17. cumulative effects assessment - embankment, cardiff

17.1

17. Cumulative Effects Assessment

Introduction

17.1 This Chapter reports the assessment of cumulative effects arising from the Proposed Scheme, in line with Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(e) of the EIA Regulations1, which states the need to consider the following:

‘the cumulation of effects with other existing and/or approved projects, taking into account any existing environmental problems relating to areas of particular environmental importance likely to be affected or the use of natural resources’.

17.2 To accord with the EIA Regulations, the following types of cumulative effects have been considered within the EIA:

• Effect interactions: the interaction of environmental effects of the Proposed Scheme affecting the same receptor either within the Site or surrounding area; and

• In-combination interactions: the combination of environmental effects of the Proposed Scheme and Approved Projects affecting the same receptor.

17.3 At present, there is no widely accepted current methodology or best practice for the assessment of cumulative effects. As such, the methodology has been based on previous experience and knowledge at Turley, the types of receptors being assessed and the nature of the Proposed Scheme.

Assessment Methodology

17.4 The assessment of effect interactions is largely qualitative in nature. The assessment of in-combination effects has a combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment, with the latter linked to the assessment of wind; daylight, sunlight and overshadowing; and traffic related effects (noise and emissions).

17.5 The assessment of effect interactions is based on information contained within this ES. The assessment of in-combination effects is based on publically available information, derived from the technical reporting submitted in support of the planning applications for the Approved Projects and specific modelling in relation to the topics outlined above.

17.6 The approach to the assessment of both effect interactions and in-combination effects is set out in the following sections.

Effect Interactions 17.7 Following the completion of the Technical Chapters 6 – 16, the residual effects were

collated into a matrix (Tables 17.2 and 17.3) so that effect interactions on common

17.2

receptors1 could be identified. Where a residual effect was concluded in Technical Chapters 6 – 16 to be negligible, then this was excluded from the matrix. This is on the basis that a negligible residual effect is unlikely to cause a noticeable change at a receptor or the receptor is not considered sensitive to a change.

17.8 Where residual effects were considered to be ‘minor’ or greater, the receptors were categorised into receptor categories, defined by the ‘factors’ categories outlined in Schedule 4, Paragraph 4 of the EIA Regulations. The threshold has been set at ‘minor’ as this is considered to address the potential for a number of effects which are not considered significant to a receptor becoming significant when they are considered together.

17.9 Where the level of effect identified within Technical Chapters 6 – 16 ranged across receptors assessed, the worst case level of effect was included in Tables 17.2 and 17.3. If no residual effects for a receptor group were identified, these were not included in Tables 17.2 and 17.3.

17.10 Where effect interactions were identified, a qualitative appraisal was undertaken for the relevant receptor categories. The qualitative evaluation at the receptor level considered the following:

• Combined magnitude of change;

• Sensitivity/value/importance of the receptor/receiving environment to change; or/and

• Duration and reversibility of effect.

In-Combination Effects 17.11 The assessment of potential in-combination effects has followed a two-step approach

as detailed below.

Step 1: Identification of Approved Projects for Consideration 17.12 In order to inform potential Approved Projects, a high level review of planning

applications submitted to CC between January 2017 and November 20202 was undertaken in November, 2020 to identify potential projects that could give rise to in-combination interactions with the Proposed Scheme.

17.13 In line with the EIA Regulations, this search was focused on existing or Approved Projects and therefore is not inclusive of sites allocated within local plans, core strategy documents or supplementary planning documents. As such the following criterion was used to identify applicable projects for consideration of in-combination effects:

1 The common sensitive receptors considered within this assessment are those which are assessed within two or more of the technical assessments within the ES. 2 It is anticipated that application(s) prior to this date will already have been built out and/or where a subsequent application(s) has been submitted this would be captured within the search dates.

17.3

• Permitted application(s) either under construction or not yet implemented (unless identified as part of the baseline of technical assessment work);

• Submitted application(s) not yet determined but have the potential to be determined prior to the submission of the Proposed Scheme;

• All refusals subject to appeal procedures not yet determined but have the potential to be determined prior to the submission of the Proposed Scheme; and

• The project being of a relevant scale, the minimum threshold for this has been projects that have been or would be considered Schedule 2 developments within the EIA Regulations, at which there is a potential for ‘likely significant effects’. It is recognised that such a threshold needs to be applied with caution.

17.14 In the application of these criteria, if a planning application was not supported by an ES it has been assumed that CC has undertaken a screening exercise upon receipt of the application or issued a screening opinion and concluded that an ES is not required.

17.15 Table 17.1 contains the identified Approved Projects for assessment of in-combination effects. The location of the Approved Projects with respect to the Proposed Scheme is defined in Figure 17.1. This list was included within the EIA Scoping Report and submitted to CC (Appendix 2.1) along with the approach and methodology to be adopted within the ES. This was subsequently agreed with officers.

17.16 The relevant Approved Projects have been appraised as part of the assessment of in-combination effects on a topic by topic basis, where necessary informed by the technical reporting which supported the respective applications.

17.17 In addition, relevant Approved Projects also fed into the quantitative modelling for wind, daylight, sunlight and overshadowing.

17.18 The approach to the assessment of traffic related effects (traffic noise and emissions from traffic) has been based on traffic data provided by traffic flows provided by Stantec. Vehicle emissions have been calculated using the TRICS (Trip Rate Information Computer System) database for each of the proposed land uses across the Site, in conjunction with Journey to Work (JtW) 2011 Census data. The survey data used were selected based on similar characteristics to, but not specifically of, the Proposed Scheme and the Approved Projects in Table 17.1.

17.4

Table 17.1: List of approved projects for assessment of in-combination effects

ID Planning Application Reference

Address Name of Development

Description of Development Status (based on information available as of November, 2020)

1 20/00262/MNR Part Of Canal Park Adjacent To Cardiff And Vale College, Dumballs Road, Butetown, Cardiff, CF10 5FE

Land at Canal Park

Construction of 3G pitch with floodlighting and spectator seating plus changing facilities with external pathways all within fenced enclosure

Approved November 2020

2 20/00384/MJR Cardiff And Vale College, Dumballs Road, Butetown, Cardiff, CF10 5FE

Cardiff and Vale College

Construction of multi-use games area sports pitches with airdome cover plus changing pavilion and amendments to parking layout

Approved August 2020

3 19/01930/MJR Crawshay Court, 6 Curran Road, Butetown, Cardiff, CF10 5TG

Crawshay Court 188 unit apartment building with ancillary areas, parking, public open space, A1/A3 unit(s) and a residents roof terrace

Live Application

4 19/02851/MJR Site Adjacent To St Mary The Virgin Church, Bute Street, Butetown, Cardiff

Site adjacent to St Mary the Virgin Church

New build 2 form entry primary school & flying start and special resource base to replace existing St Mary the Virgin ciw primary school

Approved May 2020

5 20/00102/MJR The Brewery, Crawshay Street, Butetown, Cardiff, CF10 5DS

The Brewery Refurbishment and extensions to former brewhouse for a mixed-use development and retention of associated chimney

Approved May 2020

6 19/03171/MJR Land at Brains Brewery, Crawshay Street,

Land at Brains Brewery

19/03171/MJR – variation of condition 2 of 18/00735/MJR to vary approved drawings to reduce the scale of the approved office building

