robertstown, aberdare ecological appraisal and …

DARNTON B3 ARCHITECTURE

ON BEHALF OF RHONDDA CYNON TAFF COUNCIL

ROBERTSTOWN, ABERDARE

ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL AND SUMMARY OF BREEAM ECOLOGY CREDITS

AUGUST 2018

4 Stangate House, Stanwell Road, Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan, United Kingdom. CF64 2AA Telephone: - 029 2040 8476 e-mail: - [email protected] Website: - www.soltysbrewster.com

Darnton B3 Architecture Robertstown, Aberdare Ecological Appraisal and Summary of BREEAM Ecology Credits E1882501/ Doc 01

DARNTON B3 ARCHITECTURE

(ON BEHALF OF RHONDDA CYNON TAFF COUNCIL)

ROBERTSTOWN, ABERDARE

ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL AND SUMMARY OF BREEAM ECOLOGY CREDITS

Document Ref: E1882501/ Doc 01 – August 2018

Issue Revision Stage Date Prepared by Approved by Signed 1

-

Draft

10 May 2018

Anna Owen (Ecologist)

Dr. Matthew Watts (Director)

2

BREEAM update

For Submission

07 August 2018

Anna Owen (Ecologist)

Dr. Matthew Watts (Director)


CONTENTS

Summary

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Methodology

Desk study

Field survey

3.0 Results

Desk study

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

Fauna

4.0 Policies and Plans

5.0 BREEAM Land Use & Ecology Credits

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

References

Appendices

Appendix I Site location Plan – Pages–Independent Market Assessment (JLL, 2017)

Appendix II Local records map received from SEWBReC

Appendix III Target notes to accompany Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map

Appendix IV Advice sheet on the use of street lighting and bats

Appendix V Soft Landscape Plan – Option 2 Layout


SUMMARY

Soltys Brewster Ecology were commissioned by Darnton B3 Architecture on behalf of Rhondda Cynon Taff County

Borough Council to undertake an ecological appraisal of a parcel of land at Robertstown, Aberdare to inform planning

for the development of new light industrial/employment units. The ecological baseline conditions at the site were

established in April 2018 through a combination of desk study and Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

Desk based consultation confirmed that the site does not hold any form of statutory or non-statutory nature

conservation designation. However the Upper Cynon Floodplain is considered a Site of Importance to Nature

Conservation and is associated with the River Cynon and land to the east of the river. The river lies outside the

development boundary and is located approximately 100m south of the site. Local records received from the South

East Wales Biodiversity Records Centre (SEWBReC) did not indicate any protected or notable species specifically

associated with the site although records of a variety of plants, birds, invertebrates, bats and other mammals were

identified in the surrounding (1km) area.

An Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey undertaken in April 2018 identified that the site supports a limited range of habitat

types, dominated by scrub vegetation with areas of poor semi-improved grassland, bare ground, small area of scattered

scrub and introduced/invasive shrub in the form of Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica. The habitats present were

considered capable of supporting protected or otherwise notable flora and fauna potentially including nesting birds,

reptiles and invertebrates.

The grassland and scrub were considered of limited ecological value in the context of the site and immediate local area.

In particular, the scrub was considered of value in a local context for the provision of shelter, foraging and commuting

resource for a variety of mammal, bird, reptile and invertebrate species. Retention of the semi-improved grassland and

Bramble scrub during development is considered impracticable. It is therefore recommended that a buffer strip of

Willow and Birch scrub is retained along the western boundary to ensure continued ecological connectivity and

resources for species such as bats, birds and invertebrates. The stands of introduced shrub (invasive Japanese knotweed)

and bare ground were considered to be of negligible value to wildlife and a strategy for treatment/removal would be

required as part of the development.

The semi-improved grassland habitat, dense Bramble scrub and piles of discarded railway sleepers were identified as

being potentially suitable to support common reptiles such as Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara, Slow Worm Anguis

fragilis and potentially Grass Snake Natrix natrix. A targeted reptile survey is recommended (and has been

commissioned) to establish the presence/ absence of reptiles within the site boundary, the species present and inform

mitigation proposals. The findings of the survey will be reported separately.


Further considerations include the avoidance of the bird nesting season during vegetation clearance works (March-

August) and the use of native species or species of known benefit to wildlife in any soft landscaping scheme associated

with future development. The incorporation of bird and bat boxes as part of any proposed development – i.e. fitted to

or incorporated into the new industrial units - would also provide localised enhancement for these groups. Sensitive

design of site lighting will also be required to minimise impact on species such as bats which are likely to use any retained

boundary features as a foraging and commuting resource.

Based on the assessment of the indicative layout and soft landscaping information, it is considered likely that at least 5

credits could be readily achieved under the LE01 – LE05 BREEAM categories, subject to complying with the

recommendations set out in this report.


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Soltys Brewster Ecology (SBE) were commissioned by Darnton B3 Architecture on behalf of Rhondda Cynon

Taff County Borough Council (RCT) to undertake an ecological appraisal of a parcel of land at Robertstown,

Aberdare. The site is proposed for the development of light industrial/employment units and to inform a

planning submission, a survey to establish the ecological baseline is required.

1.2. The site occupies an area of approximately 1.90 ha (4.69 acres) and is centred at grid reference SO 00171

03130. The site lies within the Robertstown/Abernant strategic site which is allocated for commercial and

residential development as part of the Rhondda Cynon Taf adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) 2006-

2021.

1.3. The site is bordered to the south by a new car park for the recently constructed Coleg y Cymoedd which lies

between the River Cynon and application site. Immediately east of the site runs Wellington Street and the

western boundary is bordered by a railway track. Residential properties lie to the north. In the wider area,

the A4059 and Aberdare town are located to the west of the railway track (see location plan, Appendix I).

1.4. The current report presents the findings of an ecological desk study and Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey

undertaken at the site in April 2018. The report describes the existing ecological conditions as well as

identifying any potential ecological constraints/ opportunities associated with the proposed development at

the site.

1.5. In addition to the above, this report also provides an indication of the potential credit award of proposed

scheme under the BREEAM New Construction (2014) Land Use and Ecology category (LE01 – LE05), and

suggests measures to maximise credit award where possible.


2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1. In order to establish the baseline ecological conditions on site and in the adjoining habitats, a combination of

desk-based consultation and Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey were undertaken in April 2018.

Desk study

2.2. The desk study primarily involved consultation with the South East Wales Biodiversity Records Centre

(SEWBReC) to identify any records of rare, protected or notable flora and fauna within the site boundary

and surrounding 1km area. The search criteria also included information relating to the location and citation

details (where available) for any internationally and nationally important sites designated for their nature

conservation interest such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

2.3. Information relating to locally identified sites designated for their nature conservation interest, such as Sites

of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) is held by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council. The

county council website was consulted and the County Ecologist contacted for the acquisition of any further

information, appropriate to the site and immediate local area. .


2.4. The fieldwork was undertaken on 18 April 2018 by a suitably experienced ecologist1 and followed standard

Phase 1 Habitat Survey protocol (JNCC, 1990) as amended by the Institute of Environmental Assessment

(1995). All habitats within the site were classified and mapped as accurately as possible. Habitats considered

to have potential to support rare, protected or otherwise notable species of flora and fauna were noted, as

were any direct signs of these species (e.g. Eurasian Badger Meles meles setts and dung-pits). Incidental

observations of birds on or flying over the site were also recorded.

2.5. A map of habitats was drawn up and target notes were used to identify features of ecological interest. Where

possible, habitats were cross-referenced to any relevant important UK priority habitats listed under Section

7 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016.

1Full Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.


2.6. During the field survey any trees present were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats and were

categorised in relation to the bat roosting features (BCT, 2016). The categories are as follows:

Known or confirmed roost

High – Trees with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger

numbers of bats on a regular basis;

Medium – Trees with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats but are unlikely

to support a roost of high conservation status;

Low – Trees of sufficient size and age to support potential roost features but with none seen the

ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential;

Negligible – Trees with negligible habitat features, unlikely to be used by roosting bats.

3.0 RESULTS

Desk Study

3.1 The data provided by SEWBReC confirmed that the site does not contain any statutory nature conservation

designations e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and none were identified within the search (1km)

area. As indicated on the Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough proposals map and policies relating to that

area, it was found that the site itself is not covered by any non-statutory nature conservation designation.

