EIA scoping report -

School of Environment & Technology
Masters Level Assessment
Submission & Feedback Form
Please complete this form and use it as the first page of your assignment, BUT *DO NOT* edit THIS page!
Student name: Roberta Nanci Assignment tutor: Click here to enter text.
Course: Environmental and assessment management
Module title: Environmental Impact Assessment Module code: IAM27
Coursework title: Business Report
Date Handed in: 4122014 Submission deadline: 05122014 Semester: 1
Declaration: By submitting this coursework I declare that it is entirely my own work
Criteria Abilities being assessed N/A D+ D M P MF F
Knowledge/
understanding
level of knowledge/understanding; evidence of independent study/originality; ability
to reach independent decisions; integration of course material; accuracy of
calculations
Structure/
evaluation
level of organisation and judgement; ability to analyse, critically evaluate,
challenge established knowledge and suggest alternative approaches; undertake
further research
Transferrable
skills
communication skills; development of clear/concise arguments; problem-solving
skills; awareness of self as researcher/professional; independent learning for CPD
General
accuracy of citation and referencing; frequency of typographical and/or
grammatical errors; adherence to specifications of assessment task
Other
Explanation of grades: D+ = distinction (>80%); D = distinction (70-80%); M = merit (60-69%);
P = pass (50-59%); MF = marginal/ referred fail (40-49%); F = fail (<40%)
Strengths
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Suggested areas for improvement
Assessor's signature: …………………………………………………………………
% Grade
Notes: (1) The above marking profile is for guidance only and is not indicative of your final mark. (2) The minimum aggregate mark for a pass on an MSc module is 50%, subject to passing
each assessed component with a mark above a threshold of 40%. (3) Coursework submitted after the deadline is deemed late and is subject to a ZERO mark unless an extension to
deadline has been approved by your Course Leader. If an extension has been granted, the yellow copy of the completed and approved ARGEAR1 form should be passed via the School
Office to the Assignment tutor when the work is submitted. If no extension has been granted, the tutor assessing the work will insert a % figure that indicates the actual merit of the
assignment, but a Grade of L (Late), which signals that ZERO marks will be awarded for credit-scoring purposes. (4) If appropriate, mitigating circumstances should be submitted in writing
on the ARGEAR3 form with documented evidence from an independent, professional third party (via the Course Leader) to the School Office for subsequent consideration at the MSc/MEng
Examination Board

ROBERTA NANCI- 13830465 IAM27
2
INTRODUCTION
The company Seascape has planned to develop a new access road and a residential design in the
southern-east area of Winchester, between St Cross road, M3 and A3090 (Map 2). According to
Schedule 2 of TCPA (1999) the ‘construction of roads’ that exceed 1ha requires an EIA under
Section 10 (f); then, an ‘urban development project’ which is likely to have significant
environmental effects, must be subject to full EIA, as stated by Section 10 (b) of the same
Regulation. The following report aims to:
1) Establishing the environmental receptors and predicting potential impacts, through maps and
assessment reviews;
2) Evaluating the significance of impacts in accordance to criteria and guidelines;
3) Suggesting possible mitigation measures to manage the significant effects of the proposed
designs and, when possible, identifying enhancements.
Therefore an EIA must be conducted, under TCPA (Sched. 2, Sect. 10 (b) and (f)) for the
following significant effects:
 Loss of visual character;
 Risk of damage on historical building;
 Higly preassure on International designated sites;
 Disturbance on ecological receptors;
 Loss of floodplain and risk of flooding;
 Risk of land contamination.
1. LANDSCAPE AND HERITAGE
According to Lambrick and Bramhill (1999), the proposed designs are located in a rural area.
The predominant landscape characters are farmland, river valley (Itchen), woodland, chalk and
clay. As reported in Map 1, 2 and 3 the landscape receptors are the ancient woodland (National
Park), the river Itchen (SSSI and SAC), the open farmland (ROW) and the wetland (BAP habitat).
In relation to the historic environment, there are no listed buildings that can be directly affected
by both developments. However, according to AMAAA (1979) a small Scheduled Monument was
identified in the south- west area of residential development (Map 1).
1.1 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS
Landscape impacts were predicted mainly through mapping. According to WCC (1998) the river
Itchen represents an exceptional ecological and high scenic quality, because of the presence of
BAP habitats (Map 3) and high nature conservation value sites (Map 2).

