicant
will be expected to carry out an assessment of the likely impacts.
Where the assessment shows that there is likely to be a harmful impact on
air quality OR that the development could harm attempts to bring about
necessary improvements to air quality to meet national standards,
developers will be expected to incorporate mitigation measures into the
development and demonstrate that the proposed measures will reduce
impacts to an acceptable level. Such measures could include controls or
modifications to production processes, or measures to reduce traffic
generation including support for non-car based modes of travel, business
travel plans, and parking restrictions.
Where it appears to the Council that harmful impacts on air quality cannot be
overcome by mitigation measures then the Council may refuse planning
permission on air quality grounds.”
8.14 SBC also undertakes annual Air Quality Reports assessing the performance of areas of
significant pollution. On the 9th August 2018 SBC updated their air quality web page
which includes their latest 2018 Annual Status Report.
67
The Development
8.15 The aspects of the Proposed Development that are likely to have an impact on local air
quality are the demolition and conversion of existing sections of the Studios along with
the addition of:
• large (20-50k sqft GIA) sound stages;
• smaller (10-15k sqft GIA) sound stages;
• offices;
• workshops;
• back lots;
• additional car parks; and
• construction of a new access road from Shepperton Road.
8.16 The total gross external area [GEA] to be demolished is set to be 51,859m2, with the
total GEA of the new proposed buildings is set to be approximately 164,700m2m2.
8.17 There is going to be additional car parks within the Proposed Development, the
illustrative masterplan shows an increase in parking spaces from 1,047 to 2,845.
8.18 There will also be a new access road built within the development area which links
Studio Road with Shepperton Road and which will bypass current residential receptors.
The Study Area
8.19 The air quality impacts have been assessed at the residential areas surrounding the
Proposed Development and on the road network connecting the Proposed
Development with nearby urban areas. This includes the areas of Littleton, Shepperton,
Laleham and Ashford Common.
Assessment methodology
8.20 The assessment has been carried out based on the methodologies and guidance set out
in Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM TG(16), the IAQM and
Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) Land-Use Planning & Development Control
planning for Air Quality guidance11 and the IAQM Guidance on the assessment of dust
from demolition and construction (ref 8.15).
Construction Phase Methodology
Dust emissions
8.21 The primary impact on local air quality during the construction phase emissions of dust
to air during the preparation of land and during construction. To assess these impacts
and keep a check on dust (<75µm) and Particulate Matter (<10µm) releases, an
assessment has been carried out in accordance with IAQM Guidance.
68
8.22 The IAQM construction dust assessment guidance is outlined in figure 8.1 below. The
diagram outlines the steps required to assess the likely effects from construction dust.
Figure 8.1: IAQM dust assessment methodology (ref 8.15)
8.23 Step 1 of the guidance requires the site to be screened for existing human and
ecological receptors within 350m (human receptors) or 50m (ecological receptors) of
the site boundary; or 50m of a route used by construction vehicles up to 500m from
the site entrance.
8.24 It has been identified that there are human receptors within the screening distances
and therefore a construction dust assessment is required. There are no statutory
69
ecological receptors (SAC, SPA, RAMSAR or SSSI) within the screening distance.
Therefore, a construction dust assessment relating to ecological receptors has not
been undertaken.
8.25 The risk of dust effects is identified by the scale and nature of the works. Risks are
determined in terms of Low, Medium and High. A matrix, which considers the distance
of a source, its sensitivity and the magnitude of the works, is used to determine the
likely impact of the construction (see appendix 8.1).
8.26 Suitable mitigation measures are then considered, if required, and the significance of
dust effects is determined after the relevant mitigation.
Traffic emissions
8.27 The transport assessment relating to this planning application predicts the maximum
increase in daily HGV movements, due to construction, on applicable public roads to be
58 (New Road). This is greater than the IAQM criteria of 25 annual average daily traffic
[AADT] movements, within an AQMA, where an air quality assessment could be
required. As the predicted flows on some of the nearby roads are greater than 10,000
AADT, construction traffic will be included within the main road traffic assessment.
Operational Phase Methodology
Traffic emissions
8.28 The focus of the operational assessment is to determine the current conditions in the
area and what impact future increases in vehicle movements, associated with the
Proposed Development, might have on existing sensitive receptors.
8.29 Since the predicted increases in traffic exceeds both the IAQM and SBC's screening
criteria (more than 100 vehicle movements within an AQMA) a detailed road traffic air
quality assessment has been undertaken. The increased traffic associated with the
Proposed Development is originating from the proposed car parks which would add
approximately 2,845 extra spaces to the site.
Assessment approach
8.30 In order to determine the likely impact of the Proposed Development, a detailed Air
Quality Assessment [AQA] has been undertaken using the air dispersion model ADMS-
Roads (Version 4.1.1) to establish the air quality situation under the following
scenarios:
• A baseline using 2016 traffic, weather and monitoring data along with 2016
emissions factors [EF] to determine current conditions in the area and validate
the model.
• A model with projected traffic increases in 2020, without construction traffic.
This has been assessed using both 2016 and 2020 EF.
• A model with projected traffic increases in 2020, with construction traffic. This
has been assessed using both 2016 and 2020 EF.
70
• A model with projected traffic increases in 2031, without the Proposed
Development. This has been assessed using both 2016 and 20305 EF.
• A model with projected traffic increases in 2031, with the Proposed
Development. This has been assessed using both 2016 and 20301EF.
8.31 The impact of already committed developments has not been considered within this
assessment, as the traffic assessment has not identified any permitted developments
within the next three years that would add any significant traffic to the area. A
statement relating to the screening of any committed developments can be found
within chapter 7 of this ES.
8.32 ADMS-Roads is commercially available, has been validated for this type of assessment
and is used extensively for AQAs. It is able to provide an estimate of air quality both
before and after development, considering important input data such as background
pollutant concentrations, variable emissions rates, meteorological data and traffic
flows. The model output has been verified against local monitoring data carried out by
SBC.
8.33 This model considers/uses the following data:
• Background concentration data from Defra background maps (ref 8.16) and SBC.
• Annual Average Daily Flow count data provided by I-Transport consultants based
on a 2018 Automatic Traffic Count [ATC] survey. Survey data has been adjusted
to 2016 for model verification.
• Vehicle emissions data from the Defra EFT v8 inventory (ref 8.17).
• Road widths taken from Google Maps.
• Weather data for the year 2016 taken from Heathrow Airport station; provided
by Meteonorm (ref 8.18).
Baseline Conditions
8.34 Existing air quality conditions in the vicinity of the Proposed Development were
identified using local diffusion tubes and automatic monitoring station data
information provided by SBC. Information from 1km x 1km modelled air quality
background data provided by DEFRA has also been considered within this assessment.
Receptors
8.35 Concentrations of NO2 have been predicted at 3 diffusion tubes sites within the
Spelthorne area for verification purposes. Concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 have
been predicted at the façades of nearby receptor locations, where members of the
public would be expected to be for substantial periods of time and where traffic flows
are predicted to increase. In this case the receptors are residential locations on roads
that are predicted to experience an increase in traffic as a result of the Proposed
5 Vehicle exhaust emission factors are currently only available until 2030, this is considered conservative for the
2031 traffic data as emission factors are currently
71
Development, which include Charlton Road, Shepperton Road and New Road. The
sensitive receptors modelled are shown in Figure 8.2 and presented in Table 8.2.
8.36 There is not predicted to be a significant increase in traffic due to the Proposed
Development in the vicinity of any statutory habitat sites, therefore no habitat
receptors have been included in this assessment.
Figure 8.2: Receptor locations
Table 8.2: Receptor details
Receptor UTM X(m) UTM Y(m) Z(m)
R1 (DT) 678589 5699757 2.5
R3 (DT) 677355 5699999 2.2
R3 (DT) 677795 5699134 2.6
R4 675969 5698318 1.5
R5 676050 5698223 1.5
R6 676538 5698075 1.5
R7 676720 5698159 1.5
R8 676987 5698235 1.5
R9 677728 5698521 1.5
R10 676538 5697473 1.5
R11 675896 5697664 1.5
R12 675308 5697824 1.5
R13 675873 5698452 1.5
72
R14 674720 5698122 1.5
R15 676366 5697587 1.5
R16 676935 5697285 1.5
R17 676383 5697521 1.5
R18 677749 5698664 1.5
R19 677743 5698643 1.5
R20 677751 5698699 1.5
Traffic Data
8.37 Traffic flows were collected by i-Transport during 2018 and adjusted to AADTs for 13
road links in the area surrounding the Proposed Development. The flows have been
factored up to predicted 2020 and 2031 levels for the following scenarios: 2020 flows
without construction traffic (model B and C), 2020 flows with construction traffic
(model D and E), 2031 flows without development traffic (model F and G) and 2031
flows with development traffic (model H and I). The flows have also been factored
down to 2016 levels to allow for model verification with local diffusion tubes. The links
where flow surveys were undertaken are presented in Figure 8.3.
8.38 Flows for link 12 were taken from the 2016 DfT traffic counts on the A308 and
correspond with the location of a local diffusion tube. This link along with link 13 and
14 have been included within the model for verification purposes only.
8.39 The flows provided by i-Transport and the DfT were divided by 24 to get the hourly
flow for input into ADMS-Roads. These figures are shown in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3: Traffic details for each modelled link
Model A
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12* L13* L14*
LGV 455 472 559 492 46 65 0 671 457 557 559 1340 457 191
HGV 11 12 17 7 2 2 0 17 10 15 17 38 10 3
Speed (mph)
48 48 80 48 48 48 48 48 64 48 48 64 48 48
Model B and C
LGV 477 495 588 517 48 66 0 704 480 585 588 n/a n/a n/a
HGV 12 13 18 8 2 2 0 17 10 16 18 n/a n/a n/a
Speed (mph)
48 48 80 48 48 48 48 48 64 48 48 n/a n/a n/a
Model D and E
LGV 477 498 588 517 48 69 0 707 482 585 588 n/a n/a n/a
HGV 12 15 18 8 2 5 0 20 12 16 18 n/a n/a n/a
Speed (mph)
48 48 80 48 48 48 48 48 64 48 48 n/a n/a n/a
Model F and G
73
LGV 534 553 661 581 54 68 0 789 538 657 661 n/a n/a n/a
HGV 13 14 20 9 2 2 0 19 11 18 20 n/a n/a n/a
Speed (mph)
48 48 80 48 48 48 48 48 64 48 48 n/a n/a n/a
Model H and I
LGV 520 595 663 585 54 95 34 827 564 649 663 n/a n/a n/a
HGV 13 16 20 9 2 4 1 22 13 18 20 n/a n/a n/a
Speed (mph)
48 48 80 48 48 48 48 48 64 48 48 n/a n/a n/a
*For model verification only
Figure 8.3: Road links included within the model
Road Geometry
8.40 Road widths and canyon heights were taken from Google Maps. The links were split
into main sections of road and junctions. Speed data was taken from the traffic surveys
with the speed at junctions assumed to be 10kmph. Where google maps indicated long
queues at specific times of the day, the length of the junction was extended in order to
consider the emissions of queuing traffic. The was deemed appropriate on Squire’s
Bridge Road junction with Shepperton Road, Ashford Road junction with the A308 and
the A308 junctions with Ashford Road and the A244.
