ABP/9C
THE M4 CORRIDOR AROUND
NEWPORT
PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRY
_____________________________________________________
SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE
Jonathan King
Wardell Armstrong LLP
on behalf of
Associated British Ports
Landscape Witness
_____________________________________________________
DATE ISSUED:
February 2017
JOB NUMBER:
CA11055
REPORT NUMBER:
ABP/9C
VERSION:
V0.1
STATUS:
Final
DOCUMENT ABP/9C
SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE (LANDSCAPE) ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATED BRITISH
PORTS BY: JONATHAN CHRISTOPHER KING BSC, MLD CMLI – TECHNICAL DIRECTOR,
WARDELL ARMSTRONG LLP
February 2017
DOCUMENT ABP/9C
SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE (LANDSCAPE) ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
2
POLICY AND PLANNING RELATED DOCUMENTS ............................................................. 2
3
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 2
4
CONTEXT OF THE STUDY AREA ...................................................................................... 2
5
COMPARATIVE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHEMES ................................... 3
6
COMPARATIVE LANDSCAPE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHEMES ............................ 3
7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 3
CA11055/FINAL
FEBRUARY 2017
DOCUMENT ABP/9C
SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE (LANDSCAPE) ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Qualifications & Experience
1.1.1 My name is Jonathan Christopher King and I am a Technical Director with Wardell
Armstrong LLP, environmental and engineering consultants based in Stoke-on-Trent,
Staffordshire.
1.1.2 I hold a Bachelor of Science Honours Degree in Horticulture from the University of
London and a Master of Landscape Design from the University of Manchester. I am a
Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute.
1.1.3 I have previously been employed in private practice in the south and northwest of
England. My experience has ranged from highway schemes, land reclamation and
minerals through to detailed proposals for residential, industrial and commercial
development. I have produced and co-ordinated landscape and visual assessments
for numerous projects. I am also actively involved with co-ordinating and managing
environmental assessments and sustainability appraisals for a number of major
projects where I co-ordinate the interaction of landscape, ecology and archaeology.
1.1.4 I joined Wardell Armstrong in 1999 and I am responsible for project management
within the environment group specialising in landscape related projects.
1.1.5 The evidence which I have prepared and provided in this proof of evidence, is I believe
true and has been prepared and is given in accordance with the Code of Standard and
Practice for Landscape Professionals of the Landscape Institute. I confirm that the
opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.
1.2
Scope and Purpose of Landscape Evidence
1.2.1 I have been instructed by Associated British Ports (ABP) to undertake comparative
assessments of the landscape and visual impacts of the following proposed highway
development schemes:
•
The Welsh Government Scheme (WG Scheme) for the M4 realignment at
Newport.
•
ABP’s Alternative Northern Route without junction (ANR1).
•
ABP’s Alternative North Route with junction (ANR2).
1.2.2 My evidence is restricted to the new section of the proposed M4 realignment
between: -
CA11055/Final
FEBRUARY 2017
Page 1
DOCUMENT ABP/9C
SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE (LANDSCAPE) ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS
•
The crossing of the South Wales to London Mainline railway to the south of
Duffryn.
•
The crossing of Corporation Road/rail line to Uskmouth Power Station, to the east
of the River Usk.
1.2.3 My main proof of evidence deals with the following key issues:
•
The context of the schemes and relationship with the surrounding landscape
character of the area.
•
Visual impacts generated by the WG Scheme and the proposed ANR1 and ANR2
schemes.
•
Landscape impacts generated by the WG Scheme and the proposed ANR1 and
ANR2 schemes.
•
Policy as it relates to landscape and heritage assets.
1.2.4 My main proof of evidence does not include further analysis of policy. These aspects
are analysed in the proof of evidence of Mr. Rowell. Descriptions of the Alternative
Northern Route options are set out in Mr. Wilson’s Proof of Evidence.
1.2.5 Throughout my main proof of evidence I make reference to a number of appendices,
plans, photoviews, plates and visualisations. These are included within Document
ABP/9B of my proof of evidence.
2
POLICY AND PLANNING RELATED DOCUMENTS
2.1.1 Policy and planning related documents of relevance are set out and analysed in section
2, Appendix 2 and in Section 8 of my main proof of evidence.
3
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
3.1.1 This is set out in Section 3 of my main proof of evidence.
4
CONTEXT OF THE STUDY AREA
4.1.1 The Study Area for this assessment relates to the potential areas from which both the
WG Scheme and the Alternative Northern Route options would be visible and the
extent of the Local Landscape Character Areas (LLCAs) likely to be affected. The extent
CA11055/Final
FEBRUARY 2017
Page 2
DOCUMENT ABP/9C
SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE (LANDSCAPE) ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS
of the Study Area is shown on Drawing JK01 in ABP/9B. LLCAs are shown on Drawing
JK02 in ABP/9B.
5
COMPARATIVE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHEMES
5.1.1 I set out in my main proof (at section 6), the most significant visual impacts of the WG
Scheme and the Alternative Northern Route options (ANR1 and ANR2) on the
surrounding area, compared with the existing view, including impacts on public rights
of way, areas of public open space, the road network, residential properties and other
sensitive receptors.
