waterman numbered report template · waterman group‟s ims (bs en iso 9001: 2009 and bs en iso...

South Sebastopol

Required Addendum to the Outline ES (Canal Crossing)

March 2011

Waterman Transport & Development Limited

38 Cathedral Road, Cardiff CF11 9LL, United Kingdom www.watermangroup.com

Client Name: Barratt Homes Wales, Taylor Wimpey, Welsh Assembly Government

Document Reference: C 11765 110317 07 ES addendum

Project Number: CIV11765

Our Markets

Property & Buildings Transport & Infrastructure Energy & Utilities Environment

Quality Assurance – Approval Status

This document has been prepared and checked in accordance with Waterman Group‟s IMS (BS EN ISO 9001: 2009 and BS EN ISO 14001: 2004)

Issue Date Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Draft 17.03.2011 Susana Parker Kevin Llewellyn Andrew Wilkinson

Comments

Disclaimer

This report has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the Consortium involving Barratt Homes Wales, Taylor Wimpey and the Welsh Assembly Government from whom it was commissioned and has been prepared in

response to their particular requirements and brief.

This report may not be relied upon by any other party.

The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 shall not apply to this report and the provisions of the said Act are expressly excluded from this report.

This report may not be used for any purpose other than that for which it was commissioned.

This report may not be reproduced and/or made public by print, photocopy, microfilm or any other means without the prior written permission of Waterman Transport & Development Ltd.

The conclusions resulting from this study and contained in this report are not necessarily indicative of future conditions or operating practices at or adjacent to the Site.

Much of the information presented in this report is based on information provided by others. That information has neither been checked nor verified by Waterman Transport & Development Ltd.

South Sebastopol


Document Reference: C 11765 110317 07 ES addendum Z:\Projects\CIV11765 - Sebastepol\DOCUMENTS\Reports\Environmental Statement Addendum - canal crossing\C 11765 110317

07 ES addendum V5.docx

Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Preamble ................................................................................................................................................ 1

Legislative Background and Method Statement .................................................................................... 1

2. Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 2

The Site – Context ................................................................................................................................. 2

Site and Surroundings ........................................................................................................................... 2

3. Project Proposal .................................................................................................................................. 3

4. Residual Impacts, Environmental Effects and Management .......................................................... 4

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4

5. Ecology and Nature Conservation ................................................................................................... 13

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Legislative and Planning Policy Context .............................................................................................. 13

Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................................... 13

Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 15

Potential Effects ................................................................................................................................... 15

Residual Effects ................................................................................................................................... 20

Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................... 21

Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 21

6. Services (Utilities) ............................................................................................................................. 25

7. Society and Economy ....................................................................................................................... 26

8. Landscape Character and Visual Assessment............................................................................... 27

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 27

Planning Policy Context ....................................................................................................................... 27

Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................................... 28

Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 29

Likely Significant Effects ...................................................................................................................... 29

Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................. 33


Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................... 34

Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 34

9. Transportation Assessment (Traffic, Transport and Movement) ................................................. 37

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 37


10. Archaeological, Built and Cultural Heritage ................................................................................... 38

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 38


Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................. 40

South Sebastopol





Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 40

11. Ground Conditions (Hydrogeology, Soils and Contaminated Land) ........................................... 42

12. Water Resources (Water Quality, Hydrology, Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment) .............. 43

13. Noise and Vibration Assessment .................................................................................................... 44

14. Air Quality Assessment .................................................................................................................... 45

15. Sustainability ..................................................................................................................................... 46

16. Non-Technical Summary .................................................................................................................. 47

Chapter 5 - Ecology and Nature Conservation .................................................................................... 47

Chapter 8 - Landscape Character and Visual Assessment ................................................................. 48

Chapter 10 - Archaeological Built and Cultural Heritage ..................................................................... 48

Tables

Table 1: Summary of mitigation and monitoring measures ....................................................................... 5

Table 2: Potential and residual effects .................................................................................................... 22

Table 3: Table of Significance – Ecology and Nature Conservation ....................................................... 23

Table 4: Significance Matrix – Landscape Character and Visual Assessment ....................................... 29

Table 5: Table of Significance – Landscape Character and Visual Assessment .................................... 35

Table 6: Significance Matrix – Archaeology, Built and Cultural Heritage ................................................ 39

Table 7: Significance Matrix – Archaeology, Built and Cultural Heritage – assessment of effects ......... 39

Table 8: Table of Significance – Archaeological, Built and Cultural Heritage ......................................... 41

Table 9: Potential and residual effects .................................................................................................... 47

Appendices

A. Location of Southern Canal Bridge Crossing - drawing ref. CIV11765-C-SA-90-008-A01

B. Southern Bridge Crossing – extent of works - drawing ref. CIV11765-C-SA-90-007-A01

C. Highways General Arrangement - drawing ref. CIV11765-C-SA-95-005-A02

D. Figures 8.1 to 8.6A – Photoviewpoint Location Plan and Photoviewpoint images

1 South Sebastopol




1. Introduction

Preamble

1.1. Waterman has been appointed by the Consortium involving Barratt Homes Wales, Taylor Wimpey

and the Welsh Assembly Government (henceforth in this Document referred to as „the Consortium)

to coordinate and collate an Environmental Statement (ES) as part of the EIA process for

residential and ancillary retail and community development at a site known as South Sebastopol,

Cwmbran, Torfaen (see Site Location Plan in Appendix 1.1). The application is in outline with all

matters except means of access to Cwmbran Drive and Lowlands Crescent reserved for future

approval. Access to Oaklands Road is reserved for future approval. The ES prepared in support of

the Outline Application was submitted as part of the Application in January 2011.

1.2. This document (entitled Required Addendum to the Outline ES (Canal Crossing) forms an

addendum to the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted as part of the outline planning

application (i.e. the „Outline ES‟) for the whole of the South Sebastopol site (LPA ref. 01/P/05525).

This addendum has been prepared to consider any additional likely significant effects of the

proposed canal crossing from over the existing canal tunnel to a new location to the south. The

Site Location Plan included in Appendix 1.1 indicates the location of the canal crossing proposed in

the ES for the Outline Application and also the revised location proposed in this addendum to the

ES.

1.3. To avoid unnecessary duplication, the Chapter names and numbers in this Addendum refer to the

same Chapter names and numbers in the Outline ES. Where the content of the Addendum

Chapters remain unchanged from the original Outline ES a short note has been included in this

Addendum to confirm the same. However, specific effects in relation to the following Chapters of

the ES as a result of the new canal crossing proposals are now able to be assessed in further

detail and any mitigation that may be required in order to avoid, reduce or offset any likely

significant adverse impacts are included.

Chapter 5 - Ecology and Nature Conservation,

Chapter 8 - Landscape Character and Visual Assessment,

Chapter 10 - Archaeological Built and Cultural Heritage

1.4. Following review of the other Chapters of the Environmental Statement in support of the Outline

Planning Application it is the view of Waterman that, with the exception of the above three

Chapters and also Chapter 4 (Residual Impacts, Environmental Effects and Management) and

Chapter 16 (Non-Technical Summary), the Chapters as published remain relevant with regard to

this Addendum. Specifically, the revised Highway Route incorporating a new bridge structure

crossing the Monmouthshire / Brecon Canal does not materially affect the information contained

within the other Chapters. Consequently, other than in the case of Chapters 4, 5, 8, 10 and 16

referred to above, no amendments to the contents of the other Chapters of the Outline ES have

been made.

Legislative Background and Method Statement

1.5. Reference should be made to Chapter 1 of the outline ES in relation to issues regarding Legislative

Background and Method Statement.

2 South Sebastopol




2. Project Description

The Site – Context

Site and Surroundings

2.1. Following review of Chapter 2 – Project Description of the Environmental Statement, in support of

the Outline Planning Application for the South Sebastopol Development dated January 2011 it is

considered that the Chapter as published remains relevant with regard to this Addendum.

Specifically, the revised Highway Route incorporating a new bridge structure crossing the

Monmouthshire / Brecon Canal does not materially affect the information contained within the

Chapter. In this case, no amendments to the contents of Chapter 2 of the Outline ES have been

made

3 South Sebastopol




3. Project Proposal

3.1. Following review of Chapter 3 – Project Proposals, of the Environmental Statement in support of

the Outline Planning Application for the South Sebastopol Development dated January 2011, it is

considered that the Chapter as published remains relevant with regard to this Addendum.



Chapter. In this case, no amendments to the contents of Chapter 3 of the Outline ES have been

made

4 South Sebastopol




4. Residual Impacts, Environmental Effects and Management

Introduction

4.1. This chapter of the Addendum ES presents a summary of the mitigation, monitoring measures and

Residual Impacts identified through the EIA process and full details can be found in the respective

chapters in the Outline ES or this Addendum ES.

4.2. Apart from Paragraph 4.1 and Table 1 (Summary of Mitigation and Monitoring Measures) provided

below all other information contained in the Outline ES Chapter 4 are relevant.

4.3. Table 1 provides a revised summary of the mitigation and monitoring measures which results from

the recommendations in the Outline ES and this Addendum ES. The observations and

recommendations in the Addendum ES supersede those observations and recommendations in the

Outline ES.

5 South Sebastopol


Document Reference: C 11765 110317 07 ES addendum Z:\Projects\CIV11765 - Sebastepol\DOCUMENTS\Reports\Environmental Statement Addendum - canal crossing\C 11765 110317 07 ES addendum V5.docx

Table 1: Summary of mitigation and monitoring measures

ES Chapter/ Topic Potential Effect

Nature of Effect

(Permanent/ Temporary)

Significance

(Major/ Moderate/ Minor)

(Beneficial/ Adverse/ Negligible)

Mitigation/ Enhancement Measures

Residual Effects

(Major/ Moderate/ Minor)


ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

Construction

Designated Sites Temporary Negligible None Required Negligible

Woodland and Scrub Temporary Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible

Hedges Permanent /Temporary

Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible

Grassland Temporary Negligible None Required Negligible

Monmouthshire and Brecon

Canal

Temporary Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible

Bats Temporary Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Minor Beneficial

Birds Permanent /Temporary

Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Minor Beneficial

White-clawed Crayfish Temporary Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible

Otters and Water Voles Temporary Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible

Completed Development

Designated Sites Temporary Negligible None Required Negligible

Woodland and Scrub Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

6 South Sebastopol



Hedges Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

Grassland Permanent Negligible None Required Negligible

Monmouthshire and Brecon

Canal

Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

Bats Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Minor Beneficial

Birds Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Minor Beneficial

White-clawed Crayfish Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

Otters and Water Voles Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

Cumulative Effects

During the construction and completed development stage of the development there is likely to be a cumulative effect in the local area. It is anticipated however that these impacts as a result of the scheme are minimal due to the geographical context of the site.