3
In line with Figure 1 and Table 1 the landscape and visual impacts were evaluated, by taking
into account:
 Magnitude (IEEM, 2006);
 Sensitivity of receptors (LVIA, 2002 and Dft, 2011), which is determined by the conservation
status of receptors (Figure 2).
Table 1. Landscape and visual impact assessment
Impacts Receptors Conservati
on Status
Sensitivity Magnitud
e
Significan
ce
(1) Loss of
landscape
Woodland,
farmland,
river Itchen,
chalk and
clay (HCC)
Internation
al, National,
Local
High Small Moderate
to Major
(2) Production
of waste,
loss of
landscape,
disturbanc
e of
contamina
tion land
Open
farmland
(HCC)
Local Medium Medium Moderate
(3) Disturbanc
e and loss
of
designated
site
SSSI and
SAC
Internation
al
High Medium Major
(4) Damage
and
destructio
n of
historical
building
Scheduled
Monument
National High Large Major to
substanti
al
1.2 MITIGATION
In general the significance of impacts was ‘moderate’. In fact Part III of CRWA (2000) has
increased protection for SSSI.

4
Therefore we suggest to:
 Modify the eastern border of the residential development;
 Develop the new access road as far as possible from the SINC (WC0071), to
reduce the loss of view, as shown in Map 2 (1);
 Carry out pre-development investigations (2);
 Create ‘ green border’ (e.g. tunnels, bridges, hills and tree fences)(3);
 Avoid the historical area, during demolition operations (4); if a scheduled
monument is ‘destroyed or damaged’ the developer can be accused of criminal offence
(AMAAA, 1979).
The mitigation of landscape impacts can improve the habitat quality and the residents’
wellbeing.
2. BIODIVERSITY AND NATURE CONSERVATION
The ecological receptors were identified, by consulting HBC (2013), on Phase I Habitat
survey (Map 2) and an Ecological survey (Table 2), within a 500 m. area.
Firstly Map 2 shows designated sites of SSSI (River Itchen), SAC, SINC (WC0071, Bushfield
Camp – C), and RVEI (RV271, Hockley Link Road); then, Map 3 illustrates BAP Habitats of
Grassland, saltmarsh and coastal floodplain grazing marsh.
Lastly Table 2 shows key taxa in association with their habitat and conservation status.
Mammals, such as European Water Vole and West Hedgehog, were dominant between river
Itchen and St Cross Road; Badger, Otter and eight species of terrestrial bats were defined as
‘Sensitive’ because of lack of precise location. Other key taxa are birds, invertebrates,
flowering plants and fishes (e.g. Trout, Eel and Grayling) were typical in the wetland.
Table 2. Ecological receptors (HBC, 2013) (* SINC criteria provided by HCC, 1996)