Approved March 2020

https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_CARDIFF_DCAPR_130157

https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage





17.5




Butetown, Cardiff, CF10 5DS

18/00735/MJR - full planning application for an office building providing business (use class B1) floorspace, with ancillary gym (use class D2), marketplace / retail (use class A1) and food and drink (use class A3) uses; a multi-storey car park (sui generis) with ancillary retail (use class A1); and public realm, access, drainage and other infrastructure works required for the delivery of central quay (Phase 1)

7 20/00204/MJR 1, 2 and 3-7 Percy Street and 50 Penarth Road, Butetown, Cardiff, CF10 5GP

1,2 and 3-7 Percy Street and 50 Penarth Road

Demolition of former BMW car showroom, workshop and offices along with five residential units fronting onto Percy Street

Prior Approval Granted March 2020

8 19/02140/MJR Site of Former Marland House And NCP Car Park, Central Square, Cardiff

Site of Former Marland House and NCP Car park

Section 73 application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) of 18/01705/MJR for internal alterations to enable an increase in the number of residential apartments and associated minor alterations to elevations

Approved October 2019

9 17/01906/MJR Custom House, Custom House Street And Former York Hotel, City Centre, Cardiff, CF10 1AP

Former Custom House, Custom House Street and Former York Hotel, City Centre

Redevelopment of the site to provide a 248-bed hotel (class C1) and ancillary restaurant (class A3), including partial demolition of the custom house, retention and restoration of the custom house facade, demolition of the former York Hotel and associated access, parking and ancillary works

Approved November 2017


https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_CARDIFF_DCAPR_129050

https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_CARDIFF_DCAPR_120968&activeTab=summary

17.6




10 17/02615/MJR Land On The North And South Side Of John Street, Callaghan Square, Butetown, Cardiff

Land on the north and south side of John Street

Hybrid application comprising of full application for the proposed mixed use commercial building on the south site No.1 John Street outline application proposed mixed use commercial & leisure hotel for the north site No.2 John Street. Including associated parking, public realm and landscape works.

Approved April 2018

11 18/02634/MJR Plot J, Capital Quarter, Tyndall Street, Atlantic Wharf

Plot J, Capital Quarter, Tyndall Street, Atlantic Wharf

Full planning application for 307 private rented sector (PRS) units and associated works

Approved August 2019

12 17/01292/MJR Land At Suffolk House, Trade Street, Butetown, Cardiff, CF10 5DT

Land at Suffolk House, Trade Street

Outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and re-development of the site for new student residential accommodation

Approved May 2018

13 19/02684/MJR 1 East Bay Close, Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff, CF10 4BA

1 East Bay Close, Atlantic Wharf

Variation of condition 2 of 17/01300/MJR (approved plans) to alter configuration and increase no of approved units from 711 to 728, minor elevational alterations and slight reduction of building footprint

Approved March 2020

14 20/01543/MJR Land North-East Of Dumballs Road, Cardiff (Including The Anchor Industrial Estate And The Old Test House)

Land north-east of Dumballs Road

Demolition of existing industrial units and erection of mixed use development comprising residential apartments arranged over two buildings including indoor and outdoor shared amenity spaces for residential use, a public square, on-site parking, ground floor commercial units potentially comprising use classes A1/A2/A3 and associated landscaping and engineering works.

Live Application



https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?previousCaseType=Property&keyVal=_CARDIFF_DCAPR_120309&previousCaseNumber=_CARDIFF_PROPLPI_17525_1&previousCaseUprn=100100890577&activeTab=summary&previousKeyVal=_CARDIFF_PROPLPI_17525_1



17.7




15 18/02383/MJR Former Browning Jones and Morris, Dumballs Road, Butetown, Cardiff, CF10 5FE

Former Browning Jones and Morris

Application under section 73 to vary conditions 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 29, 37 and 38 of planning permission 17/02404/MJR granted 29th June 2018 to amend the timing of demolition, building design and proposed quantum of commercial uses at former Browning Jones & Morris, Dumballs Road, Butetown, Cardiff, CF10 5FE Description of application 17/02404/MJR as follows: Demolition of existing warehouse and erection of 206 residential flats over two buildings with associated public square, 4 no. commercial units potentially comprising a1/a2/a3/b1 uses, parking, residents roof terrace and public realm works.

Approved February 2019


17.8

Step 2: Assessment of In-Combination Effects 17.19 Although a number of Approved Projects have been identified (Table 17.1), it does not

conclude that all Approved Projects will exhibit in-combination effects with the Proposed Scheme. In addition, as identified above, for an in-combination effect to arise, a common receptor(s) is required between the Approved Project(s) and the Proposed Scheme. To this end, it is necessary to establish where common receptors exist. As such, receptors considered within the Technical Chapters 6 – 16 have been considered.

17.20 The qualitative or/and quantitative evaluation at the receptor level considered the following:

• Combined magnitude of change;

• Sensitivity/value/importance of the receptor/receiving environment to change; or/and

• Duration and reversibility of effect.

17.21 Through a combination of evaluation and mitigation presented in the ES, conclusions have been drawn as to the likelihood for significant in-combination environmental effects.

17.9

Assessment of Effect Interactions

17.22 Table 17.2 and 17.3 detail those receptor categories where residual effects were identified within Technical Chapters 6 – 16 for the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Scheme, respectively.

17.23 All Technical Chapters have clearly identified sensitive receptors and these have been grouped into common categories for further consideration.

Table 17.2: Matrix of Effect Interactions (Construction Phase)

Effects Population and Human Health

Biodiversity Landscape Climate Water

Chapter 6. Socio Economics and Human Health

Creation of direct, indirect and induced employment during construction

Minor beneficial

Economic productivity generated (measured as Gross Value Added)

Moderate beneficial

Chapter 7. Townscape and Visual

Changes to townscape character within the Site and study area Minor adverse Minor adverse

Changes to land use within the Site and study area Minor adverse Minor adverse

Changes to landscape character within the surrounding study area Minor adverse Minor adverse

Changes to site character Minor adverse Minor adverse

17.10



Change to the character and amenity of the view Negligible to

Moderate adverse3

Negligible to

Moderate adverse 4

Chapter 9. Biodiversity

Habitat loss / degradation / severance / fragmentation Minor beneficial

Loss, severance and fragmentation of riverine habitat used for resting, foraging or commuting Minor beneficial

Loss of roosting site, potential holts, lay-ups and shelters Minor beneficial

Chapter 11. Air Quality

Changes to pollutant concentrations resulting from traffic generated by the Proposed Scheme during construction and operation

Minor adverse

Chapter 12. Noise and Vibration

Noise from construction phases Minor adverse

Chapter 13. Ground Conditions and Contamination

Pollution of Land and Groundwater Contamination During Construction Phase

Minor adverse Minor adverse

Chapter 16. Climate Change

3 This effect represents the range of the residual effects represented in Table 7.3 of Chapter 7. Townscape and Visual, and the collective assessment of multiple viewpoints. Further detailed assessment for each viewpoint is provided in Chapter 7. Townscape and Visual. 4 As the footnote above.