Permanent Negligible Site specific mitigation proposed within the EMP and LEMP

Negligible

SERVICES (UTILITIES)

Construction

As Outline ES


As Outline ES

Cumulative Effects

As Outline ES

7 South Sebastopol



SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

Construction

As Outline ES


As Outline ES

Cumulative Effects

As Outline ES

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL ASSESSMENT

Construction

Landscape Character

As Outline ES

Landscape Features

Brecon and Monmouthshire

Canal Direct, medium

term Minor adverse As outline ES including

specifically:

Alignment of bridge informed by arboricultural report

Erection of tree protection fencing

Adoption of CoCP

Direct, medium-term minor adverse

Visual Amenity


Canal

Direct, medium-term

Moderate/Major adverse

As above Direct, long-term minor adverse

Five Locks Close Direct, medium-

term Major adverse As above Visual Amenity

8 South Sebastopol



Bryn Farmhouse Direct, medium-

term Minor adverse As above Direct, long-term

moderate adverse

Neighbouring footpaths Direct, medium

term Moderate adverse As above Direct, long-term

moderate/major adverse

Other visual receptors as Outline ES


Landscape Character

Direct, long-term negligible

As Outline ES

Landscape Features


Canal

Direct, long-term

Minor adverse As outline ES including specifically:

Cladding of bridge facade

Sensitive design and lighting

Landscaping of approach roads

Additional strengthening of boundary vegetation

Direct, long-term minor adverse

Visual Amenity


Canal Direct, long-

term

Moderate adverse As above

Direct, long-term moderate adverse

Five Locks Close

Direct, long-

term

Moderate/Major adverse

As above Direct, long-term moderate/major

adverse

9 South Sebastopol



Bryn Farmhouse

Direct, long-

term

Minor adverse As above


Neighbouring footpaths

Direct, long-

term



Other visual receptors as Outline ES

Cumulative Effects

As Outline ES

TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT (TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT AND MOVEMENT)

Construction

As Outline ES


As Outline ES

Cumulative Effects

As Outline ES

ARCHAEOLOGY, BUILT AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

Construction

Canal Tunnel – Grade II Listed

(23957)

Permanent Indirect, Minor adverse

Landscape planting will minimise adverse effects on setting. Construction Management plan will limit traffic noise and dust effects.

Indirect, Minor adverse

Milepost – Grade II Listed

(80863)

Temporary Indirect, Minor adverse

Will be protected during the construction phase, unchanged thereafter.

Negligible

10 South Sebastopol



Tyr-Brychiad - Grade II Listed

(80864) - not part of

development plan but adjacent

to main road into site


Landscape planting will help screen listed buildings from new development and a construction management plan will limit traffic noise and dust effects on the setting of this structure.

Negligible

Wren‟s Nest Barn – Grade II

Listed (80861) - not part of

development plan but adjacent

to main road into site


As above. Negligible

Canal – setting will be changed

along its route


Sensitive landscape design and screening. Suitable investigation where directly affected.

Direct or Indirect, Minor adverse

Hedgerows, tracks and field

boundaries

Permanent Direct, Minor adverse

Incorporated as part of design as far as possible.

Indirect, Minor adverse

Buried remains throughout the

site – potential sites

Permanent Direct, Minor to Moderate adverse

Suitable archaeological investigation prior to construction.

Minor adverse


As above As above As above As above As above

Cumulative Effects

No other schemes in locality contributing to a cumulative effect assessment

GROUND CONDITIONS (HYDROGEOLOGY, SOILS AND CONTAMINATED LAND)

Construction

Earthworks

As Outline ES

11 South Sebastopol



Contamination

As Outline ES


As Outline ES

Cumulative Effects

As Outline ES

WATER RESOURCES (WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT)

Construction

As Outline ES


As Outline ES

Cumulative Effects

As Outline ES

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT

Construction

As Outline ES


As Outline ES

Cumulative Effects

As Outline ES

12 South Sebastopol



AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Construction

As Outline ES


As Outline ES

Cumulative Effects

As Outline ES

SUSTAINABILITY

Construction

As Outline ES


As Outline ES

Cumulative Effects

As Outline ES

13 South Sebastopol




5. Ecology and Nature Conservation

Introduction

5.1. This addendum chapter has been written by Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Ltd

(Waterman) and identifies and evaluates the existing ecology and nature conservation resources

for development in proximity to the proposed development site at South Sebastopol. This

addendum has been prepared to consider any additional likely significant effects of the proposed

canal crossing from over the existing canal tunnel to a new location to the south (hereafter referred

to as the Site) both during the construction phase and following completion of the Development at

the site.

5.2. The chapter forms an addendum to the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted as part of the

outline planning application for the whole of the South Sebastopol site (LPA ref. 01/P/05525).

Therefore, to avoid unnecessary duplication, many of the sections within this addendum chapter

have been summarised from the original Outline ES. However, specific effects in relation to

ecology and nature conservation as a result of the new canal crossing proposals are now able to

be assessed in further detail and any mitigation that may be required in order to avoid, reduce or

offset any likely significant adverse impacts are included.

5.3. Reference should also be made to the most recent ecological reports undertaken by RSK Carter

Ecological Ltd (hereafter referred to as RSK) in 2010. The type and scope of surveys to support the

outline planning application were agreed with the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) and

Torfaen District Council (TDC). Previous surveys undertaken by ADAS and RPS Chapman Warren

Planning and Environment (hereafter referred to as RPS) were also used to inform this

assessment.

Legislative and Planning Policy Context

5.4. Reference should be made to Chapter 5 of the outline ES in relation to the ecology and nature

conservation legislative and planning policy context, which details all relevant legislation and

planning policies.

Assessment Methodology

5.5. Ecology surveys at the South Sebastopol site have been undertaken over an approximate 10 year

period as agreed with Torfaen County Council (TCC) and the Countryside Council for Wales

(CCW). The list below therefore only lists the most up to date surveys undertaken. The assessment

methodology has comprised the following:

Undertaking of an updated ecology desk-study 2010;

Undertaking of an updated extended phase I habitat survey 2010;

Undertaking of a phase II flora and fauna surveys 2007-2010

Evaluation of the ecological value of the Site; and

Identification and evaluation of potential and residual effects.

5.6. A full description of the methodologies adopted for the relevant surveys are provided in the outline

ES (refer to Chapter 5). The ecology and nature conservation assessments followed best practice

guidance at the time of survey.

This addendum assessment is based on the following plans:

14 South Sebastopol




Southern Bridge Crossing Extent of Works, Waterman (drawing ref. CIV11765-C-SA-90-007-

A01) – see appendix B;

Highways General Arrangement, Waterman (drawing ref. CIV11765-C-SA-95-005-A02) – see

appendix C; and

South Sebastopol Phase 1 Site Access Roads Southern Canal Bridge General Arrangement,

PBA (drawing ref. 11381/150/A).

Evaluation of Ecological Features

5.7. The basis for the evaluation of ecological features is provided by the 2006 Institute of Ecology and

Environmental Management (IEEM) guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA). These

guidelines aim to provide consistency in the approach to evaluating the importance of ecological

features and any effect that a new development would have upon them.

5.8. In accordance with the IEEM EcIA guidelines, the ecological features identified must be assigned a

value. Secondly, the effects of the relevant development should be predicted, taking into account

the different stages and activities within the development process. These identified effects must

then be assessed for their significance. The significance of the effect is a function of the value of

the ecological feature and the type and nature of the effect.

5.9. The value of ecological features is defined according to the following geographical scales:

International value;

UK value;

National value (i.e. England / Northern Ireland / Scotland / Wales);

Regional value;

County / Metropolitan value;

District / Borough value;

Local or Parish value;

Of value within the Site only; and

Negligible.

5.10. IEEMs criteria are broadly similar to those set out in Chapter 2: EIA Methodology with the terms

„Local or Parish‟ and „District / Borough‟ equivalent to the „local‟ scale, and „County / Metropolitan‟

equivalent to the „district‟ scale. The remaining geographical scales are consistent with both

methodologies.

5.11. The following factors are considered in assessing whether ecological effects are significant:

The extent of the effect;

The magnitude of the effect;

The duration of the effect;

The reversibility of the effect; and

The timing and frequency of the effect.

Evaluation of Significance

5.12. In accordance with Chapter 2: EIA Methodology, the potential and residual effects of the

Development upon identified ecological features are expressed as follows:

15 South Sebastopol




Adverse: Detrimental or negative effect on a valued ecological receptor;

Negligible: No significant effect on a valued ecological receptor; and

Beneficial: Advantageous or positive effect on a valued ecological receptor.

5.13. Where adverse or beneficial effects have been identified, these are then assessed against the

following scale:

Minor: Slight, very short or highly localised effect;

Moderate: Limited effect (by extent, duration or magnitude) which may be considered

significant; and

Substantial: Considerable effect (by extent, duration or magnitude) of more than local

significance or in breach of recognised acceptability, legislation, policy or standards.

5.14. A „valued‟ ecological receptor has been defined as any receptor valued at the Assessment Site

level or above, in accordance with the geographical scales provided above.

5.15. In accordance with IEEM guidelines, where activities associated with the Development could result

in the intentional killing or injury of protected species, this is stated and a level of significance is not

given. This is because such killing or injury must be avoided by law. For other activities that could

lead to an offence but may be permissible under licence or agreement with a government body, the

significance of the effect is assessed according to the significance criteria described previously.

