ADDENDUM 2 TO TECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS

BARRY WATERFRONT

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

On behalf of ‘the Consortium’ Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd, Persimmon Homes Ltd and BDW Trading Ltd (Barratt South Wales)

June 2010

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners 14 Regent's Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL

nlpplanning.com

© Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 2010. Trading as Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners. All Rights Reserved. Registered Office: 14 Regent's Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL All plans within this document produced by NLP are based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright reserved. Licence number AL50684A BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

Contents

1.0 Introduction & Background 1 Introduction 1 Environmental Statement Addendum 1 (January 2010) 1 Environmental Statement Addendum 2 (June 2010) 1 Scope & Structure of Addendum 2 Availability of Document 7

2.0 Approach to EIA 9 Introduction 9 Undertaking the EIA 9 Assessment Methodology 9 Consideration of Cumulative Effects 9

3.0 Site Description and Proposals 11 Introduction 11 Description of Development Proposals 11 District Centre 12

4.0 Transportation 21 Introduction 21 Policy Context 21 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 22 Baseline Conditions 23 Potential Impacts 31 Mitigation Measures 34 Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects 38 Summary & Conclusions 42

5.0 Landscape and Visual 43 Introduction 43 Policy Context 44 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 44 Baseline Conditions 44 Potential Impacts 44 Mitigation Measures 44 Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects 44 Summary & Conclusions 44

6.0 Ecology 45 Introduction 45 Policy Context 45 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 45

1078208v5

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

Baseline Conditions 45 Consultation with Statutory Environmental Bodies (SEBs) 45 Mitigation Measures 46 Residual and Cumulative Effects 46 Abbreviations 47

7.0 Archaeology 49 Introduction 49 Policy Context 49 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 49 Baseline Conditions 49 Potential Impacts 49 Mitigation Measures 49 Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects 50 Summary & Conclusions 50

8.0 Water Resources, Drainage and Flooding 51 Introduction 51 Policy Context 51 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 51 Baseline Conditions 51 Potential Impacts 51 Mitigation Measures 52 Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects 52 Summary & Conclusions 53

9.0 Ground Conditions and Contamination 55 Introduction 55 Policy Context 55 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 55 Baseline Conditions 55 Potential Impacts 56 Mitigation Measures 56 Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects 56 Summary & Conclusions 56

10.0 Noise and Vibration 59 Introduction 59 Policy Context 59 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 59 Baseline Conditions 62 Potential Impacts 62 Mitigation Measures 67 Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects 67 Summary & Conclusions 67

P2 1078208v5

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

11.0 Air Quality 69 Introduction 69 Policy Context 69 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 69 Baseline Conditions 70 Potential Impacts 72 Mitigation Measures 82 Residual Impact Assessment 82 Summary and Conclusions 83

12.0 Socio Economic 85 Introduction 85 Policy Context 85 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 85 Baseline Conditions 85 Potential Impacts 89 Mitigation Measures 95 Residual & Cumulative Effects 95 Summary and Conclusions 96

13.0 Arboricultural Effects 97 Introduction 97 Policy Context 97 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 97 Baseline Conditions 97 Potential Impacts 98 Mitigation Measures 98 Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects 98 Summary & Conclusions 98

14.0 Residual and Cumulative Effects 99 Introduction 99 Summary of Additional Residual Effects Arising 99 Analysis of Additional Inter-Relationships Arising 99 Cumulative Impact Assessment 99 Summary and Conclusions 100

1078208v5

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

Tables 1

Table 1.1 Consultation Responses considered in defining scope of ES Addendum 2 (June 2010) 3 Table 1.2 Clarification & Additional Information provided in the ES Addendum 2 from Consultation Responses 4 Table 1.3 Update to Description of Development provided in Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010) 6 Table 3.1 Summary of Maximum Floorspace 11 Table 3.2 District Centre Development Summary (Supersedes Table C2 of the August 2010 ES) 12 Table 3.3 West Pond Development Summary Table (Supersedes Table C3 of the August 2009 ES) 18 Table 3.4 South Quay Parkside & Waterside Development Summary Table (Supersedes Table C4 of the August 2009 ES) 18 Table 3.5 Arno Quay Development Summary Table (Supersedes Table C5 of the August 2010 ES) 19 Table 3.6 East Quay Development Summary Table (Supersedes Table C6 of the August 2010 ES) 19 Table 4.1 Bus Services in the Barry Area 24 Table 4.2 2008 Base Year Junction Capacity Summary 28 Table 4.3 Future Baseline (2020) Capacity Assessment Summary 30 Table 4.4 Resultant Vehicle Trip Generation Summary 31 Table 4.5 Pedestrian Generation Summary 31 Table 4.6 Cycle Generation Summary 32 Table 4.7 Public Transport Generation Summary 32 Table 4.8 2020 with Development Junction Capacity Summary 32 Table 4.9 2020 with Development Junction Operation with Mitigation 36 Table 4.10 Residual Impacts - Operational Phase 39

Table 11.1 Annual Average NO x, NO 2 and PM 10 Concentrations at the Vale of Glamorgan Council (VoG) Monitoring Network Sites During 2008 70 Table 11.2 Receptors Included in the Air Dispersion Modelling Assessment 74 Table 11.3 ADMS-Roads Predicted Maximum Pollutant Concentrations (µg m -3) at Discrete Receptor Locations (Maximum of 2006 and 2007 meteorological data, background concentrations included) 79

Table 11.4 Change in the Maximum Predicted Long-Term NO 2 Concentrations and Short-Term PM 10 Concentrations Between 'Do Nothing' and 'With Development' Scenarios 81 Table 11.5 Summary of Residual Effects of the Proposed Development Together with Mitigation Measures 83 Table 12.1 Approximate Walking Distances from Local Schools 86 Table 12.2 Local Primary School Capacities 87 Table 12.3 Local Secondary School Capacities 88 Table 12.4 Estimates of Pupil Yield per Dwelling 91 Table 12.5 Expected Demand from East Quay and the Rest of the Development 93

1078208v5

Appendices 1

Appendix 1.1 – Revised Parameter Plans & Schedule

Appendix 3.1 – Revised Phasing Programme

Appendix 3.2 – Revised Phasing Plan

Appendix 4.1 – Updated Accident Analysis Results

Appendix 4.2 – Revised Transport Assessment (June 2010)

Appendix 6.1 – Vale of Glamorgan Council Letter (01/04/10) and Soltys Brewster Ecology Response (02/06/2010)

Appendix 6.2 – Letter from Environment Agency (April 2010)

Appendix 9.1 – Environment Agency Correspondence

Appendix 10.1 – Updated LAeq 16 hour day-time noise levels for 2008 Baseline ‘open site’ situation

Appendix 10.2 – Updated LAeq 8 hour night-time noise levels for 2008 Baseline ‘open site’ situation

Appendix 10.3 – Updated day-time TAN11 NECs

Appendix 10.4 – Updated night-time TAN11 NECs

Appendix 10.5 – Predicted Changes in Road Traffic Noise Level

Appendix 11.1 – Vale of Glamorgan Air Quality Comments (Summary)

Appendix 11.2 – Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ – Air Quality Assessment

Appendix 12.1 – Updated School Capacity Forecast

1078208v5

1.0 Introduction & Background

Introduction

1.1 On 14th August 2009 Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP), on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd, Persimmon Homes Ltd and BDW Trading Ltd (Barratt South Wales) (‘the Consortium’), submitted duplicate planning applications to the Vale of Glamorgan Council (VoG) (application refs 2009/00946/OUT and 2009/00947/OUT) for a mixed use development at Barry Waterfront in the Vale of Glamorgan.

1.2 The application was accompanied by the Barry Waterfront Environmental Statement (ES) (August 2009) which set out the findings from the assessment of the environmental effects of the Development on:- 1 Transportation; 2 Landscape and Visual; 3 Ecology; 4 Archaeology; 5 Water Resources, Drainage and Flooding; 6 Ground Conditions and Contamination; 7 Noise and Vibration; 8 Air Quality; 9 Socio-Economic Impacts; and 10 Arboriculture. Environmental Statement Addendum 1 (January 2010)

1.3 Following submission of the planning application the Consortium continued to consult with key stakeholders and several minor amendments were subsequently made to the proposals as well as additional information provided. These amendments were compiled into the Environmental Statement Addendum (January 2010) which was subject to formal consultation by the Local Planning Authority.

Environmental Statement Addendum 2 (June 2010)

1.4 Since January 2010, additional work has progressed regarding the proposals and further consultation undertaken with key stakeholders. The VoG Council commissioned Capita Symonds to review the submitted Transport Assessment and comments were provided on 8 February 2010. An updated Transport Assessment has now been prepared in response to the comments received. The production of the updated Transport Assessment has implications which need to be considered through the EIA in particular the related assessments for air quality and noise.

1078208v5 P1

1.5 In addition, there have also been further minor design changes following dialogue with the VoG Council and the Design Commission for Wales which need to be considered.

1.6 As a result, a second Addendum to the Environmental Statement has been produced. This document is submitted as an addendum to the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and Barry Waterfront ES Addendum (January 2010). It sets out the conclusions of an assessment of whether the changes made give rise to additional significant effects requiring mitigation. The document is herewith referred to as the Barry Waterfront ES Addendum 2 (June 2010) and should be read in conjunction with the August 2009 submission and January 2010 Addendum submission. Overall the three documents comprise the Barry Waterfront Environmental Statement.

1.7 The document has been prepared with regard to the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 1999 (as amended) (‘the 1999 Regulations’) and Welsh Office Circular 11/99 Environmental Impact Assessment (‘Circular 11/99’) and associated best practice guidance.

Scope & Structure of Addendum

Background to Scoping the ES Addendum

1.8 The VoG Council has not issued a formal request for additional information in relation to the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010) under Regulation 19 of the 1999 Regulations. As a result, the scope of the ES Addendum has been defined by the Consortium’s team, based on the VoG feedback and consultation responses received to date.

1.9 In defining the scope of the ES Addendum, the team has had regard to Schedule 4 of the 1999 Regulations and guidance in paragraph 82 of Welsh Office Circular 11/99 that the focus of the ES should be on the ‘main’ or ‘significant’ environmental effects and that:- “…In many cases, only a few of the effects will be significant and will need to be discussed in the ES in any great depth. Other impacts may be of little or no significance for the particular development in question and will need only very brief treatment to indicate that their possible relevance has been considered.”

1.10 Some of the issues raised during the consultation process have little or no significance in relation to the EIA and, whilst they are described elsewhere in the additional information submitted, are not considered relevant to the scope of the ES Addendum. These include recommended planning conditions, detailed design and landscaping matters and clarification on minor issues in respect of the scheme that are outside the scope of the Barry Waterfront ES.

P2 1078208v5

Issues Addressed in the ES Addendum

1.11 The consultation responses that have been taken into account in defining the scope of the ES Addendum 2 since the previous round of consultation responses listed in ES Addendum (January 2010) are: -

Table 1.1 Consultation Responses considered in defining scope of ES Addendum 2 (June 2010)

Consultee Date ES Topics Addressed VoG Council: Planning 8/2/2010 Transport; Noise and Air Quality (TA Comments)

VoG Council: Planning Transport; Landscape & Visual; 12/2/2010 Ecology; Noise; Air Quality; Socio (Overview of Issues) Economic VOG Council: Planning 26/2/2010 Socio Economic (Retail Issues) VOG Council: Planning 1/04/2010 Ecology (Ecology Issues) Ground Conditions & VoG Council: Pollution 22/4/2010 Contamination; Noise and Air Control Quality Environment Agency 26/4/2010 Ecology VoG Council: Planning 30/3/2010 Landscape & Visual (Public Open Space)

1.12 For the avoidance of doubt, the title to the equivalent table 1.1 in the ES Addendum (January 2010) at paragraph 1.10 included an error referring to “September 2009” and should have read “January 2010”.

1.13 In addition to the information raised during recent consultation, several amendments to the scheme have now been incorporated since the previous ES Addendum (January 2010). The ES Addendum 2 (June 2010) has considered the following:- 1 Movement of proposed school site to the east alongside land under the control of VoG Council 2 Addition of 3 storey commercial building and additional block of residential units east of west Pond Crescent following the school relocation 3 Inclusion of updated link road layout and revision to Parameter Plan 1: building envelopes 4 Removal of a small open space between West Pond waterfront buildings and subsequent change to parameter plans 5 Minor design changes to District Centre including realignment of development block G3 and subsequent amendment to parameter plan 6 Inclusion of primary frontages within parameter plan 1 building envelopes

1078208v5 P3

7 Minor amendments to the scheme phasing strategy 8 Revision to the Public Open Space strategy (Parameter Plan 4).

1.14 A revised set of parameter plans are attached at Appendix 1.1 which need to be referred to for the various amendments.

Scope of the ES Addendum

1.15 As a result of the above, a brief summary of the scope of the ES Addendum 2 (June 2010) is set out below. Each chapter of the ES Addendum provides a full summary of the issues addressed:-

Table 1.2 Clarification & Additional Information provided in the ES Addendum 2 from Consultation Responses

Barry Waterfront ES (August Summary of Additional/Amended 2009) & ES Addendum Information Provided in ES Addendum 2 (Jan 2010) (June 2010) 1 Introduction No additional information required Updated set of application drawings 2 Approach to EIA attached at Appendix 1.1. Updated details of the proposed development and review of Parameter Plan Site Description & 3 changes. Proposal

Update to scheme phasing. Review of changes to Parameter Plans and phasing. Impact assessment reviewed following the production of the updated Transport 4 Transportation Assessment. Additional information regarding mitigation package and sustainable transport measures. Review of changes to Parameter Plans and 5 Landscape and Visual phasing. Review of changes to Parameter Plans and phasing. Updates to mitigation measures following 6 Ecology consultation with VoG Ecologist. Response/clarification to queries raised by VoG Ecologist. Review of changes to Parameter Plans and 7 Archaeology phasing. Review of changes to Parameter Plans and Water Resources, 8 phasing. Drainage and Flooding Updated remediation strategy including the

P4 1078208v5

Barry Waterfront ES (August Summary of Additional/Amended 2009) & ES Addendum Information Provided in ES Addendum 2 (Jan 2010) (June 2010) use of band drains.

Review of changes to Parameter Plans and Ground Conditions and phasing. 9 Contamination Updated remediation strategy including the use of band drains. Impact assessment reviewed following production of the updated Transport Assessment. 10 Noise and Vibration Review of changes to Parameter Plans and phasing. Response/clarification to queries raised by VoG Pollution Control. Impact assessment reviewed following production of the updated Transport Assessment. 11 Air Quality Review of changes to Parameter Plans and phasing. Response/clarification to queries raised by VoG Pollution Control. Impact assessment reviewed including education provision update. Review of changes to Parameter Plans and 12 Socio-Economics phasing. Additional information regarding retail impacts. Review of changes to Parameter Plans and 13 Arboriculture phasing. Residual & Cumulative Review of residual and cumulative effects 14 Effects from changes.

Structure of Addendum

1.16 The ES Addendum 2 (June 2010) reflects the two volumes which comprise the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010):-

• Volume 1 – A Non-Technical Summary of the ES Addendum (the entire text of the Non-Technical Summary for the complete ES has been updated for clarity).

• Volume 2 – Technical assessments and appendices of the key changes to the proposals, additional information requested and clarifications (this document).

1078208v5 P5

1.17 Each section provided within the scope of this second ES Addendum replicates the structure of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010) for ease of comparison.

Changes to Description of Proposals provided in AGP ES (June 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010)

1.18 For completeness, Table 1.3 below summarises whether any amendments are required to the description of development provided in the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and the ES Addendum (June 2010):-

Table 1.3 Update to Description of Development provided in Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010)

Reference in Updated in ES Reference in ES Barry Waterfront Addendum 2 Issue Addendum ES (August (June 2010) (January 2010) 2009) Description of Paragraph 2.4 Paragraph 3.2 development (Chapter C) No change Plans Amendments to (including plans summarised Paragraph 3.5 masterplan & Appendix 2.2 on schedule at (Chapter 2) parameter Appendix 1.1 plans) Existing Site Section 1 Description No change (Chapter C) No change and area Section 2 Paragraphs 3.2 No Change Land uses (Chapter C) to 3.12 Amendments to Paragraphs 3.2 Section 2 District Centre Layout to 3.12 and (Chapter C) layout and Appendix 2.2 location of school Section 2 Paragraphs 3.3 No Change Floorspace (Chapter C) and 3.4 Height & Section 2 Appendix 2.2 No Change Scale (Chapter C) Parameter Plan2 New detailed road layout reflected – Access and Section 2 No change see Appendix 1.1. Parking (Chapter C) New off-site works proposed. Minor Construction Section 2 No change amendments to & Phasing (Chapter C) phasing strategy

P6 1078208v5

Reference in Updated in ES Reference in ES Barry Waterfront Addendum 2 Issue Addendum ES (August (June 2010) (January 2010) 2009) Section 4 Cumulative (Chapter B) No change No change Effects Section 5 (Chapter N)

Availability of Document

1.19 A hard copy of the Barry Waterfront ES Addendum 2 (June 2010) is available for viewing at the following office of the Vale of Glamorgan Council during normal working hours:-

• Development Control The Vale of Glamorgan Council Dock Office Barry Docks Barry CF63 4RT

1.20 Any representations should be made in writing to the Vale of Glamorgan Council.

1.21 An updated Non-Technical Summary can be issued free of charge from Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners. An electronic CD-Rom version of the ES Addendum can be purchased from NLP for the cost of £25 excluding VAT. Please contact Maria Wilson of NLP on 02920 435 880.

1078208v5 P7

2.0 Approach to EIA

Introduction

2.1 The ‘Approach to EIA’ section of the submitted Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010) has been amended to:

• Clarify the referencing of appendices in Table 1.3 of the ES Addendum (January 2010); and

• To provide an updated key drawings list and attach appendix copies within the ‘Assessment Methodology’ section.

Undertaking the EIA

2.2 For clarification, Table 1.3 to the ES Addendum (January 2010) (page 6) included reference in the third column to “Updated in ES Addendum (September 2009)” which should read ES Addendum (January 2010). In addition, the appendices referred to in this table should read Appendix 2.2 of the ES Addendum as opposed to Appendix A1 and B2.

Assessment Methodology

2.3 Some of key planning application drawings referred to at paragraph 3.5 of the Environmental Statement (August 2009) and in Appendix 2.2 of the ES Addendum (January 2010) have now been updated and a list of the amended drawings and those superseded is attached as Appendix 1.1.

2.4 There are no further changes required to the ES Addendum (January 2010) Section 2.0 or original ES.

Consideration of Cumulative Effects

2.5 Responding to comments received from the Vale of Glamorgan EHO consideration has also been given to the Biogen and Sunrise Renewables developments. This should be read in conjunction with the cumulative impact considerations set out at Paragraphs 4.1 to 4.6 of the submitted ES (August 2009) and Paragraphs 2.9 to 2.10 of the January 2010 ES Addendum.

2.6 In December 2009, Biogen Power was granted planning consent to build an Energy Recovery Facility at Barry Dock, treating 80,000 tonnes of non- hazardous household and commercial waste and providing electricity to c. 15,000 local homes. We understand that this is currently under judicial review although the proposals have been considered in this ES Addendum where queried by the VOG Council’s Pollution Control department.

2.7 The Sunrise Renewables proposal is for the erection of a new industrial building and installation of a 9MW renewable energy plant at land at Woodham Road, Barry. This is not a commitment as the application was refused planning

1078208v5 P9

permission against officer recommendation. Sunrise Renewables (Barry) Ltd appealed against this decision and submitted an amended application. However, in light of the recent judicial review on the Biogen consent, the applicant withdrew the resubmitted application and is to rely solely on the appeal, which commences in June. For completeness the Sunrise proposals are also considered where queried by the VOG Council’s Pollution Control department.

P10 1078208v5

3.0 Site Description and Proposals

Introduction

3.1 The Site Description and Proposals section of the submitted ES (August 2009) and the ES Addendum (January 2010) has been updated to reflect the minor amendments that have been made to the description of development, Illustrative Masterplan and the Parameter Plans on which the EIA has been based.

Description of Development Proposals

3.2 There is no further change to the description of development set out in the ES Addendum (January 2010) which is as follows, Development of vacant land at Barry Waterfront for residential (C3), retail (A1), cafes, bars and restaurants (A3), hotel (C1), offices (B1), community and leisure uses (D1 and D2). Development of vehicular and pedestrian/cycle access including a new link road, re-grading of site to form new site levels and associated infrastructure works, parking, servicing, landscaping, public realm and public open space provision.

3.3 The parameters for this outline planning application establish maximum floorspaces for land uses across the site. These are set out in Table C1 of the submitted ES (August 2009), which is superseded by Table 3.1 below. It should be noted however that a range of residential unit numbers and floorspace is provided within the character areas to allow for future flexibility but will be limited to a maximum of 2,000 units. The maximum floorspaces have been tested within the ES to provide a worst case scenario in terms of environmental effects and remain unchanged as set out in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Summary of Maximum Floorspace

Summary of Maximum Floorspace

Residential Use (C3) Up to 2000 dwellings

6,525 sqm GEA food store / 2,300 sqm GEA non food Retail Use (A1) retail

Cafes and Restaurants (A3) Up to 1,820 sqm GEA

Offices (B1) Up to 3,450 sqm GEA

Hotel (C1) Up to 3,500 sqm GEA

School (D2) 2,760 sqm GFA on a site of 1hectare

1078208v5 P11

District Centre

3.4 The following minor amendments have been made to the District Centre development proposals since the submission of the application in August 2009 and the ES Addendum (January 2010): 1 School relocation within the masterplan 2 Change to the alignment of Block G3 and adjoining pedestrian access to allow wider service and maintenance access 3 Inclusion of primary frontages (+/-1m variation) for primary frontages see Parameter Plan 1 attached at Appendix 1.1 4 Buildings F have been joined to create a longer waterfront building (see Appendix 1.1)

3.5 In order to accommodate these minor changes Table C2 from the ES Addendum (January 2010) has been amended and should read as follows:

Table 3.2 District Centre Development Summary (Supersedes Table C2 of the August 2010 ES)

District Centre

Area 7.11Ha

District Centre including:

B1 Offices C1 Hotel A1 Retail Uses Car Parking for A1 and a Petrol Filling Station A3 Café, Restaurant and Drinking Establishments C3 Residential D1 Education – One Form Entry School D1/D2 Community Uses A range of A3, office, residential and community uses fronting a quality waterside public realm. To the rear of the waterfront development is a supermarket and non food retail units with associated car parking and a Layout petrol filling station. To the west of the main street education and associated playing field uses are proposed. A commercial building is proposed to the south of the school site framing the School Square. Offices: up to 3,450 sq m Hotel: up to 3,500 sq m School: up to 2,760 sq m Community use: up to 400 sq m Floorspace/Units Retail: up to 8,825 sq m (gross external) Car park: up to 600 spaces Café, Restaurant and Drinking Establishments: up to 1820 sq m Residential: 160 units (max) (plus an element of residential on Plot H) Petrol Filling Station: 72 sqm Non-Residential: Maximum 12 m (A1 retail unit) (+/- 2 metres) Max Height and Scale Residential/Mixed Use: 3-5 storeys at key location; 3-4 storeys fronting the

P12 1078208v5

waterfront

Remediation & Construction: Phasing Phase 1

West Pond

3.6 There are minor changes to this Character Area following the relocation of the school site. The main amendment relates to an additional line of terraced residential units which are now proposed alongside the West Pond Crescent. Dwelling numbers proposed in this Character Area still remain between 500- 700 dwellings as set out in Table 3.3 later in this section and remains unchanged from the ES (August 2009).

South Quay Parkside & Waterside

3.7 No changes are proposed within this Character area and no amendments are required.

Arno Quay

3.8 No changes are proposed within this Character area and no amendments are required except for the retention of Waterfront Phase 1 Pontoon as gravel and not green space as previously proposed.

East Quay

3.9 No changes to the development floorspace set out in Table C5 of the ES (August 2010) are required however there are changes proposed to the treatment of the major public open space at East Quay. The proposals for the major open space are now more informal with the omission of the sports pitch previously proposed and considered in the ES (August 2009). The proposals now include further ecological enhancements with a greater area for mitigation. Section 6.0 and this Addendum (June 2010) and Appendix 6.1 provides further details.

Access

3.10 Parameters have been established for movement and these are set out in Appendix 1.1 of this Addendum. There are limited updates to paragraphs 2.24 to 2.36 of Chapter C of the ES (August 2009) as follows:

Vehicular Access

3.11 Paragraphs 2.25 to 2.26 of Chapter C of the ES (August 2009) remain unchanged. Paragraphs 2.27 and 2.28 of Chapter C of the ES (August 2009) are replaced by the following paragraph:

1078208v5 P13

3.12 In order to minimise the impact of the development on the highway network a number of junction improvement schemes have been identified and assessed within the updated Transport Assessment (Appendix 4.2 to this Addendum (June 2010)). Since the original ES was prepared, there have been updates to the Transport Assessment and ES Paper in response to comments from the VoG and their advisers Capita Symonds. It is now proposed to undertake works at four key junctions, two of which would be remodelled to improve junction capacity and traffic flow and two requiring major upgrades within highway land. The Local Authority has already programmed improvements to two existing junctions at Merrie Harrier and Waycock Cross. Further details are provided in Section 4.0 ‘Transportation’ of this Addendum (June 2010).

Public Transport

3.13 Paragraph 2.30 of Chapter C of the ES (August 2009) remains unchanged. The following two paragraphs supersedes Paragraph 2.31 of Chapter C of the ES (August 2009).

3.14 The 95 bus service will be diverted through the West Pond part of the development along the new link road, maintaining a frequency of 20 minutes.

3.15 The bus stops will be of high quality and provide travel information, lighting, shelter and signing to ensure a positive passenger experience. Bus stops within the development will be a mixture of on-street and layby stops.

Pedestrians and Cyclists

3.16 There is no change to paragraphs 2.32 to 2.36 of Chapter C of the ES (August 2009). A series of sustainable route improvements are set out in Section 4.0 ‘Transportation’ of this ES Addendum (June 2010) following updates to the Transport Assessment in order to capitalise on the site’s sustainable location.

