supertram - tram train pilot - sheffield - rotherham

Tinsley Chord Environmental Report February 2015

Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Project Overview 1

1.2 Legislative Requirements 1

1.3 Purpose of this Report 1

2 Project Description 2

3 Methodology 3

4 Air Quality 5

4.1 Baseline Information 5

4.2 Potential Impacts 5

5 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 6



6 Contaminated Land 7



7 Ecology 8



8 Landscape and Visual Amenity 11



9 Materials and Waste 12



10 Noise and Vibration 13



11 Water 14



12 Conclusion 16 Figure 1 Site Location Plan Figure 2 Proposed Development Figure 3 Environmental Features Map

Appendix A Tinsley Chord EIA Screening Report Appendix B Sheffield Tram Train Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Appendix C Sheffield Tram Train Indicative Flood Risk Assessment

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Overview

1.1.1 The Tinsley Chord project would involve the construction of 400 metres (m) of chord and other ancillary works between existing railway and the Sheffield Supertram lines in the Tinsley area to the east of Sheffield. The purpose of the chord is to enable the operation of a Tram Train service between Sheffield and Rotherham. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed project.

1.2 Legislative Requirements

1.2.1 In December 2014, Network Rail submitted a request to the Secretary of State for Transport for a Screening Decision on the need to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project. The report that accompanied the request (see Appendix A of this report) set out an appraisal of the potential environmental effects of the proposals and concluded that EIA is not required. The Secretary of State for Transport issued his screening decision on 21st January 2015, which confirmed that an EIA of the project is not required. The screening decision letter is included at Tab 15 of the application file for the Transport and Works Act Order.

1.3 Purpose of this Report

1.3.1 This report has been prepared to provide supporting environmental information for Network Rail and SYPTE’s’s application for a Transport and Works Act Order for those components of the Tinsley Chord project that would involve works on land owned by third parties. The other project components will be delivered using permitted development rights. This report brings together the environmental information gathered through the development of the project proposals, and presents that information in one document for ease of reference.

2

2 Project Description

2.1.1 The proposal is to create a 400m long chord line between an existing railway line and the South Yorkshire Supertram network which would enable the operation of a Tram Train service between Sheffield and Rotherham. The chord would leave the Supertram line between the Tinsley/ Meadowhall South and Meadowhall Interchange tram stops, and would join the railway line between Tinsley South and Tinsley East stations. The chord would pass beneath the M1 motorway to the east of the Meadowhall shopping centre. The location is shown on Figure 1.

2.1.2 is the proposed works not on Network Rail land are the subject of an application for a Transport and Works Act Order.

2.1.3 Approximately 200m of minor track works would be required on the existing Supertram line to accommodate the chord. These works would be limited to track lifts of approximately 25mm and horizontal movements of the track by up to 50mm.

2.1.4 A small building would be erected adjacent to the new track, and would be raised off the ground to protect it from flooding. The building would house electrical isolation equipment associated with the overhead traction system.

2.1.5 A user-worked crossing (UWC) is proposed across the chord, to enable the Highways Agency to cross over when required.

2.1.6 A track drainage system would be installed to carry away surface water run-off. This would be a gravity system, following the gradient of the land, which falls away slightly from east to west. The drainage system would discharge either to the existing Supertram drainage system or directly to the River Don, subject to agreement with the Environment Agency.

2.1.7 The new chord would be securely fenced.

2.1.8 A temporary compound would be required during construction.

2.1.9 Vehicular access to the chord and to the temporary compound would be gained from an existing spur off the Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) North road. The access road would be retained after construction to enable access by the Highways Agency, Network Rail and South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE).

3

3 Methodology

3.1.1 This report has been prepared through desk-based study, and draws upon the findings of the following reports prepared by others:

Tinsley Chord Ecological Appraisal Report, prepared by Bakers Ecology on behalf of Network Rail, October 2014

Tinsley Chord Flood Risk Assessment, prepared by JBA on behalf of Network Rail, October 2014

Tinsley Chord Screening Report, prepared by TATA on behalf of Network Rail, December 2014

3.1.2 The reports listed above were prepared by qualified

professionals using appropriate methods. The reports are included as appendices to this document.

3.1.3 The following should be noted when reading the reports in the appendices:

Whilst the ecological appraisal report is focussed on the chord area, the phase 1 habitat survey reported in it did extend beyond the area of works covered by the application for the Transport and Works Act Order.

The ecological appraisal report notes that single track OLE would be installed. However, in places there would be twin tracks.

The ecological appraisal report refers to the Supertram line running across Alsing Road, to the north of the chord location. This should not have been referred to as a ‘level crossing’.

The flood risk assessment and its recommendations relating to wider tram-train project, beyond the Tinsley Chord, may be subject to change as the design progresses.

The environmental features map attached to this environmental report supersedes that included in the screening report.

3.1.4 In addition, the following websites have been used:

Defra’s MAGIC website (magic.defra.gov.uk) Sheffield City Council website Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council website Sheffield Wildlife Trust website

3.1.5 This environmental report has been structured around key

environmental topic areas. Baseline environmental conditions have been described for each topic, and clear explanations have been provided for any potential impacts

4

that are to be avoided through the use of environmental management measures.

5

4 Air Quality

4.1 Baseline Information

4.1.1 The Screening Report identified that there is an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in Sheffield, relating to the pollutants nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulates (PM10). This is the Sheffield Citywide AQMA, and is described on the Defra website (http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/aqma/local-authorities) as follows:

An area covering entire eastern part of the City containing the major built up areas now declared for annual and 1-hour nitrogen dioxide objectives, and the 24-hour PM10 objective.

4.1.2 The Sheffield AQMA extends as far as the eastern boundary

of the local authority area, and therefore includes the area of the proposed chord.

4.1.3 A check of the Defra website has found a number of AQMAs declared by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, but none of those extend to the area of the proposed chord. The nearest is Rotherham AQMA1 – Part 2, declared for NO2 from transport and industrial sources. This AQMA is approximately 800m from the proposed chord at its closest point.

4.1.4 The nearest residential properties to the proposed site are in Tinsley, over 200m from the proposed chord. They are separated from the site by the existing railway line, the River Don, the River Don Navigation (Sheffield and Tinsley Canal), a sewage works, commercial buildings and the A6178.

4.2 Potential Impacts

(a) Construction

4.2.2 Good construction site practice would be achieved through the use of a construction environmental management plan (CEMP), which would include measures to minimise exhaust emissions from plant and to control nuisance dust.

(b) Operation

4.2.3 The project aims to promote a modal shift towards the use of trams, and is therefore expected to lead to a beneficial impact on local air quality as a result of reduced transport-related emissions.

6

5 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage


5.1.1 The screening report identified no cultural heritage or archaeological features within the area of the proposed works. The site is entirely made ground, reported to be comprised of demolition material and fill material, and so there is very limited potential for previously undisturbed archaeological remains to be present.


5.2.1 No impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage are predicted.

7

6 Contaminated Land


6.1.1 The screening report notes that ground investigation and waste classification testing have been carried out for the project. Hydrocarbon contamination was identified within the made ground, and one sample out of 18 was positive for asbestos.


6.2.1 Excavated material may be unsuitable for re-use on site and may need to be treated or disposed of as hazardous waste. There is the potential for pollutant pathways to be opened up as a result of construction activities. Potential receptors include construction site workers, the nearby River Don and the underlying Secondary A aquifers in the bedrock and in the superficial deposits close to the River Don.

6.2.2 The foundations have been designed to minimise the excavation and disturbance of potentially contaminated land, through the use of piled foundations for the majority of the OLE masts, and minimal excavation for track foundations.

6.2.3 All foundations and piling in potentially contaminated land would be subject to risk assessments to meet Environment Agency requirements.

6.2.4 Excavated material would be tested before re-use or disposal.

6.2.5 With these management measures in place, no residual impacts relating to contaminated land are predicted.

8

7 Ecology


7.1.1 Desk Study

7.1.2 There are no national, European or internationally designated ecological sites within the site or a 2km study area around the site.

7.1.3 Sheffield City Council is currently preparing a new Local Plan. Until that plan is adopted, development decisions will use the 2013 pre-submission proposals map. That map identifies a local nature site (although not designated as a nature reserve) to the south east of the site; this extends between the existing railway line and the River Don. Further east, after the railway crosses the River Don, the local nature site continues on the northern side of the railway, leading eventually to a local nature reserve at Blackburn Meadows, approximately 1.3km from the proposed chord location.

7.1.4 There is one other local nature reserve within 2km of the site. This is Woolley Wood, an ancient bluebell wood, approximately 1.3km to the north west.

7.1.5 Areas of woodland are found adjacent to the site but not within the footprint of the proposed development.

7.1.6 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

(a) Habitats

7.1.7 The ecological appraisal report prepared by Baker Ecology includes the findings of a Phase 1 Habitat Survey carried out in September 2014. At the western limit of the proposed scheme, the survey found newly-regenerated scrub and broadleaved woodland of low ecological value. Slightly further east, and heading under the Tinsley Viaduct, is an area of bare hardstanding interspersed with occasional young silver birch and tall ruderal vegetation. To the east of that largely bare section, the survey found an area of immature broadleaved woodland, dominated by bindweed and bramble. The most easterly part of the survey area, adjacent to the northern side of the existing railway line, is also an area of immature broadleaved woodland and has thick undergrowth.

(b) Species

7.1.8 In relation to protected species, the survey could not rule out the presence of badger, but found no signs of them on site, and the potential for them to be present is low, based on the limited availability of suitable habitat. For bats, the only

9

potential roost locations would be within the Tinsley Viaduct structure; the trees on site are too immature to support roosts. No suitable habitat for otter or water vole was found during the survey. No signs of amphibian species were found, although some of the densely vegetated areas may offer suitable habitat. Similarly, no signs were found of reptiles, although there is some potentially suitable habitat for them.

7.1.9 Breeding birds may be present within the site during the breeding season.

7.1.10 No damaging invasive species were found within the proposed site. However, Japanese knotweed was recorded approximately 50m to the south of the site, on the south bank of the River Don, and Himalayan balsam was recorded approximately 10m to the south of the site, on the northern bank of the river.


7.2.1 The ecological appraisal report found that there would be no impacts on designated ecological sites as a result of the project.

7.2.2 The project would disturb small areas of habitat, mostly comprising immature broadleaved woodland of low ecological value.

7.2.3 The ecological appraisal report concluded that there would be no impact on badgers as a result of the scheme.

7.2.4 In relation to bats, the same report found that there would be no impact on bats. The report advises that further surveys would be required if works were proposed to the Tinsley Viaduct; however, the design does not propose such works.

7.2.5 There is the potential to impact on other mammals through site clearance activities. Therefore, care and attention would be taken during site clearance to enable any mammals, such as foxes or hedgehogs, to escape before clearance works continued.

7.2.6 The ecological appraisal report predicted no impact on amphibians or reptiles.

7.2.7 Site clearance works have the potential to affect breeding birds, if carried out during the breeding season. However, vegetation clearance would take place outside of the bird breeding season, wherever reasonably practicable (the season runs from the beginning of March to the end of September). If this is not possible, an ecologist would supervise the clearance works so that no nests would be affected.

10

7.2.8 Japanese knotweed is present approximately 10m from the site, and there is the potential for the construction works to cause this to spread. Therefore, a Japanese knotweed management plan would be produced so that the stands of knotweed beyond the site boundary would not be accidentally disturbed as a result of the project. With the implementation of this plan, no impact on invasive species is predicted.

11

8 Landscape and Visual Amenity


8.1.1 The location of the proposed chord is an inaccessible area. The site is an area of previously industrial land that has been cleared and securely fenced, and has no current use. There are no public rights of way or public access into the proposed development area.

8.1.2 The M1 motorway passes over the site on a viaduct. Views into the site from surrounding land are blocked by vegetation between the site and the River Don to the west, south and east. To the north, a further line of trees follows the line of a dismantled railway line. There are no sensitive receptors with views into the site.

8.1.3 There are no sensitive landscape areas within 2km of the site.


8.2.1 The project would not have any impact on landscape character. The development of the chord between an existing railway line and tram line, on a site with a history of industrial use, is considered to be in keeping with the existing environment.

8.2.2 Although glimpsed views the construction works may be gained from vehicles travelling on the M1 above the site, such views would be fleeting, and the works would not be detrimental to any existing views. No sensitive receptors would experience any impact in relation to visual amenity.

8.2.3 There would be no permanent lighting along the chord. Limited security lighting would be provided for the trackside building, and would be directional to avoid light spillage. This lighting would have no impact on any sensitive receptors.

12

9 Materials and Waste


9.1.1 Contaminated material has been identified on site through the ground investigations. These found asbestos in one sample, and also the presence of hydrocarbons.


9.2.1 Measures would be employed to avoid the potential for the project to create pathways that could enable contamination to migrate into the surrounding land and water, and to affect people working on site.

9.2.2 The depletion of raw and manufactured materials for the construction of the project would be on a minor scale, but would be minimised through good site practice.

9.2.3 A site waste management plan and materials management plan would be implemented for this project. These would detail the disposal arrangements for hazardous waste to prevent adverse impacts on land, water, biodiversity or site workers.

9.2.4 The use of piled foundations rather than pad foundations would minimise the generation of excavated material.

9.2.5 The materials management plan would include measures to avoid damage to stockpiled materials, and would identify opportunities to re-use site-won material, including track materials, on site.

9.2.6 With these measures in place, there would be no significant adverse impacts relating to materials or waste.

13

10 Noise and Vibration


10.1.1 The M1 motorway passes over the site on a viaduct. The viaduct is a two-tier structure, which also carries the A631 at a lower level. Traffic on the motorway and A631 is the dominant source of noise in the locality.

10.1.2 The nearest residential properties to the proposed site are in Tinsley, over 200m from the proposed chord. They are separated from the site by the existing railway line, the River Don, the River Don Navigation (Sheffield and Tinsley Canal), a sewage treatment works, commercial buildings and the A6178.

10.1.3 Another potentially sensitive receptor is the Hanfia Mosque on Sheffield Road (the A6178) in Tinsley, over 350m from the proposed site for the chord.

10.1.4 A public right of way follows the northern bank of the Sheffield and Tinsley Canal, to the south of the site.


10.2.1 There would be no significant noise impacts as a result of the construction or operation of the proposed chord. This is due to the combination of the existing elevated noise levels in the area and the distance between the site and any potentially sensitive receptors.

14

11 Water


11.1.1 The River Don passes under the western part of the site. The River Don in this area is classified by the Environment Agency under the Water Framework Directive as a heavily modified waterbody with moderate ecological potential. The waterbody is failing in terms of its chemical quality. Just to the south of the River Don is the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation (Sheffield and Tinsley Canal), which is classified as an artificial waterbody with good ecological potential. The canal’s chemical quality is not classified.

11.1.2 The site is within Flood Zone 2, as shown on Environment Agency flood maps. Zone 2 land is assessed as having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river flooding (1% – 0.1%) in any year.

11.1.3 The site overlies a Secondary A aquifer in the bedrock, which extends across much of South Yorkshire. There is also a Secondary A aquifer in the superficial deposits, linked to the course of the River Don.

11.1.4 There is an existing drainage network within the Supertram network, into which it is expected that the chord drainage would discharge. There are no existing drains within the rest of the proposed chord site.


11.2.1 Construction works at the western extent of the site would take place within eight metres of the River Don. Good site practice would be employed to avoid the potential for an accidental spillage that could impact on water quality in the river.

11.2.2 A construction environmental management plan (CEMP) would be prepared and implemented, including measures to protect the water environment. Spill kits and drip trays would be used on site, and procedures would be in place to manage the risks associated with accidental spillages. The CEMP would also include measures to deal with the risk of flooding at the site during construction. No significant residual impacts on the water environment are predicted as a result of the construction works.

11.2.3 The project is not expected to have any impacts on groundwater in the area, as noted in the screening report.

11.2.4 During operation, surface water runoff from the chord would be considered to be clean, and would have no impact on the quality of the receiving water environment. However, the

15

details of the drainage design would be agreed with the Environment Agency. There is scope to include oil interceptors and geo-textile membranes as necessary.

11.2.5 In order to protect the development from flood risk, the track would be on a minor embankment and the electrical building would be on stilts, to raise them out of the floodplain. Appropriate attenuation measures would be incorporated into the drainage design, through discussion with the Environment Agency, in order not to cause any significant impact on flood risk through increased runoff. With these measures in place, no significant impacts relating to flood risk are predicted.

11.2.6 The Environment Agency was consulted by the Secretary of State as part of the EIA screening exercise. The Environment Agency responded by letter on 21st January 2015, advising that risks relating to flood risk and controlled waters could be assessed outside of an EIA, and that the Environment Agency wished to be included in further consultation on the proposals. This matches the approach being taken by the project team.

16

12 Conclusion

12.1.1 The Tinsley Chord would enable a Tram Train service to operate between Sheffield and Rotherham. The project offers benefits in terms of sustainable transport.

12.1.2 The design includes piled foundations which would minimise the excavation and disturbance of potentially contaminated land. Any excavated material would be tested for contamination prior to re-use or disposal.

12.1.3 The track would be on a minor embankment and the electrical building would be on stilts, to raise them out of the floodplain. Appropriate attenuation measures would be incorporated into the drainage design, and the necessary approval would be sought from the Environment Agency.

12.1.4 Site clearance would take place with due care and attention and at appropriate times of year, in order to avoid impacts on flora and fauna, including breeding birds.

12.1.5 A construction environmental management plan (CEMP) would be prepared and implemented on site, to manage the environmental aspects of the project. This would include measures to manage the risk of pollution from accidental spillages. Linked to the CEMP, a site waste management plan, materials management plan and Japanese knotweed management plan would be prepared and implemented.

12.1.6 This report has considered the environmental aspects of the project, drawing upon the more detailed reports included in the appendices, and concurs with the findings of the TATA EIA Screening Report that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of the project.

TINSLEY CHORD

Drawing Title

Project

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of theController of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorisedreproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution orcivil proceedings. Ordnance Survey Licence number 0100040692 (2015).

Drawing Status

Drawing No.

Client No.

This drawing is not to be used in whole in or part other than for the intended purposeand project as defined on this drawing. Refer to the contract for full terms and conditions.

1 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9DX, UK.Tel: +44(0)113 242 6771 Fax:+44(0)113 389 1389

www.jacobs.com

B2049000_ENV_01

Scale @ A3

Jacobs No.

DO NOT SCALEB2049000

SITE LOCATION MAP

1:1,000

Client

/ Legend

Existing supertram line between Tinsley andMeadowhall

Existing Network Rail line between Sheffieldand Rotherham

New line to be constructed on existingNetwork Rail Infrastructure

New Tinsley Chord alignment

Surface Water

FIGURE 1

^

M1 Motorway

River Don

Drawn Check'd Appr'dPurpose of revisionRev. Date

IM SW DMInitial Issue0 JAN 15 SW

Rev'd

IM SW DMBuilding Database Updated1 JAN 15 SW

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

(!

!( !( !( !( !( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

TINSLEY CHORD

Drawing Title

Project


Drawing Status

Drawing No.

Client No.



www.jacobs.com

B2049000_ENV_02

Scale @ A3

Jacobs No.


PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1:1,768

Client

/ Legend

!( Signal Post

!( OLE mast

(! User Worked Crossing



New line to be constructed on existingNetwork Rail Infrastructure


) ) ) )

) ) ) )

) ) ) )

Proposed Construction Compound

Proposed Area of Development

Surface Water - River Don and the Sheffieldand Tinsley Canal

FIGURE 2

M1 Motorway

River Don

River Don

Canal



Rev'd


IM SW DMUpdate Compound and Development Boundary 2 FEB 15 SW

Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï
















































































) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

TINSLEY CHORD

Drawing Title

Project


Drawing Status

Drawing No.

Client No.



www.jacobs.com

B2049000_ENV_03

Scale @ A3

Jacobs No.


ENVIRONMENTALFEATURES MAP

1:2,250

Client

/ Legend



New line to be constructed on existingNetwork Rail Infrastructure running fromChord to new single junction


) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) )) ) ) ) )Approximate Location of New Tinsley Bus

Link Road

Approximate Location Stands of JapaneseKnotweed Identified During EcologicalWalkover Survey

Decicious Woodland

Residential Properties along Sheffield Road

Industrial and Commercial Properties

Ï Ï Ï Ï

Ï Ï Ï ÏFlood Risk Zone 2

Surface Water - River Don and the Sheffieldand Tinsley Canal

FIGURE 3



Rev'd


17

Appendix A Tinsley Chord EIA Screening Report

Network Rail

Network Rail Project Number - 112449

EIA Screening Report – Tinsley Chord

B90506-REP-ENV4006

P07

Final Issue

December 2014

Network Rail Network Rail Project Number: 112449


B90506-REP-ENV4006 P07 2 December 2014

Document History

Version No.

Approved by Date

Description Prepared By

Reviewed By

Approved By

P01 20/10/2014 Draft Issue ES MGW MGW

P02 07/11/2014 Updated issue to address Anne Dugdale, Paul Panini and Brian Chadwick comments

ES JH MGW

P03 17/11/2014 Updated from further comments from Anne Dugdale and Paul Panini

ES JH MGW

P04 21/11/2014 Final draft ES JH MGW

P05 10/12/2014 Updated issue following comments

ES JH MGW

P06 11/12/2014 Updated issue following design change

ES JH MGW

P07 16/12/2014 Final issue following design change

ES JH MGW

Distribution List

Name Role Contact Email

David Brown Tata Steel Projects Project Engineer

[email protected]

Marcus Grundy-Wakelin Tata Steel Projects Principal Environmental Consultant

[email protected]

Anne Dugdale Head of Consents – Network Rail

[email protected]

Paul Panini Environmental Specialist LNE Region

[email protected]

Brian Chadwick Scheme Project Manager – Network Rail

[email protected]

John Lipscomb Delegated Project Engineer – Network Rail

[email protected]




Table of Contents

1.1 Introduction 4

1.2 Background 6

1.3 Site Description and Location 8

1.4 Description of the Proposed Project 11

1.5 Environmental Management & Governance of Railway Infrastructure Projects 17

1.6 Policy Background 18

2.0 EIA Screening Analysis 20

3.0 EIA Analysis and Screening Summary Matrix 23

4.0 Conclusions 34

Figures

Figure 1 - Setting of the project within local area .............................................................................. 7

Figure 2 - Extents of the Tinsley Chord. .......................................................................................... 8

Figure 3 – Historic Land Use for Tinsley Chord - Ordnance Survey 1965-1970.............................. 10

Figure 4 – Existing Sheffield Supertram OLE mast on section of double track................................ 12

Figure 5 – Existing heavy rail OLE structure, Single Track Cantilever, similar those to be specified for the Tinsley Chord project .......................................................................................................... 13

Figure 6 – Existing heavy rail OLE structure, Twin Track Cantilever, similar those to be specified for the Tinsley Chord project................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 7 – Typical tram signal and signal post, similar those to be specified for the Tinsley Chord project ............................................................................................................................................ 14

Figure 8 – Image showing an example of a User Worked Crossing with rubber modular units and gates (TSP Project Image Library) ................................................................................................. 15

Figure 9 – Example of a Trackside Building, similar to the one to be constructed on Tinsley Chord........................................................................................................................................................ 17

Figure 10 – Tinsley Chord Environmental Features Map Appendix A

Figure 11 – High Level Environmental Features Map Appendix A

Appendices

Appendix A: Environmental Features Maps

Appendix B: Environmental Risk Assessment

Appendix C: References




1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This report supports Network Rail’s request for a Screening Decision from the

Secretary of State for Transport on the need to carry out an Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) for the proposed Tinsley Chord Project.

1.1.2 The Tinsley Chord project is the construction of a new 400m rail link between an

existing Network Rail line and the existing Sheffield Supertram line, which will enable

the operation of a through Tram Train service between Sheffield and Rotherham.

