Jaguar Land Rover – Flood Consequence Assessment

May 2021 www.jbaconsulting.com

Jones Brother (Henllan) Ltd, Heol Parc Mawr, Cross Hands, Llanelli SA14 6RE

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx i

JBA Project Manager Faye Tomalin JBA Consulting Kings Chambers 8 High Street NEWPORT UNITED KINGDOM NP20 1FQ

Revision History Revision Ref/Date Amendments Issued to May 2021 First Issue James Player – Jones Brothers

Contract This report describes work commissioned by Jones Brother (Henllan) Ltd.

Prepared by ...... Nia Vines BSc

...... Technical Assistant

...... Faye Tomalin BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWEM C.WEM

...... Chartered Senior Analyst

Reviewed by ...... George Baker BEng AIEMA CEnv IEng MCIWEM C.WEM

Associate Director

Purpose This document has been prepared for Jones Brothers (Henllan) Limited. JBA Consulting accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the Client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared JBA Consulting has no liability regarding the use of this report except to Jones Brothers (Henllan) Limited.

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx i

Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 FCA requirements 1 2 Site description 2 2.1 Site topography 2 2.2 Soils and geology 3 2.3 Watercourses and Flood Defences 3 2.4 Development proposal 4 3 Planning Policy and flood risk 6 3.1 Planning context 6 3.2 DAM Zoning and Vulnerability classification Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3 Local Development Plan 7 3.4 Justification test 7 4 Flood Risk Assessment 9 4.1 Historical flooding 9 4.2 Fluvial Flood Risk 10 4.3 Tidal Flood Risk 10 4.4 Surface Water and Small Watercourse Flood Risk 10 4.5 Groundwater Flood Risk 11 4.6 Reservoirs Flood Risk 11 5 Detailed Fluvial Flood Risk Assessment 12 5.1 Hydraulic modelling availability 12 5.2 JBA Flood Model Updates (2019) Hydraulic Modelling 12 5.3 Hydrology 12 5.4 Baseline Model Results 13 5.4.1 1% AEP + Climate Change 13 5.4.2 0.1% AEP Event 13 5.5 Post-Development Model Results 14 5.5.1 0.1% AEP Event – Post-Development 15 5.6 Third Party Impacts 15 6 The Acceptability of Consequences 17 7 Conclusions 19 A Proposed development site plan Error! Bookmark not defined. B Proposed development layout II

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx ii

List of Figures Figure 2-1 Site Location Plan 2 Figure 2-2 Watercourses and flood defences around the site 4 Figure 2-3 Proposed development design 5 Figure 3-1 Development Advice Map 7 Figure 4-1 NRW Historic Flooding records 9 Figure 4-2 NRW FRAW Risk from Rivers 10 Figure 4-3 FRAW- Risk of Flooding from Surface Water and Small Watercourses 11 Figure 5-1 1% AEP + CC Baseline Predicted Flood Depths 13 Figure 5-2 0.1% AEP Baseline Predicted Flood Depths 14 Figure 5-3 0.1% AEP Event Post-Development Predicted Flood Depths 15 Figure 5-4 0.1% AEP Depth Comparison Grid 16

List of Tables Table 2-1 Site summary 2 Table 3-1 Development categories defined by TAN-15 6 Table 3-2 Justification Test applied to the proposed development 8 Table 4-1 Existing Flood Risk Data for the Site 9 Table 6-1 Assessment of accessibility criteria 17

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx iii

1 Introduction JBA Consulting (JBA) were commissioned by Jones Brothers (Henllan) Limited on behalf of Sinclair Garages Port Talbot Ltd. to undertake a Flood Consequence Assessment (FCA) for a proposed commercial development at Heron Drive, Llansamlet, Swansea.

1.1 FCA requirements This FCA follows Welsh Government guidance on development and flood risk set out in the Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (TAN15). Where appropriate, the following aspects of flood risk will be addressed in all planning applications over its expected lifetime in flood risk areas: • The likely mechanisms of flooding • The likely source of flooding • The depths of flooding through the site • The speed of inundation of the site • The rate of rise of flood water through the site • Velocities of flood water across the site • Overland flow routes • The effect of access and egress and infrastructure, for example, public sewer outfalls, combined sewer outflows, surface water sewers and effluent discharge pipes from wastewater treatment works • The impacts of the development in terms of flood risk on neighbouring properties and elsewhere on the floodplain

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

2 Site description The site is located on the outskirts of Swansea, within Swansea Enterprise Park in the Llansamlet area. The site is bound to the north, east and south by existing highways, as shown in Figure 2-1. The western boundary of the site is comprised of the River Tawe Flood Defence and associated footpath. The River Tawe flows 17m to the west of the site in a southerly direction. Table 2-1 Site summary

Site name Land at Heron Drive, Llansamlet Site area 1.90 Ha Existing land use Greenfield Purpose of development Commercial development OS NGR SS 67677 98677 Local Planning Authorities Swansea Council Lead Local Flood Authority Swansea Council

Figure 2-1 Site Location Plan

2.1 Site topography The proposed development site is located within the Swansea Enterprise Park, Llansamlet. A topographic survey undertaken by Senior Surveys Land Survey Consultants in June 2020 indicates that the majority of the site is relatively flat, with ground levels between 10.0mAOD to 11mAOD. The topographic survey is contained in Appendix A. The site is protected from the River Tawe by a flood embankment which forms the western boundary of the site.

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

Figure 2-2 identifies the key heights across the proposed site. Points A and B are located along the river embankment, with levels of 13.3mAOD and 12.4mAOD respectively. The lowest ground level within the proposed site is in the north east corner of the site; point C, 9.8mAOD. The highest point within the site boundary is point D, 12.1mAOD. The average height across the site is identified by point E at 10.2mAOD.

Figure 2-2 1m DTM LiDAR

2.2 Soils and geology The British Geological Survey (BGS)1 shows that the area’s geology forms part of the Grovesend Mudstone Group, which consists of mudstone and sedimentary bedrock. The superficial deposits on site are alluvium which consist of clay, silt, sand and gravel. The Cranfield University Soilscape viewer2 describes the site’s soil as loamy, typical of wet carr woodlands in old river meanders.

2.3 Watercourses and Flood Defences As shown in Figure 2-3, the River Tawe flows 17m to the west of the site in a southerly direction and is an NRW designated Main River. The site is protected from the River Tawe by a flood embankment which forms the western boundary of the site, as shown in Figure 2-3. These flood defences form part of the Lower Swansea Valley flood scheme completed by NRW in 2014.

———————————————————————————————————————————— 1 Geology of Britain Viewer. http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html

2 Cranfield Soil Scapes Viewer. http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

Figure 2-2 Watercourses and flood defences around the site

2.4 Development proposal A proposed site layout has been provided, as shown in Figure 2-4. The proposal is to develop the site for Class B8 (Storage or distribution) use. The site will be comprised of two buildings, the Jaguar Land Rover main sales building and associated valet building located towards the centre of the site, with the remaining area used for car parking. The main access to and from the site will be via an entrance created on Heron Drive with an additional second entrance via Moorhen Close. Proposed ground levels across the site shall be set to an average of 10.7mAOD, with Finished Floor Levels of the building set to 10.85mAOD. The proposed development layout is contained in Appendix B.

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

Figure 2-3 Proposed development design

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

3 Planning Policy and flood risk

3.1 Planning context TAN-15 was introduced in 2004 by the Welsh Assembly Government. It is technical guidance related to development planning and flood risk using a sequential characterisation of risk based on the Welsh Government's Development and Flood Risk Advice Map (DAM). Its initial requirement is to identify the flood zones and vulnerability classification relevant to the proposed development, based on an assessment of current and future conditions.

