grip 3 report scarborough bridge - cycle bridge...oct 07, 2017 · 2. north side (from marygate car...

GRIP 3 REPORT

Scarborough Bridge - Cycle Bridge

LNE-148427-EAR-REP-IAB-301REV 04 - FINAL ISSUE 10/07/2017

Prepared for: City of York Council

PROPOSED BRIDGE AND CONNECTING RAMP/PATH ROUTES

The Proposal

Scarborough Bridge GRIP 3 report – Page 02


ContentsExecutive SummaryIntroductionDevelopment of the Selected OptionThe Bridge: 1. Bridge width 2. Option A 3. Option B 4. Bridge Design and Material Specification 5. Proposed Materials 6. Structural Issues Ramp Arrangements 1. South Side (From York Railway Station) 2. North Side (From Marygate Car Park) 3. Ramp ConstructionConstruction Methodology 1. Options (considered and dismissed) 2. Proposed Method of Construction 3. Proposed Plant – Kirow 1200 4. Key Access Locations Geotechnical ConsiderationsLighting of Bridge and Ramps 1. Option 1, 2 and FittingsEnvironmental and Planning Summary and ConclusionAppendix 1. Cost estimates 2. Environmental Report

DATE VERSION ORIGINATOR ISSUED TO COMMENTS

11.05.2017 DRAFT - v 0.1 MARK SHAW PM Issued as DRAFT



16.06.2017 FINAL - v 0.4 MARK SHAW PM Issued for Sign-off10.07.2017 FINAL - v 0.5 MARK SHAW PM Issued for Sign-off (with updated cost estimate)

DATE ENDORSED BY NAME JOB TITLE SIGNATURE


Following the issue of the feasibility / GRIP2 report in 2016, City of York Council (CYC) has now commissioned Network Rail to carry out post feasibility / option selection (GRIP 3) study into the provision of a new cycle/footbridge across the river Ouse adjacent to the existing Scarborough railway bridge YMS/1. The structure would replace the existing footbridge that is currently attached to the east side of the railway bridge.

The proposed upgrade will provide a wider bridge with improved access for over 500 cyclists who currently carry their bikes across the footbridge daily as well as pedestrians, pushchairs and wheelchair users. The proposal also includes for improved and wider links between the riverside paths and the new bridge providing a more direct and convenient links between York station, the off road cycle network and the north side of the river.The proposed bridge and its associated access paths and ramps are all to be restricted to a land area within the ownership of Network rail.

Executive SummaryCYC expressed their preference for Option 2 at the end of the GRIP 2 process. This is based on the simple structural concept of removing the existing footbridge and utilising its support position to accommodate a steel box beam off which the new cycle bridge deck can be cantilevered. Option 1 was dismissed due to the excessive impact loading required on the central pier. Option 3 was dismissed due to its excessive cost and visual impact.Option 2 was considered to be the best balance of aesthetic design, structural simplicity and cost and continues to be the favoured option. Nevertheless a number of substantial issues remained to be resolved during the development of the GRIP 3 process in addition to the ongoing development of the design. These include:• The overall width of the new bridge.• The position of the access steps. • The method of construction

The bearing capacity of the existing bridge abutments and pier have been paramount in both the design and construction methodology of the proposed structure. Nevertheless, the overall design of the bridge has remained robust during the GRIP 3 process and the above issues have all been resolved with the exception of the access steps position. Construction and position of the access ramps has been resolved along with the material choices and construction methodology of the bridge. This has established the principle that the bridge can be constructed from cranes mounted on the railway.

The report concludes with a recommendation that favours Option 2 due to its simplicity and cost, nevertheless the constructability of any bridge in such an inaccessible location will be problematic and will require further investigation during the next stage of design development.

LONG SECTION


IntroductionThe original Railway Bridge over the River Ouse known as Stephenson’s Scarborough Railway Bridge was opened in 1845 and remained in use for almost thirty years. This bridge had a public footpath between two tracks reached by stairs inside each abutment. This bridge was renewed in 1875 using the original abutments and the centre pier although the footpath was retained, it was placed along the east side at its present position and the abutment stairways abandoned. The footbridge has steps both sides limiting access for wheelchairs and cyclists.

In February 2015 Network Rail (NR) completed the deck renewal of the railway bridge YMS/1. Following this, plans to upgrade the attached footbridge received the go ahead with secured funding for the City of York Council (CYC)

along with a West Yorkshire combined Authority bid to the Department for Transport (DfT) for a Cycle City Ambition Grant. A feasibility (GRIP 2) report was commissioned by CYC in June 2015 to look at options for a combined cycle and footbridge based on a defined remit. This was produced by the Network Rail Building and Civils Design Group due to their recent and successful replacement of the railway bridge decks. The report was completed in October 2015(reference: LNE/148427/ECV/DOC/IAB/101 REV2) and should be read in conjunction with this document.

The proposed upgrade will provide a wider bridge and improved access for over 500 cyclists who currently use the

crossing daily as well as pedestrians, push chairs and for the first time the wheelchair users. The plans will also see improved and wider links between the riverside paths and the river crossing, providing a more direct connection to the York station from the off road cycle network.

The GRIP 3 Report focusses on the development of a single option and sets out to resolve all the issues that remain following the GRIP 2 process to confirm the constructability of the bridge. Topographical surveys, Geotechnical analysis, Environmental Issues and methods of construction have all been addressed along with design of the ramps and material specification of the bridge.


Development of the selected optionTHE BRIDGEAs noted in the previous GRIP 2 report conclusion, Option 2 was considered to be the best balance of aesthetic design, structural simplicity and cost and continues to be the favoured option. Nevertheless a number of substantial issues remained to be resolved during the development of the GRIP 3 process in addition to the ongoing development of the design. These are as follows:-• The overall width of the new bridge.• The position of the access steps. • The method of construction

The GRIP 2 Report analyses options for the bridge width based on the requirements and research carried out by ‘Sustrans’. This concluded that a bridge width of 3.5m should be considered a minimum with a maximum bridge width of 4.5m investigated if costs allow.

BRIDGE AS PROPOSED


The BridgeBRIDGE WIDTHAlthough they are 175 years old, the bridge abutments and pier foundations are well documented. Foundation stability and load capacity analysis has been carried out to ascertain the maximum load allowable on these structures. Existing footbridge weighs 17t for one span. The new bridge will weigh circa 28t per span. Footbridge per span exceed by 11t.

PIERThe new footbridge will result in 5.5t increase at pier for one span or 11t for both spans supported at pier. Removal of the central pier stone pilaster (2.56m x 2.67m x 0.45m) will reduce the weight by 5t. Therefore overall increase will be 8t. This is considered an increase of less than 1t per pile. Overall safe capacity of the piles is calculated to be 50t, hence the increase is 2% of total pile capacity and is considered reasonably acceptable.

ABUTMENTSAdditional 5.5t increase in footbridge weight supported on the abutment will be compensated by removal of stone pilasters (6.1m x 2.67m x 0.45m weighing circa 13t per abutment). Hence there will be no load increases at the abutments due to the footbridge.

The design unfortunately requires the removal of the existing abutment and pier parapets on the east elevation to reduce the weight on the foundations. Even with this reduction the weight of the new cycle bridge was found to exceed the capacity of the foundations when the 4.5 metre bridge deck was used, especially due to the eccentric loading. Although it had originally been considered that the provision of the wider bridge deck would be a financial

PROPOSED 3.6M DECK

decision, it has been confirmed that the existing bridge foundations only have the capacity to support a bridge deck of approximately 3.6m in width and therefore this option has been chosen.


The BridgeBRIDGE ACCESS STEPSThe 3.6 metre bridge width is compromised at both ends due to the arrangement of the access steps. Two options have been considered for the access steps as follows.

OPTION AThe first option is to retain the position of the existing access steps which sit to the back of the bridge against the railway fence and are constructed as part of the abutment. The steps will require refurbishment as part of the works and will need to be extended approximately one metre in height to match the deck position of the new bridge. This arrangement has a number of advantages and disadvantages as follows:

ADVANTAGES 1. Allows for the retention of the existing step positions 2. Visually unobtrusive compared with alternative 3. Cheaper to construct 4. Allows for the shortest pedestrian route across the bridge 5. Pedestrians do not step into the path of cycles

DISADVANTAGES 1. Restricts the bridge width down two 2.3m at both ends for about 9 metres. 2. Encourages pedestrian flows to the rail side of the bridge rather than the balustrade overlooking the river as may be favoured by users.

The width restriction to the bridge deck caused by retaining the existing step positions has been raised as an issue by CYC. As illustrated opposite, the restriction reduces the bridge width down to less than 2300mm for about 9metres. This is about 700mm less than the proposed access paths / ramps at either side of the bridge, but is also the same width as the existing Post Office path that will provide access to the bridge from the south side of the river.The widening of the proposed bridge at the pinch point positions has been considered as an option but is structurally awkward having multiple impacts on the proposed structure as follows:• Additional cantilever length beyond the calculated limits of the bridge• Additional weight on the bridge abutments• Visually compromised design• Additional costs for bridge and rampsFurther investigation into this option can be carried out at the next GRIP stage should this be required by CYC. EXISTING STEPS ADAPTED ON STATION SIDE ABUTMENT TO AVOID CLASHES WITH CYCLES ON THE FOOTPATH


The BridgeOPTION BThe second option is two remove the existing steps from both abutments and provide new steps to the bridge on both sides of the river. This arrangement also has a number of advantages and disadvantages as follows:

ADVANTAGES 1. Reduced extent of the restriction at both bridge ends but does not completely remove it. (see lower image opposite) 2. Encourages pedestrian flows to the river side of the bridge as may be favoured by users.

DISADVANTAGES 1. Requires the removal of the existing step arrangements and repairs to the abutment stonework. 2. Results in visually intrusive new step arrangements on both river sides. 3. Provides awkward bridge access for pedestrians stepping into the path of oncoming cycles. 4. Adds increased costs of approximately £40K over the cost of Option A. 5. Increases length of pedestrian route between riverbanks. 6. Option not favoured by planning officers as new steps will sit within the conservation area

The bridge costings has been based on the step Option A with an additional cost indicated for step Option B.

Whichever step option is finally chosen, the bridge width will be restricted at the abutments. This is due to the deck being so close to the running railway that the ramps/paths at the abutments need to step away from the railway to provide adequate clearance to the running line. (see image)

The final decision on the step options will be made at the commencement of the GRIP 4 stage.

Scarborough Bridge GRIP 3 report –

The BridgeBRIDGE DESIGN AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONMany issues have been taken into account during the design of the bridge these include constructability , visual appearance, cost, sustainability, maintenance, user experience etc.The concept of the chosen option from GRIP 2 report has remained consistent and has proved robust during the design development of the GRIP 3 process. The bridge design involves just five main elements, the first of these is the main steel spanning boxes which form the backbone of the bridge. It is proposed that these boxes are constructed in ‘Corten’ steel which is a specialist steel that forms a surface finish of rust that protects the steel below and therefore requires no ongoing maintenance. The material has an expected design life in excess of 120 years.

The structural ribs, which are fixed perpendicular to the spanning steels are the main feature of the bridge, and form both the bridge cantilever and the vertical supports to the balustrade system. These are set out at approximately 1800mm centres and there are 36 of them across the length of the bridge. These are to be constructed as steel boxes and will be finished in an N1 paint system to give a finish life in excess of 25 years before maintenance is required. Behind these between the main spanning boxes and the existing steel bridge supports are a series of steel plates that are provided to link the main spanning boxes to the existing bridge. This is to avoid the risk of the new bridge rotating in an excessive loading situation.

An alternative, bespoke fibre-composite structural rib has also been considered as a maintenance free alternative. An additional extra over cost for this alternative will be provided in due course.

A number of alternatives have been considered for the main deck of the bridge. These include steel, timber and recycled plastic but non offer the flexibility, robustness, lightness, of the chosen Dura composite deck planks. These are a 50mm thick, 500mm wide planks that span 3660mm across the bridge deck. This material is extensively used on rail projects and is virtually maintenance free and has non-slip properties in excess of all requirements. In the unlikely event of damage the planks can simply be removed and replaced. The planks will be set to a gentle fall towards the river where rainwater will be collected in an edge gutter system. The system has a life expectancy in excess of 25 years.

As noted, the uprights to the balustrade system on the river side are formed as part of the

structural ribs. A 60mm diameter stainless steel and handrail with integral LED lighting is set 1400 mm above the deck level to comply with ‘Sustrans’ requirements for river bridges. Below this run a series of horizontal stainless steel cables 10 mm in diameter. These span between the uprights and right across the full length of the bridge and are set approximately at 100mm centres to comply with the requirements of the building regulations. The cables are tensioned to the manufacturers’ instructions at either the centre of the bridge or the abutment ends.

