appendix 14.01 – agricultural impact assessment · a30 temple to higher carblake improvement...

Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Regulation Number: 5(2)(a) Author: A30 Temple to Higher Carblake Improvement

Team, Cornwall Council Document Reference:

TRXCP311/PA/6.03/APP 14.01

PI Reference TR010014 Document Date Version Note 07 August 2013 0 First Issue

Appendix 14.01 – Agricultural Impact Assessment

Contents

1. Agricultural Impact Assessment Report

A30

Temple to Higher Carblake

Improvement

Agricultural Impact

Assessment Report

August 2013

V 5.0

A30 Temple to Higher Carblake Improvement Agricultural Impact Assessment

5911

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Scope and Assessment Methodology 2

3.0 Baseline Conditions 8

4.0 The Effects of the Proposed Development 16

5.0 Summary of Overall Impact 21

Tables:

Table 1: Sensitivity of Agricultural Land 4

Table 2: Magnitude of Impact of Land Take of Agricultural Land 5

Table 3: Significance Matrix 5

Table 4: Impact Magnitude Criteria for Agricultural Holdings 6

Table 5: Local agro-climatic conditions 7

Table 6: Land loss to the A30 Temple to Higher Carblake Improvement 8

Table 7: Permanent loss of agricultural land by grade 13

Table 8: Effect on Land Holdings 14

Figures:

Figure RAC 5911-1 Agricultural land classification


5911 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Reading Agricultural Consultants (RAC) have been instructed by DWF LLP

on behalf of Cornwall Council to undertake an assessment of the potential

impacts on agriculture of the proposed construction of the A30 Temple to

Higher Carblake improvement to form part of a wider Environmental Impact

Assessment of the development.

1.2 The assessment of impacts has been undertaken taking account of the

recommended procedures set out in the Design Manual for Roads and

Bridges (Vol. 11, Section 3, Parts 6 and 11).

1.3 It is intended that this report provides an understanding of the agricultural

holdings and practices along the line of the route. It is well-established that

linear developments can have significant impacts on farm holdings in terms of

land loss and, in particular, severance, and issues related to access can

require special consideration: this is particularly the case with limited-access,

dual-carriageway roads such as that proposed.


5911 2

2.0 Scope and Assessment Methodology

2.1 The scope of this assessment is to identify and predict the likely construction

and long-term effects of the proposed development on agricultural resources

after the incorporation of mitigation measures.

2.2 The framework for undertaking an Environmental Assessment is set out in the

EC Directive ‘The Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private

Projects on the Environment1’ which is given force in the UK by the ‘Town and

Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations2.

2.3 This framework does not, however, contain detailed guidance on the specific

aspects of agriculture which should be included in an impact assessment, and

the manner in which they should be treated. Therefore, the general approach

adopted by this study has been derived from the present planning advice from

central and local Government which provides a guide to the factors which

ought to be examined in an assessment of the impacts of development

proposals upon agriculture, as well as a policy framework within which weight

can be attached to the significance of particular impacts.

2.4 National land use development policies contained within the National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)3 seek to safeguard scarce natural

resources in the long-term national interest and give protection to the best

and most versatile agricultural land (that in Grades 1, 2 and 3a).

2.5 The inherent quality of soil, as distinct to its agricultural value, is recognised in

paragraph 109 of the NPPF and in Defra’s Soil Strategy for England4 which

seeks to encourage the sustainable management of soil resources. The

document provides a general imperative seeking to ensure the proper

consideration of soil implications during the planning and development

process, and to reduce the effect of the construction and development sectors

1 The Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment (2011/92/EU), EC Directive, December 2011

2 ‘Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (SI No 1824),

3 National Planning Policy Framework, Department of Communities and Local Government, 2012

4 Soil Strategy for England, Defra, 2009


5911 3

on the long term functioning of soils. In the latter respect, Defra has

published a Code of Practice5 for the sustainable use of the soils on

construction sites which requires:

1. identification of soil resources at an early stage in the development

process;

2. improved planning of soil use;

3. a better level of soil management during project implementation,

including sustainable use of surplus soil;

4. maintenance of soil quality and function both on and off site;

5. avoidance of soil compaction and erosion (with a consequent

reduction in flooding and water pollution);

6. an improved knowledge and understanding of soil at all levels in the

construction industry, including soil amelioration techniques.

2.6 With regard to farm businesses it remains the Government’s intention to

maintain an environment in which a competitive and sustainable agricultural

industry with a strong market focus, can flourish.