3.2 Development vulnerability classification TAN-15 assigns one of three flood risk vulnerability classifications to a development, as shown in Table 3-1. The proposed development at Heron Drive is classed as commercial. Consequently, the development is classified as less vulnerable. Table 3-1 Development categories defined by TAN-15

Development category Types Emergency services Hospitals, ambulance stations, fire stations, police stations, coastguard stations, command centres, emergency depots and buildings used to provide emergency shelter in time of flood. Highly vulnerable All residential premises (including hotels and caravan development parks), public buildings, (e.g. schools, libraries, leisure centres), especially vulnerable industrial development (e.g. power stations, chemical plants, incinerators), and waste disposal sites. Less vulnerable General industrial, employment, commercial and development retail development, transport and utilities infrastructure, car parks, mineral extraction sites and associated processing facilities, excluding waste disposal sites.

3.3 Development Advice Map Classification As shown in Figure 3-1, the proposed development site is located within Zone C1 of the Development Advice Map (DAM). The DAM is used to trigger different planning actions based on a precautionary assessment of flood risk. Zone C1 is described as “areas of the floodplain which are developed and served by significant infrastructure, including flood defences”. The C1 classification results from the flood risk protection provided by NRW’s River Tawe flood defences. Less vulnerable development can take place within Zone C1 subject to the application of the Justification Test, including a demonstration of the acceptability of the flood consequences.

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

Figure 3-1 Development Advice Map

3.4 Local Development Plan Swansea Councils Adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) provides a framework to show areas where new homes or employment opportunities can be developed and managed within Swansea and the surrounding area. The proposed site is located within a strategic development area of the Swansea Local Development Plan, specifically Policy SD I. This area comprises of sites allocated for a comprehensive, residential led, mixed use development and the completion of the Swansea Vale business park for commercial and employment use with 4 hectares of potential development areas that could accommodate appropriate B1 and B2 uses, with appropriate leisure uses.

3.5 Justification test TAN-15 states that “new development” will be justified if it can be demonstrated that: Its location in zone C is necessary to assist, or be part of, a local authority regeneration initiative or a local authority strategy required to sustain an existing settlement; or Its location in zone C is necessary to contribute to key employment objectives supported by the local authority, and other key partners, to sustain an existing settlement or region; and It concurs with the aims of Planning Policy Wales and meets the definition of previously developed land; and, The potential consequences of a flooding event for the particular type of development have been considered and found to be acceptable.

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

The proposed development has been assessed against the requirements of the Justification Test with the results summarised in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 Justification Test applied to the proposed development

TAN 15 Justification Criteria Comments Achieved Its location is necessary to assist The proposed development site ✓ a local authority regeneration will assist with the relevant initiative or strategy, or policies listed in the Local contribute to key employment Development Plan. (ref. Section objectives necessary to sustain 3.3) an existing settlement or region The site meets the definition of The proposal involves the ✓ previously developed land (i.e. it development of largely greenfield is not a Greenfield site) and land, although infrastructure has concurs with the aims of Planning previously been built around the Policy Wales (i.e. the presumption site to support future in favour of sustainable development. Consequently, the development) site concurs with the aims of Planning Policy Wales and is listed within the Swansea LDP as a SD I strategic site. A Flood Consequence Assessment The flood consequences have ✓ has been produced to been assessed and are detailed demonstrate that the potential further in Sections 4 and 5. consequences of a flood event up to the extreme flood event (1 in 1000 chance of occurring in any year) have been considered and meet the [Acceptability Criteria] in order to be considered acceptable

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

4 Flood Risk Assessment The latest available information on flood risk at the site, published by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) is summarised in Table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1 Existing Flood Risk Data for the Site

Source of Flooding Onsite Description Presence Fluvial ✓ The site is in an area at risk of river (See section 4.2) flooding. Tidal  The site is not at risk of tidal flooding Surface Water and Small ✓ The site is at low risk of surface water Watercourses (See section 4.3) flooding. Groundwater  The site is at a low risk of flooding from groundwater. Reservoirs  The site is not considered to be at risk of flooding from reservoirs. Sewers  There is no evidence to suggest that the site is at risk of flooding from sewers.

4.1 Historical flooding The site is located within NRW’s historic flood outline, as shown in Figure 4-1. The flooding occurred in 1967 when the river channel capacity exceeded. The current flood defences were not built at the time.

Figure 4-1 NRW Historic Flooding records

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

4.2 Fluvial Flood Risk NRW’s Flood Risk Assessment Wales (FRAW) Map indicates that the proposed development site has a low risk of fluvial flooding. This suggests that there is a 0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of the site flooding from the river in any given year. JBA recently carried out a series of updates to the NRW River Tawe flood model. This updated and NRW approved flood model has been used to support the assessment of flood risk contained within this FCA, as documented in Section 5 of this report.

Figure 4-2 NRW FRAW Risk from Rivers

4.3 Tidal Flood Risk The NRW FRAW Flood Risk from the Sea map show that the site is not at risk of tidal flooding.

4.4 Surface Water and Small Watercourse Flood Risk Surface water flooding occurs when rain falling on saturated ground flows overland, following the local topography. Surface water flooding and subsequent overland flow can also originate from surcharging blocked sewers or drains. Depending on the return period, sewer flooding can also occur from overloading of sewers due to their flow conveyance capacity being exceeded. This typically occurs in events exceeding the 1 in 30 year. Overland flow can therefore pose a risk to both the development site and surrounding land. Overland flows may originate from the site itself or adjoining from land at a higher elevation from which flow migrates onto the development area.

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

NRW’s Flood Risk from Surface Water and Small Watercourses map indicates that the site is at a very low to low risk of surface water flooding, as shown in Figure 4-3. Areas of low surface water flood risk are located in the northern corner of the site. This area of surface water correlates to the site topography where the lowest site elevations are located, Figure 2-2. This should be managed through good drainage design and the use of SuDS techniques.

Figure 4-3 FRAW- Risk of Flooding from Surface Water and Small Watercourses

4.5 Groundwater Flood Risk Groundwater flooding is caused by unusually high groundwater levels. It occurs as excess water emerging at the ground surface, or within manmade structures such as basements. Groundwater flooding tends to be more persistent than surface water flooding, in some cases lasting for weeks or months and can result in damage to property. This risk of groundwater flooding depends on the nature of the geological strata underlying the site, as well as on the local topography. Given the underlying geology, local flood risk records, and topography of the site, we conclude that the development has a low risk of groundwater flooding.

4.6 Reservoirs Flood Risk NRW flood risk mapping indicated that there is no risk of flooding to the site as a result of reservoir failure.

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

5 Detailed Fluvial Flood Risk Assessment

5.1 Hydraulic modelling availability NRW’s flood modelling of the study area dates from 2012 (Lower Tawe Hydraulic Model). Due to the age and performance of this model NRW no longer regard it as suitable for site specific assessments. In August 2019, JBA Consulting submitted to NRW updated fluvial flood modelling for the area. This modelling was undertaken for a Flood Consequence Assessment at a site in Clase Road, Swansea (ref: 2019/1645/FUL) and was subsequently accepted by NRW. The 2019 JBA flood modelling is based on best available data and current methods. It is therefore considered suitable to inform this FCA. Details of the updated flood model and results are summarised in the following section.

5.2 JBA Flood Model Updates (2019) Hydraulic Modelling The existing NRW 2012 Tawe model was reviewed by JBA for its fitness in determining flood risk at the proposed development site and its conformance with current guidelines and best practice. Consequently, a range of updates were made to the flood model that are described in the following section. The Tawe model hydrology was also updated and now reflects current climate change guidance. The model was simulated using a more recent version of TUFLOW (2018-03-AC). The following updates and checks were made to the Tawe model to ensure it appropriately estimates the flood risk at the site of interest: • The inflow at the upstream extent of the model was updated with the updated hydrology. An intervening area inflow was placed from the upstream extent of the River Tawe to its confluence with the Nant-y-Fendrod. This evenly distributed the flow across these nodes. • The model run time was increased to 20 hours to ensure the full extent of flooding was captured by the model. • The downstream boundary of the model was represented by a constant level of 4.5mAOD as was previously modelled in 2012. This represented the peak Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) at Swansea Bay and represents a conservative approach. The MHWS value was checked against the Mumbles tidal gauged to ensure it was still valid, which it was. For the 1% AEP plus climate change simulation the downstream boundary was increased by 1.092m to 5.592mAOD to represent the predicted rise in sea level over 100 years. • A site-specific topographic survey of the proposed development site has been incorporated into the model to represent the baseline flood risk to the proposed development site.