5
Desi
gnat
ed
site
Habitat
types
Name of
the site
Distribution Site
Conserv
ation
Value
Key Protected protected species
(see abbreviations for level of
protection)
SAC Freshwate
r
River
Itchen
East side of
the
development
area (River
Itchen, Itchen
navigation, St
Catherine
Hill)
Very
high
Water vole [HBAP], NERC_s41,WCA
CI] (mammals); Fine line pea
mussel [HBAP]; Sky lark [HBAP,
BOCC RED], Redwing [BOCC RED],
Greater Butterfly-orchid [IUCN GB
2001], Sainfoin [IUCN GB 2001]
SSSI Freshwate
r
River
Itchen
South and
east border of
development
area and Five
Bridges
High
Water vole [HBAP, NERC_s41,WCA
CI] (mammals); Southern
Damselfly [HBAP, IUCN GB 2001],
European Eel [NERC_s41],
Grayling [HABP], BrownSea Trout
[NERC_s41]
SINC Grassland
(*2D) and
wetland
(*5A)
Bushfile
d camp
B
(WC007
1)
North side of
the access
road
development
(St Cross
Road)
Medium West European Hedgehog
[NERC_s41] (mammals); Blue
Carpenter Bee [NR], Long-Winged
Cone-Head [NR]; Common linnet
[HBAP, BOCC RED], Eurasian siskin
[CI], Merlin [HBAP], Common
starling [BOCC RED], Fragrant
Orchid [CR], River Water-dropwort
[HBAP, CS]
RVEI Chalk
flora and
grassland
Hockley
Link
Road
(RV 271)
320 m on the
south border
to
development
area
Medium Common spotted-orchid, Pyrimidal
orchid and Bee orchid [CITES II]
Not
speci
fied
locat
ion
Woodland
, farmland
‘Sensitive’ Local Eurasian Badger [PBA], European
Otter [HBAP, NERC_S41, [Hab
Reg_2], Terrestrial Bats [HBAP,
NERC_S41, HabREG_S2,
WCA](mammals)

6
As stated by DETR (2013) and IEEM (2006), the ecological impacts were predicted by taking
into account the conservation status of receptors (Table 1) and the integrity of ecosystem
factors, as defined by Annex 8 of EIA 1999 and Figure 4. In accordance to the matrix shown in
Figure 5, the significant impacts were then evaluated on the basis of:
 Magnitude of impact (Temple, 2013);
 Confidence of prediction (Figure 3);
 Importance of feature: ecological and conservation value of receptors (Figure 2);
 Other factors: duration, extent, frequency, reversibility (IEEM 2006).
Table 3. Ecological impact assessment
Ecological
impacts
Magnitu
de
Eco.
Value
Conserv
ation
value
Confidence
of
prediction
Other
factors
Significanc
e
(1)Loss of
wildlife and
habitat
Moderat
e
adverse
Biodiver
sity and
potential
High and
medium
Probable Medium
extent,
permanent
Slight
(2)Disturbance
of aquatic
habitat and
wildlife
Minor
adverse
Potential
,biodiver
sity
High Certain Low extent,
Temporary,
Frequent
Slightmod
erate
(3)Loss of BAP
vegetation
communities
Minor Social,
economi
cal
Medium Probable Temporary,
positive,
frequent
Slight
(4)Pressure on
SSSI and SAC
Substant
ial
adverse
Biodiver
sity,
social
and
potential
High Certain Medium
extent,
irreversible,
permanent
Highly
(5)Pressure on
SINC and RVEI
Substant
ial
adverse
Biodiver
sity,
economi
cal
High and
medium
Certain Low extent,
Irreversible
permanent
Moderate
Large
(6)Erosion and
sedimentation
bank habitat
Moderat
e
Biodiver
sity,
social,
economi
cal, pot.
High Probable Irreversible,
permanent,
negative, high
extent
Moderate

