Chapter

Strategic Location Plan	1.1
Site Location Plan (Including Waste Water Treatment Works and Outfall)	1.2
Masterplan	1.3A
Proposed Junction Layout	4.1
-->Waste Water Treatment Works and Outfall[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 16:43:00 2007 ] -->Arrangement[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 16:43:00 2007 ]	4.2
Habitat Plan	5.1
Hedgerow Survey	5.2
Bat Survey	5.3
Storage Lagoon Cross Section	6.-->1[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 16:55:00 2007 ]
Relevant [Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 16:58:00 2007 ]Correspondence[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 16:59:00 2007 ] with CCW[Author ID0: at ]	6.2[Author ID0: at ]
Statutory Services	7.1
Indicative Future Foul Sewer Connections for Residential Properties	7.2
WWTW Cross Section	7.3
Surface Water and Foul Water Sewers	7.4
Visual Envelope	8.1
Landscape and Planning Context	8.2
Historic Landscape Context	8.3
Archaeological Trial Trenching	10.1
Archaeological Topographical	10.2
Existing 1 in 100 yr flood	12.1
-->Extract from TAN15 Development Advice Map[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:06:00 2007 ]	12.2
-->Top[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:07:00 2007 ]o-->graphical Survey[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:07:00 2007 ]	12.3
-->Modelled Floodplains[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:07:00 2007 ]	12.4 - 12.7
Noise Receptors	13.1
Air Quality Receptors	14.1

Appendices

Aberystwyth Strategic Site Feasibility Study (July 2000)	1
DTZ Economic Needs Assessment	2
Ecology	3
Landscape and Visual Assessment	4
Transportation Impact Assessment	5
Archaeology Report	6
Geological Site Investigation Report / Geo-technical Geo-environmental report	7
Noise Report	8
Air Quality Assessment	9
DTZ Updated Economic Needs Assessment [Author ID1: at Wed Jun 20 16:26:00 2007 ]	10[Author ID1: at Wed Jun 20 16:26:00 2007 ]
Flood Consequences Assessment-->[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 16:39:00 2007 ]	11
-->Supplementary Ground Investigation Report[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 16:39:00 2007 ] and Letter-->[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 16:39:00 2007 ]	12
-->Agricultural Land Classification Report[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 16:39:00 2007 ]	13
Contamination Method Statement-->[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 16:39:00 2007 ]	14

-->A PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:34:00 2007 ]

A1 This document is submitted as an Addendum to the Environmental Statement (ES) produced in September 2003 and submitted with two applications for planning permission (refs. A031074 and A031075) relating to a proposed employment development at a site located to the south of the A44 and Afon Melindwr, Capel Bangor, Aberystwyth. Planning application A031074 is an outline application for a business park for B1, B2 and B8 uses, and planning application A031075 is a full application for earthworks and infrastructure to prepare the site for use as a business park. Both applications were submitted by the former Welsh Development Agency (now the Welsh Assembly Government) and were registered by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) on 8^th September 2003.

A2 On 13^th July 2004 the LPA confirmed that consideration of the applications in advance of the then forthcoming Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Inquiry would be premature. As such the applications were held in abeyance. Following the closure of the UDP Inquiry on 1^st July 2005 the Inspector's Report was received on 31^st January 2006. The proposed modifications to the UDP were the subject of a direction received from the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) and on 18^th January 2007 the LPA resolved to stop work on the UDP and use the policies not affected by the WAG Direction (i.e. all UDP policies other than Policies H1.2B and H1.3 relating to settlement boundaries) for development control purposes in conjunction with the existing Dyfed Structure Plan and all relevant national planning guidance.

A3 Given the above, the LPA is keen to resume consideration of and proceed to the determination of the aforementioned planning applications. However, in light of the time that has elapsed since their original submission it was considered necessary to review and update the ES.

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:34:00 2007 ]

B STRUCTURE OF THE ADDENDUM

B1 To identify the amendments that have been undertaken to the original ES this Addendum document follows an identical format and sequence to its predecessor. The changes to the text are shown either as deletions (e.g. ~~deleted text~~) or as additions in bold print (e.g. new text).

1.0 PREAMBLE

1.1 Introduction

This Addendum to the Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared to accompany a proposal by the Welsh -->~~Development Agency~~[Author ID1: at Fri Jun 8 17:14:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:09:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Fri Jun 8 17:14:00 2007 ]Assembly Government (W-->DA[Author ID1: at Fri Jun 8 17:14:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:09:00 2007 ]AG[Author ID1: at Fri Jun 8 17:14:00 2007 ]) for employment development at a site located to the south of the Afon Melindwr, Capel Bangor, Aberystwyth (see Strategic Location Plan at Figure 1.1 and Site Location Plan at Figure 1.2).
A full planning application -->(Ref: A031075)[Author ID1: at Fri Jun 8 17:15:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 12:18:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Fri Jun 8 17:15:00 2007 ]is submitted for the earthworks and infrastructure of the site. An outline application (Ref: A03[Author ID1: at Fri Jun 8 17:15:00 2007 ]1074)[Author ID1: at Fri Jun 8 17:16:00 2007 ] with all matters except for access [Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:10:00 2007 ]reserved for future approval is submitted for the built development on the site of the general land use. In addition, at the request of the LPA a further full application has been submitted alongside this Addendum. The application is for the Waste Water Treatment Works associated with the proposal. This element of the scheme is described in more detail in Chapter 4 (Paragraphs 4.4.1 - 3).
It was realised during the mid-1990's that there was a serious shortage of attractive, available and allocated land to meet the employment requirements of the County. Accordingly the former [Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 16:59:00 2007 ]WDA investigated the potential of fifteen sites for employment uses. After considerable examination this list of sites was reduced to five. These were located at Clarach, UCW Playing Fields and the extension of Glan-yr-Afon Industrial Estate, Lovesgrove Lower, Lovesgrove Upper, and Capel Bangor. RPS were commissioned to undertake an evaluation of these five sites. A copy of that report can be found at Appendix 1.
The need to address this shortfall was confirmed and refined by an Economic Needs Assessment prepared by DTZ Pieda in September 2002. A copy of that report is included in Appendix 2. In essence that report concluded that:

There is a projected demand for 15 - 22 hectares of land for business park / trading estate and manufacturing accommodation in the Aberystwyth area, and that the allocation of land in other areas of Ceredigion will not serve to displace or satisfy that demand.
There was an identified demand for some 13 - 18 hectares of that land as Business Park space.

The split between business park uses and trading estate / manufacturing uses was considered to be approximately 3:1 for indigenous demand and 100% business park uses for inward investment demand. The report confirmed that there existed a severe shortage of suitable serviced sites and premises on[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 16:59:00 2007 ]-->f[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 16:59:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:10:00 2007 ] offer to indigenous firms and inward investors seeking to expand or relocate in the Aberystwyth area. The report found that the vast majority of sites and premises were either not currently available in Aberystwyth and/or did not meet modern occupier requirements.
The report concluded that the site at Capel Bangor was capable of satisfying this demand. This option has therefore been pursued on the basis that the site has the physical capacity to accommodate the perceived demand over the foreseeable future and the lifetime of the -->~~Unitary~~ [Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:00:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:11:00 2007 ]Local [Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:00:00 2007 ]Development Plan. It is located adjacent to the A44 trunk road; it is considered to be free of any abnormal off-site and on-site servicing problems. Whilst it is clearly a green-field location it can be developed in a manner that is, on balance, environmentally sound and sustainable. And it is the nearest available and developable area of land to Aberystwyth.
The purpose of the planning applications is to make available, in advance, a site which can provide units for locally generated demand as well as units to receive potential inward investment projects in accordance with the advice of the Economic Needs Assessment. As such it is not possible or desirable, at this stage, to identify specific end-users or to finalise the site layout.
The main application is hence an outline application and the Masterplan is shown at Figure 1.3A[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:12:00 2007 ]-->a[Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:12:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:12:00 2007 ]. The plan provides a clear indication of the nature and scale of the development proposed including the access arrangements, [Author ID2: at Wed Sep 12 17:12:00 2007 ]and forms the basis for the assessments within this Environmental Statement as appropriate.

1.2 Purpose of the Assessment - Legislative Background

The purpose of Environmental Impact Assessment is to provide the local planning authority, when determining a planning application, with sufficient information to allow it to properly assess the significant environmental effects of a project. The legislative background to this requirement originated with the EEC Directive on “The Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment” (85/337/EEC) and was amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC. These Directives are implemented for the purpose of determining planning applications via the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 which came into force on 14^th March 1999.

Projects Requiring Environmental Impact Assessment

The above Regulations establish the criteria which determine whether Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is necessary or not and identify the nature and scale of the projects and their applicability to be determined as Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 projects. Schedule 1 projects require EIA in every case. Schedule 2 projects may or may not require EIA depending on whether the project in question is likely to give rise to significant environmental effects by virtue of factors such as nature, size or location. Column 2 of Schedule 2 establishes that industrial estate development with an area exceeding 0.5 hectare falls to be screened using the criteria set out in Schedule 3. Therefore the development is defined as EIA development for the purpose of the Regulations.

1.3 Method Statement

The scope of the original [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:04:00 2007 ]ES and the Addendum [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:04:00 2007 ]has been determined and agreed with Ceredigion County Council in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Regulations. The methodology adopted in preparing the Statement is largely that described in the Department of the Environment Planning Research Programme “Good Practice Guide” produced in 1995 which provides a guide for the preparation of Environmental Statements for planning projects that require environmental assessment. In specific areas of analysis the methodology adopts:

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment 1995);
Nature Conservancy Council Phase 1 Survey Methodology;
The Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment (Institution of Highways and Transportation);
British Standards 5228 Part 1:1997 and 4142:1990 in respect of noise.

Much of the analysis has also been supplemented by field survey and recourse to recent and historical records and data.

Structure of the Statement

The Statement follows the conventional structure and format as recommended by the DoE Good Practice Guide. Volume 1 (this document) provides the full text of the Statement. Volume 2 contains the supporting figures and technical reports, including the Traffic Impact Assessment and a recently completed Flood Consequences Assessment[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:07:00 2007 ]. [Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:01:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:07:00 2007 ]Document 3 comprises a Non-Technical Summary.
The main text is divided into three parts as follows:

Part One: The Context - sets out the background to the Statement and the proposal. It also provides a description of the site in all its aspects and a socio-economic profile of the area and a review of the planning policy context;
Part Two: Project Description - explains the considerations involved in developing the scheme and justifies the preferred approach. It also provides a description of the proposed development in terms of its physical form, land use and access arrangements;
Part Three: Impact and Mitigation Proposals - describes the impact of the proposal on the human, natural and built environments as required by Schedule 4 of the Regulations. It also identifies the measures which will be incorporated into the scheme to mitigate those impacts.

2.0 THE SITE AND CONTEXT

2.1 The location and general character

The site lies some 6km directly east of the eastern fringes of Aberystwyth, to the south of, and accessed from, the A44(T), within a rural and agricultural landscape abutting the settlement of Capel Bangor. The area contained by the site is 14.5 hectares (35.82 acres). The Afon Melindwr passes the site to the north and west before reaching the Afon Rheidol. The site is located at the foot of the Plunlumon mountain range, which rises steeply to the north and east, forming the Melindwr Valley with further steeply rising ground to the south, forming the Rheidol Valley. The site, therefore, sits at the foot of the Rheidol Valley slopes, in an enclave formed by the Afon Melindwr at the confluence of the two rivers. This can be seen with reference to the plan at Figure 8.2.
The site is pastoral agricultural land consisting of irregularly shaped fields, defined essentially by hedgerows. The site is generally level with a slight east-west fall, with the eastern strip extending onto the foot of the eastern rising ground. The northern boundary is formed by the Capel Bangor settlement, specifically the caravan park, residences along Melindwr Terrace, and the A44(T), all separated from the site by an insubstantial low native and new Beech hedge. To the east the boundary is formed by a strong tree-lined track which links to a bridleway running across the site, whilst the tree-lined drive to the farm complex of Troedrhiw-lwba, which lies off the south-east corner of the site, forms the boundary to the south-west. To the west is a largely single-track road which connects Capel Bangor to Ystumtumen and Devil's Bridge. The track is separated from the site by a low native species hedge.
The landscape context is of exposed upland on the Plunlumon range to the east, becoming more extensively farmed further east, which rises typically to some 400m AOD. The Rheidol Valley slopes are wooded, both by plantation and naturally occurring woodland, particularly to the east and south of the site, with irregularly shaped hedged fields at higher elevations. The valley floor landscape is well maintained, again with irregularly shaped hedged fields, many poorly drained. Within the immediate site context tree lines and copses are frequent, but become less so further to the west where the flat valley bottom land becomes less well drained. The immediate landscape is complex with rough patches of texture, contrasting with the expansive character of the eastern upland.
Settlements are small and infrequent clusters of houses with some community facilities lying along the A44(T) in the valley bottom. Individual farm complexes and houses are scattered throughout the landscape, accessed in the main via single track roads and lanes.
Capel Bangor is a broadly linear settlement of individually designed and built detached properties. The caravan park is located between the Afon Melindwr and the application site, and the terrace of cottage-style properties that back onto the site is separated from the site by a low hedge. The settlement also comprises a relatively new linked residential development fronting the A44(T) and a small public housing estate, Penllwyn, on rising ground to the north-west of the main settlement area. There is a significant tree belt along the Afon Melindwr which creates enclosure and separation within the settlement and continuity with the surrounding landscape. This mixed tree belt, coupled with other stands of trees, open space and general vegetation within the settlement break up the built mass, giving a form of development which fits well into its rural landscape context. The caravan park is, however, a visual detractor. It has little or no planting to break up the uniformity of the caravans, thus not continuing the overall diverse and informal nature of the layout, design and use of materials of the surrounding built settlement.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 National Planning Context

National Planning Guidance is found primarily in Planning Policy WALES March 2002. The following provisions are considered particularly relevant to the site and the proposed development.
The planning system is required to provide land for homes, investment and jobs in a way that is consistent with the principles of sustainable development. In order to achieve this it must reconcile the needs of development and conservation, secure economy, efficiency and amenity in the use of land, and protect natural resources thereby contributing to sustainable development (paragraph 1.2.1).
Paragraph 2.1.4 refers to sustainable development and states that working towards such development means pursuing four `objectives' at the same time, namely :

Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone;
Effective protection of the environment;
Prudent use of natural resources; and
The maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

It also states that the planning system must help in the process of balancing and integrating these objectives in order to meet current development needs while safeguarding those of the future (paragraph 2.1.5.).

Environmental Impact Assessment.

Paragraphs 4.3.1 - 4.3.8 of the guidance set out the parameters which establish the need for, and contents of, Environmental Statements as referred to earlier in this document (see Chapter 1) and also reiterated in Welsh Office Circular 11/99 Environmental Impact Assessment.

Design.

Paragraph 2.5.7 states that aall new development should respect the character of the surrounding area and should be of appropriate scale and design.
Paragraph 2.9.1 states that good design can protect the environment and enhance its quality, help to attract business and investment, promote social inclusion and improve the quality of life. Good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere. This applies to all development proposals, at all scales, from the construction or alteration of individual buildings to larger development proposals.
Paragraph 2.9.9 confirms that the appearance of proposed development, and its scale and relationship to its surroundings, are material planning considerations. Paragraph 13.15.1 states that noise can also be a material planning consideration, for example in proposals to use or develop land close to existing sources of noise.

-->Agricultural Land[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:22:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:23:00 2007 ]--> [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:22:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:23:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:10:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:23:00 2007 ]

Paragraph 2.8.1 states that agricultural land of grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) should be conserved as a finite resource for the future and, where there is a choice between sites of different grades, development should be directed to land of the lowest grade.

Protection of Amenity[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:22:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:22:00 2007 ]

Paragraph 4.1.1 states that the planning system is intended to help protect the amenity and environment of towns, cities and the countryside in the public interest while promoting high quality, sustainable development. [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:25:00 2007 ]

Consideration of Public Opinion[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:25:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:25:00 2007 ]

Paragraph 4.1.4 covers the issue of the weight to be given to the interests and views of the local community. It states that while the substance of local views must be considered, the duty is to decide each case on its planning merits. Objections and / or support for applications must be based on valid planning considerations, and that perceived fears by the public are a material planning consideration.

Transport

Paragraph 8.7.3 states that the proposed access to a development should reflect the likely travel patterns involved. It should ensure that people can reach the development, as far as practicable, by walking, cycling and public transport, as well as by car.

Supporting the Economy

Paragraph 7.1.1 states that the Government is committed to building a modern economy with a `broader economic base that provides job opportunities for all and where greater use of modern technology redresses the problems of access and peripherality'.
Paragraph 7.1.5 states that the Government's objectives for economic development are to:

Enhance the economic success of both urban areas and the countryside, helping businesses to maximise their competitiveness;
Support initiative and avoid placing unnecessary burdens on enterprise;
Respect and encourage diversity in the local economy, for example in rural areas encouraging farm diversification and in urban areas promoting mixed use development;
Promote the exploitation of new technologies which can provide new opportunities; and
Ensure that development for enterprise and employment uses is in line with sustainability principles, respecting the environment in its location, scale and design.

Paragraph 7.1.6 states that all communities need new employment opportunities. Local planning authorities should formulate and implement land use planning policies for industrial and other employment-generating and wealth-creating development.
Paragraph 7.1.7 states that new development for enterprise and employment uses should be located and implemented in accordance with sustainability principles.
The Guidance states (Paragraph 7.2.2) with regard to key employment sites that they should be selected in line with sustainable development principles, with preference for the use of previously developed land, proximity to existing urban developments, good accessibility to the public transport and primary road network, and good quality telecommunications.
Paragraph 7.6.2 states that in determining planning applications for industrial and commercial uses, local planning authorities should have regard to:

The impact of the development on the environment and local amenity (in terms of, for example, its scale and design, use of materials and natural resources, impact on landscape and wildlife, and its contribution to the generation of traffic and waste, noise and odour, emissions to air, water and soil, and its impacts on community safety and health);
How significant environmental losses can be avoided, mitigated or compensated for;
Accessibility by a range of different transport modes;
The possible need for, and scale of, transport and other infrastructure changes required to enable development to occur;
Proximity to, and compatibility (in terms of nature and scale) with, residential areas;
Compatibility with existing industrial and commercial activities;
Whether the intensification of industrial/commercial use is appropriate; and
Opportunities to encourage developments involving co-location, deploying waste stream technology or practices, innovative business or technology clusters, and developments in the social economy.

3.2 -->~~Strategic~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:29:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:04:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:29:00 2007 ]Local [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:29:00 2007 ]Planning Context[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:05:00 2007 ]

Since the submission of the original ES the Development Plan context for Ceredigion has evolved as[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:31:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:32:00 2007 ]indicated[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:31:00 2007 ] in paragraph A2. As such the planning applications will now be considered in the context of the Dyfed Structure Plan and[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:32:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:33:00 2007 ]the UDP Proposed Modifications Version[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:32:00 2007 ] (March 2006[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:33:00 2007 ])[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:02:00 2007 ], including minor amendments[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:33:00 2007 ], [Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:02:00 2007 ]other than Policies H1.2[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:33:00 2007 ]B[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:05:00 2007 ] and H1.3 and the [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:33:00 2007 ]settlement[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:34:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:33:00 2007 ]boundaries of settlements previously covered by those policies.[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:34:00 2007 ]

Dyfed Structure Plan[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:35:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:35:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:35:00 2007 ]

The [Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:02:00 2007 ]Dyfed Structure Plan (including Alterations No. 1) was approved in November 1990. Therefore, whilst this is[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:35:00 2007 ] still[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:37:00 2007 ] the statutorily approved plan, it is substantially out of date with regard to changes to national planning guidance and the employment needs of the area.[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:35:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:35:00 2007 ]
Policy E1 provides for up to 780 hectares of land to meet the employment needs of the (former) County in the period 1986-1996. Of this total 100 hectares is anticipated in the (former) Ceredigion area. Policy E2 requires the amount of effectively available employment land in each former district in any 5 year period to be broadly consistent with the take-up of such land for the preceding 5 years. In effect this creates a requirement for a “rolling” 5 year supply of employment land.
Policy E5 identifies Aberystwyth/Comyns Coch/Llanbadarn Fawr as a strategic location for employment land. This policy also presumes against proposals which would create significant transport, amenity or public service provision objections.
Policy E9 presumes against proposals for new buildings and new employment land uses in areas of open countryside. Policy E11 presumes against new buildings or employment land uses outside settlements and within areas specified in policy EN3 (Special Landscape Areas - see below) which would have a detrimental effect on their character and environment.
Policies E16 and E17 encourage the development of food craft centres and food parks respectively at appropriate locations in the County. Policy E20 encourages the provision, in appropriate locations, of land for new technology industries in Dyfed. Where such locations are identified there will be a presumption in favour of proposals for high technology industries, science parks, business parks, innovation centres and for prestige and high-quality developments, unless these would create any significant transport, amenity or public service provision objections. Policy E22 presumes in favour of the location of major administrative, professional, financial and scientific offices in or adjacent to the centres of larger towns or in suitably located campus developments unless they would create any significant transport, amenity or public service provision objections.
Policy T1 states that the County's strategic transportation network will be improved where necessary to promote industrial and commercial developments. Policy T6 states that the strategic road links between the north of the County and the M4 motorway will be upgraded through the implementation of incremental improvements to the County network. Policy T8 requires the design of roadworks to take into account environmental and amenity considerations. Policy T9 favours proposals that can be conveniently served by and will generate greater use of public transport services where such proposals would not create any significant transport, amenity or public service provision objections and are in accordance with Structure Plan policies. Policy T11 favours proposals for industrial distribution, commercial or service uses which would create greater use of existing rail facilities where such proposals would not lead to significant transport, amenity or product service provision objections and are in accordance with Structure Plan policies.
Policy EN1A seeks to protect and conserve wherever possible unscheduled archaeological, historical and architectural features of importance. Where permission is granted for development, conditions will be included where necessary to provide adequate opportunities for recording or excavation of such sites. The protection of areas in close proximity to the sites will be an important planning consideration.
Policy EN3 seeks to protect and conserve the characteristic and individual landscape types throughout the County as Special Landscape Areas including, inter alia, the Rheidol Valley. It states that there will be a presumption against development likely to adversely affect the character and amenity of these areas. Policy EN4 presumes against development which would reduce the ecological value of national nature reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, local nature reserves and the nature reserves of the Dyfed Wildlife Trust. It goes on to state that the maintenance of the variety of flora and fauna of the County will always be an important planning consideration.
Policy EN6 presumes against the development for non-agriculture purposes of Grades 1 and 2 agricultural land. Policy EN7 presumes against development for non-agricultural purposes of Grade 3 agricultural land except where no appropriate alternative land of lower quality is available. Policy EN10 presumes against proposals which would constitute ribbon development along roads outside acceptable settlement limits or where development would unnecessarily contribute towards the coalescence of adjacent settlements.
Policy EN13 requires all development proposals to take full account of the character of the urban or rural setting in terms of scale, siting, design, landscaping and the use of materials as well as the effect on social and cultural characteristics of the area. Policy EN29 encourages agreements with developers wherever possible for the improvement and provision of infrastructure, amenity or community facilities which are directly related to the development.