5.3 Hydrology The updated hydrology recommended a storm duration of 12.5 hours for the River Tawe. The NRW model applied QMED to the Nant-y-Fendrod and Nant-y-Bran flows, regardless of what event was simulated on the River Tawe. This approach has been maintained in the updated modelling. A summary of 1% AEP, 1% AEP plus climate change and 0.1% AEP peak inflows for the Tawe can be seen in Table 5-1. The small difference in the 1% AEP plus climate change can be attributed to more data being available in the newer hydrology estimation. The allowance for climate change has also been updated from 20% to 30%. The large difference seen in the 0.1% AEP event can be attributed to a number of factors, including: • An update in software (ReFH in the original modelling, ReFH2 in the update) • More local data available to improve the flow estimation (Ynystanglws gauging station, see FEH calculation record for more details) • More national data available to improve flow estimation (WINFAP v4 and pooling groups).

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

Table 5-1 Comparison of peak inflows on the River Tawe Tawe01 Original Updated Hydrology m3/s Hydrology m3/s 1% AEP plus 707 734 Climate Change 0.1& AEP 1112 895

The Tawe flows were checked to ensure they were accurately modelled at the downstream extent. Comparing the check flow at the TAWE01 with the modelled flows during the 1% AEP plus climate change shows a small decrease of approximately 34m3/s. This reduction in flow is due to the attenuating effect of the model, when water spills out of bank around Swansea Vale Road.

5.4 Baseline Model Results

5.4.1 1% AEP + Climate Change Figure 5-1 shows the predicted 1% plus climate change fluvial flood depths. During this event, the site is predicted to remain flood free with the River Tawe largely staying in bank and not overtopping the flood defences.

Figure 5-1 1% AEP + CC Baseline Predicted Flood Depths

5.4.2 0.1% AEP Event Figure 5-2 shows the predicted flood depths for the 0.1% AEP event. The entirety of the proposed development site is predicted to flood, with the majority of the site predicted to DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

flood to depths of over 1m. The main floodwater pathway originates from overtopping downstream of the site, with flood water travelling north to the site as shown in Figure 5-2. The maximum predicted flood depth across the site is 1.4m, with an average depth of approximately 1m. Surrounding roads, including Moorhen Close and Heron Drive are also predicted to flood to considerable depths during this flood event. Water levels remain consistent across the site with a level of 11.24mAOD.

Figure 5-2 0.1% AEP Baseline Predicted Flood Depths

A1.15 of TAN-15 advises that the maximum depth of flooding for exceedance events for commercial development is 0.6m. As large parts of the site exceed this recommended threshold flood mitigation measures are recommended to satisfy the requirements of TAN- 15.

5.5 Post-Development Model Results As a result of the predicted flood depths across the site in the 0.1% AEP event baseline scenario, modest ground raising of approximately 500mm to an average ground level of 10.7mAOD is proposed. As the proposed development site is not predicted to flood in the 1% AEP + climate change event, this event has not been modelled for the post-development scenario.

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

5.5.1 0.1% AEP Event – Post-Development When accounting for post-development changes to the site the maximum predicted flood depths across the site do not exceed 600mm, with a maximum flood depth of 550mm predicted, as shown in Figure 5-3. Predicted water levels across the site range from 11.24 to 11.25 mAOD. A1.15 of TAN-15 advises that the maximum recommended depth of flooding for exceedance events for commercial development is 0.6m. As a result of ground raising to the proposed development site, flood depths across the site comply with the recommended thresholds of TAN-15.

Figure 5-3 0.1% AEP Event Post-Development Predicted Flood Depths

5.6 Third Party Impacts TAN-15 Section 7.3 requires that new development should ensure ‘minimal impact of the proposed development on flood risk generally’. Although TAN-15 provides little guidance on how off-site impacts should be assessed and evaluated, NRW have published guidance on ‘Modelling for Flood Consequence Assessment3’ which provides guidance on the measurable limits of flood models and assessment of off-site impacts. In the 1% AEP plus climate change event the site is not predicted to flood and consequently there is not potential for the development to impact on flood risk elsewhere. Figure 5-4 shows the impact on water depths during the 0.1% AEP event. This shows that there is a very small increase to flood depth on Moorhen Close and the surface water storage area to the immediate south of the proposed development site. Flood depths to these areas are predicted to increase by up to 6mm, with no increase in the frequency or extent of flooding as a result of the proposed development. This change in flood depth is negligible in ———————————————————————————————————————————— 3 Modelling for Flood Consequence Assessments (Ref. GN028). Natural Resources Wales, Jan 2020 DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

the context of the ~1m flood depths predicted in these areas and function of the surface water storage area. The depth comparison analysis also detected small changes of flood depth on the Fendrod catchment to the southeast, however these were some distance from the site and associated with minor model stability issues known to exist with this model.

Figure 5-4 0.1% AEP Depth Comparison Grid

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

6 The Acceptability of Consequences Table 6-1 assesses the proposed re-development against the acceptability requirements required to be met for the development Zone.

Table 6-1 Assessment of accessibility criteria

TAN 15 Justification Criteria Comments Achieved Developer is required to The site is flood-free during Yes demonstrate that the site is the 1% AEP plus climate designed to be flood free for the change event. lifetime [Ref: TAN-15 A1.5] of development for a 1 in 100 (1%) chance (fluvial) flood event including an allowance for climate change in accordance with TAN- 15 table A1.14. The development should be Flood depths on the site in the Yes designed so that in an extreme (1 0.1% AEP event are less than in 1000 chance) event, there 600mm. The model results would be less than 600mm of show a maximum flood depth water on access roads and within of 0.55m in the 0.1% AEP the property. event. No flooding elsewhere. As detailed in Section 5.5, the Yes proposed development site has minimal increase in flood risk elsewhere. In the 0.1% AEP event the adjacent highway, and flood storage area is predicted to experience an increase of 6mm which is considered negligible in the scheme of the development and the significant depths and extents of flooding otherwise experienced in the 0.1% AEP event. Flood defences must be shown by The proposed re-development Yes the developer to be structurally is protected by the presence adequate particularly under of flood defences at the extreme overtopping conditions western boundary of the site. (i.e. that flood with a 1 in 1000 These are recently upgraded chance of occurring in any given NRW flood defences year). maintained to offer protection large areas of Swansea. The developer must ensure that The developer should ensure Yes future occupiers of development future occupiers are aware of are aware of the flooding risks the risk of flooding to the site. and consequences Effective flood warnings are The site is included in within Yes provided at the site the “River Tawe at Swansea Enterprise Park“ flood warning DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

Area. It is recommended that occupants sign up for these flood warnings and alerts. Escape/evacuation routes are During the 0.1% AEP event, Yes shown by the developer to be much of the Llansamlet area operational under all conditions. is predicted to flood to significant depths. However, the proposed site is located only 50m from high ground on the B4625 and the site is served by an effective flood warning system. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the site can be quickly and effectively evacuated before the access and egress becomes impassable in the extreme event. The development is designed by Flooding, should it occur, will Yes the developer to allow the be shallow, but it is occupier of the facility for rapid recommended that the movement of goods/possessions occupier signs up to the NRW to areas away from flood waters. flood warning service so that they are aware of the potential for any flooding. Development is designed to Flooding, should it occur, will Yes minimise structural damage be shallow therefore structural during a flooding event and is damage is very unlikely. flood proofed to enable it to be Resilience measures should be returned to its prime use quickly considered for swift recovery in the aftermath of the flood. following a flood event.