7
2.2 MITIGATION
In accordance to IEEM (2006) and EPR (2013) the ‘highly and moderate’ significant impacts are
subject to measures of:
 Promotion of green infrastructures; control and maintenance of buffer zones and ‘green
networks’ (e.g. ‘tree corridors’, hills, ponds, gardens or parks) (4);
 Avoidance of sensitive areas or breeding sites for birds and mammals (Water vole); restoration
of river banks and protection from nutrient enrichment; clearance of trees outside breeding
season (September- February) (5);
 Control of bank vegetation and minimisation of the exposed time; collection of surface run off in
sediment ponds, re-vegetation of disturbed soils with key taxa (Orchid sp.) (6).
The benefits arising from such measures can be the creation of:
 New habitats and routes for key taxa affected;
 New recreational points for residents;
 An environmental office to monitor the disturbance on ecological receptors.
3. THE WATER QUALITY
The river Itchen is the finest chalk-stream of the area, and it is designated as SAC and SSSI (Map
1) for the presence of key protected species. Then, according to EA (2014), the eastern side of
residential area is located in a floodplain Zone 3 (Map 4); key receptors (Map 4) are residents
living near the risk area, the nearest farmland and the river. The river is less subject to flooding
for most of the year due to absorbing chalk aquifers; however the risk becomes medium-high
during the winter period, with 1 per cent (1 in 100) or greater chance of happening each year
(EA, 2014). Lastly Map 5 shows a moderatepoor ecological quality but no baseline levels of
chemical pollution were found within the area (DWI, 2013). Although the waste system can
affect the water quality; according to Section 78 A(5) of EPA (1990) if significant pollution of
controlled water occurs, LA must decide whether implementing or not a project.

8
Most of water impacts were predicted throughout mapping (Map 4) and a network diagram
(Diagram 1).
Diagram 1. Network diagram for water impact prediction
In reference to IEEM (2006) and Temple (2011) Table 4 shows the significant impacts on water
quality, by evaluating:
 The conservation value of the water body;
 The magnitude of impact.
Table 4. Water quality assessment (adapted from Valli, 2011)
Activity Receptor Potential
impacts
Magnitude Conservati
on Value
Significanc
e
Residential
design (east
border)
River Itchen
(SSSI, SAC),
farmland and
groundwater
(1)Flood risk
Intermediate High Large
Residential
design
Residential
area and
roads
(2) Loss of
floodplain
Intermediate Very High Large
Residential
design
(east
border)
Wetland
habitat and
surface water
(3) Pollution
from
construction
operations
Minor Medium Slight
Internal
roads
Surface water (4) Change in
drainage
system
Intermediate Low Slight

9
3.2 MITIGATION
According to Table 4 and Dft (2011) the ‘large’ significant impact of loss of floodplain (2) and
consequent risk of flooding (1) can be minimised with:
 Avoidance of underground operations;
 Alternative ‘floodwater routes’ between the design area and river Itchen.
 Management of flood defences and flood storage provisions, grey water recycling,
buffer zones, pools, sediment traps or vegetated areas;
 Control of pollution levels through waste discharge system and RBMPs.
The positive effects of flood management could be:
 A reduced risk of flooding downstream and contamination of water;
 The creation of new water habitats (floodwater routes, ponds) which can have recreational
and ecological importance, for protected species (birds, water vole and bats) and residents.
4. LAND QUALITY
Mapping and assessment reviews were used to identify land receptors and potential impacts.
Firstly as stated by WCC (2002), Winchester District contains landscapes of chalk downlands,
uplands and river valleys; the design area is characterised by ‘lighter soils’, with a medium
thickness of 0.4 m (UKSO, 2014). As shown in Map 6, the typical geological deposit (‘alluvium’)
typical of river floodplains, is defined by ‘mixture of sand and gravel, locally with lenses of silt,
clay or peat’. Secondly, according to WCC (1997) and Map 7, the agricultural value of the land
affected is poor, as represented by ALC grades 3b (western border) and 4. Finally WCC does not
hold detailed information on contaminated land; however, Map 8 shows that landfill site
‘Bushfield Farm’ is the closest source of contamination; developers must take into account this
site before developing the new access road.
According to Morris (2009), river floodplains usually contain a valuable agricultural land, which
can impact directly on the river itself. Then, as stated before, the waste system can also affect
the river quality. Thus, the sources of impacts are the risk of flooding, agricultural land use,
waste system and contamination.
The predicted impacts, shown in Table 5 and 6, were evaluated on the basis of:
 Carrying capacity criteria (Figure 8);
 Importance of Land (Map 7);
 Magnitude of impact (Temple, 2011) and;
 Sensitivity criteria (Figure 6 and 7).