2.7 These policy objectives form the basis of the assessment of the impact of the

proposed development on agriculture, and have defined the scope of the

impacts to be identified and examined in this study. These are:

1. the quantity and quality of agricultural land that would be permanently

taken;

2. the impact of land loss and severance on farm businesses;

3. the loss of agricultural buildings and other farm infrastructure;

5 Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, Defra, 2009


5911 4

4. the potential for construction impacts, such as disruptions to field

drainage and irrigation, nuisance from dust and noise which could

adversely affect land, livestock and farming activities.

2.7 Information on the extent and quality of agricultural land that would be

affected by the Scheme has been assessed by means of a desk-assessment

and is reported below.

2.8 Information regarding individual farm holdings was collected by interview in

2003 (by RAC) and updated, where possible, in 2013. A walk-through has

also been conducted.

Significance Criteria

2.9 The relative sensitivity of the agricultural land that would be affected is scaled

according to the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system and set out in

Table 1

2.10 There is very little guidance as to the magnitude of land take which is

considered to be significant. Some assistance on this point is given in the

Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order6 which

requires Local Planning Authorities to consult Natural England about any

planning application that is not in accordance with the local development plan,

and would involve the loss of 20ha or more of high quality agricultural land in

Grades 1 and 2 and Subgrade 3a. For this assessment, a landtake of more

than 20ha is considered to be a ‘Large’ Impact, as scaled in Table 2 with

lesser areas being of relatively less impact.

Table 1: Sensitivity of Agricultural Land

Sensitivity ALC Category

High Grade 1

Medium Grade 2 and 3a

Low Subgrade 3b and Grade 4

6 Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order, HMSO, 2010


5911 5

Negligible Grade 5

Table 2: Magnitude of Impact of Land Take of Agricultural Land

2.11 The significance of effect on the agricultural land resource is then assessed

according to Table 3.

2.12 Impacts can be categorised as direct or indirect and beneficial or adverse.

Impacts which are beneficial are deemed as positive, adverse deemed as

negative and those impacts with no overall change are deemed as neutral.

Table 3: Significance Matrix

Magnitude of Impact on Best and Most Versatile Land Importance of Agricultural Land High Medium Low Negligible

High Substantial Moderate Minor Negligible

Medium Moderate Minor Minor Negligible

Low Minor Minor Minor Negligible

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

2.13 There is no standardised method for determining the effects of development

proposals on agricultural holdings and thus professional judgement has been

used for this assessment and considers the impact on the agricultural

business affected. Table 4 sets out the classification criteria.

Scale of Impact Land Take

High More than 20 hectares

Medium 5 – 20 hectares

Low 1 – 5 hectares

Negligible Less than 1 hectare


5911 6

Table 4: Impact magnitude criteria for farm holdings

Definitions Impact magnitude

Land take Severance Infrastructure Nuisance

High >20% of all land farmed

No access available to severed land

Direct loss of farm dwelling, building or structure

Nuisance discontinues land use or enterprise

Medium >10% ‐ 20% of all land farmed

Access available to severed land via the public highway

Loss of or damage to infrastructure affecting land use

Nuisance necessitates change to scale or nature of land use or enterprise

Low > 5% ‐ 10% of all land farmed

Access available to severed land via private way

Infrastructure loss/damage does not affect land use

Nuisance does not affect land use or enterprise

Negligible 5% or less of all land farmed

No new severance

No impact on farm infrastructure

No nuisance on land use or enterprise


5911 7

3.0 Baseline Conditions

Agricultural Land

3.1 The Agricultural Land Classification system provides a framework for

classifying land according to the extent to which its physical or chemical

characteristics impose long-term limitations on agricultural use.

3.2 The principal physical factors influencing agricultural production are climate,

site and soil. These factors together with interactions between them form the

basis for classifying land into one of five grades; Grade 1 land being of

excellent quality and Grade 5 land of very poor quality. Grade 3, which

constitutes about half of the agricultural land in England and Wales, is now

divided into two subgrades designated 3a and 3b.

Agro-climatic Factors

3.3 Local agro-climatic factors have been interpolated from the Meteorological

Office's standard 5 km grid point data set for three locations along the route,

set out in Table 5. Climatic factors can affect the overall land quality possible

under the MAFF ALC system, and also affect the critical depths to certain soil

features which affect drainage classification. The climate also influences the

degree of workability limitation the land experiences due to a combination of

climate and soil factors.