However the Upper Cynon Floodplain is considered a Site of Importance to Nature Conservation and is

associated with the River Cynon and land to the east of the river. The river lies outside the development

boundary and is located approximately 100m to the south of the site. The Upper Cynon Floodplain SINC

(15) is designated for its species-rich semi-improved grassland, marshy grassland, semi-natural woodland and

river corridor although none of these features were considerd of particular ecological relevance to the

proposed development. The river corridor south of the application site is characterised by canalised, vertical

brick walls with new landscape planting associated with the Coleg y Cymoedd development.

3.2 Based on the physical separation and the limited habitats present on the proposed development site

(predominantly Willow, Birch and Bramble scrub vegetation), the SINC was not considered of particular

ecological relevance to the proposed development. However the SINC is within close proximity to the site

and may provide a source of interchange of mobile species (e.g. birds, foraging bats) between the site and the

SINC where suitable habitats exist.

3.3 The Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough proposals map identified the Cynon Valley River Park, which is a

locally important landscape feature associated with the River Cynon. This undeveloped flood plain provides


natural space for river movement and is important to accommodate floodwater, wildlife habitat and open

space for public use. This feature is not considered of ecological relevance to the site because it does not lie

within the site footprint nor is it directly associated with the boundary of the proposed development.

3.4 The SEWBReC species data confirmed a number of protected and notable species within the surrounding

1km area including birds, fish (in the River Cynon), mammals (including bats, Otter and Badger) and

invertebrates such as, Small Blue Cupido minimus, Grayling Hipparchia semele, White-letter Hairstreak Satyrium

w-album and , Hedge Rustic Tholera cespitis.

3.5 The majority of these records were associated with habitats in areas other than within the site boundary and

were not considered of particular relevance to the proposed site based on the known habitat preferences of

the species listed above, the physical separation from the site and the site conditions. However, records

within or in close proximity to the site were considered of relevance based on their location and/or the

potentially suitable habitat at the site including records of birds and invertebrates. Mobile species such as birds

and bats in the surrounding area are also of relevance to the site, in particular the large areas of scrub across

the site which is likely to provide nesting/foraging habitat for birds and foraging/commuting habitat for bats

locally. A copy of the SEWBReC summary maps are provided in Appendix II.

3.6 Consultation with the County Ecologist identified two locally important invertebrate species - the Dingy

Skipper Erynnis tages and Six-Belted Clearwing Bembeccia ichneumoniformis. Both species are known to nectar

on Bird’s-foot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus, which was considered relevant due to known habitats located within

the site boundary and was taken into consideration when noting flora during the Phase 1 Habitat survey.

3.7 Records of invasive non-native species were also associated within the surrounding 1km of the site including

Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica, Himalayan Balsam Impatiens glandulifera, Harlequin Ladybird Harmonia

axyridis, Spanish Bluebell Hyacinthoides hispanica, Wall Cotoneaster Cotoneaster horizontalis, Egyptian Goose

Alopochen aegyptiacus, Canada Goose Branta Canadensis, Jenkins' Spire Snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum,

Cherry Laurel Prunus laurocerasus and Montbretia Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora. Japanese Knotweed is known to

occur in the immediate local area and was identified along the river corridor as part of the surveys undertaken

to inform the Coleg y Cymoedd development.



3.8 The distribution and extent of habitats within and adjacent to the site is illustrated on the habitat plan with

accompanying target notes in Appendix III. The site supports a limited range of habitat types, dominated by

scrub vegetation with areas of poor semi-improved grassland, bare ground and introduced/invasive shrub

enclosed by various fencing namely wire mesh and wooden post and rail.

Scrub vegetation

3.9 This habitat type occupies the majority of the site and consists predominantly of dense continuous Bramble

Rubus fruticosus scrub and extensive stands of Goat Willow Salix caprea, Silver Birch Betula pendula and Downy

Birch Betula pubescens. A very small patch of scattered scrub was noted within the semi-improved grassland

in the north-eastern corner of the site. The Bramble scrub encroaches from the eastern boundary and

dominates the south eastern corner of the site (Plate 1). Scattered Bramble scrub was evident along the length

of the eastern boundary amongst stands of Goat Willow S. caprea, Silver Birch B. pendula and Downy Birch

B. pubescens. The western boundary is dominated by Goat Willow S. caprea, Silver Birch B. pendula and

Downy Birch B. pubescens which extends eastwards to where semi-improved grassland intersects the western

and eastern scrub boundaries (Plate 2). Towards the centre of the site, dense continuous bramble scrub is

prevalent and extends northwards to the residential properties where it continues to border the north of the

site and dominates the northernmost section of the eastern boundary (Plate 3). Scattered Bramble scrub was

also noted within the semi-improved grassland area in the north-eastern corner. Species recorded include

Goat Willow S. caprea, Silver Birch B. pendula, Downy Birch B. pubescens, Bramble and occasional Pedunculate

Oak Quercus robur, Hazel Corylus avellana, Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, Honeysuckle Lonicera

periclymenum, Gorse Ulex europaeus, Dogwood Cornus sanuinea, Elder Sambucus nigra, Butterfly Bush Buddleja

davidii and Broom Cytisus scoparius.


Plate 1. Bramble Scrub located in the south-eastern corner of site

Plate 2. Western boundary dominated by Willow and Birch scrub showing S.I grassland intersecting scrub

vegetation


Plate 3. Dense continuous Bramble scrub running northwards through the centre of the site

Bare ground

3.10 Strip of recently cleared/disturbed ground presumably associated with the implementation of the new car

park adjacent. The bare ground is covered with aggregate material and sparse distribution of ephemeral/short

perennial vegetation, closely resembling the amenity grassland species adjacent (Plate 4). Species include

Rosebay Willowherb Chamaenerion angustifolium, Common Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum, White Clover

Trifolium repens, Common Sorrel Rumex acetosa, Pineapple Weed Matricaria discoidea, Common Ragwort

Jacobaea vulgaris and Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense.


Plate 4. Disturbed/bare ground with sparsely distributed vegetation to the south of the site (Target Note 6)

Species-poor Semi-Improved Grassland

3.11 Species-poor semi-improved (S.I) grassland predominantly runs through the centre of the site, either side of

the informal path that runs north to south (Plate 5), and intersects the scrub habitat east to west at several

locations (See habitat map, Appendix III). The grassland opened out toward the northern end of the site and

became increasingly tussocky with red ant hills present (Plate 6). Species composition of the grassland included

Hairy Bittercress Cardamine hirsuta, Common Mouse-Ear C. fontanum, Crested Dog’s Tail Cynosurus cristatus,

Cocks Foot Dactylis glomerata, Perforate St. John’s Wort Hypericum perforatum, Creeping Cinquefoil Potentilla

reptans, Red Fescue Festuca rubra, Springy Turf Moss Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus, Common Ragwort J. vulgaris,

Field Woodrush Luzula campestris, Ribwort Plantain Plantago lanceolata, Common Hogweed Heracleum

sphondylium, Dandelion Taraxacum officinale, Tufted Vetch Vicia cracca, Meadow Vetchling Lathyrus pratensis,

Common Vetch Vicia sativa, Dove’s foot Crane’s-bill Geranium molle, Common Nettle Urtica dioica, Shepherd’s

Purse Capsella bursa-pastoris, Broad-leaved Dock Rumex obtusifolius, Tufted Hair Grass Deschampsia cespitosa,

Common Bent Deschampsia cespitosa, Smooth Meadow Grass Poa pratensis, Wild Carrot Daucus carota,

Spurge sp. Euphorbia sp., Common Knapweed Centaurea nigra, Cat’s Ear Hypochoeris radicata, Black Medick

Medicago lupulina, Germander Speedwell Veronica chamaedrys, Yarrow Achillea millefolium and Common

Toadflax Linaria vulgaris. Ruderal vegetation was also interspersed such as Rosebay Willowherb C.

angustifolium.


Plate 5. Species-poor S.I grassland to the south of the site running centrally along the unofficial footpath (Target Note 2)

Plate 6. Species-poor S.I grassland opening out and becoming increasingly tussocky towards the northern of site (Target Note 2)


Invasive Non-native Plant Species

3.12 Large stands of dead Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica with visible stems of new growth were identified

within the central part of the site amongst the Bramble scrub (Plate 7). A smaller stand lies immediately north

of the site boundary, adjacent to the metal railway fencing within the north-western corner and off-site on the

northern bank of the River Cynon (see Appendix III – Introduced Shrub, Target Note 3).

3.13 An established stand of Japanese Rose Rosa rugosa was also noted in the northern part of the site (Plate 8 &

Target Note 7) – this species is also considered an invasive non-native species and is listed (along with Japanese

Knotweed) under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The stand at the site

may represent a garden escape as the species was also noted growing over the residential boundary fence in

the north east of the site.