74
Vehicle Emissions
8.41 Vehicle flow and speed data were input into the ADMS-Road model, which estimates
emissions for each link using the Emission Factors Toolkit [EFT] Version 8.0.1. The
average emission factor for NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 were calculated based on this and
input into ADMS-Roads. A time varying profile was derived from the ATC recorded on
Shepperton Road and Studio Road. This was input as a .fac file which ADMS uses to
calculate emissions on an hourly basis throughout the year.
Street Canyons
8.42 ADMS-Roads includes a module to model the effect of street canyons on
concentrations. A street canyon is commonly used when the aspect ratio of the height
of buildings along the road is greater than 1/3 the total building to building road width.
No street canyons have been included within this assessment.
NOx to NO2 conversion
8.43 Conversion of NOx to NO2 (or vice versa) has been undertaken twice during this
assessment. Firstly, NO2 concentrations taken from local diffusion tubes were
converted to NOx concentrations for comparison against modelling locations for model
verification purposes. Secondly modelled NOx at nearby residential receptors have
been converted to NO2 for assessment against applicable NAQO. Both conversions
have been undertaken using version 6.1 of the NOx to NO2 conversion spreadsheet
which is available on the Defra Website (ref 8.19).
Volume source emissions
8.44 The bus stop at the bottom of Squire’s Bridge Road has been modelled. The model
indicates that the concentrations at nearby receptors could be elevated at the
roundabout. Approximately 1 bus stops here each hour during peak hours so it was
therefore included to represent the emissions from the stopping and starting of the
buses.
Point source emissions
8.45 The offices or workshops within the Proposed Development are not expected to have
significant onsite power generation (CHP/CCHP or boilers) or industrial activity.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to carry out any assessment relating to emissions from
stacks.
Meteorological data
8.46 Hourly sequential surface observation data for the year 2016 from Heathrow Airport
met station has been used within this assessment. A surface roughness value of 0.5 has
been used for the meteorological site and represents an area of frequent obstacles.
The value chosen for the dispersion site is 0.3 as the land use of the 1 km area
preceding the receptors in the direction of the prevailing wind has mixed characteristic
of suburban housing, farmland and open water. A wind rose for the year 2016 is
presented below:
75
Figure 8.4: Wind rose for 2016 weather data from Heathrow Airport met station
Limitations to Model
8.47 A number of factors are unable to be considered in the ADMS Roads simulation:
• Stops and starts of vehicles are not included in the ADMS model, traffic flow is
assumed to be at a continuous speed.
• As the traffic data was provided as AADTs and the same weekly profile used for
the hourly and daily variation, it is not possible to model the monthly variations
in flows.
• Ground terrain is assumed to be completely flat, no trees and verges are
included in the model.
• As no continuous analyser data was available for the site only annual mean
concentrations can be verified. Therefore, short term estimations (i.e. 1-hour
exceedances) were not possible.
Surveys
8.48 No surveys have been undertaken in the creation of this ES chapter. Traffic data has
been taken from the traffic survey undertaken for the Traffic, Transport & Access
chapter (Chapter 7) of this ES.
Consultation
8.49 Consultation has been sought from SBC and regard has been had to the Scoping
Opinion which they produced. This document stated that IAQM methodology should
be used to assess the likely impact from both operational and construction stages. This
includes the likely impact from both traffic emissions and construction dust.
76
Significance criteria
8.50 In 2015 the IAQM Significance guidance (ref 8.20) was replaced by the guidance on
Land-use planning and development control. This guidance does not produce specific
criteria for assessing significance but draws on the impact criteria (Table 8.4) as a
starting point to determine if a development is likely to have a significant or
insignificant impact on air quality in the local area.
8.51 The guidance explains the difference between impact and significance. With an impact
being judged based on the predicted change in concentration at individual receptors,
whereas significance is the consequence of the impact and generally looks at the local
area as a whole. This is done using professional judgement and should be done by
someone who is suitably qualified; examples of the following factors that need to be
taken into consideration are:
Current levels of air quality in the area; if the air quality is already breaching
NAQO the impact is likely to be significant.
The number of receptors and land use of the local area; is a moderate impact
on one receptor significant? The future land use should also be considered
here.
The likelihood of a reduction in emissions in the future and if the impacts can
be mitigated.
Table 8.4: IAQM Impact criteria
Long term average concentration at receptor in assessment year
% Change in concentration relative to Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL)
1 2-5 6-10 >10
75% or less of AQAL Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate
76 - 94% of AQAL Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate
95 - 102% of AQAL Slight Moderate Moderate Substantial
103 - 109% of AQAL Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial
Baseline
8.52 As noted above, as part of their fulfilment of Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 SBC
declared a borough wide AQMA due to exceedances of the annual NO2 objective. This
AQMA has been declared mainly for transport related emissions due to the presence of
major trunk roads, including the M3 and M25, within its borough. There is also thought
to be transboundary pollutants from industrial and energy activities coming from other
boroughs.
8.53 The Proposed Development sits within the above mentioned AQMA.
8.54 As well as declaring an AQMA SBC are required to monitor pollutants in the area.
Within the vicinity of the Proposed Development there are three background diffusion
tubes monitoring NO2 and one automatic monitoring station which monitors NO2, PM10
and PM2.5. The results of this monitoring are presented below:
77
Table 8.5: Local diffusion tube monitoring
Table 8.6: Local automatic monitoring concentration
Site ID Site type Distance
from Kerb (m)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Automatic Monitoring of Nitrogen Dioxide: Annual Mean Concentration
SCC_ECO (Urban
Background) 5.5 (slip road) n/a n/a n/a n/a 23.6
Automatic Monitoring of Nitrogen Dioxide: Number of Exceedances of Hourly Mean (200 µg/m3)
SCC_ECO (Urban
Background) 5.5 (slip road) n/a n/a n/a n/a 1
Automatic Monitoring of PM10: Annual Mean Concentration
SCC_ECO (Urban
Background) 5.5 (slip road) n/a n/a n/a n/a 19.3
Automatic Monitoring of PM10: Number of Exceedances of 24 Hour Mean (50 µg/m3)
SCC_ECO (Urban
Background) 5.5 (slip road) n/a n/a n/a n/a 6
Automatic Monitoring of PM2.5: Annual Mean Concentration
SCC_ECO (Urban
Background) 5.5 (slip road) n/a n/a n/a n/a 13.5
8.55 Predictions of background pollutant concentrations on a 1km by 1km grid have been
produced by DEFRA for the entirety of the UK to assist local authorities in their review
and assessment of air quality. The site is located at OS grid coordinates 506846, 168681
and therefore the pollutant concentrations from grid square 506500,168500 have been
used within this assessment. The most recent data for these locations, released in
2015, was downloaded from the DEFRA website for the purpose of this assessment and
is summarised in the table below:
Diffusion Tubes: NO2 Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m3)
Location OS X (m) OS Y (m) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
SP23 (Urban background)
507525
167662
28 30.5 30.1 24.3 30.1
SP22 (urban background)
507782 167524 23.7 31.6 29.1 24.4 n/a
SP56 (urban background)
507587 167445 n/a n/a n/a n/a 26.4
78
Table 8.7: DEFRA background map concentrations
2015 Defra Background maps concentrations for OS grid ref 506500, 168500
Pollutant Period Concentration
(µg/m3)
Particles (PM10) Annual mean
15.6
Particles (PM2.5) Annual mean
10.4
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Annual mean
20.6
8.56 The urban background automatic monitoring site (SCC_ECO) has been deemed the
most representative background for the local area as its location is most applicable of
the area surrounding the site.
8.57 In the area surrounding the Proposed Development the background monitoring data in
table 8.5 and 8.6 suggests that the concentrations have not exceeded 60µg/m3 in the
last 5 years. As a rule of thumb this is the threshold for when exceedances of the
hourly NO2 objective may occur (ref 8.21 and 8.22). Therefore, only annual average
concentrations of NO2 have been assessed.
8.58 The correlation between the annual and short-term standard is less well defined for
PM10 than it is for NO2. The 24-hour PM10 NAQO mandates that a 24-hour average of
50g/m3 is not exceeded more than 35 times per year. As the Proposed Development is
not within an AQMA for either the annual or 24-hour PM10 NAQO; coupled with a
maximum of 6 24-hour PM10 recorded measurements greater then 50ug/m3 per year in
the last 5 years, it is unlikely that it would result in any exceedances of the 24- hour
PM10 NAQO. Therefore, no further assessment relating to the 24-hour PM10 NAQO has
been undertaken.
8.59 The long-term annual average for NO2, PM10, PM2.5 concentrations will be compared
against their applicable NAQO (Table 8.1).
Likely significance of effects
Effect during construction phase: short to medium
8.60 Building site dust mainly consists of particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10).
8.61 The stages of the construction work which IAQM guidance identifies as needing
assessment are construction, demolition, digging of foundations (earthworks) and
disturbance caused by dust and dirt emissions from construction vehicles arriving and
leaving the site (trackout).
8.62 The assessment is based on the scale and nature of the works, the proximity of the
receptor and professional judgement. The methodology for conducting a construction
dust assessment has been described in section 8.23 to 8.26.
79
8.63 The dust emission magnitude for each aspect of construction work (section 8.67 to
8.70) is combined with the sensitivity of the area to give an overall risk factor for each
activity.