10
Table 5. Land use assessment
Impacts Magnitude Carrying capacity
(Thresholds)
Importance
of land
Significance
(1)Disturbance
or loss of
agricultural
land
Adverse low <50ha of ALC Grade 3b or
below temporarily lost.
Very Low
(Grade 4)
Not
(2)Damage to
soil resources
Adverse moderate Moderate, temporary and
reversible damage to soil
and resource quality
through handling
Very Low
(Grade 4)
Not
(3)Loss of
resources
(land take)
Adverse high 25-50%% of soil
resources removed from
site
Low and
Very Low
(Grade 3b
and 4)
Low
(4)Change to
agricultural
dreinage
Adverse moderate Short term and reversible
disruption to on-site and
off- site agricultural
drains
Very Low
(Grade 4)
Not
Table 6. Contamination risk assessment (adapted from Temple, 2011)
Receptors Significant harm Magnitude Sensitivity
of receptor
Significance
Human beings Death, disease, injury Medium Low Minor
Ecological
systems (RVEI
and farmland)
Irreversibleadverse
change due to
vegetation die-off and
pollution to water
course
Medium Medium Intermediate
Properties: a)
building as
defined in
TCPA 1990 in
Sect. 336 (1);
b) crops,
allotments,
wild animals
a) Structural failure,
damage; b) Loss of
value (crops) and
death or injury
(animals)
Slight
magnitude
Medium Minor

11
4.2 MITIGATION
As the quality of land is poor, the agricultural land quality is not significantly affected (Table 5);
however it is suggested to minimising at least the loss of land (3) by re using the soil in situ and
consulting owners and occupiers to seek their view to minimise the disturbance.
In order to mitigate the ‘intermediate’ risk of contamination for human and ecological receptors
we suggest to:
 Avoid the contamination area of scheduled landfill to minimise the risks described and;
 Conduct investigation on the level of contamination of soil before developing the new
access road.
5. TRAFFIC
Lastly, according to Defra (2014), the residential design is subject to emissions on air, dust and
noise, from road transport and construction work; however, no AQMA have been declared for
the developing area. According to Map 9 the existing sources of pollution are the rail line,
A3090, St Cross Road and M3. Then, the traffic noise, occurring from new access road, can affect
the residents living in the western area. In accordance to Map 10 instead, air pollution and noise
can have potential impact, respectively on Scheduled Monument and river Itchen. However,
according to EA (2014) and Map 10, there is already a moderate level of air pollution, with a
medium level of dioxide from A3090 and carbon dioxins from M3. Finally, in line with Defra
database (2014), no specific data on noise level have been found within the studied area.
Because of lack of data no predicting models have been used. Then, as shown in Table 9, in
order to evaluate significance of traffic impacts, thresholds criteria have been consulted (Figure
10) in accordance with:
 The magnitude of impact (Dft, 2011);
 Duration of impact;
 Sensitivity of receptor (Figure 2).

12
Table 9. Traffic Assessment
5.2 MITIGATION
As shown in Map 9, we can assume that air pollution and construction noise will ‘not’ be
significant impact because of moderate conditions of traffic in the area; however, the noise
produced near the wetland will cause a temporary ‘low’ disturbance on the river
environment (SSSI), related species (bats, birds and mammals) and human health. As traffic
changes can increase over a long period of time, some measures of control are suggested,
also in accordance to DMRB (2011):
 Restrictions in night- time traffic, adequate distance building-source, use of electrical
machineries, insulated buildings and tree fencing for social houses near the river and new
access road (2)(3);
 ‘Green borders’ near SAC, historical monument and western residential area (6);
Consequently, the listed enhancements can occur.
Source Impacts Receptor Magnitud
e
(severity)
Duratio
n
Sensitivit
y of
receptor
Significan
ce
New access
roadReside
ntial area
(1)Air
pollution and
dust
Farmland and
Residents
Low Minor Low Not
New access
road
(2)Light and
traffic noise
Farmland and
wetland
Moderate Minor Low Low
Residential
area
(3)Constructi
on noise
Human health,
SSSI, wetland,
protected
species
Low Low
(short-
term)
High Low
New access
Road
(junction 11)
(4)Traffic
delays and
congestion
Human health Moderate Low
(short-
term )
Minor Not
Traffic (5)Temporar
y safety
impacts
Human health Low Low Minor Not
Traffic (6)Visual
Impact and
heritage
damage
SAC and
scheduled
monument
Moderate Moderat
e
Medium Low