Table 5: Local agro-climatic conditions

Climatic Parameter SX 110 708 SX 125 721 SX 135 736

Altitude (m AOD) 1490 250 240

Average Annual Rainfall 1322 1531 1574

Accumulated Temperature >0°C 1412 1342 1352

Field Capacity Days 256 289 297

Average Moisture Deficit, wheat 62 43 43

Average Moisture Deficit, potatoes

42 19 19


5911 8

Soil Parent Material

3.4 For the most part the western half of the Scheme has soils of the Manod

association. These are well drained loamy soils over rock at about 60 cm

depth. The high number of Field Capacity Days, combined with clay loam

topsoils, makes these soils Subgrade 3b in the ALC. There is a small area of

Crowdy association soils near the centre, which are wet blanket peats that

are almost permanently wet, and no better than Grade 5.

3.5 The eastern half is dominated by soils of the Hexworthy association. These

are wet soils showing peat over loamy subsoil, often with an iron pan and no

better than Grade 4. At the extreme eastern end is another patch of Crowdy

soil, which is likewise Grade 5. These delineations are set out in Figure RAC

5991-1.

Land Holdings

3.6 The information provided by Cornwall Council (and shown on CCC Drawing

No TRXCP311_L_071/B) indicates that 16 land holdings would lose

agricultural land to the construction of the Scheme (some also losing land as

part of the Exchange Land process for the loss of Commonland), with one

further land holding experiencing loss due solely as Exchange Land. The

details presented in Table 6 below are an amalgam of the data provided by

the Council.

Table 6: Land loss to the A30 Temple to Higher Carblake

Improvement

Plot No from Plan

Name Permanent land take for construction

(ha)

Exchange land take

…………….. (ha)

Total permanent land take

(ha)

Temporary land take

…………….. (ha)

* 160/ 170

C Robertson 2.1 0 2.1 7.9

190 R Cornelius 1.53 0 1.53 0.9

220 P Underwood 0.08 0 0.08 0.06 X

230 B Hendry 0.1 0 0.1 0.1

830 E Roose 2.5 0 2.5 5.25


5911 9

300 G Roose 0 0 0 0.05 X

310 S Gibson 1.79 0 1.79 4.45

320 R H-Tenison 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20

340 M Spittey 0 0 0 0.27 X

360 J Davies-Prisk

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 X

370 J Jones 0 0 0 0.01 X

380 Executors of C Rush

2.47 0.01 2.48 8.06

390 Yeo 0 0.08 0.08 0.08

670 R Bate 0.55 0 0.55 0.20

840 V Newman 0.04 0 0.04 0.08 X

860 Pencarrow Estate / J Molesworth

0.39 0.35 0.39 0.50

n/a A Mansfield 0 0.36 0.36 0.3

3.7 For the holdings marked with an “x” the area of loss is minimal (less than

0.1ha) and is not considered further in this report.

3.8 For the remaining holdings the data collected in 2003 has provided the basic

details of the holding and has been updated, where possible, to provide the

current background information for an assessment of impact. In 2003 the

data sought to establish relevant farms boundaries along with principal farm

access routes and water supplies. Examination was made of the main

enterprises of the farm, together with a consideration of the potential impacts

likely to arise from the construction and operation of the Scheme.

Holding 160/170

3.9 Full details concerning the agricultural activities at Holding 160/170 have yet

to be determined, but the holding extends to some 56ha and is permanent

pasture. It is understood that the land is rented to a local grazier (Mr Yeo,

see 390) who farms considerable areas of land in the locality (including land

owned and rented) and who is, himself, affected by land loss to the Scheme

at the eastern end.


5911 10

Holding 190

3.10 Although the ownership of this holding appears to have changed within the

past ten years, the occupation appears to be the same with the CCC

information suggesting the tenant is the same as the owner ten years ago.

The unit extends to 45.7ha and is laid mainly to grass for use as grazing and

winter forage for beef cattle and ewes.

3.12 The owner is understood to exercise rights as a commoner on various moors

in the area including Racecourse Moor to the north of the A30, Cardinham

Down to the south, and Blisland and Shallowater moors to the east of the

scheme.

Holding 230

3.13 Holding 230 was purchased by the present occupiers in 1993 and comprised

11.3ha of grassland, various utilitarian farm buildings and a redundant stone

barn. Since acquiring the unit the owners have converted the barn to a

cottage for holiday lettings. As far as the use of the land is concerned, this

is understood to be let to a neighbouring farmer as grazing or for mowing.