On the opposite side of the bridge on the boundary to the railway it is proposed to provide a 1900mm high fence constructed from mild steel sections with an N1 paint finish. The fence is designed to replicate the existing steel girders which feature a Celtic loop design that currently support the existing footbridge. These will be constructed in panels and dropped in place by an RRV. A galvanised 40mm mesh screwed to the bridge side of the panel will be provided to meet Network Rail standards to ensure the fence cannot be climbed.


Proposed Materials

Materials1. Deck - 50mm composite planks with non-slip finish2. Bridge Ribs - Proposed welded box steel with N1 paint finish3. Porous Asphalt - For access paths4. Typical Dura visual appearance 5. Stainless Steel Wire Rope6. LED Handrail Lighting7. Mesh - 40mm for facing fence to railway

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

1.


The BridgeSTRUCTURAL ISSUESExisting footbridge offers 1.3m clear footway for pedestrians. Proposed Option is developed with a maximum 3.6m wide combined pedestrian and cycleway. Removal of the existing footbridge and the eastern pilasters will provide 2.5m clear sitting for the new bridge beams at the abutments and the central pier. The rotational instability of the wider bridge will be compensated by tying with the existing rail bridge. A similar arrangement is already in place for the existing footbridge. An outline sequence of construction of the bridge has been considered where it is proposed that the bridge will be installed and constructed in three stages with consideration to the stability of the whole system during the construction and operation.


Ramp Arrangement (South side)SOUTH SIDE (FROM YORK RAILWAY STATION)

RAMP ARRANGEMENTSThe new approach ramps on both sides of the river are designed to be constructed independently of the main bridge structure, allowing the existing footbridge to remain open during their construction.

SOUTH SIDEThe new station connecting ramp on the south side of the river will connect to the existing ramp arrangement off the postman’s path linking up to the station. The new ramp/path will be 3m wide and approximately 72m in length before it reaches the bridge. The gradient on this side is less than 1 in 100 down to the new bridge and therefore will be constructed as a shallow graded path rather than a ramp.

NEW RAMP / PATH VIEWED FROM EXISTING STATION RAMPS


Ramp Arrangement (North side)NORTH SIDE (FROM MARYGATE CAR PARK)

NORTH SIDEThe new ramps on the north side of the river will be constructed to a 3m width and be approximately 85m in length. On plan, the ramp will start In the Abbey Guest House car park, close to the existing flood gate. Running initially in a northerly direction, it dog legs around the existing raised foundation and continues south along the embankment to the new bridge abutment.

This ramp is to be constructed to meet the requirements of BS 8300, as referenced by the Equality Act, and consists of six ramp sections each 10m in length rising approximately 500 mm each. A level section approximately 3m long is provided between each of the 10 metre ramps to provide a resting point for those in wheelchairs or with pushchairs.

An additional ramp is proposed running from the half landing position in a northerly direction along the side of the Marygate car park. This ramp will be constructed on a simple earth bank and avoid the need for cyclists travelling from the north to double back on themselves to access the bridge ramps (see adjacent plan). A separate cost for this work will be provided in the financial discussion.

RAMP VIEW FROM CORNER OF MARYGATE CAR PARK


Ramp ArrangementsRAMP CONSTRUCTIONWith the exception of the lower section of the northern ramp, all ramps are to be constructed along the existing railway embankment using a ‘Tensar’ retained ground retention system where cut or fill is required. (See the sections as illustrated) The visual retention which will vary between zero and a maximum of 2m in height will be raked at an angle of about 10° from the vertical and will be planted in material as part of an overall landscape scheme.

It is proposed that all ramps will be finished in a permeable tarmac system that will allow rainwater to percolate through the surface to the substrate below. This system is both economic and sustainable as a formal drainage system will not be required.

The lower section of a northern ramp, opposite the Abbey guest house will be constructed against the edge of the existing brick walls that form the facing to the original crane foundation. This was installed when the railway bridge was re-decked in 2015. The edge of the new lower ramp will be faced in brickwork to match the existing. It is proposed to provide a set of steps at the ramp half landing position to allow easy pedestrian access from the corner of the Marygate car park to the new bridge. The setting of the ramp behind the existing flood gate position allows use of the ramps and the bridge in flood conditions.

All embankment edge ramps will be provided with a suitable balustrade system 1100mm high on the drop side. To save

costs the opposite side facing the railway will be finished in just a kerb to run parallel with the railway fence.

Both ramps will end at a new York stone abutment that will be set behind the existing, curved wing wall of the railway bridge abutment. This arrangement will allow the retention of the existing curved feature stonework on both banks of the river and also provide an interrupted run for the new bridge over the existing riverside path arrangements. The new abutments feature an angled stone parapet that allows for the separation of the bridge balustrade arrangement with that of the ramps.

PROPOSED BRIDGE, RAMP ABUTMENT AND STEPS ON SOUTH/STATION SIDE


Construction Methodology

FLOAT

OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND DISMISSEDAccess to the bridge is difficult from both sides, the south / station side is only accessible along the riverbank from Lendal Bridge and can be restricted by flooding at any time of the year. Limited access for small plant and vehicles may be possible along the post office path between the riverside and the Leeman Road.

The north side of the river has better access from the Marygate car park to the side of the Abbey Guest House. This area is protected from flooding by a flood gate arrangement but this in turn restricts access to the river bank. Without reverting to the ‘giant crane’ option as used when the main railway spans of the bridge were replaced in 2015 which had the capacity and reach to replace both spans from one side of the river, the following options have been considered and currently dismissed:

1. Mobile road cranes operating from both sides of the river 2. Floating the main spans on the river and hoisting them into place 3. Launching the bridge from one or both sides of the river 4. Constructing the spans in-situ off a temporary platform sitting on ribs fixed to the underside of the existing railway bridge deck.

The reasons for dismissing the above options are as follows: 1. Due to the bank arrangements, risk of flooding, poor access and limited capacity of standard road cranes this option has been considered to be impractical.

2. Due to the variable level of the river, risk of flooding and associated dangers, this option has been dismissed. 3. The close proximity of the main spans to the railway and the need to construct the spans so close to the railway on the embankments have made this option impractical. 4. The fixing of temporary ribs to the underside of existing railway bridge is possible but expensive. It restricts river traffic for an extended period and reduces the headroom below the bridge. This option still has potential but has been dismissed in favour of the current proposed option.

ROAD CRANE

EAST CROYDON BRIDGE LAUNCH


Construction MethodologyPROPOSED METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION

Having dismissed the previous options the proposal is to assemble the bridge from the railway using a large rail crane. This involves a combination of bridge design and constructability to allow all the main elements of the bridge to be dropped in from the railway.

The bridge has been designed with two separate spans of approximately 24m each in length. In order to reduce weight, these sections have been broken down into their component parts to allow the bridge to be dropped in by a railway crane.The main spanning elements consist of two steel boxes approximately 1200mm wide and 1000mm high. Each has a weight in the region of 24 metric tons and is by far the largest and heaviest elements of the bridge.

Scaffolding – For the duration of the project a crash-deck will be required (use under-slung scaffolding) for safe access to the underside of the bridge. This is required to allow connection of the footbridge extensions.

2.56 6.16.12.679 2.6792.679


Construction MethodologyPROPOSED PLANT – KIROW 1200

PROPOSED PLANT & POSSESSION STRATEGYDiscussions have taken place with Volker Rail with respect to the use of the Kirow 1200 rail crane. These are the largest rail cranes available in the UK and calculations have proved that the crane is capable of lifting the main structural elements into position while sitting partially on and off the rail bridge. The process will take place in two lifts one from each side of the bridge. Once the main spanning steels are in place, the structural ribs and other elements of a bridge structure can be dropped into place with a smaller RRV. The crane will be required to run up the line about a mile towards Scarborough in order to pick the steel box spans off a road trailer at the Wigginton Road level crossing. (See map illustration on following page).

Preliminary estimations based on previous experience of rail footbridge replacement suggest the following blockade periods:

• A single long blockade for a week (ie: 168 hours possession)

• A combination of two weekend blocks 2x56 hours each for removal existing footbridge and installation main box girders. This is followed by a weeklong night time rules of route possessions to complete the installations of extension ribs and deck.


Construction MethodologyKEY ACCESS LOCATIONS

1. Main spanning steels x2 delivered by road and transferred to rail at Wiggington Road level crossing (approx. 1 mile towards Scarborough from bridge site)

2. Both spanning Steels dropped into position from centre of bridge by Kirow Crane. Sequence to be agreed. Crane to be turned (spun) at position no.3.

3. Position where Kirow Crane will be spun.

1

23

RIVER OUSE BRIDGE / SITE TO LEVEL CROSSING APPROX. 1MILE

WIGGINGTON ROAD


Geotechnical ConsiderationsGEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONSThe ground investigation undertaken within the railway embankments immediately southwest and northeast of the proposed bridge location generally indicate sandy CLAY Fill geology over a natural superficial layer of very soft to soft, low strength, slightly organic SILT and CLAY, respectively.

Various buried utilities/services including sewer/water mains have been identified along the existing footpaths immediately west of the Royal Mail Sorting Office and along south bank of the River, which should be considered in terms of plant loading, potential material storage and Permanent / Temporary Works optioneering (e.g. Proximity of Piling Operations to services).

A further hazard has also been associated with a Yorkshire Water Main which passes directly beneath the embankment to the south of the bridge in a north west - south east direction, which could potential increase the installation complexity of any linear piled structures proposed within close proximity.

In terms of ground bearing structures, it should be noted that the Ground Investigation identified ‘Slightly Organic’ materials, and ‘Soft low strength’ and ‘High Plasticity’ Clays at approximately 6.0-8.0mAOD.


The existing lighting to the footbridge is secured over the bridge at high level on a catenary wire.

Ramp from Station to Bridge – 8m Lighting Columns.Bridge, high level catenary wire.

LUX LEVEL KEY

Access Ramp from Car park – 8m Lighting Columns.

For all options, it is proposed to light the proposed access ramps via DW Windsor Kirium 2 LED flat glass luminaries mounted on 8m mid hinged columns. A calculation has been carried out to determine the number of required fittings this has been carried out in accordance with BS 5489-1:2013 table 4. The access ramp from the station would require 6No Luminaries to provide an average of 30 Lux at floor level. The access ramp from the carpark to the North would require 5No Luminaries to provide an average 30 Lux at floor level. A total of 11No mid hinged columns are used for lighting the access ramps.

Lighting of Bridge and Ramps


OPTION 1The bridge will be illuminated using handrail lighting on the Eastern side of the bridge at approximately 1400mm above bridge deck. The western side of the bridge attached to the railway bridge shall have a linear lighting fixed to the bridge structure as shown in the Architectural drawings. This would be 36no 300mm LED handrail luminaries on the Eastern side of the bridge deck built into the handrail and 23no 600mm LED linear luminaries mounted to the existing bridge parapet at approximately 1800mm above deck level. This would provide a minimum of 30 Lux average at deck level in accordance with BS 5489-1:2013 table 4.

OPTION 2The bridge would be to illuminated using 7no Kirium 1 LED flat glass luminaries mounted on 4m mid hinged columns fixed to the bridge deck. This would provide a minimum of 30 Lux average at deck level in accordance with BS 5489-1:2013 table 4.

Option 2 is approximately 65% less budget cost than option 1.

Option 1 – Handrail and Linear Lighting Option 2 – 4m Lighting Columns

Lighting of Bridge and RampsOPTION 1 & 2

LUX LEVEL KEY

Kirium Column Lighting

Viper Rail, Handrail


Planning and Environmental

ENVIRONMENTALThe ‘Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report’ can be found in appendix 2 of this document. There are no major issues with the proposed works but the removal of mature trees on the south side of the bridge will be necessary to form the access path to the bridge. It is hoped that the mature sycamore on the southern embankment (which contains the bird and bat boxes) can be retained. This is due to the use of the retained ground retaining system which avoids the need for foundations cutting through the tree roots. Further assessments are recommended should the works proceed.

PLANNINGThe bridge is set on the boundary of the ‘Central Historic Core’ Conservation Area and as a result it is possible that additional requirements will be required of the bridge design in order to secure planning permission.

Consultation has recently taken place with City of York Council (CYC) conservation architects. Issues have been raised especially in relation to the removal of the existing stone parapets on the East elevation. Further consultation will take place as the project moves towards a planning application, to mitigate the risks.

CONSERVATION AREA


Summary and ConclusionThe development of the GRIP 3 study has consolidated the chosen design with respect to the concept and structure, the position and construction of the ramps and the overall methodology of the construction.