Ecology

3.17 Paragraphs 2.37 and 2.38 of the ES (August 2009) remain unchanged following the latest series of scheme amendments. In addition, the key ecological features of the proposed development (listed in paragraph 2.39 of Chapter C of the ES (August 2009)) remain correct subject to the following minor update:

3.18 There are now additional enhancements proposed at East Quay including further measures for the skylark. The proposals now include 6000m2 of public open space designed for skylark habitat (previously 2200m2) and 4500m2 of wildflower meadow (previously 1000m2). 500m2 of thicket scrub is now proposed (previously 600m2) along with a new area of flowering lawn grass (2500m2).

3.19 In addition, an increase in the number of bird boxes is proposed at South Quay to 1 in 5 of the approximate 600 houses as opposed to 1 in 10 houses previously listed at paragraph 2.39 of Chapter C of the ES (August 2009).

P14 1078208v5

Ground Strategy and Drainage

3.20 Paragraphs 2.40 and 2.41 remain unchanged from Chapter C of the ES (August 2009) however a minor update is required to paragraph 2.42 regarding the importation of potential fill as follows:

3.21 Ground conditions across the site contain highly compressible Estuarine Alluvium that will consolidate when loaded. To pre-consolidate the alluvium surcharging is proposed across much of the site, which will require the importation of additional volumes of material. The ES (August 2009) stated that some 40,000 m3 of suitable material would need to be brought onto site to fill and surcharge with the majority imported during the first few months and placed in the Phase 1 area. Detailed remediation and surcharge proposals have now been developed for the Phase 1 area since the submission of the outline planning application(s) with further detailed analysis of fill volumes available within the site. The target is now for no additional import during phase 1 through the use of borrow pits on site. The importation of material for South Quay and East Quay may however still be required in the future. Detailed quantities of import material are not available at present however as it is likely that volumes of material will be reduced. The original assumption for the ES (August 2009) is likely to represent a worst case assumption with respect to residual impacts and therefore remains valid.

Construction and Phasing Considerations

3.22 Following the submission of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and the ES Addendum (January 2010), amendments have been made to the phasing of development which reduces the number of phases from 9 to 5 broader phases.

3.23 The following text (at Paragraphs 3.24 to 3.34) has therefore been prepared to replace Paragraphs 2.43 to 2.53 of Chapter C of the ES (August 2009) and Paragraph 3.68 of the ES Addendum (January 2010).

3.24 The overall construction period for the proposals is estimated to be remain approximately 10 years from 2010 to 2020. Details of the revised phasing of development are provided below and should be read in conjunction with the Phasing Programme and Illustrative Phasing Plan provided at Appendices 3.1 and 3.2 within this Environmental Statement Addendum, which replace Appendix C2 and C3 of the submitted Environmental Statement (August 2009).

3.25 The phasing and rate of development will be influenced by market conditions and is therefore likely to vary from the estimated programme.

Phase 1: District Centre, West Pond (Part 1) and Arno Quay

3.26 This phase includes the construction of approximately 550 dwellings within Arno Quay, West Pond (part) and the District Centre. The District Centre will also include food and non-food retail units, hotel, a one form entry primary school, offices, A3 uses, public open space and public realm.

1078208v5 P15

1 Within the District Centre, West Pond and Arno Quay physical works commence in September 2010, with site clearance and remediation works. 2 Surcharging for the District Centre and West Pond is scheduled to run from November 2010 until October 2011. It is anticipated that the importation of fill into the site will be significantly reduced for this phase via the use of borrow pits. No surcharging is proposed within Arno Quay. 3 Highways, services, drainage and off-site services work for Arno Quay will be undertaken between September 2010 and the end of October 2010. These works will be undertaken within the District Centre and West Pond between May 2011 and October 2011. 4 Housebuilding within Arno Quay will commence in December 2010 and occupancy will start in May 2011. Housebuilding within the District Centre and West Pond will commence in June 2011, with first occupancy in November 2011. 5 Occupation of the District Centre supermarket is anticipated from January 2012. 6 It is anticipated that the new Link Road would also be constructed and operational following the first phase of development.

Phase 2: West Pond (Part 2)

3.27 This phase involves the development of approximately 300 dwellings. 1 Site clearance will be undertaken in September 2010, with surcharging scheduled to run from June 2012 until March 2013. 2 Highways, services and drainage will be undertaken between March 2013 and November 2013. 3 Housebuilding will commence in December 2013 and occupancy will take place from May 2014.

Phase 3: South Quay Parkside

3.28 Approximately 300 dwellings will be developed within this phase. 1 Site clearance will be undertaken in October 2013, with remediation taking place between November 2013 and the end of January 2014. 2 Surcharging within South Quay Parkside is scheduled to run from February 2014 until the end of October 2014. 3 Highways, services, drainage and off-site services work for South Quay Parkside will be undertaken between November 2014 and July 2015. 4 Housebuilding within South Quay Parkside will commence in August 2015 and occupancy will start at the beginning of January 2016.

P16 1078208v5

Phase 4: South Quay Waterside

3.29 Approximately 600 residential units are proposed to be developed within Phase 4 at South Quay Waterside. 1 Site clearance will be undertaken in October 2013, with remediation taking place between November 2013 and the end of September 2015. 2 Surcharging within South Quay Waterside is scheduled to run from October 2015 until the beginning of January 2016. 3 Highways, services and drainage work for South Quay Waterside will be undertaken between June 2016 and March 2017. 4 Housebuilding within South Quay Parkside will commence in April 2017 and occupancy will start at the beginning of September 2017.

Phase 5: East Quay

3.30 Approximately 250 dwellings, public realm and public open space are proposed within East Quay. 1 Site clearance within East Quay is anticipated to take place in January 2018. 2 Surcharging requiring the importation of fill is anticipated to take place between February 2018 and October 2018. 3 Highways, services, drainage and off site services will be installed between November 2018 and July 2019. 4 Housebuilding will take place between August 2019 and the end of 2020 and it is anticipated that the residential units will be available for occupation from January 2020 onwards. 5 Since the submission of the application in August 2009 revisions have been made to the layout of East Quay Park. This includes an increase in provision of rough grassland areas on the northern and eastern banks, provision of informal open space (as a flowering lawn area) and a reduction in scrub planting to be replaced by grassland

Development Summary Tables

3.31 Given the updated development phasing outlined above, Tables C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6 within the submitted Environmental Statement (August 2009) also require updating and are replaced by the following tables:

3.32 Table C2 within Chapter C of the August 2010 Environmental Statement has been updated in the previous section (see Table 3.2).

1078208v5 P17

Table 3.3 West Pond Development Summary Table (Supersedes Table C3 of the August 2009 ES)

West Pond

Area 7.58 Ha

Uses Residential and open space

Layout A ‘gridded’ street layout accessed from the primary distributor ‘Main Street’. Density: 60-70 dph 500-700 dwellings:

Floorspace/Units • 20-30% apartments • 20-30% 2-bed houses • 20-30% 3-bed houses • 10-20% 4-bed houses Max Height and Predominantly 2 storey housing with three-storey elements at key junctures. Scale Phasing Phases 1 and 2

Table 3.4 South Quay Parkside & Waterside Development Summary Table (Supersedes Table C4 of the August 2009 ES)

South Quay Parkside & Waterside

Area 19.07 Ha

Uses Residential and Public Realm. Limited small scale commercial. House and apartment types ranging from the largest three and four-bed houses Layout along the waterfront to the smaller two, three and four-bed housing to the rear, interspersed with 1 and 2 bed apartments. Density: 75-85 dph 650-900 dwellings:

• 20-30% apartments Floorspace/Units • 20-30% 2-bed houses • 20-30% 3-bed houses • 10-20% 4-bed houses

A3 uses up to 555 sq m GEA Max Height and 3-4 storeys along waterfront and at key locations. Scale South Quay Parkside: Phase 3 Phasing South Quay Waterside: Phase 4

P18 1078208v5

Table 3.5 Arno Quay Development Summary Table (Supersedes Table C5 of the August 2010 ES)

Arno Quay

Area 1.43 Ha

Uses Residential and public open space Linear blocks with a defined building line that optimises the depth offered by the plot and maximises the opportunity for south-facing waterfront aspect. The Layout layout follows the general grain of development within the Waterfront 1 development. Density: 125-200 dph 75-200 dwellings:

Floorspace/Units • 50-100% apartments • 0-50% 3 bed houses • 0-40% 4-bed houses

Max Height and 3-5 storeys maximum. Scale Access Neighbourhood road running parallel to dock edge, linked to Ffordd y Mileniwm. Construction: Phasing Phase 1

Table 3.6 East Quay Development Summary Table (Supersedes Table C6 of the August 2010 ES)

East Quay

Area 7.03 Ha

Uses Residential and public open space with small scale food and drink uses. Residential comprising primarily two and three-bedroom housing with a selection of one and two-bedroom apartments. Layout Public open space will comprise a sports pitch, piazzas and public art. Green space will also be provided at East Quay Gardens and East Quay Meadow. Allowance for provision of commercial usage associated with future marina. Density: 60-80 dph 100-250 dwellings:

• 20-30% apartments Floorspace/Units • 20-30% 2-bed houses • 20-30% 3-bed houses • 10-20% 4-bed houses A3 Uses: Up to 130 sq m GEA Max Height and Maximum 3-storeys fronting the waterfront with 2-storey houses behind. Scale Remediation & Construction: Phasing Phase 5

3.33 Please note that the remainder of the text relating to the ‘Consideration of Alternative Development Phasing’, as set out at Paragraphs 3.68 to 3.71 of the January 2010 ES Addendum remains unchanged, apart from the references to Appendices C2 and C3 which are superseded by Appendices 3.1 and 3.2 within this ES Addendum (June 2010).

1078208v5 P19

4.0 Transportation

Introduction

4.1 This addendum to the transportation chapter of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) has been prepared by Arup and should be read in conjunction with Chapter D of the submitted ES (August 2009) and the ES Addendum (January 2010).

4.2 This addendum presents changes to the ES to follow on from the updated Transport Assessment (TA). The TA has been updated following alterations to the design of the development, and feedback from the Local Highway Authority and its advisor Capita Symonds (see Appendix 4.2).

4.3 The sections which require amendment as a result of changes in the application or relevant data have been re-written, and where there is no change a statement of 'no change' has been recorded.

Policy Context

4.4 All the policies and guidance detailed in Chapter D of the submitted ES (August 2009) remain relevant.

4.5 In addition, further policy and guidance notes which have become relevant since the ES Addendum (January 2010) are summarised below:

The National Transport Plan (NTP)

4.6 The NTP (March 2010) accompanies Regional Transport Plans in delivering the Wales Transport Strategy. Five strategic priorities have been set out for the NTP:

• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other environment impacts

• Improving local transport

• Improving access between key settlements and sites

• Enhancing international connectivity

• Increasing safety and security

4.7 The NTP takes forward the process of delivering integration and also sets out solutions to transport issues along the main movement corridors in Wales. There are a number of proposals set out in the NTP which are relevant to the development:

• Creating additional railway platforms at Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Barry, with work starting by 2014;

• Introduce additional half-hourly services on the Vale of Glamorgan Line, which will facilitate improved access to Cardiff Airport, after Network Rail's Cardiff Area Resignalling Scheme is completed in 2014; and

1078208v5 P21

• Introduce a high-quality, express bus service between Cardiff and Cardiff Airport, and, working with the local authority, take forward safety improvements on the A4226 Five Mile Lane.

SEWTA Bus Strategy Study

4.8 The SEWTA Bus Strategy Study was completed 2006. It sets out high level regional aims to improve bus services in the region. The study considers the network and infrastructure on which services operate and barriers to successful operation, networks and routes for commercial subsidies and flexible services are considered. Consideration is given to the creation of a network that better serves the population and encourages modal shift. The major aims of the strategy are:

• Modal shift to buses, through providing safe, attractive and reliable alternatives to the car;

• Economic growth and prosperity through addressing spatial exclusion; and

• Reductions in social exclusion

4.9 This policy has become more relevant to the ES following an increased focus on the provision of bus services operating through the development.

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

Scope of Assessment

4.10 No change

Method of Baseline Data Collection

4.11 All methods of Baseline Data collection remain the same with the exception of amendments to the Personal Injury Accidents (PIA) data.

4.12 Updated PIA data for the period of 2005-2009 (inclusive) was obtained from the Vale of Glamorgan Council. The information was input into a GIS database and filtered for the junctions and links. The data includes accident severity (slight, severe and fatal), details of casualties and accident descriptions.

4.13 The accidents were sorted according to the links and junctions as set out in the capacity analysis, and accident rates were calculated based on Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) 13.1.3.2. Full details of the accident assessment are provided in section 2.3 and Appendix C of the TA (June 2010).

Assessment Modelling

4.14 There has been no change in the modelling methodology and the four scenarios detailed in the ES, however an additional scenario has been incorporated into the assessment.

P22 1078208v5

4.15 The additional scenario is a 2020 Base situation with Barry Island peak tourism. This flow scenario is based on the observed traffic flows factored to 2020 levels, with the addition of further tourism related traffic to and from Barry Island.

Trip Demand Assessment

4.16 The clarifications on land uses detailed in the ES Addendum (January 2010) remain unchanged. However following discussions with the local authority at a meeting held on 26 Feb 2010, modifications to the assumed trip rates and adjustments for linked, pass-by and internal trips were made. These adjustments had the net effect of a modest increase in overall trips to the site including an increase in vehicular trips.

Method of Assessment of Effects

4.17 No change with the exception of the additional scenario detailed in section 4.15 of this addendum.

Significance Criteria

4.18 No change.

Baseline Conditions

Site Location and Highway Network

4.19 No change.

Public Transport

Rail

4.20 No change

Bus

4.21 Table 4.1 below supersedes Table D4 from chapter D of the ES (August 2009):

1078208v5 P23

Table 4.1 Bus Services in the Barry Area

Frequency of Service Service Route Direction Morning Daytime Evening Barry – Sully – Penarth – 88A/88B Clockwise 1 per hr 1 per hr - Llandough Hospital Culverhouse 1 per hr 1 per hr 1 per hr Cross - Barry Culverhouse Cross - Barry 90 Waterfront Barry - Culverhouse 1 per hr 1 per hr 1 per hr Cross Cardiff – Penarth – Dinas Cardiff - Barry 2 per hr 2 per hr 1 per hr 93 Powys – Barry Barry - Cardiff 1 per hr 90 mins 1 per hr Cardiff –Penarth – Sully – Cardiff - Barry 2 per hr 2 per hr 1 per hr 94 Barry Barry - Cardiff 2 per hr 2 per hr 1 per hr 3 per Cardiff - Barry 1 per hr 1 per hr Cardiff – Dinas Powys – hour 95 Barry – Barry Island 3 per Barry - Cardiff 1 per hr 1 per hr hour Cardiff – Culverhouse Cross Cardiff - Barry 1 per hr 2 per hr 1 per hr 96 – Barry Barry - Cardiff 1 per hr 2 per hr 1 per hr Barry Town Circular (Via Clockwise 1 per hr 2 per hr - 97 Gibbonstown – King Square – Barry Hospital) Anticlockwise 2 per hr 2 per hr - Barry Town Circular (Via 98 King Square – Morrisons – Anticlockwise 2 per hr 2 per hr - Barry Hotel) Cardiff – Cardiff – Barry – Cardiff 1 per hr 1 per hr Llantwit Major X91 International Airport – St 1 per hr Llantwit Major – Athan – Llantwit Major) 2 1 per hr Cardiff Barry Town Circular (Via B1 Garden Suburb – Clockwise 1 per hr 1 per hr - Waterfront – Town Centre) Barry Island Circular (Via B3 Garden Suburb – The Knap Anticlockwise 1 per hr 1 per hr – Waterfront) Cardiff to 1 per hr 1 per hr Cardiff to Llantwit Major Llantwit Major X45 (via Barry) Llantwit Major 1 per hr 1 per hr to Cardiff

Pedestrians and Cyclists

4.22 The information provided in sections 4.17-4.26 in Chapter D of the ES (August 2009) is still relevant; however it should be clarified that the Thompson Street

P24 1078208v5

crossing of the rail line mentioned in section 4.20 of Chapter D of the ES (August 2009) has now been completed and now provides a key connection.

4.23 An additional assessment on the main routes between the development sites, and the main railway stations in Barry has been undertaken. These routes are shown in Figure 11.6 of the TA (June 2010) attached at Appendix 4.2.

4.24 This sustainable routes audit identifies five key routes for pedestrians and cyclists accessing the railway stations from the development site, and recommendations are made on how facilities could be improved. The main findings of this audit are summarised below. Full details of the sustainable routes audit are documented as section 11.4 of the TA.

Route A

4.25 Links the East Quay development site with Barry Docks Council offices, Ffordd y Mileniwm and existing Waterfront retail area, Barry Docks railway station, Dock View Road and Barry town centre. The main findings include:

• a good quality footway exists along Cory Way;

• a splitter island on Ffordd y Mileniwm provides an uncontrolled crossing over Ffordd y Mileniwm;

• the landscaping of the roundabout near the crossing leads to poor visibility for crossing users;

• a railway underpass provides access to Barry Docks Station from south of the rail line off Ffordd y Mileniwm;

• the underpass is poorly lit and has a rundown appearance;

• a ramp is provided from the underpass into Barry Docks station;

• no cycle parking is provided at Barry Docks Station;

• a ramp with uneven surfacing provides a link to Dock View Road from Barry Docks Station;

• footway facilities are poor on Dock View Road; and

• the Thompson Street footbridge provides a link between Dock View Road and Heol Y Llongau, off Ffordd y Mileniwm.

Route B

4.26 Links West Pond to existing Fford y Mileniwm retail area, Barry Town Centre Holton Road and Broad Street. The main findings include:

• uncontrolled crossings with dropped kerbs and tactile paving provide crossing points across Hood Road;

• a segregated Footway/cycleway is provided along Ffordd y Mileniwm;

• uncontrolled crossings provide access to the existing Barry Waterfront retail area; and

• a good standard of footway is provided across Gladstone Bridge.

1078208v5 P25

Route C

4.27 Links West Pond to Broad Street and Barry railway station. The main findings include:

• direct access to Barry station from the West Pond area is impeded by the railway line;

• an existing route is available along Powell Duffryn Way, Hood Road and Broad Street;

• an underpass allows access from Hood Road to Broad Street;

• the footway along Broad Street to Barry railway station varies in standard; and

• no cycle parking is provided at Barry railway station.

Route D

4.28 Links the West Pond/South Quay sites to Barry Island, Barry Island railway station and The Knap. The main points along this route include:

• a vehicular access exists into West Pond from Barry Island;

• the access is off a gentle slope which does not include any footway leading up to the Clive Road junction;

• a footway runs along Paget Road to the harbour Road Junction, but no crossings are provided onto Harbour Road; and

• the footway along Harbour road to Barry Island station is of good quality, and a zebra crossing provides easy access to the wider Barry Island area from Harbour Road.

Route E

4.29 Links West Pond/South Quay to Barry Island and Barry Island Station via Clive Road Steps. The main points along this route include:

• a route exists from the roundabout at Ffordd y Mileniwm through West Pond to a set of steps leading onto Clive road;

• the pathway is poorly lit and of poor quality with uneven surfacing;

• the steps leading to Clive Road are poor in quality and unsuitable for users who are mobility impaired;

• an uncontrolled crossing is provided across Clive Road;

• traffic management measures are in place along Clive Road outside of Clive Road School; and

• a route to Barry Island station exists from Clive Road through the residential areas of Barry Island. A pathway through the park adjacent to Plymouth Road connects to a bridge over the existing rail line linking to Harbour road.

P26 1078208v5

Fear and Intimidation

4.30 No change.

Severance

4.31 It should be noted that the Thompson Street footbridge described as being under construction in section 4.34 of the ES (August 2009) is now complete. All other information remains unchanged.

Accident Analysis

4.32 The following information on Accident Analysis supersedes all accident analysis (Sections 4.36-4.42, including Table D6) in chapter D of the ES (August 2009).

4.33 Personal Injury Accident (PIA) records were obtained from the Vale of Glamorgan council for the most recent period available (2004-2009 inclusive).

4.34 This information was input into a GIS database and filtered for the junctions and links which have been considered in the TA. The accidents were then graded by severity: slight, severe and fatal and plotted by location on a map of Barry.

4.35 Accidents occurring within the area, but not on junctions or links considered in the capacity analysis, have been plotted as black dots. The resulting plot is included as Figure D3 (August 2009 ES); full records of the accidents are included as Appendix E of the TA (June 2010).

4.36 The accidents were sorted according to the links and junctions as set out in the capacity analysis, and accident rates were calculated based on DMRB 13.1.3.2. The Tables in Appendix 4.1 summarise the results, and replace Table D6 of the submitted ES (August 2009).

4.37 The tables show that the majority of junctions and links are below the national average. As part of the capacity assessment detailed in section 1.59 to 1.68 works are proposed for a number of junctions, which could potentially improve the accident rate at these locations.

4.38 Over the assessed period there were a total of 369 accidents within the study area, the accidents comprised of 324 slight, 41 serious, and 4 fatal accidents with 69% occurring at junctions.

Junction Operation

4.39 Following a review of the base models and discussions with the Vale of Glamorgan Council and its advisor, Capita Symonds, alterations were made to several of the junction capacity models. All information in the following sections supersedes the information in sections 4.43-4.63, including Table D7 of chapter D of the ES (August 2009).

1078208v5 P27

4.40 Comprehensive discussion of the assessment is contained within Chapter 7 of the TA (June 2010).

4.41 Table 4.2 is a summary of the junction capacity for the assessed junctions in the AM and the PM peak hours of the 2008 Base situation which represents existing conditions. The key remains consistent with that used in the Transport Assessment and Chapter D of the ES.

Table 4.2 2008 Base Year Junction Capacity Summary

Junction AM PM Merrie Harrier Signals Junction 3 2 Murch crossroads 1 1 Biglis Roundabout 1 3 Port Road/Barry Docks Link Road Roundabout 1 2 Waycock Cross Roundabout 3 2 Harbour Road/Station Approach/Paget Road roundabout Priority 1 1 Harbour Road Earl Crescent Priority 1 1 Harbour Road/Nicholas Road Priority 1 1 Harbour Road/Broad Street Priority 1 1 The Parade/Harbour Road Mini Roundabout 1 1 Gladstone Bridge Roundabout 1 1 Dock View Road Gyratory 1 2 Buttrills Road/Barry Road Staggered Junction 1 1 Barry Road/Ty Newydd Road/Cemetery Road Roundabout 1 1 Gladstone Road/Cardiff Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm 1 2 Palmerston Road/Cardiff Road Signals Junction 4 2 Vere Street/Hillary Rise/Gladstone Road - Mini Roundabout 1 1 Vere Street/Hillary Rise/Gladstone Rise - Priority 1 1 Wimbourne Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm Priority 1 1 Cory Way/Ffordd y Mileniwm Roundabout 1 2 Subway Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm Priority 1 1 Y Rhodfa/Ffordd y Mileniwm 1 1 Retail/Morrisons/Ffordd y Mileniwm Roundabout 1 1 Gladstone Bridge/Ffordd y Mileniwm 1 1 Plymouth Road/Earl Crescent Roundabout 1 1 Broad Street/Hood Road Signals 1 2

P28 1078208v5

Key:

1 - Within capacity 2 - Approaching Practical 3 - Over Practical Capacity, 4 - Over Theoretical Capacity Approaching Theoretical Capacity Capacity

Priority RFC <0.75 Priority RFC >0.75, <0.85 Priority RFC >0.85, <1.00 Priority RFC >1.00 Signals RFC <0.80 Signals RFC >0.80, <0.90 Signals RFC >0.90, <1.00 Signals RFC >1.00

4.42 The table indicates that whilst the majority of junctions are operating within capacity several junctions have capacity issues irrespective of the Barry Waterfront proposals. In particular the signalised junction of Palmerston Road and Cardiff Road is extremely congested and modelled as exceeding theoretical capacity, these analysis results closely match the observed on site conditions.

4.43 Three further junctions have been assessed as operating over practical capacity:

• Merrie Harrier Signal;

• Biglis Roundabout; and

• Waycock Cross Roundabout.

Future Baseline

4.44 The information provided in sections 4.47 to 4.49 of the ES (August 2009) remains unchanged.

4.45 The following sections supersede the remainder of the future baseline sections (4.50 - 4.52 including Table D8).

4.46 The following junctions are now forecast to operate over theoretical capacity:

• Merrie Harrier Signals;

• Biglis Roundabout;

• Dock View Road Gyratory; and

• Palmerston Road Signals.

4.47 In addition the following junctions are now forecast to operate over practical capacity and approaching theoretical capacity:

• Waycock Cross Roundabout;

• Broad Street/Hood Road Signals;

• Murch Crossroads;

• Port Road/Barry Docks Link Road Roundabout;

• Vere Street/Hillary Rise/Gladstone Road Mini Roundabout;

• Wimbourne Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm;

1078208v5 P29

• Gladstone Road/Cardiff Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm; and

• Cory Way Ffordd y Mileniwm.

4.48 The operation of these junctions in the future baseline in many cases is forecast to be over practical or theoretical capacity without the Waterfront Barry development. The maintenance of this standard of operation with the addition of the Barry Waterfront development would therefore represent a ‘Nil detriment’ development.

4.49 Table 4.3 summarises the capacity analysis at each of the junctions in the future baseline scenario (2020), which replaces Table D8 of the submitted ES (August 2009).

Table 4.3 Future Baseline (2020) Capacity Assessment Summary

Junction AM PM Merrie Harrier Signals Junction 4 3 Murch crossroads 2 3 Biglis Roundabout 3 4 Port Road/Barry Docks Link Road Roundabout 2 3 Waycock Cross Roundabout 1 3 Harbour Road/Station Approach/Paget Road roundabout Priority 1 1 Harbour Road Earl Crescent Priority 1 1 Harbour Road/Nicholas Road Priority 1 1 Harbour Road/Broad Street Priority 1 1 The Parade/Harbour Road Mini Roundabout 1 1 Gladstone Bridge Roundabout 1 2 Dock View Road Gyratory 3 4 Buttrills Road/Barry Road Staggered Junction 2 1 Barry Road/Ty Newydd Road/Cemetery Road Roundabout 1 1 Gladstone Road/Cardiff Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm 2 3 Palmerston Road/Cardiff Road Signals Junction 4 4 Vere Street/Hillary Rise/Gladstone Road - Mini Roundabout 1 3 Vere Street/Hillary Rise/Gladstone Rise - Priority 1 1 Wimbourne Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm Priority 1 3 Cory Way/Ffordd y Mileniwm Roundabout 1 3 Subway Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm Priority 1 1 Y Rhodfa/Ffordd y Mileniwm 1 2

P30 1078208v5

Retail/Morrisons/Ffordd y Mileniwm Roundabout 2 1 Gladstone Bridge/Ffordd y Mileniwm 1 2 Plymouth Road/Earl Crescent Roundabout 1 1 Broad Street/Hood Road Signals 1 3

Potential Impacts

Impacts During construction

4.50 No change to the information provided in Chapter D of the ES (August 2009) or the ES Addendum (January 2010) which represents a worst case scenario.