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

7 Conclusions • JBA Consulting were commissioned in March 2021 to prepare a Flood Consequence Assessment (FCA) to support a planning application for the proposed Jaguar Landrover Commercial development at Heron Drive, Llansamlet. • The site is 1.9 hectares in size and is comprised of Greenfield land located within Swansea Enterprise Park. • The proposal is to develop the site for Class B8 (Storage or distribution) use. The site will be comprised of two buildings, the Jaguar Land Rover main sales building and associated valet building located towards the centre of the site, with the remaining area used for car parking • The site is located within Zone C1, as categorised by NRW’s Development Advice Maps. Zone C1 refers to areas of the floodplain served by significant infrastructure, including flood defences. New residential development in C1 must satisfy the Justification Tests of TAN15. • The NRW flood maps show the majority of the site is not at risk of flooding from the sea or reservoir failure. The site has a very low to low risk of flooding from surface water and small watercourses, meaning that most of the site has less than a 1 in 1,000 (0.1% AEP) chance of flooding from this source. • The site has a low risk of flooding from fluvial sources. The River Tawe is located to the west of the site, with a flood embankment and associated footpath forming the western boundary. • Detailed flood modelling shows that the site is flood free during the 1% AEP event with an allowance for climate change. During the 0.1% AEP event, the site is predicted to flood to depths of over 1m. • Modest ground raising to provide average ground levels of 10.7 mAOD has been modelled for the proposed development site. Consequently, during the 0.1% AEP event, the site is predicted to flood to depths of 0.55m. This is within the tolerable limits recommended by A1.15 of TAN-15. • An assessment of third party impacts as a result of the development has been undertaken and demonstrates that the result of ground raising across the site has a negligible impact on flood depths off-site. • An assessment of the Justification Test and Acceptability Criteria has been undertaken, with all aspects found to be satisfied for the site. Therefore, it is concluded that on the grounds of flood risk, the proposed development site is compliant with the aims and objectives of Planning Policy Wales and TAN-15.

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

Appendices A Topographical Survey

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

267650E 267700E 267750E 267800E 267600E SITE SURVEY 267850E 267550E 198750N 198750N

N Land at Heron Drive

17.07 16.72 16.40 16.97 kerb 16.64 15.99 15.65 16.30 Bridge Expansion Joint 15.35 15.88 kerb 15.54 15.05

12.11 rail 15.23 Swansea Vale kerb 14.94 Swansea Enterprise Park asphalt road surface 12.05 16.87 16.54 16.20 15.79 15.46 15.12 14.83 asphalt road surface 14.49 14.18 13.96 16.78 16.45 G 13.71 kerb 16.12 G G 16.88 16.54 15.71 kerb 15.37 13.45 16.94 asphalt footpath 16.22 15.03 G S1 S2 CTV 15.82 15.47 14.74 13.21 rail 16.98 16.62 conc wall asphalt footpath 15.32 15.17 BT kerb 14.40 G 16.27 14.87 14.08 15.98 15.82 MHCL 14.53 asphalt road surface 12.95 12.06 12.20 rail 15.52 13.85 G Notes: 12.00 asphalt footpath 15.23 13.61 13.77 crash barrier 14.21 13.60 15.63 15.33 15.01 S3 grass LP 13.98 12.70 15.76 LP 13.73 13.35 footpath under overhead road bridge 14.62 kerb Swansea Vale 14.58 14.07 13.47 13.10 G S5.5 15.59 CTV asphalt footpath 14.32 12.45 grass G1.1 grass grass 15.85 RS 14.69 13.83 S4 grass 13.22 12.83 14.05 15.77 14.36 12.24 15.93 15.59 S4.5 crash barrier 14.12 13.33 12.95 12.58 G top of embankment 15.37 15.13 13.57 LP Survey Grid 13.63 13.88 15.46 G0.9 S5.0 asphalt footpath 12.70 15.15 G1.0 MHCL13.25 13.06 12.03 15.88 top of embankment 15.08 kerb 12.34 S30 15.92 15.28 14.89 crash barrier 12.47 15.71 14.75 13.61 13.36 12.80 15.50 S53 15.38 12.46 11.86 Plane grid related to National Grid at survey point S7 15.66 15.31 S4.5 14.13 12.11 G 13.75 13.99 15.47 S3.5 14.65 G0.9 14.01 13.10 grass 12.43 12.99 15.13 14.97 G0.7 14.49 S4.5 S5.0 12.25 14.23 S1.5 15.06 14.17 13.81 12.85 asphalt footpath 12.58 11.70 12.34 14.61 14.86 G0.9 G1.0 11.94 c/l mature hedge G0.3 14.73 14.67 :267804.098mE, 198706.880mN, 10.538m 12.71 S2.0 S4.0 S4.0 S4.5 G0.8 14.25 S3.0 14.49 12.61 12.06 G0.4 G0.8 S3.0 S3.5 top of embankment 14.20 14.13 13.52 crash barrier 12.34 S5 MHCL12.28 G0.9 G0.6 S3.5 14.16 13.64 G0.7 12.71 11.75 G 11.52 14.07 S1.5 G0.6 G0.7 G0.7 14.00 S3.5 S3.0 12.16 S4.0 S1.0 13.84 S51 G0.7 LP 11.88 grass S6.5 G0.3 S4.0 G0.8 G0.2 13.25 S5.0 13.14 12.38 S2.0 14.12 G1.3 S3.5 12.99 11.60 G0.4 G0.8 S3.5 G0.7 13.56 13.42 G1.0 11.34 12.94 S6.5 S3.5 G0.7 13.71 13.65 S4.0 11.72 kerb S3.0 G1.3 S4.0 13.53 13.14 12.21 13.88 G0.7 13.15 12.83 13.25 12.85 G0.8 11.97 asphalt road surface G0.6 G0.8 12.95 top of embankment 12.68 11.41 Survey Datum : 13.09 11.83 CTV grass S3.0 12.47 S2.5 12.03 G 11.16 12.93 12.79 S5.5 12.84 12.80 S50 12.50 S3.5 11.54 G0.6 13.18 13.01 G0.5S3.0 S2.5 12.82 12.54 12.82 G0.7 13.49 S2.5 S2.5 11.84 11.58 G1.1 S3.5 S3.5 12.55 11.23 10.79 12.81 S2.0 G0.5 S2.0 G0.6G0.7 G0.5 G0.7 S4.0 S2.0 12.39 asphalt footpath G0.4 G0.5 S3.0 S5.5 11.44 G0.4 11.86 10.92 Related to GPS Datum at survey point S7 13.24 S3.0 S54 G0.4 S3.0 S4.5 S5.0 S4.0 G0.8 S2.0 11.64 11.36 kerb 13.14 S2.5 12.04 G0.6 G1.1 12.40 10.98 13.24 G0.6 S2.5 11.29 G0.6 S3.0 G0.9 G1.0 12.03 G0.8 S2.5 12.41 G0.4 G0.5 S2.0 S2.5 S2.5 G0.5 S2.0 S5.5 11.05 G0.6 G0.5 S4.5 10.91 G0.4 G0.5 S2.5 S2.0 10.73 10.58 S3.5 S3.5 S5.0 S6.0 11.69 S3.0 12.45 G0.9 11.70 11.45 11.06 10.66 13.06 G0.5 G0.5 S5.5 G1.1 10.62 G0.7 S4.0 G1.2 S4.0 S2.0 10.79 G0.5 G0.4 S2.5 G0.7 G0.8G1.0 G0.8 G0.6 G 10.78 13.19 S2.0 S2.5 G1.1 S3.5 10.60 S4.5 S5.0 S2.5 G0.4 S2.0 LP 11.19 10.84 S2.0 G0.4 S2.0 S2.5 G0.5 10.37 10.39 G0.5 S4.0 kerb 13.20 12.60 G0.5 S4.5 G0.7 S3.5 G0.9 G1.0 10.55 G0.4 10.77 13.17 G0.5 S4.5 Bot of embankment G0.8 S3.5 d.kerb G0.4 G0.4 12.46 11.52 S4.5 S4.5 G0.7 S5.0 11.50 10.89 S2.5 G0.9 9.95 ditch G0.7 G1.0 11.29 S6 10.65 13.03 grass 13.10 12.90 12.65 S2.5 S2.5 G0.9 10.40 top of embankment 11.96 tact 10.51 G0.5 12.06 S3.0 S3.0 10.30 S2.5 S2.0 S4.0 11.02 G0.5 G0.5S2.5 G0.6 10.37 10.32 approx ditch location S2.0 11.35 kerb 13.0 11.60 G0.4 10.41 11.91 10.68 10.63 S2.0 G0.5 G0.6 G0.5 10.33 G0.8 tact

bench 12.56 G0.4 S2.5 S2.5 10.30 S2.5 10.39 S4.5 9.85 ditch 10.09 G0.4 10.24 13.19 12.0 S2.0 10.12 grass 10.36 S19 13.11 12.41 G0.5 G0.5 10.40 G0.9 10.74 d.kerb 10.63 Surveyed By: S2.5 11.0 10.30 10.37 S3.5 G0.5 G0.4 11.81 11.12 Sheet 1 of 1 P.M.S. S2.0 S4.5 10.14 S2.0 S3.0 G0.5 S3.5 S4.5 10.27 G0.7 10.07 S4.0 10.87 G 10.51 S7 MH 10.46 G0.4 G0.7 G0.9 ditch 10.26