Plate 7. Large stand of Japanese Knotweed within the central scrub area (Target Note 3)


Plate 8 Stand of Japanese Rose in northern part of site (Target Note 7)

Fauna 3.14 During the course of the survey, a search of field signs for protected or notable species was undertaken and

the potential of the habitats to support these species considered. In the context of this report, these species

meet any of the following criteria:

Species protected by British or international law;

Species listed under Section 7 of the Environment (Wales) Act or local Biodiversity Action Plan species;

Nationally rare or nationally scarce species;

Species of Conservation Concern (e.g. JNCC Red List, RSPB/BTO Red or Amber Lists);

Amphibians 3.15 There were no areas of standing water on site and the steep sides of the canalised river (offsite) deem the

habitat unsuitable for amphibians. No records of amphibians were identified within the surrounding 1km and

therefore no further consideration for amphibians is required as part of the development.

Badgers

3.16 The dense continuous scrub habitat offered some potential for sett building and foraging and SEWBReC

records identified that Badger had been recorded within the surrounding 1km. However no setts or other

field signs of badger were recorded within or adjacent to the site and no further consideration of this species

would be considered necessary as part of the current assessment.


Bats

3.17 The site did not support any trees suitable for use by roosting bats due to the immature nature of the Willow

and Birch stands and all were considered of Negligible potential. No buildings or other structures were

present on-site. However the dense scrub offers potential foraging and commuting habitat for bats in the

local area.

Birds

3.18 During the survey a number of bird species were noted on or flying over the site including Dipper Cinclus

cinclus, Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea, (both associated with the river corridor) Carrion Crow Corvus corone,

Green Woodpecker Picus viridis, Robin Erithacus rubecula, Magpie Pica pica, Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus,

Great Tit Parus major, Greenfinch Chloris chloris, Wren Troglodytes troglodytes, Chiff Chaff Phylloscopus

collybita, Dunnock Prunella modularis, Black Cap Sylvia atricapilla.

3.19 Although none of the bird species noted would be considered particularly rare, Grey Wagtail is included on

the Red List of birds of Conservation Concern in the UK (Hayhow et al., 2015) with Dipper and Dunnock

included on the Amber list UK with Dipper and the Green Woodpecker also appearing on the Amber list

in Wales (Johnstone et al., 2012). Dunnock are also listed as a UK BAP priority species and Section 7:

Species of Principal Importance in Wales.

3.20 The assemblage of birds recorded on-site were considered largely representative of those species likely to

breed on and in the vicinity of site. The vast amount of dense scrub offers excellent habitat for nesting and

foraging.

Invertebrates

3.21 SEWBReC species data revealed the presence of a variety of priority or notable invertebrate species within

close proximity to the eastern boundary of the development site, including records of Small Blue C. minimus,

Grayling H. semele, White-letter Hairstreak S. w-album and Goat Moth C. cossus.

3.22 The dominant scrub and species diverse grassland habitat on-site offer good opportunities for a variety of

invertebrate species. Invertebrates observed during the survey included Red Ant Solenopsis sp., Hoverflies

Syrphus sp. and Bumblebee Bombus sp.

3.23 On discussion with the County Ecologist with regard to invertebrates on-site, retention of existing

scrub/grassland habitat adjacent to the western boundary (with the railway line) was considered appropriate


rather than a targeted survey for particular groups. This approach is consistent with that adopted for the

adjacent Coleg y Cymoedd development.

Reptiles

3.24 The majority of the application site was considered suitable to support common reptiles such as Common

Lizard Zootoca vivipara, Slow Worm Anguis fragilis and possibly Grass Snake Natrix natrix due to the dense

Bramble scrub, tussocky grassland, railway track adjacent and close proximity to the River Cynon. Several

piles of discarded railway sleepers lie along the western boundary within the Willow and Birch scrub which

offer natural refugia for reptiles (Target Note 4, Plate 9).

Plate 9. Old, discarded railway sleepers along the western boundary (Target Note 4)

Other Species

3.25 The desk study did not identify any record of Dormice within the surrounding 1km and no evidence of use of

the site by Dormice was found. Although Hazel was identified on-site, there was not enough to provide suitable

habitat and foraging opportunities for Dormice and connectivity to the wider area was considered relatively

poor for this species. On this basis, consideration of Dormice as part of the current proposals is not considered

necessary.


3.26 Similarly, the River Cynon is known to support Otter Lutra lutra although this species was not considered of

ecological relevance to the application site. The river lies approximately 100m south of the site and is

characterised by vertical brick walls, offering no opportunity for Otter to leave the channel along this stretch.


4.0 POLICIES AND PLANS

4.1 The following local and national planning policy relating to nature conservation and biodiversity are considered

of relevance to the area surveyed and to the proposed future development of the site.

Planning Policy Wales (2016) 4.2 This document sets out the land use planning policies of the Welsh Government with Chapter 5 dealing with

Conserving and Improving Natural Heritage and Coast. The advice contained within PPW is supplemented for

some subjects by Technical Advice Notes (TAN’s), with TAN 5 addressing Nature Conservation.

4.3 TAN 5 identifies a number of key principles, which the town and country planning system in Wales should

incorporate. Those relevant are detailed below:

Work to achieve nature conservation objectives through a partnership between local planning

authorities, Natural Resources Wales (NRW), voluntary organisations, developers, landowners and

other key stakeholders;

Integrate nature conservation into all planning decisions looking for development to deliver social,

economic and environmental objectives together over time;

Ensure that the UK’s international obligations for site, species and habitat protection are fully met in

all planning decisions;

Look for development to provide a net benefit for biodiversity conservation with no significant loss of

habitats or populations of species, locally or nationally;

Promoting approaches to development which create new opportunities to enhance biodiversity,

prevent biodiversity losses, or compensate for losses where damage is unavoidable. Minimising or

reversing the fragmentation of habitats and improving habitat connectivity through the promotion of

wildlife corridors;

Local planning authorities should seek to protect trees, groups of trees and areas of woodland where

they have natural heritage value or contribute to the character or amenity of a particular locality;

The presence of a species protected under European or UK legislation is a material consideration

when a local planning authority is considering a development proposal which, if carried out, would be

likely to result in disturbance or harm to the species or its habitat.


Environment (Wales) Act, 2016

4.4 Part 1 of the Environment Act Wales' came into force in May 2016 and sets out the approach to planning and

managing natural resources at a national and local level with a general purpose linked to statutory 'principles of

sustainable management of natural resources' defined within the Act.

Section 6 - Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems duty

4.5 Section 6 of the Act places a duty on public authorities to ‘seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity’ so far as

it is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions. In so doing, public authorities must also seek to

‘promote the resilience of ecosystems’.

Section 7 - Biodiversity lists and duty to take steps to maintain and enhance biodiversity

4.6 This section lists living organisms and types of habitat in Wales which are considered of key significance to

maintaining and enhancing biodiversity in relation to Wales. The Welsh Ministers are required to take all

reasonable steps to maintain and enhance the living organisms and types of habitat included in any list published

under this section, and encourage others to take such steps.


5.0 AVAILABILITY OF BREEAM LAND USE AND ECOLOGY CREDITS

5.1 The following section provides an indication of the available credits and possible award under BREEAM 2014

Land Use and Ecology (LE01 – LE05). A fixed layout has been finalised and available for review (see Appendix

V). The indication of credit award set out in the following sections is based on the findings of the baseline

ecological surveys (i.e. pre-development condition) versus the layout illustrated in Appendix V. It is important

to note that confirmation of credit award is only possible through an appointed BREEAM assessor for this

project.

LE 01 - Site Selection

5.2 One credit is available where at least 75% of the proposed development’s footprint is on an area of land which

has previously been developed for use by industrial, commercial or domestic purposes or fixed surface

infrastructure.

5.3 A second credit is available where:

1) The site is deemed to be significantly contaminated as confirmed by a contaminated land specialist’s site

investigation, risk assessment and appraisal, which has identified:

a) The degree of contamination

b) The contaminant sources/types

c) The options for remediating sources of pollution which present an unacceptable risk to the site.

2) The client or principal contractor confirms that remediation of the site will be carried out in accordance with

the remediation strategy and its implementation plan.

5.4 The site is currently dominated by areas of species-poor semi-improved grassland and scrub with a small area

of bare ground and introduced/invasive shrub in the form of Japanese Knotweed and smaller stand of Japanese

Rose. The existing site conditions do not indicate that 75% of the development proposal is located within land

defined as previously developed (i.e. bare ground, buildings, amenity grassland/ landscaped areas2), therefore

the first credit is not available under LE01.