Impacts After completion

4.51 The text information provided in section 5.10 to 5.16 of chapter D of the ES remains unchanged. However, tables 4.4 to 4.8 below supersede the information provided in Tables D9 to D13 in chapter D of the ES (August 2009). The updated tables display a marginal increase in the number of trips generated by the development due to revised trip generation assumptions in the updated TA (May 2010).

Table 4.4 Resultant Vehicle Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Arr Dep Arr Dep East Quay 30 90 77 46 Arno Quay 9 31 23 13 West Pond/South Quay 532 825 882 719 The Mole 30 42 57 47 Total 602 988 1,039 826

Table 4.5 Pedestrian Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Arr Dep Arr Dep East Quay 17 48 27 16 Arno Quay 7 24 18 10 West Pond/South Quay 319 449 262 190 The Mole 9 20 18 12 Total 351 540 324 226

1078208v5 P31

Table 4.6 Cycle Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Arr Dep Arr Dep East Quay 1 4 4 2 Arno Quay 1 2 1 1 West Pond/South Quay 11 28 29 19 The Mole 1 2 2 1 Total 14 35 36 23

Table 4.7 Public Transport Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Arr Dep Arr Dep East Quay 5 14 9 5 Arno Quay 2 5 4 2 West Pond/South Quay 42 97 68 48 The Mole 2 5 4 2 Total 50 121 83 58

Table 4.8 2020 with Development Junction Capacity Summary

Junction AM PM Merrie Harrier Signals Junction 4 3 Murch crossroads 3 4 Biglis Roundabout 4 4 Port Road/Barry Docks Link Road Roundabout 4 4 Waycock Cross Roundabout 2 4 Harbour Road/Station Approach/Paget Road roundabout Priority 1 1 Harbour Road Earl Crescent Priority 1 3 Harbour Road/Nicholas Road Priority 1 1 Harbour Road/Broad Street Priority 1 1 The Parade/Harbour Road Mini Roundabout 1 1 Gladstone Bridge Roundabout 2 2

P32 1078208v5

Dock View Road Gyratory 3 4 Buttrills Road/Barry Road Staggered Junction 2 1 Barry Road/Ty Newydd Road/Cemetery Road Roundabout 1 1 Gladstone Road/Cardiff Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm 4 4 Palmerston Road/Cardiff Road Signals Junction 4 4 Vere Street/Hillary Rise/Gladstone Road - Mini Roundabout 1 3 Vere Street/Hillary Rise/Gladstone Rise - Priority 1 1 Wimbourne Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm Priority 4 4 Cory Way/Ffordd y Mileniwm Roundabout 2 4 Subway Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm Priority 1 1 Y Rhodfa/Ffordd y Mileniwm 2 4 Retail/Morrisons/Ffordd y Mileniwm Roundabout 4 4 Gladstone Bridge/Ffordd y Mileniwm 2 4 Plymouth Road/Earl Crescent Roundabout 1 1 Broad Street/Hood Road Signals 1 2

4.52 The following sections supersede sections 5.17 to 5.21 of the original ES (August 2009).

4.53 The following junctions continue to operate within practical capacity:

• Harbour Road/Station Approach/Paget Road;

• Harbour road/Nicholas Road Priority;

• Harbour Road/Broad Street Priority;

• The Parade/Harbour Road Mini Roundabout;

• Gladstone Bridge Roundabout;

• Buttrills road/Barry Road Staggered Junction;

• Barry Road/Ty Newydd Road/Cemetery Road Roundabout;

• Subway Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm;

• Plymouth Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm;

• Broad Street Hood Road Signals; and

• Cardiff Road/Holton Road/Gladstone rise Priority.

4.54 The following junctions are forecast to exceed practical capacity but operate within theoretical capacity:

• Harbour Road/Earl Crescent Priority;

• Vere Street/Hillary Rise/Gladstone Rise Priority; and

1078208v5 P33

• Vere Street/Hillary rise Gladstone Road Mini Roundabout.

4.55 The following junctions are forecast to exceed theoretical capacity:

• Gladstone Road/Cardiff Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm;

• Merrie Harrier Signals;

• Murch Crossroads;

• Biglis Roundabout;

• Port Road/Barry Docks Link road Roundabout;

• Waycock Cross Roundabout;

• Dock View Road Gyratory;

• Palmerston Road/Cardiff Road Signals;

• Wimbourne Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm Priority;

• Cory Way/Ffordd y Mileniwm;

• Y Rhodfa/Ffordd y Mileniwm;

• Retail/Morrisons/Ffordd y Mileniwm; and

• Gladstone Bridge/Ffordd y Mileniwm Roundabout.

4.56 As explained in paragraph 3.16 of chapter D of the ES (August 2009) the results include development on the Mole and the education use within the District Centre area of the site. They are therefore cumulative effects representing a worst case scenario with a fully developed waterfront area.

Mitigation Measures

Introduction

4.57 No change.

Mitigation - construction Period

4.58 No change.

Mitigation - After Completion

4.59 This section supersedes all information provided in sections 6.8 to 6.17 of chapter D of the ES (August 2008).

4.60 In order to minimise the impact of the development on the highway network a number of possible junction improvement schemes have been identified and assessed. These junctions operate over capacity either as a result of increased traffic resulting from growth in base traffic, increased traffic related to Waterfront Barry traffic or a combination of both.

4.61 These measures, and associated sketch proposals, are detailed in Section 7.6 of the TA (June 2010). The following is a summary of the affected junctions,

P34 1078208v5

those which are already programmed for improvement by the local authority, those which it is possible to re-model the existing junction and those for which major works would be required.

4.62 The timing, funding and form of junction works will be the subject of discussion between the consortium and the local authority.

Junctions with pre-existing programmed improvement works

4.63 There are programmed improvements to Waycock Cross. The proposed works to the junction involve an enlargement and re-siting of the roundabout to the north. The revised junction will have a significantly larger diameter gyratory with improved capacity on all approach arms. The improvement proposals arise from existing traffic conditions and proposals for the Metrix development and RAF St. Athan to the west of Barry.

Remodelling of existing junctions

4.64 It is possible to remodel two of the existing junctions in order to improve junction capacity and traffic control with the new development. The works involve a range of measures targeted at increasing traffic capacity within available highway land.

• Port Road/Barry Docks Link Road* - Junction relocation with dedicated left turn lanes

• Gladstone Bridge/Ffordd y Mileniwm - Modest increase in central island and realignment of all arms

4.65 Those junctions marked * were noted in the future baseline capacity assessment (ie. Without the Barry Waterfront development) as operating over practical capacity.

Replacement of existing junctions

4.66 For a further two junctions improvement works require major upgrading works in order to alter the form of the junctions within available highway land:

• Harbour Road/Station Approach Road/Paget Road - Alteration to a signalised junction

• Wimbourne Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm - Alteration to a roundabout junction with appropriate geometry for Docks vehicles.

4.67 The timing, funding and form of junction works will be the subject of discussion between the development consortium and the local authority.

4.68 Full details and analysis of the resulting operation off each considered junction are detailed in Section 7 of the Transport Assessment (May 2010). Table 4.9 summarises the resulting operation of the four junctions after mitigation works.

1078208v5 P35

Table 4.9 2020 with Development Junction Operation with Mitigation

Junction AM PM Port road/Barry Docks Link Road 1 2 Gladstone Bridge/Ffordd y Mileniwm 2 3 Harbour Road/Station Approach Road/Paget Road 1 2 Wimbourne Road/Ffordd y Mileniwm 1 2

Rail Measures

4.69 This section supersedes section 6.18 of chapter D of the ES (August 2009).

4.70 The consortium have minimal influence on improvements to the rail network, however there are opportunities to increase the attractiveness of the service by improving routes between the development and the local stations and providing cycle parking facilities. Full details of the proposals are provided in section 11.4 of the TA (June 2010), and are summarised in section 1.77 of this ES Addendum (June 2010).

Bus Measures

4.71 This section supersedes Paragraphs 6.19 to 6.21 of chapter D of the ES (August 2009).

4.72 The 95 bus service will be diverted through the West Pond part of the development along the new link road, maintaining a frequency of 20 minutes.

4.73 The bus stops will be of high quality and provide travel information, lighting, shelter and signing to ensure a positive passenger experience. Bus stops within the development will be a mixture of on-street and layby stops.

Travel Plan Measures

4.74 No change.

Severance

4.75 No change.

Pedestrian Amenity

4.76 Information provided in chapter D of the ES (August 2009) remains valid, however additional consideration should be given to the Sustainable Route Proposals summarised in this ES Addendum (June 2010).

P36 1078208v5

Cycle Amenity

4.77 Information provided in chapter D of the August 2009 ES remains valid; however additional consideration should be given to the Sustainable Route Proposals summarised in this ES Addendum (June 2010). It should be noted that in the short to medium term the crossing of the railway line does not appear feasible, and therefore a focus on improving the existing routes is proposed.

Sustainable Route Proposals

4.78 The sustainable routes audit detailed in sections 4.22 to 4.29 identified five key routes for pedestrians and cyclists accessing the railway stations from the development sites, and recommendations were made on how facilities could be improved. The proposals are summarised below. Full details of the Sustainable Routes Audit are available in section 11.4 of the TA (June 2010).

Route A

4.79 Links East Quay with Barry Docks Council Offices, Ffordd y Mileniwm and existing Waterfront retail area, Barry Docks Station, Dock View Road/Barry Town Centre. The proposed improvements include:

• internal footways to be linked to existing footway along Cory Way;

• non-mandatory cycleway along Cory Way;

• improve visibility for pedestrians crossing Ffordd y Mileniwm at the Cory Way roundabout;

• improve the standard of the railway underpass with cosmetic enhancements;

• provide Sheffield stands at Barry Docks station;

• improve surfacing of the ramp leading to Dock View Road;

• improve surfacing of the Dock View Road footway from the Barry Docks access to Thompson Street; and

• provide a footway and cycleway egress from the north of the public realm of East Quay and provide a Toucan crossing over Ffordd y Mileniwm.

Route B

4.80 Links West Pond to existing Fford y Mileniwm retail area, Barry Town Centre Holton Road and Broad Street. The proposed improvements include:

• footway/cycleways out of West Pond/South to link into existing provision along Ffordd y Mileniwm; and

• cycle parking facilities to be provided within West Pond.

1078208v5 P37

Route C

4.81 Links West Pond to Broad Street and Barry Island railway station. The proposed improvements include:

• footway access from West Pond to connect to the existing footway at the Steam Railway access;

• footway along Broad Street to be improved;

• lighting in the underpass to be enhanced;

• cycle parking to be provided at Barry railway station; and

• investigate the feasibility of providing a level crossing to cross the infrequently used steam railway lines.

Route D

4.82 Links West Pond/South Quay to Barry Island, Barry Island Station and The Knap. The proposed improvements include:

• the route is to be extensively revised as part of junction improvements. All roads will include an adjacent footway;

• crossing facilities to be provided at the junction with Plymouth Road and Station Approach Road; and

• cycle parking to be provided at Barry island railway station.

Route E

4.83 Links West Pond/South Quay to Barry Island and Barry Island railway station via Clive Road Steps. The proposed improvements include:

• steps from South Quay to Clive Road to be upgraded in accordance with the Department for Transport Guidance 'Inclusive Mobility' document.

Safety

4.84 No change.

Fear and Intimidation

4.85 No change.

Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects

Impacts during construction

4.86 No change

P38 1078208v5

Impacts after completion

4.87 Minor amendments have been made to Table D16 of the submitted ES (August 2009) and D15 of the ES Addendum (January 2010). For ease of reference, Table 4.10 supersedes D16 of the submitted ES (August 2009) and table D15 of the ES Addendum (January 2010).

Table 4.10 Residual Impacts - Operational Phase

Environmental Description of Impact Description of Description of Residual Topic Mitigation Impact Measures Description Significance Description Significance Severance Increase in Moderate, A number of Increase in Minor traffic flows Direct, pedestrian/cycle traffic flows Beneficial facility Permanent, Direct, improvements Permanent, Long term between development Long term sites and key destinations including the town centre, local facilities and the railway stations.

Provision of pedestrian crossings throughout site Pedestrian A number of Increase in Minor Amenity pedestrian/cycle traffic flows Beneficial facility but with Direct, improvements improvement Permanent, between s to Long term development pedestrian sites and key network destinations including the town centre, local facilities and the railway stations.

Provision of

1078208v5 P39

pedestrian crossings throughout site Cycle Amenity Waterside cycle Increase in Minor route provision traffic flows Beneficial, Direct, Permanent, Secure covered Long term cycle parking at all residential elements.

Integration with existing surrounding cycle route network

Cycle parking throughout the development and at railway stations. Public Improved access Decreased Minor Transport to public highway Beneficial, transport via demand Direct, improved routes Modal shift Permanent,

Long term Improved public transport services by provision of a direct and frequent bus service serving the development. Personal Increase in Increase in Minor security traffic likely to traffic flows Beneficial, have a positive Direct, effect due to permanent, increased long term surveillance and activity

P40 1078208v5

Variety of measures to improve quality of routes connecting to development sites including lighting and maintenance. Road Safety Construction of Increase in Minor high quality traffic flows beneficial; crossing Direct, facilities Permanent, Long term Design of roads to national standards Highway Poor Moderate Negotiation of Where Neutral, network operational Adverse funding for proposed, Direct, operation efficiency Direct replacement of mitigation Permanent and Permanent several existing works increase in Long-Term junctions to improve Long-Term queue improve capacity and Local length capacity. decrease queuing. At some Signalisation of junctions Harbour where works road/Station are no Approach proposed Road/Paget existing Road junction conditions providing and queuing improved exacerbated. pedestrian Several facilities. junctions Construction of forecast to strategic road experience no link providing a material second route change in between Barry operation. town centre and Barry Island.

1078208v5 P41

Summary & Conclusions

4.93 The summary and Summary and Conclusions of Chapter D of the August 2009 ES and Addendum (January 2010) remain unchanged. It should be noted that this provides an overview of the detailed assessment undertaken in the Transport Assessment, and as such further details should be sought in the Transport Assessment report, as attached in Appendix 4.2.

P42 1078208v5

5.0 Landscape and Visual

Introduction

5.1 This addendum to the Landscape and Visual Chapter of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) has been prepared by Soltys Brewster Consulting and should be read in conjunction with Chapter E and the January 2010 ES Addendum.

5.2 This Addendum (June 2010) assesses the likely landscape and visual impacts on landscape character and visual amenity that arise from minor amendments that have been made to the Masterplan layout following submission of the planning application in August 2009 and subsequent Addendum to Environmental Statement (January 2010). The key changes to the Masterplan of relevance to this ES chapter are as follows:

• Amendment to the commercial/retail building (G3), located within the District Centre. The building has been set back 2.5m from Mole to allow for service and maintenance access.

• Amendment to Block F within the District Centre. The small public space between the building blocks has now been removed, to create a single block frontage to the dock edge.

• Amendments to West Pond, which include: - Addition of a 3 storey commercial building and public square adjacent to link road.

- Addition of a block of housing to the east of the crescent.

- Relocation of the educational land/buildings to the north of the proposed new residential and commercial blocks.

- Relocation of access road to educational land/commercial block.

• Amendment to the link road layout.

• Amendments to open space, which include: - LEAP at West Pond to be upgraded to a NEAP.

- NEAP at East Quay to be downgraded to a LEAP (with associated reduced urban realm)

- LEAP in District Centre to be relocated to location of middle LAP in South Quay.

• Amendments to public open space with East Quay, to include removal of a sports pitch, reduction in number of earth mounds surrounding the open space and reduction of number of paths within the open space.

1078208v5 P43

Policy Context

5.3 There has been no change to legislation or guidance since the submitted ES (August 2009) or the Addendum to Environmental Statement (January 2010) was submitted.

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

5.4 There has been no change to the methodology used to assess landscape and visual effects.

Baseline Conditions

5.5 There has been no change to the baseline conditions that are described within Section 4, Chapter E of the ES (August 2009), or within the Addendum to Environmental Statement (January 2010) and therefore this chapter remains valid.

Potential Impacts

5.6 The proposed minor amendments to the Masterplan layout will have no effects on landscape character or visual amenity from the eight selected viewpoints within the 2km study area. Therefore no amendments to the illustrative block model images (figures E15a – E22c) that were included as part of the submitted ES (August 2009), have been made.

Mitigation Measures

5.7 There are no significant environmental impacts arising as a result of the latest scheme amendments. Measures set out in Section 6 of Chapter E of the August 2009 ES and the January 2010 Addendum therefore remain valid.

Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects

5.8 There is no change to the overall residual effects of the development as set out in Section 7 of Chapter E of the August 2009 ES and January 2010 Addendum.

Summary & Conclusions

5.9 The comments made regarding the Landscape and Visual Assessment and the proposed amendments to the development that are outlined in paragraph 1.2 above, will result in no overall changes in terms of impacts on townscape/landscape character and visual amenity within the study area. Therefore the conclusions made regarding the significance of effects within the Landscape and Visual chapter of the submitted ES (August 2009) and January 2010 Addendum remain valid.

P44 1078208v5

6.0 Ecology

Introduction

6.1 This document has been prepared by Soltys Brewster Ecology Ltd and provides updated information (as of 21 May 2010) of relevance to the Barry Waterfront development. This document follows from the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) (August 2009) and the first ES Addendum (January 2010). This update relates in particular to chapter F of the submitted ES (August 2009) and Addendum 1 (January 2010).

6.2 Subsequent to ES Addendum 1, further consultation with the Vale of Glamorgan, The Environment Agency (EA) and Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) has been undertaken to clarify aspects of the ecology assessment and provide further information where appropriate. This has resulted in some minor amendments to the ecological mitigation strategy (e.g. increased number of bird boxes at South Quay) as well as a revised layout at East Quay Park.

Policy Context

6.3 There have been no further relevant changes to legislation or policy since the submission of ES Addendum 1 (January 2010).

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

6.4 There has been no change to the methodology used to assess the ecological impacts of the scheme since the submission of the ES in August 2009 and Addendum 1 in January 2010. Clarification on a number of minor points was provided within the submitted ES Addendum 1.

Baseline Conditions

6.5 There has been no change to the ecological baseline conditions described in Section 4 of Chapter F in the submitted ES (August 2009) and Addendum 1 (January 2010). Clarification on a number of minor points was provided within the submitted ES Addendum 1.

Consultation with Statutory Environmental Bodies (SEBs)

6.6 Subsequent to the submission of the ES Addendum 1, a meeting was held on 31 March 2010 to discuss the ecological mitigation strategy and provide clarification on the type and extent of mitigation described. The meeting was attended by the planning Case Officer and the Ecologist from the Vale of Glamorgan Council and the relevant Conservation Officer from CCW. Soltys Brewster Ecology, Soltys Brewster Consulting and Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners were in attendance on behalf of the Consortium.

1078208v5 P45

6.7 A record of the points discussed at the meeting was provided in the form of a letter from the Vale of Glamorgan dated 01 April 2010. This letter and the response to it, prepared by Soltys Brewster Ecology, are included as Appendix 6.1 of this addendum. Informal discussion with the ecologist at the Vale of Glamorgan relating to the content of the Soltys Brewster letter has indicated positive feedback over the revised layout at East Quay Park – a formal response from the Vale and CCW is awaited.

6.8 A revised consultation response has also been received from the Environment Agency (letter dated 26 April 2010 – see Appendix 6.2). This indicates that the EA do not object to the proposed development but would require a planning condition detailing a landscape and habitat management plan.

6.9 The EA letter of 26 April also indicates that consideration should be given to the use of standing open water (ponds) to provide ‘green linkages’ as part of the mitigation strategy. Further discussion with the EA on this issue is on- going, with the Consortium’s position set out in the letter dated 06 January 2010 (issued by NLP). This identifies that use of such features (i.e. ponds or standings water) was not considered of ecological relevance to the existing or proposed conditions at the Waterfront site – a range of other measures to provide ‘green linkages’ have been included with the mitigation strategy submitted with the ES.

Mitigation Measures

6.10 No additional ecological impacts would arise in relation to the minor alterations considered in this ES addendum and accordingly, no additional mitigation measures have been identified.

6.11 As part of the consultation process, revisions to the layout at East Quay Park have been drafted and agreed by the Consortium. The revised layout includes an increase in provision of rough grassland areas on northern and eastern banks, provision of informal open space (as a flowering lawn area) and a reduction in scrub planting to be replaced by grassland. These measures provide an increase of grassland that could provide resources to invertebrates, birds and foraging bats. The changes effectively increase the provision of these habitat features over and above that reported in the ES (August 2009), although not to the extent that it would fundamentally affect the impact assessment reported within the submitted ES.

6.12 Further detail relating to the revised layout at East Quay Park is described within the letter in Appendix 6.1 of this Addendum (letter dated 02 June 2010).

Residual and Cumulative Effects

6.13 There is no change to the overall residual effect of the development as assessed in the submitted ES Chapter (Chapter F). None of the points clarified in this ES addendum require substantial revision of the submitted chapter or a re-assessment of the impacts of the proposed masterplan.

P46 1078208v5

6.14 Subsequent to the submission of the ES, the draft TAN 5 on Nature Conservation and Planning was published by WAG (September 2009). However, none of the key principles described in the submitted ES chapter were changed in the published TAN 5 and as a consequence, no amendment to the submitted ES text is considered necessary.

6.15 Consultation responses received from CCW and EAW did not object to the scheme although did identify a number of recommendations relating to the details of mitigation provision should the scheme be granted planning consent. The Vale of Glamorgan Ecologist did raise an objection based on the net loss of biodiversity across the site although the consultation response went on to identify a similar list of recommendations to those identified by CCW.

6.16 The ecological mitigation strategy incorporated within the August 2009 ES chapter was devised based on a pre-application discussion with CCW and the Vale Ecologist and included measures to retain/create habitats and site features appropriate to the existing site conditions and species. Given the development requirements for the site (1,400+ houses identified in the UDP allocation) and the constraints imposed by flood risk prevention (requirement to raise base level of the site), the mitigation strategy proposed is considered appropriate and would retain resources for biodiversity locally, albeit at a reduced scale.

Abbreviations

6.17 ECIA – Ecological Impact Assessment

6.18 JNCC – Joint Nature Conservation Committee

1078208v5 P47

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

7.0 Archaeology

Introduction

7.1 This chapter has been prepared by the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust Limited and assesses the minor amendments made to the masterplan and any additional information since the completion of the assessment of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010). This chapter should therefore be read in conjunction with Chapter G of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and the ES Addendum (January 2010).

7.2 This chapter considers any alterations in national, regional and local level planning policy and in addition, the known and potential archaeological baseline within the study area referenced in Chapter G of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010) has also been reviewed.

7.3 This chapter considers any changes in the magnitude and significance of potential effects upon archaeological resources during the construction and operational phases.

Policy Context

7.4 There has been no change to legislation, policy or guidance since the ES was submitted in August 2009 or ES Addendum 1 was submitted in January 2010.

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

7.5 There has been no change to the assessment methodology and significance criteria as set out in the submitted ES (August 2009) and January 2010 ES Addendum.

Baseline Conditions

7.6 No significant change has occurred to the baseline conditions set out in Chapter G of the August 2009 ES or the clarification provided within the January 2010 ES Addendum.

Potential Impacts

7.7 The potential impact section of Chapter G of the submitted ES (August 2010) and clarifications provided within the January 2010 ES Addendum remain applicable and valid.

Mitigation Measures

7.8 The mitigation proposals identified within Chapter G of the ES (August 2009) remain unchanged and valid.

1078208v5 P49

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects

7.9 The residual and cumulative effects section of Chapter G of the submitted August 2009 ES remains unchanged. The clarifications provided in the January 2010 ES Addendum also remain valid.

Summary & Conclusions

7.10 The summary and conclusions outlined in section 8 of Chapter G of the submitted ES (August 2009) remain valid; no changes were made to this in the January 2010 Addendum.

7.11 For clarification, providing the mitigation measures are adhered to, the effect on the archaeological interests is considered to be reduced to none as the mitigation measures will ensure their preservation by record. An archaeological watching brief is designed to identify and record any archaeological structures, features and deposits during the construction phase, with an in-built facility to record any unforeseen structures, features and deposits, thereby providing preservation by record in perpetuity.

P50 1078208v5

8.0 Water Resources, Drainage and Flooding

Introduction

8.1 This chapter has been prepared by Earth Science Partnership Ltd (ESP)/Healer Associates to consider recent amendments to the proposals and should be read in conjunction with Chapter H of the ES (August 2009) and the ES Addendum (January 2010).

Policy Context

8.2 There has been no significant change to legislation, policy or guidance since the Barry Waterfront ES was submitted (August 2009) and the ES Addendum (January 2010).

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

8.3 The approach and methodology used to assess the effects, proposed mitigation and overall residual effects remains unchanged to the approach outlined in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4 of Chapter H of the submitted ES (August 2009).

Baseline Conditions

Drainage and Flooding

8.4 Given that the minor amendments to the masterplan relate to the built form of the proposed development it is considered that no major changes have occurred to the baseline conditions set out in Chapter H of the submitted ES (August 2009) and the ES Addendum (January 2010).

8.5 Paragraph 4.6.2 of Chapter H discusses possible volumes of material for importation to assist in pre-loading the site using surcharging. Further detailed analysis of fill volumes available within the site, and options for construction mean that an importation of this scale may not be required; however, the volume assumptions within the August 2009 ES are likely to represent a worst case assumption with respect to residual impacts and therefore the findings still remain valid.

Potential Impacts

Impacts During Construction and After Completion Contamination of surface water and groundwater from construction activities

8.6 Since the submission of the ES in August 2009 (and comments made within Section 6 of Chapter H), the results of a trial surcharge embankment situated within West Pond have become available. The results of monitoring settlement

1078208v5 P51

at this trial embankment, and further detailed analysis of the compressibility characteristics of the alluvial soils, mean that in order to accelerate primary settlements at West Pond within a timescale that will permit economic development of the site, band drains are required to facilitate drainage of compressible strata during the surcharging scheme. Without these additional drainage paths the timescales required to treat the compressible strata are likely to be prohibitive to development (see Appendix 9.1).