17.11



Scope 1 Emissions (direct emissions from combustion of fuels on site) Minor adverse

Scope 2 Emissions (indirect emissions from purchased electricity)

Minor adverse

Scope 3 Emissions (indirect emissions from embodied carbon from purchased materials) Minor adverse

Effect Interaction 17.24 The following Technical Chapters did not identify effects considered likely to be significant and therefore requiring cumulative assessment, or did

not identify any residual effects greater than negligible during the construction phase, thus are not included within Table 17.2 above:

• Chapter 8. Built Heritage;

• Chapter 10. Transport and Access;

• Chapter 14. Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing; and

• Chapter 15. Wind Microclimate.

17.25 As identified within Table 17.2 it is anticipated than an effect interaction during the Construction phase is to occur with respect to the Population and Human Health receptors group. Given the urban context of the Site and surrounding area (i.e. presence and concentration of receptors within a confined geographical area); the environmental effects considered within Technical Chapters 6 – 16; and the broadness of receptors that fall within the Population and Human Health receptor group, an effect interaction is not uncommon or unexpected.

17.26 Residual effects considered within Table 17.2 were identified and considered (in isolation) within Chapter 6. Socio-Economics and Human Health, Chapter 7. Townscape and Visual, Chapter 11. Air Quality, Chapter 12. Noise and Vibration and Chapter 13. Ground Conditions and

17.12

Contamination. Analysis of the receptors considered within each Chapter suggests that effect interactions would largely impact upon city centre users5 (generally considered to be transient) and the immediate local community6 (generally considered to be stationary). It should be noted that these two key groups are not mutually exclusive, as residents within the local community can also constitute city centre users when outside of their residence (e.g. commuting to and from work).

17.27 Adverse effects are identified in relation to changes in the views and character of the Site and study area; reductions in air quality and the disturbance from noise experienced by city centre users and the local community; and ground and groundwater contamination in the study area.

17.28 Significant adverse effects in relation to the character and amenity of views during the Construction phase were experienced by seven receptors, being Grangetown Railway Station; Taff Embankment Park / Taff Trail / National Cycle Route 8 view north east); Taff Embankment Park / Taff Trail / National Cycle Route 8 (view south); A4160 bridge over River Taff; Butetown Canal Park; Dumballs Road (view north); and Taff Embankment (south). Effects to these seven receptors were all moderate adverse.

17.29 A significant socio-economic beneficial effect will be experienced by the local community and city centre users, and will interact with the adverse effects. The beneficial effect is associated with the economic productivity generated by the construction of the Proposed Scheme (measured as Gross Value Added).

17.30 Overall, it is clear that there will be effect interactions during the construction phase and it is likely that these will be significant and, in some instances, greater than that considered within the individual Chapters for a limited number of local residents. However, the adverse effects should be considered against the beneficial effects during construction and the longer term benefits when the Proposed Scheme is operational, as set out below.

5 Defined as pedestrians and cyclists travelling to / through the Site; users of the public realm for leisure / business purposes; pedestrians entering / exiting buildings; or general transient receptors using the immediate city centre. 6 Comprising residential and commercial properties that are in the immediate vicinity of the Site and the local and wider impact area (in relation to the economy).

17.13

Table 17.3: Matrix of Effect Interactions (Operational Phase)


Biodiversity Landscape Climate

Chapter 6. Socio-Economics and Human Health

Creation of permanent direct, indirect and induced employment supported by commercial uses once operational

Minor beneficial

Economic productivity generated (measured as Gross Value Added) Moderate beneficial

Expenditure in the economy related to new residents and visitor expenditure

Minor beneficial

Increased number of affordable and market homes Moderate beneficial

Chapter 7. Townscape and Visual

Changes to townscape character within the Site and study area. Moderate beneficial Moderate

beneficial

Changes to urban grain within the Site and study area. Moderate beneficial

Moderate beneficial

Changes to land use within the Site and study area. Moderate beneficial Moderate

beneficial

Changes to landscape character within the surrounding study area. Minor beneficial Minor beneficial

Changes to public open space within the surrounding study area. Moderate beneficial

Moderate beneficial

17.14



Changes to movement and linkages within the surrounding study area.

Moderate beneficial

Moderate beneficial

Changes to site character. Moderate beneficial

Moderate beneficial

Change to the character and amenity of the view. Moderate adverse to Moderate beneficial7

Moderate adverse

to Moderate beneficial8

Chapter 9. Biodiversity

Disturbance from noise / vibration / lighting Minor beneficial

Chapter 10. Transport and Access

Pedestrian Severance Minor adverse

Driver Stress and Delay Minor adverse

Pedestrian Delay Minor adverse

Pedestrian Amenity Minor adverse

Fear and Intimidation and Amenity Minor adverse

Chapter 11. Air Quality

7 This effect represents the range of the residual effects represented in Table 7.3 of Chapter 7. Townscape and Visual, and the collective assessment of multiple viewpoints. Further detailed assessment for each viewpoint is provided in Chapter 7. Townscape and Visual. 8 As the footnote above.

17.15



Changes to pollutant concentrations resulting from traffic generated by the Proposed Scheme during construction and operation

Minor adverse

Chapter 12. Noise and Vibration

Increase in noise due to vehicular movements on the nearby road network – Existing Receptors

Minor adverse

Increase in noise due to operation of the Multi-storey car park Minor adverse

Chapter 13. Ground Conditions and Contamination

Ground Gas Migration and Accumulation in Confined Spaces (Future Users) Minor adverse

Chapter 14. Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing

Reduction in daylight to adjacent existing properties Negligible to

‘Moderate to Major Adverse’9

Reduction in sunlight to adjacent existing properties Negligible to

‘Moderate to Major Adverse’10

9 This effect represents the range of the residual effects represented in Table 14.19 of Chapter 14. Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing, and the collective assessment of multiple receptors. Further detailed assessment for each receptor is provided in Chapter 14. Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing. 10 As the footnote above.

17.16



Reduction in daylight to adjacent future properties Negligible to

Adverse

Reduction in sunlight to adjacent future properties Negligible to Adverse

Chapter 15. Wind Microclimate

LSC Exceedance at the western boundaries of CQ and SH and where wind channels between SH and RE4

Major Adverse prior to detailed design mitigation

LSC Exceedance where wind channels between SH and RE7 Major Adverse prior to detailed design mitigation

LSC Exceedance where wind channelling between RE6 and RE5 / RE7 occurs


LSC Exceedance at the northwest corner of the Site, particularly where RE1 faces into the prevailing wind direction


Chapter 16. Climate Change

Scope 1 Emissions (direct emissions from transport and gas emissions)

Minor adverse

Scope 2 Emissions (indirect emissions from purchased electricity) Minor adverse

17.17



Scope 3 Emissions (indirect emissions from waste and water management and supply)

Minor adverse

Effect Interaction 17.31 The following Technical Chapter did not identify effects considered likely to be significant and therefore requiring cumulative assessment, thus is

not included within Table 17.3 above:

• Chapter 8: Built Heritage.

17.32 As identified within Table 17.3, it anticipated that an effect interaction during the Operational phase is only likely to occur with respect to the Population and Human Health receptors group. As identified above, the identification of such effect interactions on Population and Human Health receptors group is not unexpected.