Considered research has been carried out into material specification to ensure quality yet value for money along with a long and low maintenance lifespan. Great consideration has been given to the visual impact of the bridge along both ramp runs and across the bridge itself. The heritage location of the works and its prominent position on the river has informed the design resulting in a simple, modern solution that sits comfortably within its historical context. The use of retained earth embankments both softens the impact of the ramps while removing the opportunity for graffiti. The works have been designed to the requirements of the building regulations and BS8300.

It is unfortunate that the proposal requires the removal of the existing parapets but this is unavoidable if the bridge is to take its support from the existing rail bridge

Network Rail standards have only been used where necessary such as protecting the railway

from trespass, whereas the requirements for double handrails in a garish yellow on steps and ramps have been avoided.

Enhanced visual imagery of the proposal has highlighted areas where the scheme has unexpectedly enhanced the public realm, such as along the post office path to the river side.

The GRIP 3 design development has confirmed that the chosen option was robust in its conceptual inception as little has changed from the original concept as the design has been developed to the current stage. The design is deliverable subject to planning and financial constraints.

Minor issues remain to be addressed in the future phases. These include:• Existing station security gate on the post office path.• Cycle access through the station• Replacement car parking provision for the Abbey Guest House


Appendix 1 - Cost Estimates

Infrastructure Projects Estimating

Insert picture

Oracle Project No.:

Project Description:

Estimate Stage:

Rev. Date Prepared by Checked17-May-17 S Hastings

Rev 1 24-May-17 S Hastings D.NeilRev 1 c 29-May-17 S Hastings D.NeilRev 1 d 30-May-17 S Hastings D.NeilRev 1 e 01/06/2017 S Hastings D.Neil

Scarborough Footbridge

Issue and Revision Record:

148427

GRIP 3

NR PM Schedule & Risk Revised

DescriptionGRIP 3 Draft Issue estimateGRIP 3 Revised following QCRA / review

Risk value changed as per 30/05/17 ReportCOWD added to previous estimate

Estimate Stage: GRIP 3Oracle Project No.: 148427

Clarifications

G1 12.5%

G2 12%G3 2Q17

G4 Cost of Work Done £174,548 - Included in estimate

3.01 - Design team fees £313,939.48

3.02 - Project Management Team Fees (NR)

£432,978.00

3.03 - Other Project Costs (Possessions)

£262,113.91

G5

G6

G7G8

G9

G10

G11

G12

G13G14

G15

G16

G17

G18

G19G20

G21

G22

G23G24

G25

Assumptions

The estimate Risk value is as per the 18/05/17 QCRA meeting and subsequent alterations, arriving at the 30/05/17 Final Report.

The units of measure are based on the Rail Method of Measurement supplemented by CESSM and NRM where

The quantities utilised for pricing of option 2B are as pages 23 & 24 of the Feasability Report.

Estimate is at Cash Price, no Inflation has been applied as per Sponsors request, the resultant escalation based on 2Q2017 base date to assessed 2Q2018 Mid point of construction would be 1.2% or £56,029 at current RPI indices.

A percentage wastage allowance has been included in the rates and / or quantities where appropriate.

In the absence of a definitive access regime, any associated Sch 4 / disruptive possession costs can be accomodated within the 4% 'Other Project Costs' allowance.NR Project Management services are included as per the NR PM Spreadsheet supplied by the SPM.

BDG Design costs are included as an estimated percentage at this stage as indicated on the Indirects estimate tab.

A Stainless Steel handrail and handrail mounted luminaires have been added to the Rail side of the Walk/ Cycleway.

The estimate is based on Report Option 2b.


Network Rail Project Management Fees

Risk The estimate base date is


General / Assumptions / Drawings & Documents / Exclusions / Revisions

General

The LED handrail cost has been based on a contractors quotation for a 60mm Dia' Grade 316 SS product.

Costs have been included for further ecological, GI and TOPO surveys which may be required.

Quantities as utilised in the estimate are subject to variation based on information made available at further GRIP stages.

There is a conflict in the report on the inclusion of CCTV at this GRIP stage, the estimate presently Includes an allowance for 3 cameras and associated monitor, controls and cabling as agreed with the Client CYC.

The estimate has been based on Kirov Crane lifting for the bridge works with mobile crane on North of the River for the other minor lifting operations

All costs are based on pounds sterling.The indirect costs have been assessed on a combination of defined and percentages based of the direct costs in accordance with the applicable GRIP stage as indicated on the estimate 'Indirects' tab.

Costs exclude VAT.

appropriate.The estimate is based on capital construction costs only.

No Isolations are included for.

Testing and commissioning is generally included in the base contractor cost where appropriate (unless identified seperately).



Clarifications

Project Description: Scarborough Footbridge


A1 No costs related to new technology requirements or change in standards.

A2 No cost or programme implications for interface with other Projects will have a detrimental effect on these works.

A3 Works can be achieved within the existing NR corridor and CYC land without recourse to TWA or DCO.

A4 Once clarified, the possession regime will be acceptable to train operators.

A5

A6 That all stakeholders will readily agree with the aesthetics of structures and features.

A7

A8

A9

A10

A11

A12

A13

A14

A15

A16

D1

D2

D3

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

E6

E7

E8

E9

E10

E11

Available GEO RIMN information and estimators site visit

Options to use existing railway bridge substructure will be validated during detailed design. Also, if required, any additional foundation options at the river bank abutments shall be acceptable to the Environment Agency

Critical plant, resources and materials will be readily available to meet the expectations and requirements of the Project.

The following documents have been used in the preparation of this estimate:

YMS/1 Scarborough Bridge Feasability Report LNE/148427/ECV/DOC/IAB/101 Rev - 02

Estimate production period internal correspodence between the estimator and Project team

Any works to the Cast Iron Piles below the Central pier

Exclusions

Optimism Bias.

Taxation or Grants.

Major plant and materials will be by road delivery.

Scaffolding has been included for with an allowance for crashdecks at and below the new Footbridge.

Drawings & Documents

The values as per the SPM supplied 'Other Costs' spreadsheet have been included for.

CYC will ensure necessary land for site access and compound areas will be made available to the Contractor for construction works.

No cost implication for the purchase of the existing carpark land required for the new ramp footprint.

Cast Iron Piers below the Central Pier are considered acceptable, subject to validation during detailed design, with reasonable freshwater allowance.Discussions for necessary planning consents shall be facilitated by CYC.

That the new support pillars at Norh and South ends of the Walkway / Cycleway will be designed & erected based on the use of Yorkstone.

It is proposed to utilise the same site accomodation as per the 2014 scheme.

Any costs in connection with the closure of the existing Public Footbridge or provision of alternative access route(s).

Any works in association with the existing Flood Defences.

It has been mentioned by one of the Structural Steel suppliers that the indicated height of the Main Footbridge Struts may, in his opinion, be too low, no additional allowance has been included to enhance the cost for this.

No contribution to Network Rail Fee Fund.

No contribution to Industry Risk Fund.

Way Leave Issues.

Signal sighting issues.

Mineworking remediations.


Clarifications

Project Description: Scarborough Footbridge


E12

P1 See General, Assumptions and Exclusions above as applicable.

R

Rev 1d

Allowances

Alterations following the York QCRA / Estimate review meeting of 18/05/17 & adding in COWD

Any cost in relation to the £72k Network Rail contribution to release NR of their new bridge mainenance obligations.

The following revisions have been applied

Revisions



PROJECT NAME

OP NUMBER 148427 2Q17

ESTIMATE No. 1702CV2206 GRIP 3

REV - OPTION Rev 1 1-Mar-2018

DELIVERY GROUP IP Enhancements - Scotland & North East 31-Oct-2018

RMM Volume 1 Ref Group Element Total Cost GBP £ % of Point

Estimate Comments / Assumptions

1 Direct Construction Works

1.01 Railway Control Systems - 0%

1.02 Train Power Systems - 0%

1.03 Electric Power and Plant - 0%

1.04 Permanent Way - 0%

1.05 Telecommunication Systems 34,230 1%

1.06 Buildings and Property 117,400 3%

1.07 Civil Engineering 1,888,455 45%

1.08 Enabling Works 52,845 1%

TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS (A) 2,092,930 50.4%

2 Preliminaries, Overheads and Profit

2.01 Preliminaries 695,586 33% of Total Direct Construction Works

2.02 Contractor Overheads and Profit 353,182 17% of Total Direct Construction Works

TOTAL INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS (B) 1,048,768 50.1%

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ( A + B ) 3,141,698 100.5%

3 Project / Design Team Fees and Other Project Development Costs

3.01 Project / Design Team Fees 313,939 10% of Total Construction Costs

3.02 Project Management Team Fees 432,978 14% of Total Construction Costs

3.03 Other Project Costs inc' Disruption of Asset Use 262,114 8% of Total Construction Costs

TOTAL EMPLOYER INDIRECT COSTS (C) 1,009,031 32.1%

POINT ESTIMATE (A + B + C) 4,150,729 132.7%

4 Risk

4.01 Risk (P80) 518,361 12% As per 18/05/17 QCRA

TOTAL POINT ESTIMATE + RISK (D) 4,669,090

5 Inflation

5.01 Inflation (RPI Indices) - No Escalation - Cash Price at 2Q2017 Rates

TOTAL INFLATION ALLOWANCE (E) -

6 Taxation and Grants

6.01 Tax allowances and grants -

TOTAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (F) -MID POINT OF RANGE 4,670,000 Excluding VAT

TOTAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (G) -LOWER POINT OF RANGE 4,566,000 Excluding VAT

TOTAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (H) -UPPER POINT OF RANGE 4,747,000 Excluding VAT

Cost Ranges:

ANTICIPATED FINISH DATE (construction)

Summary of Group Element Costs


PRICE BASE DATE

ESTIMATE STAGE

ANTICIPATED START DATE (construction)



Level Item Bill description Bill quantity Unit Rate Amount Comments

2 1 DIRECT CONSTRUCTION WORKS 2,092,929.87

3 1.05 Operational Telecommunication Systems 34,230.00

4 1.05.03 Station Information and Surveillance Systems (SISS)

34,230.00

5 1.05.03.03 Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) 30,000.00

1.05.03.03.01 Cameras : remote 3 nr 3,500.00 10,500.00 Camera quantity agreed between NR Sponsor and CYC

1.05.03.03.03 Monitor 1 nr 7,500.00 7,500.00 To be included at future GRIP Stage - Allow Meantime

1.05.03.03.04 Control panel and cabling 1 nr 12,000.00 12,000.00 To be included at future GRIP Stage - Allow Meantime

5 1.05.03.04 Cables and Containment 4,230.00

1.05.03.04.01 Cables - CCTV cable 90 m 15 1,350.00 To be included at future GRIP Stage - Allow Meantime

1.05.03.04.02 Containment 90 m 32 2,880.00 To be included at future GRIP Stage - Allow Meantime

3 1.06 Buildings & Property 117,400.00

5 1.06.02.04 Stairs and Ramps 74,000.00

1.06.02.04.01 Stair / ramp structures: Works to existing stepped access to ensure compatability with applicable standards

2 no 25,000.00 50,000.00 Allowance only pending detailed inspection and survey

1.06.02.04.01 b Alterations to existing Stone walls adjacent to existing stairwells North and South of river

2 12,000.00 24,000.00 Allowance only pending further design, detailed inspection and survey

4 1.06.08 External Works 43,400.00

5 1.06.08.04 Fencing, Railings and Walls 43,400.00

1.06.08.04.01 Fencing and railings- Pallisade Fencing at rear of approach ramps

280 m 155 43,400.00

3 1.07 Civil Engineering 1,888,454.87

4 1.07.01 Earthworks 167,234.97

5 1.07.01.02 Embankments 167,234.97

1.07.01.02.01 General excavation- for access ramps- South Side 935 m³ 4.42 4,132.70

1.07.01.02.01 b General excavation- for access ramps- North Side 1,176 m³ 4.42 5,197.92

1.07.01.02.01 c Excavation for Crib wall at ramps 130 m3 4.42 574.6

1.07.01.02.02 Disposal of arisings- South & North 379 m³ 35.5 13,454.50 Assume 80% reuseable as fill

1.07.01.02.03 Filling- imported fill to make up embankment prior to GreenSlope works - South & North

1,732 m³ 15.25 26,413.00 Based on Type 1

1.07.01.02.04 Filling- Re-use of acceptable fill to make up embankment prior to GreenSlope works - South & North

1,732 m³ 3.25 5,629.00

1.07.01.02.05 Grading to profile- Topsoil ave 250mm thick- South & North

191 m² 6.75 1,289.25

1.07.01.02.06 Landscaping- TensarTech GreenSlope South & North

765 m² 129.6 99,144.00 £54 / m2 supply & £75.60 /m2 Install

1.07.01.02.06 b 13 ton excavator for use by TensarTech GreenSlope contractor including transport to / from site