8.7 Whilst the use of band-drains in formerly developed sites is sometimes unfavourable due to potential migratory pathways for contamination, a scheme for contamination remediation is proposed to reduce unacceptable levels of contamination in affected areas before the surcharging works would be undertaken in West Pond. In addition as band drains serve to drain deeper strata and relieve increased pore water pressures, the pressure gradient is upwards out of the low-permeability natural soils, and into the potentially contaminated Made Ground. This behaviour prevents introducing a potential migration pathway from the Made Ground into the deeper soils. This approach has been adopted at a number of formerly developed sites in South Wales, and has been already discussed, with specific regard to West Pond, with the Environment Agency, who made no adverse comments.

Mitigation Measures

8.8 For the avoidance of doubt, the ES Addendum (January 2010) at Paragraph 8.18 should also have referred to August 2009 and not August 2007.

8.9 Paragraph 6.4 of Chapter H discusses possible volumes of material for importation to assist in pre-loading the site using surcharging. Further detailed analysis of fill volumes available within the site, and options for construction mean that an importation of this scale may not be required; however, this assumption for the ES is likely to represent a worst case assumption with respect to residual impacts.

8.10 The mitigation measures set-out within the submitted ES (August 2009) and the ES Addendum (January 2010) remain valid.

Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects

8.11 There is no change to the overall residual effects of the development outlined in Chapter H of the submitted ES (August 2009).

8.12 Paragraph 8.2 within the Summary and Conclusions of the ES has been changed to the following to provide further information, since the Environment Agency letter dated 9/01/08 suggested that a watercourse is situated within the site:

8.13 The geology varies across the site, but generally consists of made ground overlying cohesive and granular alluvium (sometimes absent) overlying bedrock. Most of the sites are classified as non-aquifers although part of West Pond is considered a minor aquifer. There are no water courses on the site, but there

P52 1078208v5

are a number of old discharges transmitting flows into the adjacent dock, and there is a shallow ditch running through West Pond which collects rainfall run-off before discharge into the dock.

8.14 As described above, band drains are required to facilitate drainage of compressible strata during the surcharging scheme; however, their residual impacts assessed in Paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of Chapter H (August 2009) are not changed, as a scheme for contamination remediation is proposed to reduce unacceptable levels of contamination in affected areas before the surcharging works would be undertaken in West Pond. In addition as band drains serve to drain deeper strata and relieve increased pore water pressures, the pressure gradient is upwards out of the low-permeability natural soils, and into the potentially contaminated Made Ground. This behaviour prevents introducing a potential migration pathway from the Made Ground into the deeper soils.

Summary & Conclusions

8.15 Given that the minor amendments to the masterplan relate to the built form of the proposed development it is considered that no overall major changes have occurred proposals set out in Chapter H (August 2009) and the ES stands, with clarifications set-out within the January 2010 Addendum.

1078208v5 P53

9.0 Ground Conditions and Contamination

Introduction

9.1 This chapter has been prepared by Earth Science Partnership Ltd (ESP) to consider recent amendments to the proposals and should be read in conjunction with Chapter I of the ES (August 2009) and the ES Addendum (January 2010). A number of minor amendments have been made to the masterplan and parameter plans and these are set out in Section 3 of this report.

Policy Context

9.2 There has been no significant change to legislation, policy or guidance since the submission of the application and ES in August 2009 and the ES Addendum (January 2010).

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

9.3 The approach and methodology used to assess the impacts and define significance criteria remain unchanged to the approach outlined by Arup in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.8 of Chapter I of the submitted ES (August 2009).

Baseline Conditions

9.4 Given that the minor amendments to the masterplan relate to the built form of the proposed development it is considered that no major changes have occurred to the baseline conditions set out in Chapter I of the submitted ES (August 2009). For the avoidance of doubt, the ES Addendum (January 2010) at Paragraph 9.4 should also have referred to Chapter I and not Chapter 1.

9.5 Given that the minor amendments to the masterplan relate to the built form of the proposed development it is considered that no overall major changes have occurred to the sequence of phasing set out in Section 4.0 of Chapter I (August 2009). Some minor amendments has occurred to the activities as set out below.

9.6 Since the submission of the ES in August 2009 (and comments made within paragraph 4.3.1 of Chapter I), the results of a trial surcharge embankment situated within West Pond have become available. The results of monitoring settlement at this trial embankment, and further detailed analysis of the compressibility characteristics of the alluvial soils, mean that in order to accelerate primary settlements at West Pond within a timescale that will permit early regeneration of the site, band drains are required to facilitate drainage of compressible strata during the surcharging scheme. Without these additional drainage paths the timescales required to treat the compressible strata are likely to be prohibitive to development.

1078208v5 P55

9.7 Whilst the use of band-drains in formerly developed sites is sometimes unfavourable due to potential migratory pathways for contamination, a scheme for contamination remediation is proposed to reduce unacceptable levels of contamination in affected areas before the surcharging works would be undertaken in West Pond. In addition as band drains serve to drain deeper strata and relieve increased pore water pressures, the pressure gradient is upwards out of the low-permeability natural soils, and into the potentially contaminated Made Ground. This behaviour prevents introducing a potential migration pathway from the Made Ground into the deeper soils. This approach has been adopted at a number of formerly developed sites in South Wales, and has been already discussed, with specific regard to West Pond, with the Environment Agency, who made no adverse comments (see Appendix 9.1).

9.8 Paragraph 4.3.1 of Chapter I discusses possible volumes of material for importation to assist in pre-loading the site using surcharging. Further detailed analysis of fill volumes available within the site, and options for construction mean that an importation of this scale may not be required; however, this assumption for the ES is likely to represent a worst case assumption with respect to residual impacts and therefore the August 2009 ES and January 2010 ES Addendum remain valid.

Potential Impacts

9.9 There is no change to the potential impact(s) of the proposed development on ground conditions and contamination to that provided within Chapter I of the submitted ES for Barry Waterfront (August 2009). For the avoidance of doubt, the ES Addendum (January 2010) at Paragraph 9.5 and 9.7 should also have referred to Chapter I and not Chapter 1.

Mitigation Measures

9.10 No additional significant environmental impacts arise in relation to the alteration considered in this ES addendum or that have been highlighted by the additional assessment undertaken, therefore, additional mitigation measures are not required. The EA has submitted representations to the application that confirm that they have no objection to the application provided that conditions they propose are attached to any grant of planning permission.

Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects

9.11 There is no change to the overall residual effects of the development or conclusions reached in Chapter I of the submitted ES (August 2009).

Summary & Conclusions

9.12 Given that the minor amendments to the masterplan relate to the built form of the proposed development it is considered that no overall major changes have

P56 1078208v5

occurred proposals set out in Chapter I (August 2009) and the ES stands, with clarifications set-out within the January 2010 Addendum.

1078208v5 P57

10.0 Noise and Vibration

Introduction

10.1 This ES addendum has been prepared by RSK Environmental and should be read in conjunction with Chapter J of the August 2009 Environmental Statement (ES) and January 2010 ES Addendum for the Barry Waterfront proposals. This addendum (Addendum 2) is aimed at adding clarity to the August 2009 ES and Addendum 1, removing any ambiguity from the presentation of the noise assessment results and addressing any relevant feedback received to date from the Vale of Glamorgan (VoG) Council Pollution Control Department (PCD).

10.2 A number of minor amendments have been made to the masterplan submitted within the August 2009 application. These are outlined in Section 3 of this addendum report and have been considered for the purpose of this addendum. However, the minor amendments, which include slight alteration to the proposed location of the school, have been found to have no significant or quantifiable implications for the Noise and Vibration assessment presented in Chapter J of the August 2009 ES and January 2010 Addendum.

10.3 Chapter D of the August 2009 ES and ES Addendum 1 (January 2010), along with the associated Transport Assessment (Appendix 4.2), have been updated, resulting in revised traffic flow data for the proposed development being issued. Accordingly, the site suitability assessment and road traffic noise assessment elements of the Noise and Vibration assessment chapter have been updated to consider the effects of the revised traffic data.

Policy Context

10.4 The policy context has not changed since the production of the submitted ES. The referenced standards and guidance documents are still current and the planning policies of the LPA are still as they were at the time of original production.

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

10.5 There has been no change to the assessment methodology and significance criteria as set out in the submitted ES (August 2009) and January 2010 ES Addendum.

10.6 However please note that Paragraph 10.7 below updates Paragraph 10.4 of the January 2010 ES Addendum in order to correct a referencing error within the text:

10.7 The approach and methodology used to assess the impacts, proposed mitigation and overall residual effects remain unchanged to the approach outlined in Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.27 of Chapter J: Noise and Vibration of the August 2009 ES.

1078208v5 P59

Railway Noise Impacts

10.8 Comments submitted to the applicant by the VoG Council Pollution Control Department on the 22nd April 2010, queried whether the assessment included railway noise, given that some of the proposed domestic dwellings will be adjacent to the Barry Island rail spur and steam railway.

10.9 For clarification, the levels of railway noise affecting the site have been taken into account in the baseline measurements. However, these were deemed to not be dominant and due to their relative infrequency over the averaging period made little or no calculable difference to the LAeq,16hour daytime or LAeq,8hour night-time figures used in the assessment.

10.10 Notwithstanding this, the future year calculations contained within the August 2009 ES chapter have been updated to include noise from trains travelling from Barry Station to Barry Island Station. These predictions have been carried out in accordance with the former Department of Environment: 1995: Calculation of Railway Noise (CRN), based on timetabled train movements.

10.11 The site suitability assessment has been updated to consider the impact of railway noise as appropriate, although its effects were noted to be negligible when compared to the impact of road traffic noise on the local network.

Changes in Road Traffic Noise

10.12 The Transport Assessment presented in the August 2009 ES has been updated, resulting in revised traffic flow data for the proposed development being issued. Accordingly, the future year calculations contained within the August 2009 ES Noise and Vibration chapter have been updated to consider the revised traffic flows. These predictions have again been carried out in accordance with the former Department of Environment publication Calculation of Road Traffic Noise: 1988.

10.13 The site suitability assessment has been updated to consider the impact of the revised predicted traffic noise levels.

Biomass Plant

10.14 Feedback from the VoG Council Pollution Control Department has also queried whether a proposed Biomass Plant has been taken into consideration within the assessment, noting that the approval of the new Biomass plant at Atlantic Way has included a noise impact assessment and in itself indicates that it would not impact upon the development.

10.15 The December 2008 Environmental Statement, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for Barry Energy Recovery Ltd, for their proposed biomass fuelled energy recovery plant at Barry Docks demonstrates that calculated levels of operational noise impact for the development are predicted to be below the prevailing background noise level at all nearby existing and proposed receptors. Paragraph 9.4.21 of the document states:

P60 1078208v5

“The results of the BS4142 assessment indicate that noise levels from the proposed Energy Recovery Facility are of less than marginal significance at all locations and that complaints from existing residents are unlikely.”

10.16 As a result of the above, the plant was not afforded specific consideration in the August 2009 ES by virtue of its forecast negligible effect on the future noise climate of the area.

10.17 The Biogen scheme was granted full planning consent by the VoGC on 17th September 2009. The planning permission included the following condition, to control the impact of operational noise.

10.18 “Full details of methods of noise attenuation of individual plant and building(s), together with operational measures to minimise the transmission of noise from the site (including methods of control over the warning signals from reversing vehicles), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the facility being brought into beneficial use, and the operation of the facility hereby approved shall be undertaken and thereafter operated in accordance with the approved attenuation scheme and approved acoustic assessment submitted with the application. Reason: In the interests of local residential amenity, and to ensure compliance with Policies WAST2, EMP2, EMP3, ENV27 and ENV29 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

10.19 The above condition will ensure that the negligible effect on the future noise climate of the area demonstrated by the ES accompanying the application will be delivered by the consented development. Accordingly, the impact of noise from the consented Biogen scheme requires no further consideration.

10.20 Consideration has also been given to the proposed 9MW fuelled renewable energy plant, proposed by Sunrise Renewables (SR) on land at Woodham Road, approximately 200 metres to the east of the closest proposed residential elements of the Barry Waterfront development proposals.

10.21 The application (reference 2008/01203/FUL) was refused planning permission on 31 st July 2009 and as such, received no formal consideration in the August 2009 ES. This refusal decision is currently subject to a planning appeal, that has yet to be determined. Notwithstanding the outcome of the appeal, SR submitted a separate application for the development (reference 2010/00240/FUL), which has now been withdrawn.

10.22 Both the appeal application and the withdrawn application referenced above, were supported by technical noise assessment reports produced by AB Acoustics (ABA). These reports considered the impact of noise associated with the SR proposals on the Barry Waterfront regeneration area in isolation and cumulatively with the consented Biogen proposals. Where necessary, mitigation measures to control the impact of noise have been recommended by ABA. The ABA reports conclude that the effects of noise from the SR scheme, both in isolation and cumulatively, can be adequately controlled.

10.23 Should the SR scheme be granted planning, then providing the impact of noise is controlled by an appropriately worded condition, then its effect on the

1078208v5 P61

development potential of the Barry Waterfront development areas can be controlled. Accordingly, the impact of noise from the potential SR scheme requires no further consideration.

Baseline Conditions

Baseline Noise Measurements

10.24 The baseline figures used in the assessment remain valid and no changes have been made or are required to this section of the assessment.

Baseline Noise Modelling

10.25 The baseline noise modelling element, previously presented in Paragraphs 4.16 to 4.22 of Chapter J of the August 2009 ES have been updated to consider the revised 2008 baseline traffic flow data issued by Arup and the inclusion of trains travelling between Barry Station and Barry Island Station. This revised noise modelling exercise provides an even clearer representation of noise levels across the proposed development site.

10.26 The updated baseline noise model utilised the revised 18-hour Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWT) flows and vehicle composition information provided by Arup for the 2008 existing situation, for the key roads that surround the site, as detailed in Transportation Chapter D of this ES Addendum (May 2010).

10.27 The updated baseline noise model also considers the impact of noise associated with the movement of 82 diesel multiple unit (DMU) trains during the daytime and 10 DMU trains during the night-time, as indicated by the current timetable for the railway line.

10.28 The updated LAeq,16hour daytime and LAeq,8hour night-time noise levels across the site for the 2008 baseline 'open site' situation are presented in Figures J1 and J2 respectively of this Addendum (see Appendices 10.1 and 10.2).

Potential Impacts

10.29 The potential impacts have been set out and discussed in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.54 of Chapter J of the August 2009 ES.

10.30 The revision of the road traffic flows and the inclusion of railway movements in the future year predictive noise modelling, upon which the site suitability assessment was based, has necessitated the updating of this assessment element, as presented below.

10.31 The revision of the traffic flows has also necessitated the updating of the road traffic noise impact assessment, also presented below.

P62 1078208v5

10.32 Although no other elements have required updating, a number of additional points of clarification have been made for completeness and to ensure a full understanding of Chapter J of the submitted ES (August 2009).

Operational Phase - Site Suitability for Residential Development - Noise

10.33 The site suitability assessment presented in Paragraphs 5.27 to 5.32 of Chapter J: Noise and Vibration of the August 2009 ES identified that the site would be classified as NEC C in areas fronting primary roads, with the majority of the site being classified as NEC B or NEC A.

10.34 The updated noise modelling, undertaken to consider the revised traffic flows and the inclusion of train movements between Barry Station and Barry Island Station, has not had a significant impact on the originally presented assessment. The future site would still be classified as NEC C in areas fronting primary roads, with the remainder of the site being classified as NEC B or NEC A. The closest proposed residential units to the railway would be classified as NEC A.

10.35 The results of the updated noise modelling, in the form of daytime and night- time TAN 11 NECs, that visually articulate the above description, are presented in Figures J3 and J4 (Appendices 10.3 and 10.4) respectively of this June 2010 Addendum Report.

10.36 For areas of the site classified as NEC C, TAN 11 states "Planning permission should not normally be granted. Where it is considered that permission should be given, for example because there are no alternative quieter sites available, conditions should be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise." This classification relates to a very small area of the application site.

10.37 For areas of the site classified as NEC B, TAN 11 states "Noise should be taken into account when determining planning applications and, where appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise. "

10.38 For areas of the site classified as NEC A, TAN 11 states "Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission, although the noise level at the high end of the category should not be regarded as desirable."

10.39 The extent of the overall site classified as NEC C is very small and development within the NEC C areas is considered necessary insofar as ensuring the feasibility of residential development on the remaining majority of the site areas classified within NEC B and NEC A - and is directly linked to the creation of the Link Road - a VoG Council key planning requirement of this development.

10.40 Mitigation measures that are capable of providing a commensurate level of protection against noise have been recommended to control the impact of noise in areas of the site classified as NEC C and B, in accordance with the guidance presented in TAN11.

1078208v5 P63

10.41 Accordingly, it is considered that with the proposed mitigation measures, that noise need not present a significant constraint to the residential development proposals at the site.

Suitability of Site for Residential Development - Vibration

10.42 The vibration predictions and assessment presented within Paragraphs 5.33 to 5.39 of Chapter J: Noise and Vibration of the August 2009 ES make reference to transfer functions and amplification factors to establish and assess the impact of vibration within the upper storeys of the proposed residential dwellings. Presented below is further information relating to the transfer functions assumed.

10.43 BS 6472 states that a transfer function should be applied; however, BS 6472 does not contain any guidance on suitable transfer functions.

10.44 There are two key aspects to the effect that the building structure will have on the measured vibration levels: the first is generally a reduction as the vibration passes into the foundations of a building; there is typically then amplification as the vibration propagates up the building to the upper storeys and across potentially suspended floors.

10.45 Different types of foundation will affect the amount of vibration that is transferred from the ground to either the building or the hard surface. It is necessary to use a transfer function that would represent the likely effect that the foundation would have on the vibration magnitude as it propagates into the building structure.

10.46 In assessing the effect that the different foundations may have, guidance has been sought from the Handbook of Urban Rail Noise and Vibration Control (HURNVC), published by the Federal Transit Administration, USA, written by H J Saurenam, J T Nelson and G P Wilson. The HURNVC sets out attenuation factors that can be applied to calculate the transfer function between vibrations measured on unloaded ground and vibration at a foundation. It notes that the multiplication factor for a strip foundation is approximately 0.5 and for a piled foundation approximately 0.4, both based on the 31.5 Hz frequency band.

10.47 To extrapolate the measured unloaded ground vibration levels up the building to a suspended upper storey, an amplification factor is required. Based on figures presented in Transmission of Ground-borne Vibration in Buildings by Jorgen Jakobsen, Journal of Low Frequency Noise and Vibration, Vol. 8 No. 3, 1989, an amplification factor of 2.8 is considered appropriate for the type of buildings proposed.

10.48 As stated within the August 2009 ES chapter, on the basis of piled foundations, an overall transfer function, or multiplication factor, of 1.12 (i.e. 2.8 x 0.4) was assumed to consider the likely impact of vibration at worst case upper suspended storeys in the assessment.

10.49 The results of the assessment remain unchanged from text presented in the January 2010 ES Addendum, with a less than low probability of adverse

P64 1078208v5

comment identified, meaning that the impact of vibration from the nearby railway on the suitability of the site for residential development is at most, of negligible significance.

Operational Noise - Road Traffic

10.50 The changes in road traffic noise levels as a direct result of the development proposals were assessed in Chapter J of the August 2009 ES by predicting and by comparing noise levels for the 2020 design year, both with and without the proposed development. In addition to the traffic generated by the proposed development, the ‘with development’ scenario also includes the proposed primary new routes that will be used to access the proposed development.

10.51 No consideration was given to the effects of noise and vibration for the 'tourism traffic scenario' in the August 2009 ES, as given the limited duration of the 'tourism period', it was not considered to be representative of normal impacts.

10.52 The road traffic noise assessment has been updated, to consider the revised traffic flow data provided by Arup, as detailed in the Transportation section of this June 2010 ES Addendum. 18-hour AAWT flows were again provided for the local road network surrounding the proposed development for the 2020 design year, both with and without the proposed development. The traffic data provided included details of HGV percentages and vehicle speeds.

10.53 The predicted changes in road traffic noise levels as a direct result of the development proposals have again been predicted and assessed by comparing noise levels for the 2020 design year, both with and without the proposed development.

10.54 The predicted changes in noise level, identified with respect to the road traffic noise impact assessment criteria, are presented in Figure J5 of this Addendum (see Appendix 10.5).

10.55 Figure J5 identifies that the majority of the existing noise-sensitive receptors are likely to experience increases in noise level of either less than 1 dB, or between 1 and 3 dB. Given that a change of 3 dB(A) is generally considered to be the smallest change in noise level of a similar type that is noticeable and with reference to the criteria adopted for this assessment, such changes in noise level would be classified at most, as 'minor' adverse impacts.

10.56 Changes in road traffic noise level of between 3 and 4 dB(A) are predicted to the rear of a number of properties on Clive Road. However, with the absolute levels of noise for the 2020 design year with the proposed development being generally in the range 40 - 48 dB at these locations and the predicted increases resulted from indirect propagation of noise, in all likelihood these changes will be barely noticeable.

10.57 At a limited number of existing residential dwellings fronting Ffordd y Mileniwm, on Ffford Sealand and Rhodfa Sweldon, changes in road traffic noise level of between 5 and 6 dB(A) are predicted as a result of significant increases in traffic flow on this primary access route to the proposed development site from

1078208v5 P65

the north. Subjectively, these increases in noise level are likely to be noticeable and when compared to the criteria adopted for this assessment, would be classified at 'major' adverse impacts. The predicted relative change in noise levels at these receptors is primarily the result of relatively low existing levels of noise. The absolute levels of noise for the 2020 design year with the proposed development is generally in the range 62 - 64 dB, which increase the TAN11 NEC of the locations from the middle of NEC B, to borderline NEC B / C.

10.58 Changes in road traffic noise level of approximately 6 dB are predicted for two properties at the junction of Earl Crescent and Clive Road, with an increase of approximately 4 dB predicted at 7 other properties, as a result of significant increases in traffic flow on the primary access route to the proposed development site from the south. Subjectively, these increases in noise level are likely to range from perceptible to noticeable and when compared to the criteria adopted for this assessment, would be classified as 'moderate' to 'major' adverse impacts.

10.59 Mitigation measures to control the identified impacts are considered in the following Section.

Operational Noise - Compatibility between Future Site Uses

Building Services Plant

10.60 The following text replaces Paragraphs 10.34 to 10.35 of the January 2010 ES Addendum. This updates referencing errors and also provides further clarification.

10.61 Paragraphs 5.52 and 5.53 of Chapter J of the August 2009 ES state the following:

10.62 “Good practice dictates items of building services plant associated with all new developments should be designed to give a cumulative noise rating level (LAr,Tr) at or below the currently prevailing background level (LA90) at a distance of 1m from the nearest residential facades, including the new residential façades associated with the proposed development itself.”

10.63 “The results of the baseline environmental noise measurement exercise have been utilised to determine appropriate LAr,Tr rating noise levels limits at the closest existing residential receptor locations to the proposed development parcels, which are identified in Figures J25 and J26.”

10.64 The design of the site and particularly the mixed use zones has been formulated with neighbour sympathy in mind. While it is acknowledged that catering and licensed premises may acoustically conflict with residential land uses, it is also acknowledged that by their nature, they need to be in close proximity for them to be viable.

10.65 Therefore, at detailed design stage, close attention will be paid to these mixed use areas in ensuring compatibility and compliance with stated noise criteria. Where necessary, specific noise mitigation measures will be designed and

P66 1078208v5

implemented, in agreement with and to meet the acoustic standard requirements of, the LPA.

Mitigation Measures

Construction Phase

10.66 The following text replaces Paragraph 10.36 of the January 2010 ES Addendum. This updates a referencing error.

10.67 Paragraphs 6.1 to 6.6 of Chapter J of the August 2009 ES discuss the proposed CEMP and mitigation measures, which will be employed as part of it. It is proposed that the CEMP will be dynamic in nature, insofar as it will be modified as necessary, prior to the commencement of each significant, discrete stage of site preparation and construction, in order to maximise its mitigative effect and minimise likely impacts from the scheme’s construction.

Operational Phase

10.68 The following text replaces Paragraphs 10.37 to 10.38 of the January 2010 ES Addendum. This updates a referencing error.

10.69 Paragraphs 6.7 to 6.29 of Chapter J of the August 2009 ES set out mitigation measures that may be employed in minimising impacts from the scheme on existing noise sensitive receptors and on proposed noise sensitive receptors forming a part of the scheme. These will be examined in detail at the detailed design stage.

10.70 No changes have been made to the development profile, the baseline figures, the source data or the noise criteria, so the mitigation measures presented in the August 2009 ES remain unchanged at present.

Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects

10.71 The residual and cumulative effects of the scheme are set out in paragraphs 7.1 to 7.10 and the residual impact table (J21) of Chapter J of the August 2009 ES. For the reasons stated above, these remain unchanged.

Summary & Conclusions

10.72 Paragraphs 8.1 to 8.6 of the ES set out the Summary and Conclusions of the assessment, which remain unchanged by the January 2010 and May 2010 ES addendums.

10.73 It is considered that this ES addendum clarifies any areas of potential ambiguity with regard to Chapter J of the original ES, dated August 2009.

1078208v5 P67

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

11.0 Air Quality

Introduction

11.1 This second addendum (Addendum 2) to the Air Quality chapter of the Barry Waterfront Environmental Statement (ES) (August 2009) has been prepared by RSK STATS Environment Health and Safety Limited (RSK) and should be read in conjunction with Chapter K and the first addendum to Environmental Statement (Addendum 1, January 2010). The chapter reviews the likely air quality impacts associated with the development taking into account comments made by the Council’s Pollution Control Officer (Memorandum dated. 22/04/2010) following submission of the planning application in August 2009 (summarised in Appendix 11.1 of this Addendum).

11.2 A revised Technical Appendix to Chapter K of the submitted ES (August 2009) and January 2010 ES Addendum. The Technical Appendix is entitled ‘An Assessment of the Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed Mixed-Use Development on Barry Waterfront, Wales’ and is presented at Appendix 11.2 of this Addendum.

11.3 No significant changes to the development have occurred, however, traffic flows have been revised following discussions with the Council. The air quality impacts have accordingly been reassessed for the revised traffic flows. Furthermore, suggestions made by the Council to use alternative air quality monitoring data in the assessment have also been incorporated. RSK’s communication with the Vale of Glamorgan Council (VGC)’s Pollution Control Officer describing the methodology on how the suggestions made by VGC (Memorandum dated. 22/04/2010) have been accommodated are included in Annex 1. No further comments are received from VGC in response to the abovementioned RSK’s communication.