6
COMPARATIVE LANDSCAPE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHEMES
6.1.1 This is set out at section 7 of my main proof of evidence. Significant landscape impacts
generated can relate to changes both within the footprint of a scheme and as
perceived outside this footprint. Both the WG Scheme and the Alternative Northern
Route options would have similar landscape effects on LLCA3: Newport Docks and
Uskmouth and on LLCA4: Newport. I do not consider the differences in effect between
all the schemes within these landscape character areas to be significant. This contrasts
with the difference between effects on LLCA2: Wentlooge Levels. My main proof
therefore focuses on the comparative effects of the schemes on LLCA2: Wentlooge
Levels.
7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1.1 In my main proof of evidence, I have demonstrated that the proposed Welsh
Government Scheme will generate significantly greater adverse visual and landscape
impacts than the Alternative Northern Route options ANR1 and ANR2.
7.1.2 From my analysis of the visual impact of the WG Scheme and the Alternative Northern
Route options ANR1 and ANR2, I conclude the following:•
The level of visual impacts on the Wales Coast Path would generally be similar
except for the section which crosses the Wentlooge Levels between Lighthouse
Road and the lighthouse to the east of Ty-Mawr Farm where the WG Scheme
would generate greater effects over a longer distance.
CA11055/Final
FEBRUARY 2017
Page 3
DOCUMENT ABP/9C
SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE (LANDSCAPE) ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS
•
Some additional effects would be generated by ANR1 and ANR2 on a very short
section of the Wales Coast Path to the east of Heron Way. However such effects
are not considered to be greater than Moderate Adverse.
•
The level of visual impacts on Public Open Space would generally be similar for all
schemes. However, greater visual effects would be generated by the WG Scheme
when seen from part of the Tredegar Park Grade II* Registered Park and Gardens.
•
The level of visual impacts on roads would be similar for all schemes.
•
The level of visual impacts on residential properties would be similar for all
schemes except that: - The WG Scheme would generate greater impacts on Fair Orchard Farm;
Properties to the south of Fair Orchard Farm; and New Dairy Farmhouse.
- The ANR1 and ANR2 schemes would generate greater impacts on
Whitecross Farm.
- The ANR1 and ANR2 schemes would generate effects on properties off
Mendalgief Road/Wingate Street, off Edney (off Lancers Way) and some
properties on the eastern edge of Duffryn, although these effects would
only be Slight Adverse.
•
The level of visual impacts on the Transporter Bridge (Grade I) would be similar for
all schemes. Assessment of effects on setting have been assessed separately in
Appendix 18 in Document ABP/9B.
•
The level of visual impact on the Waterloo Hotel and Public House (Grade II) and
the Waterloo Conservation Area would be greater for ANR1 and ANR2. However,
such effects would be less than Moderate Adverse.
7.1.3 To conclude the level of visual impact generated by the WG Scheme, compared with
the Alternative Northern Route options, would be broadly similar, however
significantly greater visual impact would be generated by the WG Scheme on the
Wales Coast Path. In addition, there would be differences in the individual properties
affected by the schemes.
7.1.4 My analysis of the sensitivity of landscape character shows that there will be high
sensitivity to this type of development in the Wentlooge Levels LCA. The magnitude
of landscape change generated by the WG Scheme will be high within the footprint
and high in the wider Study Area in the Wentlooge Levels LCA. This will adversely affect
landscape character. Very Substantial Adverse impacts on the landscape in the
CA11055/Final
FEBRUARY 2017
Page 4
DOCUMENT ABP/9C
SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE (LANDSCAPE) ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS
Wentlooge Levels LCA would therefore be generated by the proposed Welsh
Government Scheme.
7.1.5 For the Alternative Northern Route options the magnitude of landscape change will
be high within the footprint and medium in the wider Study Area in the Wentlooge
Levels LCA. This will adversely affect landscape character. Substantial impacts on
landscape in the Wentlooge Levels LCA would therefore be generated by these
Alternative Northern Route options. However, such impacts would be lower than the
impacts of the proposed Welsh Government Scheme.
7.1.6 In my professional judgement the landscape and visual impacts generated by the WG
Scheme would conflict (particularly in relation to effect on the Wentlooge Levels
landscape, and visual effects on the Wales Coast Path) with Planning Policy Wales
(PPW) Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 8 (CD 5.1.3). It would also conflict with the Newport Local
Development Plan (NLDP) objective 6 and polices SP8, SP9, GP2 and GP5 (CD 5.3.1). In
addition it would conflict with objectives 9, 10 and 11 of the SEA for the M4 Corridor
around Newport (Welsh Government 2013) (CD 4.4.6). By contrast the Alternative
Northern Route options would conflict with these polices to a lesser extent and would
thereby better advance the objectives of this planning framework.
7.1.7 It is not for me to weigh the planning balance. In my view there are very good
landscape and visual reasons for not permitting the WG Scheme which I have assessed
in this proof of evidence, as less harm would be generated by the Alternative Northern
Route options.
CA11055/Final
FEBRUARY 2017
Page 5