1 sum 11,400.00 11,400.00 Based on £760 / 8 hr shift for 15 shifts

4 1.07.05 Bridges and Viaducts for Road or Rail Vehicles 99,400.00

5 1.07.05.02 Abutments and Piers 99,400.00

Oracle Project No:


148427



Oracle Project No:


148427


1.07.05.02.01 Pier and abutments - preparatory works - cut and remove existing stone Pilasters

1 sum 3,360.00 3,360.00 Attendant labour costs - 4 men x 24 hrs x£35

1.07.05.02.01 a Cranage - Based on Kirow 810 / 1200 crane 2 shifts 15,120.00 30,240.00 Based 0n £15,120 per shift

1.07.05.02.01 b Prepare / dress stonework for positioning of new Main Structural Boxes


1.07.05.02.02 c Set aside and protect removed stone for re-use elsewhere on the project or transport off site and reclaim if not required

11 ton 1,800.00 19,800.00 Allowance only

1.07.05.02.02 d Reduce height of existing stonework at North and South ends of bridge at stairway areas to facilitate installation of new bridge- assume 26 m2


1.07.05.02.02 e Preparation and installation of York stone to form pillars at North & South ends of ramps to support new foot / cycle bridge

2 nr 19,200.00 38,400.00 Based on construction using York Stone

1.07.05.02.02 f 13T Crane for stonework piller build 4 nr 780 3,120.00 Based on 780 / 8 hr shift

4 1.07.06 Footbridges 1,179,599.90

5 1.07.06.03 Deck 808,008.40

1.07.06.03.01 Beams- Main Struts at 1800mm Centres, 128mm deep box formed of 6mm plate Welded steel box with N1 paint finish

26 no 3,125.00 81,250.00 G Nicholson Engineering Quote - £2000 plus NR allowance for Bolts / fixings etc & installation

1.07.06.03.01 Beams - Fixing Main structural box to existing Railway bridge - material details as above

26 no 1,775.00 46,150.00 G Nicholson Engineering Quote - £1000 plus NR allowance for Bolts / fixings etc & installation

1.07.06.03.01 Beams and Fence arrangement - As Main Struts above at 1800mm Centres, 128mm deep box formed of 6mm plate Welded steel box with N1 paint finish and horizontal bars mounted on concrete on Embankment Sections at South Side

45 no 1,650.00 74,250.00

1.07.06.03.01 Beams and Fence arrangement - As Main Struts above at 1800mm Centres, 128mm deep box formed of 6mm plate Welded steel box with N1 paint finish and horizontal bars mounted on concrete on Embankment Sections at North Side

90 no 1,650.00 148,500.00

1.07.06.03.01 10mm dia' SS grade 316 rope fixed to verticals of main struts at 105mm centres (10 rows)

400 m 10.69 4,276.00 GS products £5.39 /m supply

1.07.06.03.01 Stainless Steel cleats 260 no 12.48 3,244.80 GS Products £3.73 each supply Assumes 10 cleats x 26 main struts

1.07.06.03.01 Fixing bolts in Main structural box to attach Main Struts and bolt in position

208 no 9.85 2,048.80 8x26

1.07.06.03.01 Fixing bolts in Main structural box to attach railway bridge Struts and bolt in position

208 no 9.85 2,048.80 4x26X2

1.07.06.03.01 Main Structural Box Sections 24m long - approx' 1200 x 1000mm in corten steel box plates 30mm top and bottom and 15mm sides

2 no 88,000.00 176,000.00 QUOTE DUE

1.07.06.03.01 Assembly of Foot / Cycleway bridge and associated Beams, Structural Boxes etc into sections at position adjacent to carpark prior to lifting

2 no 120,000.00 240,000.00

1.07.06.03.01 Cranage - Based on Kirow 810 / 1200 crane 2 shift 15,120.00 30,240.00 Based 0n £15,120 per shift

5 1.07.06.04 Walkways and Landings 243,680.50

1.07.06.04.01 Surfacing to approach ramps to New Pedestrian / Cycle bridge from South and North ends

570 m² 85 48,450.00 Assume Tarmac finish

1.07.06.04.02 Ramps - Ramps to New Pedestrian / Cycle bridge from North end inc substate, kerbs, drinage etc

320 m² 185 59,200.00

1.07.06.04.02 a Ramps - Ramps to New Pedestrian / Cycle bridge from South end inc substrate, kerbs, drainage etc

250 m2 185 46,250.00




Oracle Project No:


148427


1.07.06.04.02 b Lighting columns on access Ramps to New Pedestrian / Cycle bridge

16 nr 3,200.00 51,200.00 Assumed quantity of lighting columns

1.07.06.04.02 c Lighting cabling 490 m 16.55 8,109.50 based on ave 25m / column and 2.5m / handrail mounted luminaire

1.07.06.04.02 d Lighting cabling ducting in ramps 420 m 6.55 2,751.00

1.07.06.04.02 e Lighting Controls & panel 1 sum 2,600.00 2,600.00

1.07.06.04.02 f Lighting column support bases 16 no 850 13,600.00

1.07.06.04.02 g Lighting to Rail side of new walkway / Cycleway bridge

36 no 320 11,520.00 Handrail Mounted LED Lumiaires

5 1.07.06.05 Pavings and Surfacing to new Pedestrian / Cycle bridge

68,614.52

1.07.06.06.02 Road marking - pedestrian and cycle way Logo's(inc' ramps)

8 nr 260 2,080.00

1.07.06.06.02 a Road marking - pedestrian and cycle way lane markings (inc'ramps)

350 m 2.01 704.38

1.07.06.06.01 Surfacing-Dura Composites Dura Slab Type 50 screw fixed to substrate

86 nr 516.49 44,418.14 3.660m x .475mm GRP Walkway panels

1.07.06.06.01 a Duraslab installation & fixings 86 nr 42 3,612.00

1.07.06.06.01 b Slab supports - steel channel supports and and fixings to main struts

240 m 62 14,880.00 Assumes 6 rows of channel x 40m

1.07.06.06.01 c Substrate below Dura Composites Dura Slab Panels

146 m2 20 2,920.00 Allowance only subject to further design detail

5 1.07.06.06 Parapets 46,356.48

1.07.06.06.06 Parapet handrails - 60mm Dia' Grade 316 SS Handrail with Integral LED lighting complete with cabling and controls

48 m 775.76 37,236.48 Quote from ASD lighting for 316 SS

1.07.06.06.06 b Stainless Steel Handrail to Rail side of Walkway / Cycleway

48 m 190 9,120.00

5 1.07.06.07 Furniture and Lighting 8,040.00

1.07.06.07.01 Signs - pole mounted inc' pole 4 nr 1,260.00 5,040.00

1.07.06.07.01 b Signs - wall mounted 4 nr 750 3,000.00

5 1.07.06.08 Drainage to Structures 4,900.00

1.07.06.08.02 Gullies with gratings - Preformed gutter / edge detail in Grade 316 ss with drain holes

40 m 122.5 4,900.00

4 1.07.07 Retaining Walls 422,460.00

5 1.07.07.01 Foundations 422,460.00

1.07.07.01.01 Foundations : linear 660 m 122 80,520.00

1.07.07.02.01 Walls : Crib type earth retaining wall for 3 No approach ramps

640 m² 360 230,400.00

1.07.07.02.05 Surface feature - Brickwork retaining walls at North and South approach Ramps

676 m2 165 111,540.00

4 1.07.08 Fencing and Enclosures 19,760.00

5 1.07.08.01 Fencing and Railings 19,760.00

1.07.08.01.01 Fences : Steel Railing - 1900mm mild steel panels formed to replicate existing, finished in N1 paint system and fitted to steel uprights.

76 m2 260 19,760.00 Bespoke design to match existing

3 1.08 Enabling Works 52,845.00

4 1.08.02 Site Clearance and Preparation Works 14,765.00

1.08.02.01.01 General clearance for site establishment 1 sum 8,500.00 8,500.00

1.08.02.01.03 Survey site prior to site establishment 1 sum 2,500.00 2,500.00


Oracle Project No:


148427


1.08.02.01.04 Management of shrubs, bushes and trees- heavy deveg

300 m² 12.55 3,765.00

4 1.08.03 Structure Specific Enabling Works 38,080.00

5 1.08.03.01 Demolition Works 38,080.00

1.08.03.01.01 Demolition - entire structures - remove existing ornate parapet footbridge from East side of Scarborough Rail bridge

1 sum 6,720.00 6,720.00 Attendant labour to cut / remove prior to lift - 8 men for 24 hrs x £35

1.08.03.01.01a Cranage - Based on Kirow 850 / 1200 crane 1 shift 15,120.00 15,120.00 Assumed removed in 2 sections

1.08.03.01.01 b Transport and dispose of footbridge 1 sum 10,000.00 10,000.00 Sum only for load, transport Via Artic' lorry and unload at reclaiming / waste area off site

1.08.03.01.01 c Make good / spot repairs to existing bridge surfaces prior to new works.

1 sum 6,240.00 6,240.00 Attendant labour costs - 4 men x 16 hrs x£35 and allowance for sundry materials



Oracle Project No.

Project Description

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Cost

2.01 Preliminaries TOTAL 695,585.97£

2.01.xx Allowance where Preliminaries have not been quantified. Sum 695,585.97£

2.01.0xx.01 Preliminaries allowance 1 Sum £ 418,585.97 £ 418,585.97

2.01.0xx.02 Scaffolding inc Crashdeck 1 sum £ 257,000.00 £ 257,000.00

Contractors additional Ecology, GI & TOPO Surveys

2.01.01 Contractor's preliminaries Sum 20,000.00£

2.01.01.01 Contractors additional Ecology, GI & TOPO Surveys 1 sum £ 20,000.00 £ 20,000.00

2.02 Overheads and profit TOTAL 353,181.92£

2.02.xx Allowance where OH&P have not been quantified. Sum 353,181.92£

2.02.xx.01 Overheads and profit allowance 1 Sum £ 353,181.92 £ 353,181.92

3.01 Design Team Fees TOTAL 313,939.48£

3.01.xx Allowance where Design Fees have not been quantified. Sum 313,939.48£

3.01.xx.01 From percentage allowance; see "indirects" tab. 1 Sum £ 313,939.48 £ 313,939.48

3.01.xx.02 Spent Costs Sum £ -

3.02 Project Management Team Fees TOTAL 432,978.00£

3.02.xx Allowance where Development Costs have not been quantified. Sum 432,978.00£

3.02.xx.01 NR Project Management and Sponsor as PM Resource Schedule 1 Sum £ 238,430.00 £ 238,430.00

3.02.xx.02 Spent Costs - Cost of Work Done 1 Sum £ 174,548.00 £ 174,548.00

3.02.xx.03 Costs for the production of a DIA document 1 Sum £ 20,000.00 £ 20,000.00

3.03 Other Project Costs TOTAL 262,113.91£

3.03.01 Other Project Costs Sum 147,526.00£

3.03.01.01 Land Costs Sum 147,526.00£

3.03.01.01.01.01 Acquisition of land - weekly cost of use of part of current carpark 40 weeks £ 1,500.00 £ 60,000.00

3.03.01.01.01.02 Third Party Charges - Canal & River Trust 1 Sum £ 33,350.00 £ 33,350.00

3.03.01.01.01.03 Planning Application and conditions of discharge 1 Sum £ 4,176.00 £ 4,176.00

3.03.01.01.01.04 Network Rail Land 1 Sum £ 50,000.00 £ 50,000.00

3.03.02 Disruption of asset use Sum 114,587.91£

0

0Oracle Project No.