Consultation

5.16. As previously stated consultation with agreement on the scope of the ecological surveys at the Site

and the master plan design have been undertaken with the local Countryside Council for Wales

(CCW) office and Torfaen Borough Council (TBC) throughout the life of the project dating back to

1999.

Baseline Conditions

5.17. The baseline conditions of the site remain as those set out within the outline ES where appropriate

at the Site of the new canal crossing. Reference should be made to the baseline section of Chapter

5.

Potential Effects

5.18. This section considers the effects of the proposals for the new canal crossing on the ecological and

nature conservation of the Site throughout the life-cycle of the development, from construction to

operational phase.

Demolition and Construction

5.19. The Site of the new canal crossing has the potential to result in a number of ecological effects.

Those relevant to the Site include:

Land take and associated habitat loss;

Disturbance due to construction operations, including noise, dust, vibration and changing

habitats throughout construction;

Changes in the pattern of human activity and associated disturbance and/or damage;

Creation of barriers or other obstacles affecting the movement of wildlife;

16 South Sebastopol




Creation of additional habitat for species favouring the urban environment.

5.20. The significance of these potential effects from the new canal crossing is assessed in the following

section. Effects are assessed against the current baseline conditions.

Designated Sites

5.21. There are considered to be no likely effects on any statutory and non-statutory sites owing to their

sufficient separation from the demolition and construction works. It is therefore considered that

there will be a negligible effect on designated sites during the demolition and construction stage.

Woodland and Scrub

5.22. The proposed new canal crossing would retain the existing areas of broadleaved semi-natural

woodland and adjacent scrub habitats to the south. However, in the absence of mitigation

measures, demolition and construction works adjacent to this habitat to the south would result in an

increase in dust, noise and vibration and would result in a temporary, local potential effect of

minor adverse significance to this habitat.

Hedges

5.23. The proposed new canal crossing would cause the loss of approximately 70m of hedgerow –

approximately 35m from each bank running along the canal corridor. The hedgerows to be

severed are however not notable species rich hedgerows that resemble Torfaen local BAP habitat.

In addition, and in the absence of mitigation measures, demolition and construction works to

adjacent hedgerows would result in an increase in dust, noise and vibration. The impacts on

hedgerows during the demolition and construction phase would therefore result in a temporary

and permanent, local potential effect of minor adverse significance to this habitat.

Grassland

5.24. The proposed new canal crossing would result in the loss of 9,900 m2 of grassland. The grassland

habitat to be lost however is grazed agricultural pasture and does not resemble grassland of

UKBAP and Torfaen local BAP value. In addition and in the absence of mitigation measures,

demolition and construction works to adjacent grassland would result in an increase in dust, noise

and vibration. The immediate adjacent grassland however is not of UKBAP and Torfaen local BAP

value. The impacts on grasslands during the demolition and construction phase would therefore

result in a negligible impact.

Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal

5.25. The proposed new canal crossing would result in an additional road crossing of the canal and over

shading of a small section of habitat as a clear span bridge is proposed. In the absence of

mitigation measures, demolition and construction works adjacent to this habitat would result in an

increase in dust, noise and vibration and would result in a temporary, local potential effect of

minor adverse significance to this habitat.

Bats

5.26. The proposed new canal crossing would removal a total of approximately 70m of hedgerows

running along the canal during the demolition and construction stage (approximately 35m on each

bank). However, the proposed open span bridge would provide a structure on which bats can

17 South Sebastopol




echolocate off and continue to commute along the canal. The retained adjacent habitat also

provide excellent green infrastructure for this species across and bordering the Site. In the absence

of mitigation measures, demolition and construction works would create an increase in dust, noise

and vibration and would result in a temporary, county potential effect of minor adverse

significance.

Birds

5.27. The proposed new canal would remove a total of approximately 70m of bird nesting habitat.

However, the retained habitats provide excellent green infrastructure for this species across and

bordering the Site. In the absence of mitigation measures, demolition and construction works would

create an increase in dust, noise and vibration and would result in a permanent and temporary,

county potential effect of minor adverse significance.

White-clawed crayfish

5.28. The proposed new canal crossing would not directly impact on any habitats currently used by

white-clawed crayfish. However, the stream to the south of the Site contains a breeding population

of white-clawed crayfish and there would be an increased risk in the spread of signal crayfish

plague spreading into the canal and this stream, due to vehicle and human movement in the area.

In the absence of mitigation measures, demolition and construction works would create an increase

in dust, noise, vibration and pollution run off into the canal that connect to white-clawed crayfish

habitat. This would result in a temporary, county potential effect of minor adverse significance.

Otters and Water voles

5.29. The proposed development would result in an additional road crossing of the canal and over

shading of a small section of habitat as a clear span bridge is proposed. Given the bridge design it

would not cause any barriers to otter dispersal. In the absence of mitigation measures, demolition

and construction works would create an increase in dust, noise, vibration and pollution run off into

water bodies. Taken the above it is considered that the reinstatement of the stream would be of a

positive impact. This would result in a temporary, district potential effect of minor adverse

significance.

5.30. The Site is considered to be of negligible value to water voles given the survey and consultation

work undertaken. It is therefore anticipated that the demolition and construction phase would give

rise to potential effects of negligible significance to water voles.


Designated Sites

5.31. As previously noted, it is considered that there will be no likely effects on any statutory and non-

statutory sites. As such it is considered that the operation of the proposed development would also

result in a negligible effect on designated sites.

Woodland and Scrub

5.32. The woodland and adjacent scrub habitat to the south is considered to be of district ecological

value and would be retained during demolition and construction. However, in the absence of

mitigation, as a result of the new canal crossing there is likely to be an increase in human pressure

18 South Sebastopol




and traffic and human movements adjacent to the woodland. The effect of the completed

Development on this habitat would be of permanent district minor adverse significance.

Hedges

5.33. The hedgerows to be severed are not notable species rich hedgerows that resemble Torfaen local

BAP habitat. In the absence of mitigation will result in the reduction of this habitat on Site. As such

it is considered that the effect of the completed Development on this habitat would be of

permanent local minor adverse significance.

Grassland

5.34. The impacts on grasslands during the demolition and construction phase is negligible and as such

is considered to be negligible during the completed development phase.


5.35. The proposed new canal crossing would result in an additional road crossing of the canal and over

shading of a small section of habitat as a clear span bridge is proposed. In the absence of

mitigation, as a result of the development there is likely to be an increase in human and vehicle

pressure on the canal. The effect of the completed Development on this habitat would be of

permanent local minor adverse significance.

Bats

5.36. The proposed new canal crossing would sever a total of approximately 70m of hedgerows running

along the canal (approximately 35m on each bank). The proposed open span bridge would provide

a structure on which bats can echolocate off and continue to commute along the canal. The

retained adjacent habitat also provide excellent green infrastructure for this species across and

bordering the Site. However during the operational stage of the development it is considered that

there would be an increase in lighting, human and vehicle disturbance. In addition in the absence

of mitigation there would also be loss of foraging habitat of ecologically poor hedgerows and

grassland. As such the effect of the completed Development on this species would be of

permanent county minor adverse significance.

Birds

5.37. The proposed new canal would remove a total of approximately 70m of bird nesting habitat. The

retained habitats provide excellent green infrastructure for this species across and bordering the

Site. However, during the operational stage of the development it is considered that there would be

an increase in lighting, human and vehicle disturbance. In addition in the absence of mitigation

there would also be loss of and foraging and nesting habitat (hedgerows only) of ecologically poor

hedgerows and grassland. As such the effect of the completed Development on this species would

be of permanent county minor adverse significance.

White-clawed crayfish

5.38. The proposed new canal crossing would not directly impact on any habitats currently used by

white-clawed crayfish during the completed development phase. However, during the operational

stage of the development it is considered that there would be an increase in lighting human and

vehicle disturbance on the stream. This level of disturbance is likely to be very minimal given the

19 South Sebastopol




steep sided banks and poor accessibility of the crayfish stream to the south east of the Site.

However there would be an increased risk in the spread of signal crayfish plague due to increased

human and vehicle activity in the area. As such the effect of the completed Development on this

habitat would be of permanent local minor adverse significance.

Otters and Water voles

5.39. The proposed development would result in an additional road crossing of the canal and over

shading of a small section of habitat as a clear span bridge is proposed. Given the bridge design it

would not cause any barriers to otter dispersal. However, in the absence of mitigation during the

operational stage of the development, it is considered that there would be an increase in lighting,

human and vehicle disturbance. As such the effect of the completed Development on this habitat

would be of permanent district minor adverse significance.

5.40. The ecological value of the Site for water voles is considered negligible based on the survey work

undertaken. Therefore the potential effects of the completed Development on this habitat would be

of negligible significance.

Mitigation Measures and Recommendations

5.41. This section provides a summary of mitigation measures which would be implemented in order to:

Avoid, mitigate and compensate for the identified potential adverse effects;

Ensure that all works comply with relevant nature conservation legislation; and

Promote biodiversity on the Site.

5.42. The mitigation proposals set out below describe additional mitigation measures which would be

implemented during the demolition and construction and operational phases of the Development.


Environmental Management Plan

5.43. Demolition and site clearance works would be undertaken outside the main bird breeding season

where practicable (i.e. only during September to February inclusive). If these works cannot be

restricted to within this period, an Ecological Watching Brief would be maintained during the main

bird breeding season to ensure that no nesting birds were adversely affected. This would entail

checking all suitable habitats for nesting birds by a suitably qualified ecologist prior to the

commencement of works.

5.44. It is recommended that low level lighting is used during demolition and construction works,

particularly in areas adjacent to broadleaved woodland.