-->~~Local Planning Context~~ [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]

--> ~~Ceredigion Local Plan~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]

-->There is no adopted Local Plan covering the application site. However, the “Ceredigion Local Plan Including Waste Policies” of January 1998 has been approved for development control purposes and is therefore an important material consideration.[Author ID0: at ][Author ID0: at ]
-->~~The application site abuts the defined settlement boundary limits of the village of Capel Bangor and sits within a Special Landscape Area where Policy ENV01 states:~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]

-->“[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]-->Proposals will be assessed in relation to the scale and nature of the development, the relative importance of the location in the landscape and its ability to be accommodated without serious damage. Where there are special features or locations which represent singular, rare or highly valued characteristics, development will not be permitted[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]-->.”[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]

-->~~Policy E01 identifies Aberystwyth, Cardigan and Lampeter as Major Employment Locations, where major new employment development will be encouraged. However, Policy E03 recognises that:~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]

-->“[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]-->~~Land allocated may not, however, meet the specific operational needs of new businesses or employment schemes~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]-->.”[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]

-->~~Accordingly, Policy E03 states:~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]

-->“[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]-->Employment generating activities in appropriate locations within or adjoining the established settlements will be permitted provided that they are of a type and of a scale which do not adversely affect the character of the settlement or amenity of neighbouring properties[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]-->.”[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 10:40:00 2007 ]

3.3[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 12:37:00 2007 ] Ceredigion Unitary Development Plan (Proposed Modifications Version March 2006)[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 12:38:00 2007 ]

-->A review of the Adopted Structure Plan and approved Local Plan is underway and the “Pre-Deposit Ceredigion Unitary Development Plan” was published in May 2001. Following receipt of representations on that Plan, a Deposit UDP was published in September 2002 [Author ID0: at ][Author ID0: at ]
-->~~The application site is allocated in the Deposit UDP as an Employment Site within the Settlement Boundary. The site is identified as 118 / E1 and the Proposals Schedule states that it is a “~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 12:39:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]-->~~key strategic employment site for the north of the County to provide for future long-term employment needs~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 12:39:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]-->”. It refers to high quality strategic employment development for a range of B1, B2 and B8 uses, and states that the proportion of B1a office use should not exceed 30% of any proposed development. The plan also indicates that improvements to public transport, cycle/pedestrian links would be expected. It states that the design and layout should seek to maximise the use of the land but minimise impacts on the surrounding area and that the implementation of mature landscaping and formal / informal recreation and amenity provision on the proposed adjacent community buffer zone will be required as part of the development.[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 12:39:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:11:00 2007 ]
The strategic approach towards employment in the ~~emerging~~ UDP is set out in Paragraphs 5.22 - 5.30 of Part 1 of the document. Paragraph 5.23 states that the Council is keen to ensure that there are a variety of employment opportunities throughout the County, with larger traffic generating uses in or close to the six main town centres. Paragraph 5.24 highlights that the availability of land for employment purposes has become scarcer and that the designation of new sites is necessary if opportunities are to be realised both strategically and locally throughout the County. Key strategic sites are also made available to provide for long term employment needs and uses that could not be readily met on town sites (Paragraph 5.25). It is considered in Paragraph 5.26 that by catering for investment and a more diverse range of economic opportunity throughout the County, the UDP provides access to a better range of jobs locally and will offer young people in particular the chance to remain in, or return, to the area.
Paragraph 5.30[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 12:40:00 2007 ] therefore, [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:39:00 2007 ]sets out the broad principles as follows:[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 12:40:00 2007 ]

“To promote a robust and prosperous local economy with a variety of employment opportunities, sites and uses;
To harmonise employment levels in the County;
To encourage economic development which leads to the most effective use of land and is compatible with the Council's environmental and social objectives;
To promote a development strategy that caters in a sustainable manner [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:40:00 2007 ]for -->~~appropriate~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:41:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:14:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:41:00 2007 ]inward investment, diversification and added value within the economy;
To promote the redevelopment and/or reuse of vacant or underused land and buildings;
To ensure all sections of the community have equal access to jobs.”

In terms of detailed policies, Policy E1.1 states:

“Employment sites are designated at locations identified in the Proposals Map in the following categories:[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:42:00 2007 ]

-->Key strategic employment sites (north and south);[Author ID0: at ][Author ID0: at ]
-->Main town employment sites (in or adjacent to the six main towns);[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:43:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:45:00 2007 ]
-->Established employment sites[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:44:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:45:00 2007 ].[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:44:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:44:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:44:00 2007 ]
Employment developments will be directed in the first instance to the main towns[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:03:00 2007 ] and designated [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:58:00 2007 ]sites. Less intensive development may be permitted within or adjacent to rural settlements and at farm or business complexes. [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:59:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:00:00 2007 ]-->~~Subject to the criteria below~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:58:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:14:00 2007 ],[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 13:58:00 2007 ] P[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:00:00 2007 ]-->p[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:00:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:14:00 2007 ]roposals for new employment development will be -->~~permitted at designated sites and less intensive development within or adjacent to rural settlements~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:01:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:14:00 2007 ]subject to the criteria below[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:01:00 2007 ]:

Policy E1.4 Reuse and Regeneration of Employment Land;
The scale and character of the proposed development in relation to the size and character of the settlement;
The site -->~~prescription~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:01:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:15:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:01:00 2007 ]designation [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:01:00 2007 ]in the Proposals Schedule;
Maximising accessibility by a choice of means of transport;
The number and type of journeys generated by the development;
The impact on infrastructure capacity;
The impact on the amenity of adjoining uses on site and off site;
The contribution made to the vitality and viability of the local economy;
Measures to minimise the visual impact on the built and/or natural environment; [and],
The building design standard appropriate to the site

The supporting text to this policy identifies Capel Bangor as a strategic site for the north of the County and states, inter alia:

“Con[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:02:00 2007 ]sistent with the emphasis in public policy on sustainability a qualitative as well as a quantitative assessment of existing employment land use and demand is the basis for employment land provision for the Plan period[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:04:00 2007 ]……. The policy takes a comprehensive approach, catering for a range and variety of requirements for sites and premises[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:06:00 2007 ]……. It designates[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:07:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:08:00 2007 ]key strategic sites to meet specifications which existing sites may be unable[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:07:00 2007 ] to meet and which are consistent with the Ceredigion Objective 1 Local Action Plan[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:08:00 2007 ] (September 2000) and Local Strategy (2003 [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:15:00 2007 ]-[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:16:00 2007 ] 2004)[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:15:00 2007 ] to enhance the prosperity of Ceredigion……[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:16:00 2007 ] -->e[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:03:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:15:00 2007 ]E[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:03:00 2007 ]xisting traditional employment sites at Llanbadarn and Glanyrafon may not meet the site requirements to retain or attract employers even where Aberystwyth has existing expertise and skills. It is therefore important that the existing sites should be complemented by long term provision at a new site. Capel Bangor is the Council's preferred site to meet the potential need for readily available development land to serve Aberystwyth as a strategic regional centre.”

As such, the site is allocated in the UDP as a Key Strategic Employment Site for the north of the County for future long term needs and is identified under ref. 118/E1 in the Employment Land Proposals Schedule and Index Map, and the Inset Map for Capel Bangor. The Employment Proposals Schedule refers to high quality employment development for a range of B1, B2 and B8 uses, although it is indicated that the proportion of B1(a) office use should not exceed 30% of any proposed development. The UDP confirms that the site has potential access on to the A44 but improvements to public transport, cycle and pedestrian links would be expected as part of site development. Development is expected to be high quality with the design and layout seeking to maximise the use of land but minimise impacts on the surrounding area. The implementation of mature landscaping and formal/informal recreation and amenity provision on the adjacent community buffer zone will also be required, as well as communications and infrastructure provision.
The Settlement Statement for Capel Bangor indicates that[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:31:00 2007 ],[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:05:00 2007 ] despite the objections received during the UDP process, the site is considered to be the most appropriate location for a new employment[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:32:00 2007 ] site in the Aberystwyth area, particularly as various studies have highlighted the need for employment land.[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:33:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:31:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]
More generally,[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:34:00 2007 ] w[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:35:00 2007 ]here employment development takes place, Policy E2.1 provides guidance on the mix and flexibility of sites:[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:31:00 2007 ]

“New development for employment purposes should be designed for flexibility of use. Employment sites should cater for a mix of unit sizes, including start up units, to serve a wide range of potential businesses, and to facilitate on-site expansion of successful enterprises. Consideration should be given to the opportunity for clustering and -->~~good-neighbour uses~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:35:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:16:00 2007 ]compatible uses[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:35:00 2007 ] in the selection of locations for proposed development.”

Policies E2.4 and E2.5 provide guidance on accessibility of employment sites and landscaping:

“E2.4 Accessibility of Employment Sites

New development proposals for employment should have regard to accessibility by a range of transport modes and where appropriate incorporate:

Facilities for public transport, cycling, walking and disabled access
-->~~Linkages~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:36:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:16:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:36:00 2007 ]Integration [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:36:00 2007 ]between the site and neighbouring residential and shopping areas
Provision of facilities and secure parking for all -->~~transport mode users~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:36:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:17:00 2007 ]modes of transport.[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:37:00 2007 ].”

“E2.5 Visual Impact of Employment Sites/Estates

Employment sites should be well landscaped and screened to respect local distinctiveness and [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:38:00 2007 ]to limit or enhance their landscape impact. Within employment sites attention should be paid to careful building design and layout which promotes a quality image [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:39:00 2007 ]-->~~and locates smaller and/or less attractive uses away from the site entrance and main thoroughfare~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:39:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:17:00 2007 ]. Distribution and storage uses should be within buildings or screened with mature planting to li[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:40:00 2007 ]m[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:41:00 2007 ]it unsightly[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:40:00 2007 ] visual impact[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:41:00 2007 ] where enclosed storage is impractical or unfeasible. [Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:41:00 2007 ]-->~~normally be covered or planted with screening to limit unsightly visual impact~~[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:43:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:17:00 2007 ].[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:43:00 2007 ] Site roads and footpaths should be designed to promote the safety of all users, but should avoid land take inappropriate to the efficient employment use density of the site.”

-->Ceredigion County Council is currently considering the representations to the Deposit Plan and it is anticipated that a Proposed Changes document will be published in late Autumn/ winter 2003, with a public inquiry currently being scheduled for May / June 2004.[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 14:43:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:17:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:17:00 2007 ]

Having regard to the wider planning policy context within the UDP, Policy GEN2.3 supports development and investment that creates employment opportunities and Policy GEN 4.1 outlines general planning principles for all development. Policy ENVB1.1 provides detailed criteria for the design of new development, ENVB1.2 requires landscaping to be incorporated in such development, and ENVB1.22 seeks to ensure there are no unacceptably adverse impacts due to new lighting, with ENVB1.23 ensuring accessibility for all.
Policy ENVL1.2 ensures that the implications of new development on the landscape are carefully considered. Polic[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:27:00 2007 ]ies[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:28:00 2007 ] ENV[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:27:00 2007 ]N[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:29:00 2007 ]1.1[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:27:00 2007 ] and 1.5 require[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:29:00 2007 ]~~s[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:29:00 2007 ]~~[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:06:00 2007 ] mitigation measures to minimise any harm to biodiversity and protected species[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:29:00 2007 ],[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:06:00 2007 ] respectively[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:29:00 2007 ],[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:06:00 2007 ] and ENVE1.1 requires energy conservation.[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:29:00 2007 ] Proposals should also not significantly harm existing levels of air quality in accordance with Policy ENVP1.4.[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:33:00 2007 ]
Policy ENVP2.1 limits development in areas of flood risk and requires confirmation that the consequences of flooding can be acceptably managed before development is permitted. Policy ENVP2.2 indicates that development which exacerbates surface water run off leading to increased flood risk will not be permitted.
In relation to development of a potentially contaminated site, Policy ENVP3.2 requires developers to assess the risk and identify any necessary residual measures.
Policy ENVU1.1 permits the provision of utility services (including sewage disposal) to serve both existing and proposed dev[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:38:00 2007 ]elopment subject to criteria relating to the minimisation of adverse impacts on the natural environment and residential amenity.[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:39:00 2007 ]
In relation to transportation issues, Policy T1.1 directs larger scale development to the six main towns and to designated sites in the Proposals Schedule and advises that Transport Assessments may be required for such developments.[Author ID1: at Mon Jun 11 16:40:00 2007 ] Policy T2.1 requires development to have regard to accessibility by a range of transport modes and T2.2 requires parking pr[Author ID1: at Tue Jun 12 09:58:00 2007 ]ovision for development proposals to be provided in accordance with the Council[Author ID1: at Tue Jun 12 10:00:00 2007 ]'[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:06:00 2007 ]s Supplementary Planning Guidance. The d[Author ID1: at Tue Jun 12 10:00:00 2007 ]iversion of Public Rights of Way as a result of new development is only pe[Author ID1: at Tue Jun 12 10:01:00 2007 ]rmitted by Policy T2.7 where it is required to enable development to take place and the diverted route is not substantially longer and no less commodious.[Author ID1: at Tue Jun 12 10:02:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:27:00 2007 ]
Policy CER2.1 identifies land for recreation/amenity and Policy CER1.1 requires Community Impact Assessments to accompany planning applications for developments which do not meet the scale, rate, nature or timing of development anticipated by the UDP (see Chapter 15 for further information regarding Community Impact). [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:28:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Tue Jul 31 09:33:00 2007 ]

Aberystwyth Masterplan[Author ID5: at Tue Jul 31 09:33:00 2007 ]

The Aberystwyth Masterplan is a document commissioned by the Welsh Assembly Government and Ceredigio[Author ID5: at Tue Jul 31 09:34:00 2007 ]n County Council. Its purpose is to assess all aspects of land use, future growth and infrastructure to ensure that the town has the capability to act as a regional centre for Mid Wales. Although the Masterplan has not been formally published it has been the subject of much consultation with key stakeholders and local organisations, and a public exhibition in June/July 2007.[Author ID5: at Tue Jul 31 09:37:00 2007 ]
The Masterplan confirms that the site at Capel Bangor will meet the identified need for employment land and that, indeed, the site is the only available site that could provide such a significant amount of employment[Author ID5: at Tue Jul 31 09:38:00 2007 ] land within the region.[Author ID5: at Tue Jul 31 09:39:00 2007 ][Author ID6: at Wed Sep 26 13:01:00 2007 ]
Development at Capel Bangor should not be conceived as a stand-alone employment site but as part of the planned growth of the settlement. The scale and quality of the built development should be commiserate with its natural setting using high quality architecture and a strong landscape structure.[Author ID0: at ]
Capel Bangor should be seen as a satellite settlement of Aberystwyth being linked to the town with excellent public transport.[Author ID5: at Tue Jul 31 09:39:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Tue Jul 31 09:33:00 2007 ]

-->[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:28:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Tue Jul 31 09:33:00 2007 ]

[Author ID1: at Tue Jun 12 10:02:00 2007 ]

4.0 THE PROPOSALS

4.1 Description of the Background to the Proposals and Alternative Sites

As early as 1994 Ceredigion Council realised that it would have not only to extend its Local Plan horizon to 2006 but that there was also a clear indication that there was a serious shortage of available and allocated land for both housing and employment purposes, particularly in the Aberystwyth area.
The County Council therefore produced a Consultation Document entitled “ABERYSTWYTH - Future Growth Options.” It assessed possible locations for growth and evaluated three locations as possible New Settlements. Those were Tan-y-Bwlch, The Clarach Valley, and Lovesgrove. The Report concluded that, as compared to further peripheral growth or expansion of existing villages, the construction of a new settlement was the preferred planning solution. Of the three sites considered, Lovesgrove emerged as the only feasible alternative.
Lovesgrove was therefore taken forward as a proposed allocation in the Consultation Draft Local Plan published in May 1995. The proposed allocation included some 22 hectares allocated specifically for employment purposes. The allocation was, however, strongly opposed and the proposed allocation was omitted from the Deposit Local Plan when published in late 1997.
That Deposit Plan, despite the recognition in 1994 that there was a serious shortage of available employment land, allowed for just 21.4 hectares of employment land within the urban centres of Aberystwyth, Cardigan and Lampeter. By comparison the Structure Plan estimate was 200 hectares. Of the 21.4 hectares only 10 hectares was proposed in the vicinity of Aberystwyth, and only 3.8 hectares of that was realistically developable.
An evaluation of a 200 acre area of land within the Clarach Valley, based on a combination of a desk-top and physical on-site analysis, was therefore undertaken. Its primary purpose was to establish whether there were any insuperable problems associated with the development of the site that would discount it from any further evaluation. The conclusions of the exercise were that, whilst there would inevitably be local objection and substantial costs associated with infrastructure and access, there were no insuperable problems incapable potentially of resolution.
Whilst that exercise was being completed positive dialogue was taking place between the then DBRW and the Economic Development Unit of Ceredigion Council. What emanated was a clear understanding and recognition that a co-ordinated effort was essential if appropriate allocations on greenfield sites were to be achieved.
Additionally, it was recognised that an essential precursor to any Local Plan or eventual UDP debate would be an economic rationale for the planning proposals being promoted. Accordingly the former Chapman Warren prepared for the DBRW a Consultancy Brief for an Economic Needs Assessment which was in due course commissioned from DTZ Pieda. In the context of DEMAND it concluded as follows:

There was confirmed demand for industrial space;
Demand was strongest from firms with existing links with Mid-Wales;
There was evidence also of some external demand;
Over 35% of firms interviewed were considering expansion or relocation;
11 firms in Aberystwyth (employing in total more than 125 people) would move out if they could not find suitable premises;
There was a general agreement that if Aberystwyth had suitable premises and sites available it would have a significant competitive edge over those other Mid-Wales locations that had witnessed new investment in preceding years.

In the context of the then existing SUPPLY, however, the Report noted that:

Most employment sites were either largely built out; too small; unsuitable for other reasons; or had obstacles to development that effectively rendered them unavailable;
Supply was therefore extremely limited - and demand was significant;
There was therefore a large mis-match between supply and demand;
The overwhelming conclusion was that unless alternative deliverable sites were identified existing jobs would be lost and inward investment opportunities would continue to be frustrated.

The Report therefore advised that action should be put in place to accommodate the following requirement:

24 hectares (58 acres) for 10-year indigenous demand and small scale inward investment;
Or - if larger scale inward investment was also to be sought, 30 hectares (73 acres).
At both scales the split between B1 uses and B2 should be 1:3;
Therefore, for the 73 acre target, there would be a need to identify 18 acres for B1 and 55 acres for B2.
For a more modest target of 58 acres the requirement would be 15 acres for B1 and 43 acres for B2.

