ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 26 AUGUST 2008
SIADAR WAVE ENERGY PROJECT
Report by Chief Executive
PURPOSE OF REPORT To determine the view of the Comhairle as ‘Principal Consultee’ in respect to a consultation from the Scottish Government regarding an application for consent under Section 36 of the 1989 Electricity Act. COMPETENCE 1.1 There are no legal, financial or other constraints to the recommendations being implemented.
SUMMARY 2.1 npower Renewables Ltd lodged an application with the Scottish Government on 21 April 2007 for the construction of a wave energy electricity-generating scheme at Siadar, Isle of Lewis. 2.2 The installed capacity of the project will be up to 4.0MW. The scheme is designed so that incoming wave energy will be captured by the near shore breakwater structure by means of the embedded energy conversion devices; the wave energy will then be converted into electricity for supply into the local electricity network. The scheme comprises a breakwater, (possible) fixed link, an onshore control building and a new track. Unfortunately, the final design of the project has not been determined, but options are outlined in the application. Consent for all options presented in the Environmental Statement (ES) is being sought. 2.3 This Report details the proposals, considers comments received on them, provides an evaluation in terms of the relevant planning policy context and then offers conclusions and a recommended Comhairle view to be submitted to the Scottish Ministers. RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that: a) the Comhairle be of the view that Scottish Ministers approve the wave energy application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, subject to all the planning conditions detailed at Appendix 1 to this Report, subject to recommendation (f) below; b) the Comhairle indicate to the Scottish Ministers that its preferred option for development is as section 19 paragraphs 19.24 and 19.27 of this Report; c) the Chief Executive be authorised to enter into negotiations with npower Renewables Ltd and other relevant land interests to prepare an agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country (Scotland) Act 1997 to include any Land restoration during the development phase and land restoration and decommissioning after completion; d) the Chief Executive be given delegated authority, in consultation with the Head of Development Services, to complete the Section 75 agreement referred to in c) above and to encourage the developers to include in this agreement contributions to the Western Isles Development Trust; e) the Comhairle inform Scottish Ministers that it is of the view that there is no public interest in holding a Public Local Inquiry for the Siadar Wave Energy Project; and f) given the different options put forward in the application, the Head of Development Services be given delegated authority to amend the Comhairle’s proposed conditions during any negotiations with the developer and the Scottish Government on the preferred development option.
APPENDIX 1. Schedule of proposed conditions 2. Indicative Scheme Layout (Fig 3.1) 3. Principal Components of SWEP Fig 3.2 4. Control Building Indicative Elevations Fig 3.7b and 3.7c 5. SEPA’s consultation response 6. Conservation Designations Fig 7.1 7. Cultural Heritage Sites Fig 9.1 8. Historic Scotland Consultation Response 9. Photomontage of Development Fig 12.5
Contact Officer Mairi Mackinnon, Planning Officer, Tel: 01851 709321
REPORT DETAILS INTRODUCTION
4.1 An application was lodged by npower Renewables Ltd with the Scottish Government on 21 April 2008 for a wave energy project to be located on the north west Coast of Lewis adjacent to the village of Siadar, Isle of Lewis. The deadline for comments on the application by the Comhairle, as Principal Consultee, has been extended to 5 September 2008. The development should be considered under the terms of section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, and under Section 57(2) of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
4.2 The Comhairle has a key role in the decision making process and should treat the matter as if it were the Planning Authority, considering all relevant information in the case. A Local Authority is the Planning Authority charged with enforcing any ‘deemed’ planning consent given with any Section 36 Application approval and is the only statutory consultee that can trigger a Public Local Inquiry if an objection is raised.
4.3 In order to properly consider all relevant matters this Report is structured as follows:
Section 4 Background
Section 5 Policy Context
Section 6 Description of the Proposed Development
Section 7 Terrestrial Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology
Section 8 Terrestrial Habitats and Ecology
Section 9 Marine Habitats and Ecology
Section 10 Cultural Heritage - Terrestrial and Marine
Section 11 Coastal Processes
Section 12 Onshore Noise
Section 13 Landscape and Visual
Section 14 Transport and Route Access
Section 15 Socio- Economic Impact
Section 16 Underwater Noise and Electromagnetic Effects
Section 17 Other Material Considerations
Section 18 Representations
Section 19 Discussion and Conclusions
Section 20 Recommendation
POLICY CONTEXT 5.1 This section of the Report aims to discuss, in general terms, current planning and other policy context relevant to the Siadar Wave Energy Project. The section does not seek to evaluate the proposal against policy. More detailed analysis is provided throughout the body of the Report. Climate Change and Energy Policy 5.2 Climate Change - Climate change is seen as the main challenge to deliver future development that is sustainable. The principal area of agreement concerns the urgent need to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. In Scotland it is the ‘Changing Our Ways – Scotland’s Climate Change Programme’ that sets out the Government’s commitment to reduce green house gas emissions and reduce Scotland’s vulnerability to the impacts of Climate Change. 5.3 Other key framework documents on Climate Change are: • Climate Change - The UK Programme, 2006 • State of Scotland Environment Report, SEPA, 2006 • Stern Report, 2006 • Patterns of Climate Change Across Scotland, SNIFFER, 2006 5.4 ‘Choosing Our Future: Scotland's Sustainable Development Strategy’ sets out the context that drives the Governments sustainable development agenda. The Strategy highlights, as key priorities: the need to protect and manage natural resources for the long term; the need to protect the historic environment; and the need to change the way Scotland generates and uses energy with a view to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and maximising our considerable renewable energy potential.
5.5 ‘Energy - UK Energy Review, DTI, 2006’ - In terms of UK energy policy, the Governments energy review re-stated a target of 20% of UK’s electricity from renewable sources from renewables. In response to the review, the Comhairle has stated: ‘The Western Isles has one of the most abundant and constant sources of renewable energy in the inhabited world. This energy comprises a mixture of wind, wave and tidal opportunities’
5.6 The UK Government has set itself ambitious domestic goals: to reduce UK carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 20% by 2010; and to reduce CO2 emissions by some 60% by around 2050, with real progress by 2020. The development of renewable energy will be an important contributor to the success of that policy. Scotland’s renewable energy target was to increase the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources in Scotland from 11% to 18% by 2010. However, Scottish Ministers have more recently set clear targets for renewable electricity, announcing an increase in November 2007. Ministers now want 50% of the demand for Scottish electricity to be supplied from renewable sources by 2020, with an interim milestone of 31% by 2011. On June 21 2007, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney announced that the Scottish Government would consult on a Climate Change Bill to set a mandatory target of cutting emissions by 80% by 2050.
Scottish Planning Policy
National Planning Framework One
5.7 The first National Planning Framework (NPF1) has been in place since April 2004 and is therefore a valid consideration in terms of the Comhairle’s view on a development.
5.8 The National Planning Framework, produced by the Scottish Executive, has not been regarded as a prescriptive blueprint of national planning priorities, but it is a material consideration in the decision making process
5.9 The threat posed by climate change (and within that, the need to develop renewable energy sources) is identified as a key driver for change in Scotland. Population decline is another, with problems highlighted as most acute in the Western Isles (para 59). The NPF1 also suggests that a high quality environment and a strong cultural identify will be key assets in the promotion of change within the rural communities of Scotland (para 67).
5.10 Energy infrastructure is identified as another key driver for change and, in particular, the natural energy resource of Scotland's west coast is highlighted along with the constraints of existing infrastructure. The NPF1 suggests that in terms of regenerating communities (as far as land use planning is concerned) the need for economic development should take into account locations where the need is greatest.
5.11 In terms of the NPF1's ‘Development Strategy’, the promotion of economic diversification and environmental stewardship are suggested alongside the realisation of Scotland's renewable energy resources (para 99).
5.12 The NPF1 sees key improvements to the electricity transmission system to include a new link to the Western Isles (para 139). The NPF1 however, does not indicate the scale of development that a new link could support. When the NPF1 discusses spatial perspectives for rural Scotland, it re-emphasises the role of both economic diversification and environmental stewardship. Renewable energy development is seen as offering important economic benefit and sustainable development for remote and island communities.
5.13 The NPF1 acknowledges slow economic progress in the remoter areas of the Western Isles (para 40) and the economic fragility of the Western Isles as a whole is emphasised in paras 175 and 176. Para 177 suggests that the cultural and environmental resources of the Western Isles are a national asset, and in the same paragraph the Framework suggests that its climate and geography offer great potential for harnessing renewable energy, particularly wind, wave and tidal power. The main spatial strategy map of the NPF1 identifies the Western Isles as a (HIE) Fragile Area.
5.14 Towards the end of the NPF1 in the 'Making it Happen' section, the document states that "major infrastructure projects are expensive and can have big impacts upon people’s lives. They can raise the ability of places to compete but are essentially irreversible. That is why decisions must be careful and considered."
5.15 In summary, the NPF1 clearly recognises the fragile economic circumstances of the Western Isles as a national issue, and similarly the value of the islands’ natural and culture heritage resources. The NPF1 sets out a national view that the Western Isles have the potential to develop renewable energy. However, no weight is given to the scale of the contribution that the Western Isles could play in the national agenda or the weight to be given to the benefits of large-scale developments over 'environmental' factors.
(Draft) National Planning Framework Two
5.16 The (Draft) National Planning Framework Two (NPF2) is an evolution of the First National Planning Framework, and provides the strategic spatial policy context for decisions by the Government and its agencies up to 2030. The Framework complements the statements of national planning policy set out in the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) series. Planning legislation requires authorities to take the framework into account in preparing Development Plans and it will be a material consideration in determining planning applications.
5.17 NPF2 is concerned with Scotland in its wider context and has a strong outward focus. It addresses the major contemporary challenges of global competition, climate change and resource depletion. It is informed by the European Union’s territorial agenda, its priorities for promoting economic competitiveness and protecting the environment, and its targets for energy supply and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
5.18 Climate change continues to be a key driver, and Scotland’s renewable energy potential is recognised as an important economic resource, which offers both an opportunity to reduce national dependence on finite fossil fuels and new prospects for sustainable development in rural areas.
5.19 Regarding the Government planning policy on renewable energy, NPF2 outlines that “the aim is to develop the extensive renewable energy potential while safeguarding the environment and communities” (para128). The framework states that government planning policy regarding this is set out in the Scottish Planning Policy on Renewable Energy (SPP6). 5.20 As with NPF1, NPF2 recognises the fragile economic and demographic circumstances of the Western Isles, highlighting that continued support is required to tackle the challenges. 5.21 NPF2 highlights that many rural areas in Scotland are well placed to contribute to and benefit from energy developments. Upgrades to the existing grid are identified as essential to realise the ‘substantial renewable potential’ of the island groups. National ‘grid reinforcement to support renewable energy development’ is one of the nine projects cited as being of national significance in NPF2. Mapping for potential grid reinforcement routes in NPF2 is indicative, but does include a sub sea link to the Western Isles.
5.22 The NPF2 remarks that “Comhairle nan Eilean Siar is promoting Stonoway’s Western Harbour as an energy portal for the Outer Hebrides. The harbour would provide the landfall for a sub sea inter-connector to the mainland. Relocation of oil and gas import and storage facilities to the Western Harbour will facilitate the release of a substantial area of land for redevelopment on the town’s waterfront. The harbours of the Outer Hebrides might also have a role to play in the development of North Atlantic oil and gas reserves”. This is not identified as a national priority (para 279).
5.23 The Western Isles is described as “the principal heartland of Scotland's Gaelic culture, (offering)…outstanding scenery and maritime habitats of international importance” (para 280). Key social and environmental assets are listed as: a high rate of community based enterprise; a unique Gaelic culture and built heritage; and great potential for environmental tourism. 5.24 In summary, NPF2 advises that “realising the potential of the islands will demand co- ordinated action focused on measures to diversify and grow the economy, create high value jobs, retain and attract population, and improve connectivity and communications” (para 280).
5.25 Landscape and visual impacts will continue to be important considerations in decision- making on developments (para 186) and information on environmental sensitivities will be important in selecting appropriate locations for development.
Scottish Planning Policy and Advice 5.26 The Scottish Government’s key policy document on the operation of the Planning system is ‘Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 1 – the planning system’. This policy document defines the framework for how planning matters should be dealt with.
5.27 ‘Scottish Planning Policy 6 – Renewable Energy’ was published in March 2007. SPP6 is a positive framework to encourage the development of renewable energy technologies. The main purpose of the SPP6 is to provide guidance to Local Authorities in terms of Development Plan preparation. Some of the key policy issues raised in the SPP are:
• Confirmation of the 40% renewables target by 2020 (for updated target information see paragraph 5.6 above). • Hydro and onshore wind is expected to continue to make the most significant contribution to the targets. • Planning Authorities should ensure that environmental, economic and social benefits are fully exploited, while at the same time: meeting international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats of natural heritage interest and the historic environment from inappropriate forms of development; and minimising impacts on local natural heritage, communities, tourism, recreation and aviation interests. • Planning Authorities are to see the Development Plan as the key framework for considering site selection. • Development Plans are to have a clear spatial strategy in the future. • The need to update Development Plans. • Consideration of the significance of any adverse impacts of a renewable generation proposal should have regard to the projected benefits of the proposal, in terms of the scale of its contribution to addressing climate change through its input to the Scottish Executive's targets for renewable energy. 5.28 The general thrust of SPP6 is towards a positive approach to renewables and a clear focus on the Development Plan as the key means to guide development. The Comhairle’s Development Plan is discussed in more detail below. Relevant ‘considerations’ in SPP6 are considered in the body of the report, including, the new emphasis on assessing cumulative impact.