8.64 Risks are recorded in terms of Low, Medium and High. A matrix, which considers the
distance of a source, its sensitivity and the magnitude of the works, is used to
determine the likely impact of construction.
8.65 The sensitivity of the area is defined by the number of receptors at certain distances
from the site and the background PM10 levels. The annual mean PM10 concentration
(19.3 µg/m3 background) is low.
8.66 The chosen receptors have been grouped to reduce repetition, i.e. a housing estate will
be considered as one large receptor and designated as per the closest houses (see
figure in the appendix). It has been assumed that construction traffic would be routed
right or left along either Shepperton Road or New Road/Squire’s Bridge Road (see
appendix 8.1).
8.67 The site is occupied by Shepperton Studios, a number of other businesses relating to
the film industry (who are tenants of the Studio), a housing estate and an area of
undeveloped land. In order to redevelop and expand the site some of the building
relating to Shepperton Studios would be demolished, it is anticipated that the current
building volume for demolition would be greater than 50,000m2 and therefore
considered large.
8.68 Earthworks for the site would be considered large as the site area needed for
foundation preparation is above 10,000m2
8.69 The construction phase is classed as large, due to the multi-storey buildings having a
total internal area of 137,000m3 which is greater than 100,000m3.
8.70 Based on analyse of construction vehicle movements provided by i-Transport there
would be more than 50 vehicle movements per day coupled with an unpaved road
length of greater then 100m and therefore the trackout for the site is considered large.
Site Area (m2)
>10000
Previous Building Volume (m3)
20,000 - 50,000
New Building Volume (m3)
>100,000
HGV Vehicle Movements per day
>50
Unpaved road length (m)
>100
Annual Mean PM10 Concentration (µg/m3)
<24
80
8.71 Using the methodology laid out in the IAQM guidance, the estimated impact from dust
soiling and potential health impacts can be established for the main sensitive receptors
identified.
8.72 The results of this assessment can be found in the Table 8.8
Table 8.8: Results of the construction dust assessment
Construction impacts
Receptor #
Receptor Description
Sensitivity of Area Dust Human Health
Dust Human Health
Ecological D E C T D E C T
CR1 Residential High Low n/a 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 1
CR2 Residential High Low n/a 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 1
High
CR3 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Medium
CR4 Church Low Low n/a 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Low
CR5 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1
Negligible
CR6 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1
CR7 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CR8 Residential Medium Low n/a 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
CR9 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
CR10 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1
CR11 Residential Medium Low n/a 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
CR12 Residential Medium Low n/a 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
CR13 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CR14 Residential Medium Low n/a 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
CR15 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CR16 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CR17 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CR18 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
CR19 Recreation ground Low Low n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CR20 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CR21 Residential Low Low n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D = Demolition E = Earthworks C = Construction T = Trackout
81
8.73 Receptors CR1, 2, 5, 6 and 10 have the potential to experience a High impact from
construction dust and Low impact for human health effects from PM10. All other
receptors are likely to experience a Medium/Low impact from construction dust and
Low impact for human health effects from PM10.
8.74 The likely impacts for all three pollutants on the nearby receptors from the impacts of
road traffic associated with construction are predicted to be negligible. These have
been assessed within the ADMS roads model and are subject to the same methodology
as the operational assessment; the modelling results can be viewed in Tables 8.11 -
8.13 with the impacts displayed in Tables 8.15 - 8.17.
Effect during operational phase: long term
Model Verification
8.75 Three diffusion tubes were used to verify the model; these are located on the A308,
School Road and Charlton Road. The most recent years of monitoring data (2016) can
be seen in table 8.9. The modelled and monitored verification results are given in Table
8.9 along with a regression graph showing the correction factor that has been applied
to the modelled NOx concentrations within the road traffic assessment.
Table 8.9: DEFRA background map concentrations
Receptor
Modelled NO2
Monitored NO2
Modelled NOx
Monitored NOx
Monitored NOx/ Modelled NOx
R1 (DT) 49.03 46.7 27.54 50.92 1.8
R2 (DT) 43.07 42.6 20.39 40.95 2.0
R3 (DT) 34.81 42.4 11.23 40.47 3.6
Verification factor
2.05
y = 2.0523x
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Mo
nit
ore
d d
ata
Modelled data
Comparison of monitored road-NOx to unadjusted modelled road-NOx concentrations
Modelled data Linear (Modelled data)
82
Modelling Results
8.76 In order to assess the likely impact from increased traffic emissions on air quality due
to the Proposed Development the following models have been used:
Table 8.10: Modelling scenarios
8.77 The annual NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 results at nearby sensitive receptors are presented in
Tables 8.11, 8.12 and 8.13.
Table 8.11: Annual NO2 modelling results (ug/m3)
Model # EFT Year Description
Model A 2016 2016 Baseline
Model B 2016 2020 No Development
Model C 2020 2020 No Development
Model D 2016 2020 Construction traffic
Model E 2020 2020 Construction traffic
Model F 2016 2031 No Development
Model G 2030 2031 No Development
Model H 2016 2031 Site operational
Model I 2030 2031 Site operational
Receptor Model
A Model
B Model C Model D Model E Model F Model G Model H Model I
R4 24.45 24.48 24.25 24.48 24.25 24.56 23.90 24.63 23.92
R5 24.60 24.63 24.36 24.65 24.37 24.73 23.95 24.77 23.96
R6 30.11 30.44 28.80 30.47 28.82 31.17 26.09 31.08 26.05
R7 30.62 30.97 29.20 31.18 29.31 31.72 26.26 32.34 26.45
R8 29.40 29.71 28.23 29.88 28.33 30.36 25.81 30.91 25.98
R9 29.84 30.08 28.54 30.26 28.64 30.81 25.97 31.25 26.09
R10 30.11 30.48 28.94 30.48 28.94 31.29 26.21 31.33 26.23
R11 30.23 30.56 28.88 30.57 28.88 31.37 26.13 31.30 26.10
R12 26.55 26.70 25.93 26.70 25.93 27.06 24.73 27.07 24.73
R13 23.80 23.81 23.76 23.81 23.76 23.83 23.67 24.02 23.73
R14 28.36 28.61 27.37 28.61 27.37 29.19 25.44 29.21 25.44
R15 28.64 28.91 27.62 28.91 27.63 29.42 25.54 29.41 25.51
R16 28.84 29.14 27.90 29.14 27.90 29.79 25.70 29.83 25.71
R17 34.88 35.52 32.66 35.52 32.66 36.82 27.95 36.73 27.91
R18 33.54 33.92 31.51 34.21 31.66 35.06 27.42 35.73 27.62
R19 30.01 30.26 28.68 30.45 28.78 31.01 26.04 31.46 26.16
R20 33.06 33.43 31.12 33.70 31.26 34.51 27.23 35.15 27.41
83
Table 8.12: Annual PM10 modelling results (ug/m3)
Table 8.13: Annual PM2.5 modelling results (ug/m3)
Receptor Model
A Model
B Model C Model D Model E Model F Model G Model H Model I
R4 19.44 19.45 19.44 19.45 19.44 19.46 19.44 19.48 19.45
R5 19.47 19.47 19.46 19.48 19.46 19.49 19.47 19.50 19.48
R6 20.46 20.52 20.43 20.53 20.43 20.66 20.50 20.64 20.49
R7 20.55 20.62 20.52 20.64 20.54 20.76 20.59 20.87 20.69
R8 20.33 20.38 20.30 20.41 20.32 20.51 20.37 20.60 20.45
R9 20.41 20.46 20.37 20.48 20.39 20.59 20.45 20.67 20.51
R10 20.47 20.54 20.45 20.54 20.45 20.69 20.54 20.70 20.54
R11 20.48 20.54 20.45 20.54 20.45 20.69 20.53 20.68 20.52
R12 19.85 19.88 19.84 19.88 19.84 19.95 19.88 19.95 19.88
R13 19.33 19.34 19.33 19.34 19.33 19.34 19.33 19.37 19.36
R14 20.20 20.25 20.18 20.25 20.18 20.37 20.25 20.37 20.25
R15 20.07 20.11 20.04 20.11 20.04 20.20 20.08 20.19 20.07
R16 20.25 20.30 20.23 20.30 20.23 20.43 20.30 20.43 20.31
R17 20.75 20.82 20.67 20.82 20.67 21.01 20.74 20.99 20.72
R18 21.10 21.18 21.04 21.22 21.08 21.40 21.16 21.52 21.27
R19 20.44 20.49 20.40 20.51 20.42 20.63 20.48 20.71 20.54
R20 21.01 21.09 20.95 21.12 20.98 21.29 21.07 21.41 21.16
Receptor Model
A Model
B Model C Model D Model E Model F Model G Model H Model I
R4 15.47 15.47 15.13 15.47 15.13 15.47 14.94 15.47 14.94
R5 14.97 15.01 14.75 15.03 14.77 15.12 14.69 15.19 14.74
R6 14.39 14.43 14.28 14.45 14.30 14.53 14.28 14.60 14.33
R7 13.58 13.59 13.58 13.59 13.58 13.60 13.58 13.60 13.58
R8 13.60 13.60 13.59 13.60 13.59 13.61 13.59 13.62 13.60
R9 14.19 14.22 14.14 14.22 14.14 14.30 14.15 14.29 14.15
R10 14.24 14.28 14.19 14.29 14.20 14.36 14.20 14.43 14.25
R11 14.11 14.14 14.06 14.15 14.08 14.21 14.08 14.27 14.13
R12 14.16 14.18 14.10 14.20 14.11 14.26 14.12 14.31 14.16
R13 14.19 14.23 14.15 14.23 14.15 14.32 14.17 14.33 14.18
R14 14.20 14.23 14.15 14.23 14.15 14.32 14.17 14.31 14.16
R15 13.82 13.84 13.80 13.84 13.80 13.88 13.81 13.88 13.82
R16 13.52 13.52 13.52 13.52 13.52 13.52 13.52 13.54 13.53
R17 14.03 14.06 13.99 14.06 13.99 14.13 14.01 14.13 14.02
R18 13.96 13.98 13.92 13.98 13.92 14.04 13.93 14.03 13.92
R19 14.06 14.09 14.02 14.09 14.02 14.16 14.04 14.17 14.05
R20 14.39 14.44 14.29 14.44 14.29 14.55 14.30 14.55 14.29
84
8.78 The main air pollutant of concern in the area is NO2. For the year 2020 when
construction is anticipated to start, the NO2 concentrations are predicted to increase
by a maximum of 0.29 ug/m3 due to increases from the construction traffic. If the
predicted UK vehicle fleet improvements are made by 2020 then the concentrations
are predicted to be lower than the 2016 baseline.