Chapman Warren therefore assisted the WDA Mid-Wales Division (as successor to DBRW) and Ceredigion Council in the assessment of some 15 sites for their suitability to match the DTZ Pieda Brief. The outcome of that assessment was a presentation on 6^th July 1999 to key Members of the Economic Development Committee of Ceredigion Council, together with the Council Leader. The Members accepted the advice given and agreed that the following sites should be proposed for further detailed evaluation:

Sites 12 and 13 combined - UCW playing fields and extension to Glan yr Afon Industrial Estate;
Site 8 - Lovesgrove Lower;
Site 7 - Lovesgrove Upper;
Site 2 - Clarach Valley;
Site 14 - Capel Bangor - Dol y Pandy;
Site 5 - Capel Dewi.

That “long list” was subsequently reduced to five locations. Of those Clarach had already been assessed. The remaining four sites were:

The UCW Playing Fields and the extension of Glanyrafon Industrial Estate
Lovesgrove Lower
Lovesgrove Upper
Capel Bangor - Dol-y-Pandy

Chapman Warren therefore undertook desk-top appraisals of those sites, and advised that the preferred location for the B1 component of the requirement was the UCW playing fields, together potentially with other land in close vicinity which was allocated for development purposes but undeveloped. A parallel element of advice, however, was that largely for the B2 component of the requirement the Capel Bangor site should be the subject of further investigation. That further investigation was completed in July 2000 and a copy of the report is attached as Appendix 1. The report concluded that:

At the scale evaluated (14.4 hectares) the land could potentially accommodate some 43,725 m²of buildings.
All such land was in single ownership, although some third party interests may need to be acquired to secure access to the site.
The basic hedgerow structure of the site could be retained.
The development of the “upper slopes” of the site should be resisted.
The general vicinity of the site was such that it could be extended in a southerly and northerly direction to a potential area of at least some 29 hectares.
Accordingly the land (as potentially extended) had the capacity to accommodate the whole of the DTZ-defined 10 year employment land requirement without encroaching upon any floodplain or nature conservation designations.

The requirement for new development land in the Aberystwyth area was reviewed in a further Economic Needs Assessment undertaken by DTZ Pieda in September 2002. This endorsed the previously identified need for new development land to satisfy business requirements in the Aberystwyth Area. A copy of this report can be found at Appendix 2.
The report re-examined the supply of sites and premises for employment uses in the area and identified the requirement for further land. The supply of employment land was set against the level and nature of current demand, thereby assessing the qualitative implications of both.
The overview of supply and demand showed that there was “a severe shortage of suitable serviced sites and premises to offer to indigenous firms and inward investors seeking to expand or relocate in the Aberystwyth area … [and] the vast majority of sites and premises currently available in Aberystwyth do not meet modern occupier requirements”.
Four criteria were produced that sites had to meet in order to be capable of meeting the anticipated requirements:

Suitability - be broadly acceptable to occupiers in terms of immediate/ wider accessibility and on/off site environment;
Developability - to be free of abnormal off and on site access and servicing problems;
Scale - to be of sufficient size to accommodate the size of unit most in demand and to be able to accommodate sufficient number of these to make normal off and on site accessing and serving financially feasible as far as possible in order to minimise the reliance upon public sector subsidy; [and],
Ownership/Planning - be available (in ownership and planning terms) immediately, or be capable of being made available through the planning process in a relatively short timeframe.

The Report stated that the failure of any site to satisfy any one of these criteria would mean that in the short term a site could not be viewed as being genuinely available for development. In due course the UCW planning field site was discounted because it was effectively unavailable, environmentally sensitive, and sat on a flood plain.
The Report stated, with reference to the Capel Bangor site that, taking into account likely market demand, the site was readily accessible from Aberystwyth. Capel Bangor was stated to be free from any abnormal off and on site servicing problems, and was without significant environmental and ground constraints. The site was of sufficient scale to accommodate the level of demand identified in the report and had the advantage of having additional land available to allow for further expansion, and that overall the site had a sufficient capacity to address the level of demand identified in the study.
The Report concluded that the “Capel Bangor site is a clearly developable site that can be brought forward within a reasonable timeframe”.
-->It can be seen, therefore, that the current proposal is the result of an extensive assessment of economic need, on the one hand, and alternative site suitability on the other. It is therefore the product of a robust alternative site analysis[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:35:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:26:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:35:00 2007 ].[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:35:00 2007 ] An updated Economic Needs[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:35:00 2007 ] Assessment was carried out by DTZ in 2004/5 to inform the UDP Inquiry.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:36:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:54:00 2007 ] A full copy of this report is included at Appendix 1[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:36:00 2007 ]0[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:18:00 2007 ] and the key findings are outlined below.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:36:00 2007 ]
There is a general trend amongst Western economies to shift towards high `value added' knowledge based sectors as other areas of the world now provide low skilled, cheap labour.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:38:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:54:00 2007 ]“A Winning Wales” is the Welsh Assembly Government's strategy for transforming the economy of Wales[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:40:00 2007 ] (now taken forward in The Wales Spatial Plan).[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:41:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:54:00 2007 ] It highlights the need to build on the strengths of the manufacturing sector and to increase the number of jobs in the financial and business services, and emphasises the need to provide an adequate provision of quality sites and premises in the right locations in order to attract value added occupiers. [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:41:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:54:00 2007 ]This shifting policy emphasis is impacting on the nature of demand for employment sites and premises[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:41:00 2007 ] with occupiers requiring high quality sites and premises. [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:42:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:54:00 2007 ]If Ceredigion, and in particular Aberystwyth, is to achieve its full economic potential it must provide a range and choice of sites and premises.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:42:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]
A number of growth sectors were identified (from consultations with key stakeholders) as being important in helping Ceredigion move towards a high `value added' economy. [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:43:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:54:00 2007 ]These included:[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:43:00 2007 ]

Creative Industries including Media and Publishing;[Author ID0: at ]
Bio-Technology;[Author ID0: at ]
Environmental Sciences;[Author ID0: at ]
ICT;[Author ID0: at ]
Food and Drink.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:44:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:43:00 2007 ]

The report analysed the composition of these sectors and stated that if Aberystwyth is to fulfil its economic potential and drive the economy of Ceredigion a range of appropriate sites and premises must be provided in the future which meet the needs of those higher value sectors.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:45:00 2007 ]
The key stakeholders consulted as part of the study included; University of Wales Aberystwyth; Business Connect; WDA; and Ceredigion County Council.
The consultation responses highlighted a number of current known requirements for office space in the Aberystwyth area totalling 4,738 sq m (51,000 sq ft). Demand for industrial space had, overall, remained constant during the period 2002-2004, but since 2002 inward investment enquiries had been replaced with demand from locally based companies or relocations. There is a good demand for office space with a number of companies currently seeking space in Aberystwyth. Such companies would not generally consider moving to premises at other locations further away (such as Aberporth or Machynlleth) due to the facilities, benefits and other attractions of Aberystwyth (such as staff resources) being more favourable than at the alternative locations.
It was stated that new activity encourages interest and[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:49:00 2007 ],[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:29:00 2007 ] therefore[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:49:00 2007 ],[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:29:00 2007 ] the provision of a new site at Capel Bangor will encourage economic activity in Aberystwyth.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:49:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:55:00 2007 ] An example given was Llandysul Business Park as it was considered that there was some evidence of demand in the area to justify that development.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:49:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:55:00 2007 ] However, once the construction work commenced, a far greater level of enquiries was received.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:49:00 2007 ]
The report also undertook a forecasting exercise to identify likely demand for industrial and office employment land over the period 2001-2016 using the Cambridge Econometrics[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:52:00 2007 ]' Multi-sectoral Dynamic Model.[Author ID0: at ]
Employment in Ceredigion was forecast to increase by over 2,600 over the period 2001-16. [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:53:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:55:00 2007 ]However, it is not expected to be uniformly [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:53:00 2007 ]distributed across the broad industrial sectors and it is considered that there will be a fall in employment in the manufacturing sector in Ceredigion. The main sectors where growth is forecast are Financial and Business Services and Government and Other Services. Overall[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:55:00 2007 ],[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:23:00 2007 ] the forecast increase in employment across these sectors is expected to be greater than the fall in employment forecast in the sectors of Hotels, Catering, Retail, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Mining and [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:55:00 2007 ]Quarrying[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:57:00 2007 ],[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:23:00 2007 ] and Electricity, Gas and Water.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:57:00 2007 ]
The report provides a detailed analysis of the forecast demand for employment space across the office and industrial sector and concludes that there is a forecast requirement of 13.1 ha of land for employment purposes in the Aberystwyth area.
A review of the existing supply of sites (including Glan-yr-Afon; Parc-y-Llyn; Aberystwyth Science Park; IGER; Y Lanfa; and Llanbadarn Industrial Estate) confirmed that there is a lack of available land and the land that is available does not meet the requirements of modern occupiers.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:00:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:57:00 2007 ]
Overall[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:01:00 2007 ], [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:02:00 2007 ]th[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:01:00 2007 ]erefore, the review of supply confirmed that:[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:02:00 2007 ]

There is a severe shortage of suitable sites and premises to offer to indigenous firms and inward investors seeking to expand or relocate in the Aberystwyth area;
Rationalisation of existing sites is considered not be an achievable objective. [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:03:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:30:00 2007 ]Firstly, consultations have revealed that very little land is available at present and occupancy rates are extremely high; and[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:03:00 2007 ]
Secondly, the vast majority of sites and premises currently available in Aberystwyth do not meet modern occupier requirement and will not provide the right quality environment to attract higher value occupiers.

The report therefore concludes that, although the nature of demand has changed, the overall level of demand for employment land has remained fairly constant. The detailed land forecasting exercise identifies the need for 13.1 ha of employment land over the plan period. The demand for employment land is likely to be compounded by the relocation of the Welsh Assembly Government to Aberystwyth and the development of Aber Technium which will start to have an impact on demand during the Plan period. These developments will serve to increase confidence in the area and stimulate future demand. Furthermore, consultations have shown that, despite other sites being available outside of Aberystwyth in the County of Ceredigion, the need for additional employment land at Aberystwyth is considered to be important by all consultees in ensuring the future economic growth of Ceredigion because existing firms wishing to expand will not consider moving out of Aberystwyth and tend to make do, and many enquiries are specifically for Aberystwyth and do not wish to consider other parts of Ceredigion.
In conclusion, the Economic Needs reports clearly demonstrate that the current proposal is the result of an intensive assessment of economic need and alternative site suitability and that the site[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:08:00 2007 ]~~,[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:08:00 2007 ]~~[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:27:00 2007 ] at Capel Bangor, which is clearly developable, will help to diversify and strengthen the economy of Ceredigion.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:08:00 2007 ]
The Inspector responsible for the UDP Inquiry concurred that the above mentioned Economic Needs Studies were robust and that there was little doubt that Aberystwyth has for many years suffered from a lack of modern, high quality employment land and premises to offer to new and expanding local firms and inward investors. [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:09:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:11:00 2007 ]As such there were considered to be little grounds for concluding that the 13.4 ha of employment land allocated at Capel Bangor is unreasonable in terms of need[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:09:00 2007 ]-->~~s[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:09:00 2007 ]~~[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:27:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:31:00 2007 ].[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:09:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:11:00 2007 ]
The Inspector also agreed that, in terms of alternatives, neither Glanyrafon nor Llanbadarn Industrial Estates would meet the requirements of modern, high value-added occupiers. Furthermore, land at Parc-y-Llyn is fully committed and there is little space left at the Science Park, with IGER providing specialist accommodation which would not be generally available. There is also little evidence of under-use at sites which could either quantitatively or qualitatively replace the size and type of provision proposed at Capel Bangor.
The Inspector also acknowledged that there were no significant constraints to development[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:14:00 2007 ] at the Capel Bangor site[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:28:00 2007 ] having regard to contamination, noise and light pollution, loss of agricultural land[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:14:00 2007 ],[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:28:00 2007 ] or land of cultural or environmental value[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:14:00 2007 ],[Author ID3: at Mon Jun 25 17:28:00 2007 ] or highway safety grounds.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:14:00 2007 ]
The Inspector concluded, however, that the site was disadvantaged by its remoteness from Aberystwyth and that Capel Bangor had limited services. Furthermore, he concluded that development at the site would have a significant detrimental impact on visual landscape amenity, would have some effect on the attraction of the area to tourism, and would be out of scale with the settlement. He therefore recommended that on balance the employment allocation at Capel Bangor should be deleted.
The Council, however, resolved not to accept that recommendation and to allocate the site at Capel Bangor for employment purposes and, in doing so, made the following comments.
The search for a strategic employment site presented no ideal solutions and the choice has been very finely balanced. It has, therefore, been very important to weigh all the factors [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:17:00 2007 ]in the[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:18:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:17:00 2007 ]debate.[Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 13:18:00 2007 ]
In terms of sustainability, the Sustainability Appraisal of the UDP was generally inclined to positive. The scale and distribution of employment within the UDP was assessed as positive for the four indicators associated with maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth. Impacts on local culture, welsh language and efficient use of land were assessed as uncertain/likely to be positive, and protection of the environment, energy, air and atmosphere and water resources were assessed to be uncertain. The Inspector, however, focused on just two indicators (accessibility of local facilities/services and landscape protection) both of which were assessed uncertain by the Sustainability Appraisal.
The Council considered that in the absence of a site directly adjacent to Aberystwyth/Llanbadarn, proximity to built form is more sustainable than relative proximity to Aberystwyth in the open countryside. As such, it was considered to be more sustainable, based on providing rounded growth, in terms of ultimately limiting journeys and the impact on the open countryside to provide for growth adjacent to an existing settlement rather than in undeveloped open countryside in a stand alone development (i.e. Lovesgrove).
In terms of landscape protection, the assessment of Capel Bangor as having a `moderate' landscape value is based on vigorous methodology recommended by the Landscape Institute, Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment and by the Countryside Agency (outlined in more detail in Chapter 8).
In terms of scale, the proposal is expected to be the result of gradual, long term growth which will be complemented by provision for infrastructure and housing growth in Capel Bangor designed to promote the gradual and balanced growth of the settlement.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 10:56:00 2007 ]
The above considerations, therefore, reinforce the contention that the current proposal is the result of extensive assessments of economic need, on the one hand, and alternative site suitability on the other. [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 10:57:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:00:00 2007 ]As such, it is the product of a very robust alternative site analysis.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 10:57:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Tue Jun 12 12:38:00 2007 ]

4.2 Land Use, Site Layout and Built Form

-->~~Two~~ [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:00:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:45:00 2007 ]Three [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:00:00 2007 ]planning applications are being submitted as stated in Section 1.1. The first application is for outline planning permission for the landscaping, buildings, and uses on the site. The second -->~~application~~[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:01:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:45:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:01:00 2007 ]is for full planning permission for the earthworks and infrastructure for the site, and the third is for full planning permission for the Waste Water Treatment [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:01:00 2007 ]W[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 09:59:00 2007 ]orks to serve the site[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:01:00 2007 ].
Business Park: This outline application is required in order to establish the principles of the development, in terms of landscaping, land uses, and building locations. All matters are reserved for future approval, except access. Detailed applications will need to be submitted and approved before any development takes place.
The development of the 14.5 ha site is proposed to comprise a mix of use classes B1 (office and light industry), B2 (industry) and B8 (supply and distribution). The site has the capacity to accommodate a total building floorspace without expansion of any buildings, of 26,031 square metres (280,205 sq ft). With expansion it could potentially expand to a total of 35,783 square metres (385,176 sq ft) of floorspace. Approximately 49% of the floorspace will be B1 uses (office and light industry), approximately 29% will be B2 uses (general industry) and 22% will be B8 uses (storage/distribution). The site has the capacity, based on the masterplan produced, to accommodate twenty-five buildings in total, and a breakdown of the individual floorspaces is provided on the Masterplan drawing at Figure 1.3A.
The B1 uses are located predominantly at the entrance to the site, closest to the existing residential properties and adjacent to the central water-features. The locations and heights proposed for the buildings evolve from the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment and[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:48:00 2007 ]-->~~aid~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:48:00 2007 ] the consequences of visual and landscape impact, ecology, noise and air quality, drainage and hydrology. These impacts are discussed in detail in their respective chapters.
The masterplan allows for the optional expansion of each unit (except the two units that are located adjacent to the water features) with expansion spaces ranging from 24% to 65% of unit size depending on the location and orientation of the building. If every building was permitted to expand this would increase the building footprints to 27,064 square metres (291,322 sq ft) which would provide a total floorspace of 35,783 (385,176 sq ft)
The plan minimises as far as possible the removal of hedgerows within the site area and also includes the provision of water-features. Details of the ecological impact of the scheme is provided in Chapter 5.
Vehicular and cycle access from the main road to the site is at the north-eastern corner. Details of the proposed access arrangements are provided in the section below.
A public right of way (Bridleway No. 14/4) crosses the site in an east-west direction. It is proposed that this be diverted southwards until it meets the original route approximately 200[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:48:00 2007 ]-->~~130~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:48:00 2007 ] metres from where it leaves the site on the eastern boundary. This diversion will be the subject of a separate application for diversion under the provisions of Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Earthworks and[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:02:00 2007 ] Infrastructure -->~~and~~[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:03:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:49:00 2007 ]--> [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:03:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:49:00 2007 ]-->~~Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW)~~[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:03:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:49:00 2007 ]-->: [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:03:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:49:00 2007 ]This application is required in order to prepare the site for the proposed business park, by providing the development plateaux and the necessary infrastructure, such as roads. The development comprises fifteen plateaux of varying heights, on which the actual buildings will be located, subject to detailed planning permission. The proposal also includes a raised bund of approximately two metres in height, and ten metres in depth running along the north-western boundary of the site. This will provide both visual and noise-screening benefits. It will eventually be landscaped as part of the main planning application for the development of the site. The proposed -->layout is[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:49:00 2007 ] shown on Figure 1.3A

4.3 Highways Design

At present, the A44(T) runs east to west along the northern boundary of the site. The single carriageway road is relatively straight and provides good visibility through the village in each direction. Although the speed limit reduces from the national speed limit (60mph) to 40mph on entering the outskirts of the village, the alignment of the road does not encourage a reduction in speed.
Several junction options have been considered to facilitate access to the development site, as follows:

Priority T-Junction:

This type of junction could accommodate the volumes of traffic generated by the development but a right turning lane would be required for traffic entering the site from the west. There are, however, highway safety concerns relating to the existing private vehicular accesses in the area of the proposed junction which access directly onto the A44(T). The present arrangement is unsatisfactory in highway safety terms and the presence of a Priority T-Junction would exacerbate the existing problems.

Roundabout Junction:

In order to overcome the potential safety issues relating to a Priority T-Junction consideration has been given to the incorporation of a Roundabout at the access point to the development. Several options have been considered and a preferred option has been identified which will most readily accommodate the access arrangements for both development site and adjacent private properties.

It is proposed, therefore, that the site will be accessed by means of a newly constructed roundabout on the A44(T). The three-arm roundabout will serve both the proposed development and the existing traffic along the A44(T). The preferred access arrangement is shown in Figure 4.1[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:51:00 2007 ]-->3[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:51:00 2007 ].
A roundabout junction will increase road safety through the village by slowing traffic down on what is at present a fast, straight road through a residential area.
The roundabout will require a local diversion of the A44 (T) away from the private properties opposite the site access. A separate access road along the front of the properties will then be provided as part of the works, hence increasing safety of vehicles entering/exiting the properties. Access to the properties will be achievable from both the east and westbound directions. -->~~However t~~[Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 12:59:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:00:00 2007 ]T[Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:00:00 2007 ]he junction at the west of the access road will allow a left and right turn into the access road but [Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:01:00 2007 ]only allow a left turn -->~~in and a right turn ou~~[Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:03:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:02:00 2007 ]t. T[Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:03:00 2007 ]he junction at the eastern end of the access road will only allow a left turn out. [Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:04:00 2007 ] The increased distance of the main road from the adjacent properties will also have the effect of marginally decreasing any noise levels which may occur as a result of passing vehicles.
The new roundabout will -->~~also~~[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:05:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 10:51:00 2007 ] [Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:05:00 2007 ]be screened by landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the new highways arrangement from the existing properties.

4.4 Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW)

Early discussions with the Environment Agency and Dwr Cymru indicated that as the closest connection to an appropriate public sewer is some 2.5km away there would be a requirement for the provision of a Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) on or near the development site. Currently the settlement of Capel Bangor is served either by basic and inadequate bacterial treatment facilities or by septic tanks and cesspits. The existing facilities are not considered appropriate or acceptable for a development of the proposed scale.
The provision of a WWTW will ensure that sufficient capacity is provided for both the proposed development and predicted flows from the existing settlement of Capel Bangor. This will facilitate further requirements to the primary sewerage infrastructure in the future. An indicative plan showing how the system could be upgraded is included as Fig 7.2. will be provided both for the village and for the development. With regard to the system serving the existing development it is intended that individual property owners would have to arrange for a connection to the new sewerage system. The decision to connect to the new system will however rest with individual property owners.
The WWTW will be located to the south west/west of the existing village/proposed development and foul sewage will be treated to a high standard prior to the discharge of the effluent to the Afon Rheidol. The proposed location of the WWTW is shown on Figure 4.24. The location has been chosen to allow foul sewage discharges to gravitate from the existing village and the proposed development. A drawing showing a plan of the WWTW compound and a cross section indicating existing and proposed ground levels may be seen in Figure 7.362. The only visible feature in the compound will be the perimeter fence the specification of which ~~would need to~~ will be agreed with the LPA and Dwr Cymru as a condition of any planning permission granted. The detailed operation of the WWTW is covered in Chapter 7.