5.29 Other National Planning Policy Guidance of importance to this application includes: • Mineral Extraction: NPPG 4 • Archaeology and Planning: NPPG 5 • Planning and Waste Management: NPPG 10 • Coastal Planning: NPPG13 • Natural Heritage: NPPG 14 • Rural Development: NPPG 15 • Planning and the Historic Environment: NPPG 18 • Economic Development: SPP 2 • Planning and Flooding: SPP 7.
5.30 Scottish Planning Advice Note (PAN) 45 sets out advice on good practice in terms of Renewable Energy. Of particular relevance to this application (which forms a useful check list) is: • Renewable energy is seen as a positive driver for rural development. • The adequacy of noise mitigation measures – mechanical and aerodynamic. • The degree of disturbance caused by construction activity. • The use of helicopters to require careful consideration with regard to impact upon protected bird species during breeding seasons. • The control of vehicle movements during construction and operation. • The reinstatement of roads that is not strictly required for ongoing operation once construction complete. • The restoration arrangements after decommissioning. • The duration of consent (usually linked to life of the turbines). • The impacts upon civil and military aviation. • The under grounding of power lines from turbines to sub stations, impacts of power lines from substation to the distribution system. • The sensitivity of the hydrology of peat habitats. • Locating power lines, fences, buildings etc to minimise clutter. • Visual assessments.
5.31 In terms of birds and habitats, the guidance suggests that in areas such as SPAs, impacts upon birds could represent potential constraints to renewables development.
5.32 The guidance also recognises that the role of tourism in the rural economy, and the assets on which it is based, should be reconciled with the need to promote renewable energy generation. Other PANs of relevance include: • PAN 42 Archaeology - The Planning Process and Scheduled Monument Procedures (1994); • PAN 56 Planning and Noise (1999); • PAN 58 Environmental Impact Assessment (1999); • PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage (2000);
Development Plan
5.33 In terms of the Development Plan, the approved Comhairle Structure Plan and the Western Isles Local Plan are the main documents.
5.34 The Structure Plan’s key aim is to provide a land use-planning framework for sustaining the communities of the Western Isles by: Setting out policies that: • promote sustainability and improve quality of life; • encourage population retention, inward migration and address the imbalances in the demographic structure; • help support those who wish to live, work and invest in the Western Isles.
5.35 Policy SC2 of the Structure Plan ‘Retain Population and Encourage In-migration’ indicates that: ‘The Comhairle will work with its Community Planning partners to develop targeted strategies which assist in retaining population and encourage in-migration of key groups such as entrepreneurs, the young and skilled and small business owners and managers.’ 5.36 The Structure Plan has been developed around a strategy that:
• encourages economic activity and appropriate levels of service provision and investment • guides the future development and use of land • utilises resources in ways that are sustainable • enables balanced, informed assessments of potential development proposals.
5.37 A number of more specific Structure Plan policies have a bearing on this application. The main renewable energy policy, a criteria based approach, is contained in the Structure Plan, policy ED2 below:
ED2 Development of Alternative and Renewable Energy Resources ‘The Comhairle, in partnership with other public agencies and the private sector, will develop proposals that help realise the latent renewable energy development potential of the Western Isles. It will also promote improvements to the interconnector with the mainland to enable the export of energy. Development proposals for hydro, solar, wave, tidal and wind (on-shore and off-shore) energy schemes and associated infrastructure, including proposals for non-grid, domestic- scale schemes, will be viewed positively, subject to satisfactory assessment of all of the following: i) the impact on local communities and any other existing or proposed land uses and interests; ii) the impact, including cumulative impact, on natural and built heritage resources; iii) the local and wider benefits that the proposal may bring; iv) the adequacy of reinstatement arrangements; v) the requirements of other Structure Plan policies. Non-permanent structures will normally be approved for a temporary period. Having regard to the above criteria, the Local Plan will identify potentially suitable sites including provision of safeguarding or exclusion areas to ensure that future neighbouring developments or activities do not undermine the viability of the energy resource.’
5.38 In terms of the Siadar Wave Energy Project proposal, some of the key issues from the Development Plan are: • The Structure Plan provides the criteria based approach to assessment. • Local Plan policy LP/ED3 refers to ‘protecting areas’ with existing renewables planning consents: Development proposals adjacent to sites with planning consent for renewable energy development will be considered carefully in order to safeguard the viability of the energy resource.
• The Comhairle is committed to review its supplementary planning guidance on renewable energy following the production of SPP6.
5.39 The Structure Plan criteria and related Local Plan policies are taken into account in the main part of the report below.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
5.40 The Comhairle approved a paper entitled ‘Considerations for Renewable Energy Developments in the Western Isles’ in November 2004, which indicates broad policy support across the Western Isles for the development of renewables:
Principles 5.41 Working from the national and the Western Isles contexts, the following principles set out a framework for the Comhairle's consideration of the development of renewable energy in Western Isles. 1. The general approach is to realise the significant potential of the Western Isles to help meet National Renewable Energy targets. It is expected that this will involve short and medium term developments utilising existing technologies (notably wind turbines) that depend on electricity export capabilities. Such developments will provide a foundation for longer-term development of other renewable energy capabilities, such as wave and tidal power and the production and use of hydrogen and other means of storing and transmitting energy. 2. This approach critically depends on the provision of a high capacity inter-connector that will allow the export of large amounts of electricity. 3. Optimum benefit to, and mitigation of any adverse impact on, the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the Western Isles will be sought through contributions to the Western Isles Development Trust. Developers will be encouraged to reach agreement with the Western Isles Development Trust over such contributions. 4. Developers will be expected to engage with and positively involve the local community in the development of renewable energy projects. 5. Local communities will be encouraged to play an active role in the development of renewable energy and may wish to develop 'community owned' schemes either independently, or as part of schemes promoted by developers. 6. The Comhairle will encourage the formation of liaison committees between developers and affected communities. 7. The Comhairle will encourage a fair distribution of way leave payments to local communities. 8. The Comhairle will encourage the development of renewable projects that promote new or innovative ways of generating, transmitting, storing and/or using energy. 9. The Comhairle will take the view that the requirement under the Environmental Assessment Regulations for consideration to be given to 'alternative sites' be limited to alternatives within the Western Isles. 10. In respect of large scale onshore renewable energy developments (over 50MW) the Comhairle will aim to negotiate consent periods of a duration that will complement the development of renewable energy production and infrastructure on and from the islands. 11. In its consideration of renewable energy development proposals, the Comhairle will consider the siting of the infrastructure, the method of construction, and the method of procurement of contracts for construction and operation. 12. The Comhairle will seek confirmation from the Crown Estate that any fisheries exclusion zone that may result from installation of a sub-sea cable will be compensated for. 13. In new developments, the Comhairle will encourage appropriate renewable energy and energy saving measures that will contribute locally to fossil fuel reduction and to sustainable development.
Planning Guidance In addition to current National and Western Isles planning policy guidance, the following supplementary planning guidance will be used in the consideration of development proposals. 1. As well as taking account of the key criteria identified at paragraph 1.10 above, for proposals that may affect nature conservation designated areas, it will be for the developer to show that: a) The reasons for the designation will not be irreversibly damaged and that the designated area has the capacity to accommodate the proposed development through mitigation and management arrangements, and that; b) mitigation, management and compensatory measures are proposed to safeguard protected species in and around the development site. 2. In the assessment of the likely impact of proposed onshore wind energy developments, consideration will be given to the “Landscape Capacity Study for Onshore Wind Energy Development in the Western Isles” (2004). 3. Medium and large scale renewable energy developments (as a rule, those with more than 1 MW generation capacity) will normally be subject to a requirement for completion of an agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country (Scotland) Act 1997 to include: • Land restoration during and after completion of the development phase, and at any time when any part of the development is modified or becomes redundant and the taking out of a reinstatement bond to ensure acceptable restoration. • Off site works to roads or other services that reasonably require improvements to accommodate the proposed development. • Any safeguarding or remediation works to any off site feature or receptor that may be affected by the proposal.
Other Relevant Policy Matters
5.42 The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 places a statutory duty on all public bodies to further the conservation of biodiversity in exercising any of their functions. Planning Authority functions play a key role in fulfilling this duty and in ensuring that the natural environment remains a key consideration in the sustainability of human activity and to quality of life.
5.43 There are a number of other publications and guidance published which have relevance to this application. These include: • Corporate Strategy – Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 2007. • Creating Communities of the Future – OHCPP. • CnES Western Isles Local Biodiversity Action Plans • CnES Western Isles Access Strategy. • Habitats and Wild Birds Directives (Habitats Directive (SE circular 9/95 - revised 2000). • SNH policy on Renewable Energy 2002. • Western Isles Regional Accounts 2003 – 2005. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
6.1 The proposed Siadar Wave Energy Project (SWEP) will consist of a breakwater-type structure will housing up to 40 wave energy conversion devices. The total electricity generation capacity is to be up to 4 MW.
6.2 SWEP could be connected to the adjacent coast by a rock armoured causeway and fixed steel trussed bridge to facilitate access to the turbines for operational and maintenance purposes. Alternatively, a slipway and boat access may be used.
Location 6.3 The proposed location is approximately 350m offshore, due west of Siadar at grid ref NGR NB 3745 5507. The final position will be determined by further design and site investigation work. The exact position of the breakwater could be moved north east or south west along the given depth contour by up to 150 m from a central position (see Appendices 2&3).
Planning 6.4 The applicant suggests that the options presented in the ES are not options for the consenting authority to choose between, but necessary options required to ensure there is a viable scheme, which can be taken forward once consent is received. Therefore, consent for all the options presented here is being sought by the applicant.
6.5 The design has been modified, where necessary, to avoid any significant adverse effects. The applicant suggests that there will be a further opportunity to refine the final design in response to any consent conditions.
Electricity output 6.6 The applicant estimates that the SWEP will produce approximately 8,000 MWh per year based on an assumed installed capacity of 4.0 MW. This is enough electricity to supply the average annual electricity needs of around 1,500 homes each year in the UK.
Design 6.7 The principal components of the active breakwater scheme (see table below) are comprised of the following:
• a breakwater structure; • wave energy converters located within the breakwater; • a possible fixed permanent link to shore; • an onshore control building and possible boat house; • a possible new/refurbished slipway; • access tracks; • onshore site compound (construction phase only); • borrow pit for aggregate materials (construction phase only).
OWC design 6.8 The Oscillating Water Column (OWC) wave energy converter consists of a chamber with a submerged opening to the sea and an air vent at the top. This allows waves to rise and fall within it, driving air in and out of the vent, which is fitted with a turbine. This converts the reciprocating flow of air into a constant rotational motion to drive a generator. The resulting energy is then transferred to shore by sub-sea or fixed link installed cables. The concept of OWC technology built into a breakwater structure in this way is known as an active breakwater.
Breakwater design 6.9 The scheme will consist of a breakwater-type construction located in relatively shallow water a short distance offshore. OWC technology will be installed within the structure to capture energy from the incident waves.
6.10 To operate effectively as an active breakwater a number of important design criteria will have to be considered which will influence the layout, construction, installation and operation of the breakwater, including the following:
• Existing site access and layout; • Near-shore wave climate; • Suitable construction site for caisson (a sealed underwater structure) construction and ability to transfer the caissons to the off-shore seabed site; • Seabed topography and geology and ease of installation of the caissons; • Incorporation of the optimum features for an OWC energy capture system; and • Ease of access for operational and maintenance activities.
6.11 The applicant has performed a technical assessment of these aspects to determine the preferred location, design and construction methodology for the active breakwater.
6.12 The breakwater will be up to 250m in length and rise approximately 17m from the seabed making about 9m of structure visible above mean sea level.
6.13 The caissons will be constructed from reinforced concrete. The design of the caissons has to take into account the potentially abrasive environment in which they would be located, in addition to the desired lifespan of the structure. Each caisson unit would weigh approximately 3,000 tonnes.
6.14 If boat access is used to access the breakwater, vessel landing points will be positioned on the landward face of the caissons and positioned to fit between the piles.
6.15 As well as the steel pile metalwork to support the caisson, there will be additional metal work on the structure itself.
Fixed permanent link design 6.16 The preferred means of providing a fixed link is by part causeway and part bridge for the last 150 to 250 m to the breakwater. It would be designed to support a light rail system or roadway capable of accommodating loads of up to a few tonnes. The causeway could originate at either end of the Siadar Bay, either from the locale of the existing slipway or from adjacent to the Scottish Water works and the proposed onshore construction site. An indicative layout for the fixed link steel truss bridge section is given in Appendix 3.
6.17 Access onto the breakwater would be via landing platforms or ladders with or without floating pontoons attached to the landward side of the breakwater structure. Boats will approach the breakwater from Siadar and will moor along side in the lee of the breakwater structure.
Onshore control building and electrical infrastructure design 6.18 An onshore control building of up to 250 m2 or nominally 18 m x 12 m or 31 m x 8 m in size and up to 6 m high would be constructed near to the shore. It is proposed that this building be located at either the existing slipway at NGR NR 381 548 or adjacent to the existing Scottish Water works at NGR NB 378 545.
6.19 Externally an open but covered public viewing area with interpretation boards would be incorporated into the seaward facing side of the building to facilitate public visits to the site. The control building may have a small fenced off enclosure for the storage of materials and also the operation of any cooling or air conditioning equipment. Vehicle parking and turning areas would be situated around the building.
6.20 The preferred design is a longhouse concept reflecting the traditional form of the Western Isles (see Appendix 4), constructed from:
• Block timber frames or steel/timber structure; • Pitched steel roof; and • Stone and wooden cladding.
Construction access 6.21 Vehicles would reach the site via the A857 which runs from Stornoway and along the north west coast of Lewis as a far the Port of Ness. There is already good access to the site off the A857 along single track unclassified roads and tracks.
6.22 The use of heavy construction traffic associated with building the caissons at a local site compound would probably require the existing route by Baile an Truiseil to be maintained during construction and made good at the end of the works.