13
 Improved air quality and reduction of transportation requirements;
 Reduced congestion of traffic around junction 11;
 Creation of new habitats to preserve river Itchen ecosystem.
Appendix A_ Environmental receptors and impacts
Map 1. Landscape and heritage overview of the development area (Sketchmap, 2014)
Map 2. Legal status of protected sites within 500 m. of the development area (HBC, 2014)

14
Map 3. The BAP habitats (Magicmap, 2014)
Map 4. Flood Zones Map (above) and flood risk (below) (EA, 2014)

15
Map 5. Ecological Quality map (EA, 2014)
Map 6. Soil and Hydrogeology map (BFS, 2014)

16
Map 7. Agricultural land quality (Sketchmap)
Map 8. Source of contamination map (EA,2014)

17
Map 9. Traffic Map (WTAP, 2011)
Map 10. Air quality and designated sites boundaries of SSSI and Scheduled Monument (EA, 2014)

18
Appendix B_ Evaluating criteria (matrices)
Figure 1. Two-way Landscape significance matrix (LVIA, 2011)
Figure 2. Criteria for evaluating Biodiversity and Landscape ‘sensitivity’ (Dft, 2011)
Figure 3. The four- level scale confidence matrix for ecological impact prediction (IEEM , 2006)

19
Figure 4. Evaluating factors for ecological significance (EIA, 1999)
Figure 5. The overall assessment for evaluating biodiversity and Earth Heritage values (Dft, 2011)
Figure 6. Criteria for determining importance and sensitivity of property and land receptors (EDF, 2009
Figure 7 . Criteria for determining Sensitivity to Human Health receptor (Temple, 2011)

20
Figure 8. Criteria for assessing significance of impact on land use, quality and resources (Temple, 2011)
Figure 9. Magnitudo criteria for contamination impact (Temple, 2011)
Figure 10. Criteria for evaluating the construction and traffic noise (Dft, 2011)

21
Abbreviations
Protected taxa: HBAP (Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan); BOCCRED Birds of Conservation Concern Red
list; IUCN GB 2001 (guidelines); NI (national interest); CI (county interest); NR (national rare, 15 or fewer
10Km squares in G.B.); CR (county rare); NERC _S41 Priority Species listed under Section 41 of the Natural
Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; WCA (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981); PBA (Protection
of Badgers Act 1992); HabReg_s2 (Schedule 2 of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
(European Protected Species animal), CITES II (Convention of International Trade and Endangered).
SINC criteria (BAP habitat): 5A (Wetland of open freshwater outstanding assemblages of
floating/submerged/ emergent plant species, invertebrates, birds or amphibians; 2D (Grassland
impoverished by inappropriate management).
Designated sites: SINC (Site of Importance for Natural Conservation); SAC (Special Area of Conservation);
RVEI (Road Verges of Ecological Importance); SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest).
HCC (Hampshire County Council); WCC (Winchester City Council), RBMP (River Basin Management Plans),
Detr (Department of Environmental Transport and regions), AMAA (Ancient Monuments and Archeological
Areas Act , 1979), LVIA (Landscape and visual Impact Assessment), CRWA (Countryside Right of Way Act,
2000), HBC (Hampshire Biodiversity Centre), LA (Local Auhtority), IEEM (Institute of ecology and
Environmental Assessment), Dft (Department for transport), EPR (Ecological Planning and Research Ltd),
DWI (Drinking Water Inspectorate), ALC (Agricultural Land Classification), AQMA (Air Quality Management
Areas), DMRB (Digital Manual for Roads and Bridges), BGS (British Geological Survey), UKSO (UK Soil
Observatory).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AMAA (1979) Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act (Scheduled Monument, Chapter 46), available
online from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/46
BGS (2014) British Geological Survey Maps, available online from http://www.bgs.ac.uk/
Bramhill, P. & Lambrick G. (1999)- Hampshire Historic Landscape Assessment Final Report (Volume 1: Main
Report, Chapters 1 – 3)
CRWA (2000) Countryside Right of Way Act of England and Wales available online from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/part/III/crossheading/sites-of-special-scientific-
interest
Detr (2000) Contaminated Land: Implementation of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act
1990 (Circular 02)
Detr (2013)- Departement of Environment, Transport and Region- Environmental Impact Assessment: a
Guide to procedure- Tonbridge, Thelford
DfT (2011) Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG)- The Water Environment Sub-Objective (Unit 3.3.11)
DWI (Drinking Water Inspectorate, 2013) available online from http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/about/annual-
report/2013/index.htm
EIA (1999) Ordinance (Schedule 2, Annex 8) available online from
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/english/legis/memorandum/annex8.html