S2.5 G0.4 G0.6 G0.9 10.36 S3.5 10.46 11.78G0.8 11.15

13.15 S3.0 10.13 11.82 11.70 Swansea Valeasphalt road surface G0.5 12.24 10.0 10.52 LP S2.0 12.39 G0.7 S2.0 10.60 RS G0.4 S2.0 10.95 10.30 S3.5 G0.6 10.99 10.49 13.16 10.95 10.16 10.17 G0.4 10.41 10.64 12.97 G0.4 S2.5 G0.7 S3.5 10.15 11.47 10.73 10.37 13.03 10.54 11.81 S4.0 11.03 G0.5 S3.5 S2.0 kerb Bol 10.42 G0.7 10.64 G0.8 10.30 Datum Drawn By: P.M.S. 12.48 G0.7 S3.0 10.32 G0.4 S3.0 asphalt footpath kerb ditch in this area - unable to survey 11.71 G 10.05 G0.6 10.11 G0.6 grass 10.17 12.77 11.19 10.95 10.36 10.15 S2.5 10.21 S3.0 due to extreme dense vegatation 10.82 MHCL10.76 10.44 G0.5 S3.5 S2.0 S1.5 10.16 G0.6 11.68 G0.3 S3.5 10.42 S4.0 11.24 10.56 G G0.7 G0.4 S2.0 S3.0 G0.7 S4.5 S4.0 10.86 11.74 10.73 G0.4 S2.5 G0.6 11.58 G0.8 Date of Survey: 12.08 S3.0 G0.5 10.33 G0.9 G0.8 d.kerb S2.5 10.16 S3.5 S2.5 12.89 G0.6 G0.7 10.48 G0.5 10.67 tact 10.24 kerb 198700N S4.0 G0.5 10.18 S2.5 10.25 Ridge Level 21.03 198700N 13.03 12.13 S2.5 10.11 S3.0 See Notes Above for Datum G0.5 G0.8 MHCL10.69 G0.5 9.98 10.70 10.52 10.36 S3.5 S3.5 S2.5 G0.6 S4.5 top of embankmentS4.5 13.03 10.31 10.04 10.09 G0.9 G0.9 G0.7 10.00 G0.7 G0.5 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation S2.5 9.98 LP 12.91 11.43 10.86 10.33 11.43 BT S5.0 9.98 S2.5 10.96 10.05 10.13 G0.5 10.58 10.48 June 2020 grass G0.5 G1.0 9.99 10.22 10.31 9.86 12.55 S2.5 9.93 10.31 approx countours only 12.48 11.56 S2.5 S2.0 S4.5 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation 10.10 10.19 G0.5 10.81 S1.5 S2.0 10.10 G0.9 S4.5 G0.5 G0.4 10.22 10.02 top of embankment S2.5 S3.0 G0.3 S56 G0.4 S3.0 G0.9 10.44 G North Point Approximate S3.5 G 9.92 G0.5 G0.6 9.93 S3.0 S2.5 G0.6 11.03

S5.0 10.08 S5.0 G0.7 G0.5 10.34 9.78

S2.5 10.96 G0.6 10.0 Scale: S2.5 10.0 S3.5 G1.0 G0.5 10.02 G1.0 9.97 11.18 10.38 1:500 G0.5 G0.7 10.96 12.76 S2.5 11.01 kerb G0.5 10.25 asphalt footpath G 12.92 S4.5 grass 9.91 11.39 G0.9 10.05 S2.5 10.34 11.66 10.63 S3.5 S3.0 S3.0 10.99 10.01 10.11 9.79 12.96 G0.7 G0.5 10.15 Client: 12.88 10.05 S3.0 G0.6 G0.6 9.98 10.14 approx Bot of bank position S4.5 9.92 9.87 Survey Job No. 12.36 G0.6 S3.5 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation G0.9 10.24 S3.5 G0.7 top of embankment10.64 10.29 kerb 9.48 MHCL10.23 9.74 G0.7 10.17 10.00 12.74 11.18 S3.5 10.13 10.05 LP G G 12.14 G0.7 S2.5 10.27 10.74 10.22 10.12 S3.5 S2.5 10.20 G0.5 10.26 10.04 9.90 G0.5 Jones Brothers G0.7 10.34 10.54 S2.5 10.16 approx interpolated level 12.93 11.42 G0.5 10.81 10.25 S3.5 S4.0 9.87 SS-1154_2D 10.20 S3.0 G0.8 11.20 11.0 10.01 9.89 12.97 10.28 G0.7 10.15 G0.6 S5.0 10.14 12.90 G1.0 10.53 10.19 S2.5 10.20 10.02 10.89 10.23 10.72 10.68 asphalt road surface 12.68 12.34 S6.0 S2.5 S2.0 G0.5 10.21 G0.4 10.25 S3.0 10.04 10.01 9.95 G0.5 9.82 G1.2 S3.0 G0.6 approx countours only 10.14 10.00

10.14 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation 10.01 Revisions: 10.19 G0.6 approx countours only 10.50 kerb 10.23 S4.5 10.00

S55 tactile 12.68 S2.0 S2.5 10.05 LP 11.59 10.21 G0.9 d.kerb 9.96 11.12 S2.0 S2.0 G0.4 10.13 G0.5 S2.0 10.26 10.22 10.64 kerb 10.08 S6.0 S2.5 10.52 G0.4 10.64 MHCL10.09 G1.2 10.31 9.92 12.90 12.59 G0.5 10.75 S1.5 S2.0 10.28 S3.5 grass S2.0 G0.4 G0.7 S2.5 9.20 10.04 10.00 tactile

G0.3 S2.5 S3.0 10.32 d.kerb 10.16 12.91 S2.0 10.08 G0.5 G0.4 G tactile d.kerb d.kerb 12.83 G0.4 S1.5 10.09 G0.5 S2.5 G0.6 MHCL10.10 10.14 G 10.60 9.96 A G0.3 10.28 10.28 G0.5 9.89 tactile 11.13 S2.5 10.20 RS S2.5 10.07 G G0.5 10.20

G0.5 S2.5 10.19 G

S3.0 9.87 S2.0 9.76 S2.5 10.04 10.06

12.81 G0.4 G0.6 G0.5 10.01 9.99 12.0 G0.5 approx interpolated level 11.02 S2.5 S2.5 10.08 10.06 10.24 G0.5 10.17 10.00 10.10 G0.5 10.0 10.20 10.28 12.61 kerb 12.09 S2.5 10.85 10.74 10.85 10.21 10.24 12.82 G0.5 10.07 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation S2.5 RS 12.74 S18 G0.5 10.11 9.62 S3.0 approx Bot of bank position 9.94 B 10.06 CTV 10.13 G0.6 9.99 10.49 11.92 S4.0 10.19 10.20 10.73 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation G0.8 grass 12.67 10.91 10.19 10.16