Holding 830

3.14 This holding is understood to extend to approximately 35ha and forms part of

a larger holding extending to some 100ha; the farm has been in the same

family ownership since 1850. The land is all laid to grass and provides the

grazing and winter forage needs for suckler cows and ewes with all progeny

sold as finished stock. The main part of the holding (65ha) lies to the north

Manor Common to the north-east of the Scheme.

3.15 The owner is understood to exercise his rights as a commoner on both the

Trehudreth group of moors to the north of the A30 and also Cardinham Moor

to the south, and used formerly to make use of a road traffic warning lights

system to take cattle and sheep across the A30; such movements have long

since ceased and livestock movements are now undertaken using trailers.


5911 11

Holding 310

3.16 This unit is understood to extend to some 54.0ha and the main part of the

holding, which includes the farmhouse, farm buildings lies to the south of the

A30. The land farmed is all laid to grass and provides the grazing and winter

forage requirements for suckler cows and their progeny which are sold as

finished stock. In addition, there is a flock of 35 ewes, which is the remnant of

the much larger flock sold two years ago due to labour difficulties. RAC was

advised that the owners had intended to re-stock the sheep flock, but have

not done so to date due to the uncertainties surrounding this proposed

development.

3.17 The owner is understood to exercise his rights as a commoner on Cardinham

Moor and is able to move stock directly from his holding onto the moor at a

point near the A30.

3.18 In 2003 holiday cottages were also let, but it is unclear whether this still

continues.

Holding 320

3.19 Holding 320 is Cardinham Moor, which lies mostly to the south of the A30,

though there is a very small area of land to the north, which was severed by

the current alignment of the A30 – and part subject to the Commonland

Exchange. The owner of the moor is not believed to have any agricultural

interest in the area, though does make full use of his sporting rights across

the moor.

Holding 380

3.21 This holding extends to over 200ha and owner has very recently passed

away. It is understood that the land is all laid to grass and provides the

grazing and winter forage needs for a herd of suckler cows and a flock of 500

ewes. All progeny are sold as finished stock.

3.22 Although the majority of the holding, including the farm buildings and

residence, lies to the north of Trehudreth Moor, the owner also owned two


5911 12

parcels of land adjacent to the A30, at Temple: each parcel of land measures

10ha. The owner formerly exercised his rights as a Commoner on Trehudreth

and Newton Moors.

Holding 390

3.23 No details have been collected regarding this holding, but it is understood that

the owner farms considerable areas of land in North Cornwall, both to the

north and south of the A30. Stock numbers are known to be extensive with

reputedly in excess of 1,000 head of cattle.

Holding 670

3.24 This holding, which extends in total to over 60ha, has been in the ownership

of the existing family for the past 100 years. The land is all laid to grass and

provides the grazing and winter forage needs for a herd of 40 suckler cows

and a flock of 200 ewes. All progeny is sold as finished stock.

3.25 The main part of the holding, which extends to 40.4ha, is understood to lie to

the south of Cardinham Moor, with a 20ha parcel to the north of the A30.

This property, which is accessed from an unregistered sideroad, directly from

the A30, is understood to be let to an agricultural tenant.

The owner exercises his rights as a commoner on both the Trehudreth group

of moors to the north of the A30 and also Cardinham Moor to the south.

Holding 860

3.26 Holding 860 refers to part of Manor Common which is owned by the St Aubyn

Estate which extends to over 2,000ha of land managed in Cornwall.

Holding n/a

3.20 This Holding lies some distance away from the A30 and is referred to as Ivey

and Hawkstor Farms. It is understood to be engaged in beef and sheep

farming and the owner exercises his rights as a commoner on Manor

Common.


5911 13

4.0 The Effects of the Scheme

Agricultural Land

4.1 The Scheme would result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, as set out

in Table 7

Table 7: Permanent loss of agricultural land by grade

Land Grade Area permanently lost (ha)

Subgrade 3b 6.79

Grade 4 1.75

Grade 5 2.89

TOTAL 11.4

4.2 No land classified as best and most versatile agricultural land would be lost to

the Scheme and the loss of 11.4ha of lower quality land is not significant.

Overall, the impact of the Scheme on agricultural land is assessed as a Minor

Adverse Effect.