5.5 A second credit is available under LE01 and is likely to be achievable given that large stands of Japanese

Knotweed have been identified on site. Other ground contamination associated with the proximity of the site

to a railway corridor may also be present although this would need to be confirmed via soil sampling/testing.

2 Amenity grass/landscaped areas can only be considered as ‘previously developed’ under LE01 if an equivalent sized area is provided post development.


LE 02 – Ecological value of site and protection of ecological features

5.6 One credit is available where land within the construction zone is defined as ‘land of low ecological value’. A

second credit is available where all existing features of ecological value within the assessment zone are

adequately protected from damage during clearance, site preparation and construction activities. In all cases,

the principle contractor is required to construct ecological protection prior to any preliminary site construction

or preparation works (e.g. clearing of the site or erection of temporary site facilities).

5.7 The majority of habitats within the site would generally be considered ‘land of low ecological value’. The scrub

habitat, although of limited intrinsic ecological value, is considered of some value in a local context for the

provision of shelter, nesting, foraging and commuting resource for a variety of mammal, bird, reptile and

invertebrate species. The indicative layout (Appendix V) will require the removal of all semi-improved grassland

and Bramble scrub. With the retention of a 6m buffer strip of Willow and Birch scrub along the western

boundary and implementation of a meadow grass mix and shrub planting within the soft landscape scheme, the

first credit would be available. Achieving the second credit would not be possible as the majority of the site is

to be developed.

5.8 The stands of introduced shrub (invasive Japanese knotweed) were considered to be of negligible value to

wildlife.

LE 03 – Minimising Impact on Existing Site Ecology

5.9 One credit is available where the change in ecological value of the site is less than zero and equal to or greater

than minus nine plant species (i.e. a minimal change), with two credits available where the change in ecological

value of the site is equal to or greater than zero plant species (i.e. no negative change). The change in ecological

value is calculated using the BREEAM calculator tool, based on the habitat areas and number of plant species

pre and post-development.

5.10 The scrub and semi-improved grassland habitats on-site support a number of native species typical of post-

industrial sites and a pre development ecological value of 16.21 was calculated using the BREEAM calculator

tool (habitat areas and species number are provided in Table 1). Based on the indicative site layout and soft

landscaping information, a post development ecological value of 3.91 was calculated giving an expectant overall

change of -12.30. For this reason, a credit awarded under LE 03 is not achievable.


Table 1. Habitat areas and species number before and after development

Habitat Type Area Before Development (m2)

Area After Development (m2)

Total number of species

Disturbed/bare ground 165.2 0 0

Semi-improved grassland 3761.2 32

Scrub 13578.9 2066 13

Introduced Shrub (Japanese Knotweed)

810.7 0

Hard Standing/Buildings 0 12109.6 0

New Shrub Planting 0 998.9 20

Meadow Grass Mix 0 543 23

Amenity Grass Mix 0 2473 4

Wet Meadow Grass Mix and Pond

0 68.2 28

Proposed Hedgerow and Trees

0 57.3 7

Total site area 18316 18316

Ecological Value 16.21 3.91

Change in Ecological Value

-12.30

Credit LE 04 – Enhancing site ecology

5.11 One credit is available for implementing measures recommended by a suitable qualified ecologist for

enhancement and protection of site ecology. The site could be enhanced through:

Provision for roosting bats within the new buildings. A range of products for buildings are now

available that do not compromise the integrity of new buildings and require little, if any maintenance

(e.g. Ibstock bat bricks http://www.ibstock.com/sustainability-ecozone.asp or Schwegler building

boxes available from suppliers such as NHBS

Provision for nesting birds within the proposed development e.g. Sparrow Terraces, Swallow boxes,

House Martin boxes and Swift boxes (boxes available from suppliers such as NHBS

www.nhbs.com/browse/subject/426/bird-boxes)

The use of native species or those of known benefit to wildlife within the soft landscaping scheme

(for examples see https://www.rhs.org.uk/science/pdf/conservation-and-biodiversity/wildlife/rhs-

perfect-for-pollinators-garden-plants).

The adoption of good horticultural practice (i.e. no peat based compost to be used during

landscaping, little or no use of residual pesticides or herbicides etc.).


5.12 A further credit is available in this category where a positive increase in the ecological value of the site can be

demonstrated. Based on the calculations and information exhibited in Table 1, the expectant ecological value

of the site will decrease by -12.30 post development and consequently the second credit could not be achieved.

LE 05 Long term impact on biodiversity

5.13 One credit may be awarded within the section where all mandatory requirements and two additional measures

are complied with. Two credits may be awarded when the requirements for the first credit are met and two

further additional measures are complied with.

5.14 Mandatory requirements include:

A suitably qualified ecologist (SQE) has been appointed prior to commencement of activities on site and

they confirm that all relevant UK and EU legislation relating to protection and enhancement of ecology

has been complied with during the design and construction process.

A landscape and habitat management plan, appropriate to the site, is produced covering at least the first

five years after project completion in accordance with BS 42020:2011 Section 11.1. This is to be handed

over to the building occupants for use by the grounds maintenance staff.

5.15 The additional measures include: The principal contractor nominates a ‘Biodiversity Champion’ with the

authority to influence site activities and ensure that detrimental impacts on site biodiversity are minimised in

line with the recommendations of a suitably qualified ecologist.

The principal contractor trains the site workforce on how to protect site ecology during the project.

Specific training must be carried out for the entire site workforce to ensure they are aware of how to

avoid damaging site ecology during operations on site. Training should be based on the findings and

recommendations for protection of ecological features highlighted within a report prepared by a suitably

qualified ecologist.

The principal contractor records actions taken to protect biodiversity and monitor their effectiveness

throughout key stages of the construction process. The requirement commits the principal contractor

to make such records available where publicly requested.

Where a new ecologically valuable habitat, appropriate to the local area, is created. This includes habitat

that supports nationally, regionally or locally important biodiversity, and/or which is nationally, regionally

or locally important itself; including any habitat listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), Local

Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP), those protected within statutory sites (e.g. SSSIs), or those within non-

statutory sites identified in local plans.

Where flora and/or fauna habitats exist on site, the contractor programmes site works to minimise

disturbance to wildlife. For example, site preparation, ground works, and landscaping have been, or will

be, scheduled at an appropriate time of year to minimise disturbance to wildlife.


A partnership has been set up by the design team with a local group that has wildlife expertise (e.g. local

wildlife trust or similar local body) and the group has:

a) Provided advice early in the design process regarding protecting and/or providing habitat for species of

local importance on the site.

b) Provided advice to ensure the design is in keeping with the local environment. In particular this should

draw on their local knowledge of any features or species of ecological interest on or near the site.

c) Provided or will continue to provide on-going support and advice to the educational establishment to

help them manage, maintain and develop the outdoor space in the longer term.

5.16 The first mandatory requirement has been partially met, relating to the appointment of a suitably qualified

ecologist. The removal of vegetation outside the breeding bird season, and appropriate protection of any other

protected species identified during the required surveys (i.e. reptiles) at the site would ensure all relevant UK

and EU legislation relating to protection and enhancement of site ecology is met. The production of an

appropriate landscape management plan would also be required to ensure all mandatory requirements are

met. Subject to complying with all mandatory requirements and at least 4 additional measures, 2 credits are

achievable under this category.


6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 The combination of desk and field surveys undertaken at the site identified a limited range of habitat types

dominated by scrub vegetation, bare ground, species-poor semi-improved grassland, introduced/invasive shrub

in the form of Japanese Knotweed and Japanese Rose. The grassland and scrub habitat were generally

considered of some ecological value in a local context and the scrub habitat in particular is likely to function as

a shelter, foraging and commuting resource for a variety of mammal, bird, reptile and invertebrate species.

Although no fixed layout is yet available, it is considered that retention of grassland and scrub within the interior

of the site as part of the proposed works is impracticable. A proposed 6m buffer strip of Birch and Willow

scrub along the western boundary is recommended for retention to enable ecological connectivity to the wider

area and has been incorporated as part of the proposed development layout (Appendix V).

Bats

6.2 The majority of bat activity is likely to be associated with the scrub vegetation across the site. Development of

the site is anticipated to result in removal of foraging or commuting resources used by bats although retention

of the buffer along the western boundary would maintain habitat connectivity locally. This corridor would

provide a connection to the river corridor to the south of the site. In consideration of the presence of foraging

bats, the development should therefore seek to minimise impacts on retained boundary vegetation through

sensitive design of site lighting (see Appendix IV) to limit light spill on to these features.