The location and footprint of the proposed chord is illustrated in Appendix A

(Environmental Features Map).

1.1.3 As part of the project, 250m of railway track will be constructed on Network Rail land

at the eastern end of the chord while the remaining 150m will be constructed on third

party land at the western end. Approximately 200m of minor track works will be

required on the existing Supertram line to allow the integration of the chord. The

works on Network Rail land will be on an area where tracks have previously been

laid and where ballast remains. Works on the existing Supertram tracks will be

limited to track lifts of approximately 25mm and small horizontal movements of the

track of no more than 50mm.

1.1.4 A small building (approximately 5m long by 2.5m wide by 2.5m high) will be erected

adjacent to the track on the chord, and will be raised off the ground to protect it from

flood events. It will house the electrical isolation equipment associated with the

overhead traction system.

1.1.5 Vehicle access to the chord and to the temporary compound area, that will be

required during its construction phase, will be gained from an existing spur that has

been constructed as part of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) North road. The spur and

access road to the chord will be retained post-construction; however the construction

compound will be removed. This is to enable access by the Highways Agency,

Network Rail and South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE), for

routine maintenance activities. Additionally a User Worked Crossing (UWC) is




proposed to enable the Highways Agency to cross the chord as and when required;

its location is illustrated on the Environmental Features Map in Appendix A.

1.1.6 This report provides an appraisal of the environmental baseline and an assessment

of the potential environmental effects of the proposed works to construct and operate

the Tinsley Chord. The appraisal is based on desk based studies, supplemented by

walk-over surveys. It sets out the proposals to manage environmental risks through

design, construction, and operation.

1.1.7 It is considered that a Transport & Works Act Order (TWA Order, 1992) is the

appropriate consent route to secure authority to construct, maintain and operate the

proposed Tinsley Chord. In due course Network Rail will apply for a TWA order to

the Secretary of State for Transport, via the Department for Transport (DfT) TWA

Orders Unit. Therefore this request for an EIA Screening Decision is made in

accordance with the procedures set out in The Transport and Works (Applications

and Objection Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, known as “the

Application Rules”.

1.1.8 The proposal comprises a project of a type mentioned in Annex II to the EIA Directive

(2011/92/EU) (as amended); 10. Infrastructure Projects:

(c) Construction of railways and intermodal transhipment facilities, and of

intermodal terminals (projects not included in Annex I)

1.1.9 The proposed development site comprises approximately 1.6 hectares during

construction and operation (see Appendix A for the extents), which includes the area

of the new chord, a small building, and the temporary construction compound.

1.1.10 No part of the proposed development falls within a sensitive area, as defined in the

Annex and Rules, i.e., no part of the project footprint is within or adjacent to a. Site of

Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Area, Special Areas of Conservation,

and / or Ramsar Site, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Park, World

Heritage Site or Scheduled Monument.




1.1.11 Annex II development only requires EIA if a project is likely to give rise to significant

environmental impacts. An assessment of potential environmental impacts has been

undertaken in line with Annex III of the EIA Directive (2011/92/EU) and the

Application Rules. This included consideration of the characteristics of the proposed

project; the environmental sensitivity of the area likely to be affected by the project,

and the potential significant effects of the project, with regard the impact, magnitude

and complexity of the impact, probability, duration, frequency and reversibility and to

transfrontier impacts. This report concludes that the proposed development will not

give rise to significant environmental impacts.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 The Tram Train Pilot is a jointly managed scheme with the Department for Transport

(DfT); Northern Rail Limited; South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive

(SYPTE), and South Yorkshire Supertram Limited (SYSL).

1.2.2 SYPTE are responsible for procuring the Tram Train vehicles to be used on the new

service. SYPTE owns the Supertram infrastructure. SYSL operates the tramway

under the terms of a concession with SYPTE.

1.2.3 A key objective of the Tram Train pilot scheme is to demonstrate the costs and

benefits of operating a standard continental design of Tram Train on the national rail

network with a minimum level of adaptation. The benefits to be investigated include:

the potential for lower infrastructure capital and maintenance costs compared to

heavy rail service; and the level of passenger demand and satisfaction to be derived

from using the new technology.

1.2.4 The purpose of the proposed Tinsley Chord is to create a fixed link between the

existing Network Rail and South Yorkshire SuperTram networks, which will enable

the operation of a through Tram Train service between Sheffield and Rotherham.

This will allow the extension of the Sheffield Supertram service to the east, linking the

conurbations of Sheffield and Rotherham; terminating at Parkgate Shopping Centre,

Rotherham.




1.2.5 The location of the chord within the wider geographical area is illustrated in Figure 1:

Figure 1 - Setting of the project within local area

Imagery taken from Google Earth pro

1.2.6 Figure 2 illustrates the proposed chord alignment in the context of the existing

infrastructure. Please see Appendix A, Environmental Features Map, for a detailed

drawing of the project extents and surrounding environs.

1.2.7 The proposed construction programme currently schedules works between

December 2015 and August 2016.

M1 motorway




Figure 2 - Extents of the Tinsley Chord.

Imagery taken from Google Earth pro

Red line Existing Supertram line between Tinsley and Meadowhall

Yellow Line Existing Network Rail line between Sheffield and Rotherham

Blue Line 150m of the Tinsley Chord on third party land

Green Line 50m of the Tinsley Chord on Network Rail land

Brown area Proposed area of development

1.3 Site Location and Description

1.3.1 The site of the proposed chord is located in the valley of the River Don between

Sheffield and Rotherham and is in the vicinity of the Sheffield suburbs of Tinsley;

Wincobank, and Meadowhall, at approximate Grid Reference SK 39713 91287. The

main railway line between Sheffield and Rotherham runs 500m north of site. Tinsley

Viaduct, carrying the M1 and A631 between the north and southbound exits (junction

34) of the M1, passes over the western portion of the chord.

1.3.2 The site was previously rail locked land, with rail lines to the north, south and west.

Currently there is no public access and no public rights of way across the site. The

rail line to the north was removed after the closure of the steel works during the




1970s. The land was used as a stockyard containing railway sidings for local steel

works until circa 1970. The land has remained unused since that time. The historic

land use of the proposed project area (1965 – 1970) is shown in Figure 3, taken from

a GroundSure Environmental Insight report.

1.3.3 The land immediately to the north of the proposed chord was the site of Blackburn

Meadows (Tinsley) Power Station from 1921 until its decommissioning in 1980. Part

of this site is currently being redeveloped as part of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

North road project, which will connect Meadowhall Way to Sheffield Road.

1.3.4 There is limited vegetation within the project footprint as the majority of the chord will

be constructed on existing hard standing and made ground. Habitat surveys confirm

that the limited vegetation present at the site is of low ecological value.




Figure 3 – Historic Land Use for Tinsley Chord - Ordnance Survey 1965-1970




1.4 Description of the proposed project

1.4.1 The western extent of the chord will be linked to the existing Supertram network via a

double junction; this is a configuration of rails that will allow twin-track to twin-track

connectivity. This junction will be constructed approximately 20m north-east of the

River Don. From here the chord will turn through approximately 90 degrees and run

in a west to east direction under Tinsley Viaduct. This area of land is owned by the

Highways Agency and is unused and fenced off to prevent unauthorised access.

Once the chord has passed under the Tinsley Viaduct the two tracks will join into a

single bi-directional line (this will allow train movements in both directions) via a

single set of points.

1.4.2 A short section of the route (approximately 25m) passes through an area of

vegetation characterised as immature broadleaved semi-natural woodland. However,

surveys have confirmed that it is of low ecological value. The chord then turns to run

in a north-easterly direction within the existing Network Rail boundary and alongside

the existing Network Rail freight line towards Rotherham, for approximately 250m,

before connecting into the existing rail system via a transitional length of rail along

the existing ballasted track bed (foundations consisting or stone material supporting

the rails and sleepers). The eventual connection will be via a new single junction (this

is a configuration of rails that will allow single-track to single-track connectivity). The

rail level at the easterly extent of the chord is approximately 500mm above that of the

westerly rail level at the Supertram double junction.

1.4.3 The chord will run on short lengths of embankment, in the order of between 150mm

and 600mm in height.

1.4.4 A 3m wide path will be provided along both sides of the tracks for the length of the

chord. This will be used by maintenance staff for access along the chord once

operational.

1.4.5 Approximately 200m of minor track works will be required on the existing Supertram

line to enable the integration of the chord. These works will be within the existing

Supertram line and will be limited to track lifts of approximately 50mm and small




horizontal movements of the track of no more than 300mm. A short section of these

works will take place over the River Don. This section of the works will be on the

existing steel and concrete bridge deck which is impermeable to liquids. Over this

section the works are limited to horizontal track movements of less than 50mm and

track lifts that will be less than 25mm. These small adjustments will allow seamless

integration of the chord into the existing infrastructure.

1.4.6 Localised track re-alignment (generally less than 50mm) will be required to

accommodate the new junctions to the west and east of the chord.

1.4.7 New Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) masts will be installed along the length of the

Tinsley Chord on Network Rail and third party land. These carry the electrified wires

that apply power to the Tram Train vehicles. The chord will utilise overhead

equipment similar to the Supertram existing system at the Supertram end and

Network Rail equipment at the Network Rail end of the chord. Figures 4, 5 and 6

show images of three configurations of OLE masts. A transition between the two

systems will be made across the length of the chord.

Figure 4 – Existing Sheffield Supertram OLE mast on section of double track

(TSP Project Image Library)




Figure 5 – Existing heavy rail OLE structure, Single Track Cantilever, similar those to be specified for the Tinsley Chord project


Figure 6 – Existing heavy rail OLE structure, Twin Track Cantilever, similar those to be specified for the Tinsley Chord project





1.4.8 The OLE structures will be constructed up to 6100mm above track level, and will be

capable of spanning sections of double track. It is expected that approximately 27

No. new OLE masts will be installed on piled foundations.

1.4.9 Four new train signals (similar to road traffic signals and mounted on posts) to control

train movements will be constructed along the Tinsley Chord (see Appendix A for

locations). Cable ducts will be installed along the new line. These will either be

surface troughing or a buried route depending on the perceived risk of cable theft.

Figure 7 – Typical tram signal and signal post, similar those to be specified for the Tinsley Chord project


1.4.10 A User Worked Crossing (UWC) will be installed to enable the Highways Agency to

cross the chord; its location is shown on the Environmental Features Map in

Appendix A.

1.4.11 A UWC is a type of crossing for vehicles that will be protected by gates on both sides

of the tramway. The gates will be closed across the road and hung so as to open

away from the railway. The crossing will be operated by authorised users only

(Highway Agency or other designated personnel). The UWC will be constructed from




modular rubber units, its approach will be graded to allow safe passage across the

tracks for vehicles, and there will gates on either side of the crossing, similar to the

example shown in Figure 8 below.

Figure 8 – Image showing an example of a User Worked Crossing with rubber modular units and gates


1.4.12 A track drainage system will be installed to carry away surface water run-off from the

chord. The ground levels at the western extent are approximately 500mm lower than

the levels at the eastern extent and so lends itself to a gravity fed system (pumping

will not be required to transfer the collected surface water run-off).

1.4.13 The water will be transferred via a filter carrier drainage system to a discharge point

that will outfall either into the existing SYSL track drainage or alternatively into the

River Don. The footprint of both of these drainage systems is included within the

footprint of the proposed development shown in Appendix A.

1.4.14 If it is necessary to discharge surface water collected from the chord into the River

Don, then the outfall location, its form and the parameters of the discharged water

(eg volume, peak flow, chemical composition etc) will be identified and designed in




accordance with the relevant Environment Agency guidance; in consultation with the

Environment Agency, and where appropriate the necessary approval(s) will be

sought.

1.4.15 If the proposed drainage outfalls to the existing SYSL drainage then the existing

consent parameters will not be exceeded.

1.4.16 The drainage system will be designed to avoid contact between surface water and

any potential pollutants. The drainage system will include components such as

volume attenuation tanks, oil/petrol interceptors and impermeable (geo-textile)

membranes, as is deemed necessary to control both the quality and quantity of

surface water leaving the chord. These measures will appropriately manage potential

risks to the receiving environment. As a result no significant impact on the water

environment is anticipated.

1.4.17 A temporary compound and associated access road will be established on an area of

existing hard standing (see Appendix A for location). The hard standing is suitable for

use as the access road and no further preparation works prior to its use are required.

The access road between the BRT North road and the temporary compound, which

is approximately 150m long, will be fenced using 3m high palisade fencing. This

fencing will remain in place on completion of the works.

1.4.18 There are no existing surface or ground water drains in the temporary compound

area. This area will be used for the temporary storage of construction plant, materials

and the provision of welfare facilities for the construction team.

1.4.19 A new small building will be installed on the trackside. The building will house

electrical isolation equipment associated with the overhead traction system. This will

include battery back up for the motorised switching equipment. This building will be

approximately 5m long by 2.5m wide by 2.5m high and will be raised off the ground

to protect it from flood events. The foundations for the building will be piled and it will

be surrounded by 2.4m high palisade fencing. No drainage will be required for this

building though permanent lighting will be installed. Luminaries with 0% upward light

emissions will be installed to minimise potential light impacts to local receptors. Two

potential locations for this small building are being considered; these are shown in




the Environmental Features Map in Appendix A. The alternative locations do not

affect the results of the Environmental Risk Assessment or EIA screening analysis.

Figure 9 below shows an example of a similar building at another location:

Figure 9 – Example of a Trackside Building, similar to the one to be constructed on Tinsley Chord.

(Tata Steel Projects Image Library)

1.5 Environmental Management & Governance of Railway Infrastructure Projects

1.5.1 The construction of railway projects is governed by the GRIP (Governance of Railway

Infrastructure Projects) Process. This is an eight stage design process as described

in the list below:

GRIP 1 – Output Definition

GRIP 2 – Feasibility Stage

GRIP 3 – Option Selection

GRIP 4 – Outline Design

GRIP 5 – Detailed Design

GRIP 6 – Construction Test and Commission

GRIP 7 – Scheme Hand Back

GRIP 8 – Project Close Out




1.5.2 At GRIP 4 (outline design) a Design Environmental Management Plan (DEMP) is

required that is based on the principles of ISO 14001: 2004 (The international

standard for Environmental Management Systems), and the NR Contract

Requirements – Environment (NR/SP/ENV/015). The DEMP is a living document that

will be regularly updated throughout the design stage to reflect developments in

design, construction methodology, client aspirations and any other emerging issues.

1.5.3 The DEMP will be used as a baseline for the Construction Environmental

Management Plan that will be used to manage environmental issues during the

construction stage. This will promote the seamless management of environmental

issues that will all necessary actions are implemented.

1.5.4 A DEMP has been developed for the Tram Train Pilot. It will be updated to include

the specific environmental management measures associated with the Tinsley Chord

Project that are identified in this screening report.

1.5.5 An Environmental Risk Assessment has been prepared, which has been used to

qualitatively assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed chord. This

will be used to inform the Construction Environmental Management Plan. The ERA

for Tinsley Chord is contained in Appendix B of this report.

1.6 Policy Background

1.6.1 The Sheffield Tram Train Pilot scheme is supported by government, which has

provided funding to develop and construct the scheme.

1.6.2 The Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy (2011 – 2026) aims to improve

connectivity between major settlements. As part of this, the Strategy states the

implementation of the Tram Train scheme between Sheffield and Rotherham will be

“strongly pursued”, as the project “will expand the existing tram network by enabling

tram access to the existing rail network, and will thus facilitate tram services currently

terminating at Meadowhall to continue towards Rotherham.”




1.6.3 The “Enhancement of the Supertram system”, is specifically supported by Policy G of

the Strategy, which seeks “To deliver interventions required for development and

regeneration”. The Tinsley Chord will enhance Supertram by creating a larger

network that can be used by the public to travel between Sheffield and Rotherham.

1.6.4 The project will help to reduce emissions by encouraging people to use the tram as

an alternative to using their cars. This will lead to improved air quality in an AQMA

area (Policy V).




2.0 EIA Screening Analysis

2.1.1 To evaluate the environmental risks associated with construction and operation of the

proposed Tinsley Chord, a decision matrix tool has been used to help determine the

likelihood and consequence of the risk occurring. This matrix can be found in

Appendix B of this report.

2.1.2 Likelihood is assessed on the basis of:

• Almost certain impact on a daily basis

• Likely impacts will occur once or twice a week

• Possible impacts will occur once or twice a month

• Unlikely impacts will occur once or twice a year

• Rare impacts are expected to occur less than once a year

• Zero risk refers to impacts that have no chance of occurring

2.1.3 Consequence, being:

• Extreme risks are considered to lead to severe consequences such as death

or serious injury, serious breaches of legislation resulting in criminal

convictions. Therefore risk reduction measures should be considered as a

matter of priority.

• Significant, although less likely, could also lead to severe consequences

such as major injury, damage to property, long term damage to local

receptors and breaches of legislation leading to financial penalties and

therefore risk reduction measure may be required.

• Moderate levels of risk have consequences such as minor injury and

damage to property and long term discomfort and impact to quality of life and

require additional analysis, with a view to undertaking risk improvements at a

later stage.

• Minor issues may lead to minor consequences such as medium term

discomfort and may impact to quality of life and therefore risk reduction

measures should not be discounted but are considered unlikely.




• Insignificant risks will have negligible impact on surrounding environs and

are considered to be acceptable without further risk mitigation measures.

2.1.4 The benefit of this approach is that it can be used to screen high-risk areas where

more evaluation is needed i.e. using more quantitative methods.

Consequence:

Likelihood: Extreme - 5 Significant - 4 Moderate - 3 Minor - 2 Insignificant - 0

Almost certain - 5 25 – High risk 20 – high risk 15 – high risk 10 – medium risk 0 – no risk

Likely - 4 20 – high risk 16 – high risk 12 – medium risk 8 – low risk 0 – no risk

Possible – 3 15 – high risk 12 – medium risk 9 – medium risk 6 – low risk 0 – no risk

Unlikely - 2 10 – medium risk 8 – low risk 6 – low risk 4 – negligible

risk 0 – no risk

Rare - 1 5 – low risk 4 – negligible

risk 3 – negligible

risk 2 – negligible

risk 0 – no risk

Zero - 0 0 – no risk 0 – no risk 0 – no risk 0 – no risk 0 – no risk

The Risk (R) = Consequence (C) x Likelihood (L)

Positive impacts to the project are shown in blue text

2.1.5 The Environmental Risk Assessment details the different environmental aspects and

impacts, which have been considered for this project. The table in Appendix B

considers the potential impacts through the design, construction, operation and

decommissioning phases and identifies measures that will be implemented to reduce

impacts the on the environment.




2.1.6 Construction risks, included in the Risk Assessment and DEMP, will be managed on

site by the Contractor through the implementation of a Construction Environmental

Management Plan. This document will detail industry standard best practice

environmental protection measures, which follow CIRIA guidance, which will be used

to manage environmental risks on site.

2.1.7 Drawing on the analysis in the Appendix B risk assessment, the key questions to be

considered in determining the need for EIA are identified and addressed in the

following section.




3.0 EIA Analysis and Screening Summary Matrix

3.1.1 The following matrix has been prepared in line with EIA screening analysis and designed to satisfy Annex III to the EIA Directive (2011/92/EU) (as

amended); on assessment of the affects of projects on the environment. The detailed Environmental Risk Assessment undertaken to inform this matrix

is in Appendix B.

Questions to be

considered

Likely/Unlikely – briefly describe Is this likely to result in a Significant effect?

Yes/No - why?

Characteristics of the project:

1 Will construction, operation or decommissioning of the Project involve actions which will cause physical changes in the locality (topography, land use, changes in waterbodies, etc)?

Unlikely – the rail level of the new chord will be at or just above existing land levels, the proposed building is small, albeit raised, the necessary security fencing is similar to existing fencing at the site; the site is well screened by vegetation and surrounding land uses; the impact of this will not be significant.

The project will have no negative impact on local land use as the site is currently unused and not publicly accessible.

The chord will have no direct or indirect impact on local water bodies.

No – no physical changes that will significantly affect the local environment.

The locality does not contain areas that are of a high quality in terms of ecological habitat value, landscape, water resource or land use etc.




Questions to be

considered


Yes/No - why?

2 Will construction or operation of the Project use natural resources such as land, water, materials or energy, especially any resources which are non-renewable or in short supply?

Likely – the project will use materials during construction and operation. These materials will be from renewable and sustainable sources where reasonably practicable, and will be designed to be re-used or recycled when they are replaced.

Maintenance and operation of the chord will require low levels of materials.

The project will provide an alternative mode of public transport that is cleaner and greener than the current public transport options between Sheffield and Rotherham. The tram vehicles will have zero emissions at source.

The trackside building will be used as a back up power supply for the electrification and signalling supply for the new chord in the event that electricity supply to the chord is lost for any reason.

No - the construction materials will, where reasonably practicable, be sourced from renewable / sustainable sources.

Materials with a high potential for recyclate composition will be used where possible (such as steel for poles / Overhead Line structures, engineering fill for on-site arisings, re-used ballast from off-site Network Rail stockpiles, re-used sleepers etc). No significant impact will result through material use.

Energy used by the project during operation is not likely to have a significant impact on the use of natural resources.

3 Will the Project involve use, storage, transport, handling or production of substances or materials which could be harmful to human health or the environment or raise concerns about actual or perceived risks to human health?

Unlikely – Ground Investigation works undertaken for the project confirm that there has been an isolated instance of asbestos, identified in one of the eighteen samples taken along the proposed length of the chord. No other harmful substances have been found. The impact of asbestos in the ground will be low as the proposed design for the chord minimises excavations.

Piles are to be used for foundations for OLE structures and the majority of the track works will be at or slightly above existing ground level with only relatively small volumes (excavations for foundations) required.

It is anticipated that the piles will be driven steel tubes. Alternatively poured concrete piles may be used, which would generate more excavated material waste. However the impact of this is not expected to be significant.

No – although asbestos has been identified, the risks will be appropriately managed and measures implemented through design and construction. Therefore no potential impacts to human health are anticipated.

There are no anticipated affects expected during operation.

The potential presence of substances harmful to human health will be given due consideration during the preparation of the Risk Assessments prepared prior to any ground works that may be undertaken as part of maintenance requirements, decommissioning or any future developments of the chord.




Questions to be

considered


Yes/No - why?

4 Will the Project produce solid wastes during construction or operation or decommissioning?

Likely – waste will be produced by the removal of existing railway lines to create the new junctions from the Supertram and Network Rail lines.

Other waste streams will comprise mainly of arising / spoil from minor excavation works.

No – production of waste has been minimised through design (through the specification of piles instead of pad foundations).

A Site Waste Management Plan will be prepared and implemented which will seek to reuse any waste produced, including excavated material, on site as engineering fill material rather than being disposed to landfill wherever possible. Additional waste streams such as vegetation and construction waste (packaging etc) will as far as is reasonably practicable be reused on site or recycled off site.

Any materials recovered during operation of the Tinsley Chord are likely to be reused or cascaded to lower grade schemes or recycled as per the Site Waste Management Plan.

5 Will the Project release pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to air?

Unlikely - small amounts of potentially polluting / toxic / noxious substances are likely to be used during the construction stage of the project. Through implementation of the Construction Environmental Management Plan, best practice control measures will be used to appropriately manage the risk, for example such substances will be stored in bunded areas, an Environmental Incidents Response Plan will be prepared and implemented, spill kits will be provided on site and the construction team will be trained on their use.

No – it is considered that no significant impacts will arise during the construction stage as a result of control measures implemented in line with the Contactor’s suite of environmental protection procedures.




Questions to be

considered


Yes/No - why?

6 Will the Project cause noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or electromagnetic radiation?

Likely – noise and vibration will be generated by the construction works and site lighting will be used during night-time works.

The chord will not be lit during the operational phase and noise and vibration emanating from the trams will not be noticeable to any residents.