8.79 As a result of predicted traffic increases by 2031 and assuming no improvement in the
UK vehicle fleet emissions NO2 emissions at nearby receptors are predicted to increase
by a maximum of 2.19 ug/m3 from 2016 levels. If predicted reductions in UK vehicle
emissions occur there would be a reduction when compared to 2016 levels.
8.80 Traffic on the nearby network is predicted to increase as a result of the Proposed
Development, with the exception of Squire’s Bridge Road and a section of Laleham
Road. The maximum NO2 increase due to the Proposed Development if reductions in
UK vehicles emissions do not occur is 0.67 ug/m3; which is at receptors on Charlton
Road. If these reductions do occur the increase due to the Proposed Development
would be 0.2 ug/m3. If predicted reductions in UK vehicle emissions occur there would
be a reduction when compared to 2016 levels.
Impact assessment
8.81 In order to assess the likely impact of changes in pollutant concentrations at each
receptor, the IAQM/EPUK impact descriptor methodology table has been used (Table
8.14). This methodology is explained in further detail in the IAQM guide "planning for
Air Quality.
8.82 In order to assess the likely impact of the Proposed Development the following
changes of site use have been assessed with the impact results presented in Table 8.15,
8.16, and 8.17.
Table 8.14: IAQM impact assessment scenarios
Scenario Model EFT Year
Description
Model # EFT Year
Description
1 Model B 2016 2020 No
Development vs
Model D
2016 2020 construction traffic
2 Model C 2020 2020 No
Development vs Model E 2020 2020 construction traffic
3 Model F 2016 2031 No
Development vs
Model H
2016 2031 Development traffic
4 Model
G 2030
2031 No Development
vs Model I 2030 2031 Development traffic
85
Table 8.15: Annual NO2 impact assessment
Receptor Scenario B-D Scenario C-E Scenario F-H Scenario G-I
R4 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R5 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R6 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R7 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R8 Negligible Negligible Slight Negligible
R9 Negligible Negligible Slight Negligible
R10 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R11 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R12 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R13 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R14 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R15 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R16 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R17 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R18 Negligible Negligible Slight Negligible
R19 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R20 Negligible Negligible Slight Negligible
Table 8.16: Annual PM10 impact assessment
Receptor Scenario B-D Scenario C-E Scenario F-H Scenario G-I
R4 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R5 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R6 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R7 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R8 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R9 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R10 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R11 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R12 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R13 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R14 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R15 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R16 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R17 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R18 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R19 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R20 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
86
Table 8.17: Annual PM2.5 impact assessment
T
8.83 The likely impacts associated with the operational traffic of the Proposed Development
are predicted to be a maximum of slight if improvements are not made in emissions
from the UK’s vehicle fleet. If improvements are made in the emissions from the UK’s
vehicle fleet the impact of the development would be negligible.
Scope of mitigation
Construction
8.84 It is estimated that unmitigated dust from the construction site activities at nearby
residential receptors could have up to a high impact.
8.85 The 2014 guidance from the IAQM states that implementing mitigation has been
proven to be effective at mitigating impacts from large scale operations.
8.86 As a result, it is recommended that mitigation measures which are considered either
highly recommended or desirable by the IAQM (ref 8.5), are incorporated into a Dust
Management Plan (DMP) and submitted to SBC for approval. This could be secured by
a planning condition in the usual way, as necessary.
8.87 Given the size of the site and length of construction period particular attention should
be made to residential receptors on Studio Road when drawing up the DMP. They are
within the site boundary and downwind of the prevailing wind for a large area of the
site. Therefore, the residential receptors are likely to experience a significant (or high)
impact unless a thorough DMP is produced and adhered to.
Receptor Scenario B-D Scenario C-E Scenario F-H Scenario G-I
R4 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R5 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R6 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R7 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R8 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R9 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R10 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R11 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R12 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R13 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R14 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R15 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R16 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R17 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R18 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R19 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
R20 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
87
Completed development
8.88 It is estimated that unmitigated impacts from the increase in nearby traffic, due to the
Proposed Development, could have up to a slight impact if emissions from the UK
vehicle fleet do not improve. The slight impact is predicted to occur at residential
receptors on New Road and Charlton Road due to the increased traffic numbers from
the Proposed Development.
8.89 If emissions from the UK’s vehicle fleet improve, the air quality in the area is likely to
improve from its current state and mitigation would not be required to ensure that the
air quality in the area does not decline. However, this reduction is not guaranteed and
as a result would not safe guard air quality levels from future development. As the
Proposed Development is likely to increase the vehicle numbers and annual NO2 levels
at residential receptors near Charlton Road are currently elevated (approx. 36ug/m3).
In line with local planning policy these increased impacts from the Proposed
Development could be mitigated by reducing the number of vehicles planned to use
the site.
8.90 In order to reduce the impact of the Proposed Development it is recommended to put
in appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the number of cars travelling daily on
Charlton Road. The following mitigation measures could be implemented in order to
seek to reduce the traffic in the area:
• A detailed travel plan to encourage the use of sustainable transport methods
such as walking, cycling and the use of public transport
• Provision of good walking and cycling routes to and from the development that
integrate with existing routes
• Bicycle parking facilities
• Improved public transport in the area as well as schemes to provide users of the
site with discounted or fully subsidised travel.
• Car Share schemes
Residual effects assessment
Assessment of Significance
8.91 IAQM guidance does not produce specific criteria for assessing significance but draws
on the impact criteria (Table 8.4) as a starting point to determine if a development will
have a significant or insignificant impact on air quality in the local area. Significance
looks at the consequence of the impact and generally looks at the local area as a
whole. Using professional judgement and considering certain factors, listed in section
8.51, significance can be judged.
8.92 The unmitigated impact of construction of the Proposed Development is likely to be
high at certain receptors. As the background levels of particulate matter are not
approaching their NAQO relevant mitigation, as in appendix 8.2, should be sufficient to
reduce the residual significance of construction impacts to Negligible.
88
8.93 There are currently no exceedances of any relevant NAQO at local urban background
sites, no predicted exceedances at nearby residential and a slight impact at areas of
roadside receptors. In order to prevent harm to attempts to bring about necessary
improvements to air quality to meet national standards, relevant mitigation, as listed in
section 8.90, could be considered to ensure the residual significance of the Proposed
Development is Negligible. It should be noted that if there is a reduction in emissions
from the UK vehicle fleet, the Proposed Development would not increase local
concentrations at all.
8.94 A summary of the residual impacts is presented in the table below:
Cumulative Effects Assessment
8.95 As stated in section 8.31 there are no confirmed developments, planned for the next
three years, which are likely to have a significant impact on vehicle numbers in the
area. Therefore, a cumulative effects assessment has not been undertaken.
Monitoring
8.96 As a result of predicted negligible residual impact from long term operations no specific
monitoring is likely to be required. However, due to the high impact from construction
dust on certain receptors the IAQM does recommend that dust monitoring should be
included within a DMP in order to assess the effectiveness of dust mitigation.
Conclusion
8.97 This chapter of the ES assesses the likely environmental effects of the Proposed
Development with respect to air quality.
8.98 The impact on local air quality as a result of the Proposed Development is considered in
relation to national AQOs and EU limit values. Where required, the assessment has
considered appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the Proposed
Development on local air quality.
8.99 The site is located within a borough wide AQMA, which has been declared by SBC as a
result of elevated levels of NO2 resulting from vehicle traffic and industrial activities
from nearby boroughs.
Impact Residual
Construction
/ Operational
Receptor Type Impact Impact
mitigation
Impact
Significance
Duration of
Residual impact
Construction
Nearby
residential and
commercial
High Required Negligible Medium term
Operational Nearby
Residential Slight Required Negligible Long term
89
8.100 During construction site activities would have the potential to affect local air quality in
particular from dust deposition and increased particulate matter emissions. As a result
of a predicted high impact from construction and earthwork activities mitigation
measures are recommended for implementation to ensure that any impact on local air
quality is not high/significant.
8.101 Pollutant emissions from traffic generated as a result of the construction and operation
of the Proposed Development has been assessed. The Proposed Development is
predicted to have a negligible impact on local receptors during construction stages.
8.102 When the construction year ends in 2031, there is predicted to be a slight impact at
receptors on New Road and Charlton Road, if the emissions from the UK’s vehicle fleet
does not improve. As a conservative approach and to safe guard local air quality,
mitigation measures could be implementation to ensure that any impact on local air
quality is not significant.
8.103 In summary, the residual impact of the Proposed Development (i) during the
construction phase would be negligible; and (ii) during the operational phase, would
be negligible.
90
9. Hydrology
Purpose of the assessment
9.1 This chapter identifies the existing hydrology and flood risk conditions and
development constraints and assesses the likely effects on each of these during the
construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. This chapter has
been prepared at the request of SBC.
9.2 The assessment considers the natural flow paths, hydrological regime, the range of
potential flooding sources (as identified within the NPPF), along with the existing
surface water drainage regime. For each, the impacts associated with the design from
the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development are considered.
9.3 This chapter identifies the extent of the study area; summarises relevant consultation;
describes the methods used for baseline surveys to assess the potential effects of the
Proposed Development, outlines the baseline data, and conditions; identifies relevant
embedded mitigation and provides an assessment of the likely significance of effects
on the environment during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed
Development. The chapter also identifies any adaptive mitigation measures required to
prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects and the likely residual effects
after these measures have been adopted, and also provides a cumulative assessment
(intra and inter project). Future monitoring is identified where necessary, and a
summary of the assumptions and limitations of the assessment is also provided.
9.4 The Proposed Development, upon which this assessment is based, comprises an area
of approximately 60 hectares and includes the existing main Shepperton Studios Site,
land to the north and west of this area bounded to the north by Queen Mary reservoir,
and land to the south of the River Ash corridor extending to Laleham Road. Full details
of the Proposed Development are provided in Chapter 4: The Proposed Development.