Project Description

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Cost

0

0

3.03.02.01 Employer's costs Sum 114,587.91£

3.03.02.01.01 Possessions 1 Sum £ 114,587.91 £ 114,587.91

3.03.02.01.02 Isolations 1 Sum £ - £ -

4.01 Risk TOTAL 518,361.00£

4.01.xx Allowance where risks have not been quantified. Sum 518,361.00£

3.03.02 GRIP 3 Sum 518,361.00£

y P50 - QCRA 1 sum £ 414,688.80 £ 414,688.80

y P80 - QCRA 1 sum £ 518,361.00 £ 518,361.00

y P90 - QCRA 1 sum £ 596,115.15 £ 596,115.15

5.01 Inflation TOTAL -£



Estimate Stage:

Oracle Project No.:

Project Name:

Calculation of Contractors and Network Rail's Indirect Costs

Asset Total Direct Costs % 2.01 Preliminaries % 2.02 Contractor OH &

P %3.01 Project / Design Team

Fees%

3.02 Project Management Team Fees

1.01 Railway Control Systems -£ 25.0% -£ 12.5% -£ 25.0% -£ 12.5% -£

1.02 Train Power Systems -£ 25.0% -£ 12.5% -£ 12.5% -£ 12.5% -£

1.03 Electric Power and Plant -£ 25.0% -£ 12.5% -£ 12.5% -£ 12.5% -£

1.04 Permanent Way -£ 25.0% -£ 12.5% -£ 12.5% -£ 12.5% -£

1.05 Telecommunication Systems 34,230.00£ 20.0% 6,846.00£ 12.5% 5,776.31£ 15.0% 5,134.50£ 12.5% 6,498.35£

1.06 Buildings and Property 117,400.00£ 20.0% 23,480.00£ 12.5% 19,811.25£ 15.0% 17,610.00£ 12.5% 22,287.66£

1.07 Civil Engineering 1,888,454.87£ 20.0% 377,690.97£ 12.5% 318,676.76£ 15.0% 283,268.23£ 12.5% 358,511.35£

1.08 Enabling Works 52,845.00£ 20.0% 10,569.00£ 12.5% 8,917.59£ 15.0% 7,926.75£ 12.5% 10,032.29£

3.03 Other Project Costs 262,113.91£ 12.5% 32,764.24£

418,585.97£ 353,181.92£ 313,939.48£ 430,093.89£

Allowance for TOC / FOC Compensation - calculator

2,092,929.87£ 418,585.97£ 353,181.92£

TOTAL 2,864,697.76£

Allowance for TOC / FOC compensation (%) 4% 114,587.91£

Isolations 0% -£

GRIP 3

148427


Estimate Base Date 2Q17 267.5 267.5 291

Implementation Phase Mid-point Date 2Q18 270.8 270.8 289

RPI NR RPI All-in TPI1.2% 1.2% -0.7%

ONS Chaw (de-escalation)

Network Rail (escalation) RICS

1987 = 1987 = 1985 =100 100 100

Mar-10 1Q10 219.3 219.3 209Jun-10 2Q10 223.5 223.5 218Sep-10 3Q10 224.5 224.5 219Dec-10 4Q10 227.0 227.0 220Mar-11 1Q11 230.9 230.9 219Jun-11 2Q11 234.9 234.9 223Sep-11 3Q11 236.2 236.2 220Dec-11 4Q11 238.6 238.6 223Mar-12 1Q12 239.6 239.6 215Jun-12 2Q12 242.2 242.2 230Sep-12 3Q12 243.1 243.1 223Dec-12 4Q12 246.0 246.0 224 ECAMMar-13 1Q13 247.4 247.4 234Jun-13 2Q13 249.7 249.7 236Sep-13 3Q13 250.9 250.9 232Dec-13 4Q13 252.5 252.5 239Mar-14 1Q14 253.9 253.9 247Jun-14 2Q14 256.0 256.0 259Sep-14 3Q14 256.9 256.9 257Dec-14 4Q14 257.4 257.4 259Mar-15 1Q15 256.4 256.4 269Jun-15 2Q15 258.5 258.5 283Sep-15 3Q15 259.3 259.3 271Dec-15 4Q15 260.0 260.0 271 CP6 BPMar-16 1Q16 260.0 260.0 276Jun-16 2Q16 262.2 262.2 288Sep-16 3Q16 264.2 264.2 287Dec-16 4Q16 265.1 265.4 288Mar-17 1Q17 266.7 266.7 290Jun-17 2Q17 267.5 267.5 291Sep-17 3Q17 268.2 268.2 290Dec-17 4Q17 269.0 269.0 288Mar-18 1Q18 269.7 269.7 288Jun-18 2Q18 270.8 270.8 289Sep-18 3Q18 272.0 272.0 290Dec-18 4Q18 273.2 273.2 291Mar-19 1Q19 274.4 274.4 292Jun-19 2Q19 276.5 276.5 295Sep-19 3Q19 278.9 278.9 301Dec-19 4Q19 281.3 281.3 304Mar-20 1Q20 283.7 283.7 308Jun-20 2Q20 285.5 285.5 311Sep-20 3Q20 287.1 287.1 319Dec-20 4Q20 288.6 288.6 321Mar-21 1Q21 290.1 290.1 328Jun-21 2Q21 292.2 292.2 330Sep-21 3Q21 294.6 294.6 338Dec-21 4Q21 296.9 296.9Mar-22 1Q22 299.3 299.3Jun-22 2Q22 301.2 301.2Sep-22 3Q22 303.0 303.0Dec-22 4Q22 304.8 304.8Mar-23 1Q23 306.5 306.5Jun-23 2Q23 308.7 308.7Sep-23 3Q23 311.1 311.1Dec-23 4Q23 313.4 313.4Mar-24 1Q24 315.8 315.8Jun-24 2Q24 317.9 317.9Sep-24 3Q24 319.9 319.9Dec-24 4Q24 321.8 321.8Mar-25 1Q25 323.8 323.8Jun-25 2Q25Sep-25 3Q25Dec-25 4Q25

abbreviationsRPINR RPIAll-in TPI

Control Period 6 Business Plan CP6 BPECAM

Retail Price Index - Office National Statistics (Chaw)NR Finance Retail Price Index

All-in Tender Price Index (RICS, BCIS)

Enhancement Cost Adjustment Mechanism

Updated Inflation Index Feb 2017Escalation Calculator

Percentage calculator

CP4

(1st

Apr

il 20

09 -

31 M

arch

201

4)C

P5 (1

st A

pril

2014

- 31

Mar

ch 2

019)

CP6

(1st

Apr

il 20

19 -

31 M

arch

202

4)

Forecast

Forecast

Forecast



JANUARY 2017

Colas Rail

Scarborough Footbridge, York

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report

856793

Scarborough Bridge, York i Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report 856793

RSK GENERAL NOTES Project No.: 856793 (Rev 0) Title: Scarborough Bridge, York – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report Client: Colas Rail Date: January 2017 Office: Castleford Status: Rev 0

Author Dr Steven Heathcote Technical reviewer Simon Boulter

Signature Signature

Date: 30th January 2017 Date: 30th January 2017

Project manager Dr Steven Heathcote

Quality reviewer Simon Boulter

Signature Signature

Date: 30th January 2017 Date: 30th January 2017

RSK Environment (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 Environment.

Appendix 2 - Environmental Report


Scarborough Bridge, York i Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report 856793

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 Purpose of this Report .............................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Ecological Context .................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Structure of this Report ............................................................................................................ 2

2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Background Data Search ......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 General ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ............................................................................................................ 4 2.4 Invasive Plant Species ............................................................................................................. 4 2.5 Habitat Assessment for Protected Vertebrates ........................................................................ 5

2.5.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.5.2 Badgers ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.5.3 Bats .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.5.4 Nesting Birds ................................................................................................................ 6 2.5.5 Otters ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.5.6 Reptiles ......................................................................................................................... 6

2.6 Survey Constraints ................................................................................................................... 6 3 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Background Data Search ......................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Biodiversity Action Plans .............................................................................................. 7 3.1.2 Designated Sites .......................................................................................................... 7 3.1.3 Protected and Noteworthy Species .............................................................................. 8

3.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ............................................................................................................ 9 3.2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.2 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland ............................................................................ 9 3.2.3 Scrub with trees ............................................................................................................ 9 3.2.4 Planted Shrub ............................................................................................................. 10 3.2.5 Ephemeral/short perennial ......................................................................................... 10 3.2.6 Hardstanding .............................................................................................................. 10

3.3 Assessment for Protected Species ........................................................................................ 11 3.3.1 Badgers ...................................................................................................................... 11 3.3.2 Bats ............................................................................................................................ 11 3.3.3 Nesting Birds .............................................................................................................. 12 3.3.4 Otters .......................................................................................................................... 12 3.3.5 Reptiles ....................................................................................................................... 13

4 EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................ 14 4.1 Designated Sites .................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Habitats and Plants ................................................................................................................ 14 4.3 Assessment for Protected Vertebrates................................................................................... 15

4.3.1 Badgers ...................................................................................................................... 15 4.3.2 Otters .......................................................................................................................... 15 4.3.3 Bats ............................................................................................................................ 15 4.3.4 Nesting Birds .............................................................................................................. 16

Scarborough Bridge, York ii Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report 856793

4.3.5 Reptiles ....................................................................................................................... 16 5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 17 6 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ 18 APPENDIX A – PROTECTED SPECIES LEGISLATION .................................................................... 21

General ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Badger ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Bats... .............................................................................................................................................. 21 Birds ................................................................................................................................................ 22

Birds - general protection ........................................................................................................ 22 Birds (specially protected species) ......................................................................................... 22

Great Crested Newt ........................................................................................................................ 22 Otter... ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Common Reptiles ........................................................................................................................... 23

APPENDIX B – NOTEWORTHY SPECIES RECORDS ...................................................................... 24 APPENDIX C – ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 25 APPENDIX D – TARGET NOTES ........................................................................................................ 28 APPENDIX E – PLANT SPECIES LIST ............................................................................................... 30

FIGURES Figure 1. Site Location Plan .................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 2. Phase 1 Habitat Map ............................................................................................................. 20

PHOTOS Photo 1. Rhododendron ponticum (Rhododendron) growing on the embankment (Target Note 2) ..... 10 Photo 2. View of the bridge taken from the southern bank of the Ouse. .............................................. 11 Photo 3. Bat boxes hung on a tree at the north of the site (Target Note 7). ......................................... 11 Photo 4. An old bird’s nest in a Tilia ×europaea (Lime) tree by the side of the path above the southern bank. ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Photo 5. A section under the northern side of the bridge showing extensive staining from birds roosting and potentially nesting under the bridge ................................................................................. 12



Scarborough Bridge, York 1 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report 856793

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report presents the results of a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (comprising a Background Data Search and a Phase 1 Habitat Survey with assessment for protected species) carried out on 12th and 13th January 2017 in connection with the proposed development of Scarborough Bridge in York (Ordnance Survey Grid Reference SE 59622 52058).

2. The bridge crosses the River Ouse, to the north-west of York city centre. The work areas (the site) comprise the bridge and mainly railway and hardstanding bordering the river. The River Ouse itself is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). To the south of the river is York Rail Station, a collection of buildings and roads and small areas of public green space. To the north of the river are sports fields, residential properties, a large car park and the museum gardens.

3. Aside from the River Ouse beneath the footbridge, there are no habitats of ecological value or concern on the site except a small section of woodland at the northern edge. If it is not possible to avoid removing this woodland as part of the works then it will have to be compensated for, especially if the planted section was created as compensation for a previous loss of woodland.

4. The site and the River Ouse are suitable for birds, bats and Otters. Therefore, a Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEMP) will need to be produced to minimize the potential for adverse impacts on these important features.

5. Further assessments will need to be undertaken if works need to proceed close to (<10 m) trees on site which support bat boxes. If the works could potentially affect bats using the boxes, or if the trees/boxes require removal, then further surveys will be required to confirm if bats use the boxes and the importance of any roost(s) present. In addition, if the bat boxes have been installed as part of a European Protected Species license mitigation strategy for previous works, their removal will require discussions with the statutory authorities.

6. Birds are likely to nest on the bridge and in the adjacent vegetation. Works affecting potential nesting bird habitats should be carried out outside of the nesting season (March to August inclusive). If this is not possible, checks will need to be made for active nests. If active nests are found, they must be retained (with a suitable buffer from works established) and protected from damage/abandonment until the young have fledged.

7. Although no evidence of Otters was found on site, they are known to be present in the river and are likely to pass through the works area, travelling between feeding and resting sites. Therefore, the CEMP will detail mitigation measures to minimize impacts on this (largely) nocturnal species i.e. minimising the amount of work done at night, avoiding loud works at night, directing lighting away from the river etc.


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of this Report This report presents the results of a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (comprising a Background Data Search (BDS) and a Phase 1 Habitat Survey) carried out in connection with the proposed development of Scarborough Bridge, York (Ordnance Survey Grid Reference SE 59622 52058). The Phase 1 Habitat Survey included an assessment of habitat for protected species.

The survey area (termed ‘the site’ throughout this report) includes all areas within the red line boundary (Figure 1) and within a 30 m buffer of the red line boundary. The proposed works involve the modification the existing pedestrian footbridge to replace the steps with ramped access for cycles.

1.2 Ecological Context The site comprises Scarborough Bridge, a footbridge crossing the River Ouse, a section of railway, footpaths either side of the bridge and also a short section of riverside to the east of the bridge. The river Ouse is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). It has limited aquatic and emergent vegetation but is important as a foraging resource for bats and also as a key route for migratory fish species and Otter (Lutra lutra). To the south of the river is York Rail Station, a collection of buildings and roads and small areas of public green space. To the north of the river are sports fields, residential properties, a large car park and the museum gardens.