The new Trackside building will require permanent lighting, Flat Glass luminaires with 0% upward light emissions will be installed to minimise potential light impacts to local receptors.

There will be no electromagnetic radiation emitted by the OLE structures as Direct Current will be used to power the trams which does not produce any electromagnetic radiation.

No – a high level noise assessment has been undertaken, which determined that the construction or operation of the new chord will not impact on residential receptors (the closest are 175m south east of site). This is due to the high baseline noise levels associated with the Tinsley Viaduct (carrying the M1 and A631 highways) and that these noise and vibration sources are in an elevated position in relation to the chord.

The majority of the construction will be undertaken mid-week during daytime hours and in accordance with the control measures implemented in line with the Contactor’s suite of environmental protection procedures which will be included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

The design for the lighting of the trackside building has been undertaken with cognisance of the Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light issued by the Institute of Light Professionals. As a result, no significant lighting impact on local residents is anticipated.




Questions to be

considered


Yes/No - why?

7 Will the Project lead to risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants onto the ground or into surface waters, groundwater, coastal waters or the sea?

Unlikely – the proposed construction methodology avoids the release of pollutants into the ground, surface or ground water.

Piled foundations – contractor will undertake a Foundation Works Risk Assessment which is a standard Environmental Agency process.

Excavations – best practice to be followed to prevent any contamination held within excavated material to leach into ground / surface water or to become airborne.

Machinery / Plant - All plant and machinery used on site will be well maintained to minimise potential for leaks of pollutants into the ground. The procurement strategy will promote the employment of companies that can achieve this.

No connectivity – no pathways to allow pollutants within the soil to impact on ground or surface water will be created.

There are no existing surface or groundwater drains within the site.

Control measures will be implemented such as producing and briefing out an Environmental Incidents Response Plan and providing spill kits and drip trays.

No – no significant impacts during construction are anticipated as the works will be undertaken in strict accordance with the Contractors specific best practice environmental protection procedures, which will be documented in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

The quantity and quality of the discharged water will be managed in accordance with Environment Agency guidelines and where appropriate will be the subject of consent from the Environment Agency.

8 Are there any areas on or around the location which are already subject to pollution or environmental damage e.g. where existing legal environmental standards are exceeded, which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely – an AQMA is present in Sheffield for the control of NO2 and PM10. It is unlikely that the project will have an adverse impact on this area. It is anticipated that the project will support a modal shift onto the trams, thereby reducing vehicle numbers and contributing to a reduction in pollutant levels.

The proposed site comprises made ground (from previous demolitions) and previous use as railway sidings with little ecological or habitat potential.

There are no water features or landscape features of note.

No – no significant impacts anticipated on local air quality and there are no other existing environmental standards in place around site.

Any plant movement and use will be in line with the contractor’s own policies regarding reduction of emissions and in line with CIRIA C692 Environmental good practice on site (third edition).

During operation a beneficial impact is anticipated through modal shift from road vehicles to trams leading to a reduction in congestion and associated air quality reduction issues.




Questions to be

considered


Yes/No - why?

9 Will there be any risk of accidents during construction or operation of the Project which could affect human health or the environment?

Likely – there will be a risk of accidents that have the potential to injure or harm construction and maintenance workers and impact the environment. However implementation of control measures during construction and maintenance such as undertaking site inductions on specific project risks and ensuring all staff are trained and competent to perform their duties, works will reduce this risk to an acceptable level

No – no significant impact anticipated, control measures implemented will avoid potential risk to human health and effectively manage environmental risks.

Location of the project:

10 Will the Project result in social changes, for example, in demography, traditional lifestyles, employment?

Likely – it is anticipated that the project will have a positive impact on local social activity by creating a new, accessible and inclusive public transport link between Sheffield, Meadowhall retail park and Rotherham.

No – no significant adverse impacts are expected as a result of the project.

A positive impact is anticipated through improved connectivity between Sheffield, Meadowhall retail park and Rotherham.

11 Are there any areas on or around the location which are protected under international or national or local legislation for their ecological, landscape, cultural or other value, which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely – there are no areas protected under international, national legislation.

There are 2 No. locally designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) within the wider context of the scheme (see Figure 1, Appendix A) with the Sheffield to Tinsley Canal running along the southern extent and immediately adjacent (but outside the footprint) of the eastern extent of the chord.

No – no features at or around site other than the Sheffield to Tinsley Canal SINC along the southern extent and immediately adjacent (but outside the footprint) of the eastern extent of the chord.

There will be neither direct nor indirect impact on this or any other site (the SINC is outside the footprint and there is no connectivity between the chord and the site) therefore no significant impact is predicted.




Questions to be

considered


Yes/No - why?

12 Are there any other areas on or around the location which are important or sensitive for reasons of their ecology e.g. wetlands, watercourses or other water bodies, the coastal zone, mountains, forests or woodlands, which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely – there is an area of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority woodland habitat to the south and north of the chord. However this is separated from the works by the existing railway to the south and disused railway line to the north and will not be impacted by the proposed chord.

A small area (approximately 500m²) of immature broadleaved semi-natural woodland needs to be removed to enable construction of the chord and small trackside building. This vegetation clearance will be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season. Ecological surveys of this area have confirmed that this woodland is of low ecological value and does not contain any protected species or habitats.

Vegetation clearance will be required for the construction of the trackside building.

Minor track slues and lifts will be required over the River Don. The track slues (no more than 50mm) and track lifts (no more than 25mm) are required to tie in the new alignment to the existing Supertram network.

No – no direct or indirect impact to BAP woodland habitat therefore there will be no significant impact

The works being undertaken over the River Don are considered to be minor and will be undertaken on the existing steel and concrete composite deck structure which is impermeable to liquids. Spill kits will be provided. Any spills that may occur during the track works over the Don will not impact the river.

13 Are there any areas on or around the location which are used by protected, important or sensitive species of fauna or flora e.g. for breeding, nesting, foraging, resting, overwintering, migration, which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely – a survey to identify potential for notable species has been undertaken by a competent ecologist within the appropriate season. During the site walkover survey no evidence of notable species (bats, badgers, reptiles, amphibians, water voles, otters, invertebrates, and invasive plant species) were found on the site.

No impact on potential bat roosts is anticipated, i.e. the M1 viaduct bridge deck will not be physically disturbed. The project ecologist has advised that the construction of OLE under Tinsley Viaduct will not impact on bats or their flight paths.

No – the survey concluded that the project will not result a significant impact upon ecologically valuable habitat and species (see Ecological Appraisal Report – B90506-REP-ENV4005)




Questions to be

considered


Yes/No - why?

14 Are there any inland, coastal, marine or underground waters on or around the location which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely – There are no coastal, marine or underground waters in the footprint or vicinity of site. The site is underlain by a secondary bedrock aquifer. However, as the piles will not be as deep as the aquifer, they will not impact on this aquifer during construction.

No – no significant impact predicted. No opportunities for potential pollutant pathways will be created through the design or construction as appropriate management during installation will be adopted through contractor’s own policies regarding the installation of foundations and piles and in line with CIRIA C692 Environmental good practice on site (third edition).

All piled foundations will be subject to the Environment Agency foundation works risk assessment. This will avoid and reduce risks of impacting groundwater to an acceptable level and will therefore not have a significant environmental impact.

15 Are there any areas or features of high landscape or scenic value on or around the location which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely – there are no areas or features of high landscape or scenic value within the footprint (or wider vicinity) of the project.

No – no features within the immediate or wider context of the site - therefore no significant impacts will result.

16 Is the project in a location where it is likely to be highly visible to many people?

Unlikely – The nearest residential properties are 175 metres to the south of the proposed chord. The potential distant views from these residential areas are screened by existing mature vegetation along the River Don.

Glimpses of the site may be gained by passengers travelling in vehicles (normally at speed) on the southbound carriageways on the Tinsley Viaduct. Passengers on trams using the new chord will have oblique views of the chord and wider site.

No – the project will not have a significant visual impact.

The chord will not be highly visible from the distant and screened residential properties.

The scheme will be visible from the southbound lanes of the M1 over Tinsley Viaduct, it is considered unlikely that the project will have a significant visual impact to passengers / drivers in passing vehicles or those travelling on the trams.

17 Are there any routes on or around the location which are used by the public for access to recreation or other facilities, which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely – there are no Public Rights of Way (PRoW) / footpaths, roads or cycle paths on the project footprint.

No – no significant impacts, as no PRoW / footpaths, roads or cycle paths will be either temporarily or permanently diverted or impacted on in any other way.




Questions to be

considered


Yes/No - why?

18 Are there any transport routes on or around the location which are susceptible to congestion or which cause environmental problems, which could be affected by the project?

Likely – the site is located in the vicinity of Junction 34 of the M1, the A631 and Meadowhall, and is between the conurbations of Rotherham and Sheffield. Congestion on these roads is often high, especially during rush hour and at times of the year when visitors to Meadowhall are high (towards Christmas and at weekends).

No – the project is expected to reduce the use of vehicles on these roads by encouraging the use of the Tram as an alternative.

The volume of construction traffic using these routes is unlikely to be significant. However to minimise the potential impact, as far as reasonably practicable, deliveries to site and movements of site vehicles on surrounding roads will be managed to avoid peak travel times on roads in the local area.

19 Are there any areas or features of historic or cultural importance on or around the location which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely – a desk top search did not identify any cultural heritage or archaeological features within the footprint (or in the wider vicinity) of the proposed works.

Any excavations will be in made ground, comprising demolition rubble / in-fill material and is considered unlikely to contain historic artefacts.

No – there are no features at or around site and therefore no significant impacts are anticipated.

20 Is the project located in a previously undeveloped area where there will be loss of greenfield land?

Unlikely – the land has been previously used as sidings for a local steel yard. This is shown by figure 1.3.2.1.

No – no greenfield land will be lost so there will be no significant impacts.

21 Are there existing land uses on or around the location e.g. homes, gardens, other private property, industry, commerce, recreation, public open space, community facilities, agriculture, forestry, tourism, mining or quarrying which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely – none of these areas can be found in the vicinity of site. The land is post-industrial / development and is currently not in use. The closest homes are 175m to the south with recreational land beyond.

The land under the viaduct is redundant in terms of its ‘use’. It is securely fenced and not accessible to the public.

No – there are no features that fall into the category of existing land uses as identified either on or in the wider context of the scheme, therefore no significant impacts are anticipated




Questions to be

considered


Yes/No - why?

22 Are there any areas on or around the location which are densely populated or built-up, which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely – the footprint of the site is located 175m north west of the closest residential properties (located in the Tinsley). It is considered unlikely that residents in these dwellings will be impacted by the construction.

No – there will be no significant impact as there are no residents who will be impacted by the works. Residents to the south are separated by distance (over 170m), and interlaying features that include vegetation, a canal, River Don, SINC / BAP and existing railway infrastructure.

23 Are there any areas on, or around, the location which are occupied by sensitive land uses e.g. hospitals, schools, places of worship, community facilities, which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely - A desktop search and site surveys confirms that there are no hospitals or schools within or near the project footprint. The Hanfia Mosque is located over 200m east of the chord.

No – the chord is to be mainly constructed in mid-week daytime hours. Noise from operation will not be significant due to the high background noise generated mainly from the M1 over the viaduct.

24 Are there any areas on or around the location which contain important, high quality or scarce resources e.g. groundwater, surface waters, forestry, agriculture, fisheries, tourism, minerals, which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely –there is groundwater present under the site. However, this is not identified as a source protection zone and will not be impacted by the works.

There are no other areas containing important resources within or in the vicinity of the project footprint.

No – no significant impact as none of these identified areas will be affected by the scheme.

Groundwater will be protected in accordance with control measures implemented in line with the Contactor’s suite of environmental protection procedures, which will be included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.




Questions to be

considered


Yes/No - why?

25 Is the project location susceptible to earthquakes, subsidence, landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions e.g. temperature inversions, fogs, severe winds, which could cause the project to present environmental problems?

Unlikely - the project is located within a flood zone 2 (at risk of flooding between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 years). The site is not located within or is not at any risk from any other environmental / meteorological issues.

The track will be on small (in terms of length and height) embankments. In the event of a flood event, the track will be able to operate after the event with no significant impact on the network.

The small trackside building will be on stilts to avoid any potential flooding.

No – there are no significant impacts anticipated as these conditions will not affect the development.

The Flood Risk Assessment confirms the low frequency of predicted flooding of the chord (once in every 100 to 1000 years) does not necessitate compensatory storage under Environment Agency guidance (JBA Flood Risk Assessment – B90506-REP-ENV4000). This will be reviewed as the design stages progress and more accurate track levels are known.

26 Are there any plans for future land uses on or around the location which could be affected by the project?

Unlikely – desk top studies revealed no development proposals or plans for the land around site.

No - no significant impacts anticipated as no proposals planned.

27 Are there any other factors which should be considered, such as consequential development which could lead to environmental effects, or the potential for cumulative impacts with other existing or planned activities in the locality?

Unlikely - a review of Sheffield City Council's planning register did not reveal any proposals for other infrastructure projects around the site which may lead to cumulative environmental impacts.

The Tram Train pilot scheme will be completed alongside the Tinsley Chord Project. This scheme will have no additional environmental impacts and all works are to be within the existing Network Rail corridor as confirmed in the Design Environmental Management Plan (B90506-REP-ENV0001)

The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) North road is a new highway currently under construction to the north of site. As this project will be completed before construction for the Tinsley Chord starts there is not expected to be any cumulative environmental impact as a result of the construction of both projects.

No – No significant cumulative environmental impacts from Tram Train or BRT Projects.




4.0 Conclusions

4.1.1 The total proposed development footprint, including temporary construction areas is

approximately 1.6 hectares.

4.1.2 The development is not located within a sensitive area. The potential characteristics

of the project and the characteristics of the potential impacts of both the construction

and operation of the proposed chord have been carefully considered. Section 4 and

Appendix B demonstrate that the proposals are not anticipated to give rise to

significant environmental effects during construction and operation.

Appendix A: Environmental Features Maps

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Appendix B: Environmental Risk Assessment

L C R L C R

Construction of

new track and

building drainage

Additional

water

introduced to

existing track

drainage

New track drainage will be required as part of this project.

This has potential to transport pollutants via surface water run

off into surface and ground water receptors.

No new drainage will be constructed for the trackside

building due to the small footprint of the building, water will

drain into the ground.

2 4 8

Construction works will be undertaken in accordance with the

Contractors specific best practice environmental protection

procedures, which will be included in the Construction

Environmental Management Plan.

The quantity and quality of the discharged surface water will

be controlled and managed by the proposed drainage system.

It is anticipated that any new discharge to the River Don (if

required) would be the subject of consent from the

Environment Agency.

No significant environmental impacts are anticipated.

1 4 4

Proposed designs

for earthworks and

foundations and

stock piling of

materials

Pollution of

groundwater or

surface water

body including

River Don

Staff undertaking intrusive works during the construction

stage to be vigilant if suspected contaminated ground is

encountered during works. If contamination is suspected then

works shall stop until testing has been undertaken.

2 4 8

All foundations (piles or pad) will be subject to Environment

Agency foundation risk assessment to reduce the impact to

groundwater to acceptable, and negligible, levels.

1 4 4

Track slues and

lifts over the River

Don

Impact to the

River from

minor track

slues and lifts

Minor track slues (no more than 50mm) and track lifts (no

more than 25mm) are required over the River Don.

The works will be undertaken using rail mounted vehicles.

1 2 2

All works will take place on the existing bridge deck which is

steel and concrete composite with a waterproof layer. This

will prevent any potential pollutants from reaching the river

through the bridge.

Spill kits will be provided while the works are being

undertaken and the track alignment methodology will be

agreed through liaison with and permission from the

Environment Agency.

1 2 2

Ground

Investigations

during survey

phase and use of

plant and

machinery during

survey and

construction phase

Accidental

release or

spillage of

liquid

substances

Accidental release of spillages through construction will be

managed by implementing a control measures as stipulated

in Carillion's working procedures. This will reduce the risk of

any spills that may occur impacting on surface or

groundwater resources.

2 4 8

Spill kits will be available on site to allow any spills to be

quickly treated. Drip trays will be used where refuelling

activities take place. Emergency drills will take place to

prepare and train staff to deal with a pollution incident. All

static equipment with internal fuel storage are to have integral

bunds or must be placed on a bund to prevent any leaks of

fuel impacting on ground or surface water.

Appropriate management during installation will be adopted

through contractor’s own policies regarding the installation of

foundations and piles and in line with CIRIA C692

Environmental good practice on site (third edition).

1 4 4

Storage in

compound area

during construction

phase

Overflow of

bunds or no

bunds used for

outside storage

of liquid

Design and layout of the construction compound to take

cognisance of existing surface water drainage and surface

water bodies in the vicinity of site. All liquids to be stored as

far away as possible from these receptors.

Bunds will be provided where fuels and other liquids are to be

stored on site

2 4 8All bunds are to be designed in accordance with Control of

Pollution Regulations 2001.1 4 4

Natural flood

events

Impact to

natural

floodplain as a

result of the

construction

works

Design to take cognisance of requirements for construction

within a floodplain. There is no requirement to include a flood

water storage area in design as confirmed by JBA in the flood

risk assessment. The need for compensatory storage will be

reviewed as the design develops and any design elements

necessary will be incorporated into the final solution.

There is potential for a flood event to impact the construction

compound and to mobilise pollutants present on the ground

(material storage) or liquid fuels. In order to prevent this,

bunds will be provided around material storage and fuel and

liquid storage to prevent pollutants being released.

1 4 4

No flood alleviation measures, such as water containment

areas or channels are required.

The small trackside building will be raised to avoid flood

impacts.

1 4 4

Disposal of

hazardous

waste arisings

including

Japanese

Knotweed

Contaminated land has been identified following the GI

(presence of localised asbestos - one sample out of 18

returned positive). The GI and waste classification testing has

identified the presence of hydrocarbon contamination within

the ground. Further testing of excavated material will be

required to avoid hazardous material being disposed of

inappropriately off site or re-used on site.

Disposal of Japanese Knotweed is not expected to be

required. All stands of Japanese Knotweed are avoided

through design.

4 4 16

Site Waste Management and Material Management Plans will

be implemented for this project. These documents will detail

the disposal route of hazardous waste to prevent impacts

human, ecological or water receptors and how any excavated

material will be re-used on site.

Any excavated material will be tested for the presence of

asbestos prior to removal off site or re-use on site. All

material stockpiles to be dampened down to prevent release

of dust which could potentially contain asbestos.

4 1 4

Implementation of the waste hierarchy throughout the project.

Waste to be minimised through design and any waste

produced will be re-used or recycled to avoid disposal to

landfill.

Implementation of Site Waste Management and Material

Management Plans which will detail expected waste volumes

to be generated and how waste will be reused / recycled on

site or where waste will be removed to off site

Removal of

redundant track

components

(not waste)

The removal of existing rail during re-modelling works is

minimised and any new infrastructure has the capability to be

recycled or cascaded when the individual components require

replacement during maintenance works.

Any redundant rail components that are to be removed (from

the new turnout connections) are to be re-used on site where

possible or removed for recycling / re-use off site.

5 1 5The track layout specifies the smallest possible removal of

existing infrastructure in order to minimise waste production.3 1 3

There are no existing waste streams on site (no fly tipping /

piles of railway waste / vegetation etc) that will be required to

be removed prior to works commencing

Waste will be generated from excavations to construct track

drainage and from foundations (though this is expected to be

minor). There are not expected to be any wastes generated

during the operational stage. Waste will be generated during

the decommissioning of the project though it is anticipated

that the materials gained from decommissioning can be

recycled or re-used on other projects.

2 6

Environmental

AspectActivity

Potential

ImpactBaseline Site Environmental Information

Waste to

landfill

Waste Management

Generation of

waste during

survey and

construction

phases.

1025

Any waste produced through design is to be minimised or

used elsewhere on the project, e.g. excavated material as

engineering fill.

As a result of the works and maintenance operations, waste

will be produced. The main waste streams will be excavated

material from the construction of the track alignment and

installation of foundations for the OLE structures with

additional waste streams such as life expired equipment and

cleared vegetation.

Water Quality &

Flood Risk

Environmental Risk Assessment

Potential Risk

once control

measures have

been

implemented

Conclusion

This aspect is not expected to

have a significant environmental

risk

It is anticipated that the control

measures will be sufficient to

appropriately manage any

unexpected contamination

encountered during the works

and avoid impact to the

environment.

The chord route will be 20m north of the River Don (at the

new double junction to the north of Tinsley Station) and the

Sheffield and Tinsley Canal. The site is underlain by

secondary bedrock and superficial deposits aquifers and is

located in a groundwater vulnerability zone. The site is located

in an operational floodplain in a flood risk zone which is at risk

of flooding between one in 100 and one in 1000 years. The

site is not located within a source protection zone and is not in

the vicinity of any other surface water bodies.

Impacts through design, construction, operation and

decommissioning

Design solution, measures required and operational

controls implemented to reduce potential impact

Potential Risk

without control

measures

Additional increased waste

volumes and waste streams of

hazardous and non-hazardous

waste may be generated above

that predicted in the Site Waste

Management Plan.

However this impact is not

expected to be significant and

the additional waste will be

managed by the SWMP.

3

L C R L C R

Environmental

AspectActivity

Potential



Potential Risk

once control

measures have

been

implemented

ConclusionImpacts through design, construction, operation and

decommissioning



Potential Risk

without control

measures

Potential to impact

contamination

within ground

during survey and

construction

Contaminants

mobilised as a

result of

intrusive works

Asbestos has been confirmed on site from testing undertaken

by the TSP geotechnical team. Additional GI surveys and soil

sampling has been undertaken and this has confirmed that

elevated levels of hydrocarbons are present in the made

ground on site. This means that any excavated material has

the potential to be classified as hazardous waste and may be

unsuitable for re-use on site and will require disposal to

hazardous waste landfill. Further analysis of excavated

material will be undertaken prior to removal off site to confirm

this.

Pollution of land may occur from construction activities such

as piling and excavating and operation of plant and

machinery. Designs will be made with cognisance of these

risks to prevent pollution impact to ground or groundwater

resources.

3 4 12

Asbestos has been confirmed as present in the land.

Measures will be implemented to reduce the impact this can

have on human health. Through design, excavations into

potentially contaminated land have been minimised (minimal

excavations for track foundations and majority of OLE masts

to be on piled foundations). Any excavated material will be

tested before re-use/disposal off site and temporary

stockpiles will be damped down.

All foundations and piling in potentially contaminated ground

will follow Environment Agency requirements as per

'Foundation Works Risk Assessments'. Excavations will be

designed out where practicable. The construction

methodology, including the use of piles where possible, will

reduce risk of temporarily creating pollutant pathways.

An Environmental Incident Response Plan will be

implemented and given to staff to increase awareness of the

procedure to follow in the event of a release of a contaminant

during site works.

Well-maintained plant and vehicles will be used to reduce the

risk of leaks.

1 4 4

Potential to pollute

sensitive receptors

within the ground

during site works

Contamination

from site

machinery i.e.

drilling rigs.

Potential for leaks of fuel / liquids from machinery and

equipment to enter ground during works.

Potential for contaminated surface water to enter ground.

3 3 9

Appropriate management measures during installation will be

adopted through contractor’s own policies regarding the

installation of foundations and piles and in line with CIRIA

C692 Environmental good practice on site (third edition).

These measures will include using drip trays when filling

machinery with petrol / diesel. Rented machinery shall be

from reputable suppliers who employ rigorous equipment

testing and maintenance procedures. Only small volumes of

uncontaminated surface water (i.e. run-off from trackside

building roof) will be allowed to enter the ground there by

replicating the current situation.

1 3 3

Any intrusive

groundworks

during survey or

construction stage

Creation of

Contamination

pathway as a

result of

drilling/

excavation

Pollution pathways may be created during physical works that

will allow contamination on or in the ground to reach ground

or surface water receptors.