17.33 Residual effects to Population and Human Health receptors, as identified in Table 17.3 were assessed (in isolation) within Chapter 6. Socio-Economics and Human Health, Chapter 7. Townscape and Visual, Chapter 10. Transport and Access, Chapter 11. Air Quality, Chapter 12. Noise and Vibration, Chapter 13. Ground Conditions and Contamination, Chapter 14. Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing and Chapter 15. Wind Microclimate. Given the effects considered within these technical chapters, effect interactions are considered to impact upon the same two key groups of receptors identified for the construction phase above (i.e. city centre users and the local community).

17.34 The adverse effects identified are limited to the character and amenity of the view from Butetown Canal Park, changes in pollutant concentrations and noise generated by traffic of the Proposed Scheme , the migration and potential for accumulation of ground gas in confined spaces, the reduction of daylight, sunlight to existing and future properties, exceedences of the Lawson Safety Criteria (LSC) and Lawson Comfort Criteria (LCC) with respect to wind speeds, and the generation of direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions.

17.35 Of these adverse effects, significant effects were assessed in relation to changes in the character and amenity of the view from Butetown Canal Park; reductions in daylight and sunlight to multiple existing and future receptors (as discussed in Chapter 14. Daylight, Sunlight and

17.18

Overshadowing); and exceedences of the Lawson Safety Criteria (LSC) and Lawson Comfort Criteria (LCC) with respect to wind speeds at multiple future receptors of the Proposed Scheme, prior to detailed design mitigation (as detailed in Chapter 15. Wind Microclimate).

17.36 Significant beneficial effects were also predicted in relation to the economic productivity generated by the operation of the Proposed Scheme (measured as Gross Value Added); the increase in number of affordable and market homes; and changes to the townscape character, urban grain, land use, public open space, movement and linkages within the surrounding study area, site character and the character and amenity of multiple views (detailed in Chapter 7. Townscape and Visual).

17.37 These effects would additionally interact with a number of beneficial effects which are not significant; being the creation of employment opportunities; expenditure in the economy by new residents and visitors (Chapter 6. Socio-Economics and Human Health); and adherence to the Lawson Safety Criteria and Lawson Comfort Criteria (Chapter 15. Wind Microclimate). It is considered that their interaction would constitute significant beneficial effects which are both significant and greater collectively than that considered within the individual Chapters, primarily as a result of the socio-economic benefits and the improvements to the townscape of the City and views towards it. As the significant adverse effects are assessed in relation to separate receptor groups, adverse effects at the Operational phase are unlikely to be greater than that considered within the individual Chapters.

17.19

Assessment of In-combination Effects

17.38 As set out under the Assessment Methodology, a shortlist of Approved Projects was identified for consideration. These have been considered alongside the Proposed Scheme with respect to in-combination effects. The Approved Projects are listed in Table 17.1 and all have been considered (1-15).

17.39 The assessment of in-combination effects has been set out in line with Technical Chapters 6 – 16.

Socio-Economics and Human Health 17.40 With the exception of Approved Projects 7 and 9, all Approved Projects share common

receptors during the Construction phase of the Proposed Scheme. As a result, they are likely to generate additional employment opportunities and economic productivity in the construction sector in the local and wider impact area, however these in-combination effects are considered to be no greater than that considered at the project level. Approved Project 7 is likely to be completed before the construction of the Proposed Scheme commences, and so no in-combination effects are predicted during this development phase. No common receptors were identified between Approved Project 9 and the Proposed Scheme during the Construction phase.

17.41 At the Operational phase, Approved Projects 3-6, 8, 10, 14 and 15 share common receptors in respect to the generation of employment opportunities and economic productivity in the commercial, office and tourism sectors in both the local and wider impact areas. Based on the medium sensitivity of the receptor, the level of in-combination effect is considered minor beneficial and not significant. In contrast, the in-combination effect on economic productivity from these Approved Projects at the Operational phase is considered moderate beneficial and significant in the local impact area. No common receptors were identified between Approved Projects 1, 2, 7, 9, or 11-13 and the Proposed Scheme for these effects.

17.42 With expenditure from new residents, workers and visitors, the magnitude of change at retail and leisure businesses in the local and wider impact areas is predicted to increase when accounting for the in-combination effect between the Proposed Scheme and Approved Projects 3, 5, 6, and 9-15. As a result, this effect was considered moderate beneficial and significant, however no common receptors were identified between the Proposed Scheme and Approved Projects 1, 2, 4, 7 or 8.

17.43 Where the Proposed Scheme and Approved Projects 3, 8, 11, 14 and 15 propose to increase the number of affordable and market homes available to local residents, a moderate beneficial and significant effect is predicted, due to the high sensitivity of the local residents to the provision of much-needed affordable housing in the local impact area. With these same Approved Projects, the generation of additional residents will increase the demand on local health care infrastructure in-combination with the Proposed Scheme. It is expected that this demand will be mitigated by improvements, funded partly through these developments, so that a negligible in-combination effect would be caused to these health care services, which is not significant.

17.44 An in-combination effect with respect to demands for education services are predicted between the Proposed Scheme and Approved Projects 3, 4, 8, 14 and 15. As above, it is

17.20

expected that this demand will be mitigated by improvements, funded partly through these developments, so that a negligible in-combination effect would be caused, which is not significant.

17.45 Overall, the Approved Projects together with the Proposed Scheme will either increase the beneficial effects as assessed in Chapter 6. Socio-Economics and Human Health, or make no change to their effect level/significance. Where sensitive receptors are shared, in-combination effects range from negligible (not significant) to moderate beneficial (significant).

Townscape and Visual 17.46 Table 17.4 below provides an in-combination assessment of townscape and visual in-

combination effects.

Table 17.4: Townscape and Visual In-Combination Assessment

Approved Project ID

In-combination Assessment

1 No in-combination townscape or visual effects.

2 Viewpoint 911 in-combination visual effects: The construction works of the proposed multi-use games area, sports pitch and airdome will be partially visible and relatively prominent within the foreground of the view, due to the proximity of the Approved Project to the viewpoint location. Due to the relatively minor nature of the construction works in the foreground of the view, the overall magnitude of change is not predicted to increase from ‘minor’ during the construction phase. The in-combination effect is therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level. The Approved Project will form an additional element within the foreground of the view during the operational phase. The form, use scale and massing of the development will contrast with the Proposed Development, with the ‘airdome’ appearing within the view. The Proposed Development will appear similar in form to existing development within the view. The in-combination effect is therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level. There are not predicted to be in-combination townscape effects greater than the effects at project level.

3 Viewpoint 1 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme appears as a minor additional element in the view, and appears consistent in scale and form with the Proposed Development. The in-combination effect during both the construction and operational phases are therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level. Viewpoint 6 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme appears as a major new element within the view, due to the scale of the proposed development and the proximity of the development to the viewpoint location. The Approved Scheme will result in an increase in the magnitude

11 Viewpoint locations are depicted in Figure 7.12.

17.21

Approved Project ID


of change from ‘small’ to ‘medium’ during the construction phase, resulting in a ‘moderate adverse’ effect which is significant. The Approved Scheme will result in the increase in the magnitude of scale from ‘medium’ to ‘large’. The significance of the effect will be unchanged from the project level. The in-combination effect is considered Significant. Viewpoint 8 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme will be partially visible within the view, and will have some visual prominence due to the size and scale of the development. The Approved Scheme will result in an increase in the magnitude of change from ‘negligible’ to ‘small’ during the construction phase. The significance of the effect will be unchanged. The Approved Scheme will result in an increase in the magnitude of change from ‘negligible’ to ‘small’ during the operational phase. The significance of the effect will be unchanged. Viewpoint 15 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme will be partially visible within the view, and will have some visual prominence due to the size and scale of the development. The Approved Scheme will result in an increase in the magnitude of change from ‘negligible’ to ‘small’ during the construction phase. The significance of the effect will be unchanged. The Approved Scheme will result in an increase in the magnitude of change from ‘negligible’ to ‘small’ during the operational phase. The significance of the effect will be unchanged.