6.23 Any existing tracks affected by the construction works would be resurfaced as necessary on completion of the construction period and would continue to be used during the operation of the scheme.
6.24 To facilitate the extraction of aggregate from a borrow pit site to the south west of the bay a new track to the borrow pit site will be required. Any topsoil stripped from the ground along the track route could be stored nearby to be used later for reinstatement.
6.25 A temporary vehicle bridge over the Siadar River near the Scottish Water works and route along the top of the shingle bank at the beach head may be required.
Operational access 6.26 Vehicle movements to the site post construction will be reduced in number and size. As a result access will be by the existing established access routes either through Upper Siadar or Baile an Truiseil.
Construction and site establishment 6.27 The construction of the scheme would fall into two categories: civils construction work and the electrical and mechanical work. The main civil engineering aspect of the scheme is the construction of the concrete caissons.
6.28 Pre-fabrication at an onshore location results in a safer and more controlled environment in which to operate. However, due to their weight, it is unlikely that the completed caissons could be readily lifted into position. The applicant prefers to launch the caisson from wherever it is fabricated, tow it into position and then sink it onto its foundations.
6.29 The construction options which have been proposed for the construction of the caissons fall into two categories, although both adopt the same fundamental construction philosophy:
• Remote construction of caissons: Transit of the caissons from the fabrication site to Siadar presents an increased risk of the caissons becoming damaged or in extreme cases, sinking. Therefore, such activities would have to be carried out in the summer months. Wet tows relying partly on the caissons own buoyancy supplemented by external buoyancy is preferred by the applicant.
• Local construction of caissons: The site for fabrication of the caissons needs to be large enough to accommodate construction of the caissons as well as space for site accommodation, storage of plant and materials and the storage of any topsoil etc. that will need to be removed to create the site. Certain areas within an overall area of about 8.5 hectares (21acres) would be required to be cleared.
6.30 The compound and construction facilities would comprise of the following:
• Power source from large super-silenced generators if uneconomic to bring in new cable; • Oil and fuel storage in bunded tanks; • Reinforcement assembly and storage; • Two cranes used to transfer the assembled caisson onto bogies; • Storage of top soil; • Concrete formwork/shuttering and storage area; • Material stores; • Prefabricated site offices; • Site stores; • Winch equipment for lowering the caissons down the slipway; and • Accommodation for 10 - 20 workers plus welfare facilities for up to 40 people.
6.31 A 20m or so wide slipway with a roadway on top would lead from the construction site down into a deep water trench cut through the rocky foreshore. The slipway would have sloping sides and could employ rails on which bespoke bogies for carrying the caissons would travel. Winching gear would be required to enable the caissons to be lowered into the water in a controlled manner. At the outer end of the slipway a 20 m wide trench channel would be required to achieve an appropriate water depth. Two potential options presently exist:
• Option 1 would require 12,060 m3 of aggregate to build up the slip and 1,140 m3 of material to be removed to form the trench; • Alternatively, Option 2 would require 7,850 m3 to build up the slipway and 4,860 m3 to be removed to create the trench.
6.32 Onsite construction would be convenient as being close to site will also allow the construction to respond quickly and take advantage of short weather windows in which to move the caissons from the shore out to sea.
Offshore installation
Seabed preparation 6.33 The preparation of the seabed would involve the removal of any outcrops of rock from within the footprint of the structure that extend any higher than the proposed foundation level. The Lewisian Gneiss underlying the seabed means that conventional pilling techniques used in softer materials cannot be used, the supporting piles will need to be socketted into position.
Caissons 6.34 From the local construction site the caissons would be moved by bogies down the slipway to the tidal zone where they will be manoeuvred into their final position. This would principally involve the winches which would lower the caissons is a controlled manner into the water.
Permanent fixed link 6.35 The permanent fixed link could be a rubble mound causeway or a steel trussed bridge or a combination of the two. The causeway option would be constructed after some or all of the caissons have been installed.
6.36 Rock from the onshore borrow pit, remote quarry and possibly any spoil material from the underwater dredging and blasting would be used to form the causeway. The steel truss bridge would be largely constructed from a combination of a jack-up barge and onshore works.
Fitting out and electrical and mechanical installation 6.37 The cable connection to shore would run in ducting attached to the fixed link structure. If the scheme is developed without a fixed permanent link then subsea cabling will be required.
6.38 During construction of the offshore components the site may require lighting during working hours. In some instances due to the complexity associated with this work and the availability of suitable weather windows, 24 hour working may be required. However, this would be limited and Sunday working would be avoided as much as possible unless absolutely essential.
6.39 The slipway and trench proposed for onshore construction as well as the seabed preparation for the breakwater foundation could all affect the Scottish Water outfall. As a result the outfall pipe will need to be protected or reconstructed.
Borrow pit 6.40 Aggregate for concrete would be sourced locally where possible and rock would be sourced either locally from the new borrow pit or from local quarries. Vehicle movements associated with using the borrow pit will be contained within the construction access roads and not pass over any public roads.
6.41 The borrow pit will be reinstated to the shape appropriate to best tie in with its surrounding landscape. Typically a layer of at least 1m deep peat will be replaced on top of the rock.
6.42 Waste will be processed and disposed of in accordance with SEPA and other guidelines.
Programme 6.43 An indicative start date of Spring 2009 is given which would result in a completion date of December 2010, about 18 months. The main works onsite occur over a 12 month period. There is the potential that these proposed timescales could be extended due to weather conditions.
Amenity value 6.44 In either scenario, the applicant claims that there will be an improved access to the sea. A refurbished existing slipway would benefit from the shelter and would become a more attractive investment for the local community than at the present situation.
Operational activities
Electrical and mechanical maintenance 6.45 The primary function of the active breakwater scheme is to generate electricity and this will be achieved by the OWC units and the Well’s turbines. It is envisaged that the primary maintenance consideration for the scheme would be the mechanical and electrical performance of the turbines and generators. Regular maintenance requirements would principally involve routine monthly inspections of the turbines and greasing of the bearings.
6.46 The active breakwater structure is designed to have a minimum design life of 50 years. The costs and effort associated with the operational phase of the civils are envisaged to be minimal.
6.47 In the operations phase the onshore control building would feature external lighting. This lighting would only be used during maintenance visits or in the event of an emergency call out.
6.48 It may also be possible to utilise the local Scottish Water waste works to dispose of any waste water in the control building or at the construction compound. These arrangements would have to be agreed with the Local Authority, Scottish Water and SEPA.
6.49 On average the scheme would be running for approximately 75% of the time with this concentrated around the winter period.
Decommissioning 6.50 This project has a projected lifespan of 50 years. The breakwater structure and rubble mound causeway element of the fixed link (if constructed) will have a design life of 50 to 75 years, which could probably be extended through refurbishment. The bridge element of the fixed link (if constructed) will have a design life of 50 years. The control building will have a 50 year design life.
6.51 It is possible that the structure could be replanted with a new set of turbines at the end of the project and give the scheme a second life.
6.52 Electrical and mechanical components and any superficial fittings would be removed and any openings made safe. The electrical cables may be left in situ within the structure or seabed.
6.53 As required by the Energy Act 2004, a Decommissioning Programme will be prepared for the project.
TERRESTRIAL GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
Main Elements from Environmental Statement 7.1 This section assesses the potential effects of the SWEP on the surrounding terrestrial hydrology, hydrogeology and geology, it therefore relates to the onshore components; construction compound, fixed link/slipway, landfall site, access tracks and control building. 7.2 The issues identified in the table below are those raised in the scoping Opinion.
7.3 A desk study was undertaken to assess hydrology, hydrogeology and geology of the area. A field survey was not undertaken as a detailed environmental survey was carried out in September 2006. A summary of the aspects which may have an effect on the hydrology, hydrogeology and geology of the area are presented in the table below.
Hydrology 7.4 The SWEP development site is situated close to the three catchments of Loch Dubh na h- Airde, Feadan Siorrabhaig and the River Siadar, which also includes the Lambol Burn. The River Siadar is classified as being in ‘Good’ condition by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The catchments are peaty and the above average UK rainfall is therefore quickly converted to runoff due to the generally impermeable nature of blanket peat. There are no public or private water supplies in the area.
Hydrogeology 7.5 The site is underlain by relatively uniform bedrock of undifferentiated Lewisian Gneiss, it is generally covered in a mantle of highly compressible peat between 1-5m thick. The bedrock underlying the site is low permeability rock and does not contain ground water in exploitable quantities. The ground water encountered is likely to be perched and localised.
7.6 There are no public or private water supplies within the area.
Assessment of Potential Effects 7.7 The construction phase is likely to be when there is the greatest risk of potential effect to the hydrology and hydrogeology of the site. This is when there is most activity on site, and therefore, most risk of physical disturbance and pollution. The hydrology and hydrogeology assessment has considered potential impacts on surface water flows and levels, effects on surface water from spillages, sedimentation and erosion effects, effects on groundwater flows and levels and effects on groundwater quality.
7.8 It is likely that the potential greatest impacts will result from the construction of water crossings, increased areas of hard-standing at the construction compound, re-alignment of the existing drainage ditch adjacent to the existing slipway (if the control building is to be situated to the north of the bay) and alteration of surface water flows at the potential borrow pit. However, due to the generally low receptor sensitivity (surface and groundwater) and the implementation of good construction environmental practices, the ES states that the impacts are not considered significant. All operations will follow relevant SEPA Guidance and Pollution Prevention Guidance and prior to commencing construction the contractor will develop detailed method statements, including a pollution prevention plan and emergency procedures should a pollution incident occur. Particular care will be taken to ensure potentially polluting activities such as refuelling of plant and machinery is undertaken safely, and to minimise impacts from river or burn crossings.
7.9 It is anticipated that any water required during onsite concrete mixing may require the abstraction of water from the River Siadar. This would take place close to the river mouth and there are no sensitive receptors downstream, therefore impacts are not considered significant.
7.10 The long term presence of the onshore control building and area of hard standing around it is not expected to result in any significant hydrology or hydrogeological impacts.
Policy Considerations SPP 7 Planning and Flooding 7.11 One of the principles identified in this SPP is that ‘developers and planning authorities must give consideration to the possibility of flooding from all sources. Flood prevention and alleviation measures should not lead to a deterioration in the ecological status of the water course or body and may provide opportunities for habitat enhancement or creation.’
PAN61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage 7.12 This PAN indicates that the planning system has a central role in getting Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) accepted as an integral part of the development process.
7.13 SUDS (now referred to as SDS) aim to deal, in an integrated way, with the issues of water quantity, water quality and amenity. It works on the following principles: • Managing surface water run-off as near to source as possible; • Slowing down run-off; • Treating it naturally; • Releasing good quality surface water to water courses or ground water.
7.14 The overall objective is to return excess water to the natural water cycle with minimal adverse impact on people and the environment.
Planning Advice Note 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation
The central purpose of this Planning Advice Note ( PAN) is to support the existing policy on the role of the planning system in relation to the environmental protection regimes. This is expressed in SPP1 as:
"Planning decisions should always be made on planning grounds and in the public interest. The planning system should not be used to secure objectives that are more properly achieved under other legislation. The grant of planning permission does not remove the need to seek other statutory consents nor does it imply that these consents will be forthcoming. Even where legal or administrative measures outwith the planning system may exist for controlling a particular activity, this can still be a consideration to which weight is given in reaching a planning decision. If a consideration is material in planning terms, it must be taken into account in reaching a decision. For example, the planning authority should have regard to the impact of a proposal on air or water quality although the regulation of emissions or discharges will fall to be dealt with under other legislation." (paragraph 57 of SPP1)
Paragraph 3 says ‘This PAN also summarises the statutory responsibilities of the environmental protection bodies, as well as informing these bodies about the planning system.’
It goes on in paragraph 69 to say ‘A major task of this PAN has therefore been to acknowledge the complex nature of the environmental protection issues and seek to ensure that arrangements are in place which minimise the risks to public health and to the environment. It is the responsibility of planning authorities and the environmental protection bodies to collaborate in the task of protecting the environment, and to apply controls so that duplication is minimised and overlap is avoided whenever possible.’
Consultation Responses
SEPA 7.15 SEPA is satisfied with proposals in a planning context and considers that the mitigation measures identified within the Environmental Statement (ES) can form the basis of a more detailed construction method statement and be secured through various planning conditions.
Caisson Manufacturing 7.16 SEPA would support the remote manufacture of the caisson’s in order to mitigate the need for the 8.5Ha construction area and associated environmental impacts.
Access to Breakwater 7.17 SEPA’s preference would be to minimise the need for increased aggregate and to limit development to existing infrastructure where possible. It is unclear why the existing public road could not be utilised and therefore SEPA’s preference would be that the public road was utilised minimising watercourse crossings and disturbance to the marine environment.
Pollution Prevention 7.18 SEPA welcomes the general mitigation principles and pollution prevention measures set out in the ES and welcomes the applicant’s intention to produce an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). SEPA requests that a condition is applied requiring the submission to and approval by the determining authority, in consultation with SEPA, and other bodies such as SNH, should this be desired, of a full site specific EMP. Specific details are specified in SEPA’s full response which should be addressed, Appendix 5.
The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (As amended) 7.19 It is SEPA understands that no other watercourse engineering is proposed and that a minimum buffer of 200m to any watercourse will be applied. SEPA welcomes this buffer zone and requests that for the avoidance of doubt these minimum distances are secured through planning condition with the exceptions of the proposed water abstraction and borrow pit access track watercourse crossings.
Borrow Pit 7.20 SEPA does not object to the proposed borrow pit and associated pollution control measures provided full details of the proposed borrow pit and associated pollution control are secured by condition and are provided within the EMP. This information should cover, in relation to water, at least the information set out within Planning Advice Note 50. Information on the proposed depth of the excavation compared to the actual topography, the proposed restoration profile, proposed drainage and settlement traps, turf and overburden removal and storage for reinstatement should be submitted.