10.08 9.94 kerb

top of embankment 10.74 12.67 11.06 9.99 asphalt footpath 10.79 CTV 12.57 12.25 11.66 S2.5 11.18 G0.5 10.74 LP 10.23 9.47 approx interpolated level 10.33 10.19 10.06 C 10.19

grass 9.97 10.69 10.23 10.74 10.25 10.23 9.98 grass kerb 10.92 S3.0 12.05 10.41 G0.6 10.74 E.Box 11.19 S3.5

9.91 9.20 10.44 11.54 G0.7 10.23 10.37 S3.5 10.0 12.58 S1.5 S2.0 10.32 G0.7 10.33 10.20 G0.3 10.56 G0.4 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation 11.17 12.56 BT 10.02 10.74 10.31 D 10.23 12.46 11.47 S1.5 G0.3 10.67 10.01 9.97 9.91 G. S8 10.22

asphalt footpath 10.64 10.28 S1.5 9.90 10.34 11.0 10.02 G0.3 9.76 10.57 G. BT 12.54 S3.5 S2.5 10.25 10.01 9.43 grass 12.13 11.17 G0.7 G0.5 10.01 11.22 11.52 S2.5 10.03 top of embankment 10.63S3.010.28 G0.5 S2.5 9.97 10.41 9.72 retention mound S4.5 G0.6 S4.0 G0.5 S1.5 10.29 10.43 9.92 9.97 9.82 G0.9 S2.5 G0.8 G0.3 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation 9.82 12.52 11.82 S2.5 10.23 10.02 10.03 10.06 E 12.52 S3.0 G0.5 12.42 G0.5 S3.5 9.89 9.78 kerb G0.6 S2.5 S3.5 9.90 S3.0 10.05 grass G0.7 9.85 asphalt road surface 12.23 11.34 S4.0 10.00 ICCL10.48 G0.8 G0.5 G0.7 10.29 G0.6 Heron Drive 10.49 S3.0 G0.8 S1.5 S4.0 S3.0 G0.6 S17 grass G0.3 9.84 9.82 10.39 12.49 S4.5 S2.5 10.64 S2.5 G0.6 10.00 9.98 9.93 10.08 G0.9 10.89 G0.5 S2.0 S4.0 MHCL10.53 G0.5 10.06 S1.5 10.46 G0.4 G0.8 9.79 10.0 10.08 10.35 S2.5 rough grass 9.91 10.57 10.31 12.47 12.21 S3.5 S3.0 9.97 G0.3 10.44 ICCL10.51 11.56 G0.7 G0.5 S2.0 G0.6 10.07 10.09 10.02 10.11 12.35 S4.5 G0.4 S2.5 S5.0 9.76 9.78 Legend: S4.0 S3.0 9.84 10.14 10.66 10.52 10.0 G1.0 12.12 11.29 G0.9 G0.5 11.37 G0.8 G0.6 S2.5 S2.5 9.91 G0.5 10.08 9.96 9.89 198650N G0.5 S2.5 S41 10.65 198650N 10.09 9.93 9.98 S6.0 11.01 10.03 G0.3 S2.5 S2.5 9.92 9.79 d.kerb S2.5 S4.5 9.78 9.88 10.49 G1.2 G0.5 S5.0 10.36

G0.5 G0.5 G0.9 10.12 9.94

12.15 G1.0 10.55

12.40 10.39 9.90 Spot Level +123.562

10.0 10.18 10.0 12.0 10.01 S2.0 9.79 rough grass 10.52 S2.0 9.96 Manhole shown thus MH S3.5 G0.4 9.81 LP Cover Level CL 112.335 10.04 G0.4 10.14 9.90 12.44 G0.7 10.20 S2.0 10.04 11.19 10.43 S2.5 10.27 Inspection Cover IC 12.33 G0.4 S2.0 Invert Level IL 111.733 10.12 10.68 11.48 G0.5 S3.0 10.14 10.35

11.43 10.08 S2.5 G0.4 10.73

G0.6 10.46 10.55 Lamphole O LH S2.5 10.0 G0.5 Foul Drain S2.5 S2.5 S26 G0.5 10.21 10.18 12.33 G0.5 10.43 10.01 10.27 S4.0 G0.5 S2.5 S3.0 G0.8 10.06 10.00 grass Gully G Surface Water 12.41 S2.5 G0.6 S2.5 10.24 S40 G0.5 10.35 G0.5

12.32 12.17 10.26 kerb o 10.31 retention mound Lampost LP

G0.5 S2.5 S6.0 10.12 S2.0 10.32 9.98 Unknown Service Serv 11.06 G0.5 10.0 RS G1.2 10.13 10.06 10.34 G0.4

10.24 S3.0 S2.0 kerb Telegraph Post o TP 10.13 Survey Station 11.92 G0.6 G0.4 S2.0 S1 S2.5 S2.5 S42 G0.4 10.07 10.65 Electricity Poles EP 10.24 10.58 o 10.99 G0.5 G0.5 10.40 10.49 Floor Level 10.43 10.27 10.26 10.37 FL 10.907 S6.0 S3.0 S2.5 10.33 10.35 11.31 10.43 S6.0 10.38 10.74 Road Traffic Signs o RS G1.2 G0.6 G0.5 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation 10.33 S2.5 10.37 10.01 Height floor to structural soffit SS 2.87 12.31 S3.0 G1.2 10.38 G0.5 10.16 10.39 Traffic Lights o TL G0.6 10.40 10.23 10.52 12.33 10.93 10.60 Height floor to false ceiling FC 2.22 12.10 10.35 S2.5 10.32 12.14 11.74 10.02 10.01 G0.5 10.21 10.21 S2.0 10.28 S2.5 S2.5 10.31 British Telecom BT Height floor to sill S 0.67 S5.5 G0.4 10.15 10.39 G0.5 G0.5 10.32 rough grass S2.5 G1.1 9.99 G0.5 10.70 9.92 Cable Television CATV 12.23 10.09 S3.0 10.38 10.35 Height of window W 1.23 S2.5 grass 11.50 G0.6 10.32 asphalt footpath Fire Hydrant FH

G0.5 10.19 11.0 Height of Door D 1.98 10.21 10.05 10.33 11.16 11.87 10.08 10.48 10.01 G S16 10.45 10.33 10.33 Safety Valve SV S2.5 10.36 10.14 Height floor to underside 12.10 S2.5 10.38 G0.5 G0.5 Stopcock Water SCW S3.0 10.89 S3.0 dense vegatation 10.64 G of Beam US 3.61 10.55

12.27 S2.5 G0.6 10.52 G0.6 10.46 12.29 12.17 10.33 Stopcock Gas Gas G0.5 S3.0 11.14 rough grass 10.39 Fall Pipe FP 10.31 11.17 S3.0 G0.6 G0.6 11.99 S2.5 approx countours only 10.02 10.14 10.35 10.41 Unknown Stoptap ST Sky Light SL 12.22 G0.5 10.34 S3.0 11.63 10.13 10.47 11.08 10.21 S2.5 S3.5 10.31 MB G0.6 S2.5 G0.5 G0.7 10.53 10.37 10.08 10.55 Water Closet WC S3.5 10.20 10.11 S3.0 10.14 10.52 S2.5 G0.5 10.05 10.08 10.26 G0.5 10.28 S5.0 G0.7 G0.6 S1.5 10.43 10.11 Vent V S2.5 G0.3 10.51 10.42 G1.0 11.08 10.13 S3.5 10.05 10.07 S2.5 G0.5 G0.7 10.10 10.05 10.05 10.37 Tree with spread and Girth G0.5 Sink S

S2.5 S3.0 11.08 S3.0 S4.0 10.27 12.22

12.28 10.24 12.30 11.08 G0.5 G0.6 S3.0 G0.6 S2.5 S3.0 G0.8 S4.0 Kerb 12.26 12.03 10.18 G0.6 10.09 G0.5 G0.6 10.51 G0.8 10.05 10.35 10.09 10.23 S2.5 10.21 S23 10.42 Hedge 10.20 G0.5 S3.5 10.42 S2.5 10.53 10.06 G0.7 10.07 10.05 10.51 top of embankment 10.16 10.05 11.24 10.45 G0.5 10.38 Surface Edge 10.26