Birds 6.3 Given the high likelihood of a number of birds nesting on site, clearance of scrub vegetation associated with any

future development should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (i.e. clearance possible between

September and February inclusive). All wild birds are protected against killing and injury under the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and their nests against disturbance, damage or destruction whilst in use

or being built. If avoidance of the nesting season is not possible for any reason, prior inspection (by an ecologist)

of areas of scrub or woody vegetation would be required to confirm if any active nests were present.

Invertebrates

6.4 The dense scrub vegetation and semi-improved grassland is considered to support a variety of invertebrates.

The retention of a buffer along the western boundary as described above will retain some features of

invertebrate interest as part of the development and in addition, the use of native species or species known to

benefit local wildlife, such as Bird’s foot trefoil for the locally important Dingy Skipper and Six Belted Clearwing,

in any soft landscaping scheme3 would be recommended.

3 The proposed Meadow Mixtures shown on the plan in Appendix V (Emorsgate EM2 and EM8) includes Bird’s Foot Trefoil


Reptiles

6.5 The semi-improved grassland habitat, dense Bramble scrub and piles of discarded railway sleepers along the

western boundary were identified as being potentially suitable to support reptiles. All common species of

reptile are protected against killing or injury under Schedule 5 (sections 9(1) and 9(5)) of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are an important ecological consideration in terms of site

development. To support any future planning application a targeted reptile survey has been commissioned to

establish the presence/ absence of reptiles within the site boundary, the species present and inform mitigation

proposals. This survey has been completed and the results reported separately.

BREEAM

6.6 Based on the assessment of the indicative layout and soft landscaping information, it is considered likely that 5

credits could be readily achieved under BREEAM LE01-LE05, subject to complying with the recommendations

set out in this report.


REFERENCES

David Clements Ecology Ltd (2015) Coleg Y Cymmoed, Aberdare, Area C, Ecological Assessment.

Hayhow DB, Bond AL, Douse A, Eaton MA, Frost T, Grice PV, Hall C, Harris SJ, Havery S, Hearn RD, Noble DG,

Oppel S, Williams J, Win I and Wotton S (2015) The state of the UK’s birds 2016. The RSPB, BTO, WWT, DAERA,

JNCC, NE, NRW and SNH, Sandy, Bedfordshire.

Institute for Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. E & FN Spon, Hong

Kong.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (1990) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey. A technique for

environmental audit. JNCC, Peterborough.

Mott MacDonald Ltd (2015) Aberdare New College Facility, Preliminary Ecological Appraisal.

Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough (2011) Adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) 2006-2021.


APPENDIX I SITE LOCATION PLAN – PAGES FROM– INDEPENDENT MARKET ASSESSMENT (JLL, 2017)4

4 Jones Lang Lasalle, 2017. Market Assessment – A study to assist the case for the development of new employment units.

COPYRIGHT © JONES LANG LASALLE IP, INC. 2015. All Rights Reserved

3

2 Land at Robertstown, Aberdare

2.1 Overview

Aberdare is the main settlement in the Cynon Valley and has a population of circa 29,700, out of a total population of 56,600 for the Cynon Valley (2011 census). Aberdare is located approximately 20 miles north-west of Cardiff and 22 miles north-east of Swansea.

The South Wales Valleys has a total population of over 750,000 and is a complex market with the economic success of each sub-region reflecting the relative attractiveness of the location in terms of economic catchment area, the existing employment base and quality of communications (in terms of road, rail and digital).

The Cynon Valley is a relatively self-contained region of the Valleys with rail access to Pontypridd and Cardiff. The A465 trunk road runs across the north of the valley and is to be upgraded to dual carriageway standard by 2023. The main north-south dual carriageway runs just to the east of the Cynon Valley with access via the Abercynon roundabout.

Aberdare benefits from a relatively flat valley floor (compared to, say, the Rhondda) and this provides land for development. The development of the new £22 million Coleg y Cymoedd campus will provide higher education facilities for circa 600 students and the former Aberdare College site has recently been sold in a £1.75 million transaction. In addition a new £30 million ‘super-school’ has been constructed to the south of Aberdare and this has consolidated the senior school provision in the area.

Figure 1: Location Plan – Robertstown, Aberdare

The subject site is flat, overgrown and elongated comprising approx. 1.90 ha (4.69 acres) of allocated employment land. The site has frontage to Wellington Street and Aberdare railway station is situated 330 metres to the south of the site. The former railway buildings are currently being refurbished.

Planning – the site is within the Robertstown / Abernant strategic site which is allocated for commercial and residential development. The subject land is constrained by being located within a C2 flood risk zone and therefore it is considered by the Council that residential development would not be appropriate. Employment

COPYRIGHT © JONES LANG LASALLE IP, INC. 2015. All Rights Reserved

4

development (use classes B1, B2 & B8) would be ‘less vulnerable development’ in terms of flood risk management – however a Flood Consequences Assessment’ would be needed in any event.

Figure 2: The subject site, Wellington Street, Robertstown, Aberdare

Figure 3: The local environment – railway station (under refurbishment), new FE college and former Helliwell engineering works, Robertstown

2.2 Industrial Market Overview

The Cynon Valley is an integral part of the South Wales Valleys property market. This is generally acknowledged as a secondary employment location within South Wales (when compared to the M4 corridor). However, market conditions have improved with rising rental and capital values; although these still remain significantly below the level to attract private sector speculative development.

Aberdare is currently located within the ‘West Wales and the Valleys’ area, designated as being the top tier location for regional assistance under EU Convergence Funding 2014-2020. Clearly, there is some debate about the level of structural funding that will be made available in the future, following an exit from the EU.


APPENDIX II LOCAL RECORDS MAP RECEIVED FROM SEWBReC


APPENDIX III TARGET NOTES TO ACCOMPANY PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY MAP

Target Note Description/Comment Birds seen/ heard: Dipper, Grey Wagtail, Carrion Crow, Green Woodpecker, Robin, Magpie, Blue Tit, Great Tit, Greenfinch, Wren, Chiff Chaff, Dunnock, Black Cap. 1 River channel located approximately 50m to south of site boundary with new car

park in intervening area. Strip of bare ground with ephemeral/short perennial vegetation and single stand of Japanese Knotweed on top of northern bank of river (adjacent to car park). River channel is canalised with vertical brick retaining walls to 3-4m height forming both banks. Additional vertical structures separate channel into 3 sections where it passes under railway bridge. Dipper seen and water is relatively shallow (estimated less than 1m depth) and fast flowing with beds of River Water Crowfoot Ranunculus fluitans present in the channel – suggesting good water quality. Banks upstream of road bridge appear more natural (not canalised).

2 Species-poor semi-improved grassland predominantly running through the centre of the site, either side of the unofficial footpath that runs north to south, and intersects the scrub habitat east to west at several locations. The grassland opened out toward the northern end of the site and became increasingly tussocky with red ant hills prominent. Species include Hairy Bittercress, Common Mouse-Ear, Crested Dog’s Tail, Cocksfoot, Perforate St. John’s Wort, Creeping Cinquefoil, Red Fescue, Springy Turf Moss, Common Ragwort, Field Woodrush, Ribwort Plantain, Hogweed, Dandelion, Tufted Vetch, Meadow Vetchling, Common Vetch, Dove’s foot Crane’s-bill, Common Nettle, Shepherd’s Purse, Broad-leaved Dock, Tufted Hair Grass, Common Bent, Smooth Meadow Grass, Wild Carrot, Spurge sp., Common Knapweed, Cat’s Ear, Black Medick, Germander Speedwell, Yarrow and Common Toadflax. Ruderal vegetation was also interspersed such as Rosebay Willowherb.

3 Large stands of dead Japanese Knotweed with visible stems of new growth located within the central part of the site amongst the bramble scrub. A smaller stand lies immediately north of the site boundary, adjacent to the metal railway fencing within the north-western corner and off-site on the northern bank of the River Cynon.

4 Old discarded railway sleepers noted along the western boundary within the Birch and Willow scrub.

5 Amenity grassland, bordering the southern wooden fence boundary, comprising species associated with an amenity grass seed mix. These species include Yarrow, Red Clover, White Clover, Common Sorrel, Red Fescue, Common Vetch, Common Toadflax and Bristly Ox Tongue.