22
EA (2014) - Environment Agency, available online from http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk and
http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37837.aspx
EPA (1990) Part IIA (Section 78 (A) 5) available online from
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/78A
EPR (2013) Ecological appraisal North Walls Winchester, available online from http://Winchster.gov.uk
EDF (2009) HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – VOLUME 3 (Chapter 5.6 ‘ Soil and Land
use’) available online from
http://hinkleypoint.edfenergyconsultation.info/Preferred_Proposal_Documents/Environmental%20
Appraisal/Volume_3/Chapter%205/V3_C5.6_Soils%20and%20Land%20Use.pdf
DEFRA (2014) - Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) Winchester available from http://uk-
air.defra.gov.uk/aqma/details?aqma_id=144
DMRB (2011) Design Manual for Road and Bridges – Environmental assessment techniques- Vol 11, Section 3
(Noise and vibration, Part 7) and (Air quality , Part 1)
IEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment(EcIA) in the United Kingdom available online at
http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Technical_Guidance_Series/EcIA_Guidelines/TGSE
cIA-EcIA_Guidelines-Terestrial_Freshwater_Coastal.pdf
HCC (1996) SINC criteria in Hampshire, available online at http://www3.hants.gov.uk/hbic-sinccriteria.pdf
LVIA (2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - The Landscape Institute and Institute
of Environmental Assessment, 1st Edition, 1995 & 2ndEdition
MagicMap (2014) available from http://www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/MagicMap.aspx
Morris, P. & Therivel, R. (2009), Methods of environmental impact assessment (3rd Edition)- Chapter 10
Sketchmap (2014) available online from http://goo.gl/xVaF38
Temple (2011) Stafford Area Improvements Norton Bridge – EIA scoping Report
UKSO (2014) available online from http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/ukso/home.html
Valli (2011) Environmental Impact assessment methodologies ( 2nd Edition)
WCFA (2008) Winchester Flood Risk Assessment, available online from
http://www.winchestercollege.org/UserFiles/pdfs/Campus-flood%20risk.pdf
WCC (1997) Bushfield Camp Study (Chapter 1.2.2 ) available online from
http://www.winchester.gov.uk/planning-policy/evidence-base/environment/bushfield-camp-study-
1997/
WCC (1998) Landscape and Townscape Assessment of the city and its setting, available online from
http://www.winchester.gov.uk/assets/files/2861/Winchester-Setting- chapter6.pdf)
WCC (2002) Winchester Council Contamination Land Strategy Report available online from
www.winchester.gov.uk
WTAP (2011)- Traffic map Winchester Town Access Plan available online from
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/tap-winchester-full-document.pdf

EIA scoping report -

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to EIA scoping report -

Similar to EIA scoping report - (20)

EIA scoping report -