12.25 12.35 S4.5 G0.9 S2.5 10.21 Embankment S2.5 10.35 10.33 Fence 12.35 12.02 G0.5 10.27 G0.5 10.34 10.27 bot of embankment 10.13 10.39

10.11 10.0

top of embankment 9.85 10.0 10.08 10.47 Gate S1.5 S1.5 S4.5 G0.3 G0.9 10.26 Pressure Pad E.Box unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation10.23 G0.3 9.96

12.37 10.22 12.0 10.10 10.07 10.36

12.39 12.30 9.99 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation 10.05 S1.5 grass 12.34 12.17 G0.3 10.02 10.06 10.04 kerb 10.08 9.98 LP 10.13 10.18 9.82 10.13 10.02 S3.0 kerb

G0.6 10.31 10.26 11.13 Survey Station Schedule grass 10.08 10.13 S3.5 10.02 10.01 S3.5 S3.5 G0.7 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation 10.38 10.20 S3.0 10.13 G0.7 11.64 S3.0 G0.7 10.13 G0.6 10.13 10.08 S1.5 10.17 10.26 12.14 10.32 G0.6 10.34 10.32 10.24 G0.3 S2.5 10.20 S3.0 S3.0 10.20 10.04 S1.5 S2.5 G0.5 S2.5 10.00 G0.6 10.14 G0.5 G0.6 G0.5 12.40 12.32 approx countours only G0.3

12.37 10.01 ICCL10.27 12.41 S3.0 10.32 S2.0 S3.0 S22 S3.0 G0.6 G asphalt footpath G0.4 G0.6 11.64 10.13 10.19 G0.6 S3.5 S2.5 Station Easting Northing Level retention mound 10.07 G 12.37 10.12 ICCL10.27 12.30 12.20 S3.5 10.32 G0.7 G0.5 G0.7 approx countours only 10.27

10.03 10.14 10.14 10.14 Eaves Level 17.24 10.08 10.0 10.19 grass S3.0 S4.5 10.24 10.11 9.98 S1 267584.424 198730.469 16.787 grass S15 G0.6 10.30 G0.9 S2.5 S2.5 G0.5 10.06 12.29 10.31 10.39 G0.5 10.31 Pillar Box 12.23 10.24 10.03 10.08 9.98 11.0 S2.0 10.10 10.29 9.95 10.17 S2.5 G0.4 10.15 10.13 10.04 S2 267603.626 198729.895 16.023 12.35 10.43 10.27 G0.5 10.16 10.13 11.21 12.05 10.08 12.29 12.37 10.30 198600N 12.24 10.12 9.93 198600N

S1.5 10.15 10.12 10.0 S3 267634.475 198728.004 14.886 10.22 10.12

G0.3 10.08 10.24 S2.0 S21 10.08 12.35 S2.5 G0.4 S2.0 10.20 Pillar Box G0.5 G0.4 10.24 10.17 10.24 10.18 S4 267670.140 198725.828 13.665 11.94 S2.0 S3.0 10.11 10.38 10.21 11.15 10.05 10.12 10.26 G0.6 S2.5 G0.4 S2.0 10.17 10.13 9.98 12.17 G0.5 S2.5 G0.4 S1.5 10.16 10.18 9.86 12.03 10.04 G0.5 S2.5 S3.5 G0.3 S5 267716.099 198719.441 12.281

12.26 12.37 10.13 11.12 9.93 12.37 G0.7 S2.0 G0.5 10.24 10.13 gravel 9.95 G0.4 9.86 10.32 10.33 10.13 9.98 10.15 10.23 10.42 S2.0 10.32 10.15 10.08 9.93 S2.0 10.07 12.14 12.01 11.82 G0.4 10.22 unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation G0.4 S3.5 10.23 10.01 9.96 grass S6 267759.104 198709.795 11.270 10.33 10.11 11.89 gravel track G0.7 10.23 S1.5 10.18 10.24 G0.3 9.91 10.15 12.36 10.09 10.78 S2.5 LP 12.10 10.20 9.99 10.45 G0.5 S3.0 10.0 S9 11.78 S1.5 G0.6 S20 10.03 S3.0 10.13 S3.5 S7 267804.098 198706.880 10.538 11.96 10.38 G0.3 asphalt road surface 12.25 11.68 G0.6 10.19 G0.7 kerb 10.23 10.16 11.03 12.34 S4.5 10.14 10.19

12.31 11.73 11.49 10.05 G0.9 10.02 9.97 kerb 11.97 S3.0 10.23 10.08 10.23 10.15 9.92 10.02 S8 267825.302 198661.330 10.426 G0.6 Ridge Level 21.03 S3.5 S3.0 10.07 10.13 9.80 11.45 10.14 10.92 10.02 9.91 G0.7 G0.6 11.54 12.0 S2.5 9.88 S3.0 11.69 10.07 10.17

G0.5 9.94 12.09 10.13 9.81 Eaves Level 17.24 G0.6 9.94 9.95 S9 267803.830 198590.092 10.077 12.17 S3.5 dense vegatation 10.01 12.31 11.19 9.85 S3.0 G0.7 10.18 10.13 10.07 10.07 10.16 10.13 G G0.6 BT S3.0 11.18 S2.5 10.21 S3.0 S2.5 10.01 11.31 10.33 G0.5 10.06 asphalt footpath 11.87 G0.6 10.14 G0.6 9.94 G0.5 S3.0 9.98 9.90 S3.0 G0.6 9.86 10.02 S10 267777.807 198534.542 11.142 G0.6 11.37 post 11.69 12.27 S3.0 10.09 9.84 10.08 12.27 9.96 grass 12.32 G0.6 10.87 10.33 10.32 10.16 10.02 12.14 10.13 10.09 11.02 LP S11 267749.742 198532.086 11.747 S5.0 9.95 9.96 10.24 10.11 10.15 G1.0 10.09 9.84 9.96 10.09 10.01 S3.5 10.69 10.59 10.42 10.36 LP G0.7 10.13 9.89 9.96 10.60 9.87 10.30 10.17 10.08 retention mound 12.04 9.99

grass gravel track 10.04 9.86 S12 267719.358 198561.526 10.237 10.68 kerb S3.0 S4.5 9.98 10.77 asphalt footpath10.49 G0.6 G0.9 10.0 10.08 10.03 kerb 10.11 10.10 post 11.40 10.62 post 10.60 10.35 10.11 10.09 10.02 asphalt footpath S4.0 S2.5 10.47 10.11 kerb G0.8 11.75 G0.5 10.50 10.18 10.00

12.16 dense vegatation unable to access due to extreme dense vegatation 10.04 10.03 12.20 11.0 10.66 10.11 S13 267697.662 198568.169 10.028 12.29 S4.5 10.52 9.911 S4.5 10.19 10.17 12.27 grass 10.07 10.10 G0.9 10.06 G0.9 10.39 10.30 10.08 rough grass 10.07 top of embankment 10.14 11.92 10.25 11.64 gate kerb Heron Drive S3.0 10.52 10.18 10.14 11.15 S14 267672.470 198571.896 10.504 G0.6 10.26 10.11 9.97 S25 12.09 S14 10.04 10.23 10.10 asphalt road surface 10.07 post S3.5 10.26 9.92 10.26 10.08 12.18 G0.7 10.01 9.95

11.99 MHCL10.18

11.90 post 9.98 S15 267651.291 198603.730 12.361 11.90 10.0 S2.5 10.04 10.40 10.26 9.95 11.25 S3.5 G0.5 10.49 10.21 dense vegatation 10.39 10.09 10.00 G0.7 S3.0 10.18 10.17 10.07 10.09 10.04 grass 9.95 12.22 10.07 G0.6 9.96 12.29 10.35 S13 10.17 12.31 Moorhen Close grass 10.36 10.11 10.02 S16 267650.377 198633.770 12.291 12.23 12.04 10.12 10.31 10.04 S3.5 10.48 10.21 S2.0 11.90 11.62 10.44 G G0.7 kerb 10.32 10.19 G0.2 retention mound 10.05 10.21