9.5 This chapter is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which includes the
preliminary Surface and Foul Water Drainage Strategy for the Proposed Development.
This is included as Appendix 9.1 to this chapter. The FRA provides detailed supporting
technical information.
Development Plan
9.6 Policy LO1 of the Spelthorne Borough Council Core Strategy and Policies 2009 seeks to
reduce flood risk and its adverse effects on people and property in Spelthorne Borough
by:
• supporting appropriate comprehensive flood risk management measures within
or affecting the borough which are agreed by the EA
• reducing the risk of flooding from surface water and its contribution to fluvial
flooding by requiring all developments of one or more dwellings and all other
development over 100m2 of floorspace in the Borough to have appropriate
sustainable drainage scheme
91
• maintaining flood storage capacity within Flood Zone 3 by refusing any form of
development on undeveloped sites which reduces flood storage capacity or
impedes the flow of flood water
• maintaining the effectiveness of the more frequently flooded area (Zone 3b) of
the floodplain to both store water and allow the movement of fast flowing water
by not permitting any additional development including extensions
• not permitting residential development or change of use or other ' more
vulnerable' uses within Zone 3a or 'highly vulnerable uses' within Zone 2 where
flood risks cannot be overcome
• supporting the redevelopment of existing developed sites in the urban area in
Zones 3a and 3b for 'less vulnerable' uses where:
(i) a minimum increase of flood storage capacity of 20% can be secured (all
flood storage areas to be effective at all times throughout the lifetime of
the structure/use and do not create unacceptable risks to people in times
of flood);
(ii) it reduces impedance to the flow of flood water where there would be
flowing flood water;
(iii) appropriate access for the maintenance of water courses is maintained;
and
(iv) there is no adverse impact on the integrity and effectiveness of flood
defences structures
• requiring any development in Zone 2, 3a and 3b to be designed to be flood
resilient/resistant,
• requiring any development in Zones 2, 3a and 3b, and development outside this
area (Zone 1) on sites of 0.5ha or of 10 dwellings or 1,000m2 of non-residential
development or more, to be supported by an appropriate Flood Risk Assessment
(FRA)
Other Material Considerations
Legislative Context
9.7 Environmental Protection Act (1990) - Sets out a range of provisions for environmental
protection, including integrated pollution control.
9.8 Water Resources Act (1991) - Consolidates previous water legislation with regard to
both quality and quantity of water resources.
9.9 Environment Act (1995) - Established a new body (Environment Agency (EA)) with
responsibility for environmental protection and enforcement of legislation. This Act
92
introduced measures to enhance protection of the environment including further
powers for the prevention of water pollution.
9.10 Anti-Pollution Works Regulations (1999) - Provided powers to the EA to stop any
activity (e.g. construction) that is giving or is likely to give rise to environmental
pollution, and to adequately enforce pollution control measures.
9.11 Water Act (2003) - Extended the provisions of the Water Resources Act (1991) and the
Environment Act (1995) with regard to abstraction and discharges, water conservation
and pollution control.
9.12 Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (2003) - Required the
development and implementation of a new strategic framework for the management
of the water environment and established a common approach to protecting and
setting environmental objectives for groundwater and surface waters.
National Planning Policy
9.13 NPPF 2018 (and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance 2014 (PPG)) - The
major aims of these key documents are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account
at all stages in the planning process in order to avoid inappropriate development in
areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk.
Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to
make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, reducing
flood risk overall.
9.14 The Sequential Test of the NPPF ensures that a sequential approach is followed to steer
new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Based on the
proposed use vulnerability to flood risk the test ensures development is appropriate
within the location proposed and where it should not be permitted. (Para 019, NPPG).
9.15 The Exception test of NPPF requires it be demonstrated that (1) the proposed
development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh
flood risk and that (2) it would be safe over its lifetime without increasing flood risk
elsewhere (and, if possible, reduce overall flood risk). (Paragraph102, NPPF).
Other Documents
9.16 Spelthorne Borough Council – Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – 2006 (SFRA) - The
SFRA provides an overarching view of flood risk issues within the area, along with
recommended principles for guiding future development, in respect of flood risk, flood
mitigation measures, drainage systems and the water environment.
9.17 Spelthorne Borough Council – Core Strategy (2009) includes Policy L01 ‘Flooding’ and
this is supported by ‘Flooding’ Supplementary Planning Document (2012) - Due to the
historic incidents of flooding within the Borough, this document has been developed to
address local policy on development in areas of flood risk. The Core Strategy document
includes Policy L01 ‘Flooding’ which is supported by Supplementary Planning
93
Document (SPD) 2012 the purpose of which is to explain in more detail the Council’s
policy on development in areas of flood risk
9.18 Making Space for Water (2015)- This document is intended to inform the development
of a new national strategy on the management of issues surrounding flood risk and
coastal erosion for the next 20 years. It does not state specific policies but provides the
Government’s objectives on land use planning in relation to flood risk, floodplain, river
and coastal management, surface water run-off management, coastal issues and living
with flood risk.
Consultation
9.19 This section provides a summary of consultation undertaken to date with Surrey
County Council (SCC), the EA and Thames Water (TW) being the principal relevant
authorities in relation to matters of flood risk and hydrology. Details of all consultation
to date is summarised in Table 1.1
Table 9.1: Consultations Undertaken
Consultation Summary of Consultation
Environment Agency Discussions have been progressed since 2016 and
remain ongoing. The 2009 Lower Thames model has
been obtained in order to update the climate
change allowances – at the EA’s request.
The modelling provided is not representative of
existing ground levels (restoration of gravel
extractions has taken place in and around the site
since 2009). The need to update the ground model
to be representative of current ground levels was
agreed with the EA.
Meeting held on 17th July 2018. In this meeting the
EA advised that an updated model of the Lower
Thames is currently being progressed and due for
completion by the end 2018. At present, the
outlines from this study are not within the public
domain and are unavailable. Accordingly, the
assessment in relation to the Proposed
Development has been progressed based on
updates to the 2009 model as detailed in the FRA.
This modelling is subject to review and approval and
discussions are ongoing with the EA.
Surrey County Council
(in their role as Lead
Local Flood Authority)
Meeting held on 19th July 2018 to discuss the initial
drainage strategy works. SCC agreed that the
approach taken is acceptable/appropriate.
94
Thames Water Sewer plans have been obtained to gain an
understanding of the existing network
A capacity check has been requested for the existing
network and TW has confirmed that suitable
capacity is available for the Proposed Development.
Receptors
9.20 Based on the Scoping Opinion and following subsequent consultations, as detailed
above, the following receptors are assessed as part of this chapter:
• Water quality, specifically in relation to:
Water quality in the River Ash;
Human health, including construction workers, future Site occupants, and
the general population within the study area;
Sites of ecological importance;
• Flood risk, specifically in relation to:
Flood risk in the vicinity of the Site and within the downstream River Ash
catchment extending 1km downstream of the Site;
• Surface water drainage, specifically in relation to:
Drainage to the Site itself and drainage capacity in the downstream River
Ash catchment (extending 1km downstream of the Site); and
• Foul water drainage, specifically in relation to:
Drainage capacity in receiving TW sewer system / Sewerage Treatment
Works (STW).
9.21 Based on consultation with TW, who have confirmed that there is suitable capacity in
the existing network to service the Site without any reinforcement works, no significant
effects are anticipated and as such the consideration of the impacts on the
downstream foul water drainage network and STW receptors has been scoped out of
this chapter and the risk of flooding from infrastructure failure is not considered
further.
95
The Proposed Development
9.22 Outline planning permission is being sought, with all matters reserved (except for
principal points of access) for:
“the redevelopment and expansion of Shepperton Studios, comprising the partial
demolition and replacement of existing accommodation; construction of new sound
stages, workshops, office accommodation, entrance structures and reception, security
offices and backlots; creation of a new vehicular and pedestrian access from
Shepperton Road and the relocation of existing access off Studios Road; with associated
car parking; landscaping and ecological enhancements.”
9.23 The proposed development will include the following uses:
• Large (20-50k sqft GIA) sound stages (to allow the filming of a large blockbuster /
feature film)
• Smaller sound stages (10-15k sqft)
• Offices
• Workshops
• Backlots
• Car parking and Servicing
• A new bridge over the River Ash
• A new pedestrian and vehicular access from Shepperton Road.
9.24 It is anticipated, at the time of writing, that construction works would be commenced
in 2020.
Assessment methodology
Identification of Study Area
9.25 The study area for this chapter comprises the Site itself (as defined by the red line
limits) and the downstream River Ash catchment, within which the Site is located,
extending a distance of 1km downstream of the Site.
9.26 The Site is currently accessed off Studios Road and/or Laleham Road. The postcode for
the Site is TW17 0QD and Ordnance Survey grid reference is TQ 06390 68680. The Site
includes the existing studios site and extends to the north, west and beyond the River
Ash to the south covering an area of approximately 60 Ha.
9.27 The Site itself is intersected by the River Ash which flows in an easterly direction within
a distinct vegetated river corridor. This area also includes a series of local footpath links
from the residential properties in Studios Estate (which is located to the immediate
west of the existing studios and north of the River Ash) to Shepperton and the wider
area.
96
9.28 To the north of the River Ash is the existing Shepperton Studios (existing workshops,
stages, offices, car parking etc) along with areas of land currently used for grazing.
These areas are accessed via Studios Road which runs along the northern boundary of
the studios.
9.29 To the south of the River Ash the Site has historically been used for gravel extraction.
These works have been completed and the area is now fully restored under consented
restoration plans. These areas have more recently been used for outside filming areas
(backlots) and as such are currently undeveloped and in places covered in crushed
stone. These areas would be considered as currently 'developed' in relation to surface
water drainage. The remainder of the Site is to grass. Vehicular access to this area is
provided off Shepperton Road.
9.30 The red line boundary for the Site is included within the appended FRA produced for
the scheme.
Methodology for Baseline
9.31 A number of site walkover surveys have been undertaken with a specific focus on the
nature and form of the River Ash corridor to gain an understanding of the watercourse
channel, to assess the current hydrological regime (flow mechanisms, culverts,
blockages, capacity etc.) and to develop an appreciation of the morphology of the
channel (natural channel, type of vegetation, bed material etc).