5 Viewpoint 15 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme will appear as a minor additional element in the view. The in-combination effect during both the construction and operational phases are therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level.

6 Viewpoint 15 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme will be partially visible within the view, and will have some visual prominence due to the size and scale of the development. The Approved Scheme will result in an increase in the magnitude of change from ‘negligible’ to ‘small’ during the construction phase. The significance of the effect will be unchanged.




10 Viewpoint 1 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme will appear as a very minor additional element in the view. The in-combination effect during both the construction and operational phases are therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level.


12 Viewpoint 1 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme will appear as a very minor additional element in the view. The in-combination

17.22

Approved Project ID


effect during both the construction and operational phases are therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level.


14 Viewpoint 1 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme will appear as a very minor additional element in the view. The in-combination effect during both the construction and operational phases are therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level. Viewpoint 6 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme will appear as a minor additional element in the view. The in-combination effect during both the construction and operational phases are therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level. Viewpoint 10 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme will appear as an additional element in the view of substantial scale and massing. However, the Proposed Development will form the most prominent element within the view. Therefore, the in-combination effect during both the construction and operational phases are therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level. Viewpoint 11 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme will appear as an additional element in the view of substantial scale and massing. However, the Proposed Development will form the most prominent element within the view. The Approved Scheme will appear similar in terms of scale and massing to the Proposed Development. Therefore, the in-combination effect during both the construction and operational phases are therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level.

15 Viewpoint 6 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme will appear as a minor additional element in the view. The in-combination effect during both the construction and operational phases are therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level. Viewpoint 7 in-combination visual effects: The Approved Scheme appears as an additional element in the view, which is consistent in scale and form with the Proposed Development. The in-combination effect during both the construction and operational phases are therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level.

All Approved Projects

The majority of Approved Schemes are located outside of the Dumballs Road townscape character areas. There are therefore not predicted to be any significant in-combination townscape effects from all of the Approved Schemes. The following Approved Schemes are located within the Dumballs Road townscape character area and are predicted to have some in-combination effects on the townscape: • No. 3 - 19/01930/MJR Crawshay Court; • No. 12 - 17/01292/MJR Land At Suffolk House; • No. 14 - 20/01543/MJR Land North-East Of Dumballs Road; and

17.23

Approved Project ID


• No. 15 - 18/02383/MJR Former Browning Jones and Morris. The Proposed Scheme will form the most transformative scheme within the Dumballs Road character area, and is predicted to have the most substantial effect on townscape character. However, the Approved Schemes within the vicinity of the Site are predicted to consolidate and reinforce the new character for the area. The in-combination effects on townscape character during both the construction and operational phases are therefore not predicted to be greater than the effect at project level. There are no identified viewpoints which would allow visual receptors to view all identified cumulative development schemes together, or more than one of the identified cumulative schemes. There are therefore not predicted to be any additional in-combination visual effects during the construction or operational phase – albeit please do note commentary for each individual Approved Project above.

Built Heritage 17.47 Table 17.5 below provides an in-combination assessment of townscape and visual in-

combination effects.

Table 17.5: Built Heritage In-Combination Assessment

Approved Project ID


1 In-combination effects with regards to heritage receptors are restricted to visual impacts and the scale of this Approved Project is such that it will not be experienced in combination with the Proposed Scheme at any receptor identified.

2 In-combination effects with regards to heritage receptors are restricted to visual impacts and the scale of this development is such that it will not be experienced in combination with the Proposed Scheme at any receptor identified.

3 Approved Project 3 is just visible in the 3D modelled view from the Norwegian Church, where it makes a negligible difference to the baseline conditions (Appendix 7.4, plate 29). No heritage concerns were raised with respect to the building’s appearance within the setting of a designated heritage asset (Cardiff Central Station) as demonstrated in the cumulative wireframe Viewpoint 6 (Appendix 7.4) in which it substantially eclipses the visual presence of the Proposed Scheme. It is therefore considered that the cumulative impact of this development with the Proposed Scheme does not exceed the Not Significant effect identified at project level with respect to the Pierhead Building and Conservation Area.

4 There were no objections on heritage grounds to the siting, scale and appearance of the proposed new school building (Approved Project

17.24

Approved Project ID


4), which is considered to preserve the setting and significance of St Mary’s Church. In views where the towers of the church and the Proposed Scheme are evident, the new school will be experienced, but will not compete in terms of visual dominance. It is therefore considered that the cumulative impact of this development with the Proposed Scheme does not exceed the Not Significant effect identified at project level with respect to the Church of St Mary.

5 Impacts arising as a consequence of conversion of the Brewery are considered within the accompanying heritage statement for the application2, where the proposals are considered to enhance the heritage value of the non-designated asset, and not to cause any harm to the heritage values of the designated assets in its vicinity, including the St Mary Street Conservation Area. Chapter 8: Built Heritage demonstrates that the Proposed Scheme likewise generates no harm to the heritage values of the St Mary Street Conservation Area, and it is therefore considered that the cumulative impact of this Approved Project with the Proposed Scheme does not exceed the Not Significant effect identified at project level with respect to the St Marys Street Conservation Area.

6 Impacts arising as a consequence of this Approved Project are discussed within the Heritage ES Chapter accompanying the original application (18/00735/MJR)3 for the Approved Project, where a minor beneficial significance of effect was identified to both the St Mary Street Conservation Area and the Church of St Mary. Viewpoint 16 demonstrates that neither the Approved Project nor the Proposed Scheme is experienced within the key view from the Castle, which is aligned along the orientation of St Mary’s Street (Appendix 7.4). It is therefore considered that the cumulative effect of this Approved Project with the Proposed Scheme does not exceed the Not Significant effects identified at project level with respect to the St Marys Street Conservation Area and the Church of St Mary.

7 In-combination effects with regards to heritage receptors are restricted to visual impacts and the scale of Approved Project 7 is such that it will not be experienced in combination with the Proposed Scheme at any receptor identified.

8 Impacts arising as a consequence of Approved Project 8 are discussed within the Heritage ES Chapter accompanying the original application (18/1705/MJR)4 for the Approved Project, where a minor beneficial residual significance of effect was identified to the St Marys Street Conservation Area and a negligible residual significance of effect was identified to Cardiff Castle. During the construction phase a minor adverse significance of effect was identified to the Conservation Area on account of proximity of the Approved Project development. Viewpoint 16 illustrates that Approved Project 8 will be glimpsed,

17.25

Approved Project ID


whereas the Proposed Scheme is not experienced at all (Appendix 7.4). The Proposed Scheme generates Not Significant effects to these assets in both construction and operation phases, and it is therefore considered that the cumulative effect of Approved Project 8 with the Proposed Scheme does not exceed the Not Significant effects identified at project level with respect to the St Marys Street Conservation Area and Cardiff Castle.