5.0 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

5.1 Introduction

A Phase 1 habitat survey, hedgerow survey, water vole & otter survey, bats survey and badger survey were undertaken by RPS Consultants from August 2002 - February 2003.
The key ecological issues arising from the proposal are the potential effects upon areas of valuable habitat and protected species. The ecological assessment included a field survey and desk study. The desk study included a 1.5km area of search and the field study was extended to include adjacent habitats which may be effected by the construction and operation of the proposed Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW).

Key Issues

The key issues which were investigated in relation to the development proposal were as follows:

Direct and indirect effects of the proposals upon habitats with particular reference to protected sites and any notable habitats.

Direct and indirect effects upon fauna, with specific reference to known and potential resident protected and notable species.

Study Methodology

Complete details of the study methodology for the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Desk Study, River Corridor Survey, Hedgerow Survey, Water Vole and Otter Survey, Badger Survey, and Bat Survey are contained in the Full report at Appendix 3.

5.2 Existing Baseline Conditions

The site and surrounds comprise intensively managed farmland which is used for grazing dairy livestock. A feature of the site is the network of mature hedgerows. A series of ecological studies have been undertaken to describe the baseline ecological features of the application area and the area which may be affected by the proposed Sewage Treatment Works. A summary of consultees and responses is included in the main report.
The desk study generated a large amount of data. Copies of the data and correspondence are presented in the main report.

Statutory Wildlife Sites

The Afon Rheidol Ger Capel Bangor SSSI is of special interest for both its fluvial geo-morphological and biological features. The site comprises three discrete areas - the largest area is c. 0.5km south west of Capel Bangor. The area closest to Capel Bangor (<200m from the application area) includes:

1.7km of the Afon Rheidol;
Areas of adjacent floodplain (noted for its terraces, associated fluvial landforms and sedimentary units) and,
A mosaic of riverside habitats, including rare `shingle heath' communities.

Species records

The County Bird Recorder provided 3 confirmed records from within the search area. The species involved were Barn Owl, Sand Martin and Kingfisher. Kingfisher and Barn Owl are both on Schedule 1 (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended) but neither species are likely to breed within the proposed site due to the absence of suitable habitat.
CCW provided a list of rare plants, none of which are legally protected species. None of these species are from within the application site. The application area is predominantly improved pasture and it is unlikely that any of the other `rare plants' occur there.

Vegetation description from field survey

The Phase 1 survey identified a range of habitats including improved grassland occasional fragments of semi-improved grassland, hedgerows and trees, and running water. The results of the survey are presented in the Habitat Map at Figure 5.1. This is accompanied by Target Notes within the full report at Appendix 3.

Grassland

The majority of grassland within the application is improved, predominantly cattle grazed, ploughed, re-seeded and heavily fertilised. Scattered fragments of more species-rich grassland are found on old hedge banks. Additional species in this finer sward include selfheal (Prunella vulgaris), creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans), foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), creeping bent grass (Agrostis stolonifera) and Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus).

Hedgerows and Trees

The hedgerows are mature, mixed and deciduous comprising hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), hazel (Corylus avellana), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), elder (Sambucus nigra), holly (Ilex aquifolium), rose (Rosa agg.) and bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.). Hedgebank species are poorly represented due to intensive agricultural landuse.
Mature trees are limited to only occasional occurrence in hedgerows and in particular are found as a common component of the trackside hedge to the east (Target Note 4). Species include ash (Fraxinus excelsior), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and oak (Quercus robur).
The Hedgerow Evaluation and Grading (HEGS) Survey included all the hedgerows within the application area. Figure 5.2 presents the results of the survey.
The HEGS survey demonstrates that 13 of the 14 sampled hedgerows within the application area, and 4 of the 5 within the area that may be affected by the proposed WWTW, are of conservation importance according to the HEGS method (two ornamental hedgerows occur on the northern edge of the application area and these were not included in the HEGS survey). One hedge comprising the boundary of the site is classified as Grade 1. Twelve of the remaining fourteen hedges within or forming the boundary are classified as Grade 2, and one is classified as Grade 3. The table contained within the full report summarises the detailed results of the HEGS survey.

Running Water

Afon Melindwr

A small stretch of the Afon Melindwr runs adjacent to the northern edge of the application area. In parts the riverbanks are engineered but elsewhere the river retains semi-natural features, including vegetated shingle (species poor), exposed soft muddy banks and over-hanging trees and shrubs. In-river substrate comprises a mixture of gravel and cobbles with moderate flowing water and occasional pools. Biological water quality appears to be moderate to good and there was at the time of the survey no evidence of use by protected riparian mammals.

Afon Rheidol

A detailed description of the Afon Rheidol and its habitats is shown on Figure 5.1. The stretch of Afon Rheidol upstream and downstream of the proposed WWTW outfall is a broad and moderate flowing river with a substrate comprising cobbles, gravel and sand. In-stream habitat is good with areas of riffle, pool and slack water. Bank form is heterogeneous ranging from shallow slopes to sections of vertical cliffs. Islands and vegetated berms are also present. The riverbanks are mostly open and closely grazed by sheep with occasional gorse scrub and alder providing some cover. The right bank does include areas of more mature and established habitat including wet woodland and `river heath'. These are described on Figure 5.1.
The river channel has occasional submerged aquatic macropyhtes and, in places, well established fringing and emergent vegetation. Biological water quality, during the survey, appeared to be moderate to good. Figure 5.1 presents a map illustrating the habitats and features of interest of the stretch of the Afon Rheidol which was surveyed.

Fauna

Bat Survey

The bat survey methodology and background information on bat biology is included in the full report. The trees along the track way running along the eastern edge of the application area (see Figure 5.2) appear to be used for summer roosts by Pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and Brown long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus). Both species were detected leaving the trees at dusk at the southern end of the hedge line. The bats did not appear from elsewhere upon the site. The line of trees and hedgerows are used as a foraging corridor by bats with little activity after 21.30 hours.

Water vole and Otter

Afon Melindwr

A short stretch of river runs adjacent to the application area before it enters a culvert underneath the road. No evidence of water vole or otter were found during the survey despite suitable spraint and latrine sites being present. Water vole survey forms are included in the full report.

Afon Rheidol

Evidence of small mammals (possibly field/bank vole) including latrines and runs was found along the riverbank edge. No evidence of water vole or otter was found during the survey. No water vole survey forms are included in the full report as the modified River Corridor Survey was used to search for, and record, evidence of water vole and otter.

Badger Survey

Application Area

A previous survey conducted by the former Chapman Warren in October 2000 found evidence of badger activity (a tail) on the A44 (T) adjacent to the site. The subsequent surveys of July 2002 found a one-hole badger sett in the southeastern corner of the site. Badger hair was found around this sett, and although the sett did not show signs of then current occupancy, this indicates recent activity in the vicinity. Along the eastern boundary a second one-hole sett was found. Again, badger hair was noted, but there was no evidence of current badger occupation. These setts are considered to be outliers associated with a main sett, probably occurring within woodland on the higher ground to the east. Although not appearing to be occupied by badgers at the time of survey, the evidence of recent badger activity at the setts would be sufficient to classify the setts as `active'.
Badger footprints were seen in gateways near the centre of the site during the 2000 survey although not during the later survey.
Overall, it is evident that there is badger foraging activity on the site and it is likely that the land is part of the territory of a social group, with its setts based on nearby land.

Area which may be impacted by WWTW

Several badger setts were located on a wooded embankment within the floodplain of the Afon Rheidol. The presence of latrines and strong paths suggest that this social group of badgers forage in farmland to the south and east, with the Afon Rheidol being likely to form the western boundary to their territory (c. 1km+ from the application area).
Any works likely to disturb or damage badger setts would be subject to licensing by CCW which will establish guidelines for disturbance by machinery within 30m of the sett. Background information is provided in the full report.

Birds

Application Area

The application -->~~sett~~[Author ID6: at Tue Jun 12 15:02:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:30:00 2007 ] [Author ID6: at Tue Jun 12 15:02:00 2007 ]site [Author ID6: at Tue Jun 12 15:02:00 2007 ]is predominantly intensively managed, grazed and improved pasture of limited value to birds. The network of mature hedgerows provides some cover and nesting opportunities. No UK BAP Bird Species were recorded from the field survey or desk study. Casual observation of birds during surveys included buzzard, magpie, blackbird, carrion crow, dunnock, blue tit and thrush.
A survey by Chapman Warren in 2001 confirmed that red kites (Milvus milvus) (listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act) had been seen within the site boundary on two separate occasions. The site may provide foraging ground. However, it does not provide opportunities for nesting.

Area which may be impacted by WWTW

The area in which the WWTW will be sited including the route of pipes and the outfall location, is within improved pasture of limited value to birds. The stretch of river bank in which the outfall will be located shows no evidence of any nesting sites for protected or notable bird species including kingfisher or sand martin. It is likely that this stretch of the Afon Rheidol is used for a range of commuting and feeding riparian birds including kingfisher, dipper and grey wagtail.

5.3 Ecological Impact Assessment

This assessment uses a systematic evaluation and impact assessment of ecological receptors. The methods for receptor evaluation, assessing impact magnitude and significance are described in the full report. Evaluation guidelines use a hierarchy of nature conservation recognition which is generally in the following order:

Statutory wildlife sites (international, national);
Non-statutory wildlife sites (those adopted within local plans and generically known as SINC sites);
`Local' wildlife sites;
Protected species (European, national);
Other notable species (Red Data Books, Nationally Scarce, Red List etc); and
National, regional and local Biodiversity Action Plans (National BAPS species and Habitats can be positioned at a high level in evaluation hierarchies).

The detailed methodology is included in the full report (Appendix 3).
The types of changes which may result from this development include land-take and associated habitat loss; fragmentation of habitats and the creation of barriers; changes in soil conditions; disturbance during construction and operation; creation of new habitat. These are explained in detail in the report in Appendix 3. The assessment of effects focuses upon vegetation and fauna.

Vegetation

The major effects of the development will be:

the permanent loss of the majority of botanically poor improved grassland within the application area;
the loss of three hedgerows and impacts to three further hedgerows. The Grade 1 hedgerow will however, remain intact, and all the other affected or removed hedgerows are Grade 2.

In the short-term the loss of hedgerows will have significant impacts to the wildlife corridor value of the application area. A considerable amount of new hedgerow, tree planting, and landscaping is proposed for the site. In total approximately 1,150 metres length of new hedgerow is proposed (not including individual trees or planting on the bund which are additional to that total), compared to a loss of approximately 700 metres length. There will therefore be a net increase in hedgerow length of approximately 450 metres within the site.
Although botanically poor, the loss of the majority of improved grassland within the application area will lead to the localised reduction of foraging habitat for common birds and mammals.
There will be some minor losses and disturbance to improved grassland associated with the proposed WWTW.

Fauna

Bats

No bat roosts will be lost as a result of the development. The provision of new habitats including ponds, woodland belt planting and hedgerows will provide increased feeding and commuting opportunities for bats.

Birds

The major effects to birds will be through disturbance and habitat loss during construction. For some species groups, such as farmland birds, there may be a net loss. However, the overall decline in farmland birds is a result of agricultural intensification and government policy rather than land use planning and development.
There will be short term impacts to nesting hedgerow species. Mitigation can include avoidance of hedgerow removal during the bird breeding season (March to late August). Hedgerow and woodland planting will provide a net gain in terms of nesting and feeding opportunities for these species post development.

Summary evaluation and Identification of Impacts

Table 5.1 draws together and summarises the information from the evaluation of receptors and the identification of key impacts.

[Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:52:00 2007 ]

Table 5.1 Receptor Evaluation/Impact Summary

Receptor	Impact
*Application Area*
Grassland	Landtake (100%)
Afon Melindwr	No impact
Hedgerow	Loss of 3 hedgerows: H1, H11 & H4 and impacts 3 hedgerows: to H3, H13 & H7.
Bats	Loss and interruption of some possible commuting and feeding routes.
Badger	Loss of peripheral territory/foraging habitat
Birds	Loss of some breeding habitat (hedgerows)
Afon Rheidol	Impacts restricted to temporary disturbance and silt production from construction of the outfall; and possible localised erosion and impacts of discharges (treated) and pollution events.
Grassland	Loss of improved grassland under footprint of the WWTW and some localised disturbance through pipe laying.
Hedgerows	Underground laying of pipes should minimise the need to gap hedgerows, root desiccation and hedgerow damage will be avoided if pipes are laid far enough away from hedgerows.

Operation

Table 5.2 summarises the assessment process during operation. Operational impacts will arise from increased use of the site in terms of vehicles movements at peak periods during arrival and departure from the development site, and increased run-off and potential for spillages due to the increased area of hard standing.
There will be no impacts to the Afon Melindwr from the potential for increased run-off and spillages as the development site slopes away from the Afon Melindwr and surface water drainage will be managed through attenuation features on the site (balancing ponds). Technical details relating to drainage are dealt with in Chapters 6 and 7 of this Statement.

[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:09:00 2007 ]Table 5.2 Ecological Impact Assessment during Operation

Key Ecological Receptor	Evaluation	Impact Magnitude	Impact Significance
*Habitats*
Afon Melindwr	County	Neutral/Positive	Moderate/Minor
Afon Rheidol	National	Neutral*	No Impact*
Semi-improved/Improved grassland	Parish	Negative	Minor
Hedgerows	District	Neutral/Positive	Moderate/Minor
*Species*
Bats	Regional	Neutral/Positive	Moderate/Minor
Badgers	Parish	Negative/Neutral	Minor/No Impact
Birds	Parish	Negative	Minor

* The assessment of operational impacts upon the Afon Rheidol makes the assumption that bank re-instatement will be successful, that localised erosion can be controlled, that drainage is restricted to `greenfield' runoff through the use of attenuation features including balancing ponds and that the WWTW will not add a significant nutrient input to the Afon Rheidol Ecosystem.

Residual Impacts

The permanent removal of areas of improved pasture will reduce foraging areas for mammals including badger and common bird species. However, the provision of improved wildlife corridors and additional shelter will encourage occupancy and movement by these species which will still be able to exploit large areas of pasture land in the vicinity.

5.4 Mitigation

Measures for dealing with effects on protected species, together with a compilation of effects and mitigation, are presented in Table 5.3. The principles behind mitigation follow Guidance note DN/6.1 Designing with Nature (from Developing Naturally A Handbook for Incorporating the Natural Environment into Planning and Development, Oxford 2000).
To compensate for impacts to habitats it is intended to provide new hedgerows and woodland planting throughout the application area. In addition, localised impacts to the Afon Rheidol by the creation of an outfall will be mitigated by the re-instatement of bankside vegetation including soft engineering (willow raddling) to prevent localised erosion. The details of outfall location and bankside re-instatement will be agreed with statutory agencies to ensure that the least damaging option is chosen. Proposed mitigation measures are shown in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 Potential Effects and Mitigation Measures

Causal Activity	Effects	Mitigation Recommendation
Construction of new access roads, areas of new hardstanding and structures.	Landtake (associated habitat loss) & Disturbance	Construction outside bird breeding seasons (March-late August). Widening of existing wildlife corridors (hedgerows and ditches) to mitigate for habitat loss and to enhance commuting corridors for bats and badger. (5-10m). New plantings of copses, woodland shelter areas to provide additional shelter and habitat for species such as badger. Protective fencing for badgers if required.
Severance arising from the provision of new access roads.	Fragmentation of habitats	New plantings of hedgerows, copses, woodland shelter areas to encourage badgers, birds and bats.
Construction of WWTW, underground pipe, outfall and operation.	Bankside habitat Impacts. Localised erosion. Potential for impacts to hedgerows. Potential for silt generation and pollution during construction.	Consultation with CCW and Environment Agency to ensure that a least damaging option is chosen for the location of an outfall. Re-instate bankside vegetation. Soft engineering (eg willow raddling to prevent erosion). Maintain a minimum 10m standoff from hedgerows to prevent root damage and localised desiccation. Follow good working practices close to water courses. Method to be agreed with Environment Agency.
Additional measures.	Enhancements	Planting seed and berry bearing trees and shrubs such as Alder, Birch and Hawthorn to encourage species such as Siskin, Lesser Redpoll, Bullfinch and winter thrushes. Retained hedgerows should be subject to management.

[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:17:00 2007 ]Update[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:13:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:14:00 2007 ]

Prior to production of this revised ES CCW were consulted on the need to update the ecological assessment work. CCW confirmed that they did not require any new ecological data provided that there were to be no significant changes to the proposals. The proposed changes, which are confined to minor amendments to the siting of units in order to reduce the impact of the proposal on Bridleway 14/4, have been the subject of further consultation with CCW during which it has been confirmed that no further ecological work is considered necessary.

[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:10:00 2007 ]

6.0 DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Storm Water / Surface Water Drainage - Baseline

Currently the surface water runoff from the site discharges freely overland, or via surface deposits, in a south-westerly direction towards the nearby Afon Rheidol.

6.2 Storm Water / Surface Water Drainage - Impact and Mitigation

The most sustainable method of dealing with the disposal of surface water run-off from the development will be to incorporate an underground gravity drainage system which, as in the case of the foul sewerage network (refer to Chapter 7), follows the natural topography to outfall to the west.
The underground gravity drainage system will accommodate run-off from roads, roof areas and hardstandings. All surface water runoff from roads and hardstandings will pass through petrol interceptors to mitigate against any possible pollution.
The increase in impermeable area across the site, associated with the development, will inevitably cause an increase in the rate of surface water runoff. In this case, following discussions with the Environment Agency, it is proposed to restrict the rate of discharge from the development to the current rate of `greenfield' runoff. This is necessary in order to protect the interests of downstream riparian owners. The proposal will not therefore increase the potential for flooding as the water run-off rate from the site will remain at existing flows.
The proposed method of controlling discharge is by the incorporation of an on-line storage lagoon with a hydro-brake constructed at the lagoon's outlet. Figure 6.1[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:32:00 2007 ]-->2[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:33:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:33:00 2007 ] shows a schematic cross section through a typical storage lagoon. The topography of the existing land dictates that the location of the storage lagoon should be to the southwest of the catchment. In order to avoid the need for one large lagoon in the southwest corner of the site, we have incorporated the required storage into three smaller lagoons. This is illustrated on the Masterplan.
Following the collection of run-off via the gravity system and the restriction of flow by the hydro-brake, the surface water will discharge to outfall via a gravity sewer which will be located downstream of the WWTW and will also be used to convey treated effluent (this aspect is covered in detail in Chapter 7).