The design for earthworks and foundations have considered

potential impacts to ground water resources and as a result

no impact is anticipated.

2 4 8

The design minimises potential to create pollution pathways

through specification of appropriate construction techniques.

Surface water drainage will be contained and not allowed to

outfall or percolate into ground thereby minimising risk to

create leachates.

Construction method statements will contain detailed

environmental management methods and will be included in

the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

1 4 4

Impact on

Protected

species.

An ecological walkover survey was undertaken for this

project. The recommendations of that survey are detailed

below:

Bats:

No further works required as the proposals will not impact the

underside of Tinsley Viaduct. The works will have no impact

on bat flight paths as confirmed by the ecologist.

Breeding Birds:

Removal of vegetation will remove potential habitat for

breeding birds. Although the vegetation present on site is

categorised as low ecological value there is still potential for it

to be habitat to breeding birds.

No other potential impacts to protected species are

anticipated.

The proposals will not impact on bat roosts or flight paths as

no fixtures / fittings will be attached to the underside of Tinsley

Viaduct.

Vegetation clearance will be required for the project which

may impact on breeding birds.

2 4 8

The design does not impact on the underside of Tinsley

Viaduct therefore no impact on bats is predicted.

Vegetation clearance will be undertaken outside of bird

breeding season (end of February to October). However, if

this is not possible then an ecologist will supervise any

vegetation clearance works to prevent impacts to breeding

birds.

Should the project be delayed, or the works take place over a

year after the survey then an update of the ecology survey will

be required to confirm the ecological baseline at site.

1 4 4

Impact on

habitats

The ecological walkover survey confirmed that vegetation

present on the project footprint is of low ecological value

(described as young and newly regenerated scrub and

broadleaved woodland).

Despite the low ecological value of the vegetation on site,

small sections of this habitat (potential for birds and other

protected species such as invertebrates and reptiles) will be

removed as part of the works to construct the chord and the

small trackside building.

5 2 10

A Biodiversity Enhancement Plan will be prepared for this

project and as part of this, opportunities to plant BAP habitat

plant species will be identified. The Highways Agency has

advised that no planting should take place on land it currently

owns.

5 1 5

Impact on

invasive plant

species

Japanese Knotweed has been identified in the vicinity of the

project worksite however it is expected that these areas will

not be impacted by the works. No other invasive species such

as Giant Hogweed or Himalayan Balsam have been found on

site.

The location of known stands of Japanese Knotweed has

been fed back to the design team. All design works to avoid

impact to JK.

2 3 6

The design avoids impact to areas where Japanese

Knotweed is present and negates the requirement to remove

JK.

1 3 3

Impact on

protected sites

The project will not have a direct or indirect impact on any

World Heritage Sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest,

Ramsar Sites, Special Areas of Conservation, Special

Protection Areas or National and Local Nature Reserves as

there are none within or in the vicinity of the project footprint.

No impacts anticipated 0 3 0 None required 0 3 0

Impact on

locally

designated

sites

Areas of woodland surrounding the site are designated

Woodland Natural England BAP Habitat. The area is

described as being 'rich in biodiversity' by Sheffield Local

Biodiversity Action Partnership

The project is located close to the Lower Don Valley: River

Don Centre - Blackburn Meadows and Lower Don Valley:

Sheffield to Tinsley Canal Sites of Importance to Nature

Conservation (SINC). These site are designated for their

variety of riparian and terrestrial habitats and for birds.

The footprint of the proposed development does not impact

on the area of BAP woodland habitat which is approximately

10m south of site. There is no connectivity from site to the

BAP woodland habitat.

The project footprint will not impact on the SINCs therefore

there will be no environmental or ecological impact.

2 2 4

It has been confirmed by the Project Engineer and Project

Manager that the BAP woodland habitat and SINC will not be

disturbed in any way during construction. This land is

physically separated from the work areas by the existing

Network Rail line and there will be no connectivity from the

works to the BAP woodland or SINC.

1 2 2

Site vehicles and

machinery

movements

associated with

construction

Sensitive

receptors

impact from

dust generation

from site

vehicles and

machinery.

Activities such as movement of site vehicles on temporary

roads releasing dust and emissions and dust release from

stockpiles have potential to impact on local air quality if not

controlled.

3 3 9 2 2 4

Higher frequency

of trams within

area during

operation

Emissions from

trams

The trams will be electric vehicles that will generate no

emissions locally. This will have no impact on local air quality.0 0 0 0 0 0

Reduction in road

vehicle journeys

once operational

reduction in

vehicle

emissions and

traffic on local

roads

The operational scheme is expected to have a positive impact

on local air quality. It is anticipated that the project will

encourage modal shift from cars to the tram. This will reduce

emissions generated on local roads.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A




C692 Environmental good practice on site (third edition).

These control measures incorporated into the Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

These measures include covering of stockpiles, damping

down areas of storage, cleaning of hard standing, cleaning

haul roads and turning plant and machinery off when not

required.

The whole site lies within the Sheffield AQMA so designated

for emissions of NO2 and PM10.

A desk top search has been undertaken and the closest

residential properties are more than 175m away (to the south

along Sheffield Road).

The eastern extents of the chord line will be located 250m

from Holmes Far, Closed landfill site. This site used to

dispose of mixed household, commercial and industrial

waste.

The entire chord lies above two distinctive layers of made

ground. A upper layer, approximately 0.5m thick comprising

demolition type fill material is likely to be recent from the

demolition of previous structures present in the vicinity of the

site. The lower layer approximately 0.5m thick comprises

typical steelworks waste material (containing slag, ash and

clinker) which was likely deposited to allow previous

development.

There is no potential for land pollution during the operational

stage of this project.

Land Pollution

Air Quality

Creation of

pathways to

sensitive receptors

Ecology

Physical

disturbance during

survey and

construction phase

This risk is considered to be not

significant due to the control

measures implemented as any

leak of pollutants will be

prevented from impacting the

wider environment.

As ecological conditions are

transient, there is potential for

protected and invasive species

to be found on site later in the

project. If this occurs, works are

to stop and the advice of an

environmental consultant sought

before works can continue.

As a result of this and the control

measures implemented it is

anticipated that there will be no

significant impact on ecology as

a result of the project

The construction works are not

expected to have any significant

impact on local air quality due to

the control measures

implemented.

L C R L C R

Environmental

AspectActivity

Potential



Potential Risk

once control

measures have

been

implemented


decommissioning



Potential Risk

without control

measures

Mobilisation of site

vehicles and

machinery during

the construction

phase.

Temporary

disruption to

local traffic

network

including

station/depot

facilities (car

park, taxi rank)

Design and layout of the construction compound to take

cognisance of existing road network to minimise the impact

on local roads during construction as a result of the

movement of site vehicles.

The works have the potential to impact on local traffic

movements as a result of vehicles (cars / vans / lorries)

accessing site during survey or construction works.

Construction vehicle movement (eg deliveries and plant

movement) will be reduced as far as logistically feasible

during peak traffic flow periods.

2 2 4 1 2 2

Closure of PRoW

or footpaths for

access /

construction

Temporary

closure or

diversion of

Public Rights

of Way

PRoW or other footpaths will not be impacted by the works.

The Environmental Features Map (Appendix C) shows the

closest PRoW located along the banks of the River Don.

0 2 0 0 2 0

Reduction in

vehicle journeys

once operational

Reduction in

vehicle

emissions and

traffic on local

roads

The works are expected to have a permanent positive impact

on local traffic as a result of encouraging modal shift from

cars to tram as a result of the new line.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Ground

Investigations

during survey

stage, physical

works during

construction stage

Movement and operation of site vehicles and machinery will

generate noise and vibration. Considering the baseline noise

levels and distance from the works to the closest sensitive

receptors, this impact is not expected to be significant.

2 2 4




C692 Environmental good practice on site (third edition). This

will reduce the noise and vibration impact on local sensitive

receptors, particularly during night time works.

These measures include providing all site staff with a tool box

talk on reducing noise and vibration, specifying low noise

construction methods, using super silenced machinery and

plant and turning plant and equipment off when not in use.

1 2 2

Increased train

and tram

movements on two

lines once the

scheme is

operational

A review has been carried out to give a high level indication

off the permanent noise impact as a result of the operational

chord. This assessment has indicated that noise effects and

impact from the chord are expected to be negligible at

existing residential receptors and as a result permanent noise

impact will not be significant.

1 2 2

No additional measures required, trams are expected to be

quieter than existing baseline levels and will not impact on

local receptors

1 0 0

Socio Economic

Surveys, disruptive

construction

period, temporary

traffic control

measures (road

closures and rail

possessions)

Community

severance,

impact on

station users

and adjacent

facilities.

The route between Sheffield and Rotherham is heavily

congested on roads and served by an already congested

heavy rail service. The proposed development will aid in

removing cars from the road and passengers from the trains

to make journeys between Sheffield and Rotherham quicker

and cleaner.

There may be a minor negative socio-economic impact during

the construction stage. The movement of site vehicles may

impact local roads, increasing travelling times on the roads

surrounding site.

Once operational, the scheme will facilitate new tram services

between Sheffield and Rotherham which will provide a quick,

cheap and efficient mode of transport.

1 1 1 None required 1 1 1No significant environmental

impacts anticipated.

Cultural Heritage

Ground

Investigations

during survey

stage and Physical

works during

construction stage

Potential

damage to

buried

artefacts, listed

structures and

conservation

areas

No impact to cultural heritage designations is anticipated as a

result of this project. There are no listed structures, scheduled

monuments, conservation areas or tree preservation orders in

the vicinity of the site.

All works are to be undertaken in made ground with only

minor shallow excavations required. These works are not

expected to have any impact on archaeological artefacts.

No impacts anticipated 0 2 0

Site staff involved in intrusive works to be given a tool box

talk on the procedure to follow if an artefact / potential artefact

is uncovered during physical works

0 2 0

The impact on cultural heritage

is not expected to be significant

as the project will not impact on

any cultural heritage

designations.

Visual impact of

construction works

and operational

scheme on local

residents along

Sheffield Road

The proposed works are limited to the existing railway

corridor. The work will mostly be undertaken at ground level

however there is a risk that vegetation removal could open up

sight lines from residential receptors through to the railway

lines.

The only permanent lighting will be that associated with the

trackside building which will be designed for security / access

purposes and will be designed under outside lighting

guidelines to be directional and to minimise light spillage. No

permanent lighting to be constructed for the works. Due to the

presence of existing screening vegetation along the banks of

the River Don (that will not be impacted as part of the works)

there will be no permanent visual impact on residents along

Sheffield Road.

2 1 2

The lighting should be constructed as designed (i.e. installed

utilising luminaires with flat glass design and 0% ULOR

(upward light output ratio).

1 1 1

Visual impact of

construction works

and operational

scheme on the

wider landscape

The construction works will be visible from passing motorists

on the Tinsley Viaduct (both higher and lower levels). It is not

anticipated that the project can be viewed from any where

else in the local area.

The operational scheme will be visible to motorists passing

on the Tinsley Viaduct and passengers using the new trams. It

is not anticipated that the project can be viewed from

anywhere else in the local area.

2 1 2Use of directional lighting to avoid impact to local residents

and vehicles on Tinsley Viaduct during the construction stage.1 1 1

Agriculture and

Forestry

Surveys physical

construction works

Damage

(pollution) to

high grade

agricultural

land and/or

forestry

operations

No areas of agriculture or forestry will be directly impacted

upon during the proposed works as there are none in the

vicinity of the project footprint

No impacts anticipated 0 1 0 None required 0 1 0

No impact to agriculture or

forestry therefore no significant

impact

A 'Smarter Working' initiative run by the contractor will

encourage car sharing and the use of public transport to

reduce the amount of car journeys undertaken by site staff.

This will reduce project vehicle emissions and impact on local

roads.

The construction compound chosen for the project is on an

area of existing hard standing (see Environmental Features

Map - Appendix A for location ) that will be accessed via the

BRT North Road. From this point site vehicles will be able to

use Junction 34 of the M1 to travel north to south or use local

main roads to travel between Sheffield and Rotherham.

A User Worked Crossing will enable the Highway Agency to

cross the chord as and when required.

The site is located in the vicinity of the M1 and A631 roads

which generate a significant volume of noise and vibration

throughout the day. The site is also close to an existing

operational heavy rail route and the existing Supertram

network.

Additionally Meadowhall, a large out of town shopping centre,

is located less than 100m east of the proposed junction where

Tinsley Chord will join the existing Supertram network.




The project will not impact on any National Parks, Areas of

Outstanding Natural Beauty, Registered Parks or Gardens,

National Trust Properties, Green Belt, Areas of Great

Landscape Value or Local and Country Parks as there are

none within the project footprint.




Noise and Vibration

Nuisance to

adjacent

receptors

The site is located close to Junction 34 of the M1 and the

A631. The roads around site are used by the public as

commuter roads between Sheffield and Rotherham and to

access Meadowhall Shopping centre. These roads are heavily

used and are often congested, especially around rush hour

and weekends.

The project will not impact on any Public Rights of Way.

The chord will be constructed on third party land owned by the

Highways Agency.

Traffic Management

and Public Rights of

Way

Temporary and

permanent

visual impacts

Townscape & visual

There is not expected to be a

significant noise and / or

vibration impact to local

receptors.

The proposed noise generated

will be lower than the existing

baseline levels.

There will be no significant

townscape, visual or lighting

impact on local receptors as a

result of control measures

implemented and the small

scale of the scheme.

The number of traffic movement

caused by the site works will be

significantly less than the total

traffic movements along local

roads.

The impact of additional traffic

during construction works is not

expected to be significant.

L C R L C R

Environmental

AspectActivity

Potential



Potential Risk

once control

measures have

been

implemented


decommissioning



Potential Risk

without control

measures

Energy

Energy used by

the project in

design,

construction and

operation

Increase in

carbon

emissions and

project cost

The baseline currently has no impact on energy. The

construction of the new electrified tram line will require an

energy supply from the national grid.

The project will require energy during construction and

operation. Materials specified by the designers and the

proposed construction strategies will impact on energy used

by the project.

Energy and water use during the construction stage should be

monitored by the site manager on a daily basis to identify any

over use / waste use of energy or water.

All unused or spare materials to be re-used / recycled to

reduce waste to landfill.

Energy will be used by the trams during operation, The line

will be DC electrified to tie in with the existing SST network.

1 2 2

Locally sourcing materials to reduce transport energy costs.

Use of recycled materials such as recycled steel which

requires around 56% less energy to produce compared to

new steel.

1 1 1No significant impact

anticipated,

Other - Health &

Safety and the

Environment

Through all stages

Potential

impacts on site

workers and

railway

neighbours

Through this GRIP stage, The Network Rail and Tata Steel

Projects Health and Safety, Environmental and Sustainability

policies will be implemented to allow their values to be

included throughout the project.

CDM and CSM principles will be considered through design

to allow construction, operation and decommissioning works

to be undertaken safely and without adverse impact to the

environment.

Design to consider CDM principles which will allow

maintenance to be undertaken from positions of safety on the

new line.

Information on health, safety and the environment to be

included in the site induction which will be presented to all

staff before they work on site

1 1 1

To review designs to maximise safety and

environmental/sustainable issues:

- Safer by Sustainable Design

- Health and Sustainability

- Sustainable Material Sourcing

- Community Engagement

- Environmental Sustainability

These design elements are to be documented by the designer

throughout GRIP stages 4 and 5.

1 1 1No significant impact

anticipated,

Hold meetings with design team to brief out the principles of

the Network Rail Sustainability Charter and Tata Steel

Projects environmental targets and objectives.

Procurement for site/project materials to follow the NR

Sustainability Policy/ Carillion Rail Sustainability Objectives

and Targets

Opportunities to reuse or recycle surplus material

(spares/spoil etc) will be identified in order to reduce waste

and overspend. This will be further developed following

implementation of the MAP (CL:AIRE Assessment)

No significant impact

anticipated,N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Sustainability principles will be considered from each of the

project partners. At GRIP stage 4 the principles contained

within the Network Rail Sustainability Charter and Carillion

Rail's and Tata Steel Project's Sustainability Policies will be

incorporated into the design.

Design team to be briefed on targets and objectives of the

Network Rail Sustainability Charter and the Carillion Rail and

Tata Steel Projects sustainability targets and objectives to

allow their principles to be included throughout design.

N/A

N/ASustainability in

Design

Survey work &

design phase.

Potential

positive impact

through

reduced waste

on site,

reduced costs

through prefab

design

solutions and

fewer nuisance

complaints

from public and

Appendix C: References The following reports, papers and websites were used in the production of this report:

• Sheffield Tram Train GRIP 5 Design Environmental Management Plan – B90506-ENV0001

P01

• JBA Flood Risk Assessment, October 2014 – B90506-REP-ENV4000

• Bakers Ecology – Ecological Appraisal Report, October 2014 – B90506-REP-ENV4005

• Tinsley Chord Ground Investigation Addendum – B90506-REP-GEO0004

• Tinsley Chord Proposed General Arrangement – B90506-DRG-PWY1005

• Network Rail Land and Consents Strategy

• Tram Train Project Phase 2: Rotherham to Sheffield Supertram Network via Tinsley

Consents Strategy, January 2011

• WSP Tinsley Link Road Environmental Statement

• EIA Directive (85/337/EEC)

• Part 1 of the EIA Regulations 2011

• Part 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992

• Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (the EIA

Regulations)

• Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules

2006 (SI 2006 No. 1466)

• Revolutionary new Tram Trains to be piloted in South Yorkshire, May 2012,

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/revolutionary-new-tram-trains-to-be-piloted-in-south-

yorkshire

• Sheffield City Council Local Development Plan –

https://maps.sheffield.gov.uk/LocalViewExt/Sites/ProposalsMap/

• Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy –

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/about/transport-policy/ltp.html

• Office of Rail Regulators Vision and Strategy –

http://orr.gov.uk/about-orr/what-we-do/our-vision-and-strategy

Tata Steel Projects, York (Head Office) Meridian House, The Crescent, York, YO24 1AW, UK T: +44 (0) 1904 454 600, F: +44 (0) 1904 454 601 Tata Steel Projects, Birmingham Alpha Tower, Crowne Plaza Suffolk Street, Birmingham, B1 1TT, UK T: +44 (0) 121 242 1240, F: +44 (0) 121 246 4664 Tata Steel Projects, Manchester 1

st Floor, Fairbairn Buildings, 70-72 Sackville Street,

Manchester, M1 3NJ, UK T: + 44 (0) 161 242 2990, F: +44 (0) 161 242 2999

Tata Steel Projects, Workington Curwen Road, Derwent Howe, Workington, Cumbria, CA14 3YX, UK T: +44 (0)1900 68000, F: +44 (0)1900 601111. Tata Steel Projects, Reading Office 2.14, Dukesbridge House, 23 Dukes Street Reading, Berkshire, RG1 4SA, UK Tel: +44(0) 843 4878776 Tata Steel UK 30, Millbank, London, SW1P 4WY, UK T: +44 (0) 20 7717 4444, F: +44 (0) 20 7717 4455

© Tata Steel Projects which is a trading division of Tata Steel UK Rail Consultancy Ltd.

18

Appendix B Sheffield Tram Train Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Carillion Rail

112449 Sheffield Tram Train

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

B90506-REP-ENV4005

P01

For Information

October 2014

TATA Sheffield Tram Train - 112449 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal October 2014

Document data

Client Adam Cooper, Tata steel projects

Reference TATA Sheffield Tram Train - 112449

Report title Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

File reference 558_rep_01_ML.docx

Team leader Carlos Abrahams

Contact details [email protected]

Issue date 2 October 2014

Revision tracking

Name Position Date

Author Martin Ledger Ecologist 29 September 2014

Reviewed Kelly Clark Principal Ecologist 2 October 2014

Baker Consultants Ltd. Cromford Station Cromford Bridge Matlock Derbyshire DE4 5JJ [email protected] http://www.bakerconsultants.co.uk 01629 593958 Company No. 6702156 © Baker Consultants 2011

iv

Disclosure and Limitation: Baker Consultants has prepared this document for the sole use of the commissioning client in accordance with the agreed scope of works and Terms and Conditions under which our services were performed. The evidence and opinion provided is true and has been prepared in accordance with the guidance of our professional institution’s Code of Professional Conduct. No other warranty is made as to the professional advice included in this document or any other services provided by us. This document may not be relied upon by any third party without the prior and express written agreement of Baker Consultants. Unless otherwise stated in this document, the assessments made assume that the site referred to will continue to be used for its current purpose without significant change. The assessment, recommendations and conclusions contained in this document may be based upon information provided by third parties and upon the assumption that the information is relevant, correct and complete. There has been no independent verification of information obtained from third parties, unless otherwise stated in the report. Where field investigations have been carried out, these have been restricted to the agreed scope of works and carried out to a level of detail required to achieve the stated objectives of the services. Natural habitats and species distributions may change over time and further data should be sought following any significant delay from the publication of this document.

Report Contents

1 Key Issues 1 2 Methodology 3 3 Results 6 4 Assessment 20 5 Recommendations 27 6 References 29 Appendix 1: Data Trawl – Designated Sites 30

Sheffield Tram Train – 112449 Tata Steel Projects

1

1 Key Issues 1.1 The Proposed Development

Tata Steel Projects is planning to create a new 400m connecting line between 1.1.1Network Rail and Sheffield Supertram infrastructure diverging from the current WME route between Tinsley East and Tinsley South junctions. This will join with the existing Sheffield Supertram network between the Meadowhall south and Tinsley/Carbrook tram stops (involving the creation of a double junction turnout).

The proposed work is part of a series of works in the area that will eventually 1.1.2extend in a north-west direction towards the Parkgate Shopping Centre, Rotherham.

A single track 750V DC overhead line electrification (auto-tension bridle 1.1.3suspended tramway system) is proposed to be positioned over the whole of the extent of the works.

Baker Consultants was commissioned by Tata Steel Projects to conduct a 1.1.4preliminary ecological and Extended Phase 1 survey of the area within the area of Tinsley viaduct and SYSL infrastructure (Tinsley tram stop to Aisling Road level crossing between WME 2m 0ch and 3m 0ch) potentially affected by the proposed developments. This included an ecological assessment of the proposed developments where some vegetation is to be cleared, in addition to identifying specific areas that should be avoided during the works.

The proposed development could potentially result in impacts on the 1.1.5ecological features of the site and/or its surroundings. This report details the results of our preliminary ecological assessment of the site and describes features of ecological value found to be present. It also provides advice to help minimise impacts, thereby enabling the development to comply with current nature conservation policy and legislation.

1.2 Ecological Receptors The ecological assessment, set out in detail below, has found a low level of 1.2.1

nature conservation interest in the development area surveyed. In general, all of the areas surveyed within the Tinsley Chord section, hold very little evidence of ecological value.


2

1.3 Conclusion Overall, the conclusion of this report is that the proposed development is 1.3.1

unlikely to cause a significant impact upon ecologically valuable habitats and species and no net loss of biodiversity is anticipated. However, care should be taken when using or transporting heavy machinery on site and when clearing vegetation so that habitats and species close to the area of works are not disturbed or damaged and are allowed to escape in good time should they be found.

Tinsley Viaduct was not surveyed for bat roosting potential. Any future work 1.3.2that involves the installation of new fixings beneath the viaduct or any other alterations, targeted bat roost surveys will need to be completed by a suitably qualified ecologist before any works take place.


3

2 Methodology 2.1 Site Description

The linear area surveyed is approximately 400m long and is positioned from 2.1.1National Grid Reference SK39620 91136 to SK 39834 91369 close to Tinsley, South Yorkshire, which is a north-eastern suburb of the city of Sheffield.

The outward surrounding area of the rail route is largely urban and industrial 2.1.2(see Figure 1), with Meadowhall shopping centre positioned to the west, industrial units and developments to the north and south and houses within the suburb of Tinsley in the east. The M1 motorway passes overhead via the Tinsley viaduct.