6 Strip of disturbed/bare ground covered with aggregate material and sparse ephemeral/short perennial vegetation, closely resembling the amenity grassland species adjacent. Species include Rosebay Willowherb, Common Mouse-ear, White Clover, Common Sorrel, Pineapple Weed, Common Ragwort and Creeping Thistle.

7 Stand of Japanese Rose in northern part of site and overgrowing residential boundary fence.

Sinks

El Sub Stas

Issues

ESS

A

f

o

n

C

y

n

o

n

A

f

o

n

C

y

n

o

n

Issues

M

P

2

2

.

5

A

SI

SI

SI2

3

5

6

3

3

1

4

3

7

7 Dense/ Continuous Scrub

Scattered Scrub

Poor Semi-improved GrasslandSI

Bare Ground

Target Note

KEY

Introduced Shrub

Amenity GrasslandA

client/project

drawing no. revision scale

drawing

approved date

Rev. Date Comment

Soltys Brewster Ecology is the trading name of Soltys Brewster Ecology Ltd. Registered Offices:- 4 Stangate House, Stanwell Road, Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan. CF64 2AA. Registration No. 5779051.Dimensions should not be scaled from this drawing, only figured dimensions are to be used. All discrepancies or queries regarding this drawing should be referred to Soltys Brewster Ecology Ltd. Soltys Brewster Ecology Ltd accept no liability for any expense, loss ordamage of whatever nature and however arising from variation made to this drawing or in the execution of the work to which it relates which has not been referred to them and their approval obtained.

4 Stangate HouseStanwell RoadPenarthVale of GlamorganCF64 2AA

e-mail:- [email protected]

Telephone:- + 44(0) 29 2040 8476

soltysbrewster

Drawn

drawn

Approved

PLANNING DESIGN TENDER CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARY

Client

Robertstown, Aberdare

Phase 1 Habitat Map

E1882501/001 * NTS @ A3 AO Mayl 2018MW

* xx.xx.xx First issue XXXX

AutoCAD SHX Text

1


APPENDIX IV ADVICE NOTE ON BATS & LIGHTING The following advice in relation to Bats and lighting provides a summary of the review of available evidence compiled by the Bats and Lighting Research Project at the University of Bristol. The full report should be reviewed for further information on any of the summary points identified below. The citation for the full report is:

Stone, E.L. (2013) Bats and lighting: Overview of current evidence and mitigation guidance. Lighting Research Project, University of Bristol.

Introduction Urbanisation and development affect bat habitats, either through direct loss or disturbance from light and noise pollution or human activities. Changes in habitat affect the quantity, quality and connectivity of foraging, drinking and roosting resources available to bats. Linear landscape features such as hedgerows, river banks and canals are important for bats, often being used for foraging and commuting (Limpens & Kapteyn 1991; Verboom et al. 1999). Bat habitats and roosts are under increasing pressure and disturbance from suburban development and its associated artificial lighting. Connectivity of habitat and foraging areas to roosts is fundamental to the survival of many bat populations (Verboom & Huitema 1997). Lighting schemes can damage bat foraging habitat directly through loss of land and spatial exclusion of bats due to high illuminance, or indirectly by severing commuting routes from roosts, through light spillage polluting hedgerows, tree lines and watercourses (Racey 2006). Lighting around roosts has also been shown to delay emergence, causing bats to miss the peak in insect prey abundance (Downs et al. 2003). Legislation pertaining to lighting in Britain There is no legal duty for a lighting authority to illuminate roads in Britain and lighting is installed because the perceived benefits outweigh the negatives. Recent research by The Highways Agency (in England) found that the safety benefits of motorway lighting were 1/3 lower than previously thought. Additional field trials to switch-off lights on motorways have found lower numbers of accidents when lights were off than when illuminated (http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/30236.aspx). A number of authorities have been trialling part night lighting solutions and even complete removal. The results have been mixed but a significantly large number of projects have shown no detriment from implementation of these changes. Street lighting (A roads, B roads, pedestrian lighting) There are over 7.5million street lights in the UK (Anon. 2009). Common light types used for external applications in the UK.


Common types of street light used in the Britain.

Colour % UV Correlated colour

temperature (k)5 Approx % of UK Lighting stock

Low pressure sodium (LPS / SOX)

Yellow/orange 0.0 1807 44%

High pressure sodium (HPS / SON)

Pinkish / off white 0.3 2005-2108 41%

Compact fluorescent

Warm white 0.5-1.0 2766-5193 15%

Metal Halide (e.g. Philips CosmoPolis)

Blue-white 2.0-7.0 2720-4160 CosmoPolis 2720

N/A

Light emitting diode (LED)

White/warm -white

0.0 2800-7000 N/A

Predicting the impacts of lighting on bats There are many aspects of ecological light pollution which are yet to be investigated, and so a precautionary approach is important. It is important to consider the following when predicting the impacts of lighting on bats:

i. Impacts may be cumulative Lighting is one of many anthropogenic impacts on bats and so it is important to consider impacts of lighting in the context of the site and other conditions affecting the species or colony. For example even a small amount of lighting may have a disproportionate impact on bats at sites where there are already high levels of disturbance, therefore impacts must be assessed in the context of other disturbances on the colony/roost in question. ii. Impacts will vary according to site, species and behaviour The impacts of lighting on bats is species specific and varies according to the specific behaviour being affected. Impacts on a site by site basis can be based on knowledge of the species involved and the type of behaviour affected. iii. Impacts may occur over different temporal scales Some impacts may occur over very short time frames making them more obvious (e.g. spatial avoidance) and therefore more likely to be recorded. However, lighting may impact behaviours over longer time scales (e.g. reduced breeding success) and may be harder to record and therefore underestimated. iv. Impacts may occur at both the individual or population level Lighting may impact on a few individuals in a colony or population, i.e. causing temporary avoidance of a commuting route used by a small percentage of bats occupying a roost. However, there may be effects at the population level, e.g. reduced juvenile growth rates due to reduced foraging or delayed emergence caused by lighting (e.g. see Boldogh et al. 2007). v. Impacts may be indirect occurring at the ecosystem or community level

5 refers to the colour appearance of the light emitted by a light source and is measured in degrees Kelvin (K). The CCT of a light source is calculated by relating the colour of the lamp to the light colour of a reference source when heated to a particular temperature. CCT gives a general measure of the “coolness” or “warmth” of the light source: CCT ratings below 3200K are considered warm whereas ratings above 4000K are considered cool. CCT gives an indication of the general appearance of the light, but not its spectral power distribution, and so two lamps that appear the same may have different colour rendering properties.


Lighting can impact bats via changes at the ecosystem level. Lighting may lead to a competitive advantage for some species which benefit from the increased foraging opportunities provided by moths attracted to lights with high UV content. This may lead to competitive exclusion of those species unable to take advantage of new artificially illuminated areas (Arlettaz et al. 2000). Indirect effects include effects on bats’ insect prey. Bats have a competitive advantage over moths at street lights (Svensson & Rydell 1998), which interferes with the relationship between predator and prey.

A summary of the key impacts per species according to behaviour types is provided in Table 5.1. These are based on current knowledge and may change as more evidence emerges, so are given as guidance only and specific levels of impact will vary on a site by site basis. Low impact does not mean there is no impact, but suggests that impact is likely to have a negligible impact on the population. Further research is required to have high confidence in many of these predictions and therefore they should be used as guidance only. Table 5.1 Summary of predicted impacts of lighting according to bat behaviour.

Key messages and recommendations: Emergence and roosting

Current evidence demonstrates that external light disturbance at emergence and return will have negative impacts for bats (especially Rhinolophus, Myotis, and Plecotus spp.) and should be avoided.

Internal illumination of roosts is likely to impact negatively on long-term population growth and survival and should be avoided for all species.

Direct illumination of a roost exit/entrance may cause roost abandonment for all species (particularly for Rhinolophus and Myotis spp.) and should be avoided.


Commuting Light disturbance along commuting routes will cause avoidance behaviour for R. hipposideros and Myotis spp.

and should be avoided.

Foraging Light disturbance can reduce the availability of foraging areas for some species.

A precautionary approach must be taken and illumination of foraging areas avoided, particularly for light sensitive species.

Hibernation

There is limited evidence of the impact of lighting on hibernating bats. However illumination of hibernation sites should be avoided during the hibernation period.

Swarming

There is a lack of evidence regarding the impact of lighting on bat swarming behaviour and so illumination of known or potential swarming sites should be avoided under the precautionary principle.