9.32 No further field surveys have been required for the technical assessment for Hydrology
and Flood Risk.
9.33 The main source of information has been via readily available flood risk data from the
EA, SBC and SCC in their role as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). The LLFA is
responsible for local flood management including managing the risks from surface
water, ordinary watercourses and groundwater.
9.34 Information provided included a “Product 4” data request from the EA which contained
the current flood zone mapping along with confirmation of how this has been
produced. Following discussions, a “Product 7” data request was submitted to
obtained the publicly available hydraulic Lower Thames model. The EA have confirmed
no more recent modelling is currently available. Information provided by Local
Authorities related to any evidence of historic events of flooding within the Site
/surrounding area. The FRA sets out in full the surveys and data relevant to this
assessment.
9.35 As part of the FRA works the existing hydraulic modelling for the area has been
updated in order to determine the potential risk posed by the latest climate change
guidance along with the incorporation of representative ground level information. The
updated ground levels mainly relate to areas south of the River Ash where recent
quarrying works have now ceased and ground levels fully restored. Accurate current
ground levels have been obtained through a Site-wide topographical survey and used
to update the hydraulic model.
9.36 This modelling is the best available information to inform the assessment of fluvial risk.
97
Significance criteria
Methodology for Assessment
9.37 To assess the likely effects of the Proposed Development a set of threshold criteria
have been defined to establish the sensitivity of receptors, magnitude of effects and
resulting level of impact identified.
9.38 The sensitivity of a receptor is a matter of professional judgement and is based upon
the importance and vulnerability of a receptor. These are judged to be:
Table 9.2: Defining Sensitivity of Receptor
Sensitivity Definition of Sensitivity
Very High No ability to absorb impact without fundamentally
altering baseline condition (i.e. water resources
classified as ‘over-abstracted’; Site within Flood Zone
3; no capacity within receiving surface water drainage
system; Water Framework Directive overall ecological
classification of ‘high’ or ‘good’ in surrounding
watercourse(s); Site underlain by Groundwater Source
Protection Zone and/or local abstractions; and, no
capacity within receiving foul water drainage system).
High Little ability to absorb impact without fundamentally
altering baseline condition (i.e. water resources
classified as ‘over-abstracted’; Site within Flood Zone
3; no capacity within receiving surface water drainage
system; Water Framework Directive overall ecological
classification of ‘high’ or ‘good’ in surrounding
watercourse(s); Site underlain by Groundwater Source
Protection Zone and/or local abstractions; and, no
capacity within receiving foul water drainage system).
Medium Moderate capacity to absorb impact without
significantly altering baseline condition (i.e. water
resources classified as ‘over-licensed’ / ‘no water
available’; Site within Flood Zone 2; limited capacity
within receiving surface water drainage system; Water
Framework Directive overall ecological classification of
‘moderate’ in surrounding watercourse(s); Site
underlain by Principal Aquifer; and, limited capacity
within receiving foul water drainage system).
98
Low Receptor tolerant of impact without detriment to
baseline condition (i.e. water resources classified as
‘water available’; Site within Flood Zone 1; unlimited
capacity within receiving surface water drainage
system; Water Framework Directive overall ecological
classification of ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ in surrounding
watercourse(s); Site underlain by Secondary Aquifer;
and, unlimited capacity within receiving foul water
drainage system).
Negligible Results in insignificant impact on integrity of attribute
(i.e. insignificant change to those attributes noted
above).
9.39 The magnitude of effects is judged on the consequences of the effect. The assessment
of potential magnitude has been made in accordance with the criteria below:
Table 9.3: Defining Magnitude of Effect
Magnitude Definition of Magnitude
High Results in loss of attribute and/or quality and integrity
of attribute (i.e. fundamental change to: water
resources available within the region; flood risk posed
to the development and/or surrounding areas;
capacity within receiving surface water drainage
system; water quality within surrounding
watercourse(s) and/or groundwater; and, capacity
within receiving foul water drainage system).
Medium Results in an impact on integrity of attribute, or loss of
part of attribute (i.e. notable change to those
attributes noted above).
Low Results in some measurable change in attribute’s
vulnerability, but of insufficient magnitude to affect
use or integrity (i.e. measurable change to those
attributes noted above).
Negligible Results in insignificant impact on integrity of attribute
(i.e. insignificant change to those attributes noted
above).
9.40 The significance of a potential effect is based on the combination of the sensitivity of
receptor and magnitude of that impact, as given in the matrix table below.
99
Table 9.4: Matrix of Assessing Significance of Effect
Imp
act
Mag
nit
ud
e
Receptor Sensitivity
Very High High Medium Low Negligible
High Major Major Moderate Moderate Minor
Medium Major Moderate Moderate Minor Negligible
Low
Moderate Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible
Negligible Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible
9.41 Any level of effect that is assessed as being at Major or Moderate will be considered as
a ‘significant’ effect.
Baseline conditions
9.42 The following section provides a summary of the baseline conditions at the Site, as of
2018, in relation to the relevant hydrological, drainage and flood risk receptors.
Hydrology
9.43 The key watercourse receptor relevant to the Site is the River Ash. This flows in a
generally easterly direction through the approximate centre of the Site. The
watercourse is a distributary of the River Colne and flows through Littleton, Laleham,
before flowing through the Site and ultimately joining the River Thames some 3km to
the east of Shepperton.
9.44 Available information confirms that significant engineering works have previously been
undertaken on the River Ash to straighten the channel, construct sluice control gates,
dredge sections of the channel, and construct Flood Alleviation works.
9.45 Within the Site, the River Ash flows within a relatively wide and shallow ‘main channel’
and includes several secondary and tertiary smaller channels which flow through areas
of existing woodland that form the ‘River Ash corridor’. Currently, sections of the
watercourse are both heavily silted and vegetated but, from observations, the impact
these have on flow is low.
9.46 Whilst other drainage ditches are located within the Site, the River Ash is the key
receptor in this assessment.
Water Quality
9.47 The EA have defined Source Protection Zones (SPZs) for groundwater sources such as
wells, boreholes and springs used for public drinking water supply. These zones show
the risk of contamination from any activities that might cause pollution in the area. The
closer the activity, the greater the risk. Three main zones are normally defined, these
being inner, outer and total catchment. The Site is not shown to be within any Source
100
Protection Zones. There are also no licensed surface water abstractions within 1,000m
of the Site and no discharge consents recorded within 500m of the Site.
9.48 The WFD is a European directive that imposes legal requirements to protect and
improve the water environment (including our rivers. The River Ash catchment has a
Water Framework Directive overall waterbody quality classification of ‘moderate’,
which comprises a moderate ecological classification and a ‘good’ chemical status.
9.49 There are no sites of ecological importance within the study area or within 1km radius
of the study area. The nearest is the Dumsey Meadow SSSI which is located upstream
and some 1.5km southwest of the Site. This sufficiently distant to the Site such that any
likely impacts would be negligible and has been scoped out of this assessment.
Flood Risk
9.50 The flood map for planning, as published by the EA, identifies the majority of the land
to the north of the River Ash as being within Flood Zone 2 which is land assessed as
having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of fluvial flooding in any
year. A small section to the eastern limit of the area north of the River Ash is classified
as being within Flood Zone 3 (land assessed as having a greater than 1 in 100 annual
probability of fluvial flooding in any year). This area is also shown to benefit from the
protection afforded by existing flood defences during this event.
9.51 Much of the Site to the south of the River Ash corridor is identified by the current flood
map for planning as being within Flood Zone 3 and Flood Zone 2.
9.52 Whilst sections south of the river are shown as being at high risk and within Flood Zone
3 the existing flood map for planning categorises much of these areas as benefitting
from existing flood defences on the River Ash. As such, the risk to these areas during a
1 in 100 year event is through a breach/failure of the flood defences, which is minimal.
The western section of land to the south of the River Ash is not shown as benefitting
from existing defences. The remainder of the Site is shown as being within Flood Zone
2 and at medium risk from fluvial flooding.
9.53 The Flood Zones for planning provided by the EA are derived from the Lower Thames
Reach 3 ISIS-TUFLOW modelling initially completed in December 2007 and re-run in
December 2009 (without any updates to the ground levels).
9.54 Significant gravel extraction works, backfilling, and restoration works have occurred
since 2007, resulting in changes to ground levels over the period since modelling was
undertaken. The impact of such works on flood risk is not therefore reflected in the
currently published mapping of flood risk and there is therefore potential for actual
flood zones to significantly vary to those mapped and/or for the mapped zones to be
unrepresentative of actual conditions.
9.55 In order to appropriately assess the current flood risk to the overall Site, the approved
Lower Thames model (dated 2009) has been obtained from the EA and the input
ground level information has been updated using the most up-to-date LiDAR Data
available (flown in 2014). Further detailed topographical survey has been obtained
(2016) and updated in 2018 to ensure ground levels reflect those existing, given the
very recent restoration works undertaken within the area. This new ground model,
101
based on a grid, was included in the model to determine representative 'present day'
flood outlines.
9.56 The model was further updated to reflect the intervening changes in policy relating to
climate change allowances. In line with current policy the climate change events
considered are the 1 in 100 year +35% (this being the Upper central climate change
allowance) given the current and proposed commercial uses on the Site.
9.57 The outputs from the modelling (included within the appended FRA) demonstrate that
the Site is raised above the 1 in 100 year flood level and therefore outside Flood Zone
3. The modelling also demonstrates that the areas of the Site proposed for studio
development would not be at risk from the 1 in 100 year plus 35% allowance for
climate change event.
9.58 Based on this updated modelling, the overall Site is located predominantly within Flood
Zone 2 (excepting the western limit of the Site). This is shown by the drawings provided
in Appendix C to the FRA.
9.59 The assessment of other potential sources of flooding at the Site is included in the FRA
(see Appendix 9.1) and demonstrates that the Site is at low or negligible risk of flooding
from tidal, groundwater, and artificial sources.
9.60 As such, tidal, groundwater and artificial source flood risk have not been assessed
further and have been scoped out from the remainder of this chapter.
Surface Water Drainage
9.61 The EA's Surface Water Flood Risk mapping shows the majority of the Site as being at
'very low' risk from this source but with some potential localised surface water
'ponding'. This more recent modelling (2013) includes many of the recent ground level
changes and is therefore representative of current conditions across the Site.