There are however, substantial areas of greenspace within the immediate 2.1.3vicinity, with woodlands bordering the nearby River Don a key feature of the area (see Figure 1) and Blackburn Meadows Local Nature Site, adjoining the area to the north.

Figure 1. 2008 Google Earth view of the site surveyed (in red) and its context within the surrounding area


4

2.2 Study Scope Baker Consultants was commissioned by the client to undertake the following 2.2.1

works in relation to the Site:

1. Desk-based study and interrogation of online databases to identify statutory and non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation importance and records of protected and/or notable species;

2. Phase 1 Habitat survey to record the nature and extent of vegetation and habitats within and adjacent to the Site; and

3. Species-specific surveys and/or appraisals for protected and or notable flora and fauna.

2.3 Desk Study A data search was undertaken for records of protected and priority species in 2.3.1

the UK and statutory and non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation interest within 1.5km of the approximate centre of the linear area surveyed (SK39752 91243). Data was gained through the sources listed in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Desk Study Data Sources. Organisation/source Data sought Search area

Sheffield City Ecology Unit (SCEU)

Statutory and non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation importance and records of protected/notable species.

Within 1.5km of centre of area surveyed.

2.4 Field Survey

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey A Phase 1 Habitat Survey was carried out by Martin Ledger Grad CIEEM on 2.4.1

the 18th September, 2014. The vegetation types and habitats present were described and mapped during a walkover of the site, using the standard published guidelines for Phase 1 Habitat survey (JNCC, 2010).

In addition, the habitats within the site and surrounding land were appraised 2.4.2for their suitability to support protected or notable species, or assemblages that could be sensitive to the development proposals, in accordance with ‘Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment’ (IEA, 1995).

The protected and notable habitats and species referred to above include those 2.4.3listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010; and Species and


5

Habitats of Principal Importance in England/Wales, listed under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

During the survey consideration was given to features such as potential 2.4.4breeding bird habitat, bat roosting locations, badger sett locations, reptile habitat and the suitability of water features for amphibians and riparian mammals.

Exotic and invasive species, such as Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica and 2.4.5giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum, were noted by the surveyor if present. These species can have implications for development activity and human health respectively.

Weather conditions during the survey were dry, mild (14-16oc) and calm. 2.4.6

The survey approach taken is designed to identify broad habitat types at a site 2.4.7and the potential of these habitats to support notable/protected species, and to assist in providing an overview of the ecological interest at a site. It is the most widely used and professionally recognised method for initial ecological site appraisal.


6

3 Results 3.1 Study Limitations

It is important to note that, even where data is returned for a desk study, a 3.1.1lack of records for a defined geographical area does not necessarily mean that there is a lack of ecological interest since the area may simply be under-recorded. Equally, due to the level of recording, some species should be considered more frequent than indicated by the records provided within a desk study.

Whilst every effort was made in the field survey to provide a comprehensive 3.1.2description of the site, no investigation can ensure the complete characterisation and prediction of the natural environment. Also, natural and semi-natural habitats are subject to change, species may colonise the site after surveys have taken place and results included in this report may become less reliable over time.

The only constraint encountered on the day of the ecological survey was that 3.1.3the underside of the viaduct could not be adequately assessed due to its height off the ground. This area would be important to be surveyed adequately, should any invasive works be proposed within this structure.

3.2 Designated Sites The desk study provided information on the designated sites within 1.5km of 3.2.1

the centre areas of the area surveyed, listed below in Table 2.

Table 2. Designated Sites Name Designation Description

Woolley Wood Local Nature Reserve (LNR)

Woodland

Blackburn Meadows Nature reserve Wetland, marshes and grassland

Blackburn Meadows Local Nature Site (LNS)

Standing water

Lower Don Valley disused railway, Meadowhall LNS Woodland and scrub.

Lower Don Valley Sheffield and Tinsley canal LNS Running water

River Don – City Centre to Blackburn Meadows LNS Running water

Wincobank Hill LNS Woodland


7

3.3 Habitats Scientific names are given after the first mention of a species, thereafter, 3.3.1

common names only are used. Nomenclature follows Stace (1997) for vascular plant species.

The area surveyed can be split into five distinct areas (see Figure 2). 3.3.2

Figure 2. Google Earth view of the five distinct areas of habitat surveyed during the extended phase 1 survey on September 18th, 2014

Figure 2 Key:

The red triangle is where vegetation will be cleared to allow the new track to split from the existing supertram lines. The blue polygon is where the area of hardstanding will be affected by the construction of the new track. The etched blue line indicates the area beneath the viaduct and any potential works to the viaduct structure. The pink/purple triangle is where an area of immature broadleaved semi-natural woodland will be cleared to allow the new track to adjoin the existing railtrack. The yellow polygon is an area of immature broadleaved semi-natural woodland that will need to be part cleared to accommodate the new track as it runs alongside the existing railtrack before joining it.


8

Red Triangle The area here is largely composed of young and newly regenerated scrub and 3.3.3

broadleaved woodland habitat, which currently holds low ecological value. It comprises immature pioneering species such as silver birch Betula pendula, goat willow Salix caprea, crack willow Salix fragilis and sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, with an understory of Buddleja sp., rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium, bramble Rubus fruitcosus and Aster sp. (see Photographs 1 to 5).

Photograph 1 – Long view of the scrub habitat and semi-natural broadleaved woodland found within the Red Triangle section (see Figure 1) that is due to be part-cleared of vegetation to allow the new tram track to cut through.

Photograph 2 – Silver birch, crack willow and goat willow dominate the tree species within the red triangle section.


9

Photograph 3 – Tall ruderal vegetation in the form of Buddleja sp. is common in the small grassland area to the east of the scrub and woodland.

Photograph 4 – Overall, the habitat within the red triangle section holds little ecological value.

Photograph 5 – Western border of the red triangle section showing young woodland/scrub habitat (right side of photograph).

Blue Polygon and area under viaduct (Etched Blue Line)

This area is composed of bare hardstanding interspersed with very immature 3.3.4pioneering tree species such as silver birch and stands of perennial vegetation such as Buddleja sp, rosebay willowherb and narrow-leaved ragwort Senecio inaequidens (see Photographs 6 and 7).


10

Photograph 6 – The area beneath the Tinsley viaduct is composed of hardstanding and is largely bare of vegetation.

Photograph 7 – Further east of the Blue Polygon area, stands of ruderal vegetation and occasional young silver birch are present within the hardstanding area, which is largely devoid of vegetation elsewhere.

Pink/Purple Triangle This area of immature broadleaved woodland was dominated by dense hedge 3.3.5

bindweed Calystegia sepium and bramble, covering earthworks in the centre of the woodland.

Tree and shrub species found here included silver birch, crack willow, goat 3.3.6willow, elder Sambucus nigra and hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and there was an understory of rosebay willowherb, common nettle Urtica dioica and buddleja sp. where hedge bindweed and bramble was not present (see Photographs 8, 9 and 10).


11

Photograph 8 – View of western edge of the immature broadleaved woodland in the Pink/Purple Triangle that is proposed to be part cleared to make way for the new tram track that will connect with the existing rail track beyond.

Photograph 9 – Much of the internal area of the woodland within the Pink/Purple Triangle section is covered in dense hedge bindweed.

Photograph 10 – Dense bramble also covers much of the habitat within the Pink/Purple section.


12

Yellow Polygon This area of immature broadleaved woodland is composed largely of silver 3.3.7

birch trees, interspersed with goat willow, elder, ash Fraxinus excelsior and hawthorn.

The understory is dominated by large bramble thickets and occasional areas of 3.3.8rosebay willowherb, common nettle, mugwort Artemisia vulgaris, dog rose Rosa canina, creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, bittersweet Solanum dulcamara and soapwort Saponaria officinalis (see Photographs 11 and 12).

Photograph 11 – Areas of thick bramble are evident within and alongside the area of immature broadleaved woodland within the Yellow Polygon section. This area is to be part-cleared of vegetation to allow the new tram track to run alongside the existing rail track for approximately 200 metres before joining it.

Photograph 12 – Thick undergrowth in the form of rosebay willowherb is also common within the woodland found in the Yellow Polygon section.


13

Photograph 13 – The River Don runs close by the area immediately to the south of the woodland found within the Yellow Polygon section.

3.4 Species

Species Overview The notable species recorded on or near the site by desk study or field survey 3.4.1

are summarised in Table 3 below and described in more detail in the following sections. The detailed report from SCEU for the desk study results are also provided in Appendix 1 and 2.

Table 3. Summary of Notable Species Recorded Species/Group Desk Study Habitat Potential Field Survey

Badger ✓ ✓ ✗

Bats ✗ ✓ ✗

Otter ✓ ✗ ✗

Water vole ✓ ✗ ✗

Amphibians ✓ ✓ ✗

Reptiles ✗ ✓ ✗

Birds ✓ ✓ ✗

Invertebrates ✓ ✓ ✗

Plants ✓ ✓ ✗

Invasive species ✗ ✓ ✓

Badgers The desk study returned two records of badgers Meles meles within 1.5km of 3.4.2

the proposed areas of work (see attached Excel spreadsheet). One was of a sighting of a single badger in 2012, approximately 1.25km to the south-west of the centre of the site, the other record was observational signs of badger


14

activity (snuffle holes), approximately 1.5km to the north-west of the centre of the site on 8th May, 2014.

No signs of badger activity were noted on the day of the preliminary 3.4.3ecological survey, but habitat found within the Pink/Purple Polygon Section may harbour a small area that could be favourable to badgers. Holes were found towards the north-west corner of the section suitable to be used by badgers (see Photographs 14 and 15), although there was no evidence to suggest any current use.

There were also areas within the Pink/Purple Polygon and Yellow Triangle 3.4.4sections that were covered in dense vegetation that may have hidden badger setts or runs (see Photographs 9, 10, 11 and 12 above). However, the few records returned from the desk study and the relatively small area available for badger setts to be present, although not fully discount their presence, would probably reduce the likelihood of badger setts being found in the surveyed area.

Photograph 14 – Holes found towards the north-west area within the Pink/Purple Polygon Section that are large enough for badgers to enter. No evidence of badger activity (such as paths, footprints, small excavated pits or latrines in which droppings are deposited, scratch marks on trees and/or snuffle holes, which are small scrapes where badgers have searched for insects and plant tubers) was found during the ecological survey.


15

Photograph 15 – Further holes found within the Pink/Purple Polygon Section that may be large enough for badgers to use.

Bats No bat records were returned from the desk study, however this does not 3.4.5

mean that bats are not present within the search parameters.

No signs of bat activity were noted on the day of the preliminary ecological 3.4.6survey; however, note that the area beneath the Tinsley Viaduct may harbour bat roost potential that could not be surveyed adequately during this survey. The trees within the area surveyed were assessed as having no potential to hold bat roosts due to them being too immature.

Otter 22 records of otter Lutra lutra sightings or signs of otter activity were returned 3.4.7

during the desk study (see attached Excel spreadsheet). The dates recorded ranged from October 2004 to March 2012. Several of the records were of spraints or footprints being found within the area of the Tinsley Overhang and River Don adjoining the site.

No signs of otter activity were noted on the day of the preliminary ecological 3.4.8survey and although the River Don is adjacent to the site, no suitable habitat for this species is present within the development footprint.

The proposed development is considered highly unlikely to cause disturbance 3.4.9to otters or damage/obstruct holts. The species is therefore not considered further in this report.

Water Vole The desk study returned 15 records of water vole Arvicola amphibious sightings 3.4.10or signs of activity within the search area (see attached Excel spreadsheet). The dates recorded range from March 1997 to July 2001, with two sightings next to the River Don close to the Tinsley Viaduct in April 2000.


16

No signs of water vole activity were noted on the day of the preliminary 3.4.11ecological survey and although the River Don is adjacent to the site, no suitable habitat for this species is present within the development footprint.

The proposed developments are considered highly unlikely to cause 3.4.12disturbance to water voles or damage/ obstruct burrows. Therefore this species is not considered further in this report.

Amphibians The desk study returned two records of amphibians within the search area, 3.4.13both of the records were of common frogs Rana temporaria. One record was from 1976, the other from 1986.

No signs of amphibian activity were noted on the day of the preliminary 3.4.14ecological survey and there were few habitats areas within the surveyed area that could be described as favourable amphibian habitat. There were areas within the Pink/Purple Polygon and Yellow Triangle Sections (see Figure 1) that were covered in dense vegetation that may provide suitable terrestrial habitat for amphibian species such as common toads Bufo bufo and common frogs (see Photographs 9, 10, 11 and 12).

Reptiles No records of reptiles were returned during the desk study, however this does 3.4.15not mean that reptiles are not present within the search parameters.

No signs of reptile activity were noted on the day of the survey, although there were areas within the Red Triangle Section, Pink/Purple Polygon and Yellow Triangle Sections that may provide limited opportunities for reptile species (see Photographs 9, 10, 11 and 12).

Birds

The desk study returned 31 records of notable bird species within the search 3.4.16area (see Table 4).

Table 4. Notable Bird Species Found Within the Desk Study Species Designations Number of records Extent of dates

recorded Dunnock Prunella modularis

Amber, UKBAP, SPI 1 March 1997

Fieldfare Turdus pilaris

Red, WCA 2 Jan 2010 and Jan 2011

Golden plover Amber, Bir Dir 1 Nov 1978


17

Pluvialis apricaria Green sandpiper Tringa ochropus

Amber, WCA 1 Feb 2007

Grey wagtail Motacilla cinerea

Amber 1 Nov 2011

Greylag goose Anser anser

Amber 2 Jan 2011

Kestrel Falco tinnunculus

Amber 3 May 1989 to July 1994

Kingfisher Alcedo atthis

Amber, WCA, Bir Dir 7 March 1997 to Jan 2011

Mistle thrush Turdus viscivorus

Amber 3 Jan 2000 to June 2011

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

WCA, Bir Dir 3 Jan 1993 to Feb 1996

Redwing Turdus iliacus

Red, WCA 1 Jan 2000

Song thrush Turdus philomelos

Red, UKBAP, SPI 2 Jan 2011 and June 2013

Swallow Hirundo rustica

Amber 2 April 1989 and April 2008

Willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus

Amber 2 July 1995 and April 1999

Key to Designations: SPI – Species of Principal Importance for Conservation (NERC Act, Section 41) Amber – Species of Moderate Conservation Concern Red – Species of High Conservation Concern UKBAP – Priority species on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan WCA - Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Schedule 1 listed bird Bir Dir – European Birds Directive Annexe 1 listed bird LBAP – Local (Warwickshire) Biodiversity Action Plan priority species

No notable bird species were recorded on the day of the preliminary 3.4.17ecological survey; however, all of the habitats surveyed in all of the proposed areas of works held some favourable habitat for bird species.

The only birds noted on the day of the survey were magpie Pica pica and robin 3.4.18Erithacus rubecola within the Red Triangle Section and robin, blue tit Parus caeruleus and great tit Parus major recorded within the Pink/Purple Triangle Section, none of which are classed as notable species or with conservation concerns attached.

Despite the significant number of notable bird species returned in the desk 3.4.19study search area, the proposed works are considered to have little potential to adversely affect bird species within the area, should the mitigation guidelines outlined in this report be followed.

Invertebrates The desk study returned six results of four notable invertebrate species within 3.4.20the search area. All four species are designated as UKBAP priority species and


18

SPI. The four species are butterflies small heath Coenonympha pamphilus (recorded twice in 1990), and wall brown Lasiommata megera (recorded once in 2001) and moths garden tiger Arctia caja (recorded once in 1983) and cinnabar Tyria jacobaeae (recorded in 2006 and 2011).

It is likely that there are several species of invertebrates present, although 3.4.21none were recorded during the survey. This may be because of the relatively late period of the year the survey was completed. It is thought that a number of bees, wasps, moths, butterflies and other taxa may make use of the bare ground and vegetated areas close to or within the proposed development sites.

A nest of hairy wood ants Formica lugubris was discovered within the Blue 3.4.22Polygon Section, which is a very localised species of ant towards the very southern end of their UK range in the Sheffield area. Despite this, there are no protections or designations attached to this species in England.

Plants The desk study returned one record of a notable plant species within the 3.4.23

search area. This was of wild candytuft Iberis amara recorded in 1985, which is a UKBAP priority species and SPI.

No notable plant species were recorded on the day of the preliminary 3.4.24ecological survey; however, some of the habitat surveyed in the proposed areas of works, held favourable habitat for plant species. The proposed works however, are considered to have little potential to adversely affect notable plant species within the area.

Invasive Species No records were returned of damaging invasive species within the search 3.4.25area.

No damaging invasive species were noted within the areas affected by the 3.4.26proposed development, however Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica was recorded approximately 50 metres to the south of the site boundary on the southern bank of the River Don (see Photograph 16) and Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera was recorded approximately 10 metres to the south of the eastern extent of the proposed works on the northern bank of the River Don.


19

Photograph 16 – Japanese knotweed was present in significant stands, approximately 50 metres to the south of the site boundary on the southern banks of the River Don.


20

4 Assessment 4.1 Legislation and Policy

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is intended to help deliver 4.1.1sustainable development, with environmental issues being one of the three dimensions within this. It includes a range of statements and policies relating to biodiversity and nature conservation, with the aim of ‘moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for nature’ (Paragraph 9). Key sections of the NPPF are highlighted below:

Paragraph 109 ‘The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by --- minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’ commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity’

Paragraph 118 Local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity when determining planning applications by ensuring that: significant harm is avoided, mitigated or compensated (especially for irreplaceable habitats); impacts on designated sites are prevented and; biodiversity is incorporated in and around developments.

Paragraph 165 To allow the appropriate consideration of ecological issues within applications, planning decisions, ‘should be based on up-to-date information about the natural environment – this should include an assessment of existing and potential components of ecological networks’.

Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 4.1.22006 places a duty on every public authority to have regard to conserving biodiversity. Section 41 of the same Act requires that the Secretary of State must publish a list of the living organisms and types of habitats that are of ‘Principal Importance’ for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. The Secretary of State must take steps, as appear reasonably practicable, to further the conservation of those living organisms and habitats in any list published under this section. The list of species and habitats of principal importance currently includes 943 species and 56 habitats.

4.2 Impacts on Designated Sites There are seven designated sites within 1.5km of at least of the centre of the 4.2.1

site surveyed proposed areas of potential works (see Appendix 1), the most important of which are Woolley Wood Local Nature Reserve (approximately 1.4km north-west of the site) and Blackburn Meadows Nature Reserve (approximately 1.25km north-east of the site).


21

Despite the relatively close proximity of these ecologically sensitive sites to the 4.2.2area of works, the generally low level intensity of the work proposed should ensure that none of the designated sites will be adversely impacted by the work on site.

To further ensure that the designated sites won’t be adversely affected by the 4.2.3proposed developments, noise levels and the creation of dust should be kept to a minimum where possible through construction best practiced procedures.

There is no envisaged need for further surveys and/or mitigation. 4.2.4

4.3 Impacts on Habitats

Habitat overview Most of the works proposed involve disturbing relatively small areas 4.3.1

composed largely of low ecological value immature broadleaved woodland and scrub or tall ruderal vegetation. These areas, although relatively low in ecological value, may still provide opportunities for protected species for foraging, breeding or hibernating purposes (discussed at Section 4.4).

Whilst it is understood that areas of habitat will be lost as a result of the 4.3.2proposed works, the use or transport of heavy machinery should be minimised to avoid unnecessary damage to trees or areas of scrub due to be retained nearby.

There is no further need for habitat-focused surveys in the areas that have 4.3.3been ecologically assessed during the preliminary ecological appraisal on September 18th, 2014. However, should there be any alteration to the plans involving the removal of vegetation, it is desirable that further surveys be completed on the concerned area(s) in order to properly assess the impact on potentially sensitive habitats.

4.4 Impacts on Species

Species Overview The sections below provide an evaluation, description of potential impacts 4.4.1

and assessment of ecological effects for each species or species group relevant to the study area.

Badger Badgers are protected under the Badgers Act 1992. This makes it an offence to 4.4.2

willfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or to attempt to do so; or to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett. Sett interference


22

includes disturbing badgers whilst they are occupying a sett, as well as damaging or destroying a sett or obstructing access to it. Removal of significant areas of badger foraging habitat may also contravene the Act, as it could be regarded as cruelty.

No signs of badger activity were observed during the site survey, although 4.4.3habitat favourable to the species was observed in small areas (particularly within the Pink/Purple Polygon Section and holes large enough for badgers to enter were found here).

Few badger records were returned from the desk study within the search area 4.4.4(see paragraph 3.4.2), thus decreasing the likelihood of badgers being found on site (though not completely discounting their presence), although the only records were noted within the last two years.

It is anticipated that there will be no impact on badgers from the proposed 4.4.5development and there is no need for further survey for badger activity in the areas already surveyed.

Clearance workers should proceed with caution and allow any mammals 4.4.6noted to escape before continuing clearance work. Any open excavations should be covered up overnight or placed with some means of escape to prevent any animals becoming trapped.

Bats Bats and their habitats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 4.4.7

1981 (as amended by the CRoW Act 2000), and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Seven bat species are listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and are listed as Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006.

No roosting opportunities for bats were located within the site. However, the 4.4.8Tinsley Viaduct was not fully assessed for bat roosts during this survey, which could potentially provide limited features for roosting bats. However, it was difficult to assess the likelihood of bat roosts being present during the ecological survey due to the height of the bridge, although it is considered with the high amount of disturbance created from the traffic passing overhead on the M1 that this would reduce the likelihood of bat roosts being found there, particularly with more favourable habitat to be found elsewhere in the area.

Should any work be undertaken on the underside of the viaduct, it would be 4.4.9desirable, if possible, to allow an ecologist to inspect the area of work before it begins to ensure that no bat roosts are likely to be disturbed.


23

Without mitigation measures, this could lead to disturbance of roosting bats 4.4.10or potential destruction of a roost, resulting in an offence under the aforementioned Act (see paragraph 4.4.7).

Other Mammals Foxes Vulpes vulpes, hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus and rabbits Oryctolagus 4.4.11

cuniculus, while not covered under specific legislation, are covered generally under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. This makes it an offence to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild mammal with the intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.

Hedgehogs are also a UKBAP priority species and SPI. 4.4.12

To avoid a possible offence, due care and attention should be taken when 4.4.13carrying out works (for example operations near fox earths, rabbit burrows or nests of small mammals) with the potential to affect any wild mammal in this way, regardless of whether they are legally protected through other conservation legislation.

Clearance workers should proceed with caution and allow any mammals 4.4.14noted to escape before continuing clearance work.

The impacts on other mammals, if these actions are taken, are therefore 4.4.15predicted to be negligible and there is no need for further surveys in this respect.

Amphibians Great crested newts and their habitats in water and on land are protected 4.4.16under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the CRoW Act 2000) and under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

In addition, great crested newt and common toad are UK Biodiversity Action 4.4.17Plan species and listed as a Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006.

Few amphibian records were returned from the desk study within the search 4.4.18area and records were old (see paragraph 3.4.10). No signs of amphibians were observed during the site survey and no suitable breeding habitat for this species is located close to the site further reducing the likelihood of amphibians being present.

It is anticipated that there will be no impact on amphibians as a result of the 4.4.19proposed development and there is no need for further surveys. However,


24

clearance workers should proceed with caution and any amphibians noted should be allowed to escape before continuing clearance work.

Reptiles All British reptiles are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 4.4.20(as amended by the CRoW Act 2000). Grass snake, slow worm, common lizard and adder are protected against intentional killing or injury and against sale. In addition, all British reptiles are UK Biodiversity Action Plan species and are listed as Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006.

No reptile records were returned from the desk study for within the search 4.4.21area. No signs of reptiles were observed during the site survey, and favourable terrestrial habitat was not found close to the proposed areas of works. However, as a precaution, vegetation within the Yellow and Purple areas should be systematically stripped to allow individuals to disperse.