4.3 The main long-term effect of the development on the individual farming units

would be the permanent loss of land from agricultural use, together with

severance that cannot adequately be rectified. In this case severance it not

likely to be an issue as the Scheme follows the existing alignment and no new

severance will occur. Although farmers have a legal right to cross the current

alignment with stock and will lose that right when the road is dualled, in fact,

no-one executes that right at present due to the volume of fast moving traffic

already on the highway.

4.4 Also, although the viability of each holding affected by the proposed road is

likely to be reduced by loss of land and in some cases by increased travelling

costs to severed areas, in fact, the area of land lost in almost all cases is

small and the effect on farm viability will be negligible.

4.5 Table 8 shows the effect of the route on the units affected.


5911 14

Table 8: Effect on Land Holdings

No. Holding Size (ha)

Approximate where unknown

Permanent Land Take (ha)

% Permanent Land Take

160/170 56 2.1 3.8

190 46 1.53 3.3

230 11 0.08 0.7

830 35 2.5 7.1

310 54 1.79 3.3

320 100+ 0.03 0.1

380 200+ 2.48 1.2

390 200+ 0.08 0.1

670 60 0.55 0.9

860 200+ 0.39 0.2

n/a 50+ 0.36 0.7

4.6 Using the assessment criteria set out in Table 4 it is apparent that, with the

exception of Holding 830, none of the farms is exposed to a proportionate

loss of land in excess of five percent, and for all these farms the loss of land

is considered a negligible impact. This is especially the case as no farm

suffers from any severance and the land lost is restricted to farm/field

boundaries.

4.8 In the case of Holding 830, the area lost is 2.5ha and marginally exceeds the

5% threshold of negligible impact; this still remains in the low impact

magnitude category. Whilst the loss of this area of land would be likely to

reduce farm profitability, it is not considered likely to be significant.

4.9 Overall, the impact of the Proposed Scheme on farm holdings is assessed as

a Minor Adverse Effect.


5911 15

Miscellaneous Short-term Effects on Land Use

4.10 Construction traffic: certain agricultural operations, such as silage making,

are heavily constrained by timeliness and require an uninterrupted flow of

activity. Unrestricted access to fields is crucial at many times of the year.

Activities such as harvesting grass can be severely disrupted if the transport

chain between the field and farmstead is cut. This is an area of detail that

should be addressed at the detailed design and construction programme

stages.

4.11 Construction compounds, soil storage areas and soil transfer sites. The

areas indicated for temporary land use for construction sites or spoil disposal

would not be available for agriculture during the construction phase.

However, provided the land is reinstated in accordance with best practice as

set out the MAFF Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils (2000) and Defra’s

Construction Code of Practice there should be no diminution of land quality.

4.12 Noise: whilst this is occasionally a problem for housed livestock, the

completed road would not cause or generate any noise effect that would have

a direct adverse impact on livestock. Of more concern are the occasional

significant noise events that may occur during the route construction, which

would need detailed consideration prior to the works.

4.13 Dust and Pollution: major construction schemes can generate pollution that

has an adverse impact on the local agricultural community. Whilst it is

unlikely that excessive dust contamination of grazing, hay or silage crops

would occur, it should be noted that control measures are possible, such as

the frequent use of watering during adverse conditions, and are matters of

good site practice.


5911 16

5.0 Summary of Overall Impact

5.1 The construction of the Scheme would require the permanent acquisition of

approximately 12ha of agricultural land. The quality of this agricultural land is

assessed as wholly lower quality, in Subgrade 3b, and Grades 4 and 5. The

loss of this land is of minor significance.

5.2 Seventeen holdings would be affected and most of the owners and/or

occupiers of the materially-affected holdings were interviewed in 2003 to

determine farming practices at that time. Where possible these data have

been updated to 2013.

5.3 Based on the information presently available it is considered that for 16

holdings the effect would be negligible, and for one the effect would be of

minor significance.

Figure RAC 5991-1: Agricultural Land Classification

Site: Temple to Higher Carblake

Client: Cornwall County Council

Plan reproduced from Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright Reserved 02/Jul/13

NORTH

© Copyright Reading Agricultural Consultants, 2013, Beechwood Court, Long Toll, Woodcote, Reading,RG8 0RR Tel: 01491 684233 Fax: 01491 680800 www.readingagricultural.co.uk

Grade 1 - excellent quality

Grade 2 - very good quality

Subgrade 3a - good quality

Grade 4 - poor quality

Grade 5 - very poor quality

Non-agricultural

Subgrade 3b - moderate quality

Not Present*

***

*

appendix 14.01 – agricultural impact assessment · a30 temple to higher carblake improvement...

Documents