9.62 Where some areas of localised ponding are identified within the Site (mainly within the
existing studios area) these have no connectivity to the wider area outside of the Site
and are therefore representative only of locally lower sections served by existing
surface water drainage infrastructure rather than presenting a significant surface water
risk.
Future Baseline conditions
9.63 An assessment has been made of the potential impacts that climate change may have
on the flood risk to the Proposed Development. This focusses on the potential impacts
of increased water levels, peak flows, and intensity of rainfall events and includes an
assessment of both the central and upper central limits for the Thames catchment in
relation to the modelled fluvial flows (as previously agreed with the EA) and a 40%
allowance for climate change in relation to peak rainfall intensities used within surface
water drainage strategy design. This is in line with the climate change guidance
requirements of the NPPF.
102
Embedded Mitigation
9.64 This section identifies the measures that have been included within the design of the
Proposed Development to specifically address, avoid and minimise the occurrence of
adverse environmental effects and, where possible, provide a betterment to the wider
area. All embedded mitigation measures have been developed alongside and form part
of the parameter plan and Green Infrastructure Plans. All embedded mitigation
measures are included within the Site.
Water Quality
9.65 To address potential impacts on water quality within the River Ash, it is proposed to
put management and operational systems in place to ensure these can be minimised
or removed. These measures would be detailed within a proposed Construction and
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which can be subject to an appropriately
worded planning condition or obligation as necessary.
9.66 Good practice would be ensured by adopting the measures outlined in Pollution
Prevention Guidelines 5: Works and Maintenance In or Near Water (Environment
Agency, 2007) and Pollution Prevention Guidelines 6: Working at Construction and
Demolition Sites (Environment Agency, 2010). These include the use of designated
compounds for storage of potential contaminants (such as oil spills etc) and measures
to prevent the transportation and discharging of additional silts into the receiving
watercourse system.
9.67 Sustainable Drainage solutions have been included within the surface water drainage
design, with storage within permeable subbase to permeable paving, which affords a
source treatment to surface water runoff from the Site. A swale, ribbon pond and basin
are included in the Proposed Development to provide natural treatment and removal
of any debris, hydrocarbons or other pollutants prior to discharge to the River Ash.
These measures form embedded mitigation to address surface water runoff quality.
Flood Risk
9.68 All proposed studio development is located outside of the predicted 1 in 100 year
+35% climate change allowance flood extent of the River Ash based on the modelling
referred to above. However, a risk remains to the Site during the 1 in 1,000 year event.
As such, the proposals adopt a flood resilient approach to construction where possible
and include measures such as raising finished floor levels to 300mm above the 1 in 100
year plus 25% allowance for climate change event as agreed with the EA. These
measures would ensure that the Proposed Development is at an acceptable level of
risk whilst also resulting in no detrimental impact to third party land away from the
Site.
9.69 Given the location of the Site within a wider area that may experience localised
flooding the Proposed Development would sign up to the EA Flood Warning Scheme. It
is expected, and has been confirmed through discussion with the EA, that good flood
warning would be available within the area owing to the level and quality of modelling
that exists. This commitment to sign up to the Flood Warning Scheme would ensure
reasonable and sufficient time for all occupants to evacuate the Site along a safe
access/egress route should this prove necessary.
103
9.70 The Proposed Development includes provision of a new crossing to the River Ash to
link the north and south of the Site, as well as new footpaths to open up and improve
access to this public space. This part of the Proposed Development would require
works within the floodplain.
9.71 The proposed new crossing would be a clear span structure and set to an appropriate
level such that it would not impede flows. In addition, all works would be outside the
immediate river channel and, as such, would not alter the physical characteristics of
the channel.
9.72 The new watercourse crossing would be sized to accommodate the 1in 100 year plus
climate change flood event, with an appropriate freeboard, with no detrimental impact
on the flow regime and subject to the necessary permitting requirements.
9.73 All works to provide upgraded footpaths within this river corridor are to maintain or
lower existing ground levels (i.e. at or below existing grade) so as to ensure no loss of
floodplain storage.
9.74 All works within the River Ash corridor would be undertaken in line with the principles
and methods advocated within a proposed CEMP which would require that no
materials are stockpiled within the River Ash corridor and that a Flood Warning and
Evacuation Plan (FWEP) is in place during the construction period.
Surface Water Drainage
9.75 The surface water drainage system to be installed as part of the Proposed
Development would adopt sustainable drainage principles and be installed as part of
the enabling works. The principles of this drainage strategy are to ensure that post
development peak run-off rates do not increase from the existing conditions and do
not increase flooding to the Site or its surrounding areas.
9.76 Infiltration techniques are not viable, and so attenuation storage is required to effect
controlled discharge from the Site, post development, at a rate that does not exceed
the existing Greenfield (QBAR) runoff rate. In the majority of cases, because of the land
use, the storage is to be provided in the permeable subbase beneath car park/working
yard areas but will also include a large swale, ribbon pond and basin. All of these
attenuation features are within the Site. The Proposed Development has been
designed such that any discharge from the Site is restricted to mimic the existing
‘Greenfield’ QBAR runoff rate with attenuation provided for in the 1 in 100 years plus
40% allowance for climate change storm event.
9.77 The Proposed Development would include attenuation storage to provide a 20%
betterment when compared to the current existing ‘Brownfield’ runoff rate.
9.78 This would ensure that the Proposed Development meets the criteria set out and
agreed with SCC in their role as the LLFA and that there would not be any detrimental
impact on site runoff in to the River Ash or to the downstream catchment. The control
and management of surface water runoff and water quality through the drainage
design is appropriate embedded mitigation.
104
Likely effects
Effect during construction phase: short to medium
9.79 This section has been prepared on the basis that all embedded mitigation is in place
which includes for the potential impacts of climate change for the entire construction
phase and covers the timeframe of present day (2018) until 2029. It should be noted
that this period is not fixed and could be for a shorter or longer period than assessed.
Water Quality
9.80 Given the nature of construction, there is potential for surface water to be
contaminated in the event of a fuel spillage or spillage of any chemicals within the Site.
Contaminants could potentially enter the surrounding area and watercourses by being
transported within generated runoff.
9.81 This risk would be managed through a proposed CEMP which would result in low
magnitude effect on a medium sensitivity receptor (the River Ash) and therefore be of
minor adverse effect (which is not significant) local to the Site, direct, temporary in
nature and short term during the construction phase.
Flood Risk
9.82 At this stage, the only works proposed within the river channel are for the provision of
a new link between the north and south areas by the construction of a new bridge and
the provision of additional and upgraded footpaths to open up and enhance access to
the River Ash corridor. As such, there is potential for construction workers to be
operating in the floodplain and for the temporary placing of materials and temporary
ground works raising levels within the River Ash corridor which could obstruct / block
floodplain conveyance.
9.83 However, these effects would be managed through a proposed CEMP, which would
address the requirement for material management (no stockpiling within the high risk
flood zone) and safety of workers (through a proposed FWEP). The effect to the
receptors (The River Ash and its catchment, the construction workers and their safety)
would be of low magnitude and medium sensitivity and therefore a minor adverse
effect (which is not significant), local, direct, temporary in nature and short term
(within the construction phase).
Surface Water Drainage
9.84 Construction of the Proposed Development would result in currently permeable land
being developed, and could result in a level of soil compaction. In addition, the
erection of site buildings, internal road networks and storing of materials may impact
on surface runoff and has the potential to disrupt existing flow routes. Any compacted
areas during construction have the potential to act as any impermeable surfaces and
would alter the infiltration rates and increase potential runoff from the Site which has
the potential to increase flood risk downstream of the Site
9.85 The proposed CEMP would require surface water drainage to be in place prior to the
construction of hardstanding and buildings to ensure runoff is managed throughout
construction. The effect of construction on surface water drainage would, therefore, be
of low magnitude and medium sensitivity and therefore a minor adverse effect (which
105
is not significant), local to the Site, direct, temporary in nature, and short term when
compared to the baseline conditions.
Effect during operational phase: long term
Water Quality
9.86 Given the measures that are proposed to be installed during construction, which
include the proposed surface water drainage system which is based on sustainable
drainage solutions (sub-base water quality treatment, swale, ribbon pond and basin to
trap sediments etc), the likely effect of the operation of the Proposed Development on
water quality is negligible magnitude and negligible sensitivity and therefore of
negligible effect (which is not significant).
Flood Risk
9.87 During operation, suitable measures have been incorporated within the design of the
Proposed Development to provide a flood resilient and resistant scheme. This would
ensure that the potential risks to the Site and users is acceptable and in line with
planning policy. By locating all development outside of the 1 in 100 year floodplain
with an allowance for climate change, the Proposed Development would not cause any
detrimental impact on flood risk through the loss of floodplain storage and would not
therefore impact on the downstream River Ash Catchment nor adjacent residential
development through the displacement of flood waters.
9.88 The opportunity, if required, to provide significant additional floodplain storage has
been explored and can be provided within the Site. This demonstrates, without
prejudice to the conclusion that the provision of additional storage is not necessary
(given the location of the Site outside of the updated flood zone 3) commitment to the
provision of such storage if it is reasonably required by the EA (or equivalent).
9.89 As the Site is located within a wider area that is within the medium risk flood zone, the
Proposed Development commits to sign up to the EA Flood Warning Scheme. This
would ensure reasonable and sufficient time for all occupants to evacuate the Site
safely in the event of a design exceedance event along a safe access/egress route.
9.90 The likely impact on the flooding regime during the operation of the Proposed
Development would be of low magnitude and medium sensitivity and therefore of
minor beneficial effect (which is not significant), local, direct, permanent in nature and
long term (given that there is the potential to explore a betterment in relation to flood
risk when compared to the modelled baseline conditions through the provision of
additional floodplain storage).
Surface Water Drainage
9.91 During the operation of the Proposed Development all surface water flows within the
Site, and those draining into the Site from the surrounding catchment, would be
intercepted and conveyed within the proposed site surface water drainage system. All
flows would ultimately be conveyed into attenuation features (including water quality
treatment) designed to restrict runoff to the pre-development Greenfield QBAR runoff
rates, with storage of all attenuated runoff within the Site itself. As such, the risk from
this source to the Site users, the River Ash, the downstream catchment and
106
surrounding area during the operational phase would be of low magnitude and low
sensitivity and therefore of negligible effect (which is not significant).