It is anticipated that there will be no impact on reptiles from the proposed 4.4.22development and there is no need for further surveys targeted for reptiles.

. Birds All nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 4.4.23(as amended), which makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird or take, damage or destroy its nest whilst in use or being built, or take or destroy its eggs. In addition to this, for some rarer species (listed on Schedule 1 of the Act), it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb them while they are nest building or at or near a nest with eggs or young, or to disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

No notable bird species were recorded during the site survey, although 4.4.24favourable habitat was found within the proposed areas of works, and so disturbance of these habitats should be kept to a minimum where possible.

There were significant numbers of notable bird records returned during the 4.4.25desk study within the search area (see Table 4), increasing the likelihood of notable bird species being found within or close to the site.

Site clearance or construction works, if undertaken during the bird breeding 4.4.26season (March – August inclusive), could potentially destroy, damage or disturb active nests and result in an offence under the legislation and so this should be avoided, with all work being undertaken between the beginning of September to the end of February.


25

Invertebrates Due to the mosaic of habitats recorded on the site, it is likely that there is a 4.4.27diverse range of invertebrates present. Loss or disturbance of these habitats could potentially have an impact on any such species present in the area, some of which may be listed under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006.

No notable species were recorded during the ecological survey. 4.4.28

Few records of notable invertebrate species were returned from the desk 4.4.29study within the search area (see paragraph 3.4.18).

Disturbance of habitats within the area, whilst unavoidable, where possible 4.4.30should be kept to a minimum. Should this be achieved, it is anticipated that there will be no impact on the local conservation status of invertebrates from the proposed development.

Plants

No notable species were recorded during the ecological survey. 4.4.31

Only one record of a notable plant species was returned from the desk study 4.4.32within the search area (see Paragraph 3.4.21).

Disturbance of habitats within the area, whilst unavoidable, where possible 4.4.33should be kept to a minimum. Should this be achieved, it is anticipated that there will be limited impacts to wards the botanical interest on the site.

Invasive species

Japanese knotweed is not present within the site boundary, but is evident 4.4.34approximately 50 metres to the south on the southern banks of the River Don.

Himalayan balsam is not present within the site boundary but is evident was 4.4.35recorded approximately 10 metres to the south of the eastern extent of the proposed works on the northern bank of the River Don.

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (Section 14 and Part II of Schedule 9) 4.4.361981 (as amended), it is an offence for Japanese knotweed or Himalayan balsam to be planted in the wild or otherwise cause them to grow in the wild.

Although it is not an offence to have the plant on your land, it is an offence to 4.4.37allow the species to spread into neighbouring areas or to grow in the wild. Therefore, development activities (for example movement of spoil, disposal of


26

cut waste or vehicular movements) have the potential to cause the further spread of the species to new areas, and it will be necessary to ensure appropriate measures are in place to prevent this happening prior to the commencement of works.

A defence against the charge is that all reasonable steps have been taken to 4.4.38avoid committing an offence. A management plan to avoid the spread of Japanese knotweed during works should be prepared in accordance with Environment Agency guidelines.

As neither species is currently present on site, the proposed works, should 4.4.39they be carried out in good time, should not commit an offence under the legislation, however, care should be taken to ensure that work or access gained close to site should be undertaken with great care, should they be in the vicinity of such invasive species.


27

5 Recommendations 5.1 Further Survey

This Phase 1 survey has provided a baseline of ecological information to 5.1.1describe the main characteristics of the proposed development site. To fully assess the potential ecological impacts of the proposed development, further survey is recommended for bats beneath the Tinsley Viaduct should any invasive work be proposed, however small the work may be.

The methods entailed in surveying these habitats and species are outlined 5.1.2below.

Bats If the underside of the viaduct is to be impacted upon as a result of the 5.1.3

proposed works, then a further targeted bat roost assessment should be carried out. The survey methodology should involve a thorough and systematic search of the underside of the viaduct structure with particular emphasis on any crevices and holes, which may provide suitable refuge for bats.

The survey would be conducted using handheld Cluson Clulite spotlights or 5.1.4LED Lenser torches and if practical to do so, fully inspected crevices using appropriate equipment such as an endoscope. Searches would be made for any evidence of bats such as droppings, wear and grease marks, feeding remains, fur, distinctive odour, and potentially the presence of bats themselves. A continuous assessment of the structure in relation to its habitat potential would also be undertaken throughout the survey.

Field notes would be taken, which will include information regarding the 5.1.5viaduct structure and surroundings, the habitat potential, and any significant ecological features of interest.

In order to safely conduct the survey works, the ecologists would be 5.1.6accompanied by a qualified Controller of Site Safety (COSS) at all times.

5.2 Recommendations Summary In summary, it is recommended that the actions set out in below be 5.2.1

undertaken in order to ensure that ecological impacts are fully assessed and that appropriate mitigation is put in place. These actions will help to ensure that the proposed development will comply with planning policy and environmental legislation.


28

No further ecological surveys are required, unless invasive work is proposed 5.2.2on the underside of the viaduct structure, in which case bat roost assessments may need to be undertaken.

Should there be any change to the proposed areas of clearance/development, 5.2.3further ecological surveys will need to be completed on the proposed new areas.

Should the proposed project not begin within two years, further ecological 5.2.4surveys will need to be completed to establish whether any important ecological changes have occurred within the previously surveyed area in the meantime.

No ecological issues are expected to arise when clearing the surveyed area, 5.2.5although clearance workers should proceed with caution and allow any wildlife noted to escape before continuing clearance work.

All clearance work should take place outside of the breeding bird season, with 5.2.6ideal times of vegetation clearance being from the beginning of September to the end of February.

No problems with damaging invasive plants are expected to arise should the 5.2.7proposed works be completed in good time.


29

6 References Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Easton, M.A. et al (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: The population status of birds in the united Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296-341 Google Earth software {Accessed between September 26-29th, 2014}

Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995). Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. Institute of Environmental Assessment, London.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2007) Handbook for Phase I Habitat Survey: A Technique for Environmental Audit. JNCC, Peterborough.

Mitchell-Jones, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. (Eds.). (1999) The Bat Workers Manual, 2nd Edition. JNCC, Peterborough.

Stace, C. (2012) New Flora of the British Isles (3rd edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


30

Appendix 1: Data Trawl – Designated Sites

!A

286Blackburn Meadows

218Wincobank Hill

219Wooley Wood

99Lower Don Valley:Sheffield & Tinsley Canal

216Firth Park East

215Blackburn Brook

95River Don (City Centre to Blackburn Meadows)

102Lower Don Valley:Disused Railway, Meadowhall

217Grimesthorpe Green Space

84Wood Hill (Smith's Field)

287Bawtry Road Wetlands

293Lower Bagley Dike

© Crown copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100018816Ò 0 160 320 480 64080

Me tre s

S t a t u t o r y a n d L o c a l W i l d l i f e S i t e s - T i n s l e y , S h e f f i e l dS t a t u t o r y a n d L o c a l W i l d l i f e S i t e s - T i n s l e y , S h e f f i e l d

S h e f f i e l d B i o l o g i c a l R e c o r d s C e n t r eS h e f f i e l d B i o l o g i c a l R e c o r d s C e n t r e

Map Created - 09 Sep 2014

© Natural England 2014, reproduced with the permission of Natural England

5

!A Location - Tinsley

Local Nature Sites

Local Nature Reserve

SWT Nature Reserve Boundary

Sheffield City Boundary


1

19

Appendix C Sheffield Tram Train Indicative Flood Risk Assessment

Carillion Rail

112449 Sheffield Tram Train

Indicative Flood Risk Assessment

B90506-REP-ENV4000

P03

For Information

October 2014

Sheffield Tram Train

Flood Risk Assessment

October 2014

Tata Steel Projects

Meridian House

The Crescent

YORK

YO24 1AW

2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx i

JBA Project Manager Mark Bentley South Barn Broughton Hall Skipton North Yorkshire BD23 3AE

Revision History

Revision Ref / Date Issued Amendments Issued to

Final Report, June 2014 John Halsall

Updated Final Report July 2014

Includes latest topographic survey John Halsall

Updated Final Report_v2 Oct 2014

Added additional Tinsley Chord site to the report, and amended following discussions with RMBC

John Halsall

Contract This report describes work commissioned by John Halsall, on behalf of Tata Steel Projects, with a purchase order dated 19 March 2014. Tata Steel’s representative for the contract was John Halsall. Emily Bradley and Mark Bentley of JBA Consulting carried out this work.

Prepared by ............. Emily Bradley BSc FdSc

Assistant Analyst

Reviewed by ................................................. Mark Bentley BSc CEng CEnv FCIWEM C.WEM

Technical Director

Purpose This document has been prepared as an assessment of flood risk for Tata Steel Projects. JBA Consulting accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the Client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared.

JBA Consulting has no liability regarding the use of this report except to Tata Steel Projects.

2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx ii

Acknowledgements The considerable help provided by John Halsall of Tata Steel, and by Graham Kaye of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council in supplying information is gratefully acknowledged.

Copyright © Jeremy Benn Associates Limited 2014

Carbon Footprint A printed copy of the main text in this document will result in a carbon footprint of 173g if 100% post-consumer recycled paper is used and 220g if primary-source paper is used. These figures assume the report is printed in black and white on A4 paper and in duplex.

JBA is aiming to reduce its per capita carbon emissions.

2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx iii

Executive Summary Fluvial and surface water flooding

The proposed extension of the Sheffield tram from Meadowhall through to Rotherham utilises an existing track. The proposed works include new track construction, platform construction and the lowering of track/replacement of bridges in order to accommodate the overhead power lines required by the tram.

Six sites have been identified where there may be flood risk issues. These are:

Option 1 - Cross over at Meadowhall - Site 1a Option 2 - Tinsley Chord - Site 1b Bridge 16 - Site 2 Rotherham Central station - Site 3 Bridge 24 - Site 4 Parkgate shopping centre - Site 5

Site 1a: Option 1 - Cross over at Meadowhall

Modelled flood levels provided by the EA indicate that the cross over site at Meadowhall will flood between the 200-year and the 1,000-year return period events. The depth of flooding during a 1,000-year event will be up to a depth of 0.14m.

The cross over site is also at risk from surface water flooding. The onset of flooding would occur between the 100 and 1,000-year return periods.

Site 1b: Option 2 - Tinsley Chord

The Tinsley Chord site is at risk of flooding during the 1,000-year return period. Flood depths could reach 0.7m during an event of this magnitude.

Surface water flooding at the site is patchy and is likely to be altered by the construction of the new chord. The majority of surface water flooding occurs at the 1,000-year return period, although some patches flood at lower return periods.

Site 2: Bridge 16

Bridge 16 will benefit from Phase 1 of the Templeborough to Rotherham FAS once it is completed. When complete, RMBC's Flood Risk Toolkit shows that the scheme will reduce flood risk at the site to a 1 in 1,000-year event. Currently the site is vulnerable to flooding. Depths during the 25-year event will be approximately 0.4m rising to greater than 1m for the 100-year return period event.

The site is also at high risk from surface water flooding.

Site 3: Rotherham Central station

Phase 2 of the proposed Templeborough to Rotherham FAS will protect the Rotherham Central station site from floods with a return period of up to more than 100 years. At present significant depths of flooding could occur at the site. Assuming the flood level in the river applies to the site, the tracks would flood to a depth of almost 2.5m during the 100-year return period event and the platforms to a depth of 1.5m.

Depths of such magnitude are unlikely to occur though. Brown's Cut, part of the canal network, lies between the river and the site and this will intercept any flow overtopping the river banks. Furthermore the track acts as a flood flow route carrying excess water northward to sites lower down the catchment and so water is unlikely to pond so deeply.

Outline surface water modelling shows depths of up to 2.2m during a 1 in 1,000-year event.

At Site 3, the railway is a flood flow route. The outline modelling presented in this report may not be sufficiently detailed to define flood risk in such a dynamic situation. Therefore, more detailed modelling would be required to better define the depth of flooding.

2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx iv

Site 4: Bridge 24

Bridge 24 will also benefit from Phase 2 of the Templeborough to Rotherham FAS which will provide protection up to the one in 100-year event. Currently though at this site the standard of protection is less than the 25-year return period and depths of up to 2.2m could occur during the 100-year return period event. However, depths of this magnitude are unlikely to occur because the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation lies between the river and the site. This artificial watercourse will intercept any flow overtopping the river banks.


The railway at Bridge 24 is a flood flow route for out of bank flows. The outline modelling presented in this report may not be sufficiently detailed to define flood risk in such a dynamic situation. Therefore, more detailed modelling would be required to better define the depth of flooding.

Site 5: Parkgate shopping centre

Parkgate Shopping Centre is downstream of Phases 1 and 2 of the Templeborough to Rotherham FAS. RMBC would like to protect the site but there are no plans to do so yet. The upstream part of the site is at flood risk and the new tracks would flood at between the 75-year and the 100-year return periods. The depth of flooding for the 100-year return period would be approximately 0.1m. The platforms are above the undefended water level for all return periods provided by the EA.

Surface water flooding at Site 5 is confined to a ditch between the road and the rail embankment.

Generic flooding issues

Several flooding issues common to all six sites were identified.

Groundwater

All of the sites were flagged with a risk of groundwater flooding from alluvium deposits. Alluvium deposits are a feature of river floodplains like the River Don and in such cases groundwater levels are closely linked to fluvial flood events. Therefore the risk of groundwater flooding has in effect been accounted for in the fluvial assessments.

No incidents of groundwater flooding have been reported in the study area.

Canal breach

Along the study reach of the River Don there are several canals running parallel with the river channel. According to the JBA's comprehensive flood map data, there is no flood risk from a canal breach at the six sites. However, it is known that the canals act as a flow pathway conveying water to areas downstream. This may need further investigatory work to determine where the flooding originates and whether the issue could be alleviated.

Dam breach

All of the sites have been shown to be at flood risk in the event of a reservoir breach. Rotherham and Sheffield's Strategic Flood Risk Assessments identified several reservoirs within their regions and in the upper Don valley that could affect flood risk at each site.

Compensatory storage

Developments in Flood Zone 3 such as Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5 are required to provide compensatory storage, equivalent to the volume lost by the development. Site 2 is in the area protected by Phase 1 of the Templeborough to Rotherham FAS. Phase 1 already provides compensatory storage to offset the effect of development behind the defences. Sites 3 and 4 will be protected by Phase 2 of the FAS which is proposed to confine flood water to the river channel. As such, compensatory storage will not be required behind the defences though provision for the management of surface water runoff will be required. Compensatory storage will be required at site 5 because the proposals include raising existing ground levels by constructing platforms and tracks and infilling a disused ditch.

The compensatory storage provided must equal or exceed the volume of floodplain lost by the development and should be on a level for level, volume for volume basis. This entails detailed calculations requiring LIDAR or detailed topographic survey, detailed design drawings and an accurate flood level for the 100-year event at the site.

2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx v

Flood warning

Where the sites fall into one of the EA's Flood Warning Areas, it is recommended that the tram operator signs up for EA Flood Warning Direct service. This means the EA will contact any registered individual or business to warn them of potential fluvial flooding.

2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... iii

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Data sources .......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Relevant Local Authority and Environment Agency documents............................ 3 1.4 Current planning guidance .................................................................................... 5 1.5 Working in or near a watercourse .......................................................................... 5

2 Site 1a- Option 1 - Cross over at Meadowhall .................................................. 6

2.1 Location ................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Construction of tracks and platform ....................................................................... 6 2.3 Sources of Flooding ............................................................................................... 6 2.4 Compensatory Storage .......................................................................................... 8

3 Site 1b - Option 2 - Tinsley Chord ...................................................................... 9

3.1 Location ................................................................................................................. 9 3.2 Construction of tracks ............................................................................................ 9 3.3 Sources of flooding ................................................................................................ 9 3.4 Compensatory Storage .......................................................................................... 11

4 Site 2- Bridge 16 ................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Location ................................................................................................................. 12 4.2 Lowering of the track ............................................................................................. 12 4.3 Sources of Flooding ............................................................................................... 12

5 Site 3 – Rotherham Central Station ................................................................... 15

5.1 Location ................................................................................................................. 15 5.2 Bridge reinstatement, platform construction and access ramps............................ 15 5.3 Sources of flooding ................................................................................................ 15 5.4 Compensatory storage .......................................................................................... 17

6 Site 4- Bridge 24 ................................................................................................... 18

6.1 Location ................................................................................................................. 18 6.2 Lowering of the track ............................................................................................. 18 6.3 Sources of flooding ................................................................................................ 18

7 Site 5- Parkgate Shopping Centre ...................................................................... 21

7.1 Location ................................................................................................................. 21 7.2 Construction of tracks, platforms and other infrastructure ..................................... 21 7.3 Sources of flooding ................................................................................................ 21 7.4 Compensatory Storage .......................................................................................... 23 7.5 Substation construction ......................................................................................... 23

8 Summary .............................................................................................................. 24

8.1 Site 1a: Option 1 - Cross over at Meadowhall ....................................................... 24 8.2 Site 1b: Option 2 - Tinsley Chord .......................................................................... 24 8.3 Site 2: Bridge 16 .................................................................................................... 24 8.4 Site 3: Rotherham Central station ......................................................................... 24 8.5 Site 4: Bridge 24 .................................................................................................... 25 8.6 Site 5: Parkgate shopping centre .......................................................................... 25 8.7 Generic flooding issues ......................................................................................... 25 8.8 Mitigation measures ............................................................................................... 26 8.9 Limitations and further work .................................................................................. 26

Appendices........................................................................................................................ I

A Site 1a ................................................................................................................... I

B Site 1b ................................................................................................................... II

2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx

C Site 2 ..................................................................................................................... III

D Site 3 ..................................................................................................................... IV

E Site 4 ..................................................................................................................... V

F Site 5 ..................................................................................................................... VI

List of Figures Figure 1-1: Map showing the locations of the six sites ....................................................... 1

Figure 2-1: Location of the rail crossover at Meadowhall ................................................... 6

Figure 3-1: Location of the Tinsley Chord near Meadowhall .............................................. 9

Figure 4-1: Location of bridge 16. ....................................................................................... 12

Figure 5-1: Location of Rotherham Central Station and bridge 21 site .............................. 15

Figure 6-1: Location of bridge 24 site ................................................................................. 18

Figure 7-1: Location of Parkgate Shopping Centre site ..................................................... 21

List of Tables Table 1-1: Drawings provided to JBA for this FRA ............................................................. 2

Table 1-2: Indication of flood risk from six sources for the sites being investigated .......... 3

Table 2-1: Data provided by the Environment Agency for model cross section DON03_4324d .................................................................................................. 7

Table 2-2: Approximate surface water flood depths for site 1a .......................................... 7

Table 3-1: Data provided by the Environment Agency for model cross section DON03_4324d .................................................................................................. 10

Table 3-2: Approximate surface water flood depths for site 1b .......................................... 10

Table 4-1: Data provided by the Environment Agency for model cross section DON03_915u .................................................................................................... 13

Table 4-2: Approximate surface water flood depths for site 2 ............................................ 13

Table 5-1: Data provided by the Environment Agency for model cross section DON02_14633u ................................................................................................ 16

Table 5-2: Approximate surface water flood depths for site 3 ............................................ 16

Table 6-1: Data provided by the Environment Agency for model cross section DON02_14065 .................................................................................................. 19

Table 6-2:Approximate surface water flood depths for site 4 ............................................. 19

Table 7-1: Data provided by the Environment Agency for model cross section DON02_13084u ................................................................................................ 22

Table 7-2:Approximate Surface Water flood depths for site 5 ............................................ 22

2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx 2

Abbreviations EA.....................................Environment Agency

FAS...................................Flood Alleviation Scheme

FRA...................................Flood Risk Assessment

ISIS...................................Flood Modelling Software

LIDAR...............................Light Detection and Ranging

NPPF................................National Planning Policy Framework

RMBC...............................Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

RRA ................................ Rotherham Regeneration Area

RRFAS.............................Rotherham Regeneration Flood Alleviation Scheme

SCC..................................Sheffield City Council

SFRA................................Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

SoP...................................Standard of Protection

Flood Risk Assessment 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

This report outlines flood risk to the proposed extension of the Sheffield tram from Meadowhall through to Rotherham. The scheme utilises an existing track; proposed works include new track construction, platform construction and the lowering of track/replacement of bridges in order to accommodate the overhead power lines required by the tram.

Six sites (see Figure 1-1) have been identified where there may be flood risk issues. These are:

Option 1 - Cross over at Meadowhall - Site 1a Option 2 - Tinsley Chord- Site 1b Bridge 16 - Site 2 Rotherham Central station - Site 3 Bridge 24 - Site 4 Parkgate shopping centre - Site 5

Figure 1-1: Map showing the locations of the six sites

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right (2014)

1.2 Data sources

1.2.1 Environment Agency Data

Requested data

The Environment Agency (EA) provided data from their flood model of the River Don for the study reach between Meadowhall and Aldwarke Lock. The Don was modelled in 2004, using ISIS, taking account of all defences that were in place at the time of modelling. However, as part of the Sheffield Comprehensive Flood Review the model was updated in 2012 for a section of the River Don through Sheffield. For this updated section water levels were provided up to the 1,000-year


return period but these only covered site 1a and b. For all the other sites water levels up to and including the 150-year return period were supplied.

No data was provided for flood risk from the canal.

Flood maps

The EA’s Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) was interrogated for each site to determine whether the site is shown to be at risk of fluvial flooding and what flood zone it falls into. The maps show an undefended scenario with the defences and areas benefitting from defences outlined. This map should be used for planning purposes to determine the requirements of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).

To assess the risk of surface water flooding the EA’s map showing Risk of Flooding from Surface Water was examined. In addition, the EA’s Risk of Flooding from Reservoirs map was interrogated. The map shows a maximum extent outline assuming that a large reservoir (25,000m3 or more) were to breach. These maps are used in emergency planning but not infrastructure or development planning.

1.2.2 Tata Steel Projects data

Proposed Tram Extension

Long sections of the proposed track layout between Meadowhall and Parkgate shopping centre were provided. The drawings provided are outlined in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Drawings provided to JBA for this FRA

A number of documents were also supplied:

'Tata Submission Doc'- Tata Steel Project's tender submission document. 'Sheffield Tram Train Pilot Scheme EMC Strategy P06'- Network Rail electromagnetic

safety document '295993_RPT09_EDP_and_ERR_-_Rev_B'- outline design Environmental Design Plan

prepared by Mott MacDonald

'B90506-MOD-SVY0001'- topographical survey data provided by Tata Steel. Additional drawings were supplied for the Tinsley Chord site (Option 2) to link the tram line and rail line.

Topographic Data

No LIDAR data were provided for this FRA, which has limited the scope of the study. Therefore it was not possible to plot flood outlines or accurately calculate compensatory storage requirements.

Survey data along the track was supplied as part of the long sections provided by Tata Steel. Additional topographical survey data was later supplied that extended beyond the tracks. Survey data for the Tinsley Chord site was provided but the surveying was carried out by a third party and does not tie in with survey conducted by Tata Steel.


1.2.3 JBA flood risk dataset

To establish the flood risks to the six sites in question, data was obtained from the JBA national scale dataset. The data is from the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Map which assesses the flood risk to a site from six sources of flooding: River (defended and undefended), Coastal (defended and breach), Surface Water, Groundwater, Dam Break and Canal Failure. Surface water flood risk indicates areas where precipitation is likely to accumulate during design storm events.

An overview of flood risk at each site is provided in the Table 1-2 below. Where sites were found to be at flood risk, water levels and depth data was provided for each site for a range of return periods. Plans were also provided showing flood extents. The table also suggests that none of the sites benefit from formal flood defences. This dataset provides an indication of risk using broad scale modelling; any risks which are flagged should be further investigated.