9 Impacts arising as a consequence of Approved project 9 are discussed within the Heritage Impact Statement5 and Addendum6 accompanying the original application (17/1906/MJR) for the Approved Project where no harm is identified to the St Marys Street Conservation Area or to Cardiff Castle. The Proposed Scheme generates Not Significant effects to these assets in both construction and operation phases, and it is therefore considered that the cumulative effect of Approved Project 9 with the Proposed Scheme does not exceed the Not Significant effects identified at project level with respect to the St Marys Street Conservation Area and Cardiff Castle as demonstrated by Viewpoint 16 (Appendix 7.4). The Heritage Impact Statement for Approved Project 9 does not refer to the Pierhead Conservation Area, although as demonstrated by the 3D modelling provided by Cardiff City Council (Appendix 8.1, Plates 28 & 29), the tower is evident in long views from the Norwegian Church, and the Proposed Scheme is experienced in this context. Given the orientation and distance over which both schemes are co-visible in the context of the Pierhead Building, and the latter’s vibrant terracotta colouring, both schemes are subservient in form and scale, and in combination are not considered to exceed the Not Significant effects identified at project level with regard to the Pierhead Building and its associated Conservation Area.

10 No heritage statement was submitted with the application for Approved Project 10 and the proposals were approved despite the recognition from Cadw that there was a ‘slight’ degree of harm occasioned to the setting of Cardiff Castle. Approved Project 10 sits adjacent to the Radisson Blu hotel and is partially occluded by it, and this – together with the acceptance by previous planning permissions for the principle of building at height – was considered sufficient mitigation, and no objection was raised. Viewpoint 16 (Appendix 7.4) demonstrates that the Proposed Scheme is not experienced in the key view associated with the Castle, and where it is experienced in the city-wide views available from the Castle Keep, its form does not coalesce with the approved Project 10, and therefore does not create an unacceptable massing and scale within the skyline. In combination the schemes are not considered to exceed the Not Significant effects identified at project level with regard to Cardiff Castle.

17.26

Approved Project ID


11 No heritage statement was submitted with the application for Approved Project 11 and the proposals were approved. The delegated report includes no policy in respect of Built Heritage.7 Viewpoint 16 (Appendix 7.4) demonstrates that the Proposed Scheme is not experienced in the key view associated with the Castle, and where it is experienced in the city-wide views available from the Castle Keep, its form does not coalesce with the development of the Plot J, Capital Quarter, as the presence of the latter is marginal on the skyline, and therefore does not create an unacceptable massing and scale within the skyline. In combination the schemes are not considered to exceed the Not Significant effects identified at project level with regard to Cardiff Castle. Approved Project 11 is experienced in the context of Viewpoint 6 (Cardiff Station), and Viewpoint 8, (Callaghan Square), and is more dominant within these views than the Proposed Scheme, which is rendered more subservient by distance and orientation (Appendix 7.4). In combination the schemes are not considered to exceed the Not Significant effect identified at project level with regard to Grade II Cardiff Station or the Grade II Statue of the Marquis of Bute.

12 In-combination effects with regards to heritage receptors are restricted to visual impacts and the scale of Approved Project 12 is such that it will not be experienced in combination with the Proposed Scheme at any receptor identified.

13 In-combination effects with regards to heritage receptors are restricted to visual impacts and the scale of Approved project 13 is such that it will not be experienced in combination with the Proposed Scheme at any receptor identified.

14 No heritage statement was submitted with the application for Approved Project 14 and the proposals were discussed at length with Council Officers to agree matters of scale and massing, as detailed in the DAS accompanying the application8 for Approved Project 14. The building is experienced in the context of Viewpoint 6 (Cardiff Station) (Appendix 7.4) in which it is rendered subservient by distance. In combination the schemes are not considered to exceed the Not Significant effect identified at project level with regard to Grade II Cardiff Station.

15 No heritage statement was submitted with the application for Approved Project 15 and the proposals were approved, with Cadw raising no objection to impacts on Cardiff Castle9 By Approved Project 15. Viewpoint 16 (Appendix 7.4) demonstrates that the Proposed Scheme is not experienced in the key view associated with the Castle, and where it is experienced in the city-wide views available from the Castle Keep, its form does not coalesce with the development of Approved Project 15, as the presence of the latter is

17.27

Approved Project ID


marginal on the skyline, and therefore does not create an unacceptable massing and scale within the skyline. Collectively the schemes are not considered to exceed the Not Significant effects identified at project level with regard to Cardiff Castle. Approved Project 15 is also experienced in the context of Viewpoint 6 (Cardiff Station) (Appendix 7.4), and is on a par visually within these views as the Proposed Scheme, with both rendered more subservient by distance and orientation. In combination the schemes are not considered to exceed the Not Significant effect identified at project level with regard to Grade II Cardiff Station.

All Approved Projects

Owing to their scale, orientation and distance from sensitive receptors a number of Approved Projects are discounted from the in-combination assessment, these Approved Projects are 1, 2, 7, 12 and 13. Of the remaining ten Approved Projects assessed, the location, orientation and grouping of the buildings in respect of heritage receptors - in accordance with the Council’s Tall Buildings Guidance and Heritage Policies – reduces the number of developments experienced in the context of any one asset. The Pierhead Building is experienced in the context of the Proposed Scheme and Approved Projects 3 and 9, with the combined effect of development considered not to exceed a Not Significant effect. The Proposed Scheme and Approved Projects 4 and 6 are experienced in the context of the Church of St Mary, and in combination are not considered to exceed the Not Significant effect identified. The St Mary’s Street Conservation Area is experienced in the context of Approved Projects 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and the Proposed Scheme, and the effects of these schemes collectively range from minor adverse in construction – which is recognised as a temporary effect – through to minor beneficial residual effects, with the majority of the Approved Projects not found to deliver harm. In consequence, therefore, it is considered that the in-combination effect of the Proposed Scheme and Approved Projects does not exceed the Not Significant effect identified at project level. Cardiff Station is experienced in the context of Approved Projects 3, 11, 14, 15 and the Proposed Scheme, with no heritage harm identified in respect of any of the individual schemes, and which in combination are not considered to exceed the Not Significant effect identified at project level. The asset experienced in the context of most development is Cardiff Castle, on account of the panoramic views from the Keep. Approved Projects 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 and the Proposed Scheme are experienced within these views. The above assessments have shown that the Proposed Scheme’s Not Significant effect is not exceeded in combination with each of the six sites individually, and in

17.28

Approved Project ID


combination as a whole the effect on the city skyline is in character with the twentieth/twenty-first backdrop of the city, which manifests a clear distinction from the historic core and preserves key views and relationships.

Biodiversity 17.48 No in-combination effects were identified between the Proposed Scheme and

Approved Projects 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13 or 15 due to the absence of any ecological assessment data in relation to these projects, and/or the geographical separation of the projects from sensitive receptors.

17.49 The likelihood for potential effects to be caused to bat species was assessed in relation to Approved Projects 3, 4, 7, 9 and 12, however in all cases (with the exception of Approved Project 7), either no potential for effects to bats were identified, or the presence of bats was not confirmed by ecological surveys. In the case of Approved Project 7, the Decision Notice for the site states that an ecological assessment will be undertaken prior to demolition of the buildings to confirm the presence or absence of bat species. Without the confirmation of bat species occupying any site of the Approved Projects, the in combination effects do not exceed the effects of the Proposed Scheme in isolation; which range from negligible to minor beneficial at the Construction phase, and minor beneficial at the Operational phase (all of which are not significant). Should bats be identified during pre-demoniliton surveys for Approved Project 7, it is not considered likely that this would alter this conclusion.