Outfall

A number of surface water outfall locations have been examined, including a partial discharge to the Melindwr on the northern boundary of the site. This latter option was discounted however due to the topography of the land, which generally slopes in a southwesterly direction.
In the existing land drainage regime the surface water runoff flows overland towards, and finally into, the Afon Rheidol. Therefore the most suitable option from an engineering and environmental point of view is a controlled discharge into the Afon Rheidol.
Between the proposed development and the Afon Rheidol lies a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The SSSI is significant for a range of fluvial geomorphical landforms, including a river cliff several metres high. The area defined as the SSSI is extensive and is identified along the northern banks of the Afon Rheidol for some distance upstream and downstream of the available outfall locations suggested by the natural topography.
On account of the fact that the SSSI extends some distance upstream and downstream of the proposed development there is an unavoidable requirement to cross the SSSI with the outfall pipework.
The shortest possible route through the SSSI is proposed to minimise the extent of any possible disturbance. The preferred route of the gravity sewer and associated outfall are shown on Figure 4.2[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:33:00 2007 ]-->4[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:33:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:33:00 2007 ]. [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:18:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:33:00 2007 ]This element of the proposal was initially the subject of objection by CCW.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:18:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:19:00 2007 ]However, following[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:18:00 2007 ] further clarification of the rationale behind the proposal and a slight amendment to the route of the gravity sewer and location of the outfall CCW withdrew their objections.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:20:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:27:00 2007 ]Their letter dated 12 January 2005 accepted the amended proposals and stated [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:33:00 2007 ]“[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:34:00 2007 ]We are therefore in a position to withdraw our holding objections to the planning applications.”[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:34:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 16:19:00 2007 ]-->Relevant correspondence with CCW is included at Figure 6.2.[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 16:19:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 16:32:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 16:32:00 2007 ]
It has been established that potential damage to the SSSI could result from excavations to construct the outfall pipe and headwall if inappropriately sited and/or constructed. In order to mitigate against any possible harm to the SSSI it is proposed to construct the gravity sewer beneath the ground by `pipe-jacking' methods or `mini-tunnelling'. This will be achieved by constructing a manhole just outside the boundary of the SSSI and then driving the pipe, at approximately 4 metres depth, to the riverbank where the outfall structure will be constructed. This form of construction will minimise any surface damage through the SSSI. There will therefore be no long-term visible evidence on the ground of the existence of the pipe beneath.
The selection of the preferred location of the outfall has also taken due regard to the fact that the river regime is not static and that cliff erosion and re-establishment of the riverbed is constantly changing the regime.
The outfall has been located approximately 80 metres downstream of the river cliff, which coincides with a break in the riverside vegetation. This location is considered a reasonable distance from the current erosion at the river cliff. The river bank at the proposed point of outfall is also considered to be stable in that if further erosion takes place upstream at the river cliff the tendency of the meandering river would be to move away from the north bank of the river and hence away from the outfall location. The outfall structure [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:20:00 2007 ]will[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:29:00 2007 ] comprise of a relatively small concrete headwall built flush with the gradient of the existing riverbank to ensure no obstruction to the river flow. It is therefore[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:20:00 2007 ],[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:36:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:20:00 2007 ]considered[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:29:00 2007 ] that the outfall structure will [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:20:00 2007 ]not [Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:29:00 2007 ]exacerbate [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:20:00 2007 ]existing [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:37:00 2007 ]erosion[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:20:00 2007 ] or lead to new erosion[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:29:00 2007 ].[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:20:00 2007 ]
[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 16:24:00 2007 ]-->The discharge from the outfall will have been restricted to greenfield runoff (by on-site attenuation) and energy control measures (in the form of carefully positioned stones) shall be incorporated into the spillway section of the headwall. In this case the discharge will have a minimal effect on the existing regime since the energy input from the discharge will be low.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:22:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:37:00 2007 ]
As part of the study to determine the most appropriate location for the outfall, a number of historical maps were examined to identify a trend in the channel migration of the Afon Rheidol. The findings have suggested that the proposed outfall is in the most appropriate location. However, should the river channel migrate towards the headwall and eventually expose the construction, the headwall will be demolished, the sewer trimmed and a new headwall constructed. In the event that the river channel migrates away from the proposed headwall structure, a simple ditch will be created in order to maintain the link between the surface water sewer and the river.
Furthermore, due to the uncertainty regarding the river channel[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:28:00 2007 ]'s migration, the amendment to the sewer arrangement ensures that it is more convenient and capable of being modified should the requirement arise.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:29:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:30:00 2007 ]
The discharge from the outfall will be restricted to greenfield runoff (by on-site attenuation) and energy control measures (in the form of carefully positioned stones) will be incorporated into the spillway section of the headwall. In this case the discharge will have a minimal effect on the existing regime since the energy input from the discharge will be low.

7.0 SERVICES

7.1 Services

A plan of the existing services in the area can be seen in Figure 7.1.

7.2 Electricity

The current power supply to the village is limited and there is little spare capacity available for future development. It is estimated that the additional demand from the new development will be approximately 2.5MVa, with a maximum loading of 3.5Mva following possible expansion of the units.
The proposed supply to the development would need to be provided via the existing 33kV overhead line located some way from the site. A sub-station at the point of connection would feed a number of smaller on-site sub-stations. The existing 11kV overhead line which runs across the site does not have ample capacity for the demands associated with the proposed development, but it may however need to be diverted underground in order to facilitate the proposed development layout.

7.3 Telecommunications

There is a small Telecommunications Exchange in the village of Capel Bangor. The supply thereat will be tailored to satisfy the requirements of the proposed development, including the provision of conventional copper or fibre optic cables as appropriate. Should the demand of the development surpass the capacity of the local exchange , it will need to be upgraded.

7.4 Water Supply

A water main is located on the opposite side of the A44 trunk road from the proposed site access.
The existing supply to the village has some spare capacity. However this is not considered adequate to accommodate the full requirements of the proposed development. An additional alternative source will therefore need to be provided.
The nearest primary source (i.e. the nearest pumping main with sufficient capacity) is located some 2.4km to the west and the enhanced supply will be provided from this source.

7.5 Gas Supply

7.5.1 Investigations have revealed that there is no existing gas supply apparatus in the local area. It is not proposed to make provision for a new supply to serve the proposed development.

7.6 Foul Drainage / WWTW

The existing foul drainage system in the village of Capel Bangor generally comprises of a network of septic tanks and cesspits and in one location there is a basic bacterial filter which provides some, although inadequate treatment for effluent prior to discharge to the Melindwr.
The use of septic tanks or cesspits for the proposed scale of development is considered neither practical nor sustainable.
The nearest existing public sewer is located approximately 2.5km to the west, and it is unlikely that there is sufficient capacity to cater for the additional flow. Therefore, the option to provide a rising main to the existing public sewer has been deemed impractical due to its required length and subsequent concerns with regard to septicity in the line. Therefore, an alternative method of disposal has been examined.
The most practical method of disposal of foul sewage from the site will be via a new waste [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:39:00 2007 ]water treatment works (WWTW). The WWTW will provide sufficient capacity to cope with both flows from the proposed development and flows from the village. This will ~~would~~ allow the future [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:39:00 2007 ]connection of a local foul drainage network, hence eliminating the need for septic tanks. -->~~It has been agreed that a foul sewerage network to serve the village will be supplied as part of the scheme. The proposed extent of the network may be seen in Figure 7.61.~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:40:00 2007 ]
The treated effluent will then join the surface water drainage system from the site and flow under gravity to an outfall.
The location of the proposed WWTW and associated outfall are shown in Figure 4.2[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:40:00 2007 ]-->4[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:40:00 2007 ].
The WWTW will be a state-of-the-art facility with strict control over noise and odour. A cross section through the facility is shown in Figure 7.3[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:40:00 2007 ]-->62[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:40:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:40:00 2007 ].
The proposed treatment works will be below the existing ground levels. Therefore the only visible features will be a series of manhole covers, a perimeter road around the tanks for maintenance and a perimeter fence to prevent physical access to the facility by members of the general public. The design details will need to be agreed with Dwr Cymru prior to development.
The on-site drainage shall consist of a network of gravity sewers, converging at a point in the southwest corner of the site, where the sewer continues in a south-westerly direction to the WWTW. A plan of the on-site drainage may be seen in Figure 7.4[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:40:00 2007 ]-->63[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:41:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:41:00 2007 ].

8.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ASSESSMENT

8.1 Introduction

This chapter appraises the existing landscape context, existing features and views, as well as the potential impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding landscape and views.

8.2 Assessment Methodology

Detailed methodology for the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is included in Appendix 4.
The methodology, including the evaluation criteria for both landscape and visual assessments, follows guidance described in the following documents:

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment Second Edition - published by the Landscape Institute and Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (2002 E&F Spon).
Landscape Character Assessment - Guidance for England and Scotland - Countryside Agency / Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) (used in Wales in the absence of any comparable guidance).

There are no landscape policies which apply to this site only, although the site is covered by policies which relate to the Special Landscape Area designation. No Tree Preservation Orders exist for the site. To the southwest of the site lies the Afon Rheidol Ger Capel Bangor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is of special interest for its fluvial, geomorphological and biological features. The closest point of the SSSI to the site is approximately 200m from its south-western boundary, and this is dealt with in more detail in the Ecology Chapter. To the east, further up the Rheidol Valley, is the western edge of a Special Landscape Area that is outside the site and beyond the settlement of Capel Bangor.
A general site description is provided in Chapter 2.

8.3 Landscape Character Assessment - Baseline

The site is not covered by any national baseline Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). Ceredigion County Council has no local LCA's available.
The general area is included in the Register of Landscapes of Outstanding Historic Interest compiled by CADW (Welsh Historic Monuments), CCW (Countryside Council for Wales) and ICOMOS (The International Council on Monuments and Sites) UK.
The site is included in that document at the western edge of the Area 4, Upland Ceredigion Landscape (figure 8.3[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:41:00 2007 ]-->7[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:41:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:41:00 2007 ] ) Area, which covers a wide area extending to some 450 sq km. The landscape's contents and significance have been summarised in that document and are included in the full Landscape Assessment in Appendix 4.
Landscape, by its nature, is dynamic and changes over time, whether it is the landform (natural) or land cover (man-made) that evolves. The Register recognises this, which is why 20^th century technological landscapes within areas identified in the Register have been included. Visual quality forms no part of the identification, with the main concerns being the landscape's historic, cultural and evolutionary aspect.

8.4 Character Areas.

The full report in Appendix 4 details the character areas of the locality. These are summarised in the table below:

Table 8.1 Character Areas

Character Area Number	Name	Landscape Quality	Landscape Value	Landscape Capacity
1	Northern slopes of Rheidol/ Melindwr valley	Medium	Low Common nationally and locally unrecognised	Low Landscape character would change dramatically due to open views possible from this area.
2	Capel Bangor settlement	Medium to Low	Medium to Low Village lacks visual unity due to the diverse range of styles and materials but some of the older built form remains attractive and in context	Medium The recent infill development has degraded the older character resulting in the area being more able to withstand development
3	Western slopes of hillside, east of proposed site	Medium to Low	Medium to Low Common nationally but steepness of slope restricts farming activity that has preserved some of the natural landscape elements	Low Landscape character would change dramatically due to open views possible from this area.
4	Glan Rheidol and surrounds	Medium	Medium to Low Common nationally but the mix of ponds, woodland and open fields creates a diverse habitat.	Medium to Low The landscape character would change but the undulations may contain some impacts.
5	Rheidol valley river corridor	Medium to High	High The nationally important SSSI covers a large part of this area.	Low Landscape character would change dramatically due to open views possible from this area.

Existing Views

Visual Envelope

The site of the proposed development is contained between the northern slopes of the Rheidol/Melindwr valley, the western slopes of the ridgeline between the Rheidol and Melindwr Valleys, and the southern slopes of the Rheidol Valley (See Figure 8.1[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:45:00 2007 ]-->5[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:45:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:45:00 2007 ] Visual Envelope Map.)

Views from Settlements

The majority of the views are from the Dolypandy area of Capel Bangor. These views are principally from properties located along Melindwr Terrace and on the north side of the A44(T), directly adjacent to the proposed site's northern boundary. The remaining views are from properties located on the lower slopes to the north of Capel Bangor and several properties in the outlying settlement of Pisgah, approximately 2km south-east of the proposed site. Landform, vegetation and property orientation result in very few of the remaining scattered properties having a view of the proposed site.

Views from Public Rights of Way

Numerous footpaths, bridleways and tracks are located on the slopes of the valleys surrounding the proposed site. Many of these have a direct view of the site due to their elevated position and the site's location at the foot of the valley. The majority of the public rights of way within the study area are not maintained and have become un-usable due the erection of new fences, new hedges and padlocked gates.

Views from other locations

All the identified receptors are contained within the previous two paragraphs.

Principal Receptors

The following receptors have been identified and are covered in detail in the full report:

Receptors 11 - 14 (Viewpoint 11 and 14), properties on north side of A44(T)
Footpaths 4 - 6 (Viewpoints 4 - 6), footpaths to the north of Capel Bangor
Bridleways 2 - 3 and receptor 10 (Viewpoints 2,3 and 10), east of the proposed site
Receptors 18 and 22, Melindwr Terrace
Receptors 7 - 9 and 27 - 29 (Viewpoints 7,8,27 - 29), southern slopes of Rheidol valley

8.6 Visual Impact and Mitigation

The purpose of mitigation is to primarily avoid any significant negative or adverse effects on the environment arising from the proposed development. Where this is not possible, reduction or remedy to offset the impact of the proposed development is required. There are two categories of mitigation:

Primary measures: included within the development design.
Secondary measures: designed to specifically address residual negative effects of the final development proposals.

Primary Measures

Built Form: The tallest buildings are proposed to be located towards the south-west corner of the site to ensure a significant proportion of the landscape infrastructure is between receptors and buildings thereby aiding screening. The existing topography will accommodate the building arrangement without the use of large-scale earthworks. The building form, roof profiles and materials will be sympathetic with the surrounding building types.
The development will also be partially screened by the proposed landscaping bund to be located in the north-west edge of the site between existing residential development / caravan park and the Business Park. The embankment would be approximately two metres in height and ten metres in depth. Visual screening would be provided by both the bund itself and the planting thereon.
Vegetation: Wherever possible, existing vegetation will be incorporated into the proposal. The existing hedgerows will be retained, where practical, and used as a basis for designing the landscape infrastructure. Developments will be a suitable distance from retained hedgerows to ensure construction works do not damage the plants. Where existing hedgerows are to be retained, narrow planting belts of native planting will be included to enhance the habitat. New woodland planting will be of a suitable indigenous mix and linked to other planting to provide a vegetative network. Woodland buffer planting around the boundary of the application area will help to screen the development from nearby receptors.
Public Rights of Way: It is proposed that the bridleway running through the site will be re-routed southwards and join the original route approximately 200[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:45:00 2007 ]-->~~130~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:46:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:46:00 2007 ] metres from where it leaves the site at the eastern edge. Views of the site will be mitigated as much as possible. The diversion of the bridleway will be the subject of a separate application for a public right of way diversion (by virtue of Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).
Plant species will be chosen to reflect those found locally and managed for nature conservation. There will be a significant proportion of native evergreen species to maximise the effectiveness of landscape mitigation measures during the winter season. Carefully chosen ornamental species will be selected for planting along the entrance to the development. At detailed design stage, specific locations of individual trees and planting areas will be carefully considered to reduce visual intrusion and to enhance the local landscape.
Lighting: All lighting will be modern and designed to reduce the amount of light pollution.

Secondary measures

The two locations where additional mitigation planting will be required are the boundary of the sewage treatment works and the entrance to the site. Appropriate mitigation, with native planting will be required to screen the fence. The area of land between the proposed roundabout and the existing A44(T) may require planting in order to screen the entrance to the development from receptors on the north side of the A44(T) should this be desirable. This planting could be ornamental. However, it will need to be of sufficient height and density to screen or at least soften/filter views.

8.7 Landscape Impact and Mitigation

Each character area (as described under the Landscape Character Assessment) will be impacted on differently, depending on the quality, value and capacity to accommodate change. The effects on the landscape character for the proposed development are summarised as follows:
Character Area 1 - Northern Slopes of Melindwr/Rheidol Valley:

The local character area is not directly affected by the proposed development. It is therefore predicted that there will be no change to the character of this area.

Character Area 2 - Capel Bangor Settlement:

The local character area is not directly affected by the proposed development. The new access arrangements for the proposed development involve the moving of the A44(T) southwards, away from properties on the proposed site's northern boundary. The existing carriageway of the A44(T) is wide as it passes through Capel Bangor. Accordingly, a deviation of the road and the introduction of a roundabout do not significantly affect the landscape character. The proposed landscape buffer zone between the site and Melindwr Terrace affects the setting of this part of Capel Bangor settlement. It is therefore predicted that there will be a slight adverse impact to the character of this area.

Character Area 3 - Western Slopes of hillside, East of Proposed Site: The local character area is not directly affected by the proposed development. It is therefore predicted that there will be no change to the character of this area.
Character Area 4 - Glan Rheidol and surrounds: The local character area is not directly affected by the proposed development. It is therefore predicted that there will be no change to the character of this area.
Character Area 5 - Rheidol Valley River Corridor: The change in land use, from open pasture farmland to employment development use, will result in a direct adverse effect on the immediate landscape character. The existing landscape pattern of evenly sized, if irregular, fields is reflected as far as possible in the landscape infrastructure of the proposed development.
The underground pipes that are required as part of the WWTW will not affect the landscape character.
There is a significant area of new tree planting within the proposed development, which will break up the new development and better integrate it with the surrounding landscape. It is therefore predicted that overall there will be a moderate adverse impact to the character of this area.

8.8[Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:41:00 2007 ] Agricultural Land Classification[Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:41:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

An Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Report was undertaken in March 2005[Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:41:00 2007 ]. [Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:42:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:48:00 2007 ]The report is included in full at Appendix 13.[Author ID0: at ]
The report involved a detailed review of published information [Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:42:00 2007 ]relevant to the classification of the site and a site survey which included boring samples and small topsoil pits. In addition, due to other site investigation works ongoing at the site[Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:47:00 2007 ], soil profiles to a depth of more than 2m were observed at some locations.[Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:47:00 2007 ]
The conclusions of the report state that the site comprises entirely grade 3b land. As such the detailed ALC survey confirms that none of the site comprises the [Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:48:00 2007 ]`best and most versatile' land. Therefore no special importance should be attached to the agricultural quality of the site.[Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:49:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:41:00 2007 ]

9.0 TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT

9.1 Introduction

A Transportation Impact Assessment has been undertaken by Symonds Ltd. A brief overview of the main findings is included here and a copy of the full report can be found in Appendix 5.

9.2 Baseline

Road Network

The A44(T) is the main trunk road passing east-west through mid Wales. The A44 starts at Aberystwyth in the west and continues by way of the A470, via Llangurig, Rhayader, Leominster and ultimately to the M5 at Worcester. The A44 to the east of the site is winding and, in places, narrow. Although a trunk road, and in that respect, an important road artery through mid Wales, it cannot be termed a “high standard route”. The alignment of the A44 improves as it approaches Capel Bangor from the east.
Outside the site, the A44 is around 6m wide on a reasonably straight alignment with adequate visibility for the 40mph zone in which it lies.

Rail Network

The nearest main line station is located in Aberystwyth where it forms a terminus of the branch from the Mid Wales line through Newtown. The Vale of Rheidol tourist narrow gauge railway follows the route of the valley to the south of the site. A halt is located at Glanyrafon, mid way between Capel Bangor and Capel Seion.

Cycling

National Cycle Network Route 81 (Local Cycle Trail No 1) passes by the site, utilising the minor road south of the Rheidol to the west, crossing the valley to join the A44 for a short length before reverting back to the minor road which forms the western site boundary. The distance from the site to Aberystwyth by way of this cycle route is approximately 7km.

Bus Transport

Bus services 501/525 pass the site with about 8 trips per day in each direction from/to Aberystwyth via Ponterwyd, Pontarfynach and Penparcau. Frequency of the service is approximately hourly between 8.00am and 6.00pm. There is an existing bus stop adjacent to the site.

Walking

The site is within walking distance of the small settlement of Capel Bangor.

Accident Statistics

Only two accidents have occurred during the period November 1999 to end of October 2002, both slight. Details are included within Appendix 5. One accident occurred at the junction of the A44 with the C1082 some way to the west of the site. This was a shunt due to driver inattention. The second accident occurred at the A44/C1025 junction west of the site when a right turning vehicle hit an ongoing vehicle. This was probably also due to driver inattention. There does not appear to be an existing accident problem in the vicinity of this site.

Traffic Flows

Traffic flows (2002) [Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:30:00 2007 ]have been obtained for the A44(T) west of its junction with the A4159 and for the A44(T) east of Goginan. The flows at the latter location are half those at the former. This is because north-south traffic is signposted by way of A4159, A44(T) west to bypass Aberystwyth. HGV content varies from over 20% in the middle of the day to 6 -15% at peak time, varying with direction. -->~~Because~~ [Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:30:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:58:00 2007 ]-->of[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:31:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:58:00 2007 ] [Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:31:00 2007 ]Due to [Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:31:00 2007 ]the low traffic [Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:31:00 2007 ]flows this equates to a maximum HGV flow in any one direction of 22 per hour.

9.3 Impact and Mitigation

The traffic generation from the development for the purposes of the TIA has been calculated on the basis of the complete development of the Masterplan, plus corresponding potential building expansion space. Figures of traffic generation have been achieved using the TRIC[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:31:00 2007 ]-->P[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:31:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:58:00 2007 ]S database. This shows that assuming completion of the development by 20-->1[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:31:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:59:00 2007 ]04[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:31:00 2007 ]6, traffic on the surrounding network [Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:32:00 2007 ]is predicted to grow by 13.0[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:32:00 2007 ]-->~~5.5~~[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:32:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:59:00 2007 ]% by 2019[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:32:00 2007 ]-->21[Author ID1: at Thu Oct 4 17:32:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 13:59:00 2007 ].
The proposed junction design on the A44(T) has been analysed using ARCADY. This demonstrates that the junction will have ample capacity, even allowing for growth to 2019.
Recent estimates indicate that the first phase of the development will be operational by the end of 2009. In this case, the design year will be 15 years thereafter, i.e. 2024.[Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:54:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:54:00 2007 ]
TEMPRO growth figures predict that traffic will increase by 2.8% between 2019 (the original design year [Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:54:00 2007 ]addressed[Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:55:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:54:00 2007 ]in the Transport Impact[Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:55:00 2007 ] Assessment) and 2024 (the revised design year based on the current programme).[Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:57:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:57:00 2007 ]
The proposed junction will have more than sufficient capacity to accommodate this relatively minor increase in traffic flow considering that the junction has been shown to have over 60% spare capacity in 2019.[Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:57:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:54:00 2007 ]
Given the close proximity of NCN route 81 a connection to the cycle route will be made from the site.
Existing bus provision is expected to be sufficient to cater for the site. As the site matures, it may be appropriate for services to divert into the site and later phases of development will if appropriate incorporate bus stops and a bus turning facility. Also, as the site matures, alternative bus routes can be assessed.
Overall, the impact of the proposal will be insignificant in transportation terms and no further mitigation is required above that already being provided as part of the proposed development.