1.3 Structure of this Report The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

Section 2 details the survey methods; Section 3 provides the results; Section 4 gives an evaluation of the results, Section 5 lists the references; Section 6 contains the figures; Appendix A details protected species legislation; Appendix B provides the Noteworthy species records Appendix C provides a table of abbreviations Appendix D provides the target notes; and Appendix E contains the plant species list




2 METHODS 2.1 Background Data Search

A search was made in December 2016 for reference materials relating to the ecology of Scarborough Bridge, and a list of sources is given in Table 1.

Table 1: Data sources consulted in the background data search

Information Obtained Available From Protected and Noteworthy species-records

North and East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre

Designated site locations and citations

Natural England website

Designated site locations and citations

North and East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre

Designations and legal protection of noteworthy species

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) website

Details of species and habitats listed on the York LBAP

Local BAP website https://www.york.gov.uk/downloads/file/3681/biodiversity_action_planpdf

A search was made for information on statutory designated sites (often internationally and nationally important sites for ecology) and non-statutory designated sites (often important in a local context) within 1 km of the site boundary. A search was also made for records of noteworthy species within 1 km of the site boundary, extending to 2 km for bat records. Species included in the search parameters are:

European protected species (listed on Schedules 2 and 5 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012);

nationally protected species under Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and The Protection of Badgers Act 1992;

species listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable on the IUCN 2001 Red List

all species listed on the RSPB Birds of Conservation Concern 4 as Red or Amber;

Nationally Rare or Nationally Scarce species; Notable invertebrates; and species of Principal Importance under The Natural Environment and Rural

Communities (NERC) Act (2006) or are Priority Species under the Local Biodiversity Action Plan.


2.2 General

The survey was carried out in two parts on the 12th and 13th January 2017 by Dr Steven Heathcote and Ben Lappage. Steven is a full member of CIEEM (Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management), and experienced in botanical surveys and surveying for protected species. Steven carried out an initial survey from the railway land during a night-time possession on the night of 12th January. Ben carried out further surveys from public rights of way during the daytime on 13th January.

2.3 Phase 1 Habitat Survey The habitat survey centred on the Phase 1 Habitat Survey approach (Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2010) as extended for use in Environmental Impact Assessments (Institute of Environmental Assessment 1995). This involves the following elements.

Habitat mapping using a set of standard colour codes to indicate habitat types on a Phase 1 Habitat Map.

Description of features of possible ecological or nature conservation interest in notes relating to numbered locations on the Phase 1 Habitat Map, called ‘Target Notes’.

Basic Phase 1 Habitat Survey methods are described in detail in Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC 2010). Limits to the achievable reliability of the method are discussed in Cherrill & McClean (1999). There are no firm guidelines to specify what extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey involve, but the Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) suggests that it simply involves more extensive and detailed target notes.

Plant nomenclature in this report follows Stace (2010) for native and naturalised species of vascular plant and mosses and liverworts follow Hill et al. (2008). Introduced species and garden varieties were identified using the relevant texts. Plant names in the text are given with scientific names first, followed by the English name in brackets. Doubtful identifications are preceded by ‘cf.’ placed before the specific epithet where the plant is very probably the species indicated, but it could not be distinguished from similar members of the genus with certainty.

A plant species list was recorded for the site and is given in Appendix C. Subjective estimates of the relative abundance of species within the site were added to the list using a modified DAFOR scale. The DAFOR scale ranks species according to their relative abundance in a given parcel of land as follows: D – dominant, A – abundant, F – frequent, O – occasional, R – rare. In addition, the following prefixes are used: L – locally, V – very.

2.4 Invasive Plant Species The site was surveyed for invasive plant species listed on Schedule 9 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Special attention was paid to the river and




areas of tall-herb vegetation, because these are the areas most likely to support the target species.

2.5 Habitat Assessment for Protected Vertebrates

2.5.1 General

The site was assessed for its suitability to support the protected animals that are likely to occur in the area. Taking into account the location and habitats at the site, assessment was carried out for:

Badger;

Otter;

bat species (foraging, commuting and roosting);

nesting birds; and

reptile species.

Further details of the assessment methods are given below. The site was not assessed for its suitability for Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus) because no potential breeding ponds were present within 500m of the site and no records were found within 1 km. Also, there is a lack of suitable habitat connecting the site to more suitable newt habitat further afield, making their presence highly unlikely.

2.5.2 Badgers

An initial assessment was carried out to identify areas that might be used by Badger (Meles meles) for commuting, foraging and sett-building. Signs of Badger activity include setts, tracks, footprints, hairs, feeding signs and latrines.

2.5.3 Bats

Habitats were assessed on their suitability for foraging or commuting bats. Areas of particular interest vary between species, but generally include sheltered areas and habitats with good numbers of insects, such as woodland, scrub, rivers and species-rich or rough grassland.

Trees and man-made structures were identified if they obviously had potential to house roosting bats. This involved consideration of the age and condition of the structure, and identifying features that roosting bats may favour (e.g. holes, cracks and cavities that might be used as bat-entrance points or roost sites).

If any definite signs of bats or other evidence had been found (such as actual sightings, droppings, urine stains, odour, scratch marks, grease stains and feeding remains), they would have been recorded, though finding such evidence is highly unlikely at this level of survey and at the time of year the survey was undertaken.


2.5.4 Nesting Birds

The site was assessed in terms of its suitability to support nesting birds. Birds nest in a wide variety of habitats including scrub woodland, hedges and trees, as well as on open ground and in man-made structures.

2.5.5 Otters

The Background Data Search identified that Otters are present on the River Ouse. Therefore, an initial assessment was carried out to identify areas of the river around the site that might be important for commuting, resting or feeding Otter (Lutra lutra). Signs of Otter activity include dung (spraints), tracks (footprints) and feeding remains.

2.5.6 Reptiles

The site was assessed for reptiles, with particular attention to those features that provide suitable basking areas (e.g. south-facing slopes), hibernation sites (e.g. banks, walls, piles of rotting vegetation) and opportunities for foraging (e.g. rough grassland and scrub).

The site was assessed for its suitability for each of the three most common reptile species. Specific habitat requirements differ between species. Common Lizards (Zootoca vivipara) use a variety of habitats from woodland glades to walls and pastures, although one of their favoured habitats is rough grassland. Slow-worms (Anguis fragilis) use similar habitats to Common Lizards, and are often found in rank grassland, gardens and derelict land. Grass Snakes (Natrix natrix) have broadly similar requirements to Common Lizards with a greater reliance on ponds and wetlands, where they prey on Common Frogs (Rana temporaria) (Beebee and Griffith 2000).

2.6 Survey Constraints The data from these surveys are relevant for a maximum of 12 months. Therefore, if more than one year elapses prior to commencement of the development, a repeat Phase 1 Habitat survey will be required to ensure up-to-date information.

Surveys would ideally be carried out from April to August to avoid missing plant species which are not evident outside of this time. Although all the significant plant species on the site are thought to have been recorded, some species may have been missed as a result of this survey being done out of season.




3 RESULTS

3.1 Background Data Search

3.1.1 Biodiversity Action Plans

Habitats on site meet the Habitats of Principal Importance types under Section 41 of The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) for Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland and Rivers. The local plans that are relevant to the proposed development are;

Habitats:

Urban Woodland

Species Action Plans:

Bats Bees and Wasps Otter Tansy Beetle

3.1.2 Designated Sites

Statutory Sites

There are no statutory designated sites within 1 km of the site boundary.

SSSI Impact Risk Zones

There are several Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in the wider area (i.e. >1 km from the site), including Clifton Ings and Rawcliffe Meadows SSSI and Fulford Ings SSSI. The site intersects SSSI Impact Risk Zones for these sites and an Impact Risk Zone that runs along the River Ouse. Although the development is likely to have no impact or a negligible impact on these SSSIs, Natural England should be contacted prior to the commencement of works.

Non-statutory Sites

There are two non-statutory designated sites within 1 km of the site boundary; both are Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). These sites are listed in

Table 2 in order of proximity to the site; short descriptions are given for the sites.


Table 2: Non-Statutory Sites within 1 km of the Site Boundary

Site Name Designation Approximate Distance (m)

River Ouse SINC Bridge crosses the river

The River Ouse SINC covers the length of the river in the City of York and its adjacent habitats. The river has limited aquatic and emergent vegetation; the river banks have variable degrees of tree and shrub cover along with tall ruderal communities. The bulb flora of the riverbanks includes Allium oleraceum (Field Garlic) and A. scorodoprasum (Sand Leek). The river is important for migratory fish species; particularly Atlantic Salmon, Eel, River Lamprey and Sea Lamprey. Otter have been recorded throughout the length on the river. The river provides an important foraging resource for bats. The site is important for birds; species of note include Common Sandpiper, Grey Wagtail, Kingfisher, Redshank, Sand Martin, Snipe, Teal and Tufted Duck. The river and its banks are also important for invertebrates, including several nationally scarce species including the Depressed River Mussel and Tansy Beetle. Scarborough Bridge crosses the River Ouse SINC.

Clifton Bridge SINC 950

Clifton Bridge SINC is designated for its maternity colonies of Noctule, Daubenton’s and Pipistrelle bats which occupy cavities between the pillars and the underside of the bridge. The bridge crosses the River Ouse which with its wooded riverbanks and the nearby Ings provides feeding habitats for the bats.

Other Notable Sites There are no areas of ancient woodland within 1 km of the site boundary.

3.1.3 Protected and Noteworthy Species

At least 16 noteworthy species are recorded from places within 1 km of the site boundary, extending to 2 km for bat records. Of these, five are birds, three are invertebrates, at least seven are mammals and one is a reptile. Species that are protected by law under Schedules 2 and 5 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012, The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and have been recorded in the search area are listed in the table below; a full species list is given in Appendix B – NOTEWORTHY SPECIES RECORDS.

Table 3: Protected Species Records within 1 km of the Site Boundary, extending to 2 km for Bat Records

Latin Name Common Name Designation

Mos

t R

ecen

t

No

of

Rec

ords

W

ithin

10

0m

With

in

1km

W

ithin

2k

m

Birds




Latin Name Common Name Designation

Mos

t R

ecen

t

No

of

Rec

ords

W

ithin

10

0m

With

in

1km

W

ithin

2k

m

Alcedo atthis Common Kingfisher WCA1.1 2014 3 P

Mammals Lutra lutra European Otter EPS(Sch2), WCA5 2003 5 P Myotis sp. a Myotis bat EPS(Sch2), WCA5 2008 2 Myotis daubentonii Daubenton's Bat EPS(Sch2), WCA5 2004 7 Myotis mystacinus Whiskered Bat EPS(Sch2), WCA5 1973 1 P P Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat EPS(Sch2), WCA5 2009 28 Pipistrellus sp. a Pipistrelle bat EPS(Sch2), WCA5 2008 12 Pipistrellus pipistrellus

Common Pipistrelle EPS(Sch2), WCA5 2015 111

Pipistrellus pygmaeus Soprano Pipistrelle EPS(Sch2), WCA5 2014 4

Vespertilionidae Vespertilionidae EPS(Sch2), WCA5 2004 13 Reptiles Natrix natrix Grass Snake WCA5 1976 1

Note - P relates to records with 4 figure grid references that could potentially be anywhere within a 1 km square.

3.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey

3.2.1 Overview

A Phase 1 Habitat Map is provided as Figure 2 which shows the location of the Target Notes referred to in the text below. A full description for each of the Target Notes is given in Appendix D. The site primarily comprises railway ballast, paths and hardstanding but there are also small areas of scrub, planted trees and ephemeral/short perennial vegetation.

3.2.2 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland

The area at the far northern end of the site has a number of mature Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore) trees over 10 m high on the embankment down from the railway (Target Note 6). There is an understory of smaller trees present such as Ilex aquifolium (Holly) and Corylus avellana (Hazel). Ground flora was limited to Rubus fruticosus agg. (Bramble) and a dense layer of leaf-litter, although many woodland ground flora species are not visible at this time of year.

3.2.3 Scrub with trees

Scrub is common around the site and mostly comprises Rubus fruticosus agg. (Bramble) with scattered trees and saplings growing amongst it. In one area south of


the river (Target Note 2) there is also a patch of the invasive species Rhododendron ponticum (Rhododendron) (Photo 1).

Photo 1. Rhododendron ponticum (Rhododendron) growing on the embankment (Target Note 2)

3.2.4 Planted Shrub

There is a thin strip of planted shrub at the edges of the path along the southern edge of the Ouse including species such as Symphoricarpos albus (Snowberry) (Target Note 9). It does not appear to be heavily maintained, allowing native species such as Rubus fruticosus agg. (Bramble) and Urtica dioica (Common Nettle) to be present throughout.