5.45. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) would ensure that appropriate environmental controls

would be implemented during the demolition and construction works. The EMP would be in

accordance with relevant British Standards Best Practice Guidelines and would include ecological

mitigation such as:

Tree protection measures including protective fencing around the root zones of retained trees,

woodlands and hedgerows during construction to prevent damage from compaction;

Lighting would be controlled in order to ensure there is minimal light spill on to the canal,

broadleaved woodland and connecting features to minimise any potential impacts on foraging or

20 South Sebastopol




commuting bats, otters and other wildlife;

Protection of the retained grassland areas from encroachment of the works through appropriate

fencing;

Protection of the stream to the south from encroachment of works via a suitable fenced buffer;

Measures to prevent the possible spread of signal crayfish disease via control checks of

equipment and machinery on Site, as native white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes

are present to the stream to the south;

Measures to minimise dust arising during demolition and construction would, when necessary,

include regular damping down of the Site by spraying with water; and

The EMP would be agreed with TBC and CCW prior to the commencement of demolition and

construction works on the Site, and would be a condition of contract for all contractors.

Proposed Landscape Strategy

5.46. The proposed soft landscape strategy around the new canal crossing would seek to create new

habitats to buffer the canal, and provide continuous vegetation links and buffers for wildlife linking

as far as the open span bridge. This would be done using native species and/or species of benefit

to wildlife indicative of the local area. The western bank in particular will be enhanced to provide

potential layup site for otters. The area under the bridge on the western bank will be fenced off to

prevent human disturbance and landscape planting will be designed to provide a secluded area for

otters.

Proposed Nesting/Roosting Opportunities

5.47. Artificial bat roosting opportunities could be provided as part of the new canal crossing on both

sides of the structure itself.


Landscape and Ecological Management Plan

5.48. The landscape and ecological value of the Site would be enhanced by implementing management

regimes on the retained and created habitat on and adjacent to the new canal crossing works area.

These management regimes would be detailed in a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan

(LEMP) for the operational Development. The LEMP would also detail measures to be

implemented to minimise human and vehicle disturbance to habitats, for example:

Existing pathways would be clearly delineated to avoid trampling;

Design and Implementation of a lighting strategy would be undertaken to minimise impacts on

nocturnal species such as bats and otters;

Buffer planting and fencing to prevent human access to the western bank under the new canal

crossing. To provide potential layup sites of otters and foraging and commuting habitat for bats.

Residual Effects

5.49. Residual effects are those remaining effects following the success implementation of mitigation

measures outlined above. It is considered that many local impacts can be reduced as a result of

successful mitigation, particularly during construction.

21 South Sebastopol




5.50. The table at the end of this chapter summarises the significance of effects and residual effects for

both construction and completed development respectively.

Cumulative Effects

5.51. In the local area there are two planning application as part of the Avesta scheme that are

considered likely to have cumulative effects on ecology during the construction and completed

development stage of the scheme. A full application is currently being processed and an approved

reserved matters application has been approved these are for:

10/P/00542(W) – full application – “residential let mixed use development comprising

apartments and housing (amended scheme)” – not yet determined (Barratt Homes)

10/P/00033(W) – reserved matters application – “reserved matters for 209 dwellings” –

approved 31st August (Persimmon Homes)

5.52. In addition to the Avesta scheme, the remainder of the outline application for Sebastopol (LPA

ref01/P/05525) is also considered as part of the cumulative assessment.

5.53. During the construction and completed development stage of the development there is likely to be

a cumulative effect on ecology within the local area. It is anticipated however that these impacts as

a result of the scheme are minimal due to the size of the Site area for the proposed canal crossing,

geographical context of the site, separation caused by the A4051 and best practice and Site

specific mitigation proposed within the EMP and LEMP. During construction and completed

development stage the cumulative effects would be associated with:

Land take and associated habitat loss;

Disturbance due to construction operations, including noise, dust, vibration and changing

habitats throughout construction;

Changes in the pattern of human activity and associated disturbance and/or damage;

Creation of barriers or other obstacles affecting the movement of wildlife;

Creation of additional habitat for species favouring the urban environment.

Summary

5.54. A comprehensive sweep of ecological surveys have been undertaken at and adjacent to the Site

(type and scope agreed with CCW and TBC) have concluded that the Site is currently of negligible

to County ecological value.

5.55. Though there would be change to the existing habitats of ecological value at the Site as a result of

the Development of the new canal crossing, the extent and nature of the proposed enhancement

inherent to the Development design and additional mitigation including the production of an

Ecological Management Plan during construction and a Landscape and Ecological Management

plan post construction would result in a negligible and beneficial effect to the biodiversity of the

Site. This would include the introduction of habitats whilst protecting the existing species of

ecological value.

5.56. A number of potential and residual effects have been identified for the demolition and construction

phases of the Development and once the Development is completed and operational. These are

summarised below in the Table below.

22 South Sebastopol




Table 2: Potential and residual effects

Issue Potential Effect / Significance

Mitigation Measures Residual Effect / Significance


Designated Sites Negligible None Required Negligible

Woodland and Scrub Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible

Hedges Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible

Grassland Negligible None Required Negligible



Bats Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Minor Beneficial

Birds Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Minor Beneficial

White-clawed Crayfish Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible

Otter and Water Voles Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible



Woodland and Scrub Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

Hedges Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible



Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

Bats Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Minor Beneficial

Birds Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Minor Beneficial

White-clawed Crayfish Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

Otter and Water Voles Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

23 South Sebastopol



Table 3: Table of Significance – Ecology and Nature Conservation

Potential Effect Nature of Effect


Significance (Major/ Moderate/

Minor) (Beneficial/ Adverse/

Negligible)


Geographical Importance*

Residual Effects (Major/ Moderate/


Negligible) I UK W R C D L

Construction

Designated Sites Negligible Negligible None Required Negligible

Woodland and Scrub Temporary Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP * Negligible

Hedges Temporary and Permanent

Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP *

Negligible

Grassland Temporary and Permanent

Negligible None Required *

Negligible

Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal Temporary Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP * Negligible

Bats Temporary and Permanent


Minor Beneficial

Birds Temporary and Permanent


Minor Beneficial

White-clawed Crayfish Temporary Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP * Negligible

Otter and Water Voles Temporary Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP * Negligible


Designated Sites Negligible Negligible None Required Negligible

Woodland and Scrub Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP * Negligible

Hedges Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP * Negligible

Grassland Permanent Negligible None Required * Negligible

Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP * Negligible

Bats Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP * Minor Beneficial

Birds Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP * Minor Beneficial

White-clawed Crayfish Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP * Negligible

24 South Sebastopol



Otter and Water Voles Permanent Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP * Negligible

Cumulative Effects

During the construction and completed development stage of the development there is likely to be a cumulative effect in the local area. It is anticipated however that these impacts as a result of the scheme are minimal due to the geographical context of the site.

Permanent Negligible Site specific mitigation proposed within the EMP and LEMP

Negligible

* Geographical Level of Importance

I = International; UK = United Kingdom; W = Wales; R = Regional; C = County; D = District; L = Local

25 South Sebastopol




6. Services (Utilities)

6.1. Following review of Chapter 6 – Services (Utilities), of the Environmental Statement in support of

the Outline Planning Application for the South Sebastopol Development dated January 2011, it is

the view of Waterman Transport and Development that the Chapter as published remains relevant

with regard to this Addendum. Specifically, the revised Highway Route incorporating a new bridge

structure crossing the Monmouthshire / Brecon Canal does not materially affect the information

contained within the Chapter. In this case no amendments to the contents of Chapter 6 of the

Outline ES have been made.

26 South Sebastopol




7. Society and Economy

7.1. Following review of Chapter 7 – Society and Economy of the Environmental Statement in support

of the Outline Planning Application for the South Sebastopol Development dated January 2011, it is

the view of Asbri Planning that the Chapter as published remains relevant with regard to this

Addendum. Specifically, the revised Highway Route incorporating a new bridge structure crossing

the Monmouthshire / Brecon Canal does not materially affect the information contained within the

Chapter. In this case no amendments to the contents of Chapter 7 of the Outline ES have been

made.

27 South Sebastopol




8. Landscape Character and Visual Assessment

Introduction

8.1. This addendum chapter has been written by Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Ltd

(Waterman) to form an addendum to Chapter 8 of the outline Environment Statement (ES) (LPA

ref. 01/P/05525) following amendments to the outline proposals as a result of the relocation of the

southern bridging point over the Brecon and Monmouthshire Canal. Therefore, to avoid

unnecessary duplication, many of the sections within this addendum chapter have been

summarised from the original outline ES. However, specific effects in relation to landscape and

visual amenity as a result of the relocation of the bridge are assessed in further detail for both

construction and operational phases. Mitigation measures that may be required in order to avoid,

reduce or offset any likely significant adverse impacts that may arise to landscape and visual

receptors is also suggested. The red line boundary of the bridging point and extent of works is

shown within Waterman drawing C-SA-90-007-A01 and hereafter referred to as „the site‟.

8.2. Reference should also be made to the arboricultural survey report of the site, produced by

Waterman (ref. E11338-R-2-2-2-101212-BC) in accordance with BS5837:2005 – „Trees In Relation

To Construction‟ and submitted as part of the outline planning application documentation.

Planning Policy Context

8.3. Reference should be made to Chapter 8 of the outline ES and its accompanying Figure 8.1 in

relation to the landscape and visual planning policy context, which details relevant policies from

nation to local level.

8.4. However, of particular pertinence is Policy S2 which designates the site (and areas beyond) as a

General Development Area (ref. S2/2 South Sebastopol). This designation essentially allocates the

land for development and development proposals within this area will be permitted provided they

are in accordance with policy framework of the local plan that seek to protect the integrity of

landscape character and visual amenity of the area, particularly that of the Canal and uplands.

8.5. In additional to local plan policies the adopted South Sebastopol Development Framework (2004)

provides ad hoc guidelines for development of the GDA. Development should seek to:

Make best use of existing features such as woodlands, tree-lined hedgerows, streams and the

canal;

Give residents a sense of place and belonging;

Maintain and enhance the existing character and recreational value of the canal;

Create open space corridors and areas of focal open space throughout the site;

Retain where possible existing important views and create new focal points within the

landscape;

Where possible maintain the alignment of existing public rights of way; and

Reinforce new linkages with surrounding communities.