Waste Management and Construction Materials 7.21 SEPA requests that a condition is applied requiring the submission to and approval by the determining authority, in consultation with SEPA, of a full site specific Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP), submission to be a minimum of one month prior to commencement of development.
7.22 A number of comments are made throughout the ES regarding the handling, use, storage and disposal of surplus material, however, no coherent consideration of waste minimisation and management seems to have taken place. Given the scale of the project there are likely to be significant volumes of surplus soils and peat which if it is not disposed of appropriately could cause significant environmental harm. Please note that waste peat or soil from excavations spread on this land would not necessarily be to ecological benefit.
Ecological interests of relevance to SEPA 7.23 SEPA welcomes the applicant’s intention to produce a site restoration plan once construction is complete and advises that this agreed as a condition of any consent.
7.24 SEPA requests that a condition is applied requiring the employment of an environmental scientist/project ecologist who should be present on site during the whole construction period and have the authority to modify construction practices in order to protect ecological interests. For the avoidance of doubt SEPA advises that these specialist roles should include powers for work to stop and implement remedial work with immediate effect.
Decommissioning and Final Restoration 7.25 SEPA welcomes the applicant’s intention to produce a decommissioning method statement and requests that a condition is applied seeking a Decommissioning Plan to be submitted, a minimum of one year prior to operations ceasing, and approved by the determining body.
SNH
Geomorphology 7.26 The coastline of the study area is a rocky bay facing north-west. The foreshore is dominated by cobbles and boulders of gneiss. There is little sediment transport owing to the lack of fine grained sediment offshore. The construction of a breakwater may alter the sedimentology, resilience to erosion and flooding, and dynamism of both the littoral zone and terrestrial landforms. Likely Impact of the Proposal on Natural Heritage Interests 7.27 The breakwater structure shall result in the provision of a sheltered zone landward of the structure. This is likely to reduce coastal erosion. The wave climate offshore will be affected by increased wave reflection and diffraction; however this will have minimal impact on the strong gneiss rocks on the seaward side of the breakwater. The shingle bank and the glacial till cliffs are the sensitive parts of the system, and care should be taken to minimise erosion both during construction and during operation of the project.
Applicant Responses 7.28 The applicant has responded to SEPA regarding Terrestrial Geology, Hydrology, and Hydrogeology.
Consultee Comment Developer Comment to Comhairle SEPA SEPA's preference is to minimise the environmental Whilst this preference is noted, consent impact and therefore for the avoidance of doubt SEPA is being sought for both on site and off would support the remote manufacture of the site caisson manufacture. If the on site caisson's in order to mitigate the need for the 8.5Ha manufacture is progressed, then the construction area and associated environmental appropriate mitigation measures impacts. identified in the ES will be implemented. Again SEPA notes the options in Table 3.1 for a Whilst this preference is noted, we are permanent fixed link to the breakwater or the use of a seeking consents for both fixed link new or upgraded existing slipway. SEPA is unclear access or boat access, via a slipway, to why a permanent fixed link would be required and the breakwater. A full cost benefit section 3.11.2 states that boat access would be analysis to determine whether the more adequate for operational needs. Again Section 3 of reliable fixed link access is worth the the ES highlights the increased environmental impact investment compared with a less of utilising a fixed link including need for up to 70 dependable boat access would be 000m3 of aggregate, increased pollution risk and undertaken in the detailed design stage increased impact upon the wave and tidal regimes in which is still underway. the area. SEPA's preference would be to minimise the need for increased aggregate and to limit development to existing infrastructure where possible.
As above SEPA's preference is to minimise the Re-use of the existing slipway by environmental impact and therefore for the avoidance improving it is one option being of doubt SEPA would support the re-use of the assessed for access to the breakwater. existing slip way rather than the fixed link as it would If a fixed link is constructed, the minimise the need for aggregates and additional appropriate mitigation measures pollution risks but would also maintain the tidal identified in the ES will be implemented. interchanges within the area.
SEPA notes that use of the existing slipway would This matter has been discussed with also involve the construction of a temporary access other consultees and in particular CnES track from the borrow pit to the slipway including Transportation Services who expressed watercourse crossings. However, there is an existing a preference for minimising the number public road between the borrow pit and existing of HGV and light traffic movements on slipway. It is unclear why the existing public road the A857 and through the settlements of could not be utilised and therefore SEPA's preference Upper Siadar and Baile an Truiseil. The would be that the public road was utilised, minimising temporary access along the beach head watercourse crossings and disturbance to the marine and water crossing would satisfy this environment. and is the preferred route between either side of the site. Consultee Comment Developer Comment to Comhairle It is SEPA's understanding that the construction This is incorrect. Regardless of where compound would be located adjacent to the proposed the caissons are manufactured or the control building if the existing slipway is utilised and location of the slipway or fixed link, there caissons are manufactured off site. will be a construction compound of a SEPA does not object to this proposal provided a greater or lesser extent situated next to condition is applied ensuring the compound is located the Scottish Water works. adjacent to the control building. It is SEPA's understanding that no other watercourse ES section 6.5.14 states that: 'Sensitive engineering is proposed that the a minimum buffer of activities will be located as far as 200m to any watercourse will be applied. SEPA possible from water course as possible: welcomes this buffer zone and requests that for the 200m where this is practicable. ' For a avoidance of doubt these minimum distances are number of activities it is likely they will secured through planning condition with the be within 200m of the watercourse due exceptions of the proposed water abstraction and to the site layout constraints and the borrow pit access track watercourse crossings. activities which must be carried out. Only where possible will they be located further than 200m. To be clear, a condition imposing a 200m buffer zone would be unworkable given the site constraints and is not what we have suggested. The mitigation measures to be employed when working near a watercourse are listed in Section 17 of the ES.
Waste management Scheme Waste Management Plan to be developed and integrated with the Environmental Management Plan to be agreed prior to construction.
Key Issues Arising 7.29 SEPA does not object to the development but indicates preferences for some of the options outlined in the ES rather than others, for example it indicates a preference for the construction of the caissons off site. It also questions why the public road is not being used for access; the use of the public road is discussed in more detail in section 14 of this report, but the Director of Technical Services made no specific comments on this.
7.30 Most of the comments made by SEPA could, as it suggests be controlled by way of planning conditions. Therefore, if the Comhairle take the view that the development should be approved it is appropriate that these requirements be considered as part of conditions.
TERRESTRIAL HABITATS AND ECOLOGY
Main Elements from Environmental Statement 8.1 This part of the ES examines the possible effects on local terrestrial habitats and species above mean high water springs. The focus is on onshore facilities and covers the project from construction through to operation and decommissioning.
8.2 A habitat survey of the proposed development area identified that approximately 37.5 % (65 ha) of the survey area is comprised of grassland, 47.3 % (82 ha) by bog and 10.9 % (10 ha) by coastal grassland.
8.3 No priority species of plant listed by the EC Habitats Directive or the Wildlife and Countryside Act were identified in the Siadar area, neither were any plants listed a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species or nationally scarce species. There is no conservation designations in the immediate vicinity of the Siadar area, the closest to the proposed site are listed below and shown in Figure 7.1 of the ES (Appendix 6 of this report).
Barvas SPA
8.4 The Barvas SPA is part of the twin Ness and Barvas SPA. It consists mainly of traditionally managed, semi-intensified grassland and marshy areas within crofting land and is a site of European importance as a breeding area for corncrake.
Lewis Peatlands
8.5 The Lewis Peatlands comprise an extensive area of deep blanket bog, interspersed with bog pool complexes and freshwater lochs, covering the main part of Lewis. Grazed, poor- quality grassland also occurs, with heather (Calluna vulgaris) dominant on the coast.
Special Protection Area (SPA) Designation
8.6 The peatlands are designated SPA for a range of characteristic peatland breeding birds, especially waders, divers (including red throated divers, Gavia stellata) and raptors.
Special Area of Conservation SAC designation 8.7 The peatlands are designated SAC for their water bodies and blanket bog.
RAMSAR designation
8.8 The peatlands are designated RAMSAR for their blanket bog and associated wetland fowl.
8.9 The site of the proposed works is outwith any international or national designations, neither is it known to be proposed for any regional or local designations. There are no protected or highly sensitive habitats that could be affected by the development. The area consists of habitats modified by grazing, drainages, and cutting or agriculture activities and there are no areas of unimproved vegetation. There is, however, an area of marshland behind Siadar Bay which is considered locally important, and SEPA have expressed a wish that ideally no construction take place in this area.
8.10 The nearest designated area of relevance to the proposed development is the Lewis Peatlands SPA, located approximately 3 km away toward the interior of the island. The SPA itself is inland of the scheme; however the red throated divers which nest here may feed in the coastal waters by the proposed SWEP development. This potential impact is considered in the marine ecology section (Section 9).
8.11 The proposed construction site is located in an area of dry heath/acid grassland with patches of wet modified bog. To accommodate the site, an area will need to be cleared, resulting in a temporary loss of approximately 8.5 ha of vegetation. The proposed borrow pit site is located in an area of semi-improved acid grassland with patches of marsh/marshy grassland. The exact dimensions of the borrow pit will be dependent on the amount of aggregate required from the area. Following construction, the construction site, access road and borrow pits will be reinstated with local vegetation, in accordance with the appropriate Method Statements. Although the magnitude of impact as a result of the construction site and borrow pit is likely to be major, the habitats which will be disturbed are of low sensitivity and therefore impacts on habitats and flora are not considered significant.
8.12 Construction of the control building and car park at the north end of the bay will encroach upon an area of marsh/marshy grassland of local biodiversity value.
Birds 18.13 Bird species of conservation importance identified during the breeding survey are listed in the table below.
8.14 The proposed construction operations will result in the temporary loss of areas of grassland which have the potential to provide nesting and foraging habitat for a number of terrestrial bird species, some of which are of European, national and local conservation importance. There would also be the potential for disturbance to these and other birds using the surrounding areas due to noise and vibration generated by construction activity.
8.15 None of the breeding bird populations found at the proposed development site represents more than 0.1 % of the UK breeding population although the presence of an individual corncrake, (Crex crex), was recorded approximately 1 km inland of the construction site. This species is classified as near threatened according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, and is one of the qualifying species for the nearby Barvas SPA. However it is not expected to be impacted by the proposed development due to its distance form the proposed construction site.
Otters 8.16 The otter survey conducted along the coastal strip and inland moorland and lochans of the survey area found evidence of otter presence but did not show high levels of activity. No holts or couches were located along the coast itself, but signs of otter presence included spraints and feeding remains. The two larger lochans both had evidence of otter activity including couch sites, tracks, spraints, feeding remains and two confirmed holts. A mother and cub were also seen feeding and playing on several occasions along the coast, at one stage being observed feeding off the coast in Siadar Bay, then moving north along the coast.
8.17 There will be no direct disturbance to the internationally protected otter (breeding or rest areas) from construction operations, as the nearest holts and couches over 1 km away from the proposed construction site. Since some level of otter activity has been observed by the coast, however, it can be expected that construction has the potential to cause some degree of disturbance. There are mitigation measures that will reduce the effect on the mammals, it is therefore considered that any impact on otters in the Siadar area due to construction will be insignificant. The effect during the operational phase is also considered to be insignificant.
Salmonids 8.18 With regards salmonids the most important impact to consider in terms of construction works is the potential for changes in water flow and release of sediments into the River Siadar. Mitigation includes that, where possible, no in-stream works will be carried out between October and June to avoid disruption to spawning and vehicle activity in the water course will be kept to a minimum. Construction works will be planned to be located as far as possible from all water courses, however those activities located adjacent to water courses will be appropriately managed to avoid any impacts. In addition, the river mouth will be monitored to ensure it is kept clear of obstructions that may have the potential to affect access to the river mouth by migrating salmonids.
8.19 To ensure the situation with regard to terrestrial habitats and species does not significantly change from that reported here, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Western Isles Fisheries Trust will be consulted on the need for pre construction surveys for mammals and birds as an additional safeguard before work is allowed to start on site. Any such surveys would also be used to further inform and necessary licensing requirements.
8.20 The ES states that the potential effects on terrestrial habitats during the operational phase of the project will be less significant than those during construction, as land used for construction will have been reinstated and levels of activity in the area will be greatly reduced. There may be ongoing minor disturbance to terrestrial communities due to the need for routine maintenance works involving noise and human presence however these are not considered to be significant.
Policy Considerations SPP6
8.21 Paragraph 8 states that ‘Support for renewable energy developments and the need to protect and enhance Scotland’s natural and historic environment must be regarded as compatible goals if an effective response is to be made to the challenges of sustainable development and climate change. The planning system has a significant role to play in resolving conflicts so that progress towards the 2020 target continues to be made in a way that affords appropriate protection to the natural and historic environment without unreasonably restricting the potential for renewable energy development.’
8.22 Paragraph 17 states ‘The Scottish Ministers expect planning authorities to make positive provision for renewable energy developments by: Supporting a diverse range of renewable energy technologies including encouraging the development of emerging and new technologies. While at the same time: Meeting international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats and protecting the historic environment from inappropriate forms of development.
8.23 Paragraph 50 advises on how development on peat should be considered. The reduction of carbon emissions is a key objective of renewable energy policy. In some instances, soil disturbance may lead to the release of carbon stored in soils, thus potentially contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. This is of particular relevance for soils rich in carbon, like peat. Developments should therefore be designed to minimise soil disturbance when building and maintaining roads and tracks, turbine bases and other infrastructure to ensure that the carbon balance savings of the scheme are maximised. Where relevant, applicants will be expected to provide geotechnical and hydrological information in support of applications, identifying the presence of peat at each site, including the risk of landslide connected to any development work.
National Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 Natural Heritage
8.24 This National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG) gives guidance on how the Government's policies for the conservation and enhancement of Scotland's natural heritage should be reflected in land use planning. In this context, Scotland's natural heritage includes its plants and animals, its landforms and geology, and its natural beauty and amenity. National Planning Guidance Note 14 emphasises that the presence of a protected species or habitat is a material consideration in the assessment of development proposals. Particular care to avoid harm to species or habitats protected under the 1981 Act (Wildlife and Countryside Act) or European Directives, or identified as priorities in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, must be taken.
8.25 Paragraph 23 states: Many areas which are important for their natural heritage value have been designated under the statutes and international conventions …. Natural heritage designations have a key part to play in conserving and enhancing environmental assets, and the status they confer can offer opportunities for sustainable economic and social development. Designation does not imply a prohibition on development. Sites are designated for a variety of different purposes, and development proposals require to be assessed for their effects on the natural heritage interests which the designation is intended to protect.
8.26 NPPG14 gives guidance on how the Government’s policies for natural heritage should be reflected in land use planning. The NPPG recognises both the statutory framework for the protection of designated sites and species, and the need to safeguard and enhance the wider environment. A national commitment to sustainable developments means that the Government is concerned that natural heritage is conserved and enhanced for the benefit of present and future generations. It recognises that new developments can play an important role in securing environmental improvements, but that the need to protect the natural heritage will necessitate refusal of permission for developments that may only have short-term benefits.
8.27 Paragraph 9 states that the protection of natural heritage may sometimes impose constraints on development, but that in some cases conservation and development can be compatible.
8.28 Paragraph 19 highlights how fragmentation or isolation of habitats can significantly reduce their ecological value, and states that planning authorities should seek to prevent further fragmentation and/or isolation in determining the outcome of planning applications.
8.29 Paragraph 42 emphasises that a development which would have an adverse effect on the conservation interests for which a Natura 2000 site (a Special Protection Area and/or a Special Area of Conservation, which are European designations) has been designated, should only be permitted where there is no alternative and there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. Additionally, where a priority habitat or species (as defined in Article 1 of the Habitats Directive) would be affected, prior consultation with the European Commission is required unless the development is necessary for public health or safety reasons.
Planning Advice Note 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 8.30 Paragraph 74 of this PAN says ‘The potential for conflict between development and natural heritage interests can be much reduced where developers discuss their outline proposals with the planning authority at an early stage. Once detailed designs have been prepared and finance lined up, modifications to accommodate natural heritage interests become more difficult and expensive to achieve. It is therefore in the interest of developers, as part of their pre-application research, to undertake an initial assessment of the natural heritage resources of the area, which they are proposing to develop. Where nationally and internationally important interests are known or thought likely to exist, it will be important to involve SNH in early discussions. Pre-application discussions with other statutory agencies and the voluntary conservation bodies may also be of value.’ 8.31 Paragraph 75 states that ‘It is essential that the planning authority is fully informed about the nature and significance of the natural heritage issues raised by development proposals.’ 8.32 The PAN encourages negotiation and paragraph 76 says ‘Much can be achieved through good will where there is early discussion and a positive relationship between planning authority and developer. Measures which enhance natural heritage value can often be incorporated into developments at modest cost and can offer significant benefits to the developer in terms of positive publicity, marketing and amenity.’ 8.33 Paragraphs 77 and 78 outline what is important in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and where the requirements are set out. A development control checklist is also provided. Western Isles Structure Plan
DM1 Location of development 8.34 Development proposals out with settlements and townships (i.e. open moorland, mountains, isolated or undeveloped coastlines and uninhabited islands) will only be supported when the proposal does not result in excessive additional public expenditure for site service and:
• A specific location need has been demonstrated; or • It is for the sustainable development of a natural resource; or • It avoids a significant detrimental effect on natural and built heritage.
DM5 Availability of supporting infrastructure 8.35 All development proposals should have regard to the availability of supporting infrastructure (e.g. water, sewerage, power) and early consultation with service providers will be encouraged, particularly during the site selection process. In areas where there are insufficient capacity, prospective developers should liaise with the council and service providers regarding connections and, if necessary, either investigate suitable alternative sites or be willing to make a financial contribution to ensure adequate capacity. Improvements should be undertaken in environmentally sensitive ways e.g. the undergrounding of cables and pipes should be considered in areas of landscape importance
DM7 Assessment of development proposals 8.36 In dealing with applications for development the Council will take into account of the requirements of other relevant Structure Plan policies and will ensure:
• Quality siting, landscaping and designs that incorporate sustainable management techniques; • No undue harm to neighbouring uses as a result of the development; • The impact on the natural heritage is fully considered; • There will be no pollution out with prescribed limits to air, land, fresh water or seas; • There will be no likelihood of causing harmful erosion.
RM11 Habitats and Species 8.37 The Comhairle will not normally grant consent for developments on land or water that would have significant adverse impacts upon habitats or species listed under the EC Habitats Directive, the EC Birds Directive or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The Comhairle will encourage the appropriate management and enhancement of features of the landscape, which are of major importance for wild flora and fauna.
In the event of a proposed development having an adverse impact on breeding or resting places used by these species, it should only proceed if: • action must be to preserve public health or safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature; and • there is no satisfactory alternative; and • there will be no adverse impact on the species as a whole.
ED2 Development of Alternative and Renewable Energy Resources 8.38 Development proposals for hydro, solar, wave, tidal and wind (on-shore and offshore) energy schemes and associated infrastructure, including proposals for non-grid, domestic- scale schemes, will be viewed positively, subject to satisfactory assessment of all of the following:
• The impact on local communities and any other existing or proposed land uses and interests; • The impact, including cumulative impact, on natural and built heritage resources; • The local and wider benefits that the proposal may bring; • The adequacy of reinstated arrangements; • The requirements of other Structure Plan policies.
T4 Road Safety, Highway Improvements and Traffic Management Development proposals associated with new or improved roads and traffic management measures should take account of the following: i) surrounding natural and built heritage features; ii) the impact of the proposal on the character of the area; iii) opportunities to incorporate lay-bys, picnic areas and viewpoints, where appropriate, on redundant roads as an alternative to removal and restoration; iv) opportunities to promote segregated cycle or pedestrian routes; v) opportunities for securing improved road safety, in particular around schools and other community or leisure facilities; and vi) opportunities for carrying out landscaping and other enhancements to ‘fit’ the development into the surrounding area.
Consultation Responses
SNH
Natural Heritage Interests European sites 8.39 The proposed site lies within close proximity to the Lewis Peatlands SAC and Lewis Peatlands SPA. The development, as proposed, would have no significant impact on the qualifying habitats and species of the SAC.
European protected species 8.40 Otters are given full protection under The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are further protected as ‘European Protected Species’ (EPS) under Regulations 39 and 43 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. This means it is illegal to deliberately or recklessly kill, injure, disturb or capture/take these species of animal or to damage or destroy the breeding sites or resting places of such animals.
8.41 Cetaceans are also known to occur near the development site. In addition to their EPS status these are also afforded protection, including the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, under which it is now an offence to deliberately or recklessly harass any dolphin, porpoise or whale.
Ornithology 8.42 The development area is used by breeding birds, non-breeding birds foraging within the sub and intertidal zones.
Ecology (excluding birds) 8.43 The proposal involves the construction of moving parts under seawater, which will inevitably lead to regular maintenance and use of antifoulants, which will pose potential impacts on the marine ecology. This will also lead to a loss of wave energy, affecting sedimentation processes.
8.44 The proposed construction site is located in an area of dry heath/acid grassland with patches of modified bog. A large area of this vegetation will have to be cleared, resulting in temporary habitat loss
SNH Appraisal of the Likely Impacts on Natural Heritage Interests
European sites – Lewis Peatlands SPA 8.45 From the information available, it appears to SNH that in this case the proposal is not connected with or necessary for the conservation management of the site. Hence, further consideration is required. 8.46 An appropriate assessment is necessary when a proposal is deemed likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site. In this instance, SNH considers that it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on any qualifying interests either directly or indirectly and in SNH’s view an appropriate assessment is therefore not required. 8.47 From information provided in the environmental statement, SNH agrees that the Siadar coast is not an important feeding area for breeding red throated divers. Flightline and coastal survey data suggest that they are mainly concentrated further north towards Dell and further south towards Barvas.
European Protected Species
Otters 8.48 An otter survey has been carried out, establishing that holts and resting places are present within the development boundary. Otter activity was recorded along the coast also, confirming that there will be some degree of disturbance, particularly during the construction phase. SNH recommend that a pre-construction survey should be undertaken shortly before construction works commence, to determine otter activity at that time. 8.49 SNH objects to the proposal on the grounds of impact on otters until it is made subject to conditions covering the following measures as follows:
• There will be no blasting within 2 hours of dawn and dusk;
• Any pipelines must be capped at the end of the day;
• The otter population shall be monitored before, during and after construction and potentially sensitive areas identified;
• Should the above monitoring locate any otter shelters within 30m of construction areas, the developer should apply to the Scottish Executive for an EPS licence. Should the monitoring locate any evidence of breeding within 200m of construction areas, SNH should be contacted for advice and an application to the Scottish Executive for an EPS licence may be required.
• Implementation of all other measures specified in the ES to mitigate impacts on otter, except where modified or superseded by those specified in the above paragraphs.
8.50 SNH would have no objection to the development if the above measures were to be carried out and included in conditions of consent. Cetaceans 8.51 In terms of the effects of the project on the presence of cetaceans through the presence of the breakwater and increases in noise in the area, SNH is content that the site is not expected to be frequently visited by cetaceans. Any cetaceans in transit would tend to be further offshore in deeper waters. 8.52 However, we strongly endorse the proposal by npower Renewables to employ a Marine Mammal Observer during the construction activities involving piling, dredging and blasting, whereby activities are only permitted during the absence of cetaceans from a predefined area. The methodology should be agreed with SNH in advance of such work. We would also request a summary report from the Marine Mammal Observer, of all observations and the consequent actions taken by the developer. 8.53 In addition, the noise emitted by the operational turbines is uncertain, as is the extent to which it will carry through the water. npower commits to monitoring of noise levels, and SNH strongly endorses this proposal. We request a summary report after an initial period of one month of monitoring, providing details of the monitoring undertaken and relating noise levels recorded to ambient noise and impacts, if any, upon cetaceans. Ornithology 8.54 The environmental statement failed to provide a comprehensive overview of the impacts of the proposal on all local bird interests. It does not address the use of the area, particularly the intertidal and inshore waters, by non breeding birds. The main concerns are that of disturbance and displacement to resident birds. However, the breeding bird survey does not reveal any significant species or concentrations of species. It is likely that that the site is used by divers, sea ducks, auks and other diving species, and we would wish to draw your attention to the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Marine Renewable Energy Development in Scotland report Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds undertaken by SAMS and CEH in January 2007.
8.55 Overall, at this scale, the proposal is unlikely to have significant impacts on any bird species. However, as this is a new technology, SNH recommends post construction monitoring. In order for this to be of use, a good baseline survey should be carried out before construction, focussing on bird species using the intertidal and sub-tidal habitats.
Marine ecology 8.56 The ES failed to provide information on the use of an antifoulant system, despite this being asked for by SNH at the scoping stage. We request to be consulted on the proposed antifoulant system prior to its implementation.
Terrestrial ecology 8.57 Phase 1 habitat surveys conclude that there are no priority species of plant or habitat present, as listed by EC Habitats Directive or the Wildlife & Countryside Act, nor were there any UK BAP species, or nationally scarce species. SNH therefore agrees that there will likely be minimal impacts on terrestrial habitats.
Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust 8.58 The proposed wave energy scheme close to the mouth of the river is most likely to affect migratory species (eels, salmon and sea trout) Atlantic salmon and sea trout are protected under various aspects of legislation. The Fisheries Trust welcomes this type of renewable energy development but requests a more detailed investigation of freshwater fish impacts as outlined below.
Fish Surveys 8.59 The ES suggests that there will be some impacts to migratory fish through noise and mechanical disruption. This could prevent salmon and sea trout from entering the Siadar River to spawn, in effect removing a year class of migratory fish. However the effects during the operational period are unclear and it is possible that the wave scheme will have on-going impacts on migratory fish. Unless information can be provided that to illustrate that noise from the turbine will not disturb migratory fish the Trust suggests that on going fish monitoring is carried out to detect any impacts. Prior to consent being granted a fish and habitat survey should be completed to determine if the level of impact on Allta’Ghearraidh is acceptable.
Timing of work 8.60 Fish are vulnerable at different times in the freshwater and marine stages of their lifecycle. • It is important that instream works impacting on spawning gravels are carried out between late June and the end of August. • Blasting and drilling should be carried out between December and February but this is when weather conditions are at their worst, the period June to September should be avoided as a minimum.
Damage to Migrating Fish Bound for Other West Coast Rivers 8.61 The ES suggests that fish passing within 2.2 km of blasting work may be injured by it and those close to the blast may be killed. This is of great concern to the Trust as it could impact on major rivers south of Siadar including Barvas, Arnol, Shawbost, Carloway, the Blackwater, Grimersta, Morsgail as they migrate down the coast. The trust seeks clarification of this figure and detailed mitigation measures.
Instream/Riparian Works 8.62 We welcome undertaking to protect fish habitat, but ask that plans for all water crossings, construction within 200m of Siadar River and water abstractions are detailed prior to consent in order that fisheries impacts can be assessed.
RSPB 8.63 The area is not covered by a designations but Annex 1 bird species do utilise the area, most notably the Red Throated Diver and to a lesser extent the corncrake. The impact on these is deemed to be negligible by the RSPB. We would advise that as this is a demonstration project planning conditions should be attached requiring the biodiversity surveys be carried out annually. It is also suggested that survey work be carried out with the breeding season to establish a solid baseline survey.