Policy Context

11.4 There has been no change to legislation or guidance since the planning application or Addendum 1 (January 2010) were submitted.

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

11.5 The Council in their abovementioned Memorandum have noted that the assessment methodology and significant criteria are acceptable. Referring to paragraph 3.13 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES, the Council have noted that the development is a High Risk Site because of its size; however, the sensitivity of receptors to construction phase impacts is considered to be ‘Medium’ due to nearby residential areas.

1078208v5 P69

Baseline Conditions

11.6 The Council’s Memorandum, referring to paragraph 4.3 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES, notes that “Since the issue of our previous observations traffic data factor supplied (AADT at 20,346) is now agreed with the consortiums own consultants and thus impacts can now be modelled on this basis”. Subsequently, the transport assessment for the proposed development has been revised and updated traffic flows have been provided to RSK.

11.7 Referring to paragraph 4.7 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES, the Council’s Memorandum identified that data monitored by the Council at Dinas Powys Infant School site and Penarth site could be used to validate the air dispersion model. The Council also noted that data measured at various roadside diffusion tube sites (for example, Cardiff Road, Barry) could be used. Table K10 included in paragraph 4.8 of Chapter K of the ES has therefore been revised to include the data measured at the requested additional monitoring sites and is shown below as Table 11.1.

Table 11.1 Annual Average NO x, NO 2 and PM 10 Concentrations at the Vale of Glamorgan Council (VoG) Monitoring Network Sites During 2008 Types of 2008 Annual 2008 Annual 2008 Annual

Monitoring Site Monitoring Sites Average NO x Average NO 2 Average PM 10 (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) Highwayman Inn, Rural continuous 17.7 11.4 20.1 Rhoose (Fonmon) monitor Gwenog Court, Background No Data 15.5 No Data Barry diffusion tube St. Teilo Avenue, Background No Data 15.0 No Data Barry diffusion tube Millbrook Roadside Rd/Cardiff Rd, diffusion tube No Data 28 No Data Dinas Powys Roadside Tynewydd Road No Data 36 No Data diffusion tube Tynewydd Road, Roadside David Davies No Data 23 No Data diffusion tube House Cardiff Road, Roadside No Data 34 No Data Dinas Powys diffusion tube Andrew Road, Roadside No Data 38 No Data Llandough diffusion tube Roadside Port Road East No Data 25 No Data diffusion tube Stanwell Road, Roadside No Data 29 No Data Penarth diffusion tube Cogan, Roadside No Data 37 No Data Roundabout diffusion tube Rhur Cross, Roadside No Data 29 No Data Wenvoe diffusion tube A48, Culverhouse Roadside No Data 30 No Data X diffusion tube High St, Roadside No Data 22 No Data Cowbridge diffusion tube

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

Types of 2008 Annual 2008 Annual 2008 Annual

Monitoring Site Monitoring Sites Average NO x Average NO 2 Average PM 10 (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) (µg/m 3) Railway Terrace, Roadside No Data 40 No Data Dinas Powys diffusion tube 154 Windsor Roadside Road (previously No Data 45 No Data diffusion tube 160), Penarth Windsor Rd, Roadside No Data 38 No Data Penarth diffusion tube Windsor Rd House Roadside No Data 34 No Data (F), Penarth diffusion tube Windsor/Andrew Roadside (Lamp post), No Data 27 No Data diffusion tube Penarth Roadside Windsor Road, diffusion tube/ 52 25 No Data Penarth (Monitor) continuous monitor Mead House (LP), Roadside No Data 19 No Data St Brides Major diffusion tube 98b Windsor Roadside No Data 21 No Data Road (F), Penarth diffusion tube Chelmsford Cot Roadside (F), Plassey No Data 26 No Data diffusion tube Street, Penarth 110 Windsor Roadside Road (Lamp post) No Data 41 No Data diffusion tube Penarth 24 Cardiff Road Roadside No Data 33 No Data (lamp post), Barry diffusion tube 160 Windsor Roadside No Data 43 No Data Road (F), Penarth diffusion tube Holton Road. Roadside No Data 33 No Data Barry* diffusion tube 'Catalina', Y Roadside Rhodfa. Barry No Data 23 No Data diffusion tube Waterfront* Roadside Dinas Powys Continuous 50 24 No Data Infant School Monitor

Notes:

1. The reported data has been obtained from the Vale of Glamorgan Council.

2. *Data derived from 2009 annual average concentrations and adjusted for 2008 using the latest LAQM TG(09) roadside yearly scale factor.

3. NO x: Nitrogen oxides; NO 2: Nitrogen dioxide; PM 10 : Particulate Matter of aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers.

11.8 The monitoring site at Penarth is at a significant distance from the proposed development site. Model validation has not been possible at Penarth as traffic data is not available at this site. However, model validation has included the Dinas Powys Infant school site data as requested by the Council.

1078208v5 P71

11.9 The baseline conditions remain unchanged to the submitted ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010).

Potential Impacts

11.10 The Transport Consultant, Arup have discussed and revised the traffic flow data and provided time varying profiles for Cardiff Road, Port Road and Little Moors Lane. These profiles have been incorporated into the air dispersion model. Time varying profiles for other roads have been derived from the profiles of these roads. Paragraph 5.16 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES is revised as described in Paragraph 11.11 below.

11.11 Vehicle movements on the road network surrounding the development site will vary throughout the day.

• For various sections of Cardiff Road, the average of diurnal profiles for Cardiff Road as provided by Arup has been included in the dispersion model.

• For various sections of Port Road, the diurnal profile provided for Port Road has been included in the dispersion model.

• For various sections of Little Hills Moors, the diurnal profile provided for Little Hills Moors has been included in the assessment.

• For other roads, where no diurnal profiles are available, the following approach has been followed: - For A-Roads, an average profile derived from the profiles for Cardiff Road A-Road and Port Road A-Road has been included in the dispersion model.

- For roads (other than A-Roads), the diurnal profile for Little Moors Lane has been included in the dispersion model.

• The diurnal profile for Ffordd-y-Millenium, that was used in the previous air quality assessment, has not been used as it is considered to be unrepresentative having been derived on traffic counts collated during the August holiday period.

• Figures 11.1 to 11.4 below identify the average diurnal profiles assigned for different roads in the modelled domain. These replace the previous traffic profile shown in Figure K3 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES.

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

Figure 11.1 Cardiff Road Diurnal Traffic Flow Profiles

Diurnal Traffic Flow Profiles - Cardiff Road 3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00 Weekdays

Traffic Flow Factors TrafficFlow Saturdays 0.50 Sundays 0.00

0 0 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 1: 6: 00: 0 02:00 03:00 04: 05: 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10: 11: 12:00 13:00 14:00 15: 16: 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21: 22:00 23:00 Hour

Figure 11.2 Port Road Diurnal Traffic Flow Profiles

Diurnal Traffic Flow Profiles - Port Road 2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00 Weekdays Factors TrafficFlow 0.50 Saturdays Sundays 0.00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00: 01: 02: 03:00 04:00 05: 06: 07: 08:00 09:00 10:00 11: 12: 13:00 14:00 15:00 16: 17:00 18: 19:00 20: 21: 22: 23:00 Hour

Figure 11.3 Little Hills Moors Diurnal Traffic Flow Profiles

Diurnal Traffic Flow Profiles - Little Moors Hill 2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00 Weekdays

Traffic Flow Factors TrafficFlow 0.50 Saturdays Sundays 0.00

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 :0 :0 :0 0 0 0 :0 :0 :0 0 0 0:00 2:00 3:00 9:0 1:0 3:00 6:00 8:00 2:0 0 01 0 0 04 05:00 06 07:00 08 0 10: 1 12: 1 14: 15 1 17 1 19 20:00 21: 2 23: Hour

1078208v5 P73

Figure 11.4 Diurnal Traffic Profiles for Other A-Roads of the Road Network

Diurnal Traffic Flow Profiles - Other A-roads

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00 Weekdays

Traffic Flow Factors Flow Traffic 0.50 Saturdays Sundays 0.00

00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Hour

11.12 Compared to the diurnal traffic profile used in the previous assessment (Figure K3 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES), the replacement profiles used in the revised assessment (Figures 11.1 to 11.4 as above) represent different traffic distribution, but with significantly lower traffic flow factors on ‘other than A- Roads’.

11.13 Table K13 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES has been revised to include additional receptors that were included in the updated air quality assessment and is shown below as Table 11.2.

Table 11.2 Receptors Included in the Air Dispersion Modelling Assessment

Receptors Included In the Description Easting Northing Assessment Façade of residential property close to the junction 1 310551 167034 of Park Avenue/ St Nicholas Road Façade of property close to the junction of Broad 2 311402 167912 Street/ Gladstone Road Façade of residential property close to junction of 3 311270 168561 Buttrills Road/ Barry Road Façade of residential property close to the junction 4 of Ty-newydd Road/ Barry Road 311607 168709 Façade of residential property close to the junction 5 of Gladstone Road/ Holton Road 312957 168680 Façade of property close to the junction of 6 Palmerston Road/ Cardiff Road 313743 168812

Façade of residential property close to the junction 7 309794 168491 of Pontypridd Road/ Port Road West

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

Receptors Included In the Description Easting Northing Assessment 8 Façade of property at Ffordd y Mileniwm 311499 167568 9 Façade of property at Subway Road 312249 167645 10 Façade of proposed property 1 310983 167004 11 Façade of proposed property 2 312459 167447 12 Façade of proposed property 3 311692 167586 Façade of residential property close to the junction 13 315822 171442 of Murch Road/ Cardiff Road Façade of residential property close to the junction 14 316860 172376 of Andrew Road/ Cardiff Road Diffusion tube monitorin g at Millbrook Road/ Cardiff 15 315773 171514 Road 16 Diffusion tube monitoring at Tynewydd Road 311797 168503 Diffusion tube monitoring at Cardiff Road, Dinas 17 315746 171389 Powys Diffusion tube monitoring at Andrew Road, 18 316814 172443 Llandough 19 Diffusion tube monitoring at Port Road East 310835 169721 20 Diffusion tube monitoring at Rhur Cross, Wenvoe 311872 174526 21 Diffusion tube monitoring at A48, Culverhouse X 311622 174772 Diffusion tube monitoring at Railway Terrace, Dinas 22 316433 171932 Powys Diffusion tube monitoring at 24 Cardiff Road (lamp 23 313597 168829 post), Barry Diffusion tube monitoring at 'Catalina', Y Rhodfa. 24 312142 167529 Barry Waterfront 25 Continuous monitoring at Dina Powys Infant School 315840 171527

11.14 Referring to paragraph 5.22 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES, the Council’s

Memorandum noted that “The NO x/NO 2 ratios as measured at roadside Penarth

will yield different results for NO x values derived from NO 2 measured roadside for

comparison to modelled values. The O 3 annual average from roadside monitoring at Penarth is different to the rural levels measured at Fonmon”. The Council’s comments are addressed in the revised assessment by undertaking a sensitivity analysis using monitoring data from Penarth. Paragraph 5.25 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES is revised as described in Paragraph 1.15 below.

1078208v5 P75

Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity To Meteorological Data

11.15 Sensitivity analysis of the model to meteorological data employed in the dispersion model was conducted. For the majority of modelled receptors, the worst-case meteorological data for long- and short-term nitrogen oxides (NOx) 1 and Particulate Matter (PM 10 ) predictions is data collected in 2006 and 2007. The meteorological data that gives rise to the highest predicted concentrations has been included in reported results, however, significant variance year on year has not been identified.

Sensitivity to Ambient NO x/NO 2 Ratios

11.16 Another sensitivity analysis has been conducted using the NO x/NO 2 ratios derived from the Penarth roadside monitoring station, rather than using ratios 2 obtained from the LAQM Spreadsheet for NO x/NO 2 conversion, to verify the

sensitivity of predicted impacts to NO x/NO 2 ratios. NO 2 concentrations at all

receptors predicted with the original NO x/NO 2 ratios derived from the LAQM spreadsheet have been identified as higher than that predicted using the

NO x/NO 2 ratios measured at the Penarth monitoring site.

Sensitivity To Ambient Ozone (O 3) Concentrations

11.17 Sensitivity of the dispersion model to ozone (O 3) concentrations in deriving th short-term (99.79 hourly percentile) NO 2 concentrations has also been conducted. Ozone concentrations measured at the Penarth continuous monitoring site have been used instead of that measured at the Fonmon site.

Short-term NO 2 concentrations at all receptors predicted with the O 3 concentrations measured at the Fonmon site have been identified as higher

than that predicted using the O 3 data measured at the Penarth continuous monitoring site.

11.18 The revised traffic flows provided by Arup have been included in the air dispersion model and the potential air quality impacts have been reassessed. Table K14 and Table K15 of the August 2009 ES have been revised as shown in Tables 11.3 and 11.4 respectively. Predicted pollutant concentrations in this revised assessment are lower than that reported in Chapter K of the ES mainly because of more realistic and relevant diurnal traffic flow profiles used in the revised assessment as discussed in Paragraphs 11.10 to 11.13 of this Addendum. Pollutant concentrations reported in Chapter K of the August 2009 ES were based on a single average traffic flow profile derived from the diurnal

1 PM 10 : Particulate Matter of aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 µm. 2 Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Technical Guidance Document suggests using a spreadsheet available from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)’s Air Quality Archive website to derive the oxides of nitrogen concentrations from the nitrogen dioxide concentrations measured by diffusion tubes and to calculate the nitrogen dioxide concentration from the modelled oxides of nitrogen concentrations.

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

profiles for Cardiff Road, Port Road and Ffordd-y-Millenium. As identified in Paragraph 11.11, the diurnal profile for Ffordd-y-Millenium, that was used in the previous air quality assessment, is unrepresentative having been derived from traffic counts undertaken during the August holiday period. With the change in the diurnal profiles, a change in the predicted impacts is anticipated due to the variation of peak traffic times and traffic mix (number of heavy duty vehicles and light duty vehicles). The overall assessment outcomes and conclusions remain unchanged from that reported in Chapter K of the August 2009 ES.

11.19 All relevant tables and figures showing the input data used in the revised modelling are placed in the revised Appendix to Chapter K of the ES.

11.20 The modelling results indicate that predicted pollutant concentrations meet relevant long- and short-term air quality objectives at all assessed receptor locations.

1078208v5 P77

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

Table 11.3 ADMS-Roads Predicted Maximum Pollutant Concentrations (µg m -3) at Discrete Receptor Locations (Maximum of 2006 and 2007 meteorological data, background concentrations included) Sensitive Short-term Long-term Short-term Long-term th th Receptor NO 2 99.79 Percentile of Hourly NO 2 90.41 Percentile of PM 10 24- PM 10 Reference Average Concentrations Annual Average Concentrations Hour Average Concentrations Annual Average Concentrations Numbers (Refer to Table K13 of Chapter Base Do With Base Do With Base Do With Base Do With K of the Case Nothing Development Case Nothing Development Case Nothing Development Case Nothing Development August 2009 ES) 1 39.80 26.75 29.67 17.67 13.34 14.36 20.25 19.30 19.35 20.25 19.30 19.36 2 50.81 36.05 37.26 18.81 14.11 14.27 20.42 19.40 19.41 20.35 19.36 19.37 3 36.91 27.17 27.52 17.87 13.63 13.75 20.25 19.31 19.32 20.28 19.33 19.34 4 40.88 29.35 30.46 18.14 13.76 13.94 20.29 19.33 19.34 20.29 19.33 19.34 5 63.94 42.74 43.58 20.97 15.94 16.13 20.61 19.53 19.55 20.56 19.51 19.52 6 74.06 50.58 55.48 24.55 18.3 19.75 20.87 19.65 19.72 20.88 19.66 19.77 7 54.66 38.33 39.95 21.73 16.3 16.84 20.51 19.45 19.49 20.59 19.51 19.54 8 52.13 37.20 42.38 18.93 14.28 14.83 20.44 19.42 19.50 20.38 19.38 19.43 9 51.22 34.01 36.27 19.17 14.36 15.42 20.36 19.36 19.43 20.37 19.37 19.46 10 32.52 23.00 23.30 16.29 12.23 12.36 20.16 19.24 19.25 20.15 19.24 19.25 11 39.99 27.64 29.60 17.23 12.84 13.1 20.22 19.27 19.29 20.21 19.26 19.29 12 55.35 37.65 45.10 20.37 15.32 16.61 20.49 19.44 19.56 20.48 19.44 19.55 13 59.34 41.01 42.69 21.68 16.53 17.08 20.64 19.55 19.57 20.60 19.55 19.59 14 56.05 39.76 40.61 22.12 16.47 16.69 20.61 19.51 19.53 20.69 19.56 19.57 Air Quality 200 40 50 40 Objective

1078208v5 P79

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

Table 11.4 Change in the Maximum Predicted Long-Term NO 2 Concentrations and Short-Term PM 10 Concentrations Between 'Do Nothing' and 'With Development' Scenarios Change in Number of Percentage Change in Annual Days 24 Hour Average Receptor Average NO 2 Concentration PM 10 Concentration > 50 µµµg/m 3 1 7.65% 0 2 1.13% 0 3 0.88% 0 4 1.31% 0 5 1.19% 0 6 7.92% 0 7 3.31% 0 8 3.85% 0 9 7.38% 0 10 1.06% 0 11 2.02% 0 12 8.42% 0 13 3.33% 0 14 1.34% 0

Significance of Operational Phase Impacts

11.21 Interpretation of the air quality impact assessment outcomes with the significance criteria identified in Chapter K of the August 2009 ES has been conducted. Paragraphs 5.32 to 5.34 of Chapter K of the ES are revised as presented below in Paragraphs 1.22 to 1.25.

11.22 Referring to the EP-UK guidance outlined in Section 3.11 and Table K5 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES the magnitude of change at the assessed

receptors in relation to long-term NO 2 ranges from ‘very small’ to ‘small’.

11.23 In terms of the PM 10 24-hour objective, the magnitude of change is ‘extremely small’ at all receptors. Under both the ‘Do Nothing and ‘With Development’

scenarios, PM 10 concentrations are predicted to meet the relevant short-term air quality objective i.e. there are no days when the 24-hour average air quality

objective for PM 10 is exceeded.

11.24 Using the descriptors of impact significance outlined in Table K6 of Chapter K of the ES, the effect of the proposed development is considered to be

‘Negligible’ for short-term PM 10 and ‘Negligible’ to ‘Slight Adverse’ for long-term

NO 2.

11.25 Referring to Table K9 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES, the significance of impact during the operational phase of the proposed development is ‘Negligible’.

11.26 Paragraphs 5.37 to 5.39 of Chapter K of the ES are revised as presented below in Paragraphs 1.27 to 1.29.

1078208v5 P81

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

Significance of Demolition/Construction Activities

11.27 As noted by the Council in the Memorandum (dated. 22/04/2010), the development site is a ‘High Risk Site’ and accordingly the magnitude of impact as per Table K3 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES is classified as ‘High’.

11.28 As noted by the Council in the Memorandum, the sensitivity of the receptors is ‘Medium’ and accordingly as per Table K4 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES is classified as ‘Medium’.

11.29 Referring to Table K9 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES, the significance of impact during construction phase of the proposed development is ‘Moderate to Major’.

11.30 The remainder of this section remains unchanged.

Mitigation Measures

11.31 Paragraph 6.8 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES is to be replaced with Paragraph 11.32 below.

11.32 As discussed in Section 5 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES, the operational

impact of the proposed development in terms of short and long-term NO 2 and

PM 10 concentrations is ‘Slight Adverse’ to ‘Negligible’ as per the EP-UK guidance and ‘Negligible’ as per the significance criteria identified in Table K9 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES. It is not anticipated, therefore, that mitigation measures will be required once the development is operational.

11.33 Further to consulting the EHO, their response dated the 22 April 2010, indicated that the residential development is in close proximity to the sewage pumping station. To date, this is the first time that this has been highlighted as no odour assessment has been previously requested at the Scoping Opinion stage or throughout the original Environmental Statement and its subsequent Addendums. In addition, the EHO has not objected to the previous air quality assessments and its contents which were agreed at Scoping Opinion stage. Nevertheless, a standoff distance has been established of 12-16m around the pumping station which is deemed appropriate. Any mitigation measures, if required and if appropriate, will have to be employed by the sewage undertaker.

Residual Impact Assessment

11.34 Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.3 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES are to be replaced with Paragraph 1.35 to 1.37 below.

11.35 Mitigation measures discussed in detail in Section 6 of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES will be put in place to further reduce the impacts of demolition/construction activities at the development site. The impacts are considered to be ‘direct’ (no indirect impacts), temporary, medium-term (during the phased ten years of construction period) and local (to the construction site

P82 1078208v5

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

and haulage routes). The residual impacts during the demolition/construction phase are likely to be of ‘Moderate to Minor’ significance.

11.36 The air quality impact assessment described in Section 5 of Chapter K of the ES (August 2009) identified no exceedence of any of the air quality objectives designed to protect the human health. No mitigation measures are hence considered necessary. The residual impacts during the operational phase of the proposed development likely to be long-term having ‘Negligible’ significance.

11.37 The residual impacts resulting from the demolition/construction phase and operational phase of the proposed development are identified in Table 11.5, which replaces Table K17 of the submitted August 2009 ES.

Table 11.5 Summary of Residual Effects of the Proposed Development Together with Mitigation Measures Environmental Description of Impact Description of Description of Residual Impact Topic Description Significance Mitigation Description Significance Measures Design and implementation of a Fugitive dust Moderate to Moderate to Construction nuisance, Minor Major Environmental Short-term. Air Quality: construction Direct, Direct, Management No long-term Construction plant Temporary Temporary Plan (CEMP) residual Impacts /vehicles Medium-Term Medium-Term along with the effects. exhaust Local mitigation emissions Local measures recommended in Section 6. Vehicle exhaust Negligible Negligible Air Quality: emissions

Operational and None proposed Long-term

Impacts operational Long-term Long-term plant emissions

Summary and Conclusions

11.38 Paragraph 8.5 of Chapter K of the ES is to be replaced with Paragraph 1.39 below.

11.39 Interpretation of model predictions with planning guidance provided by Environmental Protection UK indicates that the overall impact of the proposed development is ‘Slight Adverse’ to ‘Negligible’ The significance of residual impacts during the operational phase of the development are likely to be ‘Negligible’.

1078208v5 P83

BARRY WATERFRONT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (JANUARY 2010)

11.40 All other paragraphs of Chapter K of the August 2009 ES and January 2010 ES Addendum remain unchanged.

P84 1078208v5

12.0 Socio Economic

Introduction

12.1 This further addendum to the Socio Economic chapter (Chapter L) of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and the first Addendum (January 2010) has been prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) with input from EFM Limited regarding education impacts. All three documents should be read in conjunction as part of the overall EIA. This chapter seeks to provide further clarification to the previously submitted information to remove any ambiguity from the presentation of the socio-economic assessment results.

12.2 The key changes that have been made relate to education are set out in Section 3 of this report. Specifically, additional information has been provided in relation to school capacity figures which has resulted in changes to the socio economic impact assessment presented in the submitted Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009).

Policy Context

12.3 There has been no change to legislation or guidance, relevant to the socio- economic impact assessment, since the planning application was submitted in August 2009. Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.12 of Chapter L of the submitted ES (August 2009) therefore remain valid.

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

12.4 There has been no change to the methodology or significance criteria used to assess the Socio Economic impacts of the proposed development, as set out at Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 of Chapter L of the submitted Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009).

Baseline Conditions

12.5 The baseline conditions used in the socio-economic assessment (Chapter L) have changed since the submission of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and the first ES Addendum (January 2010)

Retail Considerations

12.6 There has been no change in the retail baseline conditions outlined in the August 2009 ES.

Education Considerations

12.7 To provide some background, the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) based its primary and secondary school capacity figures on the Vale of Glamorgan Single Education Plan (2006-2008) as this was the most up to date information

1078208v5 P85

available at that time. However, the Vale of Glamorgan Education Department provided updated figures relating to pupil numbers and school capacity to the Consortium on the 8 th February 2010 and 8 th March 2010.

12.8 As a consequence of this updated information, NLP seeks to replace paragraphs 4.44 to 4.49 of Chapter L of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) with the following:

Primary Schools

12.9 There are 10 existing primary schools located within a reasonable distance of the Barry Waterfront development site. The table below shows the distances between the existing schools and the different Character Areas (measured from the central point of each Character Area) of the development scheme:

Table 12.1 Approximate Walking Distances from Local Schools School West Pond/ Arno Quay East Quay SQ District Parkside Centre and Waterside All Saints C/W Over 1,600m 2,000m 2000m Primary 2,000m Over Barry Island Primary 600m 1,000m 600m 2000m Over High Street Primary 950m 1,100m 1,300m 2000m Ysgol Sant Baruc* 1,300m 750m 1,850m 1,450m Over Ysgol Sant Curig* 1,500m 1,000m 1,700m 2,000m Gladstone 1,300m 800m 1,800m 1.500m

Romilly Primary 950m 1,350m 2,000m 1,400m Over Over Holton Road Primary 1,650m 1,300m 2,000m 2,000m St Helen’s RC Over Over 1,850m 1,500m Infants 2,000m 2,000m St Helen’s RC Over Over 2,000m 1,500m Juniors 2,000m 2,000m

NB: Walking distances measured by NLP taking full account of constraints e.g. the railway line.

12.10 The Department for Transport document ‘Travelling to School: A Good Practice Guide’ states that “83 per cent of 5 to 10 year olds who live within one mile of school walk there” (Page 6). As such, for the purpose of this exercise a distance of one mile (approximately 1,600 metres) has been used as a reference walking distance for the children of the Barry Waterfront development scheme to travel to school (however, in reality some children will walk further than this and as such 1,600m should not be considered an inflexible ‘cut off’ point). Indeed, it should be noted that the statutory walking distance to schools before

P86 1078208v5

a local authority is obliged to provide free school transport is 2 miles (approximately 3219m) for pupils aged under 8 and 3 miles (approximately 4828m) for those aged 8 or over (source: Home to School Transport (WAG 2008)).