17.50 Potential ecological effects to nesting birds were identified for Approved Projects 4 and 14, however this will be addressed through standard avoidance measures such as undertaking site clearance outside of breeding season, as will be within the Proposed Scheme. As such, there is no mechanism for in-combination effects to arise between these Approved Projects and the Proposed Scheme, and so the in-combination effect is not significant.

17.51 Potential minor adverse effects to the River Taff SINC through pollution from surface water during construction were identified for Approved Project 6, however these will be addressed through standard avoidance measures, as with the Proposed Scheme. Therefore, the in-combination effect is not predicted to be deviate from the minor beneficial (and not significant) effect determined for the Construction phase of the Proposed Scheme in isolation.

Transport and Access 17.52 The assessment of in-combination effects for Transport and Access has accounted for

the cumulative effects of noise and vibration created by construction and operational traffic of the Proposed Scheme on the local road network, and the associated reductions in air quality. The modelling and assessments undertaken within Chapter 10. Transport and Access, Chapter 11. Air Quality and Chapter 12. Noise and Vibration have accounted for the traffic generated by all Approved Projects. As such, any in-combination effects relating to Transport and Access would not exceed the

17.29

negligible to minor adverse and not significant effects predicted for the Construction and Operational phases of the Proposed Scheme in isolation.

Air Quality 17.53 Consideration has been given to the in-combination effects of reduced air quality

created by traffic associated with the Construction and Operational phases of the Proposed Scheme and the Approved Projects. It has been determined that as air quality modelling undertaken for the Proposed Scheme has estimated and accounted for the traffic generated by the Approved Projects, any in-combination effects would not exceed the negligible (Construction/ Operational) and minor adverse (Operational) predicted for the Proposed Scheme.

Noise and Vibration 17.54 As above, the potential for traffic-related noise and vibration environmental changes to

be caused by the Approved Projects has been accounted for in the assessments of the Proposed Scheme. Whilst there remains the potential for the Construction phases of the Approved Projects and the Proposed Scheme to coincide, all developers are expected to adopt noise and vibration mitigation measures within a CEMP. As such, in-combination effects at both Construction and Operational phases are not predicted to exceed the minor adverse Construction phase effect, or the negligible to minor adverse (and not significant) Operational effects caused by the Proposed Scheme in isolation.

Ground Conditions and Contamination 17.55 It is assumed that all Approved Projects will follow current best practice measures, and

employ legislative and standard environmental management measures (as part of a CEMP). No impact from these Approved Projects is considerably likely to affect sensitive receptors of the Proposed Scheme in respect to ground conditions and land contamination.

17.56 As such, in-combination effects are not predicted where the Proposed Scheme and Approved Projects would adhere to standard CEMP measures, and so the negligible to minor adverse (and not significant) Construction and Operational effects of the Proposed Scheme would not been exceeded.

Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing 17.57 Approved Projects 1-11 and 13 have been deemed not to require consideration as they

are not within the immediate vicinity of the Site. Therefore, these Approved Projects lack the potential to cause in-combination daylight, sunlight or overshadowing effects to existing/future residential and commercial properties with the Proposed Scheme.

17.58 Detailed calculations for the assessment of in-combination effects with Approved Projects 12, 13 and 15 are set out in Appendix 17.1 and set out below.

17.59 In-combination effects with respect to Approved Project 12 are predicted to be caused where small increases in the magnitude of change in daylight and sunlight levels would be experienced at 36, 26, 16 and 2 Taff Embankment. This would equate to minor adverse effects at the Operational Phase, which would exceed the negligible effect predicted for daylight effects, and equal the minor adverse and significant effect predicted for sunlight effects of the Proposed Scheme in isolation.

17.30

17.60 With consideration of Approved Project 14, levels of daylight received by 1-30 Heol Staughton and the Shire Hall Care Home would be further reduced from the effect levels predicted for the Proposed Scheme in isolation. In the case of 1-30 Heol Staughton, these changes would result in a minor adverse and significant effect, which is greater than the negligible and not significant effect of the Proposed Scheme. Whilst daylight levels would also reduce at the Shire Hall Care Home, this would not be to an extent which would deviate from the minor to moderate adverse and significant effect predicted for the Proposed Scheme in isolation.

17.61 Lastly, any changed levels of daylight, sunlight or overshadowing caused by Approved Project 15 would not warrant any change in effect level from those reported in Chapter 14. Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing. For the in-combination annual and winter sunlight levels, overall, the same number of windows would adhere to the BRE Guidelines with the inclusion of the adjacent Approved Projects as those which were concluded for the Proposed Scheme in isolation.

Wind Microclimate 17.62 As discussed in Chapter 15. Wind Microclimate and detailed further in Appendix 15.1,

computer modelling has been undertaken to incorporate the built form of all Approved Projects located within the Proposed Scheme’s 600m wind microclimate study area. This modelling has found that no material differences to wind conditions within the Site or surrounding area (with respect to the Lawson Safety Criteria or Lawson Comfort Criteria) were identified with the inclusion of these Approved Projects in comparison to the Proposed Scheme in isolation.

17.63 In light of the above, it can be concluded that in-combination effects would not exceed those predicted for the Proposed Scheme in isolation (significant effects ranging from major adverse prior to detailed design mitigation, to major beneficial).

Climate Change 17.64 The assessment of direct and indirect emissions effects discussed within Chapter 16.

Climate Change has taken account of the high sensitivity of the global climate as a receptor; qualitatively considering emissions in the context of UK and local emissions. The assessment of emissions effects has accounted for the likely emissions to be created by the Approved Projects, based on local and national emissions levels, and so no deviation from the minor adverse effects of the Proposed Scheme (which are not significant) is predicted in-combination with the Approved Projects.

Summary of Cumulative Effects

17.65 This Chapter reports the assessment of likely cumulative effects. The assessment has considered effect interactions and in-combination effects with 15 other Approved Projects.

17.66 The assessment of effect interactions identified that interactions between different effects were limited to Population and Human Health receptor group for both the Construction and Operation phases of the Proposed Scheme.

17.67 There are effect interactions during the Construction phase and it is likely that these will be significant and greater than that considered within the individual Chapters for a

17.31

limited number of city centre users and members of the immediate community. Significant adverse effects during construction include the change in the character and amenity of seven receptors, whilst a significant beneficial effects was predicted for the economic productivity generated by construction activities.

17.68 Effect interactions at the Operational phase include those between significant adverse effects to changes in the character and amenity of the view from Butetown Canal Park; reductions in daylight and sunlight to multiple existing and future receptors; and exceedences of the Lawson Safety Criteria (LSC) and Lawson Comfort Criteria (LCC) with respect to wind speeds at multiple future receptors of the Proposed Scheme, prior to detailed design mitigation. These are, however, unlikely to be greater than those considered within individual chapters, due to their being caused to separate receptors.