Summary of impacts of light types on bats Light technology is rapidly developing and new light types are being installed and trialled across the UK. There is a general trend towards white light due to the increased colour rendering and increased perceived brightness for the human eye. Humans perceive white light as brighter than yellow light and so lower light intensities can be used to achieve the same perceived brightness. Commonly used emerging lamps include white LED (Philips Stela and DW Windsor Monaro), warm-white LED, and ceramic metal halide (e.g. Philips 5. CosmoPolis). Some companies are testing new light types to find a wildlife friendly lamp which has little or no impact on wildlife e.g. QL Philips Clearsky lamps which are said to prevent migrating birds from colliding with offshore platforms. To date no such product has been rigorously tested on bats. However, there is little evidence of the comparative impacts of different light types on different bat species and behaviours. The figures overleaf provides a general summary of the relative impacts of light types on bats. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the comparative impacts of different light types on bats and these summaries should be considered general rules of thumb until more detailed information is available.


Summary of the current evidence of the relative impacts of different light types on bats


Approach to mitigation of artificial lighting

When mitigating the impacts of artificial lighting on bats it is important to ask the following key questions:

1. Do we need to light? 2. Where does the light need to be? 3. What is the light required for? 4. How much light is actually needed to perform the tasks required ? 5. When is the light required? The following approach should be taken when developing a mitigation strategy:

Mitigation Strategies Mitigation strategies will vary on a site by site basis according to the required level of lighting, use of the area, the surrounding habitat, the species of bat and specific behaviour affected. No light Where possible the ideal scenario would be to have no light at all at locations used by bats. This may be possible with good planning and involvement of lighting engineers at the survey and pre-planning stage. This may involve switching off existing units on site and ensuring areas used by bats have no new light units installed and will have no light trespass from nearby lights. If possible sites should contain light exclusion zones (dark areas) which are interconnected to allow bats to move freely from their roosts along commuting routes to their foraging grounds without being subject to artificial illumination. Variable lighting regimes (VLR) In many cases it is not feasible to have light exclusion zones in all in the areas occupied by bats at a site. In such cases new generation lighting controlled by CMS systems may be preferable to enable variable lighting regimes (VLR) to suit both human and wildlife use of the site. VLR involve switching off or dimming lights for periods of the night. Many county councils are adopting VLR using CMS controlled units, switching off/dimming lights when human activity is low (e.g. 12.30 – 5.30am). This technology could also be used to create a lighting regime that switches off lights during periods of high bat activity, such as commuting or emergence. Lights can also be dimmed (e.g. to 30% power) for periods of the night to reduce illumination and spill. The exact regime of lighting at a site will depend on the nature of public use and type and amount of bat activity, and will therefore vary between sites.

Habitat creation

Light barriers: vegetation can be planted (e.g. hedgerows or trees) to reduce light spill so acts as a light barrier. Careful consideration should be given to the minimum size of the habitat required to restrict any light trespass when used as a light barrier. The size and depth of the corridor will vary according to the distance from the light source, light intensity, light spread and light type.

Dark corridors: dark corridors can be created to encourage/guide bats away from lit areas or around lit obstacles (such as roads). Corridors should be placed with consideration for the use of the landscape as a


whole in relation to key commuting routes, linking foraging sites and roosts. Corridors can be composed of man-made or natural materials (e.g. fences, brick walls, tree lines or hedges). Corridors with outgrown vegetation are preferable as they create dark fly ways sheltered from predators and the elements. Heavily clipped low hedges or tree-lines are less suitable. To increase their effectiveness dark corridors should be: i. Well-connected within the bat landscape – linking to existing flight paths, roosts or foraging areas; ii. Outgrown with mature vegetation providing shelter for bats from the weather and predators as they fly; iii. Planted with native species to encourage insect populations, thereby allowing bats to forage along the corridors; iv. Located away from roads to avoid traffic noise which will reduce the foraging efficiency of passive listening bats (Schaub 2008); and v. Monitored/maintained long-term to ensure they remain functional, e.g. have not been removed or altered in a way that will reduce effectiveness.

Spacing and height of units Increasing the spacing between light units can reduce the intensity and spread of the light to minimise the area illuminated and give bats an opportunity to fly in relatively dark areas between lights. Reducing the height of light units will keep the light as close to the ground as possible, reducing the volume of illuminated space. This will also give bats a chance to fly over the light units in the dark area above the light (as long as the light does not spill above the vertical plane). There are many low level lighting options for pedestrian and cycle path lighting which minimise spill and reduce overall illumination including: low level illuminated bollards, down-lights, handrail lighting or footpath lighting. Reducing intensity Reducing light intensity will reduce the overall amount and spread of illumination. For some bat and insect species this may be sufficient to minimise disturbance or the magnitude of any negative impacts. However, some species may require very low light levels to have little/no impact on bat behaviour. Stone et al., (2012) found that levels as low as 3.6lux caused spatial avoidance of a preferred commuting route by Rhinolophus hipposideros. Average light levels recorded along preferred commuting routes of Rhinolophus hipposideros under natural unlit conditions were 0.04 lux across eight sites (Stone 2011). When mitigating the impacts of lighting for such species very low lux levels may not be suitable for human needs. In such cases reducing intensity may not be an option and alternative strategies may be preferable (e.g. dark corridors or light barriers). A “light threshold” below which there is little impact on bats may not exist for some species which may be light averse regardless of intensity (e.g. possibly Rhinolophus hipposideros). Light intensity can be reduced by:

Dimming: CMS technology can be used to reduce the power of lights on request (e.g. by 80%) and can be used as part of a VLR for periods of high bat activity;

Changing the light source: new technologies such as ceramic metal halide (e.g. Philips CosmoPolis, 45 watts) often have a lower wattage compared to old lamp types (e.g. HPS, 75 watts), and can be used to reduce light intensity. However, there is a trade-off between reduced intensity and the pattern of light distribution. Some older light types such as HPS, produce a heterogeneous light environment whereby light intensity declines steeply away from the light source. However some new technologies such as LEDs produce a uniform light distribution resulting in a loss of dark refuges between the lamps (Gaston et al. 2012). In such cases it may be preferable to increase the spacing between the units to create dark refuges. In addition when changing the light source it is important to consider the effects of the spectral content of the light; or

Creating light barriers: light intensity can be reduced at a particular site by creating a light barrier which restricts the amount of light reaching the sensitive area. Barriers can be in the form of newly planted vegetation walls, fences or buildings.

Changing the light type When selecting a light type it is important to consider the colour appearance and rendering of the lamps in relation to human and bat vision. Different light types are likely to have different effects on bats, and these effects will be species and behaviour specific. Choosing the light type (colour/spectral distribution) will inevitably be a compromise between


the environmental and public requirements. Currently there is a lack of evidence of the comparative impacts of light types on bats. However, the following key principles can reduce potential negative impacts on bats and wildlife in general:

Avoid blue-white short wavelength lights: these have a significant negative impact on the insect prey of bats. Use alternatives such as warm-white (long wavelength) lights as this will reduce the impact on insects and therefore bats

Avoid lights with high UV content: (e.g. metal halide or mercury light sources), or reduce/completely remove the UV content of the light. UV has a high attractiveness to insects leading to direct insect mortality at street lights thereby reducing the availability of insect prey (Bruce-White & Shardlow 2011). Use UV filters or glass housings on lamps which filter out a lot of the UV content.

Reducing spill Lighting should be directed only where it is needed to avoid trespass (spilling of light beyond the boundary of area being lit). Attention should be paid to avoid the upward spread of light near to and above the horizontal plane to minimise trespass and sky glow. Trespass can be minimised either prior to installation with careful lighting design and selection of appropriate lamp units, or post installation using a range of lamp modifications to restrict and direct light. Prior to installation:

Ensure a low beam angle of the lights (ideally less than 70° above the horizontal) (ILP, 2011)

Install full horizontal cut off units (with no light more than 90° above the horizontal)

Avoid the use of upward light (e.g. ground recessed luminaires or ground mounted floodlights up-lighting trees, buildings and vegetation)

For security lighting use ‘variable aim’ luminaries which allow you to change the beam angle by moving the lamp

LED lamps allow for directional lighting as individual/groups of LED bulbs can be switched off to direct light to specific angles and most luminaires are full cut off

Post installation:

Install directional accessories on existing light units to direct light away from sensitive areas and minimise spill (e.g. baffles, hoods and louvres)

Where possible change the angle of the lamp housing to reduce the angle of the beam below 70°


References

Arlettaz, R., Godat, S. & Meyer, H. (2000) Competition for food by expanding pipistrelle bat populations (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) might contribute to the decline of lesser horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus hipposideros). Biological Conservation, 93, 55-60.