10.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND BUILT HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

10.1 Introduction and site context

This chapter covers the archaeology baseline of the site plus the predicted impact and mitigation of the proposal. The study was undertaken by Cambria Archaeology during September 2002.
The landscape is generally rural, except for the small number of buildings in the adjacent village, with dispersed farmsteads, containing irregular fields that probably evolved in the later Mediaeval or modern period and were established before the tithe maps of the 1830-40s. The land use is pasture with some improved pasture. The underlying geology is Lower Palaeozoic slatey mudstone and siltstone overlain by gleyed brown earths of the Clwyd and Conway Series.
The site lies within an area designated as a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest in the Register of Landscapes of Outstanding Historic Interest in Wales (issued by CCW, Cadw, ICOMOS UK, 1998). This is a non-statutory designation, but it does have a significant bearing on the level of any archaeological response to proposed developments such as this one within its area.

Abbreviations used in this report

10.1.4 Sites recorded on the county Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) are identified by their Primary Record Number (PRN) and located by their National Grid Reference (NGR). All archaeological features and contexts are referred to using the three-figure numbering system employed by Cambria Field Operations.

10.2 Site History, Study Methodology and Results

The surrounding history has been covered in two previous desk-based studies (Crane 2000 and Page 2001). The first desk-based assessment looked at five sites including the Capel Bangor site, whilst the second report was for this site only. Both reports indicated four potential archaeological sites within this proposed development - three cropmark sites identified on aerial photographs (PRNs 40282; 40283; 40284) and a mound (PRN 400323)(figure 10.3). Neither the nature of the cropmark features nor the mound was known. However, it was considered that the mound could be natural. Two fields immediately to the south of the proposed development area had place-names associated with possible kilns, probably of post mediaeval date but unknown type.
In April 2002 a geophysical survey on part of the proposed development area indicated a large number of potential archaeological features (Taylor 2002). However, the geophysical survey did not pick up any of the cropmarks identified from aerial photographs (F[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:47:00 2007 ]-->f[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:47:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:47:00 2007 ]igure 10.1[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:47:00 2007 ]-->3[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:47:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:47:00 2007 ]).

Aims and Objectives

The aim of this evaluation was to test the validation and nature of the features identified from aerial photographs and the geophysical survey. The results of this project were to inform any archaeological constraints on the future development of this site.

Methodology and Results

No archaeological brief has been produced by the area's Heritage Management Development Control Officers as the assessment has been undertaken pre-submission of the planning application. However, there was considerable discussion between the former RPS Chapman Warren, Cambria Archaeology Field Operations and the Heritage Management Development Control Officers (Cambria Archaeology). The first stage was to undertake a geophysical survey (Taylor 2002) covering the area of the features recorded in desk-based assessment (a topographic survey was also due to take place in stage 1, but due to a number of circumstances this was delayed until later). Subsequently Cambria Archaeology submitted specifications that would cover any formal brief to cover the potential archaeology indicated from the desk-based assessment and from the geophysical survey.
Eight trenches of slightly varying length were excavated (Figure 10.1[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:48:00 2007 ]-->3[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:48:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:48:00 2007 ]). Full details of these are included in the full report in Appendix 6. However an overview is provided below.
Trench 1

Targeted to encounter two narrow “L” shaped features indicated by the geophysical survey. No archaeological features were revealed except for one small area with a few charcoal flecks, but this is possibly a tree root hole. There were a number of geological subsoil changes but nothing that correlated with the features indicated in the geophysical survey. Finds recovered during machining and cleaning consisted of one iron fragment (nail?), one small fragment of gravel tempered pottery, one black glazed sherd, two fragments of china and one shard of glass. All appeared to be post mediaeval and would be consistent with rubbish being spread with farmyard manure.

Trench 2 - targeted to encounter the possible rectilinear cropmark PRN 40283; the semi linear cropmark PRN 40284 and the possible rectangular cropmark PRN 40283, both located by aerial photography; a small sub-linear geophysical anomaly; and a circular geophysical anomaly. No archaeological features were revealed. Finds recovered during cleaning consisted of 1 iron “L” shaped object with a rivet and a patterned blue and white china sherd. Both objects are likely to be post-mediaeval.
Trench 3 - targeted to encounter an area of a possible kiln site. No archaeological features were found and the layers revealed were similar to trench 1. Part of one brick, probably late post-mediaeval was found and 1 very worn light brown glazed pottery, again probably late post mediaeval.
Trench 4 - targeted to encounter the semi linear cropmark PRN 40284 located by aerial photography, several linear features and some possible pits. There were a number of features in the trench but only one shallow gully, probably correlating to one of the geophysical features, was definitely artificial (photo 3). It is possible that these features are the ruts and humps of a trackway (rather than a former boundary) which, except for this gully, does not extend into the subsoil and exists mainly in the lower plough soil where they were not visible. Finds recovered during cleaning came from the plough soils, and consisted of one sherd of green brown glazed gravel tempered ware and one sherd of black or very dark brown glazed hard fired pottery. Both are post mediaeval in date.
Trench 5 - targeted to encounter a line of possible pits indicated in the geophysical survey. There was one rim sherd of brown glazed stoneware found during machining, probably the top of a bottle and post mediaeval in date.
Trench 6 - targeted to encounter a possible kiln area and a number of narrow linear features indicated in the geophysical survey. No features were seen. One piece of iron tube was found in the lower plough soil.
Trench 7 - The mound was found to be a natural outcrop with the top bedrock only 75mm below the surface on the top of the mound (photo 7). The outcrop was a sedimentary mudstone from the Borth Mudstone Formation, exhibiting a near vertical dip and a N-S strike. There were no glacial or fluvio-glacial drift deposits overlying the bedrock. The topsoil and turf became deeper, up to 220mm, at the base of the mound. There were a few finds from the turf and topsoil: the fragment of iron slag or concretion, one iron object of a large iron bent hoop with one smaller iron link (possibly a plough horse fitting), one glass stem, two fragments of china, one large black glazed sherd of Buckley-type ware. All the objects would appear to be later post mediaeval or modern.
Trench 8 - targeted to encounter a cropmark circular feature. No artificial features were seen. Finds from trench cleaning consisted of 1 black glazed rim sherd of Buckley-type ware, and 1 fragment of blue patterned china. Both are of late post mediaeval date.

Topographic Survey

A survey of all the fields in the project area was subject to a topographic survey using a total station EDM theodolite, marking all boundaries and breaks of slope (F[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:48:00 2007 ]-->f[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:48:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:48:00 2007 ]igure 10.2[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:48:00 2007 ]-->4[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:48:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:48:00 2007 ]). This survey was tied into the Ordnance Datum. The only features of significance were a possible quarry and possibly a former field boundary in the same fields as trenches 2 to 5.

10.3 Impact and Mitigation

Evidence from the aerial photographs identified three cropmark features (PRNs 40282; 40283; 40284) which suggested that the site appeared to have some archaeological potential. The subsequent geophysical survey failed, however, to confirm these cropmarks, but did record a large number of anomalies, in particular a potential circular feature (location cut by evaluation trench 2); a large boundary of ditches and banks (cut by trench 4); and a number of possible pits and kilns. Both the cropmarks and the geophysical anomalies needed to be tested by this evaluation.
The evaluation trenches did not find any traces of the cropmark features identified on aerial photographs. This suggests that these three features were only present as surface anomalies at the time of the photographs, and were not archaeological features extending into the subsoil.
This evaluation was unsuccessful in finding any of the narrow geophysical anomalies, other than the probable correlation with a mole run in Trench 8. It would seem likely that these minor features are either agricultural features within the plough soil or mole runs, which were numerous throughout the field and where found in the trenches were quite deep (photos 5 and 8) (0.5m or more below the surface). There was no evidence for any of the potential kiln areas. These could be areas of burning within the plough soil or geological anomalies. The positive and negative anomalies evaluated by Trench 4 only found a small number of actual features, confirming that these anomalies are likely to be mainly within the ploughed soils and it is suggested that they are relics of a trackway rather than a substantial boundary.
Most of the artefacts recovered probably came from the ploughed soils and went out onto the fields as rubbish with farmyard manure. The two sherds of black glazed rim of Buckley Ware type from Trenches 7 and 8 could come from the same vessel and appear to confirm this spread rubbish interpretation. After this period a pastoral farming with occasional grass improvements appeared to have become the norm.
This evaluation has therefore shown that there is no apparent significant archaeological material within the intended development area and that no archaeological conditions need to be implemented, other than the recording of the current field boundaries should their removal be necessary.

11.0 GEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

11.1 Geotechnical / Geo-Environmental

The history of the site shows that over the years researched it has remained undeveloped farmland.
The geology of the area shows that it is underlain by the mudstones of the Silurian Age. Superficial deposits in the form of morainic drift overlying undifferentiated fluvio glacial deposits are shown to overlie the solid geology.
In order to confirm the above a site investigation comprising twenty three machine excavated trial pits and five shell & auger boreholes was carried out. A copy of the site investigation is included in Appendix 7
The site investigation has revealed topsoil of typical thickness 200mm comprising firm clays. These materials are underlain by firm locally stiff and firm to soft silty sandy clays with varying amounts of gravels and cobbles to depth of between 0.3m and 1.3m below the existing ground level. These materials are further underlain by medium dense with depth becoming dense and very dense sands, gravels and cobbles to the maximum investigated depth of 9.5m.
In view of the above ground conditions it is proposed that mass concrete strip foundations founded within the medium dense sands and gravels at depths below ground level of typically 0.3 to 1.3m be used. However, it is also proposed that, in order to protect the foundation formations from the effect of frost heave and/or thermal shrinkage, the minimum foundation depth will be 0.9m.
All vegetation and soft materials are proposed to be removed and replaced with a minimum thickness of 150mm of well compacted granular materials. Accordingly, the floor slabs can be designed as ground bearing.

11.2 Contamination

Eight samples of the near surface made ground have been tested for the elements/compounds identified in the ICRCL 59/83 Guidelines. The results of which may be seen in the Geo-Technical and Geo-Environmental Report included in the Appendix herewith. All of the samples tested have revealed concentration levels for the measured substances below conservative Tier 1 trigger concentration levels (as shown in Table 4.1 of the Geo-Technical and Geo-Environmental Report included in the Appendix 7).
The site can therefore be classed as uncontaminated with regard to the substances tested for.
BRE 211 (1999) entitled `Radon: Guidance on Protective Measures for New Dwellings' has shown that the site falls within an area where full radon protective measures are required. The radon (RPM) site report prepared by the British Geological Survey confirms that full radon protection measures are required in the development. It has also been noted that, as this report was global in nature, it will be prudent at the “reserved matters” planning stage to obtain reports for individual buildings in order to investigate whether or not full radon protection measures are required over the area in question.
A local concern has been raised with regard to levels of Arsenic on the site. Levels of arsenic across the site were found to be between 3 and 17mg/kg. Using the most recent guidelines (CLEA), the recommended trigger level for industrial use is 500mg/kg. It can be seen from the laboratory testing carried out on soil samples taken from the numerous trial pits around the site, therefore, that the levels are well below the specified trigger levels.
Subsequent to the above report it was suggested that naturally occurring elevated concentrations of metals, in particular cadmium, in the near surface natural soils at the site could pose significant risks to site workers, future site users and the wider environment. Although no evidence of such conditions was found in the original ground investigation, it was decided as a precaution to undertake a supplementary investigation.
In response to the Environment Agency request for further details about leachate potential and ground water quality beneath the site, six additional boreholes were sunk for water monitoring wells and water samples were taken from the adjacent stream. The samples were tested for chemicals and compared to the Environment Agency Quality Standards (EQS) and the Water Quality Standards (WQS). All results were below EQS/WQS guidelines [Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:52:00 2007 ]indicating[Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:54:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:52:00 2007 ]that there is no evidence of heavy metal contamination within the ground water. It can also, therefore, be concluded that there is no evidence of heavy metal contamination from possible leaching fro[Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:54:00 2007 ]m[Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 16:03:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:54:00 2007 ]`iron[Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:55:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:57:00 2007 ]pans' located within superficial deposits.[Author ID0: at ]
In addition, further supplementary trial pitting was undertaken along with a geophysical conductivity survey and laboratory testing. The full supplementary Ground Investigation Report is included at Appendix 12.[Author ID5: at Fri Jun 15 15:55:00 2007 ]
In summary, the geological/hydrogeological conditions necessary for the formation of `iron pans' and the samples tested confirm the absence of high levels of metal contamination. Furthermore, geophysical surveys confirm that no significantly anomalous conditions exist between sampling points. As such, the risks to site users and the wider environment associated with potential ground contamination on site following development are considered to be negligible.
Notwithstanding the above, Waterman Quadrant have been commissioned to produce a Contamination Method Statement. This outlines the working procedures to be undertaken in the unlikely event that contamination is experienced during construction works. The statement is included at Appendix 14.

12.0 HYDROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

12.1 Hydrology

The Afon Rheidol is located some distance from the development site and is at a much lower elevation. There are therefore no flooding risks directly associated with the Afon Rheidol.
A watercourse known as the Melindwr runs in a westerly direction along the northern boundary of the site. Owing to the close proximity of this watercourse and its relative elevation to the development site a hydrological and hydraulic study has been carried out to establish the extent of flooding that will be caused in the event of a 1 in 100 year return period flood flow in the watercourse. The 100 year return period floodplain is indicated on Figure 12.1.
The watercourse runs from its headwaters to the east on Mynydd Maich, along the valley, roughly parallel with the A44(T) and finally discharges into the Afon Rheidol to the south west of the development site. The Melindwr passes through a culvert beneath the A44(T) and for a short distance abuts the north-western site boundary.
The hydrological assessment in the original ES stated that u[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:50:00 2007 ]-->U[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:50:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 14:09:00 2007 ]pstream of the culvert a number of private vehicular/pedestrian bridges, which provide access to private properties from the main road, cause major restrictions during high flows. The capacity of the channel section is also insufficient to convey high flood flows. Consequently, the flood level rises until several private dwellings are flooded and a flood flow release occurs across the A44. The main body of the floodwaters then flow onto the extreme northern area of the site before returning to the main stream channel downstream of the culvert. There is, however, the potential for minor overland flow to occur across the undeveloped site during high return period floods in the Melindwr, as shown on Figure 12.1.
In order to mitigate against the potential flooding of the development site identified[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:51:00 2007 ], it was[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:51:00 2007 ]-->is[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:51:00 2007 ][Author ID1: at Fri Oct 5 14:09:00 2007 ] proposed to construct a `cut-off' ditch to the south and parallel to the existing stretch of the A44(T) for the purpose of containing the overland flow (in the event of a 1 in 100 return period flood flow). Flood overflow waters would then discharge along an open ditch to the edge of the new section of the A44, where a culvert would allow flows beneath the new section of road. Some attenuation would then have been [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:51:00 2007 ]-->~~will be~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:51:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:51:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:51:00 2007 ]required over this latter section in order to maintain compatibility with the existing flood regime and ensure that the status quo was[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:52:00 2007 ]-->is[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:52:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:52:00 2007 ] not exacerbated. The floodwaters would then have been [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:52:00 2007 ]-->be [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:52:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:52:00 2007 ]channelled back into the Melindwr via another open ditch. -->~~Details of the proposed works are shown on Figure 12.2.~~ [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:52:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:52:00 2007 ]
The hydrological analysis of the Melindwr regime following the implementation of the development works confirmed[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:59:00 2007 ]-->s[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:59:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 11:59:00 2007 ] that the proposed works would [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:00:00 2007 ]-->~~will~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:00:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:00:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:00:00 2007 ]have had[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:01:00 2007 ] no detrimental effect on the existing regime.
The effect of constructing the relief culvert was[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:13:00 2007 ] considered[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:20:00 2007 ]-->~~will~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:13:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:13:00 2007 ] not only to [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:20:00 2007 ]control any unpredictable overland flood flows, but -->~~will~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:20:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:20:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:20:00 2007 ]also reduce the -->~~existing~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:20:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:20:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:20:00 2007 ]risk of flooding to existing properties.
However, in July 2004 the Welsh Assembly Government published Technical Advice Note 15 (TAN15): Development and Flood Risk. In view of the fact that the planning applications the subject of this ES remain undetermined, and that the requirements of TAN15 are now a material consideration in the determination of the applications, the following paragraphs update the original hydrological assessment.
The TAN15 Development Advice Maps (DAMs) and the Environment Agency's (EA) Flood Maps indicate that part of the site is at risk from fluvial flooding. The DAM indicates that the north west part of the site is within a C2 Flood Zone and as such a Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) has been undertaken by Waterman Quadrant in accordance with the requirements of TAN15. The FCA is included in full in Volume 2 of this ES (Appendix 1[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:21:00 2007 ]1). An extract from the TAN15 DAM is included as Fig 12.2[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:21:00 2007 ].
The fluvial regime in the immediate area of the site is dominated by the Afon Rheidol located some 470m to the south west, and the Afon Melindwr which is in close proximity to, and partially abuts, the north/north west site boundaries.
Having regard to the Afon Rheidol, a topographical survey of the site confirms that the level of the banks at the nearest point to the site is 21.0m AOD which is considerably (over 14m) lower than the level of the closest part of the site, which at its south west corner is 35.5m AOD. As such, the topographical survey clearly shows that there will be no risk of flooding from the Afon Rheidol. The topographical survey is included as Fig 12.3[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:21:00 2007 ].
The original hydrological assessment relating to the Afon Melindwr established the extent of flooding in the event of a 1 in 100 year return period flood flow (1%). The FCA, however, also assesses the regime for a 0.1% event, uses current flood flow estimation techniques which provide more accurate data on which to base the risk assessments and increases the extent of the previous hydraulic model, as well as assessing the scenarios of all culverts being free flowing and all culverts being 50% blocked.
The floodplains derived from the analyses are shown on Figs 12.4[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:22:00 2007 ]-12.7[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 12:22:00 2007 ]. Having regard to the free flowing culverts scenario, the capacity of the channel section upstream of the A44(T) culvert will [Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:58:00 2007 ]be insufficient to convey high flood flows and,[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:58:00 2007 ] consequently, the flood levels will[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:58:00 2007 ] rise until several private dwellings flood and flood flow release occurs onto the A44(T). The majority of flood waters will [Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:59:00 2007 ]flow along the river channel and through the A44(T) culvert, but overland flow will occur along the A44(T) in an east to west direction. Both 0.1% and 1% overland flood flows will [Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:59:00 2007 ]be contained to the south by an earth bank on the northern boundary of the site (adjacent to the southern side of the A44(T)). The flow will [Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:59:00 2007 ]then rejoin the main flow at the culvert crossing or at a low point adjacent to the road a short distance to the west. It can, therefore, be clearly seen that the site will [Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:59:00 2007 ]not be affected by the Afon Melindwr regime upstream of the A44(T) culvert crossing. [Author ID0: at ]
Just downstream of the A44(T) culvert localised flooding caused by the acute bend in the river course is contained within the confines of the low lying ground in the immediate vicinity of the river channel and will not affect the site. Further downstream overland flow occurs over the caravan park area but, again, will not affect the site. As such, it is evident that the free flow scenario will not affect the site in either a 1% or 0.1% flood event.[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 10:59:00 2007 ]
In the 50% blocked scenario the 1% flood outline is far more extensive and the 0.1% is also more extensive in some areas. In all cases, however, it is evident that, even assuming this extreme scenario of all culverts being simultaneously blocked, the site will not be at risk of flooding in either a 1% or 0.1% flood event.
The only area where the proposed development will interface with the Afon Melindwr flood regime will be on the northern boundary where the new access is to be constructed. The depth of overland flow in a 0.1% event will be 0.41m (39.62m AOD) and as such the design of the vertical alignment of the junction will need to ensure that the proposed highway surface level will be above the maximum flood water level to ensure no flow enters the site. As a result of the FCA the previous mitigation measures are, therefore, no longer necessary.
TAN15 also requires consideration to be given to any potential for flooding from surface water emanating from the developed site. Section 6 of this ES describes the proposed approach for the disposal of surface water drainage. In summary, the surface water emanating from the proposed development will be collected by a gravity piped system and will be attenuated to `greenfield rates' of run-off prior to being conveyed to the proposed outfall in the Afon Rheidol which lies more than 14m lower than the south west corner of the site. As such, it is clear that surface water will be able to be discharged from the site even during 0.1% flood events.
As mentioned above, in the event of a 0.1% flood which will not affect the site itself, overland flow on the A44(T) will be 410mm. This is less than the 600mm maximum permitted by TAN15 for commercial developments and, in particular, as access/egress from the A44(T) to the site to the east will avoid all but a marginal element of the flow, this route can be used for emergency access/egress.
The proposed development will not, therefore, increase the risk of flooding to existing properties.