8.6. The importance and further potential of the canal as a recreational resource is recognised within

Torfaen Local Plan which encourages enhancement of its recreational amenity under policies L5

and L7.

8.7. It is also of note that the Canal is earmarked as a proposed conservation area although this

aspiration has not yet been formally recognised within planning policy to date.

28 South Sebastopol




Other Statutory Designations

Public Rights of Way (PRoW)

8.8. A National Cycle Route also follows the Canal towpath north to south through the site whilst two

footpaths are present to the north of the site.

Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)

8.9. There are no TPOs present within the site.

Listed Buildings

8.10. There are no listed buildings or structures within the site. The closest listed structures is the Canal

tunnel and milepost, both Grade II listed, approximately 50m to the north.

Assessment Methodology

8.11. The assessment methodology for the landscape and visual assessment follows best practice as set

out by the Countryside Agency, Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management

and Assessment as detailed in the outline ES (refer to Chapter 8).

8.12. The addendum assessment is based on the following drawings:


A01) – see appendix B;


appendix C; and

South Sebastopol Phase 1 Site Access Roads Southern Canal Bridge General Arrangement,

PBA (drawing ref. 11381/150/A).

Significance Criteria

8.13. The significance of landscape and visual effects are determined by assessing:

The sensitivity of the affected landscape;

The sensitivity of the visual receptor; and

The magnitude of the potential change that will occur.

8.14. Effects may be adverse or beneficial, the significance of which (including residual impacts following

mitigation measures) is shown graphically as a significance matrix in Table 5 using the following

definitions:

Minor – an effect which on its own is likely to have a minor influence on decision making but

when combined with other effects could have a more material influence;

Moderate – an effect which on its own could have some influence on decision making,

particularly when combined with other similar effects; or

Major – an effect which in isolation could have a material influence on the decision making

process.

8.15. In addition, the term negligible is used to describe impacts that would cause very limited changes

to the landscape and/or views, but creates no significant impact.

8.16. The nature of effect is also assessed as being either short-term (less than 5 years), medium-term

(5 - 10 years) or long-term (10 years plus) in timescale. All landscape and visual effects are

29 South Sebastopol




considered to be direct (i.e. a direct consequence of the Development proposals).

8.17. The assessment of the nature of landscape and visual effects will depend on the degree to which

the Development:

Complements, respects and fits into the existing scale, landform and pattern of landscape

context;

Enables enhancement, restoration or retention of the landscape character and visual amenity;

Affects strategic and important views in addition to the visual context of receptors; and

Meets landscape and visual policy aspirations for the area.

Table 4: Significance Matrix – Landscape Character and Visual Assessment

8.18. In addition, the term negligible is used if the development would cause very limited changes to the

landscape and/or views, but creates no significant impact.

Baseline Conditions

8.19. The baseline conditions of the site remain as those set out within the outline ES. Reference should

be made to the baseline section of Chapter 8 and associated Figures 8.3 to 8.18. A short

description specific to the site is also provided below.

8.20. The site is located in the south of the Sebastopol outline application area, approximately 10-20m

north of Five Locks Close. It comprises of the Brecon and Monmouthshire Canal, a small section of

its tree-lined banks and hedgerows and two small areas of rough pastoral grassland beyond. The

sense of enclosure as result of vegetation is strong. The presence of built form at Five Locks Close

is also discernible owing to its proximity.

Likely Evolution of the Baseline

8.21. In landscape and visual terms, the site is likely to remain relatively unchanged in the near future.

However, the designation of the site and wider area between Cwmbran and Sebastopol as a

General Development Area (GDA) within the Torfaen Local Plan means that its development,

resulting in substantial change to the character and visual amenity, is likely in the future.

Likely Significant Effects

8.22. This section considers the effects of the relocation of the bridge on the landscape character and

Sensitivity / Value of

Receptor

Magnitude of Effect

High Medium Low

High

(Wales/UK/International designation/private residents)

Major Major/ Moderate Moderate

Medium

(County/Regional designations/PROW/Outdoor

Recreation)

Major/ Moderate Moderate Moderate/ Minor

Low

(Local/District designations/ Local Road Users)

Moderate Moderate/ Minor Minor

30 South Sebastopol




visual amenity of the receiving environment, from construction to operational phase. The

assessment also identifies the timescale over which these effects will occur, their direct or indirect

nature as well as their potential reversibility. The significance of impact has been identified using

the methodology detailed above and the matrices contained within Table 5. It should be noted that

the all impact significances identified within this section are before the implementation of mitigation

measures. All other impacts will remain as those detailed within the outline ES unless explicitly

stated otherwise.

8.23. In order to support this addendum, additional photoviewpoint locations (A-F) have been identified

and assessment specific to the bridge relocation and should be referred to when reading this

section. The location of these is shown within Figure 8.1 with the corresponding photosheets in

Figures 8.2 – 8.6.

Construction

8.24. The effects of demolition, site preparation works and construction activities are assessed below

and have the potential to affect the landscape character and visual amenity of the site and its

environs in the following ways:

Removal of vegetation along the Canal at crossing point;

Ground excavation works, including levelling and cut and fill activities for approach road to the

crossing;

Movement of heavy plant and material both within and to site;

Erection of construction infrastructure (e.g. scaffolding and mobile cranes) and siting of workers

welfare facilities; and

Construction of new bridge structure.

8.25. The effects identified for the construction phase are short-term in nature, lasting for less than five

years although it should be noted that the construction of the bridge itself will be seen as part of

construction within the wider area as part of the built of the outline site area. Demolition and

construction effects are generally considered to be reversible in landscape and visual terms.

However, some impacts, such as the removal of trees and hedgerows are considered to be

permanent.

Landscape Features

Brecon and Monmouthshire Canal

8.26. The Canal at present is a relatively tranquil and rural environment, forming an attractive aquatic

feature through the spine of the Sebastopol area. Construction of the relocated bridge will,

inevitably, result in the removal of a small section of vegetation lining the eastern and western

banks of the Canal (although this would also be necessary if the existing tunnel crossing was

used). The re-profiling of ground adjacent to the bridge crossing will also cause some intrusion to

character, both visually and audibly. However, owing to the relatively small extents of works

entailed (in relation to the Canal as a whole) and the enclosure of the Canal, disruption, although

substantial in nature, will be limited to the local environs of the bridge. The overall character of the

Canal is therefore unlikely to experience any significant increase in impact on character above and

beyond that identified within the outline ES as a result of the relocation of the bridge. Thus impacts

will be direct, medium-term of minor adverse significance.

8.27. All other impacts to character during construction remain as those detailed within Chapter 8 of the

31 South Sebastopol




outline ES.

Visual Amenity

8.28. As with any new bridging point, construction of the relocated bridge is likely to result in substantial

visual intrusion. In relation to construction within the wider Sebastopol application area this is

relative small, nonetheless the erection of a new structure across the Canal will have considerable

local visual impacts. However, owing to the enclosure of the Canal by adjacent vegetation, this will

be limited to the near vicinity. For the approach roads to the bridge, construction beyond the Canal

will be prominent, particularly from properties in the northeast of Five Locks Close that back on to

Sebastopol outline application area although fortunately these works are not extensive in nature.

Views from the Canal (photoviewpoints A, B and C)

8.29. Construction will be visible from the Canal towpath where it is likely to form a notable feature, the

prominence of which will depend on proximity. The alignment of the Canal creates a long vista

(photoviewpoint A) northward from Five Locks Road although the actual visibility of the bridge at

the this distance will be limited as a result of intervening built form and vegetation. Close to the

bridging point (photoviewpoint B) construction will be highly visible causing considerable intrusion.

Views of construction to the north of the bridging point will also be prominent, however they quickly

become obscured by the curvature of the Canal (photoviewpoint C). Importantly, no view of

construction will be possible from the Canal tunnel itself. Consequently, in is concluded that visual

impacts will be largely limited to approximately 40m north and 60m south of the actual bridging

point. The construction of the new bridging point will cause disturbance to the visual amenity of the

Canal although these are no considered to be significantly greater that those that would arise if the

existing Canal tunnel crossing was used. The impacts to the visual amenity of the Canal are

therefore concluded to remain as direct, medium-term in nature of moderate/major adverse

significance.

Five Locks Close (photoviewpoint B)

8.30. Properties that back on to the Sebastopol outline application that will have the clearest view of

construction. All of these properties are buffered by intervening back gardens and, owing to their

low gable roofs, windows overlooking the site tend to be skylights or small apertures. Nonetheless

construction of the bridge will be prominent, particularly from those dwellings in the far northeast of

Five Locks Close leading to direct, medium-term impacts of major adverse significance.

However, the majority of these dwellings will be unaffected.

Bryn Farmhouse (photoviewpoint F)

8.31. The elevated position of Bryn Farmhouse allows panoramic views over the Afon Lwyd valley. The

Canal is largely sequestered amongst the vegetation and undulations of the area (photoviewpoint

F) and construction of the relocated bridge will be largely hidden from view, with only construction

of the western approach road being discernible. The relocation of the bridge is considered not to

result and additional impact to the visual amenity of this property and as such impacts are

concluded to be direct, medium-term of minor adverse significance. It is also worthy of note

that relocation of the bridge is largely likely to be lost amongst the buildout of the Sebastopol site.

Neighbouring Footpaths (photoviewpoint D and E)

8.32. Intervening vegetation and undulating topography largely screens views of construction from

neighbouring footpaths (photoviewpoint E). Views of construction of the eastern approach road will

32 South Sebastopol




be visible from the footpath from the Canal to Wren‟s Nest Farm (photoviewpoint D) where it will be

form a notable feature of the view. Overall the relocation of the bridge is concluded to result in

direct, medium term impacts of moderate adverse significance and will largely be lost amongst

the build out of the Sebastopol site.


8.33. The completed development will see the erection of a new bridge over the Brecon and

Monmouthshire Canal in the south of the outline application area. This will comprise a two lane

open span bridge with associated approach road, lighting and landscaped areas. The towpath will

remain adjacent to the east bank of the Canal.