12.11 As can be seen from the above table all distances highlighted in red represent a 1,600m or less distance between each Character Area and the existing schools. Consequently each of the Character Areas are served as follows:

a West Pond/District Centre: 7 schools within 1 mile; b Arno Quay: 7 schools within 1 mile; c East Quay: 2 Schools within 1 mile; and d South Quay Parkside / Waterside: 5 schools within 1 mile.

12.12 In addition to distance, it is also necessary to get a better understanding of school capacity. As stated above, more up to date information in relation to capacity has been made available by the Council since the January 2010 addendum. This data can be summarised as follows:

Table 12.2 Local Primary School Capacities

School School No. on Roll Spare Forecast Forecast Capacity (Sept 2009) Capacity No. on Roll Spare (2009) (Sept 2014) Capacity (Sept 2014) All Saints C/W 211 196 15 199 12 Primary** Barry Island Primary 175 171 4 194 -19 School High Street Primary 203 163 40 190 13 Ysgol Sant Baruc* 197 209 -12 208 -11

Ysgol Sant Curig* 426 352 74 385 41

Gladstone 308 336 -28 352 -44 Romilly Primary 591 523 68 530 61

Holton Road Primary 529 359 170 370 159 St Helen’s RC 143 123 20 132 11 Infants** St Helen’s RC 176 186 -10 152 24 Juniors** TOTAL 2959 2,618 341 2,712 247

Source: Vale of Glamorgan Council (Report to Cabinet on School Places Policy, 17 February 2010

* Note: Welsh Speaking Schools

** Note: Denominational Schools

1078208v5 P87

12.13 These schools have a total existing capacity of 2,959 places. All except for Ysgol Sant Baruc, Gladstone and St Helen’s RC Juniors have existing capacity and collectively have a total of 341 spare places (September 2009 figures). The Vale of Glamorgan forecasts the level of spare capacity to remain similar for 2011 and decrease by 94 places to 247 places by 2014 3.

12.14 The situation in other primary schools across the Vale of Glamorgan is variable. However, when looking at the other 8 primary schools at September 2009 there were approximately 1,644 children on the roll which is forecast to decrease slightly to 1,609 by 2014 with 540 surplus places expected at this time.

12.15 The above figures do not take into account any future changes in capacity.

Secondary Schools

12.16 Four secondary schools are located in Barry. The distances from the middle of West Pond to each of these school was measured and is provided in the table below:

Table 12.3 Local Secondary School Capacities

School Distance School No. on Roll Spare to Site Capacity (Sept Capacity 2009)

Barry Comprehensive 3400m 1423 1321 102

Bryn Hafren Comprehensive 4000m 1331 1316 15

St Richard Gwyn R/C 5000m 626 615 11

Ysgol Gyfun Bro Morgannwg ** 2500m 1151 853 298

Total 4531 4105 426

Source: Vale of Glamorgan Council (Report to Cabinet on School Places Policy, 17 February 2010)

** Note: Welsh Speaking Schools

12.17 These schools have a total existing capacity of 4,531 places (2010 data) with all schools having varying levels of capacity and collectively having a total of 426 spare places. The level of spare capacity is forecast to increase to 589 spaces by September 2011 and 829 spaces by September 2014.

3 VOGC Report to Cabinet on School Places Policy, 17 February 2010

P88 1078208v5

Potential Impacts

Retail Impacts

12.18 Paragraphs 4.30-4.36 and 5.67-5.74 of Chapter L of the ES (August 2009) provided an analysis of existing retail facilities within the local area and the potential impact the proposed retail facilities could have on the existing centres and stores within the surrounding area.

12.19 Whilst there is no change in the potential retail impacts outlined in the August 2009 ES, since the submission of the August 2009 ES and Retail Assessment (RA), the Vale of Glamorgan Council has requested additional information in relation to a number of retail issues, including impact.

12.20 In response to these comments, NLP has produced a Supplementary Retail Report which was provided to the Council on the 7th June 2010. Whilst this supplementary report does not have any bearing on the quantitative impact discussed within the submitted RA it provides additional clarification in terms of the qualitative arguments explored within the RA. The main issues discussed within the supplementary report can be summarised as follows:

• Additional analysis regarding the type and amount of non-food items which are likely to be sold from the proposed foodstore.

• Additional analysis regarding the likely end operators of the proposed stand alone non-food units using market data provided by Estates Gazette.

• Review of Changes to retailer representation within Barry town centre since the time of the previous survey.

• Additional analysis on unit size within Barry town centre in order to contrast between those occupied by multiple and independent retailers and those which are vacant.

• Consideration of the increase in available convenience and comparison expenditure as a direct result of new residents at Barry Waterfront.

• Detailed analysis of potential overlap in retail offer between the proposed retail floorspace and Barry town centre.

• Analysis of potential overlap in retail offer between the proposed retail floorspace and Barry Waterfront Retail Park.

12.21 In relation to these main issues, the report concluded the following:

• The actual amount of floorspace within the foodstore dedicated to each type of non-food good will be small, reducing any impact on existing town centre outlets.

• The proposed stand alone retail units are expected to be occupied of furniture, carpets, flooring, electrical, pet supplies or sports retailers.

1078208v5 P89

• Barry town centre is continuing to attract investment despite the recession e.g. the opening of Tesco Express.

• There is a significant difference in the size of units occupied by independent retailers compared to national multiples in Barry town centre.

• The existing vacant units in the town centre are small (less than 120 sq m) and are generally in a poor state of repair.

• The proposed retail units at the Waterfront will provide a very different offer from that of the town centre.

• Only 9 comparison stores within Barry town centre were found to have a definite overlap with the retail floorspace proposed at the waterfront. A further 30 stores were seen to have potential overlap and 14 would have no overlap.

• The proposed retail units at the Waterfront could provide competition to the Barry Waterfront Retail Park but the situation would not have a detrimental effect on the retail park overall.

• Barry town centre will benefit from the increase in expenditure generated by the 4,650 new residents and at almost £20 million per annum this increase in available expenditure will soon off-set any short term trade diversion from the town centre.

12.22 Overall, the report considered that in the case of the proposed non-food offer within the foodstore, the amount of floorspace dedicated to each type of good would be so small that even those town centre outlets selling overlapping products would be expected to continue to trade successfully. As such, the trading future of these units would not be affected and thus the non-food offer would not affect the vitality or viability of Barry town centre.

12.23 In the case of the stand alone non-food units, the greatest overlap with the town centre would occur if the two units were occupied by a clothing/footwear and pharmaceutical retailer, which is considered unlikely. In other cases, the possible retail offer is likely to complement the relatively poor provision in Barry town centre, and in some sectors improve trade retention within the town by drawing back trade from out of centre and out of town locations.

Education Impacts

12.24 NLP, at Paragraph 5.2 of Chapter L of the submitted Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009), seek to include the following numbered point:

8. A one form entry primary school.

12.25 At paragraphs 5.42 to 5.50 of Chapter L of the submitted Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) reference is made to impact on education facilities. However, in order to reflect changes to the baseline conditions in relation to school capacity NLP seek to replace the amended paragraphs 5.42 to 5.50 as follows:

P90 1078208v5

12.26 The number of school age pupils that are expected to be generated by the Barry Waterfront development can be assessed by using the Vale of Glamorgan’s child yield methodology as detailed in its Planning Obligations SPG. This applies a different yield factor according to educational stage (i.e. nursery, primary, secondary and sixth form).

12.27 In estimating the child yield, we have assumed that of the maximum 2,000 dwellings proposed approximately 400 units are unlikely to accommodate any school age children (this figure has been agreed with the Council). Therefore, the child yield has been calculated on the basis of 1,600 dwellings, an approach which results in a total of 1,002 children, as follows:

Table 12.4 Estimates of Pupil Yield per Dwelling

Pupil Age Pupil Yield per Dwelling Pupil Yield

Nursery 0.1 160 Primary 0.278 445 Secondary 0.208 333 Sixth Form 0.04 64 Total 1,002

Source: Vale of Glamorgan Planning Obligations SPG

12.28 On the basis that average household size in the Vale of Glamorgan is 2.28, this model indicates that just over 22% of the additional population would be children of school age. This compares to the figures contained within the latest WAG population projections, which show that in 2006, children accounted for 20% of the total population in the Vale of Glamorgan, a figure that is forecast to fall to 19% by 2011 and 18.5% by 2021. In this context, the pupil yield figures set out above should be viewed as representing a robust test of the implications of the development.

12.29 It is also considered that the pupil yield figures set out above are likely to overestimate the number of school age children likely to need a new school place for the following additional reasons:

a In addition to the flats (already discounted from the assessment), the development will contain a significant number of smaller two bedroom houses which you might not find in a more suburban or rural scheme and as such are less likely to be occupied by families with children; and, b A large proportion of the residents that are expected to live in the proposed development will already be local residents and any with children may already be attending local state schools. In particular, any residents of affordable properties are very likely to already be residents in the Vale.

12.30 The latest figures available from the Vale of Glamorgan Council set out the capacity of primary and secondary schools in Barry in 2009/2010. This shows

1078208v5 P91

that there is a spare capacity of 341 places within the ten primary schools in Barry (expected to decrease by 5 places by September 2011) and 426 places within the four secondary schools (rising to 589 places by 2011).

12.31 It is anticipated that the first occupations will commence in 2011 and that the demand for additional school places will be phased over time. Data from the Vale of Glamorgan in relation the ten closest primary schools indicates that between September 2009 and September 2014 spare primary capacity will decrease to 247 places. Over the same period spare secondary places will increase (to 829 spaces by 2014). These figures do not allow for any changes to capacity such as the establishment of a new Welsh Medium primary school which was agreed by Cabinet in November 2009.

12.32 Based on the Vale of Glamorgan’s calculation of demand from the development, spare capacity in the local primary schools is considered sufficient to meet a substantial proportion of the emerging need. In relation to secondary schools, there will be sufficient capacity to accommodate the entire expected pupil yield.

12.33 Whilst extra secondary school places will not be needed, it appears from the above information that additional primary school places will be required. The suggestion that a new primary school should be provided as part of the development is a longstanding aspiration, and discussions with the Council have confirmed that the school should be an English Medium school.

12.34 As well as considering the overall figures above, information about the proportion of children attending different types of school and about pupil movement and catchment areas should inform decisions about the scale of provision of additional places. Detailed information on these matters has been sought from the Vale of Glamorgan, and at this stage not all the information requested has been provided. As such, the following analysis is limited by this lack of information.

12.35 Information from the Vale of Glamorgan Council demonstrates that the existing proportion of pupils in the Barry area using Welsh Medium schools is 17% and those using denominational schools is 12%, with the remainder (71%) attending English Medium schools. Consequently the primary demand from the development can be split as follows:

• English medium provision: Total 316 places;

• Welsh medium provision: 76 places;

• Denominational provision: 53 places.

12.36 As can be seen from Table 12.1 above, the East Quay area of the development is within 1600m of two existing schools. These schools are likely to be as close as the proposed new school within the development. Table 12.5 below apportions the expected demand for English Medium provision between East Quay and the rest of the development and shows the available capacity for

P92 1078208v5

2014, using the information gathered in Tables 11.2 and 11.4 above [2014 spare capacity]:

Table 12.5 Expected Demand from East Quay and the Rest of the Development

Schools Expected Surplus capacity in Shortfall serving the English English Medium in area Medium Primary Schools within Capacity Primary 1,600m walking School Child distance (September Yield* 2014) East Quay Holton Road 40 159 none and St Helen’s RC Infants Rest of the All other 276 11 265 Development schools (excluding the above)

Note: *Primary School Child Yield has been calculated using information provided in Tables C2-C6 in

12.37 Based on the Vale of Glamorgan’s expected child yield, the shortfall in English Medium provision would be 265 places when account is taken of the 40 place demand from East Quay (which can be comfortably accommodated at the nearby Holton Road Primary School) and the 11 surplus places in schools close to the ‘rest of the development’ at 2009/2010. This ignores any use of the surplus capacity at Holton Road by other areas of the development, and greater use of other schools in the town. However, further use of surplus capacity at Holton Road and other schools would be desirable as it would help to maintain the vitality and viability of those schools, and make more effective use of resources.

12.38 Information about pupil movement, which would assist with understanding the potential for use of other schools has been sought, but not received, from the Vale of Glamorgan.

• In addition, we further consider that the shortfall would be lower, and more surplus places would be available, for a number of reasons, including:

• Children in locally moving families will not always move school;

• There will be scope to redistribute existing demand for the schools that can serve the proposed development – if children are attending those schools from outside those schools’ catchment areas, or through review of catchment areas, for example.

1078208v5 P93

• The Vale’s school roll forecasts allow for some ongoing housing development, implicitly (but not explicitly). This is not taken into account. The Vale’s calculations assume all children expected to be living within the development are new to the area and do not allow for any school places being freed up in existing schools.

12.39 When considering the above, it is evident that the impact of the proposed development upon English Medium primary education will nonetheless be adverse. Consequently, provision will be made for a one form entry primary school (210 places) on the development site. This is considered an appropriate response to meeting the additional needs of the proposed development and thereby mitigating an otherwise adverse effect.

12.40 Discussions with the Vale of Glamorgan have confirmed that no additional denominational primary school provision is required.

12.41 The analysis above shows an expected demand for 76 additional Welsh Medium places. The figures in Table 12.2 confirm there is a net surplus in the two identified Welsh Medium primary schools of 30 places in September 2014. A further 11 places are forecast to be surplus in the third Welsh Medium primary school in Barry, Gwaunt y Nant. The shortfall in Welsh Medium provision will therefore be 35 or 46 places – depending on whether places at Gwaunt y Nant are taken into account. This indicates additional Welsh Medium provision could be needed.

12.42 However, there are factors (mentioned above in relation to English Medium provision) that could reduce this shortfall. In addition, the Vale has made a decision to open a new Welsh Medium school with an initial capacity of 60 places in September 2010. Despite this, the Vale has indicated the need for additional provision. Further discussions will be needed to establish whether such provision can be justified. If it can be demonstrated that it is, a financial contribution towards additional provision will be made in order to mitigate the otherwise adverse impact on Welsh Medium primary education.

12.43 Overall, the use of otherwise surplus places in existing primary schools will be a beneficial impact of the development, and the provision of such additional places as are required, in new buildings to up to date standards, will mitigate any adverse impacts and contribute to the overall improvement of school buildings.

12.44 As demonstrated above, the Vale of Glamorgan Council has provided figures demonstrating a significant surplus of secondary school places up to 2014. As such, it is considered that there will be no adverse impact upon secondary education provision. Additional demand for places in schools that have surplus places will help maintain the viability and vitality of those schools, so additional demand created by the development can be seen as having a moderately beneficial impact on secondary schools.

P94 1078208v5

12.45 Discussions with the Vale of Glamorgan Council have confirmed that no provision of additional secondary school places is required.

Mitigation Measures

Retail Mitigation

12.46 No changes are proposed to the retail mitigation measures as set out in Chapter L of the August 2009 ES.

Education Mitigation

12.47 Paragraph 6.6 of Chapter L of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) discusses mitigation measures in relation to education. NLP seeks to replace this paragraph as follows:

12.48 The ES acknowledges that the proposed development is expected to have an adverse impact on primary school provision. In order to mitigate this impact, it is proposed to make provision for a one form entry school within the development to meet additional demand for additional English Medium primary places.

12.49 Provision will be made for additional Welsh Medium primary places subject to further information being made available to demonstrate that such provision can be justified as a requirement.

12.50 Following feedback from the Vale of Glamorgan, the amended proposals include the re-location of the one form entry school adjacent to the Council owned Steam Railway Car Park. This will enable the one form entry school to be implemented as shown, to meet the scheme’s requirements, and would allow the Vale of Glamorgan to deliver a larger school site (including the adjacent land in their ownership) should it wish to do so in pursuance of other objectives such as school reorganisation.

12.51 In relation to secondary school places, it has been shown that there is sufficient capacity in the town’s secondary schools to accommodate the additional number of pupils that are likely to be generated by the proposed development scheme.

Residual & Cumulative Effects

Retail

12.52 The Supplementary Retail Report has not made any changes to the quantitative analysis contained within the RA (August 2009) and there have been no changes in relation to the proposed impacts of the retail element of the scheme. As such, there have been no changes to the assessment methodology and significance criteria or the baseline conditions and

1078208v5 P95

consequently no changes to the impacts or mitigation measures and residual impacts concluded within Chapter L of the ES (August 2009)

Education

12.53 There is no change to the overall residual effect of the development following mitigation.

12.54 However, to summarise, the proposed one form entry primary school will mitigate against the proposed impact the development will have on primary education. Its provision will also provide the Vale of Glamorgan Council with a flexible solution for future primary education as it provides opportunity for an enlarged education site if required for wider Vale requirements.

12.55 Furthermore, given the existing capacity within the secondary schools, it is considered that the development could have a positive impact on these schools by helping to maintain them as vital and viable education establishments.

Summary and Conclusions

12.56 Included within the numbered points shown under Paragraph 7.1 of the Barry Waterfront ES should be the following:

9. A new one form entry primary school.

12.57 NLP also seek to replace Paragraph 7.3 of Chapter L of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) with the following:

The housing element of the scheme will be important in contributing to meeting housing needs in the area. It is not expected to generate a significant additional demand for local doctors, nursery or leisure and recreation facilities beyond existing levels of provision. The adverse impact upon commuting has been tested as a worst case scenario and it is not anticipated that the level of impact would be substantial. The overall impacts upon primary education will be adverse but will subsequently be mitigated through the provision of a one form entry school (and provision for additional Welsh Medium places if justified) and the residual impacts will be neutral. The impacts on secondary education will be also be neutral.

12.58 None of the other summary and conclusions provided within Chapter L of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) have changed as a consequence of the above amendments.

Replacement Appendix 2 to Chapter L of ES (August 2009)

12.59 NLP seek to replace Appendix 2 of the submitted Barry Waterfront ES Chapter L. This appendix provided the School Capacity Forecast which was derived from the Vale of Glamorgan Single Education Plan (2006-2008). The replacement appendix utilises the most up to date (2009) figures provided by the Vale of Glamorgan Council and is attached as Appendix 12.1.

P96 1078208v5

13.0 Arboricultural Effects

Introduction

13.1 This addendum to the Arboricultural Chapter of the Barry Waterfront ES has been prepared by Steve Ambler. It assesses the likely impacts that may arise from amendments to the Masterplan layout following submission of the planning application in August 2009 and the January 2010 ES Addendum. The key changes to the Masterplan that could be of relevance to the arboricultural resource are as follows:

• Amendment to the commercial/retail building (G3), located within the District Centre. The building has been set back 2.5m from Mole to allow for service and maintenance access.

• Amendment to Block F within the District Centre. The small public space between the building blocks has now been removed, to create a single block frontage to the dock edge.

• Amendment to the link road layout.

• Amendments to open space, which include: - LEAP at West Pond to be upgraded to a NEAP.

- NEAP at East Quay to be downgraded to a LEAP (with associated reduced urban realm)

- LEAP in District Centre to be relocated to location of middle LAP in South Quay.

• Amendments to public open space with East Quay, to include removal of a sports pitch, reduction in number of earth mounds surrounding the open space and reduction of number of paths within the open space.

Policy Context

13.2 There has been no change to legislation or guidance since the planning application was submitted.

Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria

13.3 There has been no change to legislation or guidance since the submitted Environmental Statement (August 2009) or the Addendum to Environmental Statement (January 2010) was submitted.

Baseline Conditions

13.4 There has been significant effects to Baseline Conditions which may affect arboricultural issues, the boundaries of the developable area remaining the same since the August 2009 Environmental Statement was submitted, or

1078208v5 P97

within the Addendum to Environmental Statement (January 2010) and therefore this chapter remains valid.

Potential Impacts

13.5 The proposed minor amendments to the Masterplan layout will have no effects on the assessed arboricultural issues.

Mitigation Measures

13.6 No additional significant environmental impacts arise in relation to the alteration considered in this ES Addendum (May 2010) or that have been highlighted by the additional assessment undertaken, therefore additional mitigation measures are not required.

Residual Effects & Cumulative Effects

13.7 There has been no change to residual or cumulative effects since the planning application was submitted.

Summary & Conclusions

13.8 The masterplan revisions have no effect on the assessment or conclusions of the originally submitted Arboricultural chapter of the Environmental Statement or the January 2010 ES Addendum.

P98 1078208v5

14.0 Residual and Cumulative Effects

Introduction

14.1 This chapter identifies whether the impacts contained in the ES Addendum (June 2010) give rise to any additional residual or cumulative effects and additional inter-relationships that were not identified at the time of the submission of the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) or January 2010 ES Addendum.

14.2 The sensitive receptors considered are identical to those considered in the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and January 2010 Addendum; no new receptors have been proposed by the consultation responses received to date and none have been identified as a result of the assessments contained within this Addendum.

Summary of Additional Residual Effects Arising

14.3 There are no additional residual effects resulting from the assessment of the amended design proposals or the additional clarifications provided through this ES Addendum.

Analysis of Additional Inter-Relationships Arising

14.4 On the basis of the effects identified in the ES Addendum, no additional inter- relationships between environmental impacts have been identified that require consideration.

Cumulative Impact Assessment

14.5 In relation to cumulative effects, at the time of submission of the Barry Waterfront ES there were no committed developments (allocated or schemes with planning permission) which the Local Authority required consideration as part of a cumulative assessment. However relevant technical assessments gave consideration to the effect of the proposal on the potential future development of the Mole to ensure that it would not be prejudiced by the development proposals.

14.6 Individual chapters of this ES Addendum have considered the quantitative and cumulative effects of the development as illustrated by the revised Masterplan and parameter plans. Consideration has also been given to the Sunrise Renewables and Biogen energy developments however there were found to be no further relevant effects in addition to those presented within the submitted Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) or ES Addendum (January 2010). It should be noted however that only the Biogen gasification proposals represent a commitment at the current time with planning permission in place although the permission is subject to Judicial Reviuew. The Sunrise proposals are the subject of a forthcoming planning appeal and do not therefore represent a

1078208v5 P99

commitment at the current time. Further clarification has been provided however in the technical assessments as requested by VoG Pollution Control.

Summary and Conclusions

14.7 This ES Addendum has provided a detailed summary of the effect of the minor amendments to the Barry Waterfront scheme since the submission of the main ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010). It also clarifies and provides additional information on issues raised to date during consultation on the Barry Waterfront application.

14.8 This ES Addendum should be read in conjunction with the Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010) which together assess the potential significant effects arising from the Development. Together, the Barry Waterfront ES and ES Addendums contain the detailed analysis of impacts and mitigation and should be referred to for the complete assessment of impact. Detailed mitigation strategies, where appropriate, will be controlled via the use of planning conditions.

14.9 The technical assessments presented in this Addendum each conclude that the submitted ES (August 2009) and ES Addendum (January 2010) remain valid and no additional significant adverse effects have been identified and therefore no additional mitigation measures required.

14.10 The Barry Waterfront ES and ES Addendums conclude that it is the construction period that holds the greatest potential for cumulative impacts which are proposed to be extensively mitigated particularly when new residential units will be occupied and construction continues for the remaining phases of development.

14.11 During the operational phase, it is predicted that there will be some residual environmental effects however these are predicted to be generally negligible to minor adverse to moderate beneficial following the implementation of mitigation measures. The exception to this relates to ecology where residual significant effects are predicted and an overall loss of biodiversity likely to occur. The significance of these effects is however predicted to reduce in the longer term.