3.2.5 Ephemeral/short perennial

A patchwork of species typical of railway ballast and derelict urban sites is present in areas around the track to the south of the site. On the bank down to the road (Target Note 10) this appears to have developed into scrub before being cut down in the last few years allowing for more ruderal species to colonise.

3.2.6 Hardstanding

Much of the site is hardstanding, paths and masonry with patches of moss and weedy plants growing from the egdes. Species include Capsella bursa-pastoris (Shepherd’s-purse), Cirsium vulgare (Spear Thistle), Poa annua (Annual Meadow-grass) and Stellaria media (Common Chickweed). There is evidence of regular use of the concrete edges of the Ouse by wildfowl including Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) and Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) (Photo 2).




Photo 2. View of the bridge taken from the southern bank of the Ouse.

3.3 Assessment for Protected Species

3.3.1 Badgers

The habitat on and around the site is not suitable foraging habitat for Badgers. Parts of the railway bank are suitable for building setts, although this habitat is isolated from other suitable habitat. Additionally, no evidence of Badgers and no Badger setts were recorded during the survey. The current survey effort was sufficient to conclude that no setts are present on site.

3.3.2 Bats

The site provides foraging and commuting habitat for bats. Although some of the trees on and adjacent to the site are mature, most appear to be in good condition and do not have features suitable for roosting bats. However, there are two large Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore) trees with bat boxes attached to their trunks (Target notes 2 and 7). One of these trees is shown in Photo 3. Bat boxes are purpose-built bat roosts, and are very often used by bats (although a check by a licensed ecologist is necessary to confirm in each particular instance).

Photo 3. Bat boxes hung on a tree at the north of the site (Target Note 7).


3.3.3 Nesting Birds

Much of the scrub, trees and the bridge itself create suitable places for nesting birds. This was evidenced by the number of nest structures seen still surviving from the 2016 breeding season (Photo 4). Although there are spikes on some parts of the bridge to deter roosting and nesting birds, the continued activity and signs of feral pigeons suggests there are still some suitable areas (Photo 5). As a result, it is assumed that various species of bird will nest across much of the site during the breeding season.

Photo 4. An old bird’s nest in a Tilia ×europaea (Lime) tree by the side of the path above the southern bank.

Photo 5. A section under the northern side of the bridge showing extensive staining from birds roosting and potentially nesting under the bridge

3.3.4 Otters

No signs of Otter were found within 250 m of the site and this section of the river is too heavily modified to provide good resting and shelter sites. However, Otters do use the River Ouse and one or more Otters are likely to use this section of the river as part of their territory or territories. They are therefore likely to be moving through the area at all times of the year, most likely at night or around sunrise and sunset. Otters are one of the reasons that the river has been designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and, although the river is not included in the site and will not be developed directly, it will still be indirectly affected and should therefore be taken into account.




3.3.5 Reptiles

Much of the site is unsuitable for reptiles, being hard-standing with no cover or shelter. However, the wooded railway corridor is likely to be suitable for reptiles and could potentially form a small part of a larger territory.


4 EVALUATION

4.1 Designated Sites The Scarborough Bridge crosses the River Ouse in a section where it is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Otters, Kingfishers and a number of bat species are either listed on the designated site citation or have been recorded within 1 km. These species are likely to use the river as a corridor to move within territories or between different areas of habitat. However, the works are not expected to directly affect the river channel, or lead to significant alterations to any natural areas of the banks. The potential impacts of the works on the species known to use the site are discussed in the relevant sections below.

4.2 Habitats and Plants The habitats on the site are common and ubiquitous throughout the region. However, the small amount of secondary woodland in the north of the site dominated by Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore) is considered to be of some ecological value. This type of habitat in an urban area is likely to provide important ecological functions and services and classifies as woodland, a Habitat of Principle Importance. The planted woodland adjacent to this is potentially planted as compensation for a previous loss of woodland, and this should be checked if and before it is removed. Despite this, the current survey is adequate to assess that none of the habitats on site are species-rich or botanically valuable. Therefore, no further botanical surveys will be necessary.

The presence of Rhododendron ponticum (Rhododendron) on site could cause issues because it is a species listed on Schedule 9 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is illegal to assist the spread of this species so if the plants cannot be avoided then care must be taken to either keep all material on site or treat any material moved from this area as contaminated waste. No additional surveys for invasive species will be required because the extent of Rhododendron is thought to have been captured by this Phase 1 survey.

If planting close to the river is planned or is possible as part of the development, then it would be possible to enhance and restore biodiversity as well as protect it. This is in line with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). It could be achieved by planting Tanacetum vulgare (Tansy) for the Tansy beetle (Chrysolina graminis) for which no suitable habitat currently exists on the site. The Tansy Beetle is a Species of Principle Importance with recent records along the river, well within a kilometre of the site.




4.3 Assessment for Protected Vertebrates

4.3.1 Badgers

Although the railway embankment is suitable for building setts on the site and Badgers are known to make setts along railways, it is considered that Badgers are highly unlikely to use the site. This is primarily because of the site’s isolation from other suitable foraging habitat. In addition, no signs of Badger activity were recorded during the survey.

4.3.2 Otters

While no evidence of Otter activity was found, records of their presence from potentially within 1 km of the site make it highly likely that they move through this section of river to other parts of their territories. This is because the territories of Otters regularly include large stretches of river coving many kilometres. These movements are most likely to occur during the night or around dawn and dusk. Bright lights and noise during construction at these times could disturb and dissuade Otters from their usual routes. This can push them out of the water and lead them to attempt to cross the area via roads or the railway which will increase their chances of injury or death.

During construction, the amount of work done at night should be minimized and, if this is not possible, then the amount of noise and light disturbance affecting the river should be reduced as much as possible (i.e. through the use of directional lighting and no prolonged work periods over consecutive nights). A brief Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEMP) will be produced once final working methods are decided to ensure that sufficient mitigation is included.

4.3.3 Bats

There are a large number of bat records from the area. The site offers a small amount of suitable habitat for commuting and foraging bats, primarily the river and the small areas dominated by trees. It is possible that bats roost on the site, most likely in the bat boxes located either side of the bridge. The bridge itself is not considered to be suitable for bats to roost. No suitable sites for hibernation over winter were found. Mitigation detailed for Otters will also minimise the potential impact of works on bats commuting and foraging along the river.

Confirmed bat roosts are legally protected, even if the features are not occupied at the time of surveys. This means that if areas within 10 metres of the bat boxes are to be affected during the bat active season (generally considered May to September inclusive) then works will need to be assessed to determine if/how they could affect bats (if present) or their roosts (potentially the boxes). If potential impacts are identified, the boxes will need to be inspected. If confirmed as bat roosts, or if any uncertainty about their status as a roost remains following the inspection, bat surveys in-line with current guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust, 2016) will need to be carried out to determine the species using the boxes and the importance of the roost(s). In addition,


the bat boxes are likely to be part of mitigation for a previous development so should be protected to avoid cumulative damage to bat habitat in the area. Mitigation for the removal or disturbance of these boxes may involve moving the boxes or erecting new ones in unaffected woodland or on suitable trees nearby, but this would need to be confirmed with any existing licence holders (covering any previous mitigation scheme) and Natural England.

4.3.4 Nesting Birds

To avoid impacts on nesting birds, removal of vegetation that is likely to be used by nesting birds, or work affecting areas of the bridge where birds are nesting, should only be carried out outside the nesting season (March to August inclusive). If this is not possible, then the nearby vegetation or sections of the bridge will have to be checked for nests by an ecologist immediately prior to works beginning. If nests are found, they must be retained (with a suitable buffer from works established) and protected from damage or abandonment until the young have fledged. Also, additional bird deterrents could be put in place before March to discourage birds from nesting. As a last resort, an exception can be made for feral pigeons which can be humanely culled under a licence if their nests are obstructing work.

4.3.5 Reptiles

Although a Grass Snake has been recorded within 1 km of the site, most of the site itself is not suitable for reptiles. However, the vegetated areas of railway corridor could potentially be a small and low quality part of a reptile territory. As such, the project staff will be briefed on the potential presence of reptiles, and if one is encountered, works will need to stop and an ecologist consulted about how to proceed.




5 REFERENCES

Bat Conservation Trust (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists – Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition). Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group (1994). Biodiversity; A UK Action Plan. HMSO, London

Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group (2007). Report on the Species and Habitat Review: Report to the UK Biodiversity Partnership. JNCC.

Cheffings, C.M. & Farrell, L. (eds), Dines, T.D., Jones, R.A., Leach, S.J., McKean, D.R., Pearman, D.A., Preston, C.D., Rumsey, F.J. & Taylor, I. (2005). The vascular plant Red Data list for Great Britain. Species Status, 7, 1-116.

Department for Communities and Local Government. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Available at www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. (2012) ‘Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal.’ Technical Guidance Series [online]. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Available at www.cieem.net/guidance-on-preliminary-ecological-appraisal-gpea-.

JNCC. (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (revised 2010 edition). JNCC, Peterborough.

Hill, D., Fasham, M., Tucker, G., Shewry, M. & Shaw, P. (2005). Handbook of Biodiversity Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hill, M.O., Blackstock, T.H., Long, D.G. & Rothero, G.P. (2008). A Checklist and Census Catalogue of British and Irish Bryophytes. British Bryological Society, Middlewich.

Stace CA (2010). New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press; 3rd Edition.


6 FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Location Plan .................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 2. Phase 1 Habitat Map ............................................................................................................. 20




APPENDIX A – PROTECTED SPECIES LEGISLATION General This section briefly describes the legal protection afforded to the protected species referred to in this report. It is for information only and is not intended to be comprehensive or to replace specialised legal advice. It is not intended to replace the text of the legislation, but summarises the salient points.

Badger Meles meles (Badger) is protected in Britain under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and Schedule 6 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The legislation affords protection to Badgers and Badger setts, and makes it a criminal offence to:

wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a Badger, or to attempt to do so;

interfere with a sett by damaging or destroying it;

to obstruct access to, or any entrance of, a Badger sett; or

to disturb a Badger when it is occupying a sett.

Bats... All species of British bat are protected by The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), extended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This legislation makes it an offence to:

intentionally kill, injure or take;

possess or control;

intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place; and

intentionally or recklessly disturb whilst the animal occupies a breeding site or resting place.

Bats are also European Protected Species listed on The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 (as amended). This legislation makes it an offence to:

deliberately capture, injure or kill;

deliberately disturb, including in particular any disturbance which is likely (a) to impair their ability - (i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or (ii) hibernate or migrate, where relevant; or (b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.

damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place; and


possess, control, transport, sell, exchange, or offer for sale or exchange.

Birds

Birds - general protection

All species of bird are protected under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The protection was extended by the CRoW Act. The legislation makes it an offence to intentionally:

kill, injure or take any wild bird;

take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built; or

take or destroy an egg of any wild bird.

Birds (specially protected species)

Certain species of bird are listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and receive protection under Sections 1(4) and 1(5) of the Act. The protection was extended by the CRoW Act. The legislation confers special penalties where the above mentioned offences are committed for any such bird and also make it an offence to intentionally or recklessly:

disturb any such bird, whilst building its nest or it is in or near a nest containing dependant young; or

disturb the dependant young of such a bird.

Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus (Great Crested Newt) is listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and receives full protection under Section 9. This species is also listed as a European Protected Species on Schedule 2 of the Conservation (of Habitats and Species) Regulations 2010 which gives it full protection under Section 41. Protection was extended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the CRoW Act).

Under the above legislation it is an offence to:

kill, injure or take an individual of such a species;

possess any part of such species either alive or dead;

intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place or structure used by such species for shelter, rest, protection or breeding;

intentionally or recklessly disturb such a species whilst using any place of shelter or protection; or

sell or attempt to sell any such species.




The Great Crested Newt is included as a Priority Species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) and also as a species of principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity in England under Section 74 of the CRoW Act.

Otter... Lutra Lutra (Otter) is protected by The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), extended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This legislation makes it an offence to:

intentionally kill, injure or take;

possess or control;

intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place; and

intentionally or recklessly disturb whilst the animal occupies a breeding site or resting place.

Otters are also European Protected Species listed on The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 (as amended). This legislation makes it an offence to:

deliberately capture, injure or kill;

deliberately disturb, including in particular any disturbance which is likely (a) to impair their ability - (i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or (ii) hibernate or migrate, where relevant; or (b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.

damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place; and

possess, control, transport, sell, exchange, or offer for sale or exchange.

Common Reptiles Zootoca vivipara (Common Lizard), Natrix natrix (Grass Snake), Anguis fragilis (Slow-worm), and Vipera berus (Adder) are listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), in respect of Section 9(5) and part of Section 9(1). This protection was extended by the CRoW Act. Under the above legislation it is an offence to:

intentionally or deliberately kill or injure any individual of such a species; or

sell or attempt to sell any part of the species alive or dead.