Landscape Features

Brecon and Monmouthshire Canal

8.34. The relocation of the bridge will create a prominent, new feature within the character of the Brecon

and Monmouthshire Canal. However, provided the design and façade of the bridge is sensitive to

the Canal and its setting, it is concluded that there is no reason why the bridge cannot be

assimilated successfully into this context. The increase in traffic and lighting will, inevitably result in

some minor increase in intrusion to the rurality of the Canal although this is not considered to be

significantly harmful. Consequently, the impact to the character of the Brecon and Monmouthshire

Canal as a result of the relocation of the bridge is assessed to be direct, long-term of minor

adverse significance.

8.35. All other impacts to character as a result of the completed development remain as those detailed

within Chapter 8 of the outline ES.

Visual Amenity

8.36. In visual terms, the completed development will create a prominent new feature in local views of

the Canal. However, the bridge itself will be largely screened from view beyond the Canal by

intervening vegetation and undulating topography, with only the lighting and landscaped areas of

the approach road visible. As with character, provided sensitive design, there is no reason why the

bridge should appear incongruent or alien to the Canal environment although it will be substantially

bigger than other crossings currently extant within the Sebastopol application area.

Views from the Canal (photoviewpoints A, B and C)

8.37. The relocation of the bridge will create a substantive new feature in views from the Canal, the

prominence of which will depend on proximity. In middle distance views (photoviewpoint A) the

bridge is likely to be largely inconspicuous, sequestered amongst the vegetation lining the Canal.

However in close proximity (photoviewpoints B and C) it will dominate the composition. The

structure of the bridge will also result in the loss of the long vista from photoviewpoint C along the

Canal to Five Locks Road. Owing to the curvature of the Canal views from the Canal tunnel will not

be possible. Although the loss of the vista is considered detrimental, changes to the view are

localised relative to the full length of the Canal. Therefore direct, long-term impacts of moderate

adverse significance will occur to receptors of views from the Canal.

Five Locks Close (photoviewpoint B)

8.38. Views of the bridge will also be prominent in views from Five Locks Close although only dwellings

33 South Sebastopol




in the northeast that back on to the Sebastopol application area will be affected. It is also of note

that new dwellings are proposed adjacent to Five Locks Close which will effectively screen views of

the bridge. There will some additional intrusion as a result of increased traffic and lighting but

provided sensitive design these should be nominal. Impacts will therefore be direct, long-term of

moderate/major adverse significance for those dwellings backing onto the site although the

majority of properties at Five Locks Close will not be affected.

Bryn Farmhouse (photoviewpoint F)

8.39. As with views from Five Locks Close, views from Bryn Farmhouse are more likely to be drawn to

the build out of the site rather than that of the relocation of the bridge. The bridge itself will be

largely indiscernible although the western approach road will be visible for a short period until build

out of the Sebastopol site is complete. Impacts to the visual amenity will therefore remain as

identified within the outline assessment as direct, long-term of minor adverse significance.

Neighbouring Footpaths (photoviewpoint D and E)

8.40. The eastern approach road will be visible from photoviewpoint D although the western is largely

screened from photoviewpoint E. In additional, intervening built form of the Sebastopol site will

eventually completely screen views of the relocated bridge from these footpaths. The significance

of impact for visual receptors on these paths is therefore concluded to be direct, long-term minor

adverse significance.

Mitigation Measures

8.41. The following mitigation measures are suggested for the construction phase and completed

development for the relocation of the bridge and should be employed to reduce adverse landscape

and visual effects where they occur, as identified during the course of this assessment.

Construction

8.42. The following mitigation measures should be adopted to reduce adverse impacts as a result of the

construction phase:

Adoption of Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) to ensure good site management and house-

keeping;

Sensitive siting of welfare facilities, plant and material storage areas;

Erection of protective fencing in accordance with BS5837 – Trees in Relation to Construction

around areas of important retained vegetation; and

The exact alignment of the bridge should be informed by the arboriculture report to avoid the

removal of mature tree specimens and hedgerow where possible.


8.43. The following mitigation measures should be adopted to reduce adverse impacts as a result of the

completed development:

Insistence on sensitive, high design of the bridge to respect the character of the Canal and local

context;

Use of local stone cladding to reflect vernacular of existing bridging structures elsewhere along

the Canal;

34 South Sebastopol




Landscaping of approach roads to aid integration and provide important green links for ecology;

Sensitive positioning of lighting to avoid light spill into adjacent areas;

Strengthening of vegetative boundaries to Canal where appropriate to offset for that removed.

Residual Effects

8.44. Residual effects are those remaining effects following the success implementation of mitigation

measures outlined above. It is considered that many local impacts can be reduced as a result of

successful mitigation, particularly during construction.

8.45. Table 6 at the end of this chapter summarises the significance of effects and residual effects for

both construction and completed development respectively

Cumulative Effects

8.46. The relocation of the bridge is not considered to result in any changes to the impacts to landscape

and visual receptors as identified within the outline ES.

Summary

8.47. The relocation of the bridge is envisaged in the south of the Sebastopol outline application area,

approximately 10-20m north of Five Locks Close. It comprises of the Brecon and Monmouthshire

Canal, its tree-lined banks and hedgerows with rough pastoral grassland beyond.

8.48. The relocation of the bridge will result in increased visual and audible intrusion during the

construction phase, However, the extent of these impacts is relatively limited to approximately

within a 100m stretch of the Canal owing the enclosure of the Canal and the vegetation that lines it.

Although impacts will be more apparent locally, they are not considered to result in an increase in

significance from those detailed within the outline ES in relation to the Sebastopol as a whole.

8.49. The relocation of the bridge will create a prominent, new feature within Brecon and Monmouthshire

Canal. However, provided the design and façade of the bridge is sensitive to the Canal and its

setting, it is concluded that there is no reason why the bridge cannot be assimilated successfully

into this context. The increase in traffic and lighting will, inevitably result in some minor increase in

intrusion to the rurality of the Canal although this is not considered to be significantly harmful.

8.50. The structure of the bridge will result in the loss of the long vista along the Canal in this area,

however, owing to the curvature of the Canal, views of the bridge from the Canal tunnel will not be

possible. The bridge itself will be largely screened from view beyond the Canal by intervening

vegetation and undulating topography although it will be substantially bigger than other crossings

currently extant. Although adverse impacts will increase on a local scale this is not considered to

be a significant departure in landscape and visual terms in relation from those identified within the

outline ES.

8.51. No changes to the cumulative effects to landscape character and visual amenity will occur as a

result of the relocation of the bridge.

35 South Sebastopol



Table 5: Table of Significance – Landscape Character and Visual Assessment

Potential Effect

Nature of Effect (short<1 year/

Medium 1-5 years/ long term>5years)

Significance (Major/ Moderate/ Minor)



Geographical Importance* Residual Effects (Major/ Moderate/


Negligible)

I UK W R C D L

Construction

Landscape Features

Brecon and

Monmouthshire Canal

Direct, medium-term Minor adverse As outline ES including specifically:

Alignment of bridge informed by arboricultural report

Erection of tree protection fencing

Adoption of CoCp

* Direct, medium-term minor adverse

Visual Amenity

Brecon and

Monmouthshire Canal

Direct, medium-term Moderate/Major adverse As above * Direct, medium-term moderate adverse

Five Locks Close Direct, medium-term Major adverse As above * Direct, medium-term major adverse

Bryn Farmhouse Direct, medium-term Minor adverse As above * Direct, medium-term negligible

Neighbouring footpaths Direct, medium term Moderate adverse As above * Direct, medium-term negligible


Landscape Features

Brecon and

Monmouthshire Canal

Direct, long-term Minor adverse As outline ES including specifically:

Cladding of bridge facade

Sensitive design and lighting

Landscaping of approach roads

Additional strengthening of boundary vegetation

* Direct, long-term minor adverse

Visual Amenity

Brecon and Direct, long-term

Moderate adverse As above

* Direct, long-term

36 South Sebastopol



Monmouthshire Canal

moderate adverse

Five Locks Close

(properties backing onto

Sebastopol application

area only)

Direct, long-term Moderate/Major adverse

As above * Direct, long-term

moderate/major adverse

Bryn Farmhouse Direct, long-term


* Direct, long-term negligible

Neighbouring footpaths Direct, long-term


* Direct, long-term negligible

Cumulative Effects

No additional effects – refer to outline ES * Geographical Level of Importance I = International; UK = United Kingdom; W = Wales; R = Regional; C = County; D = District; L = Local

37 South Sebastopol




9. Transportation Assessment (Traffic, Transport and Movement)

Introduction

9.1. This chapter is written as an addendum to the chapter on Transportation Assessment (Traffic,

Transport and Movement), submitted as part of the original Environmental Statement in February

2011.

9.2. The addendum was requested in view of a change in the development plan relating to the crossing

over the canal, which is proposed here to be relocated from a crossing over the Canal Tunnel (a

Grade II listed structure) to a new location south of the Canal Tunnel.

9.3. There has been no change to Planning Policy or to the original Assessment Methodology/ Baseline

Conditions since the original Environmental Statement was submitted.

9.4. This chapter will only review the information related to Likely Significant Effects in view of the

change in location for the crossing over the canal.


9.5. There are no likely significant effects of the change in development plan, to the future baseline

conditions. As such, the identification of significant effects remains consistent with those originally

identified as part of the original Environmental Statement in February 2011.

9.6. It was previously proposed to:

Utilise the Existing Bevans Lane Bridge (albeit potentially upgraded) rather than constructing a

completely new bridge structure a short distance to the north of the existing bridge. (It is noted

that the existing bridge is an adopted structure that is owned by TCBC).

Form the southernmost crossing „at grade‟ over the Existing Canal Tunnel (It is noted that the

Existing Canal Tunnel is a listed structure and therefore a subterranean bridge structure is likely

to be required to ensure that no additional load is transferred to the Canal Tunnel Structure)

An „at-grade‟ Toucan Crossing would be provided at each of these Canal crossings in order to

retain the continuity of the existing towpath.