8.64 Post construction reinstatement should ensure the reinstatement of An Fideach, an area of wetland, which supports small numbers of Wigeon, Whooper swans and Teal.
8.65 Otter activity in the area is high, however if a fixed access is constructed, creating an area of calmer shelter water, this may be of benefit to otters in the long term. Various options are supplied in the ES in relation to the connection from the land to the breakwater, RSPB has no preference to which method is used.
Applicant Responses 8.66 The applicant has responded to SNH, OHFT, and RSPB regarding Terrestrial Habitats and Ecological concerns.
Consultee Comment Developer Comment to Comhairle Scottish Natural Heritage The proposal involves the construction of moving There are no moving parts under parts under seawater, which will inevitably lead to seawater. The turbines are driven by regular maintenance and use of antifoulants, which the compressed and decompressed air will pose potential impacts on the marine ecology. in the Oscillating Water Column. This will also lead to a loss of wave energy, affecting However, if there is any use of sedimentation processes. antifoulant, SNH will be notified beforehand. The affects of the project on sedimentation are deemed minor, see Table 10.7 of the ES. Ceteceans - In addition, the noise emitted by the Out with this project, recent operational turbines is uncertain, as is the extent to communication between the European which it will carry through the water. npower commits Marine Energy Centre in Orkney and to monitoring of noise levels, and SNH strongly SNH has highlighted that due to the endorses this proposal. We request a summary naturally noisy nature of near shore report after an initial period of one month of coastal environments SNH does not feel monitoring, providing details of the monitoring that monitoring would provide any undertaken and relating noise levels recorded to meaningful results. Therefore, the ambient noise and impacts, if any, upon cetaceans. monitoring described here may be unnecessary. This matter is being discussed with SNH. Consultee Comment Developer Comment to Comhairle Ornithology - The environmental statement failed to Additional baseline bird surveys will be provide a comprehensive overview of the impacts of designed in conjunction with SNH and the proposal on all local bird interests. It does not RSPB and then undertaken to better address the use of the area, particularly the intertidal inform the impact analysis. The follow and inshore waters, by non-breeding birds. The main up monitoring after construction will also concerns are that of disturbance and displacement to be agreed with these bodies. resident birds. However, the breeding bird survey does not reveal any significant species or concentrations of species. It is likely that the site is used by divers, sea ducks, auks and other diving species, and we would wish to draw your attention to the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Marine Renewable Energy Development in Scotland report Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds undertaken by SAMS and CEH in January 2007.
Overall, at this scale, the proposal is unlikely to have significant impacts on any bird species. However, as this is a new technology, SNH recommends post construction monitoring. In order for this to be of use, a good baseline survey should be carried out before construction, focusing on bird species using the intertidal and subtidal habitats. The environmental statement did not adequately Clarification on the definition of the address the extent of lighting. SNH is unclear as to 'ground truthed visual envelope' is being how the judgement has been made that ‘it is expected sought to address this point and the final that lighting associated with the development will have design will take account of these points. a minor impact on the local receptors’. We recommend that land-based lighting does not extend beyond the ground-truthed visual envelope.
Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust General There are 3 parties concerned with fisheries issues on this project: OHFT, Fisheries Research Service, The Fisheries Committee (Electricity Act 1989). Discussions are being undertaken with all three parties to develop a joined-up plan that satisfies the specific interest of each.
Fish Surveys The need for and scope of additional fisheries surveys and monitoring is being discussed with OHFT as well as FRS and the Fisheries Committee. It is too early to give any detail on the final arrangements. Timing of the works The timing of works will not be able to avoid all sensitive times. However, efforts will be made to avoid important times as much as possible. Close dialogue with OHFT and others will ensure the best course of action is undertaken whilst considering project constraints. Again, the details of this are still being developed. Damage to migrating fish bound for other West Coast This aspect of the scheme will be Rivers considered in more detail and in discussion with OHFT and the others.
Consultee Comment Developer Comment to Comhairle Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Lack of bird survey data outside of the breeding This relates to a similar comment by season. SNH. In conjunction with SNH and RSPB an additional bird survey program is being developed to address this concern.
Key Issues Arising
Ornithology 8.67 Although SNH has pointed out that the ES did not provide a full overview of the likely impacts of the proposal on all local bird interests it says that given the scale of the development there are unlikely to be any significant impacts on any bird species. It does however suggest a baseline survey prior to construction followed by post construction monitoring. Similarly, RSPB does not object to the development but suggests conditioning the development to include reinstatement measures and ongoing surveys.
Otters 8.68 SNH has objected to the development because of the effect on the otter population in the area, unless a range of measures are included as planning conditions. Therefore, if the Comhairle is minded to support the development it is important that it is on the basis of including such conditions.
Fish 8.69 Any impact to fish during the construction phase could be minimised by careful timing, however it is not certain from the ES what the full operational effects would be, the Fisheries Trust therefore recommends ongoing surveys. As this is a new type of development this would be a reasonable request and could be required by condition. The long term effects on the migratory fish are discussed in the next section. MARINE HABITATS AND ECOLOGY
Main Elements from Environmental Statement 9.1 This section deals with the effects of the proposed development on the marine environment below mean high water springs. The focus is therefore on the offshore structures, i.e. the breakwater, the fixed link and any slipway facilities. 9.2 The seabed and intertidal habitats of Siadar Bay can be considered typical of an exposed Atlantic coastline. The ES states that photographic footage of the seabed in Siadar Bay indicates the seabed is primarily bedrock with small interspersed areas of sandy gravel. A typical biotope for such exposed shores is kelp dominated with associated red seaweeds on exposed rock.
9.3 A habitat survey of the intertidal areas of Siadar Bay identified the coastline in the bay is dominated by wracks and other algae as well as sponges. Twelve main biotopes were identified. The main factors differentiating them included the type of substrate present (rock, boulder, etc.), exposure to wave action, time underwater / exposed to the air (due to the tide coming in and going out – this varies depending how high up the shore the species are) and salinity (most notably near the mouth of the River Siadar where the flow of the river produces much lower salinity levels).
9.4 No habitats or species of conservation importance have been identified and all habitats present are common along the Isle of Lewis Atlantic coastline.
9.5 The ES shows that there are no seal haul out sites in Siadar Bay, however during a survey undertaken in 2007 grey seals were observed foraging close inshore in the bay.
9.6 It is anticipated that the main impacts on the intertidal zone relate to the physical removal or disturbance of habitat from the potential construction of the slipway connecting the construction site with deeper water; the trenching of the foreshore for the placement of the cabling connecting the SWEP with the onshore control building and/or the construction of the fixed link between the breakwater and the foreshore. The main effects that the construction are likely to have are:
• Physical removal/displacement of habitat; • Sedimentation and sediment accumulation during construction, and • Potential pollution from spillages.
9.7 The construction process will not impact on any species of conservation importance; also as the habitat impact is considered to be small scale the effect on the species, which utilise this habitat, will be minimal. The overall significance, in the ES, is therefore considered to be insignificant.
9.8 When the breakwater has been completed longer term impacts on the intertidal habitats and ecology will be influenced by the modified local hydrodynamics of the bay. The estimated lifespan of the project is 50 years, during that time there are potential effects related to the localised build-up of sediment. The permanent structures (namely the slipway and the breakwater) within the subtidal zone are likely to affect the hydrodynamics of the bay. This has implications for the transport of sediment as well as the species composition at particular locations within the bay. The magnitude of effect from any such build-up is seen as being negligible, with the sensitivity of the area being low due to the lack of any protected species. It is therefore considered that the overall impact significance is given as insignificant.
9.9 Mitigation measures are proposed both during the construction phase and also the operational phase. These include:
• Careful timing to have as little disturbance as is practical to the wild salmonids; • Appropriate storage of any lubricants and /or storage; • Procedures to avoid spills, and measures to manage any spills; • Access/egress to the river will be monitored for any blockages that may occur.
9.10 The primary sources for concern with regards the marine habitats and species in the area of Siadar Bay are the mammals (both terrestrial mammals that utilise the bay and the true marine mammals) as well as the migratory salmonids that return to the bay in order that they may migrate up the River Siadar to spawn. Some of the effects on these species and the habitats were moderate and minor. However, there are no habitats / biotopes of conservation importance in the area and there are no species of conservation importance using Siadar Bay and its surrounds. Therefore, so long as the appropriate mitigation measures are put in place then the residual effects are primarily insignificant, rising to minor in one instance. Therefore, the overall effect of the project on the marine ecology of the area is seen as being insignificant in nature.
Policy Considerations 9.11 National Planning Policy Guidelines of relevance to this assessment:
NPPG 13 Coastal Planning
Paragraph 8 states that Sustainable Development ‘The concept of sustainable development recognises that while economic growth is required to provide jobs and support improved standards of living, conserving and enhancing biodiversity and landscape quality is equally important.’
This PAN also indicates that ‘The Government recognises the special needs of people who live and work in rural areas and is committed to sustaining them and the communities and environment in which they live.’
Paragraph 22 recognises that ill considered development of the undeveloped coast can ‘have a detrimental effect on ecology and scenery as well as on cultural heritage interests; a key objective for the planning system is to provide a framework for investment in development while protecting the undeveloped coast from unjustified and inappropriate development.’
In planning for renewables these developments need careful consideration given to the potential impacts on the natural and cultural heritage interests.
NPPG 14 Natural Heritage (January 1999);
Paragraphs 6 and 7 say that ‘within this wider framework for sustainable development, the Government's objectives for Scotland's natural heritage are to conserve, safeguard and, where possible, enhance:
• the overall populations and natural ranges of native species and the quality and range of wildlife habitats and ecosystems; • geological and physiographical features; • the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and the natural heritage interest of urban areas; and • opportunities for enjoying and learning about the natural environment.
The above objectives can best be realised through close co-operation and partnership between public agencies, local communities and the private and voluntary sectors. They should be taken into account in all land use planning activities, and reflected in both development plans and development control decisions.’
SPP 6 Renewable Energy;
Paragraph 8-‘Support for renewable energy developments and the need to protect and enhance Scotland's natural and historic environment must be regarded as compatible goals if an effective response is to be made to the challenges of sustainable development and climate change. The planning system has a significant role to play in resolving conflicts so that progress towards the 2020 target continues to be made in a way that affords appropriate protection to the natural and historic environment without unreasonably restricting the potential for renewable energy development.'
Planning Advice Note (PAN) 45; Planning for Renewable Technologies
Paragraph 10 ‘Scotland has significant renewable energy resources. The available wind resource could sustain a large contribution from onshore wind farms. Small hydro schemes will probably be developed and there is considerable potential in the refurbishment of existing hydro schemes. In addition, Scotland has a considerable medium term resource in the shape of forestry biomass and, in the longer term, in wave and tidal power. There currently may be an opportunity to develop a lead in wave energy and other marine power technology, including offshore wind, through indigenous marine energy expertise. The energy potential from marine power in Scotland, while not nearly as much as for wind, is quite significant on the north and west coasts and there could be an advantage in establishing a home market in the technology
The following policies of the Structure Plan are relevant
RM2 Land Management, Crofting and Biodiversity
The Comhairle supports sustainable land management practices that promote and enhance biodiversity and will advocate the application of agri-environment schemes, tailored to the needs of the islands, across the whole of the Western Isles. It will produce a Local Biodiversity Action Plan to help inform and guide land managers and developers.
Where appropriate, the Comhairle will work with land managers, crofters and others to secure environmentally sensitive land-use management agreements and practices. When consulted on proposed changes, in addition to other Structure Plan policies, regard will be had to the: i) impact on natural heritage resources; ii) social and economic benefits arising; iii) potential sterilisation of natural resources; and iv) impact on water catchments and flows.
RM11 Habitats and Species The Comhairle will not normally grant consent for developments on land or water that would have significant adverse impacts upon habitats or species listed under the EC Habitats Directive, the EC Birds Directive or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The Comhairle will encourage the appropriate management and enhancement of features of the landscape, which are of major importance for wild flora and fauna.
Consultation Responses
SNH
Cetaceans 9.12 In terms of the effects of the project on the presence of cetaceans through the presence of the breakwater and increases in noise in the area, SNH is content that the site is not expected to be frequently visited by cetaceans. Any cetaceans in transit would tend to be further offshore in deeper waters. 9.13 However, we strongly endorse the proposal by npower Renewables to employ a Marine Mammal Observer during the construction activities involving piling, dredging and blasting, whereby activities are only permitted during the absence of cetaceans from a predefined area. The methodology should be agreed with SNH in advance of such work. We would also request a summary report from the Marine Mammal Observer, of all observations and the consequent actions taken by the developer. Marine Ecology 9.14 The ES failed to provide information on the use of an antifoulant system, despite this being asked for by SNH at the scoping stage. We request to be consulted on the proposed antifoulant system prior to its implementation.
Conclusions 9.15 SNH recommends that the following be incorporated in conditions of any consent granted for this proposal to further minimise impacts of the development on the natural heritage: • A Marine Mammal Observer should be employed during the construction phases, which involve piling, dredging and blasting, whereby activities are only permitted during the absence of cetaceans from a predefined area. The methodology should be agreed with SNH in advance of such work. We request a summary report from the Marine Mammal Observer, of all observations and the actions taken by the developer.
• The proposed antifoulant system should be agreed with SEPA prior to implementation.
Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust
9.16 Fish are vulnerable at different times in the freshwater and marine stages of their lifecycle. • It is important that instream works impacting on spawning gravels are carried out between late June and the end of August. • Blasting and drilling should be carried out between December and February but this is when weather conditions are at their worst, the period June to September should be avoided as a minimum.