13.0 NOISE ASSESSMENT

13.1 Introduction and Methodology

This assessment considers the potential impacts of noise, due to construction and operation of the site, on existing residential users located around the development site.
Broadly the assessment of noise impacts has involved:

Identification of appropriate standards and guidance for use in the assessment of noise impacts;
Collection of daytime and night time ambient noise level data via noise surveys in order to determine the existing baseline noise climate at potentially sensitive properties in the vicinity of the site;
Qualitative assessment of noise levels at potentially sensitive local receptors during the construction phase of the development;
Quantitative/qualitative prediction and assessment of noise levels at a selection of receiving properties, which have the potential to be affected by a change in noise level in future years as a result of the development;
Determination of the significance of the impacts associated with the construction and operation of the development;
Provision of proposals for mitigation measures, where appropriate, in order to minimise any potential negative impacts arising from the development and prediction of any residual effects which may remain following implementation of mitigation measures.

Background information on noise, the units of measurement, and perception of changing levels by the human ear is provided in the full report at Appendix 8.
The following key guidance documents have been referenced during this assessment:

BS 4142 `Method for Rating Industrial Noise affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas', 1997.
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), Department of Transport (Welsh Office), 1988.
BS 5228: Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites (Part 1: 1997).
BS 7445:Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise, 1991
Guidelines for Community Noise, World Health Organisation (WHO), 1999.
Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment (Consultation Draft), Institute of Acoustics and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002.

The main report provides an overview of these documents.

Assessment of Operational Impact Magnitude

The full report provides detailed information on the assessment process and quantification methodology including Receptor Sensitivity, the Assessment of Operational Significance, a Significance Matrix, plus the Assessment of Construction Noise Magnitude and Significance. An understanding of the approach is vital for correct interpretation of this chapter. However it is not necessary to repeat that detail here.

13.2 Baseline

The key source of noise around the site is considered to be road traffic noise from the A44(T). No significant noise sources have been identified within the development site, with the exception of wildlife and pedestrians using the footpaths.

Consultation with Local Authority

Ceredigion County Council (CCC) has been contacted in order to collect further baseline information with respect to noise within the development area.
CCC has confirmed that complaints have been received about noise from this area and that it does not hold noise monitoring data undertaken at potentially sensitive local receptors identified in this assessment.

Potentially Sensitive Receptors

Identification of the key potentially sensitive receptors closest to the development site boundary (which can include residential properties, churches, public open space, and conservation areas) has been based upon the findings of the site visit and information provided by the Local Authority. These receptors have been selected due to their relatively close proximity to the adjacent carriageways.
The following receptors have been selected for assessment purposes:

Location 1: North-eastern corner of the caravan park situated between the A44 and the proposed development site.
Location 2: Dolblodau, residential property facing the A44.
Location 3: Tyllwyd, residential property to the east of the development site.
Location 4: Southwest corner of the caravan park.
Location 5: 11 Melindwr Terrace, residential property to the west of the development site.

The above receptors are highlighted on Fig 13.1.

Noise Monitoring

In order to define baseline noise level conditions at locations representative of the above receptors, which are located close to the development site boundary, a number of noise monitoring surveys have been undertaken.
An overview of the noise monitoring protocol is contained in the full report.
A summary of the daytime and night-time survey results in terms of L_Aeq, L_A90, L_A10 and L_Amax. is presented in Tables 6 and 7 in Appendix 7.

13.3 Impact

The proposal has the potential to impact upon existing local receptors due to a change to the existing noise climate. Impacts are possible in both the short and long term, during operational and construction phases respectively. The magnitude and significance of the impacts is evaluated further in this section.
The potential key impacts which may arise as a result of the development are considered to be:

Road traffic off-site.
Vehicular traffic on-site.
Operational Noise from the proposed B1, B2 and B8 use.
Road traffic off-site.

Details of predicted traffic growth is included in the Traffic Impact Assessment, which can be found at Vol 3. Data from that report is used in calculating the predicted impact of the development in terms of traffic noise.
The findings indicate that in 2004 the noise level increase at the northern façade of the residential building associated with the caravan park is predicted to be 1.5 dB(A) L_{A10, 18-hour}due to the proposed development. When referencing Table 1, the impact magnitude for this level of change will be considered to be `no significant change'. It is predicted that noise levels at receptors facing the site, such as `Dolblodau', will be increased by 0.75 dB L_{A10 18-hour}. It is considered that when referencing Table 1, this will result in `no significant change'

Vehicular traffic on-site

The above vehicle movements are likely to be concentrated largely during the start and finish of work each day (working times are assumed to be typically 08:00 - 18:00 hrs), and movements associated with individual work units within the development. Given the nature and size of the overall development, and the relatively small area proposed for B8 use, a high level of `heavy' vehicle movements will depend greatly upon the exact nature of business of each works unit, for which there is no information at present.
In addition to noise from moving vehicles, intermittent noise from activities such as the shutting of vehicle doors and the starting and revving of engines will also be associated with the proposed car parking areas on the site.
It is considered that the overall impact magnitude arising from these activities at local receptors will be `moderate'.

Operational Noise from the proposed B1, B2 and B8 use.

The operational units are to consist of a mixture of B1 (commercial), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution) use. The nearest potentially sensitive receptors to noise from the development, including vehicular movements on access roads, are properties on the A44(T), Tyllwyd, users of the adjacent caravan park and the southern façade of properties off Melindwr Terrace.
Detailed assessment of the potential noise impacts cannot be made at this stage as future occupiers have not yet been determined. However, recommendations for further assessment considered appropriate have been made in the Noise Enhancement and Mitigation Proposals section. It is considered, however, that the impact magnitude will be slight.

13.4 Mitigation and enhancement

Operational Phase

Impacts associated with road traffic noise entering and leaving the site are predicted to be of neutral significance at receptors on the A44(T), in the opening year of the proposed development (2004).
During normal day-to-day operation of the proposed development, impacts of minor adverse / moderate adverse significance might be anticipated at receptors in close proximity to the development site due to typical site activities.
On the basis of the above it is recommended that the following mitigation measures be considered during the detailed design of the development:

Reduction of the speed limit/introduction of speed restrictions in and around the proposed development site, in order to off-set some of the noise level increases likely to be produced due to the increase in traffic flows.
Positioning of potentially noisy operations/activities such as extractor fans, building exits etc away from sensitive properties, surrounding the development site. Where this is not practicable, and where a benefit would be provided, acoustic treatment such as attenuators, fencing or earth bunds should be considered.
Provision of specific measures relating to delivery traffic associated with the proposed developments, including, for example, strict enforcement of speed limits on site, no waiting or queuing of delivery vehicles with engines running and no unnecessary idling of delivery vehicles, during particularly early or late hours.

However, given the scale of the development and the potential for impacts to arise, it is recommended that further assessment is undertaken and appropriate mitigation measures are identified when more operational information is available at the detailed planning stage. This further assessment will assist in ensuring that the scale and significance of operational noise impacts is minimised at potentially sensitive properties to appropriate and generally accepted levels.

13.5 Conclusions

The predicted road traffic noise levels on the A44(T) show that increases in traffic noise levels of between 0.8 - 1.5 dB L_{A10 18-hour} are predicted. In terms of significance this change in traffic noise will be classified as neutral.

13.5.2 Noise levels associated with vehicular traffic on-site predicted at residential properties surrounding the site, particularly residential properties associated with Tyllwyd, have been assessed as `moderate' when compared to existing ambient noise levels. The overall impact significance can therefore be classified as `moderate adverse'.

Noise levels from operational noise sources, such as extractor fans, roller shutter doors are expected to have a `moderate' impact on residential properties on Melindwr Terrace and properties associated with Tyllwyd.
Considering that the majority of the impacts are predicted to be neutral/moderate at identified receptors during both the construction and operational phases of the development, it is considered that the implementation of a suitable mitigation strategy following additional assessment at the detailed design stage will help minimise any significant effects of the proposed development.

14.0 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

14.1 Introduction

This chapter presents an assessment of the potential air quality impacts of the proposal. The assessment considers the potential impacts of air quality due to construction and subsequent operation of the site and, in addition, considers the existing air quality levels in the area as determined by Ceredigion County Council (CCC) and the potential impact of these air quality levels on the existing residential users surrounding the development site. A detailed methodology of the air quality assessment is included in the full report at Appendix 9.

14.2 Baseline

14.2.1 Information for the air quality assessment has been obtained from the Ceredigion County Council `Review of Ambient Air Quality Report' of 1998. The measurements taken for all these pollutants were taken at the background rural site of Pendam north east of Capel Bangor. The following four pollutants were examined:

Benzene.
Nitrogen Dioxide.
Sulphur Dioxide.
Ozone.

Benzene

14.2.2 There is no obvious general trend in benzene in the Ceredigion area, with levels falling in Aberystwyth and Lampeter over the period 1995-1998, whereas they had fluctuated in Cardigan by rising in the years between 1995 and 1997 and then falling in 1998. In total benzene levels had fallen across Ceredigion in 1998 by around 20-30%. However, there is a considerable difference between the national predictions for benzene in a rural site for Ceredigion, at levels of 0.25ppm, and the measured levels at Harwell representative of the development site of 0.46ppm.

Nitrogen Dioxide

14.2.3 Nitrogen Dioxide levels in Ceredigion fell by 25% between the years 1995 and 1998. This is in line with a national decline of Nitrogen Dioxide of 25%, largely attributed to the introduction of catalytic converters on new cars in 1993. The impact of this reduction is felt more significantly in the rural areas of Ceredigion due to the lack of other contributors to this primary pollutant such as the electricity supply industry or general industry. Mean annual background levels for nitrogen dioxide, at such a location, are well below 5ppb and, as for benzene, are almost five times lower than those recorded in the most congested parts of the main towns in Ceredigion. Updated mean annual nitrogen dioxide measurements for the year 2000 totalled 2.67ppb. This is the most up to date measurement and therefore has been used as the background reading up to the present day (2003).

Sulphur Dioxide SO2

Sulphur dioxide emissions from motor vehicles have dropped considerably due to the restriction of sulphur dioxide in diesel fuels to 0.05%. Nationally the greatest source of sulphur dioxide is emitted from power stations and other industrial plants. As there are no such industrial sources in Ceredigion itself, sulphur dioxide mean monthly results have always been less than 10ppb and mean annual levels below 2ppb (which is characteristic of a general development area with no major industrial sources of sulphur dioxide emissions). In summary annual mean SO2 levels had fallen between the periods of 1993-1998 which could be indicative of the reduction in the use of coal for domestic fires, with the level of SO2 at the comparable location of Pendam averaging a mean level of 1.5ppb in 1997 and 1.43 in 1998.

Ozone

The annual mean Ozone levels at Pendam (the monitoring location) are greater than 33ppb with some monthly mean levels exceeding the set eight-hour standard of 50ppb. Levels exceeding 100ppb can have an adverse health effect on otherwise healthy individuals. Levels of ozone have increased steadily in the period 1995-1998 and are projected forward (linear extrapolation) to suggest that even the 50ppb annual mean levels would be exceeded by the year 2001 at Pendam.

Estimations of other pollutants.

Background levels of carbon monoxide in Ceredigion are estimated to be less than 0.2ppm. The existence of pollutant 1,3 Butadiene has been `crudely estimated' from the known benzene levels. On this basis 1,3-Butadiene levels in Ceredigion are likely to be low, with maximum, mean, annual kerbside levels around 0.2ppb, which is well below the standard of 1ppb. Background lead levels in Ceredigion are estimated to be below 0.01μg/m3 throughout the county. Background levels of PM10 are estimated to be around 15-17μg/m3 for Ceredigion.
A localised assessment of air quality has been undertaken following the methodology as described in the DMRB Interim Advice Note (2003), which amends the previous procedures in the DMRB 2000. The significance of the localised air quality impact is based on the change in the predicted pollution concentration at each receptor, with and without the scheme, and by comparison with the air quality objectives. An assessment has been undertaken of the effect of increased traffic flow on the A44(T) associated with the proposed employment/industrial development. The traffic data has been provided by Symonds Group.
The main potential impacts of the proposed development are expected to occur close to the A44(T) and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed employment/industrial development at receptors identified to be sensitive to potential changes in air quality. Such `sensitive receptors' include single dwellings and farmhouses and were selected to accord with DETR guidance on LAQM [10]. Two receptor locations, expected to experience the maximum impacts from traffic associated with the development, have been selected to evaluate the effects on air quality of the scheme. These locations are listed in the full report and shown in Figure 14.1.
For the purpose of the assessment, pollutant concentrations have been modelled for the following scenarios:

2004 baseline.
2019 without the development; and
2019 with the development.

Pollutants Modelled

Of the criteria pollutants listed in the UKAQS, Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM10) have been assessed for the purposes of this assessment, as these two pollutants are those primarily associated with road traffic sources.
Nitrogen Dioxide - The model was set up to calculate the annual average concentrations of NO₂ arising with and without the scheme, using data derived from the 24 hour mean traffic data. Background concentrations for the annual mean were obtained from information from CCC.
Particulate Matter (PM₁₀) - A number of assumptions have been taken to calculate the effects of the proposed site on particulate levels. For PM₁₀, 100% of particulate emissions from traffic have been assumed to be PM₁₀ and no deposition, washout or transformation has been included. Background concentrations of PM₁₀ were obtained from background concentrations given in the `Air Quality Information Archive' for this area.

14.3 Impact and Mitigation

The screening method prescribed by DMRB was used to predict the impact of traffic emissions on air quality at chosen sensitive receptors in the area. Pollutant concentrations were calculated at each sensitive receptor. The predicted change in air quality as a result of increased traffic flows is detailed in the tables below.
The NAQO for Nitrogen Dioxide is 40 µg/m^-3 or less when expressed as an annual mean or 200 µg/m^-3when expressed as an hourly mean and should not be exceeded more than 18 times a year.

Table 14.1 Predicted Concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide at the Air Quality Sensitive Receptors.

Annual Mean

Location

Distance (m)

Baseline

(2004) (μg/m³)

No development (2019) (μg/m³)

With development (2019) (μg/m³)

3.5

20.2

3.0

20.2

Hourly Mean

Location

Distance (m)

Baseline

(2004) (μg/m³)

No development (2019) (μg/m³)

With development (2019) (μg/m³)

3.5

88.4

3.0

88.4

The predicted annual mean NO₂ concentrations in 2004 for both chosen sensitive receptors is 20.2μg.m^-3, which is within the UKAQS objective of 40 μg.m^-3 to be met by the end of 2005. Predicted annual mean concentrations in 2019 without development and with development remain at 20.2 μg.m^-3. The impact of this proposed development on annual average concentrations of NO₂ is not therefore considered to be significant. The NAQO for Particulates is 50 µg/m^-3 or less, when expressed as a 24 hour mean, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year or 40 µg/m^-3 or less when expressed as an annual mean.

Table 14.2 Predicted Concentrations of PM₁₀at the Air Quality Sensitive Receptors

24 Hour Mean

Location	Distance (m)	Baseline (2004) (μg/m³)	No development (2019) (μg/m³)	With development (2019) (μg/m³)
1	3.5	30.4	26.9	26.9
2	3.0	30.4	26.9	26.9

Annual mean

Location

Distance (m)

Baseline

(2004) (μg/m³)

No development (2019) (μg/m³)

With development (2019) (μg/m³)

3.5

17.1

14.9

3.0

17.1

14.9

The predicted future concentrations of PM₁₀ are below the 24-hour and annual mean NAQOs at all sensitive receptors, with the proposed development. The predicted annual mean concentrations for 2004 are 17.1 μg.m^-3, which are within the current UKAQS objective of 40 μg.m^-3 to be met by 2004. The predicted annual mean concentrations in 2019 without and with the development is predicted to be 14.9 μg.m^-3.
The impact of the development on the hourly mean and annual mean of PM₁₀ concentrations is therefore not considered to be significant in the context of the current and proposed UKAQS objectives.
The proposed development would not result in any localised increases in traffic related pollutant concentrations at receptors close to the section of the A44 relevant to this proposed development.
The predicted concentrations of nitrogen dioxide measured as an annual mean are below the relevant air quality strategy objectives for the proposed development. The predicted PM₁₀ annual mean concentrations are below the current and proposed air quality strategy objectives.
In conclusion the proposed development is not predicted to alter the air quality conditions at sensitive receptors in the area upon operation. The magnitude of predicted impacts of NO₂and PM₁₀, with and without the proposed development, are not significant at receptors of a medium to high sensitivity.

15.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

15.1 Introduction and Baseline information

This chapter examines the baseline demographics and employment potential of the development. The majority of information has been obtained from the DTZ Pieda Consulting reports, and other information sources are acknowledged as appropriate.
The population of Ceredigion has, since 1996, increased by 4% to over 72,000. The net population increase is therefore approximately 500 people per annum, due essentially to immigration. This population increase is significantly above the Welsh average of 1.6% per annum and the UK average of 0.9% per annum. Aberystwyth comprises over a quarter of the total population of Ceredigion.
The Office of National Statistics shows that the population of under 15 years of age in Ceredigion is below the Welsh and UK averages, although the proportion of the population over the age of 60 is significantly above the Welsh and UK averages. The County therefore has an ageing population.
The economic activity rates in the County were 4.2% higher that the Welsh average of 74.7%, however the activity rates have since this time declined by 7%. The economic activity rates of Ceredigion are now 1.9% lower than the Welsh average of 73.8% and 6.8% lower than the UK average of 78.1%.
The DTZ report states that this trend may have been caused by firms relocating away from Aberystwyth in addition to the town's poor inward investment track record. This would lead to increasing levels of unemployment in the area.
The unemployment rate in the Aberystwyth Travel to Work Area (TTWA) is currently 1% below the Welsh average, which is almost 25% lower than the remainder of the County.
Ceredigion contains almost twice the percentage of self-employed people compared to either Wales or UK averages. This reflects the high proportion of people employed in tourism and agriculture. The DTZ report states however that the rate of self-employment has declined in the County between 1996 and 1999 by 4.2% mostly due to the decline in agriculture.
The key industrial sectors in the Aberystwyth Travel to Work Area include “distribution, hotels and restaurants” and “public administration”. These sectors include Tourism, higher education (specifically the University) and agriculture-related employment. The fastest growing employment sectors in Wales between 1998 and 2000 were finance, banking, public administration and health and education. The DTZ report states that this is attributable to call-centre development and the expansion of the University of Wales.
Manufacturing remains strong in the area despite a downward trend Nationally. Food production is a significant sub-sector in the area.

15.2 Impact

The proposal, if fully developed and occupied, has the potential to accommodate up to 700 - 800 jobs. If the expansion capacity of each building is also developed this could rise up to 1000 - 1100 jobs being accommodated at the Business Park. The provision of suitable employment facilities, as proposed at Capel Bangor, will assist in reversing the upward trend in unemployment.
The provision of the employment site will also, therefore, help to address the ageing population of the County through the provision of high quality employment opportunities which will retain and attract people of working age to the area.
The development is likely to make an important contribution towards accommodating and encouraging potential spin-off from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth through the programmes currently run by the University.
The provision of employment opportunities is an important element in encouraging economic growth and hence the provision of adequate suitable land to support this is fundamental. The development proposed will help fulfil this requirement for the area.
The above conclusions in relation to the socio-economic impact of the proposed development were reinforced through the UDP process.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:34:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:35:00 2007 ] The Inspector concluded that the objectives of `A Winning Wales' inc[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:34:00 2007 ]l[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:35:00 2007 ]ude raising aver[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:34:00 2007 ]age incomes and improving skills, ensuring that Wales has a greater share of employment in high-growth, high skill and high value-added industries and occupations and that the provision of quality sites and premises which meet the needs of modern occupiers, such as i[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:35:00 2007 ]s proposed for Capel Bangor, would be an important step towards achieving those aims[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:36:00 2007 ]. He concludes that [Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:16:00 2007 ]-->~~T[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:36:00 2007 ]~~[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:16:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:42:00 2007 ]t[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:16:00 2007 ]he provision of quality job opportunities would [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:36:00 2007 ]assist[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:37:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:36:00 2007 ]in enabling local people, especially young people, to remain in the area, which would in turn help to support local communities and the Welsh language.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:37:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:34:00 2007 ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 15:02:00 2007 ]Community Impact Assessment[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:37:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

Due to the large scale nature of the proposal and following further consultation with the LPA it has been agreed that a brief Community Impact Assessment (CIA) be undertaken [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:38:00 2007 ]~~I[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:39:00 2007 ]~~[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:17:00 2007 ]in[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:17:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:38:00 2007 ]accordance with Policy CER1.1 of the UDP.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:39:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:42:00 2007 ] As the detailed Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on CIAs is still under preparation the following has been compiled having regard to Appendix 2 of the UDP[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:39:00 2007 ].[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:17:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:39:00 2007 ]
As indicated in Chapter 3[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:41:00 2007 ],[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:18:00 2007 ] the proposal for a business park on this site in Capel Bangor fully accords with the allocation of the land as a Key Strategic employment site for the north of the County to meet its future long term needs. [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:41:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:42:00 2007 ]The [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:41:00 2007 ]proposal[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:42:00 2007 ],[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:41:00 2007 ] therefore, accords with the overall strategy of the UDP in relation to the scale and distribution of employment. It will result in the following impacts on the existing community.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:42:00 2007 ]

Transportation[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:43:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:42:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:43:00 2007 ]

The overall impact of the proposal in terms of traffic generation is insignificant (see Chapter 9) and the proposed access arrangements from the A44 (T) will have ample capacity even allowing for growth up to 2019. [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:43:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:46:00 2007 ]Additionally, the access arrangements will have the benefit of reducing traffic speeds, and thereby increasing road safety, on this relatively straight section of the A44 (T) [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:43:00 2007 ]to the north of the site. A further benefit of the proposal is that although existing bus provision is sufficient to cater for the site its development could stimulate improvements to this mode of public transport provision.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:48:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:49:00 2007 ]

Infrastructure/Services[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:49:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:46:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:49:00 2007 ]

It is clear from the information in Chapter 7 that the implementation of the proposed development will result in improvements to the existing electricity, telecommunications and water supply apparatus which will need to be upgraded to accommodate the proposal. Furthermore, in relation to foul drainage, the existing system comprising of a network of septic tanks and cesspits which in one location includes a basic bacterial filter, provides inadequate treatment and is clearly not suitable to accommodate the proposal. In this respect the provision of a modern WWTW with strict controls over noise and odour and sufficient capacity to cope with both flows from the proposed development and from the village represents a significant community benefit. This presents an opportunity to implement a modern foul drainage system to serve the settlement, thereby helping to overcome the current problems associated with the outdated system.