9.7. Due to a change in the development plan the proposal is now to construct a new bridge structure a

short distance to the south of the Canal Tunnel replacing the one canal crossing at the Canal

Tunnel Structure.

9.8. The network of pedestrian and cycle routes will in general follow the routes set within the Adopted

Development Framework and along the existing right of way alignments. Where new routes are

proposed, these will follow the alignment of existing mature hedgerows.

9.9. Following review of Chapter 9 – Transportation Assessment (Traffic, Transport and Movement) of

the Environmental Statement in support of the Outline Planning Application for the South

Sebastopol Development in January 2011, it is the view of Waterman Transport and Development

that the Chapter as published remains relevant with regard to this Addendum. Furthermore, the

revised Highway Route incorporating a new bridge structure crossing the Monmouthshire / Brecon

Canal, does not materially affect the information contained within the Chapter. Therefore, no

amendments to the contents of Chapter 9 of the Outline Application ES have been made.

38 South Sebastopol




10. Archaeological, Built and Cultural Heritage

Introduction

10.1. This chapter is written as an addendum to the chapter on Archaeology, Built and Cultural Heritage,

submitted as part of the original Environmental Statement in February 2011.

10.2. The addendum was requested in view of a change in the development plan relating to the crossing

over the canal, which is proposed here to be relocated from a crossing over the Canal Tunnel (a

Grade II listed structure) to a new location south of the Canal Tunnel.

10.3. The addendum assessment is based on the following drawings:

Location of Southern Canal Bridge Crossing, Waterman (drawing ref. CIV11765-C-SA-90-008-

A01) – see appendix A;


A01) – see appendix B; and


appendix C.

10.4. There has been no change to Planning Policy or to the original Assessment Methodology/ Baseline

Conditions since the original Environmental Statement was submitted.

10.5. This chapter will only review the information related to Likely Significant Effects in view of the

change in location for the crossing over the canal.

10.6. Mitigation Measures and Residual effects, as well as the Significance Matrix are overviews of all

heritage.


10.7. The likely significant effects of the Proposed Development are considered here in relation to the

future baseline conditions. The identification of significant effects covers all potential effects before

any mitigation measures. The significance matrix within Table 6 defines the level of significance of

effects and uses the following terms:

Beneficial or Adverse:

Beneficial – advantageous or positive effect to an environmental resource or receptor; or

Adverse – detrimental or negative effects to an environmental resource or receptor.

10.8. Where an effect is considered to be not significant or have no influence, irrespective of other

effects, this is classified as negligible.

10.9. Minor, Moderate or Major – this is the level of significance after mitigation where effects are

beneficial or adverse:

Minor – an effect which on its own is likely to have a minor influence on decision making but

when combined with other effects could have a more material influence;

Moderate – an effect which on its own could have some influence on decision making,

particularly when combined with other similar effects; or

Major – an effect which in isolation could have a material influence on the decision making

process.

39 South Sebastopol




10.10. Short, Medium or Long Term – short to medium term effects are considered to be those

associated with the construction phase, and long term effects are those associated with the

completed development, when it is occupied and occupational.

10.11. Effects of the completed development have not been considered, as all likely significant effects will

occur from during the construction phase, and all therefore all effects considered on Table 43

below are long term.

10.12. Direct (for example, demolition) and indirect (for example, impact on setting).

10.13. The scale of effect e.g. Local level (on Application Site or neighbouring sites); District level (within

Pontypool/ Cwmbran area); County level (within Torfaen); Regional level (South Wales); Wales

level; UK level; International level.

Table 6: Significance Matrix – Archaeology, Built and Cultural Heritage

Sensitivity / Value of

Receptor

Magnitude of Effect

High Medium Low

High

(Wales/UK/International) Major Major/ Moderate Moderate

Medium

(County/Regional) Major/ Moderate Moderate Moderate/ Minor

Low

(Local/District) Moderate Moderate/ Minor Minor

Table 7: Significance Matrix – Archaeology, Built and Cultural Heritage – assessment of effects

PRN Description

Sensitivity/

Value

Magnitude

of Effect

Impact before

mitigation

00102g Tyr-Brychiad - Grade II Listed

(80864)

(farmhouse) – not part of

development plan but adjacent to

main road into site

Medium Minor Indirect, Minor

adverse

03263.73g Canal Tunnel –- Grade II Listed

(23957)


adverse

--- Milepost –- Grade II Listed

(80863)


adverse

07660g Wren‟s Nest Barn – not part of

development plan but adjacent to

main road into site - Grade II

Listed (80861


adverse

3263g

(linear)

Canal – setting will be changed

along its route.

Medium Moderate Indirect, Minor

adverse

40 South Sebastopol




PRN Description

Sensitivity/

Value

Magnitude

of Effect

Impact before

mitigation

Buried remains throughout the

site – potential sites

Low to

medium

Major Direct, Minor to

Moderate

adverse


boundaries

Low Moderate Direct, Minor

adverse

Mitigation Measures

10.14. Landscape planting will help screen listed buildings from new development and a construction

management plan will limit traffic noise and dust effects on the setting of all structures including the

Canal Tunnel.

10.15. Interpretation panels along the canal towpath will disseminate information about the area gained

from research to date and future investigation.

Residual Effects

10.16. Residual impacts will be negligible if the mitigation measures set out above is implemented.

Summary

10.17. A number of listed buildings are identified as lying close to or surrounded by the site. A Canal

Tunnel in the centre of the site is also listed, Grade II. The setting and fabric of these designated

heritage receptors would be safeguarded.

10.18. A number of hedgerows and lanes survive within the site and are likely to be of some age. These

are incorporated as far as practical within the new master plan for development.

10.19. The undesignated remains of the old Pontrhydyrun Railway Station House survive within the site as

does a ruined cottage and a stone and brick water feature which may have been part of now

degraded parkland in the south of the site. All these structures will be retained, but if they have to

be removed as part of development, a full record should be made of their fabric, as agreed with the

Council and their advisors.

10.20. There are no significant remains of earlier than post-medieval date known within the site area and

the records for the surrounding area suggest relatively low archaeological potential. However, the

paucity of hitherto recorded remains may reflect the dominance of pasture across the site and the

absence of past archaeological investigation. Further archaeological investigation will be completed

in advance of construction in order to minimise any adverse impact of the proposals.

41 South Sebastopol



Table 8: Table of Significance – Archaeological, Built and Cultural Heritage

Potential Effect Nature of Effect


Significance (Major/ Moderate/


Negligible)


Geographical Importance*

Residual Effects (Major/ Moderate/


Negligible) I UK W R C D L

Construction Phase and Completed Development

Canal Tunnel –- Grade II Listed

(23957)

Permanent Indirect, Minor adverse . Landscape planting will minimise adverse effects on setting. Construction Management plan will limit traffic noise and dust effects.

* Indirect, Minor adverse

Milepost – Grade II Listed (80863) Temporary Indirect, Minor adverse Will be protected during the construction phase, unchanged thereafter.

* Negligible

Tyr-Brychiad - Grade II Listed

(80864) - not part of development

plan but adjacent to main road into

site

Permanent Indirect, Minor adverse Landscape planting will help screen listed buildings from new development and a construction management plan will limit traffic noise and dust effects on the setting of this structure.

* Negligible

Wren‟s Nest Barn – Grade II Listed

(80861) - not part of development

plan but adjacent to main road into

site

Permanent Indirect, Minor adverse As above. * Negligible

Canal – setting will be changed along

its route

Permanent Indirect, Minor adverse Sensitive landscape design and screening. Suitable investigation where directly affected.

* Direct or Indirect, Minor adverse


boundaries

Permanent Direct, Minor adverse Incorporated as part of design as far as possible.

* Indirect, Minor adverse

Buried remains throughout the site –

potential sites

Permanent Direct, Minor to Moderate adverse

Suitable archaeological investigation prior to construction.

* Minor adverse

* Geographical Level of Importance I = International; UK = United Kingdom; W = Wales; R = Regional; C = County; D = District; L = Local

42 South Sebastopol




11. Ground Conditions (Hydrogeology, Soils and Contaminated

Land)

11.1. Following review of Chapter 11 – Ground Conditions (Hydrogeology, Soils and Contaminated

Land), of the Environmental Statement in support of the Outline Planning Application for the South

Sebastopol Development dated January 2011, it is the view of Waterman Transport and

Development that the Chapter as published remains relevant with regard to this Addendum.




made.

43 South Sebastopol




12. Water Resources (Water Quality, Hydrology, Flood Risk and

Drainage Assessment)

12.1. Following review of Chapter 12 – Water resources (Water Quality, Flood Risk and Drainage

Assessment), of the Environmental Statement in support of the Outline Planning Application for the

South Sebastopol Development dated January 2011, it is the view of Waterman Transport and

Development that the Chapter as published remains relevant with regard to this Addendum.

Specifically the revised Highway Route incorporating a new bridge structure crossing the



made.

44 South Sebastopol




13. Noise and Vibration Assessment

13.1. Following review of Chapter 13 – Noise and Vibration Assessment, of the Environmental Statement

in support of the Outline Planning Application for the South Sebastopol Development dated

January 2011, it is the view of Waterman Energy, Environment and Design that the Chapter as

published remains relevant with regard to this Addendum. Specifically the revised Highway Route

incorporating a new bridge structure crossing the Monmouthshire/ Brecon Canal, does not

materially affect the information contained within the Chapter. In this case no amendments to the

contents of Chapter 13 of the Outline ES have been made.

45 South Sebastopol




14. Air Quality Assessment

14.1. Following review of Chapter 14 – Air Quality Assessment, of the Environmental Statement in

support of the Outline Planning Application for the South Sebastopol Development dated January

2011, it is the view of Waterman TD that the Chapter as published remains relevant with regard to

this Addendum. The review included discussions with Torfaen CBC following which it was

confirmed that no further assessment work would be required (beyond that covered in the ES

prepared in support of the Outline Planning Application). Specifically the revised Highway Route

incorporating a new bridge structure crossing the Monmouthshire/ Brecon Canal does not

materially affect the information contained within the Chapter. In this case no amendments to the

contents of Chapter 14 of the Outline ES have been made.