APPENDIX B – NOTEWORTHY SPECIES RECORDS Table 4 displays noteworthy species records that are located within 1 km of the site boundary, extending to 2 km for bat records. These species records were obtained from the North and East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre. The Latin and common names for species are given as well as their level of designation. A glossary defining abbreviations used in the table is given in Table 5. If a species is not included in the table below it does not necessarily mean the species is absent from the search area, but rather that data-holding organizations do not have records of it in these locations.

Table 4. Noteworthy Species Records within 1 km of the Site Boundary, extending to 2 km for bat Records

Latin Name Common Name Designation Birds Alcedo atthis Common Kingfisher WCA1.1, Amber Apus apus Common Swift Amber Passer domesticus House Sparrow S41, Red Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling S41, Red Turdus philomelos Song Thrush S41, Red Invertebrates Chrysolina graminis Tansy Beetle S41, Notable:A, LBAP Pseudanodonta complanata Depressed River Mussel S41, LBAP Sialis nigripes Sialis nigripes Notable Mammals Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog S41 Lutra lutra European Otter EPS(Sch2), WCA5, S41, LBAP Myotis sp. a Myotis bat EPS(Sch2), WCA5, LBAP Myotis daubentonii Daubenton's Bat EPS(Sch2), WCA5, LBAP Myotis mystacinus Whiskered Bat EPS(Sch2), WCA5, LBAP Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat EPS(Sch2), WCA5, S41, LBAP Pipistrellus sp. a Pipistrelle bat EPS(Sch2), WCA5, LBAP Pipistrellus pipistrellus Common Pipistrelle EPS(Sch2), WCA5, LBAP Pipistrellus pygmaeus Soprano Pipistrelle EPS(Sch2), WCA5, S41, LBAP Vespertilionidae Vespertilionidae EPS(Sch2), WCA5, LBAP Reptiles Natrix natrix Grass Snake WCA5, S41




APPENDIX C – ABBREVIATIONS Table 5 displays abbreviations of protected species legislation.

Table 5. Glossary of abbreviations used in this report:

Code Full Title Explanation Amber Amber list Amber listed species have a population status in the UK of

medium conservation concern. BA The Protection of

Badgers Act 1992 Legislation making it an offence to kill, injure or take a Badger, or to damage or interfere with a sett unless a licence is obtained from a statutory authority.

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

A plan that identifies threats to significantly important species and habitats, and sets out targets and actions to enhance or maintain biodiversity.

DA The Deer Act 1991 All wild deer with the exception of Muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and Chinese Water deer (Hydropotes inermis) are protected by a closed season.

ENG BSBI RDB

A Vascular Plant Red List for England

A list published in 2014 by the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland of the red list status of plants in England. Measured against standardised IUCN criteria.

ENG BSBI RDB(CR)

Critically Endangered A BSBI Red List designation for species at an extremely high risk of extinction.

ENG BSBI RDB(EN)

Endangered A BSBI Red List designation for species at a very high risk of extinction.

ENG BSBI RDB(VU)

Vulnerable A BSBI Red List designation for species at high risk of extinction.

EPS (Sch 2) European Protected Species (Schedule 2)

European protected animal species (listed on Schedules 2 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012)

EPS (Sch 5) European Protected Species (Schedule 5)

European protected plant species (listed on Schedules 5 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012)

GB RDB Red Data Book Species

Species identified in one of the UK Red Data 2001.

GB RDB(CR) Critically Endangered An IUCN Red List designation for species at an extremely high risk of extinction.

GB RDB(EN) Endangered An IUCN Red List designation for species at a very high risk of extinction.

GB RDB(VU) Vulnerable An IUCN Red List designation for species at high risk of extinction.

HAP Habitat Action Plan A plan that identifies threats to a priority habitat and sets out targets and actions to enhance or maintain that habitat.

IUCN International Union for Conservation of

A worldwide partnership and conservation network to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the


Code Full Title Explanation Nature and Natural Resources (also known as The World Conservation Union)

world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.

LBAP Local Biodiversity Action Plan

A plan that identifies threats to locally important species and habitats, and sets out targets and actions in Species Action Plans and Habitat Action Plans to enhance or maintain biodiversity at the county or regional level.

LHAP Local Habitat Action Plan

A plan that identifies threats to a locally important priority habitat and sets out targets and actions to enhance or maintain that habitat.

LSAP Local Species Action Plan

A plan that identifies threats to locally important species, and sets out targets and actions to prevent losing that species from the local area.

Notable

Scarce and threatened invertebrates

Invertebrate species which are estimated to occur within the range of 16 to 100 10km squares but subdivision into Notable A and Notable B categories is not possible as there is insufficient information available).

Notable:A Scarce and threatened invertebrates

Taxa which do not fall within Red Data Book categories but which are none-the-less uncommon in Great Britain and thought to occur in 30 or fewer 10km squares of the National Grid or, for less well-recorded groups, within seven or fewer vice-counties.

Notable: B Scarce and threatened invertebrates

Taxa which do not fall within Red Data Book categories but which are none-the-less uncommon in Great Britain and thought to occur in between 31 and 100 10km squares of the National Grid or, for less-well recorded groups between eight and twenty vice-counties.

NN Nationally Notable Designation for invertebrate taxa that are thought to be notably important in the UK.

NR Nationally Rare Species in 15 or fewer hectads in Great Britain. NS National Scarce Species in 16-100 hectads in Great Britain. Red Red List Red listed species have a population status in the UK with

high conservation concern. SAP Species Action Plan A plan that identifies threats to significantly important

species, and sets out targets and actions to prevent losing that species to extinction.

S41 Species of Principal Importance

Species of Principal Importance in England under The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006)

UKBAP UK Biodiversity Action Plan

A plan that identifies threats to locally important species and habitats, and sets out targets and actions in Species Action Plans and Habitat Action Plans to enhance or maintain biodiversity in the UK.

WCA The Wildlife and Countryside Act

Containing 4 Parts and 17 Schedules, the Act covers protection of wildlife (birds, and some animals and plants),




Code Full Title Explanation 1981 (as amended) the countryside, National Parks, and the designation of

protected areas, and public rights of way. All wild plants in Britain are protected from intentional uprooting by an unauthorized person, but land owners, land occupiers, persons authorized by either of these or persons authorized in writing by the Local Authority for the area are exempt. Protection for some species may be limited to certain Sections of the Act (e.g. S13(2).

WCA1 Schedule 1 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

This Schedule lists birds protected by special penalties at all times, but virtually all wild birds have some protection in law. Acts which are prohibited for all wild birds (except derogated ‘pest’ species) include intentional killing, injuring or taking; taking, damaging or destroying nests in use or being built; taking or destroying eggs; possessing or having control of (with certain exceptions but including live for dead birds, parts or derivative); setting or permitting certain traps, weapons, decoys or poisons. Selling, offering or exposing for sale, possessing or transporting for sale any live wild bird, egg or part of an egg or advertising any of these for sale, or dead wild bird including parts or derivatives are also prohibited. Many birds must be formally registered and ringed if kept in captivity. Schedule I WCA birds are additionally protected from intentional or reckless disturbance while building a nest, or when such a bird is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young, or intentional or reckless disturbance of dependent young.


Schedule 5 animals are protected from intentional killing, injuring or taking; possessing (including parts or derivatives); intentional or reckless damage, destruction or obstruction of any structure or place used for shelter or protection; selling, offering or exposing for sale, possessing or transporting for the purpose of sale (alive or dead, including parts or derivatives). Protection of some species is limited to certain Sections of the Act (e.g. S9(1), S9(4a), S9(4b), S9(5)).


Plants and fungi protected from intentional picking, uprooting, destroying, trading (including parts or derivatives), etc.


APPENDIX D – TARGET NOTES The location of the following Target Notes are shown in Figure 2.

Target Note 1. Small area of grassland dominated by Urtica dioica (Common Nettle) but also with Cirsium arvense (Creeping Thistle) and Festuca rubra (Red Fescue) present. Scattered scrub is also present around with species including Buddleja davidii (Butterfly-bush), Fraxinus excelsior (Ash) and Laburnum anagyroides (Laburnum).

Target Note 2. A large, mature Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore) with two bat boxes and bird boxes. Rhododendron ponticum (Rhododendron) is locally abundant in the understory.

Target Note 3. Scrub on a steep bank down from the track. Ligustrum ovalifolium (Garden Privet) is most frequent but Buddleja davidii (Butterfly-bush) and semi-mature Fraxinus excelsior (Ash) to 12 m are also present. There is scattered deadwood and other debris amongst the trees. All trees are young and in good health, with no obvious features suitable for roosting bats.

Target Note 4. Lines of mixed, planted, deciduous trees to 7 or 8 metres growing over Rubus fruticosus agg. (Bramble).

Target Note 5. Young Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore) scrub to 2 m with locally abundant Rubus fruticosus agg. (Bramble). Also present are Buddleja davidii (Butterfly-bush), Chamerion angustifolium (Rosebay Willowherb), Cornus sanguinea (Dogwood), Dactylis glomerata (Cock’s-foot), Elytrigia repens (Common Couch) and Senecio jacobaea (Common Ragwort). Additionally, a Cotoneaster species (a Cotoneaster) is present by the bridge.

Target Note 6. Mature trees on the embankment down from the railway all category 3 for bats. These are mostly Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore) to 15 m growing over other species such as Artemisia vulgaris (Mugwort), Buddleja davidii (Butterfly-bush) and Rubus fruticosus agg. (Bramble). Nearer to the base of the embankment there are occasional, planted Corylus avellana (Hazel) trees and some log piles.

Target Note 7. A large, mature Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore) possibly just off site but with two bat boxes.

Target Note 8. Hardstanding forming the northern bank of the River Ouse. It consists of a c. 1.5 m wide concrete platform at the edge of the river and a steep stonework bank up to wide path. Very little vegetation is present other than small weedy species and mosses growing at the edges of the paths and a row of individually planted Tilia ×europaea (Lime) trees. There is




access under the bridge at this northern side of the river with the concrete bank covered in feral pigeon droppings.

Target Note 9. Hardstanding forming the southern bank of the Ouse. It consists of a c. 1.5 m wide concrete platform at the edge of the river and a stonework bank up to a path. Some moss is growing on the bank, and two rows of planted Tilia ×europaea (Lime) trees run parallel either side of the path. There are also planted shrubs and ruderal species on the southern edge of the path including Hedera helix (Ivy), Rubus fruticosus agg. (Bramble), Symphoricarpos albus (Snowberry) and Urtica dioica (Common Nettle).

Target Note 10. A bank running down from the concrete steps next to the railway down to the road. It appears to be recently cut shrub now being taken over by ruderal species. Species include Galium aparine (Cleavers), Rubus fruticosus agg. (Bramble) and Urtica dioica (Common Nettle)


APPENDIX E – PLANT SPECIES LIST Table 6. Plant species recorded from the site. Estimates of abundance using the DAFOR system are also given.

Species Abundance a) Trees, shrubs and woody climbers Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore) O Aucuba japonica (Spotted-laurel) R Betula pendula (Silver Birch) R Buddleja davidii (Butterfly-bush) O Corylus avellana (Hazel) O Cotoneaster species (a Cotoneaster) R Fraxinus excelsior (Ash) O Hedera helix (Ivy) O Ilex aquifolium (Holly) R Laburnum anagyroides (Laburnum) R Ligustrum ovalifolium (Garden Privet) O Pinus sylvestris (Scots Pine) VR Quercus robur (Pedunculate Oak) R Rhododendron ponticum (Rhododendron) LA Rubus fruticosus agg. (Bramble) F Symphoricarpos albus (Snowberry) R Syringa vulgaris (Lilac) R Tilia ×europaea (Lime) O Viburnum tinus (Laurustinus) R b) Herbaceous species Arctium minus (Lesser Burdock) R Artemisia vulgaris (Mugwort) O Capsella bursa-pastoris (Shepherd’s-purse) O Chamerion angustifolium (Rosebay Willowherb) LF Cirsium vulgare (Spear Thistle) O Dactylis glomerata (Cock’s-foot) R Elytrigia repens (Common Couch) O Festuca rubra (Red Fescue) R Galium aparine (Cleavers) LF Geranium robertianum (Herb-Robert) O Geum urbanum (Wood Avens) R Poa annua (Annual Meadow-grass) F Ranunculus repens (Creeping Buttercup) LA Senecio jacobaea (Common Ragwort) O


Species Abundance Senecio vulgaris (Groundsel) R Sonchus oleraceus (Smooth Sow-thistle) R Stellaria media (Common Chickweed) O Trifolium repens (White Clover) LF Urtica dioica (Common Nettle) O