10.24LP asphalt footpath 10.78 10.37

10.57 grass 10.24 10.25 10.15 10.10 10.02 LP S17 267634.322 198655.148 12.505 10.30 9.97 10.0 10.07 10.01 dense vegatation 10.29 10.38 10.01 BT 10.17 rough grass 10.49 10.64 asphalt footpath 10.24 10.24 10.07 10.04 G 10.83 10.05 10.48 BT 10.17 G kerb 10.15 10.75 10.06 LP mound 10.08 grass S18 267621.341 198674.384 12.793 10.46 10.16 10.03 11.56 kerb 10.63 grass 10.17 10.31 S12 rough grass 9.99 10.07 10.53 10.52 10.29 RS 9.96 10.59 10.16 10.39 10.13 11.06 10.26 10.11 10.23 10.51 10.19 BT S19 267599.671 198707.589 13.236 10.08 10.09 asphalt road surface 10.38 10.05 10.40 retention mound 11.76 10.32 12.20 10.10 grass S2.5 10.66 10.54 10.25 10.11 9.96 10.11 retention mound 10.23 10.05 asphalt footpath 10.76 G0.5 10.44 10.02 10.16 10.49 12.07 kerb kerb 10.36 kerb G 10.17 10.52 asphalt footpath S20 267694.020 198589.796 10.118 10.14 10.34 11.71 10.42 10.50 10.33 10.05 asphalt road surface 10.02 10.65 retention mound G 10.69 tact grass 10.07 9.90 10.06 10.70 asphalt road surface 11.94 10.18 10.04 10.04 10.58 10.39 10.39 S2.0 11.61 10.44 10.09 d.kerb 10.51 10.53 10.17 G0.2 10.98 11.49 11.00 12.14 11.49 10.66 S21 267683.996 198599.708 10.278 10.13 10.53 ICCL10.43 10.41 9.96 10.48 10.36 10.28 11.22 G 10.25 10.03 grass 10.43 10.49 10.38 10.48 grass 10.00 9.84 10.27 10.67 Bol 10.58 d.kerb 10.26 mound 9.97 Bol 10.33 LP tact 11.87 9.93 10.08 10.52 10.50 10.42 grass 10.20 G d.kerb 10.48 10.33 10.23 9.82 10.54 10.44 asphalt footpath 11.09 10.57ICCL10.51

10.41 d.kerb 10.39 10.00 9.96 10.38 tact kerb 10.53 G 10.55 198550N 11.81 10.29 10.19 11.01 10.43 198550N 10.10 9.92 9.83 10.56 9.91 10.11 10.44 10.17 kerb 10.32 10.31 ICCL10.29 11.55 10.46 10.50 10.10 9.99 10.36 10.46 9.87 10.35 9.95 G asphalt road surface 10.25 10.48 retention mound 10.01 10.23 11.77 10.30 grass kerb 9.91 10.47 LP 10.17 10.44 SU 9.84 10.42 LP Moorhen Close 10.12 9.97 10.10 10.03 10.27 11.03 10.43 10.57 R 10.16 9.93 10.34 R 11.67 10.17 10.07 9.82 10.41 10.40 grass G 10.45 10.23 asphalt footpath 9.94 10.32 10.20 10.36 10.53 11.54 10.17 10.92 10.38 10.36 10.05 11.59 10.31 V 10.46 grass 10.27 10.25 11.59 O 9.83 LP 10.04 kerb 10.11 10.08 10.32 10.29 10.39 10.36 10.05 9.95 kerb paviours 9.87 retention mound 10.32 10.40 10.43 grass I 10.09 11.72 10.08 10.00 10.31 kerb 11.61 10.28 10.45 10.08 10.11 10.78 10.29 E 10.08 10.20 retention mound 10.42 10.09 10.09 9.90 10.23 10.84 10.20 10.85 10.16 10.01 10.25 11.78 RS grass 10.35 10.22 10.10 ICCL10.22 10.30 RS 10.36 10.33 10.18 10.24 10.24 LP 10.13 10.09 MHCL11.02 10.41 retention mound 10.72 10.16 10.20 10.98 N 11.61 10.31 10.26 tact 10.33 Y 10.23 10.71 10.97

10.56 10.07 10.91 d.kerb 10.59 11.86 S10 MHCL10.30 10.24

10.63

10.20 10.08 10.19 ICCL10.23 asphalt road surface 11.01 11.87 10.17 10.07 10.21 11.66 10.25 10.11 10.24 grass 10.65 10.52 10.92 MHCL10.75 10.27 kerb E 10.16 11.89 S11 grass 10.22 10.09 10.33 10.54 10.29 10.31 9.96 10.16 10.22 10.84 10.01 10.13 10.83 10.14 asphalt road surface 10.41 RS 10.50 ICCL10.69 10.61 10.21 10.67 10.14 11.48 10.35 10.22 10.12 G

10.31 RS 10.23 10.31

G S 10.46 10.49 S 10.11 10.20 10.15 10.05 10.59 10.56 ICCL10.19 10.11 kerb 10.31 bol tact 11.40 10.26 10.19 10.01 paviours 10.29 10.46 11.91 10.09 kerb 10.07 10.31d.kerb 10.16 10.16 10.19 10.20 LP G 10.43 10.14 10.13

10.28 10.08 10.46 11.72 10.21 10.09 Mallard Way 10.13 10.23 10.32 10.10 10.09 10.24 10.13

10.23 10.07 10.16 10.19 10.11

retention mound asphalt road surface

11.91 10.20 10.34

10.28

10.22 G.

IC 10.09 10.17 10.13 d.kerb 10.05 10.12 10.01 kerb 10.03 kerb 10.25 tact 10.16 10.51 10.17 ICCL10.18 RS grass 10.15 grass 10.30

11.86 kerb 10.12 10.27 ICCL10.22 10.26 tact 10.10 LP

10.11 10.21 10.23 10.33

10.33

tact 10.14 10.03 tact 10.34 10.13 d.kerb 10.08 9.96 10.19 ICCL10.24 10.48 10.06 10.06 10.16 10.20

BT 10.20 10.08 10.26

G. d.kerb tact

11.86 10.07 10.23 10.02 10.25 10.14 10.10 10.02 10.14 LP 9.90

9.98 asphalt road surface 10.02 Eaves Level 16.21 10.29 kerb E.Box 10.00 grass asphalt Groad surface Ridge Level 19.01 Contact Details: Sub-Station 9.93 10.05 10.11

198500N 198500N Phil Senior

Ridge Level 18.79 Unit 1E Chapel Barns

Ridge Level 19.01 Merthyr Mawr Bridgend

Eaves Level 16.21 CF32 0LS Tel: 07853240403 267800E 267750E 267700E 267650E 267600E 267550E 267850E Email: [email protected]

This drawing is copyright.Use or reproduction without prior permission of Senior Surveys Ltd is prohibited,Rights of the title are retained until all invoices are paid in full,Thank you.

B Proposed development layout

DQH-JBAU-XX-XX-RP-Z-0001-S1-P02.02-FCA_Report.docx

Offices at Coleshill Doncaster Dublin Edinburgh Exeter Haywards Heath Isle of Man Limerick Newcastle upon Tyne Newport Peterborough Saltaire Skipton Tadcaster Thirsk Wallingford Warrington

Registered Office 1 Broughton Park Old Lane North Broughton SKIPTON North Yorkshire BD23 3FD United Kingdom

+44(0)1756 799919 [email protected] www.jbaconsulting.com Follow us:

Jeremy Benn Associates Limited

Registered in England 3246693

JBA Group Ltd is certified to: ISO 9001:2015 ISO 14001:2015 ISO 27001:2013 ISO 45001:2018