46 South Sebastopol




15. Sustainability

15.1. Following review of Chapter 15 – Sustainability, of the Environmental Statement in support of the

Outline Planning Application for the South Sebastopol Development dated January 2011, it is the

view of Waterman Energy, Environment and Design that the Chapter as published remains

relevant with regard to this Addendum. Specifically the revised Highway Route incorporating a new

bridge structure crossing the Monmouthshire / Brecon Canal does not materially affect the

information contained within the Chapter. In this case no amendments to the contents of Chapter

15 of the Outline ES have been made.

47 South Sebastopol




16. Non-Technical Summary

16.1. Chapter 16 of the Outline ES provides a Non-Technical Summary in respect of the other Chapters

in the Outline ES. As mentioned previously this Addendum ES has review all of the Chapters in

the Outline ES in view of the proposed revision to the Canal Crossing. In this respect it has been

assessed that there are three technical Chapters and two summary Chapters (in the Outline ES)

which are potentially materially affected by the proposed change in location of the Canal Crossing.

The technical Chapters affected are as follows: -

Chapter 5 - Ecology and Nature Conservation

Chapter 8 - Landscape Character and Visual Assessment


16.2. The summary Chapters affected are as follows: -

Chapter 4 - Residual Impacts, Environmental Effects and Management

Chapter 16 - Non-Technical Summary

16.3. In this respect the sections of the Non-Technical Summary (Chapter 16) of the Outline ES are still

valid except for the sections relating to Chapters 4, 5, 8 and 10. Revised Non Technical

Summaries in respect of Chapters 5, 8 and 10 are provided below.

Chapter 5 - Ecology and Nature Conservation

16.4. A comprehensive sweep of ecological surveys have been undertaken at and adjacent to the Site

(type and scope agreed with CCW and TBC) have concluded that the Site is currently of negligible

to County ecological value.

16.5. Though there would be change to the existing habitats of ecological value at the Site as a result of

the Development of the new canal crossing, the extent and nature of the proposed enhancement

inherent to the Development design and additional mitigation including the production of an

Ecological Management Plan during construction and a Landscape and Ecological Management

plan post construction would result in a negligible and beneficial effect to the biodiversity of the

Site. This would include the introduction of habitats whilst protecting the existing species of

ecological value.

16.6. A number of potential and residual effects have been identified for the demolition and construction

phases of the Development and once the Development is completed and operational. These are

summarised below in the Table below.

Table 9: Potential and residual effects





Woodland and Scrub Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible

Hedges Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible




Bats Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Minor Beneficial

48 South Sebastopol






Birds Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Minor Beneficial

White-clawed Crayfish Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible

Otter and Water Voles Minor Adverse Detailed within EMP Negligible



Woodland and Scrub Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

Hedges Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible



Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

Bats Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Minor Beneficial

Birds Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Minor Beneficial

White-clawed Crayfish Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

Otter and Water Voles Minor Adverse Detailed within LEMP Negligible

Chapter 8 - Landscape Character and Visual Assessment

16.7. The relocation of the bridge is envisaged in the south of the Sebastopol outline application area,

approximately 10-20m north of Five Locks Close. It comprises of the Brecon and Monmouthshire

Canal, its tree-lined banks and hedgerows with rough pastoral grassland beyond.

16.8. The relocation of the bridge will result in increased visual and audible intrusion during the

construction phase. However, the extent of these impacts is relatively limited to approximately

within a 100m stretch of the Canal owing the enclosure of the Canal and the vegetation that lines it.

Although impacts will be more apparent locally, they are not considered to result in an increase in

significance from those detailed within the outline ES in relation to the Sebastopol as a whole.

16.9. The relocation of the bridge will create a prominent, new feature within Brecon and Monmouthshire

Canal. However, provided the design and façade of the bridge is sensitive to the Canal and its

setting, it is concluded that there is no reason why the bridge cannot be assimilated successfully

into this context. The increase in traffic and lighting will, inevitably result in some minor increase in

intrusion to the rurality of the Canal although this is not considered to be significantly harmful.

16.10. The structure of the bridge will result in the loss of the long vista along the Canal in this area,

however, owing to the curvature of the Canal, views of the bridge from the Canal tunnel will not be

possible. The bridge itself will be largely screened from view beyond the Canal by intervening

vegetation and undulating topography although it will be substantially bigger than other crossings

currently extant. Although adverse impacts will increase on a local scale this is not considered to

be a significant departure in landscape and visual terms in relation from those identified within the

outline ES.

16.11. No changes to the cumulative effects to landscape character and visual amenity will occur as a

result of the relocation of the bridge.


16.12. A number of listed buildings are identified as lying close to or surrounded by the site. A Canal

Tunnel in the centre of the site is also listed, Grade II. The setting and fabric of these designated

heritage receptors would be safeguarded.

49 South Sebastopol




16.13. A number of hedgerows and lanes survive within the site and are likely to be of some age. These

are incorporated as far as practical within the new master plan for development.

16.14. The undesignated remains of the old Pontrhydyrun Railway Station House survive within the site as

does a ruined cottage and a stone and brick water feature which may have been part of now

degraded parkland in the south of the site. All these structures will be retained but if they have to

be removed as part of development, a full record should be made of their fabric, as agreed with the

Council and their advisors.

16.15. There are no significant remains of earlier than post-medieval date known within the site area and

the records for the surrounding area suggest relatively low archaeological potential. However, the

paucity of hitherto recorded remains may reflect the dominance of pasture across the site and the

absence of past archaeological investigation. Further archaeological investigation will be completed

in advance of construction in order to minimise any adverse impact of the proposals.

South Sebastopol




APPENDICES

A. Location of Southern Canal Bridge Crossing - drawing ref. CIV11765-C-SA-

90-008-A01

South Sebastopol




B. Southern Bridge Crossing – extent of works - drawing ref. CIV11765-C-SA-

90-007-A01

South Sebastopol




C. Highways General Arrangement - drawing ref. CIV11765-C-SA-95-005-A02

South Sebastopol




D. Figures 8.1 to 8.6A – Photoviewpoint Location Plan and Photoviewpoint

images

Project Details

Figure Ref

Date

Figure Title

File Location

Figure 8.1: Photoviewpoint Location Plan

\\nt-lnpg2\weedl\projects\e11338\100\graphics\lvia\issued figures

E11338-100_GR_LVIA_8.1A

March 2011

E11338-100: South Sebastopol

www.watermangroup.com

Energy, Environment & Design

F

D

E

A

B

C

Site boundary

Photoviewpoint Locations

N

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey maps with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,© Crown copyright, Waterman Energy, Environment & Design, Versailles Court, 3 Paris Garden, London SE1 8ND. Licence number 100048868.

© WATERMAN ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT & DESIGN

F

Photoviewpoint A: View from the Brecon and Monmouthshire Canal towpath adjacent to the lock at Five Locks Close looking north toward the site. An attractive vista is formed by the canal which stretches to the middle distance. The whitewashed Lock Keepers Cottage and dwellings at Five Locks Close can be seen to west with the lower foothills of Mynydd Twyn-glas beyond.

Photoviewpoint B: View from the Brecon and Monmouthshire Canal towpath adjacent to Five Locks Close looking north toward the site. Vegetation lining the canal is apparent within this view whilst the curvature of the canal itself limits the length of the vista in this location. A gap in the hedgerow allows localised views over adjacent land to the east.

Five Locks Close

Lock Keeper’s Cottage

Canal Towpath

Five Locks Close

Project Details

Figure Ref

Date

Figure Title

File Location

Figure 8.2: Photoviewpoints A & B


E11338-100_GR_LVIA_8.2A

March 2011




Photoviewpoint C: View from the Brecon and Monmouthshire Canal towpath looking south within the site. A long vista to Five Locks Road is created along the Canal although views beyond this are limited by aligning vegetation. Filtered views to dwellings at Five Locks Close to the west are also possible.

Project Details

Figure Ref

Date

Figure Title

File Location

Figure 8.3: Photoviewpoint C


E11338-100_GR_LVIA_8.3A

March 2011




Five Locks Road Five Locks Close

Photoviewpoint D: View from footpath running east from the Brecon and Monmouthshire Canal to Wren’s Nest Farm looking southeast across the site. The undulating topography of this area is apparent in the view, screening the dwellings of Wren’s Nest Farm in the middle ground. Continued > Vegetation following the Stream 6 is also visible, filtering views to Five Locks Close.

< Continued

Project Details

Figure Ref

Date

Figure Title

File Location

Figure 8.4: Photoviewpoints D


E11338-100_GR_LVIA_8.4A

March 2011




Wren’s Nest Farm

Canalside Day Centre

Stream 6

Five Locks Close

Photoviewpoint E: View from the footpath running west from the Brecon and Monmouthshire Canal to Bryn Farmhouse looking southwest. The land rises steeply from the Canal westward to Mynydd Twyn-glas with Bryn Farmhouse prominent in the middle ground. Continued > Hedgerows and wooded brooks serve to filter views within the site.

< Continued

Project Details

Figure Ref

Date

Figure Title

File Location

Figure 8.5: Photoviewpoint E


E11338-100_GR_LVIA_8.5A

March 2011




Bryn Farmhouse

Photoviewpoint F: View from Bryn Farmhouse within the site looking southeast. The elevated location affords views over the site and beyond. The vegetative network of the site is apparent in the view although filtered views of dwellings at Five Locks Close are possible from this location. Continued >

< Continued

Project Details

Figure Ref

Date

Figure Title

File Location

Figure 8.6: Photoviewpoint F


E11338-100_GR_LVIA_8.6A

March 2011




Five Locks Close

Five Locks Close

Canal

Knauf Insulation Works

South Sebastopol




waterman numbered report template · waterman group‟s ims (bs en iso 9001: 2009 and bs en iso...

Documents