17.69 At the Operational phase, multiple significant beneficial effects have been predicted for the economic productivity generated by the operation of the Proposed Scheme (measured as Gross Value Added); the increase in number of affordable and market homes; and changes to the townscape character, urban grain, land use, public open space, movement and linkages within the surrounding study area, site character and the character and amenity of multiple views. As these beneficial effects are predicted for many shared receptors within the local community and local/wider economy, they collectively are considered greater than those considered within individual chapters.

17.70 The assessment of in-combination effects considered each Approved Project in conjunction with the Proposed Scheme, as well as all Approved Projects together with the Proposed Scheme, across all technical topics. Specific modelling has informed the assessment of effects in relation to daylight, sunlight, overshadowing, wind, traffic, noise and traffic emissions to air.

17.71 For socio-economics and human health there are common receptors with all 15 projects, with the exception of Approved Project 7. Significant beneficial in-combination effects were concluded at both Construction and Operational phases in respect to economic productivity (construction and operation), the generation of expenditure from retail and leisure businesses and the provision of market and affordable homes (operation). No change, however, was predicted between the significance of in-combination effects and the effects of the Proposed Scheme in isolation.

17.72 With respect to townscape and visual effects, the majority of Approved Projects were discounted from the in-combination effects assessment due to their absence from the Dumballs Road townscape character areas. It was determined that no more than one of the Approved Projects would be visible alongside the Proposed Scheme in any of the assessed viewpoints, and as such, no effects in relation to visual amenity or townscape character effects would deviate from those assessed for the Proposed Scheme in isolation.

17.73 No significant in-combination effects were predicted at any of the four built heritage receptors, and do not exceed the negligible effects determined for the Proposed Scheme alone.

17.32

17.74 In the context of biodiversity and ground conditions and contamination, no potential effects were identified as these were either addressed through standard avoidance and mitigation measures (managed under a CEMP), or there remains a lack of a receptors pathway. Effects to bat species with respect to ecology were discounted due to their recorded absence in surveys at five of the Approved Projects.

17.75 Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing represented the only discipline to identify significant in-combination effects which deviated from the effect levels assessed for the Proposed Scheme in isolation. Minor adverse and significant in-combination effects were identified with Approved Project 12 in relation to the levels of daylight and sunlight received by 36, 26, 16 and 2 Taff Embankment. This only represents a change in effect level for the case of daylight levels, which were considered negligible and not significant for the Proposed Scheme in isolation. Similarly, a change in effect level was determined in relation to Approved Project 14, and reduced daylight levels to 1-30 Heol Staughton. As a result, this effect would be considered minor adverse and significant in-combination, however the effect of the Proposed Scheme in isolation was considered negligible and not significant.

17.76 With respect to transport, air quality, noise and vibration, wind microclimate and climate change, no in-combination effects were identified due to the inclusion of the relevant Approved Projects within the assessments of the Proposed Scheme.

17.33

References

1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Wales) Regulations 2017 (as amended) SI 2017/567. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2017/567/pdfs/wsi_20170567_mi.pdf 2 Lichfields (2019) Brains Brewhouse Heritage Impact Assessment, available online at https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/1723E51342F8A01BE4CF1BF6691B783B/pdf/20_00102_MJR-BRAINS_BREWHOUSE_HERITAGE_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT_06-12-19_1_-2274572.pdf [Accessed 17/11/20] 3 Lichfields (2018) Central Quay Phase 1 Environmental Statement Chapter K: Built Heritage (Above Ground), available online at https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/1FE79CEB8A379B766C67250F0D5CA175/pdf/18_00735_MJR-CENTRAL_QUAY_ES_CHAPTER_K_-_BUILT_HERITAGE__ABOVE_GROUND_-2025243.pdf [Accessed 17/11/20] 4 Lichfields (2018) Central Square Interchange Environmental Statement Chapter H: Built Heritage (Above Ground), available online at https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/F27291DD6B40A8558388F51470E722D9/pdf/18_01705_MJR-CENTRAL_SQUARE_INTERCHANGE_ES_CHAPTER_H_BUILT_HERITAGE-2063914.pdf [Accessed 17/11/20] 5 Turley Heritage (2017) Heritage Impact Statement - Former Custom House and Former York Hotel, Custom House Street and St Mary Street, Cardiff, available at: https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/A34C692034EFDB8A8AFA9E82E4D92499/pdf/17_01906_MJR-CARDIFF_CUSTOM_HOUSE_HERITAGE_IMPACT_STATEMENT60634420000.PDF-1941063.pdf [Accessed 17/11/20] 6 Turley Heritage (2017) Heritage Impact Statement: Addendum - Former Custom House and Former York Hotel, Custom House Street and St Mary Street, Cardiff, available at: https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/B0A1651A3A1616655E23AFC5AC2B5101/pdf/17_01906_MJR-CUSTOM_HOUSE_HERITAGE_IMPACT_STATEMENT_ADDENDUM-1976219.pdf [Accessed 17/10/20] 7 Cardiff City Council (2019) Delegated Committee Report, available at: https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/B68CF91C08CB4528623319291B57B048/pdf/18_02634_MJR-DELEGATED_REPORT-2168417.pdf [Accessed 17/10/20] 8 CWA Planning and Architecture (2020) Design and Access Statement: Anchorworks, Dumballs Road, Cardiff, available at: https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/F7043C13CCC9735D951CC4D6DC35C1E5/pdf/20_01543_MJR-DESIGN_AND_ACCESS_STATEMENT__PART_1_OF_2_-2350821.pdf [Accessed 17/10/20] 9 Cardiff City Council (2019) Delegated Committee Report, available at: https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/B68CF91C08CB4528623319291B57B048/pdf/18_02634_MJR-DELEGATED_REPORT-2168417.pdf [Accessed 17/10/20].

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2017/567/pdfs/wsi_20170567_mi.pdf

https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/1723E51342F8A01BE4CF1BF6691B783B/pdf/20_00102_MJR-BRAINS_BREWHOUSE_HERITAGE_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT_06-12-19_1_-2274572.pdf



https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/1FE79CEB8A379B766C67250F0D5CA175/pdf/18_00735_MJR-CENTRAL_QUAY_ES_CHAPTER_K_-_BUILT_HERITAGE__ABOVE_GROUND_-2025243.pdf



https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/F27291DD6B40A8558388F51470E722D9/pdf/18_01705_MJR-CENTRAL_SQUARE_INTERCHANGE_ES_CHAPTER_H_BUILT_HERITAGE-2063914.pdf



https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/A34C692034EFDB8A8AFA9E82E4D92499/pdf/17_01906_MJR-CARDIFF_CUSTOM_HOUSE_HERITAGE_IMPACT_STATEMENT60634420000.PDF-1941063.pdf



https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/B0A1651A3A1616655E23AFC5AC2B5101/pdf/17_01906_MJR-CUSTOM_HOUSE_HERITAGE_IMPACT_STATEMENT_ADDENDUM-1976219.pdf



https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/B68CF91C08CB4528623319291B57B048/pdf/18_02634_MJR-DELEGATED_REPORT-2168417.pdf



https://planningonline.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/F7043C13CCC9735D951CC4D6DC35C1E5/pdf/20_01543_MJR-DESIGN_AND_ACCESS_STATEMENT__PART_1_OF_2_-2350821.pdf






17. cumulative effects assessment - embankment, cardiff

Documents