Adaptive mitigation
9.92 Adaptive mitigation is required in situations where, despite embedded mitigation, an
adverse ‘significant’ effect has been identified.
9.93 However, on the basis of the assessment of the likely effects of the construction and
operation of the Proposed Development which has not identified any ‘significant’
adverse effects, no adaptive mitigation measures are necessary.
Residual effects assessment
9.94 Based on no adaptive mitigation measures being proposed, the residual effects of the
Proposed Development remain as per those identified at the assessment stage, i.e. not
significant, as set out in the table below.
Table 9.5: Summary of Residual Effects
Description of impact Level of effect Possible mitigation
measures
Residual
effect
Construction
None N/A N/A None
Operation
None N/A N/A None
Cumulative Effects Assessment
Cumulative Assessment: Intra-Project Effects
9.95 Following discussions with key disciplines, namely Ground Conditions and Biodiversity,
it is apparent that no topic-specific ‘significant’ adverse effects have been identified as
being posed to the identified hydrological, drainage and flood risk receptors, as
detailed in paragraph 9.20.
9.96 As such, no combined intra-project adverse ‘significant’ effects have been identified.
Cumulative Assessment: Inter-Project Effects
9.97 This chapter demonstrates that the Proposed Development is unlikely to have any
significant adverse effects to the hydrological, drainage and flood risk receptors
considered. As such, on the basis of the other Proposed Development’s adopting
similar embedded mitigation, where necessary, the cumulative inter-project effects on
the hydrological, drainage and flood risk receptors assessed is considered to remain of
no ‘significance’.
107
Monitoring
9.98 Post-development monitoring would include the visual inspection and maintenance of
all watercourses and drainage systems within the Site.
9.99 The monitoring and maintenance schedule would be detailed within a ‘Management
Strategy for Water Resources’ which would be included within the proposed CEMP, as
embedded mitigation
Limitations and Assumptions
9.100 At the time of writing, the flood risk modelling for the Site (detailed within the flood
risk assessment accompanying this chapter) is yet to be reviewed and approved by the
EA. Whilst the principles proposed have been agreed, the model review may result in
some amendments being required which may impact upon the final design. The
assessment in this chapter has been prepared on the assumption that no significant
changes to the design will be required.
9.101 In addition, whilst the principles of the drainage strategy prepared for the proposals
are unlikely to alter, the detail of such strategy may subsequently alter to suit final
scheme / layout designs
Summary
9.102 Whilst potential impacts have been identified through this assessment of hydrology
and flood risk of the key receptors in the area, the Proposed Development has been
designed to ensure that all potential effects are avoided, reduced or offset by the
proposed embedded mitigation measures. These include:
• Management and operational systems detailed in the proposed CEMP to
minimise the likely effects posed to water quality, materials management, and to
provide suitable flood warning and management during construction;
• Appropriate and proportionate pollution control apparatus within the proposed
surface water drainage systems to ensure a high water quality discharge from
the Site;
• Locating all proposed new studio development outside of the 1 in 100 year
+climate change floodplain, incorporation of flood resilience, and adoption of a
FWMP;
• Suitable sustainable surface water drainage is to be constructed to ensure post-
development peak run-off rates do not increase when compared to the baseline
situation and suitable water quality treatment provided to maintain or enhance
the quality of such runoff.
108
10. Summary and Conclusions
10.1 This Chapter summarises the main conclusions from the technical Chapters of the ES
and to what extent any residual significant effects in EIA terms are predicted to occur.
The content of this chapter is drawn from the individual ES chapters.
10.2 The EIA process has been carried out with reference to accepted methods covering, for
example:
the approach to surveys and defining baseline conditions;
methods for assessment;
definitions and criteria for identifying and determining key potential impacts; and
ascribing significance levels to possible environmental effects.
10.3 A summary of the residual effects reported for each technical chapter is provided in
the table below:
Table 10.1: Summary of Environmental Effects
Chapter Phase Description of Effects Residual Effects Reported
Chapter 7 -
Highways
Construction Construction traffic effect on
community severance
Construction traffic effect on driver
and pedestrian delay
Effect on accidents and safety due to
construction traffic
Effect on pedestrian fear and
intimidation using Studios Road
Negligible Effect
Negligible Effect
Negligible Effect
Negligible Effect
Operation Operational traffic effect on
community severance
Operational traffic effect on driver
and pedestrian delay
Effect on accidents and safety due to
operational traffic
Negligible Effect
Minor Beneficial
Effect (local in scale,
direct, permanent in
nature and medium
to long-term)
Minor Beneficial
Effect (local in scale,
direct, permanent in
nature and medium
to long term)
109
Effect on pedestrian fear and
intimidation
Negligible Effect
Chapter 8
– Air
Quality
Construction Effect of dust on nearby receptors
Effect of vehicle emissions on local air
quality
Negligible Effect
Negligible Effect
Operation Vehicle emissions during the opening
year (2030)
Negligible Effect
Chapter 9 -
Hydrology
Construction Water Quality - Potential for surface
water to be contaminated in the
event of a fuel spillage or spillage of
any chemicals within the Site
Flood Risk - potential for
construction workers to be operating
in the floodplain and for the
temporary placing of materials and
temporary ground works raising
levels within the River Ash corridor
which could obstruct / block
floodplain conveyance.
Surface Water Drainage - compacted
areas during construction have the
potential to act as any impermeable
surfaces and would alter the
infiltration rates and increase
potential runoff from the Site which
has the potential to increase flood
risk downstream of the Site
Minor Adverse Effect
(local in scale, direct,
temporary in nature
and short term
during the
construction phase)
Minor Adverse
Effect (local in scale,
direct, temporary in
nature and short
term during the
construction phase)
Minor Adverse
Effect (local in scale,
direct, temporary in
nature and short
term during the
construction phase)
Operation Effect on Water Quality
Impact on the flooding regime during
the operation of the Proposed
Development
The risk from this source to the Site
users, the River Ash, the downstream
catchment and surrounding area
during the operational phase
Negligible Effect
Minor Beneficial
Effect (local in scale,
direct, permanent in
nature and long-
term)
Negligible Effect
10.4 In conclusion, all residual effects are assessed to be minor, negligible or beneficial. No
major adverse effects have been identified. Although some minor adverse effects are
110
assessed in relation to some criteria these are in a limited number of circumstances
pertaining to hydrology and in any event are not considered significant and therefore
do not require adaptive mitigation measures to be implemented.
10.5 Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Development to reduce any
potential residual effects. Despite the implementation of these measures, a degree of
disruption during construction is inevitable. However, the effects will be temporary in
nature. The long term and permanent effects of the Project are considered to result in
mostly negligible or positive effects.
References
6.1 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG (2018) “National Planning
Policy Framework” DCLG: London
6.2 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2014) “Planning Practice
Guidance” https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice-guidance
(visited 27 March 2018)
6.3 Spelthorne Borough Council (SBC) (2009) “Core Strategy and Policies Development
Plan Document”
7.1 Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (1993). Guidelines for the
Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic
7.2 Department for Communities and Local Government (2018). National Planning Policy
Framework
7.3 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (first published in 2012).
Planning Practice Guidance. See
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice-guidance
7.4 Surrey County Council (2017) - Surrey Transport Plan
7.5 Surrey County Council (2014) - Surrey Transport Plan - Cycling Strategy
7.6 Spelthorne Borough Council (2009). Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan
Document
7.7 Spelthorne Borough Council (20418). EIA Scoping Advice Note
8.1 Spelthorne Borough Council.2001. Spelthorne Borough Council 2001 Core Strategy and
Policies Development Plan Document
8.2 EC, “Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,” May 21,
2008, 50
8.3 EC, “Directive 2004/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,” December
15, 2004, 107
8.4 COMEAP, “The Mortality Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution in
the United Kingdom” (London: Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants
(COMEAP), November 2010)
8.5 WHO, “WHO | Air Pollution,” WHO, 2016,
http://www.who.int/topics/air_pollution/en/
8.6 UNECE, “Air Pollution - Air Pollution - Environmental Policy - UNECE,” 2016,
http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/welcome.html
8.7 Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010
8.8 DEFRA, “The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland -
Volume 1” (Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), July 2007),
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6933
6/pb12654-air-quality-strategy-vol1-070712.pdf
8.9 Environment Agency, “Environment Act 1995” (The Environment Agency, 2002),
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/25/contents
8.10 DEFRA, CLEAN AIR strategy 2018 (Draft)
8.11 DEFRA, “LAQM Technical Guidance LAQM.TG16,” April 2016, 16,
http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/LAQM-TG16-April-16-v1.pdf
8.12 IAQM, “Land-Use Planning & Development Control: Planning for Air Quality” (Institute
for Air Quality Management (IAQM), January 2017),
http://www.iaqm.co.uk/text/guidance/air-quality-planning-guidance.pdf.
8.13 DfT, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, vol. 12.2.1: Traffic Appraisal of Road
Schemes. Section 2: Advice (London: Highways Agency, 1996)
8.14 Spelthorne Borough Council.2017. Spelthorne Borough Council Air Quality Strategy
Action Plan.
8.15 IAQM, “Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction.”
8.16 https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/laqm-background-home
8.17 Defra, “Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT) v8.0,” November 22, 2017, Department for
Environment.
8.18 Meteonorm, “Meteonorm: Meteonorm Dataset,” 2016,
http://meteonorm.com/products/meteonorm-dataset/.
8.19 DEFRA, DEFRA NOx to NO2 calculator (version 6.1). 2017.
8.20 IAQM. 2009. Significance in Air Quality
8.21 AEA Technology, “Analysis of the Relationship between Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide
Concentration and Exceedances of the 1-Hour Mean AQS Objective,” May 23, 2008
8.22 Duncan Laxen and Ben Marner, “Analysis of the Relationship Between 1-Hour and
Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide at UK Roadside and Kerbside Monitoring Sites,” July
2003, https://uk-
air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat06/1hr_NO2_rpt_Final_b.pdf
10.6 Ref 1.1 - Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF), 2018
10.7 Ref. 1.2 - Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: NPPF Planning
Practice Guidance (PPG), 2014Add references.
Turley Office The Pinnacle 20 Tudor Road Reading RG1 1NH T 0118 902 2830