Damage to Migrating Fish Bound for Other West Coast Rivers 9.17 The ES suggests that fish passing within 2.2 km of blasting work may be injured by it and those close to the blast may be killed. This is of great concern to the Trust as it could impact on major rivers south of Siadar including Barvas, Arnol, Shawbost, Carloway, the Blackwater, Grimersta, Morsgail as they migrate down the coast. The trust seeks clarification of this figure and detailed mitigation measures.
Applicant Responses
9.18 The applicant has OHFT regarding impacts on the Marine Habitats and Ecology.
Consultee Comment Developer Comment to Comhairle Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust General There are 3 parties concerned with fisheries issues on this project: OHFT, Fisheries Research Service, The Fisheries Committee (Electricity Act 1989). Discussions are being undertaken with all three parties to develop a joined-up plan that satisfies the specific interest of each. Fish Surveys The need for and scope of additional fisheries surveys and monitoring is being discussed with OHFT as well as FRS and the Fisheries Committee. It is too early to give any detail on the final arrangements. Timing of the works The timing of works will not be able to avoid all sensitive times. However, efforts will be made to avoid important tomes as much as possible. Close dialogue with OHFT and the others will ensure the best course of action is undertaken whilst considering project constraints. Again, the details of this are still being developed.
Damage to migrating fish bound for This aspect of the scheme will be considered in more other West Coast Rivers detail and in discussion with OHFT and the others.
Key issues arising
Mitigation Measures 9.19 SNH welcomes npower’s intention to employ a marine mammal observer and suggests that this should be a condition of any consent. An appropriate anti fouling system would be required under other legislation. Migrating Fish 9.20 The Fisheries Trust has concerns about the physical effect on the migrating fish bound for other west coast rivers and also the long term economic impact this may have on fishing estates in other areas of Lewis. It suggests that it is necessary to clarify figures provided in the ES and also the mitigation measures proposed. It is inevitable that during any construction project such as this there may be some ‘environmental damage’; however any reasonable measures to minimise this would seem appropriate. CULTURAL HERITAGE- TERRESTRIAL AND MARINE
Main Elements from Environmental Statement 10.1 All of the onshore and offshore components of the SWEP project have the potential to disturb archaeological and cultural heritage resources both by the direct effect of the construction process and also from vibration. The consideration of the effects from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the development on the historic setting have all been considered in the ES.
10.2 A desk based study was used to assess both the direct and indirect effects of the SWEP for each cultural heritage site within the Siadar survey area. There are 29 sites within the area over which the project will be developed and 5 Scheduled Ancient Monuments were found to be within the Zone of Visual Influence that may be affected by the proposed development. These include:
• Clach Stei Lin; • Steinacleit (Monument in Care); • Loch an Duin; • Clach an Truiseil; and • Teampall Pheadair.This is the only Scheduled Ancient Monument located within the area that may be directly impacted by the project.
10.3 Side-scan sonar data was used to examine the marine environment; using plans of the proposed SWEP locations, the data was cross-referenced and the cable connecting the breakwater with the land-based sub-station identified.
10.4 The Receiver of Wrecks, Historic Scotland (marine team) and The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) were also consulted to enquire if there are any marine archaeological sites in the area.
10.5 The field studies and analysis applied the general guidelines as described in NPPG 5 – Archaeology and Planning and its companion PAN 42 Archaeology – the Planning Process and Scheduled Monument Procedures.
10.6 The survey area was divided into four areas and a total of 66 cultural heritage sites have been identified throughout these areas. A summary list of sites and their importance in the four areas is provided in the ES.(Appendix 7 shows the cultural heritage sites and the survey areas.)
10.7 The interpretation of the sidescan sonar data concluded that there are no significant wreck remains or associated debris, prehistoric features or deposits of cultural heritage interest that are likely to be impacted upon from the SWEP. However, due to the nature of the area and the dense kelp coverage across the survey area the quality of the results recorded has been affected.
Assessment of effects and mitigation
Terrestrial environment
10.8 Effects have been considered on an area by area basis, as described above.
Area A 10.9 The only potential aspects of the project located in area A are the onshore control building, the shore connection, a fixed link and upgrade of the existing slip. The locations of these aspects of the project do not directly impact any of the identified cultural heritage sites.
Area B 10.10 Area B is less densely covered in archaeological remains, with only nine cultural heritage sites identified, sites 25-33. However, the potential for nationally important prehistoric sites below the peat is high. The majority of this area is unimproved boggy heath, with evidence of relict peat cutting, possible field walls and old shieling sites.
10.11 None of the cultural heritage sites located in area B will be directly impacted by the present proposed borrow pit location or borrow pit access track. 10.12 However, due to the high potential for prehistoric sites below the peat in this area, it is recommended that if any stripping of the peat in this area is to be undertaken, including that of the proposed access track, the area should be subject to an archaeological evaluation of a percentage of the overall area.
10.13 The exception to this is the modern quarry (site 30) on the edge of survey area, for which no mitigation is necessary. This site has already been excavated and disturbed by quarrying and the building of a track.
Area C 10.14 The present proposed project layout, borrow pit access track and the south west section of the onshore construction compound do not directly impact any of the identified cultural heritage sites in area C.
10.15 The construction compound will potentially impact site 46, a field wall and site 47 a potential prehistoric stone setting. However the eastern end of area C has already been disturbed due to the digging of drains and improvement of the access track to the Scottish Water treatment works in recent years. Detailed archaeological evaluation needs to assess the likelihood of archaeological remains in the area to be affected by the development.
Area D 10.16 Two sites of cultural heritage importance are located within the proposed onshore construction compound, the enclosures at site 52 and possible eroded structure at site 53. Direct impact on these sites will be avoided by fencing them off within the proposed construction compound.
10.17 However, the area to the north west of the river comprises unimproved, boggy land, and no cultural heritage sites were identified in this part of the area.
10.18 The area should be subject to an archaeological evaluation, so as to assess the likelihood of archaeological remains in the area to be affected by any development in this area.
Mitigation strategy 10.19 The ultimate mitigation for the onshore areas may take the form of a combination of preservation in situ (by means of mitigation/avoidance by design) and archaeological excavation and/or watching brief (which achieves ‘preservation by record’).
10.20 For the marine environment it is proposed that during ROV surveys of the seabed area any observations of potential cultural heritage effects will be recorded and communicated to the Western Isles archaeologist to ascertain their significance and establish any mitigation that might be required.
Cumulative effects 10.21 There are no other existing or known future developments in the area that could result in cumulative direct effects on terrestrial or marine cultural heritage in the Siadar area.
Summary and Conclusions 10.22 In summary it is concluded that the installation or construction of the onshore components of the SWEP project (included potential effects from vibration) has the potential to have a major effect were they do impact on these known and potential unknown features of cultural heritage significance. However it is considered that the mitigation programmes set out above for each of the distinct survey areas will reduce the effects on the onshore cultural heritage to a minor significance.
10.23 It is concluded that on the information available to date, there are no sizeable (> 5 m) structures / features likely to be of cultural heritage interest in the subtidal marine environment of Siadar Bay that will be impacted by the proposed project.
10.24 The ES states that observations of any potential marine cultural heritage interests will be recorded and reported to the Western Isles archaeologist to ascertain their significance and establish any mitigation that might be required.
Policy Considerations 10.25 Key policy considerations in the context of the Cultural Heritage section are derived from legislation and national guidance affecting monuments and Listed Buildings, Scottish Planning Policy (NPPG 5 and 18), Planning Advice Notes (PAN 42), the Comhairle’s Structure Plan (policies SC8, RM13, RM14, RM15) and Western Isles Local Plan policy LP/RM2 . The key areas to take into account are the: • extent of damage to SAMs; • impact upon setting of SAMs; • treatment of remains that are of national importance, but not scheduled, as if scheduled; • preservation of remains in situ if possible; • preservation of Listed Buildings and their setting;
10.26 NPPG5: Archaeology and Planning (1994) sets out the government’s planning policy on how archaeological remains and discoveries should be handled under the development control system. The main aim of NPPG5 is to ensure that archaeological remains should be preserved wherever feasible. NPPG5 sets out particular points with regards to Scheduled Ancient Monuments. More detailed advice on planning procedures and the separate controls over scheduled monuments is given in the associated Planning Advice Note 42 Archaeology - the Planning Process and Scheduled Monument Procedures.
10.27 NPPG5 para 12 states that it is the Government's aim to accommodate development without eroding environmental assets and this includes Scotland's archaeological heritage. The development planning system provides the policy framework for meeting the need for development along with the need for preserving archaeological resources and for minimising the potential for conflict between these two objectives.
10.28 Paragraph 26 states that there will be occasions where a planning authority, following consultation with the Regional Archaeologist decides that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not justified in the circumstances of the case and that development resulting in the destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed. In such cases, the planning authority should satisfy itself that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation, recording, analysis and publication of the remains, and for the notification of any finds to the appropriate authorities.
10.29 Paragraph 31 states that positive planning control, as well as development plans, can help to reduce possible conflict between development and preservation, and to indicate ways of preserving archaeological resources without unnecessarily delaying development. The ultimate objective is to secure the best possible treatment of the archaeological heritage while at the same time accommodating the need for development.
10.30 PAN 42: Archaeology: The Planning Process and Scheduled Ancient Monuments (1994) provides more specific advice in relation to development control and its role in safeguarding archaeological resources. It sets out provisions for monitoring development as it progresses, and defines where it may be appropriate to preserve remains in situ or excavate or record them.
10.31 NPPG 18 Planning and The Historic Environment recognises that the historic environment comprises more than just the physical remains of the past. Social and economic factors contribute significantly to the cultural heritage and help define the character of the historic environment.
10.32 Paragraph 8 states; “Despite the application of measures for the protection of the historic environment, as well as greater public awareness and support for heritage issues, the historic environment can still be threatened by inappropriate development. Historic areas are not immune to the effects of economic decline and population change, which can result in obsolescence, neglect and deterioration of the physical fabric and erosion of their character and distinctiveness”.
10.33 Paragraph 11 states: “The planning system provides a mechanism for the co-ordination and integration of conservation policies with other land-use, transport and environmental policies affecting the historic environment. Planning also has a positive role to play in enabling development that is appropriate in terms of land-use, location and design. In doing so it can safeguard the historic environment from inappropriate development and provide for change that respects the character of and provides for the needs of people within these areas.”
Consultation Responses Historic Scotland 10.34 The full terms of the response from Historic Scotland are available in Appendix 8 .The main concern with the ES is the methodology used to assess the impacts on the historic environment which plays down the importance of setting or the importance of a monument, which subsequently influences the assessment of the degree of potential impact.
10.35 The principal concerns with the development relate to the impact on the two scheduled ancient monuments; Clach an Trushal and Teampull Pheadar. With the former the concern is with the effect of the borrow pit and recommend that cutting is kept to a minimum with no above ground mounding and surface works are restricted.
10.36 The main concerns with regard to Teampall Pheadair are:
• The physical impact on the schedule can not be ascertained with the information provided. Further information is required; • All work should be carried outwith the scheduled area; • The assessment of the monument’s setting is not appropriate. The SE recognises that an upgraded slipway and breakwater would introduce a large new industrial element and as such the magnitude of change should be reinterpreted as being of Major significance.
10.37 Several of the options could be accommodated into the monument’s setting without significant effect, however the fixed link and upgraded slipway (Options 2a or 2b are likely to constitute more significant impacts. The control building nearest to the monument (option 3a) also causes problems. Historic Scotland has strong concerns regarding these elements of the proposals and would hope that these concerns are given serious consideration.
Comhairle Archaeologist
General comments 10.38 ‘The archaeological aspects of this wave power scheme Environmental Statement were, on the whole, well assessed. However, insufficient consideration has been given to archaeological and wider heritage issues in the discussion of development alternatives, as detailed below. 10.39 The peripheral aspects of the development, such as access roads and borrow pits, have the potential to cause significant damage to the cultural heritage resource. However, careful planning, design changes to avoid impacts, and archaeological conditions on any grant of planning consent will allow these impacts to be managed. 10.40 The off-shore installation itself may have a beneficial effect on some of the eroding archaeological remains at the northern end of the bay, by reducing wave impacts. 10.41 Should the Comhairle wish to propose approval of the application, suggested minimum archaeological conditions for mitigation are included at the end of this paper. Detailed comments The Environmental Impact Assessment: Baseline survey –
10.42 The baseline survey carried out for inclusion within the Environmental impact assessment was comprehensive. However, there were some weaknesses:
• The EIA does not explicitly consider indirect impacts upon known or unknown cultural heritage sites with the exception of impacts upon their setting. This does not include changes in the baseline state of the sites due to compaction by traffic, drainage, vibration, dissection of a possible integrated landscape, vegetation change. However, vibration is mentioned in the closing paragraphs (9.8.1) as an impact to be mitigated; • The cultural heritage sites are given values as of national, regional, or local importance, in the accepted terminology. The report fails to state on what criteria these judgements were based. With the exception of existing Scheduled Ancient Monuments, the survey did not identify anything which was of greater importance than 'local'. Sufficient information was provided in the report to allow this to be challenged - Tobar Aindreas, and Tobar Mhuire (SABS 57), and Buaile Dhonnachaidh (SABS 33) are all of 'regional' importance, and could prove to be even more important. However, despite this, virtually all predicted impacts are 'major' and the developer intends to design to avoid impact.
Mitigation suggested in the Environmental Impact Assessment –
10.43 The mitigation measures suggested in the EIA include paragraphs stating that mitigation measures will be agreed through discussion with the Comhairle's Archaeologist (9.6.1-3). This is acceptable, and minimum acceptable conditions are indicated below, should the Comhairle be minded to recommend approval of the plans.
1. Pre-determination evaluation of identified sites, to assess whether they are indeed of local, regional or national importance, or areas of peat/soil where concealed archaeology may be buried, is not considered, and no evidence from invasive investigations is presented. Pre-determination evaluation can often save a developer money, allowing an application to be adapted at the planning stage, to avoid unplanned & costly excavation during site works.