Table 1-2: Indication of flood risk from six sources for the sites being investigated

Site River Undefended

River Defended

Surface Water

Coastal Defended

Coastal Breach

Dam Break

Canal Failure

Groundwater

Alluvium Chalk 1a Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No 1b Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No 2 Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No 3 Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No 4 Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No 5 Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No

1.3 Relevant Local Authority and Environment Agency documents

A number of relevant documents were consulted which discuss flooding issues at the six sites investigated in this report. Of the six proposed development sites four fall within the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) boundary; only Site 1a and b fall inside the Sheffield City Council (SCC) boundary. Notably, the four sites in RMBC are situated in the Rotherham Regeneration Area (RRA).

A brief summary of relevant information from each document is provided in the following sections.

1.3.1 River Don Catchment Flood Management Plan

This is an overarching document compiled by the EA, in 2010, for overall management of flood risk in the Don catchment over the next 50 to 100 years. Currently flood risk through Sheffield is managed by maintaining channels and some existing defences to a standard of protection of approximately 1 in 20-year. Through Rotherham, flood risk is managed by flood defences providing protection up to a 1 in 100 year-event. However, the document notes that development must be controlled to ensure future flood risk is not worsened.

November 2000 and June 2007 saw extensive flooding across the Don catchment including both Sheffield and Rotherham. Several sources of flooding were experienced during the events: fluvial, surface water and sewer. The main sources of flood risk in the catchment are outlined as rapid, river flooding from urban watercourses, flooding from artificial sources such as reservoirs and canals and flooding from surface water drainage and sewers.

1.3.2 Sheffield City Council- Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)

SFRAs are prepared by local planning authorities to inform land planning decisions by assessing all sources of flood risk and providing information on the implications of climate change. Fundamentally it helps local planning authorities to ascertain suitable sites for development.

The Sheffield City Council SFRA was written by Jacobs in July 2008. It notes that there are some defences along the Don, many of which are ‘de facto’ flood defences, meaning structures which have not been constructed to retain flood water but provide some protection against flooding. For example river walls along the banks of the Don afford some flood protection. There are a small number of formal defences in Sheffield, such as the demountable defences situated around Meadowhall.

In June 2007, major flooding affected a number of cities across the UK, including Sheffield. During this event, the demountable defences at Meadowhall overtopped, and also, reportedly, a section of wall acting as a de facto defence collapsed resulting in inundation behind the river walls.


The SFRA also notes there is a large number of water supply reservoirs located in the upper reaches of the River Don catchment, many of which fall under the Reservoirs Act, 1975 (since been amended by the Floods and Water Management Act, 2010).

Yorkshire Water was unable to provide any location specific flooding information for the SFRA.

1.3.3 Sheffield Flood Risk Management Strategy

The document was prepared by Sheffield City Council and notes demountable private defences in use at Meadowhall Shopping Centre providing a standard of protection of 1 in 200-years. It also mentions a flood defence scheme in the lower Don Valley scheduled for completion in 2015 providing a standard of protection of 1 in 100-years. The proposed scheme will cover 8km of the River Don from the Wicker to Meadowhall, consisting of improvements to defences and continuing channel management.

1.3.4 Rotherham SFRA (Level 1)

This Rotherham SFRA was prepared by Jacobs in June 2008. It describes the River Don through Rotherham as a defended system because the flow is regulated, to some extent, through a system of washlands. Further defences began to be constructed in 2006 when work commenced on Phase 1 of the Templeborough to Rotherham Flood Alleviation Scheme.

All the SFRA flood maps reflect the completed scheme.

Information on sewer flooding received from Yorkshire Water and Severn Trent Water was very general so locations with capacity problems could not be identified.

1.3.5 Templeborough to Rotherham Flood Alleviation Scheme

Prepared by Jacobs and RMBC and released in October 2008, this document applies to development within the River Don corridor between Templeborough and Rotherham and is relevant for planning and implementing or approving development in this area. There are a number of brownfield sites situated on the River Don’s floodplain earmarked for development as part of the Council’s regeneration initiative. Currently these sites are at risk of flooding during a 1 in 100-year event; once the proposed scheme is completed these potential development sites will be protected up to the 1 in 100-year event. The scheme will be delivered in two phases covering 3.5km of river involving:

New flood defence structures along both river banks, constructed in such a way that the defences can be raised at a later stage if required,

Raising/removal of bridges which cause obstruction to flows during flood events, Improvements to lock structures, and; Providing compensatory storage through the creation of low lying wetlands.

Ordinarily, development on the floodplain would be required to provide compensatory storage but due to the creation of four hectares of compensatory storage in the low lying wetland, the EA will not require compensatory floodplain on individual development plots (more details about exceptions to this are outlined in section five of RMBC's Flood Risk Toolkit).

1.3.6 Development in Rotherham Regeneration Area- Flood Risk Toolkit and SFRA Level 2

Jacobs and RMBC created a Flood Risk Toolkit in April 2011 with the objective of assisting in the production and assessment of planning applications within the Rotherham Regeneration Area. As noted previously (in section 1.3.5) no additional compensatory storage is required in the Rotherham Regeneration Area as long as the technical requirements of Rotherham Renaissance Flood Alleviation Scheme are met by the development:

"The Environment Agency consider the combination of the Centenary Riverside compensatory floodplain site, and, the removal of Don Bridge, to be substantive enough to enable development of subsequent individual development sites in the river corridor to be undertaken without the need for their owners to create on site compensatory floodplain."

"RMBC will only allow this to occur if it is shown that the remainder of the development proposals are fully compatible with the community wide flood alleviation scheme, as set out in the guidance document".


The design of the development must include reasonable measures to mitigate the impacts of flooding by "constructing flood risk management infrastructure that is fully compatible with the requirements of the RRFAS as described in this Design Guidance".

The toolkit notes that pre-construction baseline water levels (2005) should be used when considering site specific FRAs.

This document also notes how the South Yorkshire Navigation and the railway both act as natural low lying flood routes; channelling water to lower parts of the area possibly a considerable distance away from the source of flooding. The railway line provides a flood flow route and results in deep ponding (over 1.0m) of surface water. The canal acts in a similar manner when inundated by flood waters from the Don. Both effects cause widespread flooding.

1.4 Current planning guidance

Current Planning Practice Guidance (from the planningportal.gov.uk) states that any development proposals in Flood Zone 2 or 3 should be accompanied by a site specific FRA.

Essential infrastructure may be located in a flood risk area for operational reasons but must be designed and constructed to remain operational and safe in times of flood, when situated in flood zone 3a. If situated in flood zone 3b infrastructure should also be designed and constructed so that there is no net loss of floodplain storage and ensure that water flow is not impeded and flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Flood risk should be managed over the lifetime of the development, taking account of climate change.

The EA insists that compensatory flood storage is required for any development within Flood Zone 3. Compensatory flood storage should be on a level for level, volume for volume basis (illustrated in Figure 1-2) generally on land that does not currently flood but is adjacent to the floodplain (in order for it to fill and drain). There must be no net loss of storage as a result of developing in the floodplain.

Figure 1-2: Diagram illustrating the level for level requirement of compensatory storage

1.5 Working in or near a watercourse

According to the document 'RPT09 - Environmental Design Plan and Risk Register', supplied to JBA, some sections of the scheme lie within 8m of the River Don. Working within 8m of a main river requires the written consent of the Environment Agency. The application for consent can be found on the EA website but it asks the applicant to contact the EA for advice before submitting a proposal.


2 Site 1a- Option 1 - Cross over at Meadowhall

2.1 Location

Figure 2-1: Location of the rail crossover at Meadowhall


Notes: The site is illustrated by the purple box. EA model cross section locations illustrated by red lines show the 100-year water level.

2.2 Construction of tracks and platform

An option for a new tram stop along with two new tracks linking the tram line to the railway line was proposed but is no longer considered. The new outbound track would have been approximately 110m in length and the inbound track 333m. The minimum proposed level for the track were 33.507mAOD for the outbound track and 33.529mAOD for the inbound track. The long sections showed the minimum level of the proposed platform to be at 33.990mAOD. Tinsley Chord is now the preferred option (see Chapter 3).

2.3 Sources of Flooding

2.3.1 Fluvial Flooding

The EA’s Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) shows this site to be in Flood Zone 2, at risk from between the 1 in 100-year and the 1 in 1,000-year event. The flood map shows sections of the river have flood defences but these do not appear to be continuous and there is no indication of the standard of protection.

Maps produced by Jacobs as part of the Sheffield SFRA show Site 1a falls in flood zone 3a; flooding occurs during a 100-year event. Both the sequential and exception test must be applied for development to be considered. The discrepancies between the modelled flood zones are probably due to different modelling techniques and the studies being undertaken at different times.

2.3.2 Fluvial flooding (defended)

For Site 1a the EA cross section DON03_4324d has been used to assess the level of flooding. It should be noted that this level applies to the river channel and may not be the water level experienced at the site. Therefore it represents a conservative estimate. Along with Site 1b these were the only sites where 1 in 1,000-year flood levels were provided by the EA (see Table 2-1).


Table 2-1: Data provided by the Environment Agency for model cross section DON03_4324d

Return Period (years) Water Level (mAOD) 25 31.70 50 32.11 75 32.24 100 32.42 200 32.73

1,000 33.64 Contains Environment Agency information © Environment Agency and database right

The EA flood model data indicates the cross over track at the site will flood between the 200-year and the 1,000-year return period events. The depth of flooding during a 1,000-year event will be up to 0.14m. Flood water could reach the site by overtopping the right bank of the River Don between the two railway bridges and flowing south along the existing tram track.

The proposed platform at the site is raised 0.35m above the level of the 1 in 1,000-year flood level.

This site falls into one of the EA's Flood Warning Areas. It is recommended that the tram operator signs up for EA Flood Warning Direct service which will contact any registered individual or business to warn them of potential fluvial flooding.

2.3.3 Surface Water

The EA’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map shows some shallow flooding at the site, associated with the existing track where water ponds in the cutting. Table 2-2 shows the approximate depths for flooding experienced at the site for different levels of risk. JBA's data also identifies the site as being at surface water flood risk. The map showing the extent of surface water flooding at this site is attached to this report (see appendix A).

Table 2-2: Approximate surface water flood depths for site 1a

Level of risk Depth band (mm)

Low (between 1 in 100-yr and 1 in 1000-yr) Below 300 Medium (between 1 in 30-yr and 1 in 100-yr) None

High (greater than 1 in 30-yr) None

2.3.4 Groundwater

JBA data provided shows that the site is at risk of groundwater flooding from alluvium deposits. The assessment highlights areas where the water table may rise to within 1m of the ground surface, based on EA borehole data. Site 1a is located on the edge of the River Don floodplain. Alluvium deposits are a feature or river floodplains; groundwater levels will rise to within 1m of the ground surface of the floodplain during large fluvial events. Therefore groundwater flooding issues will be linked to fluvial flood events.

Sheffield’s SFRA notes that there are no known incidents of groundwater flooding in Sheffield.

2.3.5 Artificial sources

Canal

The Sheffield and Tinsley canal runs close to the site before joining the River Don at Halfpenny Bridge. No information regarding flooding from the canal was provided by the EA. According to the JBA data there is no risk of flooding from a canal breach at this site. Canals can both intercept and store or convey flood flows. The Sheffield SFRA does not mention any flood risk from the canal.


Dam breach

The EA’s Risk of Flooding From Reservoirs map shows the site to be at risk of flooding from a major reservoir failure. This is supported by the JBA data. In fact the Sheffield SFRA notes the presence of a number of large reservoirs in the upper catchment of the River Don, many of which fall under the Reservoirs Act, 1975. There are 18 reservoirs which could flood the site if a breach occurred; they are Strines, Morehall, Broomhead, Rivelin Upper, Winscar, Redmires Lower, Rivelin Lower, Underbank, Langsett, Royd Moor, Broadstone, Midhope, Damflask, Dale Dyke, Redmires Upper, Agden, Redmires Middle and Ingbirchworth,

The extent of flooding from reservoir breach would be similar to the fluvial flood outline of the 1,000-year event. Travel time to site is important; with distance from the breach site the effect of the breach will lessen and will give a longer lead-time for evacuation.

2.4 Compensatory Storage

The provision of compensatory storage is required to mitigate the reduction in volume, due to development, on the floodplain. The volume of compensatory storage required is determined by calculating the volume of water that would be displaced up to the 100-year flood level. Therefore it is important to have a reliable water level for this event. LIDAR is required to determine current ground levels in order to calculate displaced volume.

Using the water level from the EA of 32.42mAOD, no compensatory storage would be required for the 1 in 100-year event at this site.


3 Site 1b - Option 2 - Tinsley Chord

3.1 Location

Figure 3-1: Location of the Tinsley Chord near Meadowhall


Notes: The site is illustrated by the purple box. EA model cross section locations illustrated by red lines show the 100-year water level.

3.2 Construction of tracks

Over 300m of new track is proposed to link the existing tram line to the railway line. The proposed track will pass under the Tinsley viaduct. Proposed track levels have not been provided so it has been assumed that the track will be constructed at existing ground level, determined from the third party topographic data provided. The minimum level of track would be 32.94mAOD.

3.3 Sources of flooding

3.3.1 Fluvial flooding

The EA’s Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) shows this site to be in Flood Zone 2, at risk from between the 1 in 100-year and the 1 in 1,000-year event. The flood map shows sections of the river have flood defences but these do not appear to be continuous and there is no indication of the standard of protection.

Maps produced by Jacobs as part of the Sheffield SFRA shows that part of Site 1b falls in flood zone 3b, defined as the functional floodplain. That is land where water has to flow or be stored during flood events. Only essential infrastructure that passes the Exception Test will be considered in flood zone 3b. However, the SFRA flood maps were produced using data available in April 2008. From inspecting the outlines, it appears that the LIDAR data used in the model has not been edited to remove Tinsley Viaduct and allow a flow route through. Therefore the model overestimates flood depth at Site 1b. The remainder of the site is shown to fall into flood zone 3a; flooding occurs during a 100-year event.

The discrepancies between the Flood Map for Planning and the SFRA maps are probably due to different modelling techniques and the studies being undertaken at different times. The EA’s Flood


Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) was probably updated using the detailed modelling carried out for the Sheffield Comprehensive Flood Review in 2012.


For Site 1b the EA cross section DON03_4324d has been used to assess the level of flooding. It should be noted that this level applies to the river channel and may not be the water level experienced at the site. Therefore it represents a conservative estimate. This site and site 1a were the only ones where the 1 in 1,000-year water level was provided by the EA (see Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: Data provided by the Environment Agency for model cross section DON03_4324d

Return Period (years) Water Level (mAOD) 25 31.70 50 32.11 75 32.24 100 32.42 200 32.73

1,000 33.64 Contains Environment Agency information © Environment Agency and database right

From the flood levels provided, the track would flood risk between the 200-year and 1,000-year events. At its lowest point, flooding of the track to a depth of around 0.7m could occur. If the new track were constructed at a lower level, flood depths would increase and the track may flood at lower return periods. Flood water would reach the site by overtopping the left bank of the Don and flowing under the Tinsley Viaduct.

This site falls into one of the EA's Flood Warning Areas. It is recommended that the tram operator signs up for EA Flood Warning Direct service which will contact any registered individual or business to warn them of potential fluvial flooding.

3.3.3 Surface Water

The EA’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map shows a small patch of surface water flooding at the site. Table 3-2 shows the approximate depths for flooding experienced at the site for different levels of risk. JBA's surface water flood data also identifies small pockets of surface water flooding at the site, mostly at the 1,000-year return period. The map showing the extent of surface water flooding at this site is attached to this report (see Appendix B).

Table 3-2: Approximate surface water flood depths for site 1b

Level of risk Depth band (mm)

Low (between 1 in 100-yr and 1 in 1000-yr) Below 300 Medium (between 1 in 30-yr and 1 in 100-yr) None

High (greater than 1 in 30-yr) None

The construction of a new track, especially if levels are raised/lowered, has the potential to alter the predicted locations of surface water flooding. This should be considered when designing the track layout to ensure hollows where water can pond are not created.

3.3.4 Groundwater

JBA data provided shows that the site is at risk of groundwater flooding from alluvium deposits. The assessment highlights areas where the water table may rise to within 1m of the ground surface, based on EA borehole data. Site 1b is located on the edge of the River Don floodplain. Alluvium deposits are a feature or river floodplains; groundwater levels will rise to within 1m of the ground surface of the floodplain during large fluvial events. Therefore, groundwater alluvium flooding issues will be linked to fluvial flood events.

Sheffield’s SFRA notes that there are no known incidents of groundwater flooding in Sheffield.



Canal

The Sheffield and Tinsley canal runs to the south of River Don at this location. According to the JBA data there is no risk of flooding from a canal breach at this site. Canals can both intercept and store or convey flood flows. The Sheffield SFRA does not mention any flood risk from the canal.

Dam breach

The EA’s Risk of Flooding From Reservoirs map shows the site to be at risk of flooding from a major reservoir failure. This is supported by the JBA data. In fact the Sheffield SFRA notes the presence of a number of large reservoirs in the upper catchment of the River Don, many of which fall under the Reservoirs Act, 1975. There are 12 reservoirs that could flood the site if a breach occurred; they are Morehall, Broomhead, Strines, Winscar, Underbank, Langsett, Midhope, Damflask, Dale Dyke, Redmires Upper, Agden and Redmires Middle.


The provision of compensatory storage is required to mitigate the reduction in volume, due to development, on the floodplain. The volume of compensatory storage required is determined by calculating the volume of water that would be displaced up to the 100-year flood level. Therefore it is important to have a reliable water level for this event. LIDAR is required to determine current ground levels in order to calculate displaced volume.

Using the water level from the EA of 32.42mAOD, no compensatory storage would be required for the 1 in 100-year event at this site. As the site is in EA Flood Zone 2, no compensatory storage would be required at this site.


4 Site 2- Bridge 16

4.1 Location

Figure 4-1: Location of bridge 16.


Notes: The site is illustrated by the purple box. EA model cross section locations illustrated by red lines show 100-year water level.

4.2 Lowering of the track

To accommodate overhead power lines the tracks are going to be lowered going under Ickles viaduct. The minimum proposed low rail levels at this location are 26.265mAOD for the down track. There were no proposed levels given for the up track on the drawings provided, therefore the existing level of 26.225mAOD has been assumed.

4.3 Sources of Flooding


Site 2 will benefit from Phase 1 of the Templeborough to Rotherham Flood Alleviation scheme (FAS) which aims to provide protection up to the 1 in 100-year event. The works have largely been finished but gaps remain in the defences. It is intended that as sites are developed these gaps will be filled. Figures included in the RMBC’s Flood Risk Toolkit show that, once Phase 1 is completed, the flood risk at the site will be reduced to a 1 in 1,000-year event.

4.3.2 Fluvial flooding (undefended)

For development purposes, the undefended scenario must be considered; RMBC’s Flood Risk Toolkit insists that, for site specific Flood Risk Assessments, water levels in the river channel prior to any construction of the FAS (2005) should be taken as the baseline.

The EA’s Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) (based on an undefended scenario) shows this site to be in Flood Zone 3, at risk of flooding from the 1 in 100-year flood event.

For this site, the EA cross section DON03_915u has been used to assess the undefended depth of flooding (see Table 4-1). It should be noted that this level applies to the river channel and may not be the water level experienced at the site. The cross section data shows the left bank to be 28.660mAOD, and the right bank 27.690mAOD. This suggests in an undefended scenario overtopping would not occur at this particular location, however overtopping occurs upstream, and could potentially flood the site if a flow route exists.


Table 4-1: Data provided by the Environment Agency for model cross section DON03_915u

Return Period (years) Water Level (mAOD) Flow (m3/s) 25 26.642 186.1 50 26.940 219.6 75 27.167 245.7 100 27.322 258.2 150 27.490 263.4

Contains Environment Agency information © Environment Agency and database right

Assuming the Don comes out of bank upstream of this location, the EA flood model data suggests that in the absence of defences the site will flood at all given return periods. Depths during the 25-year event will be approximately 0.4m rising to greater than 1m for the 100-year return period event.

RMBCs Flood Risk Toolkit recommends that all development at risk of flooding or that would be at risk should defences overtop should be registered with the EA's Flood Warning Direct service.

4.3.3 Surface Water Flooding

The EA’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map shows flooding at this site to a depth between 300 and 900mm for an event between the 1 in 100-year and the 1 in 1,000-year event. Table 4-2 shows the approximate depths of surface water flooding at the site.

Table 4-2: Approximate surface water flood depths for site 2

Level of risk Depth band (mm) Low (between 1 in 100-yr and 1 in 1,000-yr) 300 - 900 Medium (between 1 in 30-yr and 1 in 100-

yr) 300 - 900

High (less than 1 in 30-yr) Below 300

JBA's data identifies the site as being at surface water flood risk. The map showing the extent of surface water flooding at this site is attached to this report (see appendix C).

The surface water flood risk map in the Flood Risk Toolkit shows the site to be at high risk from surface water flooding.

4.3.4 Groundwater

JBA data provided shows that the site is at risk of groundwater flooding from alluvium deposits. The assessment highlights areas where the water table may rise to within 1m of the ground surface, based on EA borehole data. Site 2 is on the River Don floodplain. Alluvium deposits are a feature or river floodplains; groundwater levels will rise to within 1m of the ground surface of the floodplain during large fluvial events. Therefore groundwater flooding issues will be linked to fluvial flood events. Groundwater flooding could be exacerbated if ground levels were lowered.

However, the RMBC SFRA states that no incidents of groundwater flooding have been reported in the Borough.


Canal breach

The Sheffield to Keaby stretch of canal runs to the north of the site before joining the River Don downstream of Centenary Way bridge. No information regarding flooding from the canal was provided by the EA. According to the JBA data there is no flood risk from a canal breach at this site. However, RMBC’s Flood Risk Toolkit suggests the canal acts as a flow pathway conveying water to lower areas. This may need further investigatory work to determine where the flooding originates.


Dam breach

The EA’s Risk of Flooding From Reservoirs map shows the site to be at risk of flooding from a major reservoir failure. This is supported by the JBA data. Rotherham’s SFRA identified a number of reservoirs within the Borough in addition to several reservoirs in the upper Don valley identified in Sheffield’s SFRA.

There are 17 reservoirs which could flood the site if a breach occurred; they are Strines, Morehall, Broomhead, Rivelin Upper, Winscar, Redmires Lower, Rivelin Lower, Underbank, Langsett, Broadstone, Midhope, Damflask, Dale Dyke, Redmires Upper, Agden, Redmires Middle and Ingbirchworth,

The extent of flooding from a reservoir breach would be similar to the fluvial flood outline of the 1,000-year event. Travel time to site is important; with distance from the breach site the effect of the breach will lessen and will give a longer lead-time for evacuation.


5 Site 3 – Rotherham Central Station

5.1 Location

Figure 5-1: Location of Rotherham Central Station and bridge 21 site


Notes: The site is illustrated by the purple box. EA model cross section locations illustrated by red lines show 100yr water level.

5.2 Bridge reinstatement, platform construction and access ramps

At this site, Bridge 21 (College Road) will be reinstated to accommodate overhead lines. Additional platforms and access ramps will also be constructed at this site.

The minimum existing level of the track is 22.929mAOD for the up track and 22.993mAOD for the down track. Proposed platform heights are 23.901mAOD on the up side and 23.890mAOD on the down side at the lowest point. For the purposes of approximating compensatory storage requirements, the platforms have been assumed to be 140m long by 5m wide. At most, the compensatory storage required for the platforms would be 1,400m3 (assuming a flood depth of 1m) thought this will probably not be required (see section 5.4).



Site 3 will benefit from Phase 2 of the Templeborough to Rotherham Flood Alleviation scheme, when it is completed. The fluvial flood map in the Flood Risk Toolkit, which reflects completed scheme conditions, shows the site will be at risk of flooding for a return period of more than 100-years. However, there is currently no timescale given for the completion of the FAS.


The Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) (based on an undefended scenario) shows this site to be in Flood Zone 3, at risk of flooding from up to the 1 in 100-year flood event.

For this site the EA cross section DON02_14633u has been used to approximate the depth of flooding (see Table 5-1) should the scheme fail. It should be noted that this level applies to the river channel and may not be the water level experienced at the site.



Return Period (years) Water Level (mAOD) Flow (m3/s) 25 24.301 234.3 50 24.853 272.7 75 25.189 294.3 100 25.411 308.8 150 25.563 316.1


Assuming the flood level in the river applies to the site, the tracks would flood to a depth of almost 2.5m during the 100-year return period event and the platforms to a depth of 1.5m. However, depths of this magnitude are unlikely to occur. Brown's Cut, part of the canal network, lies between the river and the site and this will intercept any flow overtopping the river banks. Furthermore the track acts as a flood flow route carrying excess water northward to sites lower down the catchment and so water is unlikely to pond so deeply.

5.3.3 Surface Water

The EA’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water flood map shows the site, specifically the track, is at risk of deep flooding (over 900mm) for events between the 1 in 100-year and the 1 in 1,000-year events. Table 5-2 shows the approximate depths for three levels of risk.

Appendix D shows the extent of surface water flooding at the site predicted using JBA's dataset.

Table 5-2: Approximate surface water flood depths for site 3

Level of risk Depth band (mm) Low (between 1 in 100-yr and 1 in 1,000-yr) Greater than 900 Medium (between 1 in 30-yr and 1 in 100-yr) 300 - 900 (plus deeper patches)

High (less than 1 in 30-yr) 300 - 900

Outline modelling shows depths of up to 2.2m during a 1 in 1,000-year event. However, as RMBC's Flood Risk Toolkit notes, the railway is a flood flow route. Therefore, more detailed modelling would be required to better define the depth of flooding.

When Phase 2 of the FAS has been completed, it will be necessary to control surface water within the development site by allowing it to drain to the river, e.g. by pumping or the provision of sustainable drainage systems.

5.3.4 Groundwater

JBA data provided shows that the site is at risk of groundwater flooding from alluvium deposits. The assessment highlights areas where the water table may rise to within 1m of the ground surface, based on EA borehole data. Site 3 is on the River Don floodplain. Alluvium deposits are a feature or river floodplains; groundwater levels will rise to within 1m of the ground surface of the floodplain during large fluvial events. Therefore groundwater flooding issues will be linked to fluvial flood events. However the RMBC SFRA states that no incidents of groundwater flooding have been reported in the Borough.


Canal breach

The South Yorkshire navigation runs parallel to the site at Rotherham Central. No information regarding flooding from the canal was provided by the EA. According to the JBA data there is no flood risk from a canal breach at this site. However, RMBC’s Flood Risk Toolkit suggests the canal acts as a flow pathway conveying water to lower areas. This may need further investigatory work to determine where the flooding originates and whether the issue could be alleviated.


Dam breach

The EA’s Risk of Flooding From Reservoirs map shows the site to be at risk of flooding from a major reservoir failure. This is supported by the JBA data. Rotherham’s SFRA identified a number of reservoirs within the Borough in addition to several reservoirs in the upper Don valley identified in Sheffield’s SFRA.

19 reservoirs pose a risk to this site: Strines, Morehall, Broomhead, Rother Valley Country Park-Main Lake, Winscar, Woodhouse Mill Washland, Redmires Lower, Underbank, Langsett, Royd Moor, Killamarsh Washland, Broadstone, Midhope, Damflask, Dale Dyke, Redmires Upper, Agden, Redmires Middle and Ingbirchworth,


5.4 Compensatory storage

Developments in Flood Zone 3 are required to provide compensatory storage, equivalent to the volume lost by the development on a level for level, volume for volume basis, generally on land that does not currently flood but is adjacent to the floodplain (in order for it to fill and drain). Site 3 will be protected by Phase 2 of the FAS which is proposed to confine flood water to the river channel. As such, compensatory storage will not be required behind the defences though provision for the management of surface water runoff will be required.

To accurately assess the volume of compensatory storage needed, LIDAR covering the site, detailed design drawings of platform dimensions and track widths would be required as well as an accurate 100-year water level at the site.


6 Site 4- Bridge 24

6.1 Location

Figure 6-1: Location of bridge 24 site



6.2 Lowering of the track

To accommodate overhead power lines the tracks are going to be lowered going under Greasborough Road bridge (bridge 24). The minimum proposed level for the track is the same for both the up side and down side and will be 22.429mAOD.



Site 4 will also benefit from Phase 2 of the Templeborough to Rotherham FAS when it is completed. The fluvial flood map in the Flood Risk Toolkit, which reflects completed scheme conditions, shows the site will be protected up to a one in 100-year event. No timescale has been given for the completion of the FAS.


The Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) shows this site to be in Flood Zone 2 although it appears to be on the boundary between Flood Zones 1 and 2. Flood Zone 2 represents the risk of flooding up to the 1,000-year return period or below. Flood Zone 1 shows flooding that would only occur for events exceeding the 1,000-year return period.

For this site the EA cross section DON02_14065 has been used to assess the depth of flooding (see Table 6-1). It should be noted that this level applies to the river channel and may not be the water level experienced at the site.


Table 6-1: Data provided by the Environment Agency for model cross section DON02_14065

Return period (years) Water level (mAOD) Flow (m3/s) 25 23.487 234.3 50 23.969 272.6 75 24.258 294.2 100 24.450 308.7 150 24.586 315.9


Assuming the flood level in the river applies to the site, the tracks would flood to a depth of almost 2.2m during the 100-year return period event. Depths of this magnitude are unlikely to occur because the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation lies between the river and the site. This artificial watercourse will intercept any flow overtopping the river banks.

6.3.3 Surface Water

The EA’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map shows flooding at this site of over 900mm at a return period between the 100-year and 1,000-year events. Table 6-2 shows approximate depths of surface water flooding for three levels of risk using the EA's Flooding from Surface Water map. The extent of surface water flooding at the site is outlined in appendix E.

Table 6-2:Approximate surface water flood depths for site 4

Level of risk Depth band (mm) Low (between 1 in 100-yr and 1 in 1,000-yr) Greater than 900 Medium (between 1 in 30-yr and 1 in 100-yr) 300-900

High (less than 1 in 30-yr) Below 300

Outline modelling shows depths of up to 2.5m. However, as RMBC's Flood Risk Toolkit notes, the railway is a flood flow route. Therefore, more detailed modelling would be required to better define the depth of flooding.

When Phase 2 of the FAS has been completed, it will be necessary to control surface water within the development site by allowing it to drain to the river, e.g. by pumping or the provision of sustainable drainage systems.

6.3.4 Groundwater

JBA data provided shows that the site is at risk of groundwater flooding from alluvium deposits. The assessment highlights areas where the water table may rise to within 1m of the ground surface, based on EA borehole data. Site 4 is on the River Don floodplain. Alluvium deposits are a feature or river floodplains; groundwater levels will rise to within 1m of the ground surface of the floodplain during large fluvial events. Therefore groundwater flooding issues will be linked to fluvial flood events. However the RMBC SFRA states that no incidents of groundwater flooding have been reported in the Borough.


Canal breach

The South Yorkshire navigation runs close to the site. No information regarding flooding from the canal was provided by the EA. According to the JBA data there is no flood risk from a canal breach at this site. However, RMBC’s Flood Risk Toolkit suggests the canal acts as a flow pathway conveying water to lower areas. This may need further investigatory work to determine where the flooding originates and whether the issue could be alleviated.


Dam breach

The EA’s Risk of Flooding From Reservoirs map shows the site to be at risk of flooding from a major reservoir failure. This is supported by the JBA data. Rotherham’s SFRA identified a number of reservoirs within the Borough, in addition to several reservoirs in the upper Don valley identified in Sheffield’s SFRA.

23 reservoirs pose a risk to this site: Strines, Morehall, Broomhead, Rother Valley Country Park-Main Lake, Treeton, Winscar, Woodhouse Mill Washland, Redmires Lower, Underbank, Langsett, Canklow Washland Reservoirs B, C and F, Killamarsh Washland, Broadstone, Wentworth Park - Dog Kennel Pond, Midhope, Damflask, Dale Dyke, Redmires Upper, Agden, Redmires Middle and Ingbirchworth,

The extent of flooding from a reservoir breach would be similar to the fluvial flood outline of the 1,000-year event. Travel time to site is important; with distance from the breach site the effect of the breach will lessen and will give a longer lead-time for evacuation.


7 Site 5- Parkgate Shopping Centre

7.1 Location

Figure 7-1: Location of Parkgate Shopping Centre site



7.2 Construction of tracks, platforms and other infrastructure

At Parkgate shopping centre several works are proposed. There will be the construction of new lines and platforms along with an electrical sub-station and cabinets (which will be constructed on stilts).

The minimum proposed level for the track is the same for both the up side and down side: 23.250mAOD. The proposed platform level will be 23.640mAOD. No information on the electrical sub-station and cabinets could be gained from the long sections provided.

The platforms will be approximately 37m long by 5m wide. Furthermore, a disused ditch adjacent to the track will be infilled. These aspects of the development will need to be considered for the purposes of approximating compensatory storage requirements.



Parkgate Shopping Centre does not benefit from the Templeborough to Rotherham FAS. There may be scope for flood alleviation in the future, but currently Parkgate is at risk of fluvial flooding from the River Don.


The Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) shows this site to be in Flood Zone 3. Flood Zone 3 represents the risk of flooding in the absence of defences up to the 100-year return period or below.

The site is approximately 300m long and so flood levels will vary across the site. Therefore EA cross section DON02_13084u has been used to assess the depth of flooding upstream and section DON02_12514 for the downstream depth (see Table 7-1). It should be noted that these levels apply to the river channel and may not be the water level experienced at the site.



Return period (years) Water Level (mAOD) Flow (m3/s) Upstream Downstream

25 22.450 22.039 239.1 50 22.826 22.308 279.8 75 23.150 22.478 300.5 100 23.355 22.581 319.5 150 23.519 22.678 322.9


Comparing the above flood levels with ground levels at the site shows that in the absence of defences the upstream part of the site is at flood risk. The new tracks will flood at between the 75-year and the 100-year return periods. The depth of flooding for the 100-year return period is approximately 0.1m. The platforms are above the undefended water level for all return periods provided by the EA.

7.3.3 Surface water

The EA’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map shows flooding adjacent to the track of over 900mm for events between 100-year and 1,000-year return periods. The flooding seems to be confined to a ditch between the road and the rail embankment.

Appendix F shows a plan of the extent of surface water flooding at Site 5. The track is not shown to flood but alongside the track, flooding does occur. Table 7-2 shows approximate water depths for a range of return periods.

Table 7-2:Approximate Surface Water flood depths for site 5

Level of risk Depth band (mm) Low (between 1 in 100-yr and 1 in 1,000-yr) Some 300-900 (deeper patches) Medium (between 1 in 30-yr and 1 in 100-

yr) Some below 300

High (less than 1 in 30-yr) None

RMBC's Flood Risk Toolkit notes that the Parkgate Character Area, where Site 5 is located, is badly affected by surface water flooding.

7.3.4 Groundwater

JBA data provided shows that the site is at risk of groundwater flooding from alluvium deposits. The assessment highlights areas where the water table may rise to within 1m of the ground surface, based on EA borehole data. Site 5 is located on the River Don floodplain. Alluvium deposits are a feature or river floodplains; groundwater levels will rise to within 1m of the ground surface of the floodplain during large fluvial events. Therefore groundwater flooding issues will be linked to fluvial flood events. However the RMBC SFRA states that no incidents of groundwater flooding have been reported in the Borough.


Canal breach

The Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation runs alongside the proposed site. No information regarding flooding from the canal was provided by the EA. According to the JBA data there is no flood risk from a canal breach at this site. However, RMBC’s Flood Risk Toolkit suggests the canal acts as a flow pathway conveying water to lower areas. This may need further investigatory work to determine where the flooding originates and whether the issue could be alleviated.


Dam breach

The EA’s Risk of Flooding from Reservoirs map shows the site to be at risk of flooding from a major reservoir failure. This is supported by the JBA data. Rotherham’s SFRA identified a number of reservoirs within the Borough, and could potentially be affected by reservoirs in the upper Don valley identified in Sheffield’s SFRA.

The following 14 reservoirs pose a risk to this site: Strines, Morehall, Broomhead, Winscar, Underbank, Langsett, Wentworth Park - Dog Kennel Pond, Wentworth Park- Mill Dam, Midhope, Wentworth Park - Morley Pond, Damflask, Dale Dyke, Redmires Upper and Redmires Middle,



Developments in Flood Zone 3 are required to provide compensatory storage, equivalent to the volume lost by the development and should be on a level for level, volume for volume basis generally on land that does not currently flood but is adjacent to the floodplain (in order for it to fill and drain). At most, the compensatory storage required for the platforms and infilling the ditch would be approximately 170m3 assuming a flood depth of 0.1m.

7.5 Substation construction

The level that the substation and cabinets are set at should allow a 0.3m freeboard above the 1,000-year flood level. The EA flood level data provided only considers up to the 150-year return period. Therefore further modelling may be required to establish a 1,000-year flood level at this site. Detailed modelling was carried out as part of the Templeborough to Rotherham flood alleviation scheme design and supporting RMBC Flood Risk Toolkit but this did not model the 1,000-year return period.


8 Summary The proposed extension of the Sheffield tram from Meadowhall through to Rotherham utilises an existing track. The proposed works include new track construction, platform construction and the lowering of track/replacement of bridges in order to accommodate the overhead power lines required by the tram.

Six sites have been identified where there may be flood risk issues. These are:

Option 1 - Cross over at Meadowhall - Site 1a Option 2 - Tinsley Chord -Site 1b Bridge 16 - Site 2 Rotherham Central station - Site 3 Bridge 24 - Site 4 Parkgate shopping centre - Site 5

8.1 Site 1a: Option 1 - Cross over at Meadowhall

Modelled flood levels provided by the EA indicate that the cross over site at Meadowhall will flood between the 200-year and the 1,000-year return period events. The depth of flooding during a 1,000-year event will be up to a depth of 0.14m.

The cross over site is also at risk from surface water flooding. The onset of flooding would occur between the 100 and 1,000-year return periods.

8.2 Site 1b: Option 2 - Tinsley Chord

The Tinsley Chord site is at risk of flooding between the 200-year and the 1,000-year return periods. Flood depths could reach up to 0.7m during an event of this magnitude.

Surface water flooding at the site is patchy and is likely to be altered by the construction of the new chord. The majority of surface water flooding occurs at the 1,000-year return period, although some patches flood at lower return periods. The construction of a new track, especially if levels are raised/lowered, has the potential to alter the predicted locations of surface water flooding. This should be considered when designing the track layout to ensure hollows where water can pond are not created

8.3 Site 2: Bridge 16

Bridge will benefit from Phase 1 of the Templeborough to Rotherham Flood Alleviation scheme (FAS) which aims to provide protection up to the 1 in 100-year event. The works have largely been finished but gaps remain in the defences. It is intended that as sites are developed these gaps will be filled. Once Phase 1 is completed, the flood risk at the site will be reduced to a 1 in 1,000-year event. Currently the site is vulnerable to flooding. Depths during the 25-year event will be approximately 0.4m rising to greater than 1m for the 100-year return period event.

The site is also at high risk from surface water flooding.

8.4 Site 3: Rotherham Central station

Rotherham Central Station will benefit from Phase 2 of the Templeborough to Rotherham Flood Alleviation scheme, when it is completed. The fluvial flood map in the Flood Risk Toolkit, which reflects completed scheme conditions, shows the site will be at risk of flooding for a return period of more than 100-years. However, there is currently no timescale given for the completion of the FAS.

The site is currently at flood risk and assuming the flood level in the river applies to the site, the tracks would flood to a depth of almost 2.5m during the 100-year return period event and the platforms to a depth of 1.5m. Depths of such magnitude are unlikely to occur though. Brown's Cut, part of the canal network, lies between the river and the site and this will intercept any flow overtopping the river banks. Furthermore the track acts as a flood flow route carrying excess water northward to sites lower down the catchment and so water is unlikely to pond so deeply.



At Site 3, the railway is a flood flow route. The outline modelling presented in this report may not be sufficiently detailed to define flood risk in such a dynamic situation. Therefore, more detailed modelling would be required to better define the depth of flooding.

8.5 Site 4: Bridge 24

Bridge 24 will also benefit from Phase 2 of the Templeborough to Rotherham FAS when it is completed. The fluvial flood map in the Flood Risk Toolkit, which reflects completed scheme conditions, shows the site will be protected up to a one in 100-year event. No timescale has been given for the completion of the FAS. At present, the standard of protection is less than the 25-year return period and depths of up to 2.2m could occur during the 100-year return period event. However, depths of this magnitude are unlikely to occur because the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation lies between the river and the site. This artificial watercourse will intercept any flow overtopping the river banks.


The railway at Bridge 24 is a flood flow route for out of bank flows. The outline modelling presented in this report may not be sufficiently detailed to define flood risk in such a dynamic situation. Therefore, more detailed modelling would be required to better define the depth of flooding.

8.6 Site 5: Parkgate shopping centre

Parkgate Shopping Centre does not benefit from the Templeborough to Rotherham FAS. There may be scope for flood alleviation in the future, but currently Parkgate is at risk of fluvial flooding from the River Don. The upstream part of the site is at flood risk and the new tracks would flood at between the 75-year and the 100-year return periods. The depth of flooding for the 100-year return period would be approximately 0.1m. The platforms are above the undefended water level for all return periods provided by the EA.

Surface water flooding at Site 5 is confined to a ditch between the road and the rail embankment.

8.7 Generic flooding issues

Several flooding issues common to all six sites were identified.

8.7.1 Groundwater

All of the sites were flagged with a risk of groundwater flooding from alluvium deposits. Alluvium deposits are a feature of river floodplains like the River Don and in such cases groundwater levels are closely linked to fluvial flood events. Therefore the risk of groundwater flooding has in effect been accounted for in the fluvial assessments.

No incidents of groundwater flooding have been reported in the study area.


Canal breach

Along the study reach of the River Don there are several canals running parallel with the river channel. According to the JBA's comprehensive flood map data, there is no flood risk from a canal breach at the six sites. However, it is known that the canals act as a flow pathway conveying water to areas downstream. This may need further investigatory work to determine where the flooding originates and whether the issue could be alleviated.

Dam breach

All of the sites have been shown to be at flood risk in the event of a reservoir breach. Rotherham and Sheffield's SFRAs identified several reservoirs within their regions and in the upper Don valley that could affect flood risk at each site.

8.7.3 Compensatory storage

Developments in Flood Zone 3 such as Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5 are required to provide compensatory storage, equivalent to the volume lost by the development. Site 2 is in the area protected by Phase 1 of the Templeborough to Rotherham FAS. Phase 1 already provides compensatory storage to offset the effect of development behind the defences. Sites 3 and 4 will be protected by Phase 2 of the FAS which is proposed to confine flood water to the river channel. As such, compensatory


storage will not be required behind the defences though provision for the management of surface water runoff will be required. Compensatory storage will be required at site 5 because the proposals include raising existing ground levels by constructing platforms and tracks and infilling a disused ditch.

The compensatory storage provided must equal or exceed the volume of floodplain lost by the development and should be on a level for level, volume for volume basis. This entails detailed calculations requiring LIDAR or detailed topographic survey, detailed design drawings and an accurate flood level for the 100-year event at the site. We have estimated that 170m3 of storage will be required.

8.7.4 Flood warning

Where the sites fall into one of the EA's Flood Warning Areas, it is recommended that the tram operator signs up for EA Flood Warning Direct service. This means the EA will contact any registered individual or business to warn them of potential fluvial flooding.

8.8 Mitigation measures

The development should be made safe through mitigation measures. Consideration needs to be given to the following factors during the detailed design stage:

The provision of safe evacuation routes from all stations during flood events Track side equipment raised above flood level if possible Platforms raised above flood levels if possible New substations built on stilts above the 1,000-year flood level with freeboard allowance Creation of new tracks could provide additional flow pathways for flood flows; the railway

line was identified as a flow pathway in RMBC Flood Risk Toolkit.

8.9 Limitations and further work

8.9.1 Climate change

Flood risk to a development should be managed over its lifetime, taking account of climate change. The river levels provided by the EA for this report do not account for climate change. Climate change allowances vary depending on the predicted lifetime of the development; generally NPPF technical guidance suggests a 20% increase in peak river flows which would increase water levels above the values detailed in this report. Before detailed design work is carried out, water levels with climate change allowances should be calculated to determine design levels for substations and other critical infrastructure.

8.9.2 Out of bank flows

The assessment has been based on flood levels provided by the EA from a model of the River Don. The model results apply to the river channel. In cases where the sites are at some distance from the channel, water from the river will spread across the floodplain and could be intercepted by the canal thus lowering the degree of flooding predicted at each site, or as the RMBC Flood Risk Toolkit suggests, convey the flood flow to other low lying areas.

8.9.3 More detailed modelling

Further modelling should be carried out to better understand the mechanisms of surface water flooding that affect the sites, particularly site 3 and 4 where the railway acts as a flow path. Additional investigation is required to ensure the creation of new track will not exacerbate the problem, and to produce accurate surface water flooding levels for design purposes. Surface water flooding is difficult to predict and there is currently no warning system as with fluvial flooding.

Furthermore, when Phase 2 of the Templeborough to Rotherham FAS is completed, surface water will need to be managed on site as raised defences inhibit natural drainage to the river. Therefore pumping or sustainable drainage systems may be required to control the discharge of surface water into the river.

2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx I

Appendices A Site 1a A.1 Surface Water Flood Map

Caution: See Note

Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013.

Site

75 Year

200 Year

1000 Year

JBA Comprehensive Flood Map © JBA Risk Management Limited 2008 - 2013.

Approximate Surface Water extent at Site 1(SK3964990920)

Caution Note: This map is intended to be a preliminary screening tool only and should not be relied upon for any other purpose or in isolation. It provides an approximate guide to areas which may be at risk of flooding. The map, including the key, and information derived therefrom is not a substitute for detailed modelling or risk assessment, which you are strongly advised to consider in every case. Neither should it be used in the design or production of any flood mitigation or defence works. A detailed Flood Risk Assessment is recommended to confirm the likely extent and depth of flooding, to establish flow routes and to demonstrate the impact of any development on flood risk.

2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx II

B Site 1b B.1 Surface Water Flood Map

Caution: See Note


Site

75 Year

200 Year

1000 Year


Approximate Surface Water extent at Sheffield Tram Train(SK3972291219)


2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx III

C Site 2 C.1 Surface Water Flood Map

Caution: See Note


Site

75 Year

200 Year

1000 Year


Approximate Surface Water extent at Sheffield - Site 2(SK4182592036)


2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx IV

D Site 3 D.1 Surface Water Flood Map


Site

20 Year

200 Year

75 Year

100 Year




1000 Year

Site

75 Year

200 Year

1000 Year

2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx V

E Site 4 E.1 Surface Water Flood Map

Caution: See Note


Site

75 Year

200 Year

1000 Year




2014s1002 - Sheffield Tram Train FRA - Updated Final Report_v2-1.docx VI

F Site 5 F.1 Surface Water Flood Map

Caution: See Note


Site

75 Year

200 Year

1000 Year




Offices at Coleshill

Doncaster

Edinburgh

Haywards Heath

Limerick

Newcastle upon Tyne

Newport

Saltaire

Skipton

Tadcaster

Thirsk

Wallingford

Warrington

Registered Office South Barn

Broughton Hall

SKIPTON

North Yorkshire

BD23 3AE

t:+44(0)1756 799919 e:[email protected] Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd Registered in England

3246693

Visit our website

www.jbaconsulting.com

supertram - tram train pilot - sheffield - rotherham

Documents