P100 1078208v5

APPENDIX 1.1 – REVISED SCHEDULE & PARAMETER PLANS

Plan Description Drawing Number

Barry Waterfront ES (August 2009) ES Addendum (January 2010) ES Addendum (May 2010)

Planning Application Boundary SK201 Revision: - No Change No Change

Illustrative Masterplan 0833101/Pre/SK/041 0833101/Pre/041 Revision A 0833101/Pre/SK/041 Revision B

Parameter Plan 1: Building SK202 Revision: - SK202 Revision A SK202 Revision C Envelope and Proposed Uses

Parameter Plan 2: Building SK203 Revision: - SK203 Revision A SK203 Revision C Heights

Parameter Plan 3: Movement SK204 Revision: - SK204 Revision A SK204 Revision C

Parameter Plan 4: Public Open SK205 Revision: - SK205 Revision A SK205 Revision D Space

Barry Waterfront Illustrative No Reference No Reference – amended plan No Change Character Areas is within ES Addendum Appendix 2.2

APPENDIX 3.1 – REVISED PHASING PROGRAMME

APPENDIX 3.2 – REVISED PHASING PLAN 1

4

5

1

4

2 3

Revised Indicative Phasing Plan APPENDIX 4.1 – UPDATED ACCIDENT ANALYSIS RESULTS Link Location Number of accidents Accident Comments and 2005-2009 Rate Junction Slight Serious Fatal Avg Calc L1 A48 - - - 0.293 - No accident data available L2 Port Road - - - 0.293 - No accident (A4050) data available L3 Barry Docks Link 17 6 3 0.293 0.21 Recent Road (A4050) improvement to Palmerston Road Junction L4 Port Road 30 5 0 0.844 0.19 - (A4050) L5 Palmerston Road 7 0 0 0.844 0.55 L6 Barry Road 2 0 0 0.844 0.20 L7 Buttrills Road 3 1 0 0.844 0.35 L8 T-Newydd Rd 4 0 0 0.844 0.59 L9 Barry Road 1 1 0 0.844 0.14 L11 Cardiff Rd 15 1 0 0.844 0.44 (A4055) L12 Gladstone road 32 6 0 0.844 1.95. Accident rate (A4055) marginally above average. No proposed alterations L13 Broad Street 10 3 0 0.844 0.19 (A4055) L14 Leckwith Road - - - 0.844 - No accident (B4267) data available L15 Pontypridd Road 13 1 0 0.844 0.20 (B4266) L18 Broad Street 7 1 0 0.844 0.47 (A4055) L22 Barry Island Link - - - 0.844 - No accident Rd data available L23 Ffordd y Mileniwm 0 1 0 0.84 0.28 - L30 Cardiff Rd 12 12 1 0.293 0.30 Accident rate (A4055) marginally above average. Signal works at Biglis could reduce local traffic speeds. No proposed link alterations L31 Cardiff Rd 23 23 4 0.293 0.26 - (A4055) L32 Cardiff Rd 10 10 0 0.844 0.19 - (A4055) L33 Barry Road 2 2 0 0.844 0.06 - (A4055) L34 Colcot Road 25 25 1 0.844 - No traffic flow information

Link Location Number of accidents Accident rate Comments 2005-2009 Slight Serious Fatal Avg Calc L10 Cardiff Road 0 0 0 0.297 0.00 - (A4055) L16 Waycock Road - - - 0.174 - No data (A4226) available L17 Harbour Road 2 0 0 0.297 0.19 - (A4055) L19 Hood Road 1 0 0 0.297 0.27 Negligible L20 Gladstone Bridge 3 0 0 0.297 0.37 - (B4294) L21 Earl Crescent 0 0 0 0.297 0.0 - L24 Ffordd y Mileniwm 3 0 0 0.297 0.38 Above average. No proposed alterations L25 Ffordd y Mileniwm 0 1 0 0.297 0.13 - L26 Ffordd y Mileniwm 0 0 0 0.297 0.00 - L27 Ffordd y Mileniwm 0 0 0 0.297 0.00 - L28 Ffordd y Mileniwm 0 0 0 0.297 0.00 - L29 Ffordd y Mileniwm 2 0 0 0.297 0.37 Above average. Wimbourne Road junction alterations will reduce local traffic speeds

Jctn Location Number of accidents Accident Comments 2005-2009 rate Slight Serious Fatal Avg Calc J1 Sycamore Cross - - - - - No data available J2 Culverhouse - - - - - No data available Cross J3 Merrie Harrier 20 1 0 2.46 4.20 Above average. Recent jctn improvement implemented J4 Murch Crossroads 2 0 0 3.51 0.40 J5 Biglis 7 1 0 4.44 1.60 J6 Port Road/Barry 3 0 0 2.83 0.60 Docks Link Rd J7 Waycock Cross 2 0 0 3.27 0.40 J8 Harbour 1 0 0 0.07 0.20 Rd/Station approach/Paget Rd, mini Harbour 0 0 0 0.71 0.00 Rd/Station approach/Paget Rd, priority J9 Harbour Rd/St 4 1 0 0.54 1.00 Above average. Nicholas Rd Irregular jctn. layout Harbour Rd/Broad 1 2 0 0.87 0.60 St The 4 0 0 0.10 0.80 Above average. parade/Harbour No proposed Rd alterations J10 Gladstone Bridge 5 0 0 3.21 1.00 Dock View Road 1 0 0 0.65 0.20 Gyratory J11 Buttrills Rd/Barry 1 0 1 1.47 0.40 Rd J12 Barry Rd/T- 6 0 0 0.95 1.20 Above average. Newydd Rd No proposed alterations J13 Gladstone 4 0 0 1.69 0.80 Rd/Cardiff Rd/Ffordd y Mileniwm J14 Palmerston 8 0 0 1.81 1.60 Rd/Cardiff Rd J15 Vere St/Cardiff 3 0 0 0.47 0.60 Above average. Rd/Gladstone No proposed Rise alterations Gladstone 0 0 0 0.10 0.00 Rd/Holton Rd J16 Wimbourne 3 0 0 1.39 0.60 Rd/Ffordd y Mileniwm J17 Cory Way/Ffordd y 2 0 0 0.56 0.40 Mileniwm J18 Subway 1 0 0 0.90 0.20 Rd/Ffordd y Mileniwm J19 Y Rhodfa/Fordd y 1 0 0 0.43 0.20 Mileniwm J20 Morrisons/Ffordd 1 0 0 1.84 0.20 y Mileniwm J21 Gladstone 1 0 0 0.58 0.20 Rd/Ffordd y Mileniwm J22 Plymouth Rd/Earl 0 0 0 0.05 0.00 Crescent J23 Hood Rd/Broad 2 0 0 3.11 0.40 St/Island Rd J24 Barons Court 17 3 0 - - No traffic flow data available

APPENDIX 4.2 – REVISED TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 6.1 – VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL LETTER (01/04/10) AND SOLTYS BREWSTER ECOLOGY RESPONSE

<.D4-2(&@#'(,@!2#(A#,-1'#A(%&$( @&,,-D4#(6S*4!$S(M!D-"!"(Y,&B'(!,( $&.1M(,M&$"(1$!,,(4!'AZ(E(:777/>

-4A%4&B#$(YM!*Z( /#!A&B(E(G[77/> U4&B#$-'1(X!B'( Q$!,,(E(=[77/>

?M-2S#"(,2$.D(E([77/>

3K-,"-'1(,2$.D( )!"(D&K#,(&'(2&//#$2-!4( 2&$$-A&$ D.-4A-'1,('#!$(B!"#$(#A1# V#"!-'#A(1$!,,4!'A(Y6S*4!$S(M!D-"!"Z(E([F77/> YJ%%E,-"#Z O)<($#"!-'#A(!'A(#'M!'2#A( V!$#(@4!'"(,@#2-#,( I/(B-A#(/#!A&B(1$!,,( ?*@-2!44*(9][(M&.,#,( 1$!,,4!'A(Y6S*4!$S(M!D-"!"Z(E( E(!$#!($#"!-'#A(!'A( !'A(,B!4#(2&$$-A&$ B-"M(D-$A(D&K#, I977/> @$&"#2"#A

0-,"$-2"(+#'"$#(E( @&"#'"-!4(%&$(=[77/>( &%(D$&B'($&&%(M!D-"!"

6&."M(\.!*(E(@&"#'"-!4(%&$( 977/>(&%(D$&B'($&&%(M!D-"!"

?$!',4&2!"#(#K-,"-'1($#@"-4#( !"# @[email protected]!"-&'(Y&%%E,-"#Z <.D4-2(J@#'(6@!2#(E(?*@-2!4(/-K(&%("$##,L( +4-%%("&@(2&$$-A&$($#"!-'#A(!'A( ,M$.D,(!'A(.,!D4#(A-N#$,#(1$!,,4!'A /!'!1#A(!,(B-4A4-%#(1!$A#',(;( !44&"/#'",(C(&@#'(,@!2# 0#N#4&@/#'"(O$#!(E(P'24.A-'1(Q!$A#', Q$!,,(,"$-@(!"(D!,#(&%(24-%%( $##,"!D4-,M#A(%&44&B-'1(@M!,#A( R#A1#(;(?M-2S#"(T#1#"!"-&'(+&$$-A&$ <$&@&,#A(,2$.D( ,-"#(4#N#4(%-44L("&($#"!-'(-'N#$"#D$!"#( 2&$$-A&$(E(FG77/> -'"#$#,"(Y/-'-/./(=/(B-A#Z +4-%%(U!2#(V#"!-'#A(W'A-,".$D#A

V#"!-'#A(Q$!,,4!'A +$.,M#A(!11$#1!"#(Y)$&B'%-#4AZ( /#!A&B(E(=777/> 6"$##"(?$##(>#"B&$S 3'24&,#A(D*(!(I/(,2$.D(D&.'A!$* V!$#(@4!'"(,@#2-#,(E( P'A-2!"-N#(X&2!"-&'(&%()$&B'(V&&%, "$!',%#$("&(&'(&$(&%%( ,-"#(4&2!"-&' -4A%4&B#$(5#!A&B

+$.,M#A(O11$#1!"#(Y)$&B'%-#4AZ( 5#!A&B

7(((((( [7(((((( 977(((((( 9[7(((((( =77(((((( =[7(((((( F77/(((((( !"#$%$&'"()!$$*(+&',&$"-./ 0-!1$!//!"-2(32&4&1-2!4(5-"-1!"-&'(6"$!"#1*

37899:79;<$#;6;=779(( ! (((((((((((((((>?6(((((((((((((((((((((+6(((((((((((((((5!*(=797(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( APPENDIX 6.2: ENVIRONMENT AGENCY LETTER 26 APRIL 2010

APPENDIX 9.1 – ENVIRONMENT AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Page 1 of 3

Liz Mellett

From: Giles Sommerwill [[email protected]] Sent: 14 May 2010 10:48 To: 'Llewhellin, Matt' Subject: RE: Barry Waterfront - Use of Band Drains Thanks Matt,

We will be recommending monitoring within our risk assessment report to assess conditions and behaviour during and after the works.

Kind regards,

giles

GilesSommerwill EarthSciencePartnership T:02920813385 F:02920813386 www.earthsciencepartnership.com

Thisemailandanyattachedfilesareconfidentialandcopyrightprotected.Ourfullconfidentialityanddisclaimernoticecanbefound here ...

Pleaseconsidertheenvironmentbeforeprintingthisemail.

From: Llewhellin, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 May 2010 10:25 To: Giles Sommerwill Subject: RE: Barry Waterfront - Use of Band Drains

HI Giles

Yes I recall the discussion as presented. Further to this point, I cannot recall whether there was any groundwater monitoring proposed for this phase of works. i.e. before, during and after to monitor any potential impact.

Kind regards

Matt

Matt Llewhellin Technical Officer (Contaminated Land) Groundwater & Contaminated Land, Ty Cambria, 29 Newport Rd, Cardiff. CF24 0TP ------
Internal: 7-26-2043
External: 02920 245043  matthew.llewhellin@environment -agency.gov.uk

From: Giles Sommerwill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 May 2010 10:02 To: Llewhellin, Matt

01/06/2010 Page 2 of 3

Subject: Barry Waterfront - Use of Band Drains

Click here to report this email as spam.

Dear Matt,

Hope you are well. After our meeting in April, I am pleased to inform you that we have been instructed to provide an update/revision to the Controlled Water Risk Assessment for the Barry Waterfront Sites we discussed. We are making good progress and expect to finalise a substantial draft within the next fortnight, and hope to provide you with our first issue for review within the next few weeks.

At our meeting, I explained and we discussed that band-drains would be required to accelerate settlements in a reasonable development timescale and we would seek to include the following paragraph within our report:

In order to accelerate primary settlements at West Pond within a timescale that will permit economic development of the site, band drains are required to facilitate drainage of compressible strata during the surcharging scheme. Without these additional drainage paths the timescales required to treat the compressible strata are likely to be prohibitive to development. Whilst the use of band-drains in formerly developed sites is sometimes unfavourable due to potential migratory pathways for contamination, a scheme for contamination remediation is proposed to reduce unacceptable levels of contamination in affected areas before the surcharging works would be undertaken in West Pond. In addition as band drains serve to drain deeper strata and relieve increased pore water pressures, the pressure gradient is upwards out of the low- permeability natural soils, and into the potentially contaminated Made Ground. This behaviour prevents introducing a potential migration pathway from the Made Ground into the deeper soils. This approach has been adopted at a number of formerly developed sites in South Wales, and has been already discussed, with specific regard to West Pond, with the Environment Agency, who made no adverse comments.

I would be grateful if you could reply just to confirm that this paragraph reflects our discussion.

Kind regards,

giles

GilesSommerwill EarthSciencePartnership T:02920813385 F:02920813386 www.earthsciencepartnership.com

Thisemailandanyattachedfilesareconfidentialandcopyrightprotected.Ourfullconfidentialityanddisclaimernoticecanbefound here ...

Pleaseconsidertheenvironmentbeforeprintingthisemail.

Gall yr wybodaeth yn y neges hon fod yn gyfrinachol, ac yn gyfreithiol freiniol. Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhoddwch wybod ar unwaith i’r sawl a’i gyrrodd, os gwelwch yn dda. Yna dilëwch hi, a pheidiwch â gyrru copi at neb arall. Bu inni fwrw golwg ar yr e-bost hwn a’i atodiadau, rhag bod feirysau ynddo. Serch hynny, dylech chwilio unrhyw atodiad cyn ei agor. Efallai bydd rhaid inni ryddhau’r neges hon, ac unrhyw ateb iddi, i sylw’r cyhoedd pe gofynnid inni tan y Ddeddf Rhyddid Gwybodaeth, y Ddeddf Gwarchod Data neu at ddibenion ymgyfreithio. Y mae’n bosib hefyd y darllenir negesau ac atodiadau e-bost a yrrir at unrhyw gyfeiriad Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd, neu a dderbynnir oddi yno, gan rywun arall na’r gyrrwr a’r derbynnydd. Hynny at ddibenion busnes.

01/06/2010 Page 3 of 3

Os ydym wedi gyrru gwybodaeth atoch, a chithau’n dymuno’i defnyddio, yna ddarllenwch ein telerau a’n hamodau, os gwelwch yn dda. Gellir eu cael trwy ein galw ar 08708 506 506. Am ragor o wybodaeth ynghylch Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd Cymru, ewch at www.asiantaeth -amgylchedd.cymru.gov.uk . **** Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else. We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it. We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or recipient, for business purposes. If we have sent you information and you wish to use it please read our terms and conditions which you can get by calling us on 08708 506 506. Find out more about Environment Agency Wales at www.environment -agency.wales.gov.uk

01/06/2010 APPENDIX 10.1 – Updated LAeq 16 hour day-time noise levels for 2008 Baseline ‘open site’ situation

APPENDIX 10.2 – Updated LAeq 8 hour night-time noise levels for 2008 Baseline ‘open site’ situation

APPENDIX 10.3 – Updated day-time TAN11 NECs

APPENDIX 10.4 – Updated night-time TAN11 NECs

APPENDIX 10.5 – Predicted Changes in Road Traffic Noise Level

APPENDIX 11.1 – SUMMARY OF VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL RESPONSE TO AUGUST 2009 BARRY WATERFRONT PLANNING APPLICATION Email from RSK to the Vale of Glamorgan Council

Consultation with the Pollution Team at the Vale of Glamorgan Council Referring to the EHO Comments dated. 17.05.2010

Dear Kristian,

Thank you for the comments you have provided on the air quality assessment methodology for the proposed Barry Waterfront development scheme (to my colleague James Ferguson-Moore). We have also received the attached pdf document from the Vale of Glamorgan Council (VGC) with comments on the air quality impact assessment report.

We are revising the AQ assessment report & associated ES Chapter accordingly. This email is just to reiterate that our revised air quality assessment will be based on the comments received from the Council.

The attached Word document explains how we are incorporating the comments made by VGC.

We are trying to complete the assessment by this Wednesday and I shall be grateful if you could please have a look at the attached Word document and suggest whether you are happy with the way we are addressing your comments.

Many thanks for your time, Kristian.

Kind Regards,

Srinivas

Dr. Srinivas Srimath

Principal Environmental Consultant

Air Quality, IPPC and Climate

RSK STATS Environment Health & Safety Ltd

18 Frogmore Road

Hemel Hempstead

Hertfordshire

HP3 9RT

United Kingdom

Attachment to the Email: Response to VGC Comments on Air Quality Assessment_Barry Waterfront Development

Air Quality Impact Assessment Undertaken by RSK EHS Ltd for the Proposed Barry Waterfront Development

Reply to the Comments Made by the Vale of Glamorgan Council In Response to the Planning Application No. 2009/00947/OUT (Memorandum Reference: POL/238526 Dated. 22 April 2010)

Air Quality

Comment (3a)

Guidance provided by the Greater London Authority & London Councils (GLALC, 2006) will be included in the assessment.

Comment (3b)

Section 4.3

Revised traffic flows that were agreed with the Vale of Glamorgan Council (VGC) have been provided by the traffic consultant, Arup. These traffic figures will be used in the air quality assessment.

(A) Arup have also provided diurnal profiles for:

(i) Cardiff Road A-Road at two locations; (ii) Port Road A-Road; (iii) Little Moors Lane.

The dispersion model ‘ADMS-Roads’ takes diurnal variation of road traffic. Diurnal profiles provided by Arup will be included in the model as follows.

For various sections of Cardiff Road, average of diurnal profiles for Cardiff Road as provided by Arup will be included in the dispersion model.

For various sections of Port Road, the diurnal profile provided for Port Road will be included in the dispersion model.

For various sections of Little Moors Lane, the diurnal profile provided for Little Moors Lane will be included in the assessment.

(B) For other roads, where no diurnal profiles are available, the following approach is proposed.

For other A-Roads, for which no diurnal profiles are available, an average profile derived from the profiles for Cardiff Road A-Road and Port Road A-Road will be included in the dispersion model.

For other roads (other than A-Roads), for which no diurnal profiles are available, the diurnal profile for Little Moors Lane will be included in the dispersion model.

The diurnal profile for Ffordd-y-Millenium, that was used in the previous air quality assessment, will not be used as this profile is unrepresentative being derived based on traffic count during August holiday period.

Comment (3b) Continued…

Section 4.7

Air quality monitoring data from the suggested monitoring stations (Dinas Powys Infants School and Penarth) can be used to validate the dispersion model. However, these monitoring stations are far away and outside the road traffic network influenced by the proposed development. Instead, the ADMS-Roads model will be validated using the data from diffusion tube sites, as suggested by VGC in Comment (c ) below.

Comment (3c)

Section 5.20

VGC suggested to use data from diffusion tube sites (e.g., Cardiff Road, Barry) to validate ADMS-Roads. Data from several diffusion tube sites has been obtained from VGC by RSK. The dispersion model will be validated using relevant road-side diffusion tube monitoring data as suggested by VGC.

Section 5.22

Comparison of long-term NO 2 impacts will be undertaken by using the NO x/NO 2 ratio derived from (i) the Penarth monitoring station, and (ii) the latest NO x/NO 2 spreadsheet available on Air Quality Archive website.

Comparison of short-term NO 2 impacts will be undertaken by using ozone monitoring data from both Penarth and Fonmon stations. APPENDIX 11.2 – REVISED TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO CHAPTER ‘K’ – AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

REVISED TECHNICAL APPENDIX TO CHAPTER ‘K’ - AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

An Assessment of the Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed Mixed-Use Development on Barry Waterfront, Wales

Prepared for Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

May 2010

Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

RSK NOTES

Project: 110252

Title: Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter K – Air Quality Assessment. An Assessment of the Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed Mixed-Use Development on Barry Waterfront, Wales

Client: Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Issue Status: Final

Issuing Office: Hemel Hempstead

Authorised Project Date: 20.05.2010 by: Author

Authorised Project Date: 20.05.2010 by: Reviewer

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF RSK STATS EHS LTD

RSK STATS Environment Health & Safety Ltd (RSK) has prepared this report for the sole use of the client, showing reasonable skill and care, for the intended purposes as stated in the agreement under which this work was completed. The report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express agreement of the client and RSK. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Where any data supplied by the client or from other sources have been used it has been assumed that the information is correct. No responsibility can be accepted by RSK for inaccuracies in the data supplied by any other party. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on the assumption that all relevant information has been supplied by those bodies from whom it was requested. No part of this report may be copied or duplicated without the express permission of RSK and the party for whom it was prepared. Where field investigations have been carried out these have been restricted to a level of detail required to achieve the stated objectives of the work. This work has been undertaken in accordance with the Quality Management System of RSK.

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ i 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Table of Contents

KA.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 KA.2 DEVELOPMENT SITE LOCATION ...... 2 KA.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS...... 3 KA.3.1 Traffic Data...... 3 KA.3.2 Meteorological Data...... 3 KA.4 DISPERSION MODELLING OUTCOMES...... 7 KA.4.1 Sensitivity Analysis: Meteorological Data ...... 7

KA.4.2 Sensitivity Analysis: NO X/NO 2 Ratio...... 7 KA.4.3 Sensitivity Analysis: Ozone Background Concentration...... 7 KA.4.4 Model Validation ...... 8 KA.4.5 Predicted Air Quality Impacts ...... 9 KA.4.6 Pollutant Concentration Contours...... 10 KA.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...... 15

ANNEXURE ‘KA1’: Road Traffic Data Included in the Air Quality Assessment ANNEXURE ‘KA2’: Contour Plots Showing Predicted Pollutant Concentrations

List of Tables

Table KA.1 Sensitivity Analysis, Base Case (2008) Scenario: Maximum Predicted Pollutant Concentrations (µg/m 3) at Discrete Receptors (2006 to 2008 meteorological data, background included) ...... 11 Table KA.2 Sensitivity Analysis, Base Case (2008) Scenario: Maximum 3 Predicted Annual Average NO 2 Concentrations (µg/m ) at Sensitive Receptors (NO X/NO 2 ratios derived from Penarth Monitoring Station and LAQM Tool) ...... 12 Table KA.3 Sensitivity Analysis, Base Case (2008) Scenario: Maximum th 3 Predicted 99.79 Hourly Percentile NO 2 Concentrations (µg/m ) at Sensitive Receptors (O 3 Concentrations Measured at Penarth and Fonmon) ...... 13 Table KA.4 Dispersion Model Validation: Comparison of Measured and Modelled Road Contribution NO x Concentrations...... 14 Table KA.5 Cumulative Impacts: ADMS-Roads Predicted Highest Pollutant Concentrations (µg/m 3) at Discrete Receptor Locations (Maximum of 2006 and 2007 meteorological data, background concentrations included) ...... 15

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ ii 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

List of Figures

Figure KA.1 Development Site Location, Barry Waterfront...... 2 Figure KA.2 Windrose Plotted With Meteorological Data Measured During 2006 at St Athan Monitoring Station ...... 4 Figure KA.3 Windrose Plotted With Meteorological Data Measured During 2007 at St Athan Monitoring Station ...... 5 Figure KA.4 Windrose Plotted With Meteorological Data Measured During 2008 at St Athan Monitoring Station ...... 6 Figure KA.5 Comparison of Measured and Modelled Road Contribution NO x Concentrations...... 8

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ iii 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

KA.1 INTRODUCTION This is the revised technical appendix to the Air Quality Chapter K of the Barry Waterfront Environmental Statement (ES) (August 2009) prepared by RSK STATS Environment Health and Safety Limited (RSK) and should be read in conjunction with Chapter K along with the first addendum to the ES (January 2010) and the second addendum to the ES (May 2010). This appendix supersedes the technical appendix (dated August 2009) to Chapter K of the ES.

This appendix contains data used in reassessing of likely air quality impacts associated with the development taking into account comments made by the Council’s Pollution Control Officer (Memorandum dated. 22/04/2010) following submission of the planning application in August 2009. Outcomes of the reassessment are also included in this appendix.

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 1 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

KA.2 DEVELOPMENT SITE LOCATION Barry Waterfront is located to the southwest of Barry town centre and is positioned between the town centre, Barry Island and the Old Harbour. The area encloses some 30 ha of water with 4.3 km of quayside. The railway between Cardiff and Barry Island borders the perimeter to the north. The existing waterfront development comprises some 782 residential units together with a retail area incorporating a retail food store and non- food retail units as well as a medical centre. To the west of the Gladstone Bridge is the Innovation Quarter, which comprises a range of office and business starter units.

The site is accessible from the A4055, which runs almost parallel to the railway line and connects with Gladstone Bridge into the site. Ffordd y Mileniwm provides the main access into the site from the east and runs through the northern part of the site serving the waterfront. Clive Road runs to the southern edge of the site with Hood Road enabling access from the northwest.

The proposed development site falls within the administrative jurisdiction of the Vale of Glamorgan Council (VoG). Figure KA.1 below shows the location of the proposed development site (boundary in red). The grid reference for the approximate centre of the site is 311700, 167350.

Figure KA.1 Development Site Location, Barry Waterfront

Note: The red line refers to the proposed development site boundary.

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 2 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

KA.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS The proposed Barry Waterfront development has the potential to have impacts on the local air quality during demolition/construction and operational phases. The demolition/construction phase impacts are local to the construction site and to the plant haulage routes and are not possible to quantitatively assess due to sporadic nature of the emissions (predominantly dust). The predominant emission sources of concern during the operational phase of the development are road traffic vehicles. The potential impacts during the operational phase of the development have been quantitatively assessed using an advanced dispersion model, ADMS-Roads 1. The most important parameters for the air dispersion model are baseline air quality data, road traffic data (to assess impacts from road traffic emissions before and during the proposed development) and meteorological data (to assess the emission dispersion conditions). Baseline air quality data has been characterised in Chapter K. Traffic and meteorological data included in the dispersion model are summarised in this section.

KA.3.1 Traffic Data The significant emission sources during the operational phase of the development are road traffic emissions. Revised traffic data (April 2010) from the previous assessment (January 2010) were provided by the Traffic Consultant for the proposed Barry Waterfront development, Arup, which has been included in the air dispersion model to predict operational impacts is placed in Annexure KA1.

KA.3.2 Meteorological Data Meteorological data is one of the key input parameters to the air dispersion model used to assess the operational impacts of the proposed development. Three years (2006 to 2008 inclusive) of hourly sequential meteorological data as measured at the UK Met Office’s St Athan monitoring station has been employed in the model. This monitoring station is approximately 12 km from the proposed development site, and is the nearest meteorological station from which the data required for advanced dispersion modelling is available.

Windroses derived from the meteorological data sets recorded during the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 are shown below in Figure KA.2, Figure KA.3 and KA.4 respectively. The data indicate that the most frequent wind direction is westerly.

1 ADMS-Roads: Advanced Dispersion Modelling System developed by Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants, Cambridge, UK.

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 3 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Figure KA.2 Windrose Plotted With Meteorological Data Measured During 2006 at St Athan Monitoring Station

350° 0° 10° 340° 800 20° 330° 30° 320° 40° 600 310° 50°

300° 60° 400

290° 70°

200 280° 80°

270° 90°

260° 100°

250° 110°

240° 120°

230° 130°

220° 140° 210° 150° 200° 160° 190° 180° 170° 0 3 6 10 16 (knots) Wind speed 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s)

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 4 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Figure KA.3 Windrose Plotted With Meteorological Data Measured During 2007 at St Athan Monitoring Station

350° 0° 10° 340° 800 20° 330° 30° 320° 40° 600 310° 50°

300° 60° 400

290° 70°

200 280° 80°

270° 90°

260° 100°

250° 110°

240° 120°

230° 130°

220° 140° 210° 150° 200° 160° 190° 180° 170° 0 3 6 10 16 (knots) Wind speed 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s)

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 5 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Figure KA.4 Windrose Plotted With Meteorological Data Measured During 2008 at St Athan Monitoring Station

350° 0° 10° 340° 1000 20° 330° 30° 320° 40° 800 310° 50° 600 300° 60°

290° 400 70°

280° 200 80°

270° 90°

260° 100°

250° 110°

240° 120°

230° 130°

220° 140° 210° 150° 200° 160° 190° 180° 170° 0 3 6 10 16 (knots) Wind speed 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s)

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 6 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

KA.4 DISPERSION MODELLING OUTCOMES

KA.4.1 Sensitivity Analysis: Meteorological Data Sensitivity of the dispersion model to the meteorological data has been assessed. Three years (2006-2008) of hourly sequential meteorological as described in Section KA.2.2 has been included in the dispersion model and the resultant predicted pollutant concentrations are summarised in Table KA.1. Though the meteorological data for the years 2006 and 2007 provided higher pollutant concentrations than that predicted with 2008 meteorological data, the pollutant concentrations predicted with different years of meteorological data are comparable.