Boldogh, S., Dobrosi, D. & Samu, P. (2007) The effects of illumination of buildings on house-dwelling bats and its conservation consequences. Acta Chiropterologica, 9, 527-534.

Bruce-White, C. & Shardlow, M. (2011) A review of the impact of artificial light on invertebrates. Buglife, Peterborough, UK

Downs, N.C., Beaton, V., Guest, J., Polanski, J., Robinson, S.L. & Racey, P.A. (2003) The effects of illuminating the roost entrance on the emergence behaviour of Pipistrellus pygmaeus. Biological Conservation, 111, 247-252.

Gaston, K.J., Davies, T.W., Bennie, J. & Hopkins, J. (2012) REVIEW: Reducing the ecological consequences of night-time light pollution: options and developments. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 1256-1266.

ILP (2011) Guidance notes for the reduction of obtrusive light. Institution of Lighting Professionals, GN01:2011,

Limpens, H.J.G.A. & Kapteyn, K. (1991) Bats, their behaviour and linear landscape elements. Myotis, 29, 39-48.

Racey, A. (2006) Best practice in enhancement of Highway design for bats: literature review report. Highways Agency, Exeter, England.

Rydell, J. (2006) Bats and their insect prey at streetlights. In Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting (eds Rich, C. & Longcore, T.), pp. 458. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Schaub, A., Ostwald, J., & Siemers, B.M (2008) Foraging bats avoid noise. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 211, 3174-3180.

Stone, E.L., Jones, G. & Harris, S. (2012) Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts of LED lighting on bats. Global Change Biology, In Press.

Stone, E.L. (2011) Bats and development: with a particular focus on the impacts of artificial lighting. PhD, PhD Thesis, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol.

Svensson, A.M. & Rydell, J. (1998) Mercury vapor lamps interfere with the bat defence of tympanate moths (Operophtera spp.; Geometridae). Animal Behaviour, 55, 223-226.

Verboom, B., Boonman, A.M. & Limpens, H.J.G.A. (1999) Acoustic perception of landscape elements by the pond bat (Myotis dasycneme). Journal of Zoology, 248, 59-66.

Verboom, B. & Huitema, H. (1997) The importance of linear landscape elements for the pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and the serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus. Landscape Ecology, 12, 117-125.


APPENDIX V SOFT LANDSCAPE PLAN – OPTION 2 LAYOUT

C

o

r

p

o

r

a

t

i

o

n

B

u

i

l

d

i

n

g

New Moat

El Sub Stas

Swn Aderyn

7

1

1

R

O

A

D

7

2

D

E

P

O

T

Tank

A

f

o

n

C

y

n

o

n

M

i

n

e

r

a

l

R

a

i

l

w

a

y

Posts

6

9

7

5

U

n

d

Issues

MAES-Y-DRE

1

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

1

.0

d

Q

L

-B

2

O

S

1

.

0

d

Q

L

-

B

2

1

.

0

d

Q

L

-

B

2

1

.

0

d

Q

L

-

B

2

1

.

0

d

Q

L

-

B

2

1

.

0

d

Q

L

-

B

2

1

.

0

d

Q

L

-

B

2

1

.

0

d

Q

L

-

B

2

1

.

0

d

Q

L

-

B

2

0

.

9

d

Q

L

-

B

2

0

.

9

d

Q

L

-

B

2

0

.

9

d

Q

L

-

B

2

0

.

9

d

Q

L

-

B

2

0

.

9

d

Q

L

-

B

2

0

.

9

d

Q

L

-

B

2

0

.

9

d

Q

L

-

B

2

0

.

9

d

Q

L

-

B

2

0

.

9

d

Q

L

-

B

2

E

O

T

W

e

l

l

i

n

g

t

o

n

S

t

r

e

e

t

A

4

0

5

9

A

4

2

3

3

Hampton House

Furniture

TESCO Superstore

Sub Station

IndicativeAttenuation

Area

KEY

Site Boundary

Proposed Pine Trees(See Planting Schedule)

Proposed Groups of Birch Trees(See Planting Schedule)

Proposed Courtyard Trees with Tree Grille(See Planting Schedule)

Proposed Feature Shrub Beds Adjacent to Buildings(See Planting Schedule)

Proposed Feature Bamboo Shrub Beds Adjacent to Buildings(See Planting Schedule)

Proposed Hedge(See Planting Schedule)

Proposed General Shrub Beds(See Planting Schedule)

Proposed Bulb Planting(See Planting Schedule)

Proposed Meadow Grass(See Planting Schedule)

Proposed Wet Meadow Grass(See Planting Schedule)

Proposed Amenity Grass(See Planting Schedule)

Retained Vegetation Corridor

Existing Easement

PROPOSED SHRUBS - FEATURE SHRUB BEDS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS

Allium (various)

All container sizes to be between 2 and 5 ltr andplanted between 3-6 per m2.

Dryopteris affinis

Hedera helix 'Erecta' Liriope muscari (various)

Lonicera nitida 'Maigrun'

Luzula nivea Lysimachia nummularia 'Aurea'

Matteuccia struthiopteris

Penstemon rupicola 'Diamond Lake'

PROPOSED TREES

General Betula pendula 14-16cm girth (Standard)

Betula utilis var. jacquemontii 'Grayswood Ghost' 14-16cm girth (Standard)

Pinus eldarica 1.4m Feathered Pinus nigra 1.4m Feathered

Court Yard Trees

Prunus serrula 16-18cm girth (Standard)

Acer refinerve 16-18cm girth (Standard)

PROPOSED SHRUBS - GENERAL SHRUB BEDS Bergenia (various)

All container sizes to be between 2 and 5 ltr andplanted between 3-6 per m2.

Choisys ternata

Escallonia 'Iveyi'

Hebe (various)

Heliotropium arborescens 'Chatsworth'

Ligustrum ovalifolium 'Aureum'

Salvia leucantha Skimmia japonica

Viburnum tinus Vinca (various)

PROPOSED BULBS Crocus tommasinianus 'Whitewell Purple'

Grade A, planted in drifts and planted between 12to 20 per m2.

Narcissus 'February Gold'

Galanthus nivalis

PROPOSED MEADOW GRASS

Emorsgate Seeds Mix EM2 (Standard GeneralPurpose Meadow Mix) Sown between 2 - 6 grams per m2.

Emorsgate Seeds Mix EC1 (Standard Cornfield Mix)

Planting Schedules

PROPOSED SHRUBS - FEATURE BAMBOO BEDS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS

Fargesia robusta All container sizes to be between 2 and 5 ltr andplanted between 3 per m2.

PROPOSED WET MEADOW GRASS

Emorsgate Seeds Mix EM8 (Meadow Mix forWetlands) Sown at 4 grams per m2.

PROPOSED AMENITY GRASS

Germinal Seeds Amenity A4 (Low maintenance) Sown at 35 grams per m2.

PROPOSED HEDGEROW

Ligustrum ovalifolium 0.9-1.0m high; Supplied in 1m long troughs byReadyhedge

brewster

e-mail:- [email protected]

Telephone:- + 44(0) 29 2040 84764 Stangate HouseStanwell RoadPenarthVale of GlamorganCF64 2AA

Soltys Brewster Consulting is the trading name of Soltys Brewster Consulting Ltd. Registered Offices:- 4 Stangate House,Stanwell Road, Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan. CF64 2AA. Registration No. 6262312.Dimensions should not be scaled from this drawing, only figured dimensions are to be used. All discrepancies or queriesregarding this drawing should be referred to Soltys Brewster Consulting Ltd. Soltys Brewster Consulting Ltd accept no liabilityfor any expense, loss or damage of whatever nature and however arising from variation made to this drawing or in theexecution of the work to which it relates which has not been referred to them and their approval obtained.

soltysbrewster

project

scale

drawing no.

drawing title

client

Rev. Date

drawn approved

revision

date

Comment DrawnApproved

PLANNING DESIGN TENDER CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARY

SB Project Number Originator Zone Level Type Role Number

Rhonnda Cynon Taff County Borough Council

Robertstown Development, Wellington Street

Strategic Soft Landscape Plan

1:500 @ A1 CJ SB Aug 2018

1873601 - SBC - 00 - 00 - DR - L - 002 PL01

DRAFTP01 DRAFT issue07.08.18 CJ-P02 DRAFT issue08.08.18 CJ-PL01 DRAFT First Planning issue09.08.18 CJSB

robertstown, aberdare ecological appraisal and …

Documents