Employment Opportunities[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:56:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:55:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:56:00 2007 ]

There will be a significant positive impact as a result of the proposal which will lead to the creation of between 700 - 1100 jobs. Many of these jobs will be quality jobs in high value-added industries. As such there will be an associated reduction in unemployment rates, increase in skill and income levels, as well as a positive impact on demographics due to the increased ability to attract people of working age and significantly increase the retention of such people. These changes will, in turn, help to support local communities and the Welsh language. Whilst the benefits will be felt throughout the County, it is clear that the most direct impact in this respect will be on the settlement of Capel Bangor, thereby facilitating the enhancement of the existing range of services and community life, and allowing the settlement to become more vibrant and self-contained.

Local [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:59:00 2007 ]Business[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:59:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:59:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:59:00 2007 ]

The proposal [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 11:59:00 2007 ]will provide a significant opportunity for local retailers as well as other businesses to increase their trade.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:00:00 2007 ] This impact will be realised during the construction phase through site contractors utilising local outlets and on a more permanent basis once the site is operational through employees and customers of the firms who occupy the business park.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:01:00 2007 ]
In addition, the long term growth of the settlement[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:02:00 2007 ],[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:20:00 2007 ] coupled with the increased retention of people of working age[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:02:00 2007 ],[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:20:00 2007 ] will help to support [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:02:00 2007 ]and sustain [Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:20:00 2007 ]local businesses[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:02:00 2007 ] and community facilities[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:20:00 2007 ] further.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:02:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:05:00 2007 ]

[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:20:00 2007 ]Culture [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:06:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:05:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:06:00 2007 ]

The long term growth of the settlement, as outlined above, will also have cultural benefits, allowing the settlement to become more self-contained, thereby improving community life[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:06:00 2007 ]~~,[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:06:00 2007 ]~~[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:21:00 2007 ] and[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:21:00 2007 ] the future patronage and deliverability of community facilities, as well as helping to [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:06:00 2007 ]support[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:07:00 2007 ] [Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:06:00 2007 ]the Welsh language.[Author ID0: at ]

Bridleway 14/4[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:07:00 2007 ]

Whilst the development will result in the diversion of this bridleway, the diverted route will be provided to a far higher standard than the existing route.[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:07:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

Flooding[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:08:00 2007 ]

As detailed in Chapter 12, the proposed development will not increase the risk of flooding to existing properties.[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:44:00 2007 ]

[Author ID5: at Thu Jun 14 12:09:00 2007 ]16.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

16.1 Ecology

16.1.1 Table 16.1 summarises the assessment process for construction. These impacts will be managed by the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and habitat creation.

Table 16.1 Ecological Impact Assessment during Construction

Key Ecological Receptor	Evaluation	Impact Magnitude	Impact Significance
*Habitats*
Afon Melindwr	County	Neutral	No Impact
Afon Rheidol	National	Negative	Moderate
Semi-improved/Improved grassland	Parish	Negative	Minor
Hedgerows	District	Negative	Minor
*Species*
Bats	Regional	Negative	Moderate
Badgers	Parish	Negative	Minor
Birds	Parish	Negative	Minor

16.2 Noise

Potential key construction activities, which may arise as a result of the development are considered to include:

Installation of services and drainage;
Construction of asphalt access roads on-site;
Development of Offices; and,
Construction of Warehouses for B8 use.

When considering the proximity of existing residential dwellings in the vicinity of the development site, it is considered unlikely that significant long term noise impacts will arise during the construction phase of this development, although there is likely to be the potential for short term noise impacts to occur.

Assessment of Impact Significance

It should be noted that impact magnitude, i.e. potential noise level change, cannot be accurately predicted in the absence of details regarding construction activities and techniques. Consequently, the terms `no significant increase, slight, moderate, substantial and severe' as assigned to each development phase, do not reflect the noise level changes in dB(A), described previously, but are based upon judgements regarding the nature, location and sensitivity of the receptor. The assessment assumes that no construction works will be undertaken at night and limited works will be undertaken at weekends.
Potential impacts of significance are identified as follows:

Installation of services and drainage - Moderate Adverse.
Construction of asphalt access roads on-site - Moderate Adverse.
Development of offices - Moderate Adverse.
Construction of Warehouses - Neutral/ Minor Adverse.

Impacts to specific identified receptors during the construction phase are expected to be relatively short-term in duration, although the exact duration over which impacts might arise are not yet known. During the construction period, impacts of neutral/moderate adverse significance are likely to be anticipated at local receptors.
Given the absence of detailed information regarding construction methods and programmes, it is recommended that `Best Practicable Means' be employed to minimise construction impacts, including, for example:

Careful selection of working methods and programme;
Selecting the quietest working equipment available e.g. electric/battery powered equipment, which is generally quieter than petrol/diesel powered;
Using regularly maintained and appropriately silenced equipment;
Shutting down of equipment when not in use i.e. maintaining a `no idling policy';
Positioning of equipment behind physical barriers, i.e. existing features, hoarding etc.;
Directing noise emissions from plant, including exhausts or engines, away from sensitive locations;
Handling all materials in a manner which minimises noise;
Switching all audible warning systems to the minimum setting required by the Health and Safety Executive.

Preparation of an Environmental Management Plan for reference throughout the construction phase will also assist in identifying potential impacts and provide specific mitigation measures where considered necessary.
Given the scale of the development it is recommended that, once detailed construction information regarding programme phasing and plant becomes available, CCC is consulted in order to determine whether a full construction noise assessment is required. Any assessment should assist in ensuring that construction noise does not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties, and should identify specific mitigation measures where appropriate.
Mitigation could also include an application for "Prior Consent for Work on Construction Sites" under s. 61 of the Control of Pollution Act (COPA) 1974. CCC is provided with powers under COPA to control noise from construction sites where necessary, including serving notices under s.60 to abate noise nuisance.

16.3 Air

The development proposal has the potential to give rise to air quality impacts during the construction of structures and subsequent operation of the developments. Potentially significant impacts during the construction phase are associated with dust generating activities in close proximity to potentially sensitive receptors in and around the site, and access roads and movements of plant accessing and operating on the site.
Fugitive dust and particulate emissions may arise from any of the following activities:

Demolition and site clearance;
Concrete crushing;
Earthworks;
Handling and disposal of spoil;
Windblow from piles of particulate material;
Concrete batching;
Movement of vehicles, both on and off site; and
Handling of ballast.

The quantity and distribution of construction dust and particulate emissions will be widely variable, depending on factors such as the type, duration and location of activity, weather conditions and the effectiveness of suppression measures. Activities during the course of construction may be subject to change as requirements evolve. It is therefore difficult to predict emissions with any degree of certainty and conventional modelling tools are of limited use.
Contractors will be directed to use best engineering practices to reduce and minimise dust emissions during the construction phases. Dust can be generated from earth moving, stockpiling of raw materials, movement of construction vehicles over unsurfaced roads and concrete batching plants. It is considered that the extent of dust nuisance will be localised to access roads and construction zones and will therefore affect local receptors in the short term. Construction contract conditions with reference to the Building Research Establishment, 2000 guidance will ensure that dust is controlled to acceptable levels.
Locations where members of the public are regularly present are considered to be the most sensitive in terms of air quality, since it is at these locations that individuals will be most likely to be exposed to any pollutants emitted from a pollution source
Although no dust nuisance criteria have been formally adopted in the UK, most non-toxic dusts will begin to be perceived as a nuisance when dust levels reach 200 mg.m^-2.day^-1. This figure is based on an annual deposition rate and represents the threshold for significant nuisance, although a range of criteria from 133 to 350 mg.m^-2.day^-1 is found in the literature.
Levels of dust deposition in various parts of the UK have been monitored over a number of years. Typical deposition rates have been assigned for a variety of locations, ranging from rural to urban and industrial. Typical long term average dust deposition rates for urban areas are in the range 48-90 mg.m^-2.day^-1.
It is proposed that construction traffic will only access the construction site area from the A44 and it is predicted that the magnitude of impact from construction traffic on the existing base traffic flow of the A44 will be negligible. The impact of construction traffic on sensitive receptors is therefore likely to be insignificant in the context of the UKAQS objectives.

[Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:24:00 2007 ]

17.0 TABLE SUMMARISING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Element	Baseline	Impact of Development	Mitigation (if required)
Planning Policy	Site allocated for employment development in--> [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:47:00 2007 ]-->~~Deposit~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:46:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:47:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:46:00 2007 ]UDP	Development in conformity with -->~~emerging~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:47:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:47:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:47:00 2007 ]UDP planning policy and emerging Aberystwyth Masterplan[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:47:00 2007 ]
Transportation
Traffic Flows		Increase by 13% by 2019
Vehicular access to site - new junction to be provided	No suitable access present	Speed of through traffic reduced, improving road safety	New junction design proposed which has ample capacity for predicted traffic growth
Bus Links	Area served by bus service	Existing provision will be sufficient to cater for site
Cycling Links	No existing connection to National Cycle Network route 81	Connection required and provided	-->~~None required~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:47:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:47:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:47:00 2007 ]
Walking Links	Footpath adjacent to main road	Pedestrian link required and provided	-->~~None required~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:48:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:48:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:48:00 2007 ]
DRAINAGE
Surface / storm water	Overland discharge in south-westerly direction	Drainage system required to restrict water run-off to `green field' run-off rate	Underground gravity drainage system and storage lagoons to be constructed.
HYDROLOGY
Flooding - Afon Rheidol	No risks associated directly	None	-->~~None required~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:50:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:50:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:50:00 2007 ]
Flooding - Afon Melindwr	-->~~Site subject to minor flooding from Melindwr over the A44(T)~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:48:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:48:00 2007 ]No risks associated directly[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:48:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:48:00 2007 ]	-->~~Flooding would continue at current levels and frequency~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:48:00 2007 ]None[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:48:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:48:00 2007 ]	-->~~Cut-off ditch to be provided adjacent to the A44(T) to alleviate flooding to site~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:50:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:50:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:50:00 2007 ]
SERVICES
Electricity	Power provided by existing 11kV overhead line	Demand between 2.5MVa and 3.8MVa. Supply via nearby 33kV overhead line..	11kV overhead cable to be diverted/grounded to facilitate development
Telecommunication	Local exchange		Supply tailored to match requirements of development
Gas	No apparatus in local area	May be demand for supply	Supply would need to be provided if required
Water	Water mains adjacent to site	-->~~Insufficient spare capacity in mains to cater for development~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:50:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:50:00 2007 ]Existing supply to village not sufficient to cater for development[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:50:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:50:00 2007 ]	-->~~Additional alternative source required~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:51:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:51:00 2007 ]Enhanced supply to be provided from nearest pumping[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:51:00 2007 ] main with sufficient capacity[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:53:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:51:00 2007 ]
Sewage	Settlement uses septic tanks /cesspits. Nearest mains connection 2.5km away	Existing system is impractical and unsustainable for development.	New Waste Water Treatment Works to be provided. Will serve -->~~both~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:53:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:53:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:53:00 2007 ]development and provide sufficient capacity to serve the [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:53:00 2007 ]local community in the future[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:54:00 2007 ]
Landscape / Visual
Character Areas	Northern slopes of Rheidol/ Melindwr valley	No Change
	Capel Bangor settlement	Slight Adverse Impact	Landscape Buffer Zone between the Site and Melindwr Terrace
	Western slopes of hillside, east of proposed site	No Change
	Glan Rheidol and surrounds	No Change
	Rheidol Valley river corridor	Moderate Adverse Impact	Significant area of new tree planting

[Author ID3: at Tue Jun 26 11:23:00 2007 ]

Ecology
SSSI	Fluvial geo-morphological and biological features	WWTW not located in SSSI, connecting pipes underground in SSSI. No impact on long-term interests of SSSI[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:54:00 2007 ]	-->~~No impact on long-term interests of SSSI~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:54:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:54:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:54:00 2007 ]
Hedgerows	4-5 hedgerows in site are of conservation importance	Loss of 3 existing hedgerows and impact on further 3. Minor negative impact	Strategic planting scheme
Bats	Trees on eastern edge of area used for summer roosts. Hedgerows used for foraging	No bat roosts lost. Provision of new habitat will provide increased feeding and commuting opportunities	-->~~None required~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ]Strategic planting [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ]schem[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ]e will provide new habitat-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ]
Birds	Hedgerows provide cover and nesting opportunities. Intensively managed pasture of limited value.	Woodland planting will provide increase in nesting and feeding opportunities.	-->~~None required except~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ]Strategic planting [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ]scheme[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ] will provide nesting/feeding opportunities-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ]
Badgers	Area used for foraging	Loss of peripheral territory / foraging habitat. Minor / no impact	Provision of some native fruiting plant species in strategic planting scheme[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ]
Afon Melindwr		No impact from the potential for increase run-off or spillages
WWTW		Main unit sited outside SSSI
ARCHAEOLOGY / BUILT HERITAGE	No apparent significant archaeological material present	Removal of some field boundaries	Recording of existing field boundaries
GEOLOGY / GEOTECHNICS
Ground conditions	Undeveloped farmland		Foundations design recommended
Contaminated land	Classified as Uncontaminated	But precautionary measures to be prepared-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ]	Precautionary method statement-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:56:00 2007 ]
Radon	British Geological Survey requires that site is allocated for full radon protection measures in any future development		Full radon protection measures required
Arsenic	Existing levels between 3 and 17mg/kg. Well below CLEA threshold of 500mg/kg.	None[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:55:00 2007 ] but precautionary measures to be prepared[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:56:00 2007 ]	-->~~None required~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:56:00 2007 ]Precautionary method statement[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:56:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:56:00 2007 ]
Noise
Road Traffic Off-Site	Key noise source in area is the main road	Neutral effect	-->~~None required~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:57:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:57:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:57:00 2007 ]
Vehicular Traffic On-Site		Moderate Adverse	-->~~None required~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:57:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:57:00 2007 ]Mitigation to be provided in detailed design stage and will include landscaping to provide buffer, appropriate siting of potentially noisy operations/activities and/or suitable acoustic treatment and control of delivery operations[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:57:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:57:00 2007 ]
Operational Noise from proposed B1, B2 and B8 use.		Moderate to Minor Adverse	-->~~None required~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:57:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:57:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:58:00 2007 ]Mitigation to be provided in detailed design stage and will include landscaping to provide buffer, appropriate siting of potentially noisy operations/activities and/or suitable acoustic treatment and control of delivery operations[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:59:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:57:00 2007 ]
Air
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂)		Insignificant / None	-->~~None required~~[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:59:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:59:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 13:59:00 2007 ]
Particulate Matter (PM₁₀)		Insignificant / None	[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:00:00 2007 ]
-->S[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:02:00 2007 ]OCIO[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:03:00 2007 ]--> [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:02:00 2007 ]ECONOMIC[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:03:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID0: at ]	-->An increasing but ageing population with lower than average economic activity rates[Author ID0: at ]	-->Creation of 700+ jobs and increased retention of working age population[Author ID0: at ]	-->None[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:02:00 2007 ]
-->CONSTRUCTION[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:02:00 2007 ]
Ecology	Habitats (Bats, Badgers, Birds)	Inevitable short-term disturbance and loss of habitat. Moderate to minor negative impact during construction	Appropriate measures and habitat creation for long-term mitigation
WWTW		Bankside habitat Impacts. Localised erosion. Potential for impacts to hedgerows. Potential for silt generation and pollution during construction.	Consultation with CCW and Environment Agency to ensure that a least damaging option is chosen for the location of an outfall. Re-instate bankside vegetation. Soft engineering (eg willow raddling to prevent erosion). Follow good working practices close to water courses. Method to be agreed with Welsh Environment Agency.
Air		Potential dust	Best engineering practices to reduce and minimise
Noise		Potential neutral/moderate adverse impact	Best practicable means employed to minimise impacts

Figure 1.1

Strategic Location Plan

Figure 1.2

Site Location Plan

Figure 1.3a[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:05:00 2007 ]

Masterplan

Figure 4.1[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:05:00 2007 ]

Proposed Junction Layout

[Author ID0: at ]

Figure 4.2[Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:05:00 2007 ]

WASTE WATER TREATMENT WORKS AND OUTFALL ARRANGEMENT[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:06:00 2007 ] [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:05:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:07:00 2007 ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:05:00 2007 ]

Figure 5.1

Habitat Plan

Figure 5.2

Hedgerow Survey

Figure 5.3

Bat Survey

Figure 6.1

Storage lagoon cross-section[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:06:00 2007 ]

[Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:58:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID6: at Fri Oct 5 15:59:00 2007 ]

-->FIGURE 6.2[Author ID0: at ][Author ID0: at ]

-->[Author ID0: at ][Author ID0: at ]

-->RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE WITH CCW[Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:58:00 2007 ][Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:59:00 2007 ]-->[Author ID5: at Fri Oct 5 09:59:00 2007 ]

Figure 7.1

Statutory Services[Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:07:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID0: at ]

Figure 7.2[Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID0: at ]

indicative future foul sewer connections for residential properties[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:08:00 2007 ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:07:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID0: at ]

Figure 7.3[Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:08:00 2007 ]

wwtw cross-section[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:11:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:08:00 2007 ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:07:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID0: at ]

Figure 7.4[Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:08:00 2007 ]

surface water and foul water sewers[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:11:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:08:00 2007 ]

[Author ID0: at ]

Figure 8.1[Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID0: at ]

visual envelope[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:12:00 2007 ]

Figure 8.2

Landscape and Planning Context

Figure 8.3[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:12:00 2007 ]

Historic Landscape Context

Figure 10.1[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:12:00 2007 ]

Archaeological Trial Trenching

Figure 10.2[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:13:00 2007 ]

Archaeological Topographical

Figure 12.1

Existing 1 in 100 yr flood

Figure 12.2

extract from tan15 development advice map[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:13:00 2007 ]

[Author ID0: at ]

Figure 12.3[Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID0: at ]

topographical survey[Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID0: at ]

Figure [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:13:00 2007 ]12.4-12.7[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:14:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:13:00 2007 ]

modelled floodplains[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:15:00 2007 ][Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:13:00 2007 ]

Figure 13.1

Noise receptors

Figure 14.1

Air Quality Receptors

Appendix 1

Aberystwyth Strategic Site Feasibility Study (July 2000)

Appendix 2

DTZ Economic Needs Assessment

Appendix 3

Ecology

Appendix 4

Landscape and Visual Assessment

Appendix 5

Transportation Impact Assessment

Appendix 6

Archaeology Report

APPENDIX 7

GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS

Appendix 8

Noise Report

Appendix 9

Air Quality Assessment

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:20:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:20:00 2007 ]

Appendix [Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:20:00 2007 ]10[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ] [Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:20:00 2007 ]

dtz updated economic needs assessment[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:20:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ]

Appendix 11 [Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID0: at ]

flood consequences assessment[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:20:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ]

Appendix 12 [Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID0: at ]

supplementary ground investigation report[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ] aND LETTER[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:20:00 2007 ][Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ]

Appendix 13 [Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ]

agricultural land classification report[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:22:00 2007 ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ]

[Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ]

Appendix 14 [Author ID0: at ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ]

CONTAMINATION METHOD STATEMENT[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:22:00 2007 ]

[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:21:00 2007 ]

0x01 graphic

Capel Bangor Environmental Statement (Addendum)
September 2007

Capel Bangor Environmental Statement (Addendum)
September[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:25:00 2007 ] 2007	56

Capel Bangor Environmental Statement (Addendum)
September 2007	99

0x01 graphic
[Author ID2: at Thu Sep 13 14:24:00 2007 ]

Capel Bangor Environmental Statement (Addendum)
September 2007	102

PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK

CAPEL BANGOR, ABERYSTWYTH, CEREDIGION

ADDENDUM (REPLACEMENT) ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

COPYRIGHT The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of RPS Planning, & Development