KA.4.2 Sensitivity Analysis: NO X/NO 2 Ratio

Another sensitivity analysis has been conducted using the NO x/NO 2 ratios derived from Penarth roadside monitoring station, rather than using these ratios obtained from the 2 LAQM Spreadsheet for NO x/NO 2 conversion, to verify the sensitivity of predicted impacts to NO x/NO 2 ratios. The NO 2 concentrations at all receptors predicted with the original NO x/NO 2 ratios derived from the LAQM spreadsheet have been identified as higher than that predicted using the NO x/NO 2 ratios measured at the Penarth monitoring site.

The road contributed NO x/NO 2 ratio derived from 2008 annual mean measurements at Penarth monitoring station was 3.07. Model validation has been carried out with the use of LAQM spreadsheet with NO x/NO 2 ratio derived from Penarth monitoring site data. A model calibration factor of 1.80 has been derived accordingly. The calibrated road contribution NO x concentrations were then converted to annual mean NO 2 concentrations using the NO X/NO 2 derived from the Penarth monitoring site data.

The resultant predicted annual average NO 2 concentrations are shown in Table KA.2.

KA.4.3 Sensitivity Analysis: Ozone Background Concentration

Sensitivity of the dispersion model towards the ozone (O 3) concentrations in deriving th short-term (99.79 hourly percentile NO 2 concentrations) has also been conducted. Ozone concentrations measured at the Penarth continuous monitoring site have been used instead of that measured at Fonmon site. The short-term NO 2 concentrations at all receptors predicted with the O 3 concentrations measured at the Fonmon site have been identified as higher than that predicted using the O 3 data measured at the Penarth continuous monitoring site. Table KA.3 identifies the predicted concentrations using ozone data measured at the Penarth monitoring site.

2 Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Technical Guidance Document suggests using a spreadsheet available from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)’s Air Quality Archive website to derive the oxides of nitrogen concentrations from the nitrogen dioxide concentrations measured by diffusion tubes and to calculate the nitrogen dioxide concentration from the modelled oxides of nitrogen concentrations.

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 7 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

KA.4.4 Model Validation

The NO 2 concentrations measured at the roadside diffusion tube and continuous monitoring sites (discrete receptor locations 15 to 26 identified in Table K13 of Chapter K) are used for calibrating the predicted concentrations under the ‘Base Case’ scenario 3 following the guidance outlined in LAQM.TG (09) . Annual average NO x road contribution for the base case year of 2008 has been predicted at the aforementioned roadside diffusion tube and continuous monitoring sites and compared with the measured (2008) annual average NO x road contribution to derive a model calibration factor. Table KA.2 summarises the annual mean NO 2 measured concentrations and the road contribution NO x concentrations derived using the NO x/NO 2 conversion spreadsheet identified in LAQM TG (09).

Figure KA.5 below identifies the relationship between measured and modelled road NO x contributions, from which a model calibration factor of 2.06 has been derived. The model calibration factor has then been applied to all predicted annual average road contribution NO X concentrations. The calibrated road contribution NO x concentrations have been converted to annual mean NO 2 with the use of the latest NO X/NO 2 spreadsheet identified by LAQM TG(09).

Figure KA.5 Comparison of Measured and Modelled Road Contribution NO x Concentrations

y = 2.0576x

3 100

g/m 90

X, 80

70

60

50 40

30

20

10

Measured Road Measured Contribution NO 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Modelled Road Contribution NO g/m 3 X, µµµ

Note: Y = Measured Road Contribution NO X; X = Modelled Road Contribution NO X

In the absence of any nearby PM10 monitoring data, the same calibration factor derived from road contribution NO x has been applied to calibrate the predicted road contribution PM 10 concentrations.

3 LAQM TG(06): Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance, Published by DEFRA and Devolved Administrations, UK in February 2009.

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 8 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

KA.4.5 Predicted Air Quality Impacts Air quality impacts predicted during the operational phase of the proposed development under various scenarios (Base Case scenario for the year 2008, Without Development scenario for the year 2020, and With Development scenario for the year 2020) have been detailed in Chapter K.

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 9 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

KA.4.6 Pollutant Concentration Contours

The dispersion profiles of road traffic emission components (NO 2 and PM 10 ) during the operational phase of the proposed development are shown in the form of contour plots placed in Annexure KA2. Contour plots demonstrate that the pollutants released from road traffic vehicles decrease with distance away from roads, reaching the background concentrations with in a short distance.

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 10 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Table KA.1 Sensitivity Analysis, Base Case (2008) Scenario: Maximum Predicted Pollutant Concentrations (µg/m 3) at Discrete Receptors (2006 to 2008 meteorological data, background included)

Discrete NO x 99.79 th Percentile of Hourly Average Annual Average PM 10 90.41 th Percentile of PM 10 24-Hour Annual Average NO x Receptor Concentrations Concentrations Average Concentrations Reference Met Data Met Data Met Data Met Data Met Data Met Data Met Data Met Data Met Data Met Data Met Data Met Data Numbers 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 1 26.12 26.29 26.11 52.13 47.70 46.23 20.17 20.17 20.17 20.23 20.25 20.23 2 27.47 27.39 27.24 82.63 82.60 80.48 20.22 20.22 20.21 20.41 20.42 20.40 3 26.25 26.50 26.30 44.57 47.27 42.16 20.18 20.19 20.18 20.23 20.25 20.23 4 26.42 26.77 26.50 55.61 56.07 53.25 20.18 20.19 20.18 20.25 20.29 20.26 5 29.17 29.74 29.33 125.20 116.97 112.57 20.30 20.32 20.30 20.59 20.61 20.57 6 33.69 33.14 33.02 160.75 159.56 142.27 20.48 20.45 20.45 20.87 20.84 20.86 7 29.88 30.57 30.04 93.81 112.07 87.29 20.31 20.34 20.32 20.50 20.51 20.51 8 26.98 27.59 27.12 93.29 86.90 73.22 20.21 20.23 20.21 20.39 20.44 20.38 9 27.77 27.84 27.69 80.23 76.07 65.76 20.23 20.23 20.22 20.32 20.36 20.32 10 24.75 24.89 24.79 34.60 34.31 33.94 20.12 20.13 20.12 20.14 20.16 20.14 11 25.45 25.84 25.57 48.78 49.63 52.18 20.14 20.15 20.14 20.18 20.22 20.19 12 27.95 29.11 28.37 92.41 87.42 81.07 20.24 20.28 20.25 20.41 20.49 20.41 13 29.30 30.52 29.70 125.05 135.00 135.96 20.29 20.35 20.30 20.46 20.64 20.51 14 30.33 30.99 30.51 103.17 113.19 85.37 20.36 20.38 20.36 20.58 20.61 20.60 15 32.87 32.08 31.96 199.41 197.88 184.78 20.50 20.47 20.46 21.06 21.00 20.95 16 27.66 27.95 27.59 69.19 66.27 67.98 20.22 20.23 20.21 20.36 20.38 20.34 17 37.63 37.57 36.41 174.53 169.50 172.49 20.53 20.53 20.49 21.06 21.11 20.99 18 47.30 46.78 45.45 261.34 258.75 256.70 20.93 20.91 20.85 21.68 21.72 21.68 19 27.16 26.96 26.84 67.78 68.17 67.05 20.19 20.19 20.18 20.32 20.33 20.31 20 39.35 40.52 39.27 153.68 159.04 139.68 20.52 20.56 20.52 20.87 20.92 20.86 21 27.80 27.45 27.40 81.72 83.11 76.73 20.24 20.23 20.22 20.43 20.44 20.41 22 30.56 30.58 30.03 110.59 110.71 107.82 20.30 20.30 20.28 20.57 20.59 20.55 23 32.63 31.95 31.91 132.81 135.99 127.50 20.40 20.37 20.37 20.70 20.70 20.72 24 26.16 26.77 26.38 62.54 59.68 57.48 20.17 20.19 20.18 20.26 20.29 20.27 25 66.05 66.46 64.35 481.69 486.76 433.72 21.90 21.92 21.80 23.26 23.51 23.14 Note: Long-term values have been adjusted with model calibration factor. Discrete receptors 15 to 25 included in model for validation only and do not represent sensitive receptor locations.

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 11 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

3 Table KA.2 Sensitivity Analysis, Base Case (2008) Scenario: Maximum Predicted Annual Average NO 2 Concentrations (µg/m ) at Sensitive Receptors (NO X/NO 2 ratios derived from Penarth Monitoring Station and LAQM Tool)

Annual Average NO 2 Concentrations, µµµg/m 3 Receptors Penarth Ratio LAQM Tool 1 16.78 17.67 2 17.47 18.81 3 16.90 17.87 4 17.06 18.14 5 18.81 20.97 6 21.12 24.55 7 19.29 21.73 8 17.55 18.93 9 17.69 19.17 10 15.96 16.29 11 16.52 17.23 12 18.43 20.37 13 19.26 21.68 14 19.53 22.12 Air Quality Objective ( µg/m 3) 40 40

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 12 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

th 3 Table KA.3 Sensitivity Analysis, Base Case (2008) Scenario: Maximum Predicted 99.79 Hourly Percentile NO 2 Concentrations (µg/m ) at Sensitive Receptors (O 3 Concentrations Measured at Penarth and Fonmon)

99.79 th Hourly Percentile NO 2 Concentrations, µµµg/m 3 Receptors Penarth O 3 Data Fonmon O 3 Data 1 36.68 39.80 2 47.98 50.81 3 36.04 36.91 4 39.34 40.88 5 56.11 63.94 6 65.31 74.06 7 50.23 54.66 8 48.37 52.13 9 46.78 51.22 10 31.89 32.52 11 38.39 39.99 12 49.73 55.35 13 54.90 59.34 14 52.07 56.05 Air Quality Objective ( µµµg/m 3) 200 200

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 13 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Table KA.4 Dispersion Model Validation: Comparison of Measured and Modelled Road Contribution NO x Concentrations

Receptors (VoG Diffusion Tube 2008 Annual Average NO 2 Concentration, Measured Road contribution NO X, Modelled Road Contribution 3 3 3 Monitoring Site Reference Numbers) µµµg/m µµµg/m NO X, µµµg/m 15 28 28.02 8.77 16 36 49.31 3.85 17 34 43.68 13.53 18 38 55.16 23.20 19 25 20.79 3.06 20 29 30.51 16.42 21 30 33.05 3.70 22 40 61.26 6.48 23 33 40.94 8.53 24 23 16.00 2.67 25 24 26.37 42.36 Note: VoG refers to The Vale of Glamorgan Council; Measured road contributed at receptor 25 (Dinas Powys Road continuous roadside monitoring station) = Measured annual mean NO X – background NO X concentration (24.1 µg/m 3)

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 14 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

KA.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Table KA.5 identifies the predicted cumulative impacts resulting from the operation of the proposed development scheme along with two nearby industrial emission sources (one gasification facility proposed by Biogen and one biomass power plant proposed by Sunrise Renewables). No exceedence of any of the air quality objectives designed to protect the human health has been predicted.

Table KA.5 Cumulative Impacts: ADMS-Roads Predicted Highest Pollutant Concentrations (µg/m 3) at Discrete Receptor Locations (Maximum of 2006 and 2007 meteorological data, background concentrations included)

NO 2 Concentrations, µµµg m -3 PM 10 Concentrations, µµµg m -3 Receptors Annual 99.79 th Percentile of Hourly Annual 90.41 th Percentile of 24-Hour Average Average Concentrations Average Average Concentrations 1 14.36 29.67 19.36 19.35 2 14.27 37.26 19.37 19.41 3 13.75 27.52 19.34 19.32 4 13.94 30.46 19.34 19.34 5 16.13 43.58 19.52 19.55 6 19.75 55.48 19.77 19.72 7 16.84 39.95 19.54 19.49 8 14.83 42.38 19.43 19.50 9 15.42 36.27 19.46 19.43 10 12.36 23.30 19.25 19.25 11 13.1 29.60 19.29 19.29 12 16.61 45.10 19.55 19.56 13 17.08 42.69 19.59 19.57 14 16.69 40.61 19.57 19.53 Air Quality 40 200 50 40 Objective ( µg/m 3) Note: The reported long-term pollutant concentrations have been calibrated as per the LAQM TG (09) methodology as described in Section KA.3.4.

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 15 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

ANNEXURE ‘KA1’

Road Traffic Data Included in the Air Quality Assessment

This annexure contains road traffic data included in the air quality assessment. Data is arranged in the following order.

Figure KAA.1. Traffic Data Included in the Air Quality Assessment: Base Case Scenario (2008)

Figure KAA.2. Traffic Data Included in the Air Quality Assessment: ‘Do Nothing’ - Without Development Scenario (2020)

Figure KAA.3. Traffic Data Included in the Air Quality Assessment: With Development Scenario (2020).

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 16 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Figure KAA.1 Traffic Data Included in the Air Quality Assessment: Base Case Scenario (2008)

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 17 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Figure KAA.2 Traffic Data Included in the Air Quality Assessment: ‘Do Nothing’ - Without Development Scenario (2020)

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 18 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Figure KAA.3 Traffic Data Included in the Air Quality Assessment: With Development Scenario (2020)

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 19 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

ANNEXURE ‘KA2’

Contour Plots Showing Predicted Pollutant Concentrations (With Development Scenario)

This annexure contains contour plots (isopleths) illustrating the dispersion profiles of road traffic emissions to air resulting from the operation of the development (‘With Development’ scenario). The contour plots are arranged in the following order.

3 Figure KAB.1 Predicted Annual Average NO 2 Concentrations (µg/m ) including Background Concentrations (maximum concentrations between 2006 and 2007 meteorological data)

th Figure KAB.2 Predicted 99.79 percentile of Hourly Average NO 2 Concentrations (µg/m 3) including Background Concentration (maximum concentrations between 2006 and 2007 meteorological data)

3 Figure KAB.3 Predicted Annual Average PM 10 Concentrations (µg/m ) including Background Concentrations (maximum concentrations between 2006 and 2007 meteorological data)

st Figure KAB.4 Predicted 90.41 percentile of Daily Average PM 10 Concentrations (µg/m 3) including Background Concentrations (maximum concentrations between 2006 and 2007 meteorological data).

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 20 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Figure KAB.1 ‘With Development’ Scenario: Predicted Annual Average NO 2 Concentrations (µg/m 3) including Background Concentrations (maximum concentrations between 2006 and 2007 meteorological data)

Proposed Development Site

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 21 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

th Figure KAB.2 ‘With Development’ Scenario: Predicted 99.79 Percentile of Hourly 3 Average NO 2 Concentrations (µg/m ) including Background Concentrations (maximum concentrations between 2006 and 2007 meteorological data)

Proposed Development Site

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 22 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Figure KAB.3 ‘With Development’ Scenario: Predicted Annual Average PM 10 Concentrations (µg/m 3) including Background Concentrations (maximum concentrations between 2006 and 2007 meteorological data)

Proposed Development Site

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 23 110252_AQ/Rev01 Air Quality Impact Assessment: Barry Waterfront Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Figure KAB.4 ‘With Development’ Scenario: Predicted 90.41 st Percentile of Daily 3 Average PM 10 concentrations (µg/m ) including Background Concentrations (maximum concentrations between 2006 and 2007 meteorological data)

Proposed Development Site

RSK STATS EHS Ltd Revised Technical Appendix to Chapter ‘K’ 24 110252_AQ/Rev01 APPENDIX 12.1 – UPDATED SCHOOL CAPACITY FORECAST Annex 1

Pupil Number on Roll as at September

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

All Saints C.I.W. Primary 201 208 209 204 207 207 200 199 205 203 198 196 Barry Island Primary 151 162 148 146 171 158 155 152 149 144 149 171 Cadoxton Primary 452 460 455 456 454 437 418 422 399 374 349 337 Colcot Primary School 392 386 381 361 375 355 331 316 309 290 285 247 Gladstone Primary School 396 392 375 385 373 369 367 357 333 341 333 336 Gwenfo C.I.W. Primary 163 176 175 191 197 204 183 169 172 168 167 160 High Street Primary School 218 218 217 235 242 231 219 211 188 188 163 163 Holton Primary School 552 523 497 484 474 441 417 414 413 426 393 359 Jenner Park Primary 309 297 281 283 251 251 219 223 234 221 222 210 Oakfield Primary 225 196 195 181 192 194 208 199 199 166 160 158 Palmerston Primary School 271 256 246 255 215 189 190 194 177 177 179 186 Rhws Primary School 277 307 316 334 332 369 381 399 375 352 332 335 Romilly Infant School 263 258 266 257 248 240 223 230 205 243 0 0 Romilly Junior School 346 356 366 368 367 355 350 340 343 336 0 0 Romilly Primary School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 554 523 Total Barry 4,216 4,195 4,127 4,140 4,098 4,000 3,861 3,825 3,701 3,629 3,484 3,381

Llancarfan C.P. School 95 104 101 101 116 117 119 115 118 117 111 103 Llanfair C.P. School 103 112 109 111 107 120 118 100 105 103 101 104 Llangan C.P. School 101 92 88 94 101 100 94 99 103 122 113 107 Llansannor C.I.W. Primary 162 173 176 206 183 193 171 177 170 176 176 186 Pendoylan C.I.W. Primary 140 152 156 164 170 171 173 180 173 167 177 182 Peterston Super Ely C.I.W. 127 136 140 139 132 133 141 149 153 164 158 155 St Brides C.I.W. Primary 139 143 165 160 147 146 165 177 185 182 179 169 St David's C.I.W. Primary 127 124 116 139 153 158 164 163 170 174 161 161 St Nicholas C.I.W. Primary 104 120 119 120 121 119 113 110 112 111 108 105 Y Bontfaen Primary 276 276 283 264 250 250 231 216 204 199 207 201 Total Cowbridge 1,374 1,432 1,453 1,498 1,480 1,507 1,489 1,486 1,493 1,515 1,491 1,473

Eagleswell Primary 319 331 316 278 245 242 242 225 227 205 203 214 Llanilltud Fawr Primary 249 247 252 254 248 252 240 220 213 208 212 214 St Athan Primary School 289 254 254 258 229 256 261 225 214 198 187 169 St Illtyd's Primary School 404 397 350 345 326 345 336 344 336 329 315 325 Wick Marcross C.I.W. 126 120 102 125 110 103 115 93 90 104 104 101 Total Llantwit 1,387 1,349 1,274 1,260 1,158 1,198 1,194 1,107 1,080 1,044 1,021 1,023

Albert C.P. School 300 283 299 280 282 291 276 289 283 292 279 292 Cogan Primary School 221 210 210 219 216 186 182 194 187 195 185 183 Dinas Powys Infants 215 200 188 178 173 170 180 154 136 138 136 152 Evenlode C.P. School 409 430 448 457 457 448 427 434 427 417 417 420 Fairfield Primary School 291 288 268 263 266 282 262 274 275 271 249 242 Llandough Primary 162 166 161 159 166 164 176 180 173 166 157 158 Murch Junior School 256 254 271 267 278 278 247 243 231 226 217 197 St Andrews Major C.I.W. 226 209 228 222 231 221 216 209 208 195 192 193 Sully Primary School 325 316 316 343 349 353 353 361 366 352 355 343 Victoria Primary School 301 304 313 318 317 351 378 365 372 361 350 361 Total Penarth 2,706 2,660 2,702 2,706 2,735 2,744 2,697 2,703 2,658 2,613 2,537 2,541

St Helen's R.C. Infant 171 165 155 152 155 157 149 141 135 122 116 123 St Helen's R.C. Junior 243 245 230 245 237 237 223 216 218 221 205 186 St Joseph's R.C. Primary 297 194 190 196 189 198 182 173 176 177 178 178 Total Roman Catholic 711 604 575 593 581 592 554 530 529 520 499 487

Ysgol Gwaun y Nant 71 85 76 83 87 93 103 104 107 131 144 163 Ysgol Iolo Morganwg 164 170 155 144 140 127 126 128 130 137 152 164 Ysgol Pen Y Garth 300 297 310 304 309 303 295 270 255 250 254 260 Ysgol Sant Baruc 198 191 195 193 194 195 192 201 200 203 209 209 Ysgol Sant Curig 377 360 340 345 350 334 344 335 337 347 343 352 Total Welsh Medium 1,110 1,103 1,076 1,069 1,080 1,052 1,060 1,038 1,029 1,068 1,102 1,148

Total welsh primary 1,110 1,103 1,076 1,069 1,080 1,052 1,060 1,038 1,029 1,068 1,102 1,148 % in welsh primary 9.65% 9.72% 9.60% 9.49% 9.70% 9.48% 9.77% 9.71% 9.81% 10.28% 10.87% 11.42%

Total Primary 11,504 11,343 11,207 11,266 11,132 11,093 10,855 10,689 10,490 10,389 10,134 10,053

Barry Comprehensive 1,272 1,220 1,283 1,267 1,333 1,322 1,383 1,402 1,366 1,343 1,360 1,321 Bryn Hafren Comprehensive 1,148 1,473 1,463 1,438 1,411 1,348 1,339 1,276 1,286 1,271 1,286 1,316 Cowbridge Comprehensive 1,212 1,264 1,309 1,344 1,379 1,379 1,349 1,300 1,300 1,302 1,324 1,343 Llantwit Major School 1,248 1,314 1,299 1,301 1,312 1,315 1,283 1,266 1,234 1,249 1,208 1,154 St Cyres Comprehensive 1,447 1,461 1,547 1,569 1,582 1,593 1,575 1,524 1,491 1,469 1,450 1,395 St Richard Gwyn R.C. High 495 511 508 501 500 543 550 560 601 612 595 615 Stanwell School 1,344 1,427 1,497 1,533 1,616 1,619 1,651 1,652 1,654 1,653 1,731 1,843 Ysgol Bro Morgannwg 0 0 123 247 370 536 674 787 855 862 846 853

Total welsh secondary 0 0 123 247 370 536 674 787 855 862 846 853 % in welsh secondary 0.00% 0.00% 1.36% 2.68% 3.89% 5.55% 6.87% 8.06% 8.74% 8.83% 8.63% 8.67%

Total Secondary 8,166 8,670 9,029 9,200 9,503 9,655 9,804 9,767 9,787 9,761 9,800 9,840 Annex 2

Vale of Glamorgan Schools

PROJECTED DATA 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

All Saints C.I.W. Primary 196 194 197 198 198 199 Barry Island Primary 171 174 181 184 189 194 Cadoxton Primary 337 314 302 296 302 284 Colcot Primary School 247 242 237 238 240 235 Gladstone Primary School 336 336 340 339 353 352 Gwenfo C.I.W. Primary 160 160 161 166 173 174 High Street Primary School 163 160 156 174 191 190 Holton Primary School 359 357 358 363 370 370 Jenner Park Primary 210 212 210 217 219 221 Oakfield Primary 158 147 142 145 154 146 Palmerston Primary School 186 191 179 185 191 188 Rhws Primary School 335 321 310 307 319 305 Romilly Primary School 523 512 530 522 529 530 Total Barry 3,381 3,320 3,303 3,334 3,428 3,386

Llancarfan C.P. School 103 100 90 90 81 77 Llanfair C.P. School 104 105 106 109 100 104 Llangan C.P. School 107 102 103 104 103 102 Llansannor C.I.W. Primary 186 182 187 190 186 189 Pendoylan C.I.W. Primary 182 183 174 163 152 147 Peterston Super Ely C.I.W. 155 160 172 168 166 173 St Brides C.I.W. Primary 169 163 159 147 134 129 St David's C.I.W. Primary 161 154 152 145 129 126 St Nicholas C.I.W. Primary 105 109 116 124 121 129 Y Bontfaen Primary 201 197 197 188 177 175 Total Cowbridge 1,473 1,455 1,456 1,428 1,349 1,350

Eagleswell Primary 214 214 206 202 196 192 Llanilltud Fawr Primary 214 213 202 202 204 198 St Athan Primary School 169 153 153 145 145 136 St Illtyd's Primary School 325 328 312 307 292 287 Wick Marcross C.I.W. 101 106 105 112 113 116 Total Llantwit 1,023 1,014 978 968 950 929

Albert C.P. School 292 292 306 297 295 300 Cogan Primary School 183 186 190 188 189 191 Dinas Powys Infants 152 148 149 148 149 147 Evenlode C.P. School 420 416 418 418 418 417 Fairfield Primary School 242 234 225 219 220 210 Llandough Primary 158 158 156 156 151 151 Murch Junior School 197 198 184 192 204 197 St Andrews Major C.I.W. 193 192 191 199 200 201 Sully Primary School 343 339 333 340 339 337 Victoria Primary School 361 364 369 400 400 413 Total Penarth 2,541 2,527 2,521 2,557 2,565 2,566

St Helen's R.C. Infant 123 119 126 127 131 132 St Helen's R.C. Junior 186 182 166 164 162 152 St Joseph's R.C. Primary 178 167 173 169 180 175 Total Roman Catholic 487 468 465 460 473 460

Ysgol Gwaun y Nant 163 166 172 180 194 198 Ysgol Iolo Morganwg 164 166 168 172 177 179 Ysgol Pen Y Garth 260 262 286 301 319 333 Ysgol Sant Baruc 209 207 206 205 211 208 Ysgol Sant Curig 352 360 361 369 381 385 Total Welsh Medium 1,148 1,161 1,193 1,227 1,282 1,302

Total welsh primary 1,148 1,161 1,193 1,227 1,282 1,302 % in welsh primary 11.42% 11.67% 12.03% 12.30% 12.76% 13.03%

Total Primary 10,053 9,945 9,916 9,974 10,047 9,992

Barry Comprehensive 1,321 1,294 1,248 1,204 1,152 1,124 Bryn Hafren Comprehensive 1,316 1,298 1,230 1,230 1,178 1,153 Cowbridge Comprehensive 1,343 1,359 1,331 1,320 1,316 1,321 Llantwit Major School 1,154 1,133 1,130 1,103 1,078 1,048 St Cyres Comprehensive 1,395 1,357 1,328 1,290 1,241 1,215 St Richard Gwyn R.C. High 615 616 616 617 581 547 Stanwell School 1,843 1,860 1,830 1,825 1,821 1,809 Ysgol Bro Morgannwg 853 858 848 851 838 878

Total welsh secondary 853 858 848 851 838 878 % in welsh secondary 8.67% 8.78% 8.87% 9.01% 9.10% 9.65%

Total Secondary 9,840 9,775 9,561 9,440 9,205 9,095