2. Mitigation of the impacts of the development on the settings of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, and Listed Buildings, are the remit of Historic Scotland.
3. A programme of staged evaluation and survey is only briefly referred to in the concluding paragraphs (9.6.1-3), and elsewhere, watching briefs are suggested as sufficient mitigation. The weight of the mitigation will have to be on advance evaluation and survey, as outlined below.
The Impact of the Proposals upon the Archaeological Landscape
10.44 The development is still at a stage where a number of alternative layouts are being considered. These varying layouts have significantly different impacts on the cultural heritage of the area.
10.45 Firstly: the question of where aggregate extraction will take place. If this takes place off site, at an existing quarry, then the cultural heritage impact will be much reduced. If it takes place on site, with the creation of a new, shallow, borrow pit (p40), then archaeological evaluation and possible excavation will be necessary in advance of opening up the new pit.
10.46 Secondly: construction of the active breakwater itself. If this takes place on site, evaluation and possible excavation will be necessary in advance of levelling/scraping back the site for the construction compound. This would also increase the aggregate needs of the site, thus increasing the size of the borrow pit. If construction takes place off-site, at an existing facility, then cultural heritage implications will be lessened.
10.47 Thirdly: delivering and manoeuvring components of the breakwater. If this is carried out by sea, then the cultural heritage implications of the work are minimised. If a large, new slipway is created at the southern end of the bay, this will require extra aggregate, and a new access road, both of which will have significant cultural heritage implications, and will require mitigation.
10.48 The potential direct impact on archaeological sites, both known and unknown is significant, as is made clear by the survey and cultural heritage assessment included in the Environmental Statement. Careful design and management of the development can minimise this, to the financial and environmental benefit of the developer. Where there is necessary ground disturbance, the cultural heritage implications of this can be managed through conditions on the grant of planning consent. 10.49 Minimum conditions are suggested below. • Advance 10 % evaluation on topsoil/peat strip in all excavated areas below 250m AOD, including cabling, access tracks, borrow pits, crane hard standings and any other ground disturbance works. • Excavation of identified sites, or preservation in situ and rerouting/relocation of construction as appropriate, and full watching brief on remaining unexcavated areas. Included in this would be paleoenvironmental sampling of any appropriate deposits which are located during the stripping, and appropriate sampling for other purposes, including but not exclusively, dating, species identification, soil micromorphology. • Fencing off all identified sites, which may be near development during construction. • Advance 10% evaluation of the area of any excavated structure within 20m of the visible edge of any archaeological remains, with excavation or preservation in situ of identified sites as appropriate and full watching brief minimum on construction ground disturbance on such sites. Included in this appropriate sampling. • Written Scheme of Investigation to be agreed by Regional Archaeologist. • Finds disposal via Scottish Archaeological Finds Advisory Panel as by law. • Publication and post-excavation costs to be met by the developer.’
Applicant Responses 10.50 The applicant has responded to Historic Scotland regarding Cultural Heritage –Terrestrial and Marine.
Consultee Comment Developer Comment to Comhairle Historic Scotland Clach an Trushal, Standing Stone, Ballantrushal - The The description of how the borrow pit Borrow Pit may, however, be of some concern. will be designed is given in 3.8.46 of the Without visualisations from the monument to the ES with the approach designed to Borrow Pit to assist in the assessment of this EIA, it is minimise visual impact. difficult to accurately understand the potential impacts this part of the development might have. As such, we suggest that if there is no above ground mounding and provided that the cutting is kept to a minimum, it seems likely that such works could largely be accommodated into the surrounding landscape. However, enlarged surface works and up cast would increase the impact, and we would recommend that this was restricted.
Our principle concern is the potential for a direct No works are planned that will directly impact upon Scheduled Ancient Monument Teampull impact the Scheduled Ancient Pheadair, Chapel and Settlement, Shader. Monument, and a boundary around the monument will be set during construction. The monitoring program for the cliffs is also noted and could be implemented. Consultee Comment Developer Comment to Comhairle These proposals therefore do raise some concerns for The assessment on setting of the Historic Scotland, particularly in relation to the Fixed monument described here is a worst Link and near Control Building (Options 2a, 2b and case scenario and unlikely to arise. 3a). Although these two elements do not have Without a fixed link, the control building sufficient enough impact to warrant an objection from would be as described but overall the Historic Scotland, we have strong concerns regarding impact reduced - no fixed link. these elements of the proposals and would However, with a fixed link, the control recommend that the potential detrimental impact on building would be considerably the setting of the monument is given sufficient weight downsized as the need for a boat house when assessing the various options. would be reduced. In either case, the control building could also be considerably smaller if more of the electrical components are located within the breakwater; this is being considered as part of the design work.
Key Issues Arising 10.51 Although both Historic Scotland and the Comhairle Archaeologist have concerns over certain aspects of the development, these concerns are not of sufficient weight for either to object to the proposals. Nonetheless the issues identified by both should be considered.
10.52 The ES outlines several alternative ways in which the wave energy project could be developed and requests consent for all. There is therefore a range of potential impacts on the cultural heritage from each alternative. In order to minimise the effects locally the preferred options would be to source the aggregate outwith the area, construct the caissons off site and deliver them by sea, boat access only to the breakwater and the location of the onshore control building adjacent to the existing Scottish Water works.
10.53 How the Comhairle wishes to deal with the various options will be discussed in more detail in the conclusions and recommendation sections towards the end of this report. What should be considered in this section is whether any of the options outlined are considered unacceptable. It is evident that there are preferred options but none of those variations suggested have been identified as unacceptable, there are however mitigation measures and conditions suggested to minimise and control any effect on the cultural heritage of the area.
COASTAL PROCESSES
Main Elements from Environmental Statement Coastal processes
11.1 This section of the ES looks at the possible effects the development would have on the coastal processes. It includes the effects on offshore hydrodynamic processes and the prevailing coastal processes at the shoreline. The area in the vicinity of the proposed breakwater must be assessed in order to establish the potential effects on wave climate, erodability of the coastline and other factors.
11.2 The northwest coast of the Isle of Lewis is characterised by a number of small embayments in the northeast-southwest trending coastline. Siadar Bay is dominated by hard rock cliffs, generally less than 2m in height, to the north, which supplies large boulders, and cobbles to the foreshore and a gneissic wave cut platform. The southern portion of the bay and south headland are formed of glacial till material. The main bay is characterised by a low shingle bank, which divides the shingle beach from the low marshy hinterland.
11.3 The wave climate along the coast is severe due to the exposed position, and is prone to the full force of Atlantic storms. The energy coming inshore via waves is also high, leading to the bay’s favourable conditions for the development of the SWEP project.
11.4 During the construction phase of the project the most likely impacts relate to potential disturbance of the glacial till cliffs at the southern end of the bay and the shingle bank across the central area of the bay. Wherever possible the heavy equipment will be located greater than 10 m from the cliff edge to avoid physical damage of the cliffs, work adjacent to and on the shingle bank will adhere to an agreed working methodology to minimise impacts and ensure reconstruction of any damaged area and suitable site drainage installed to avoid excessive runoff and potential erosion.
11.5 Wave modelling using sophisticated modelling software was undertaken to ascertain the potential effects from the presence of the breakwater and potential fixed link would have on the wave regime in the bay. During survey work it became apparent that there is little sediment involved in the littoral processes along the shore and following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and Scottish Environment Protection Agency, it was agreed that sediment modelling would be unnecessary in this sediment poor coastal environment.
11.6 Modelling indicated that the diffraction and reflection of waves by the breakwater will result in slightly increased wave heights offshore and therefore typically ‘worse’ sea conditions than if the breakwater was not there. Conversely, the area immediately behind the breakwater will become well sheltered. The presence of the optional fixed link would lead to a slight change in the wave regime compared to the breakwater only scenario, but not result in any significant effects. The hard rock Lewisian Gneiss headland to the north of the bay is unlikely to be effected by the change in wave climate, but where the rock is overlain by glacial till deposits there may be potential for increased erosion and coastal retreat. This is not considered significant in the overall nature of coastal retreat of the area. The till dominated south headland may be eroded by incoming waves; potentially changing the form of the bay system. However, the wave modelling appears to show a calming of the wave climate around the southern till cliffs for incoming waves perpendicular to the breakwater.
11.7 The shingle bank is in a dynamic equilibrium with the prevalent forces such as waves. The waves can erode and lower the shingle bank but they can also act to maintain the profile and position of the bank. The construction of the breakwater will reduce the wave energy reaching the beach. This may lead to the shingle bank achieving a shallower angle or becoming more vegetated due to the reduction in disturbance by waves. It is therefore concluded that the shingle bank may change slightly in character as a result of the presence of the breakwater.
11.8 The breakwater could also provide some shelter to the existing slipway at the north end of the bay. This sheltered zone is likely to reduce coastal erosion in the bay.
11.9 The presence of the breakwater and potential slip will not impact the Scottish Water outfall if located at the southern end of the bay. However if a new slipway of fixed link is constructed next to the Scottish Water outfall then it may be desirable to extend the outfall discharge point further offshore.
11.10 The coastline of the study area is a rocky bay facing north-west. The foreshore is dominated by cobbles and boulders of gneiss, the dominant bedrock of the area. There is little sediment transport in the area owing to the lack of fine grained sediment offshore from the west coast of the Western Isles. The high energy environment and the coarseness of the sediment means that sediment movement is characterised by pulsed changes in response to low-frequency, high magnitude events. The breakwater structure shall result in the provision of a sheltered zone landward of the structure. This sheltered zone is likely to reduce the coastal erosion in the bay and provide some shelter to people wishing to launch craft from the slipway in the bay. Increased wave reflection and diffraction will affect the wave climate offshore. However, due to the strength of the gneissic wave cut platform the scour at the seaward side of the breakwater should be minimal.
11.11 A highly sensitive part of the bay is the glacial till cliffs. Where present they will need to be protected during construction and regular observations during site visits (involving the taking of pictures and measurements) made post-construction. The shingle bank is also a very important and sensitive part of the beach system as it provides natural protection to the hinterland. The construction pressures on the shingle bank should be minimised to reduce any potential destabilisation and crest lowering.
Policy Considerations NPPG 13 Coastal Planning 11.12 Paragraph 25 says ‘The coast is subject to number of dynamic natural processes, including erosion of the coastline by the sea. This process normally occurs slowly but an increase in storm frequency in recent years has accelerated erosion on some parts of the coast. Due to its generally harder rock formations and indented coastline, Scotland has not experienced erosion to the same degree as in England but there have been problems in some areas, for example in parts of Fife and Angus. Local authorities have powers to undertake coastal protection works under the Coast Protection Act, 1949. Schemes approved by the Secretary of State attract Central Government Grant.’ 11.13 Paragraph 26 states that ‘Erosion of the coastline essentially involves the movement of sediment from one area to another; this usually occurs within a defined area known as a coastal cell. The Scottish Office, in conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Historic Scotland are currently funding research into coastal cells and sub-cells. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency also has hydrographic data, which may be helpful in determining the movement of sediment. These sources of information can be used in the preparation of Shoreline Management Plans (para 58 refers) which provide a framework for future decisions on the management of coastal defences within a sub-cell. Where sub-cells cross administrative boundaries, joint work with neighbouring local authorities will be involved.’ Consultation Responses
SNH Geomorphology
11.14 The coastline of the study area is a rocky bay facing north-west. The foreshore is dominated by cobbles and boulders of gneiss. There is little sediment transport owing to the lack of fine grained sediment offshore. The construction of a breakwater may alter the sedimentology, resilience to erosion and flooding, and dynamism of both the littoral zone and terrestrial landforms. 11.15 The breakwater structure shall result in the provision of a sheltered zone landward of the structure. This is likely to reduce coastal erosion. The wave climate offshore will be affected by increased wave reflection and diffraction; however this will have minimal impact on the strong gneiss rocks on the seaward side of the breakwater. The shingle bank and the glacial till cliffs are the sensitive parts of the system, and care should be taken to minimise erosion both during construction and during operation of the project. Technical Services 11.16 No comments were made by Technical Services on coastal erosion. Applicant Responses
11.17 No additional comments have been received from the developer.
Key Issues arising
Scottish Water Outflow
11.18 At the time of writing the report no comments from Scottish Water were available, however if the development is supported the consent should require any additional work necessary to Scottish Water’s outflow to be completed.
Coastal Erosion
11.19 Coastal erosion is a concern for the Comhairle in many areas of the Western Isles but the ES has shown that given the coastal geology in the area coastal erosion is not significant and any effect caused by the project will be minimal and may even reduce erosion on the shore side of the breakwater. This is also confirmed in the response from SNH and Technical Services made no comments on it.
ONSHORE NOISE
Main Elements from Environmental Statement 12.1 This section of the ES assesses the potential for noise and vibration impact on the surrounding environment. The assessment of onshore noise effects details the potential construction and operational noise impact from SWEP on four closest dwellings (or ‘noise sensitive receptors’) at various locations in the vicinity of the development.
12.2 To evaluate the noise impact from the proposed project background noise measurements were taken at locations agreed with the local environmental health officer. Baseline noise measurements were obtained over a continuous 4 week period in order to include a wide range of calm and inclement meteorological conditions. A number of other environmental characteristics such as wind speed and wave height were recorded during the survey to further characterise the noise climate. Analysis of the data collated indicates that environmental conditions have a significant effect on background noise levels at Siadar and will vary accordingly over hours as well as seasonally.
12.3 During the construction phase it is expected that there could be some noise disturbance caused to those living nearby. This will mainly be as a result of the use of large plant items such as lorries, excavators and compressors. Predicted construction work noise levels indicate that the SWEP will be in compliance with relevant daytime noise criteria at each noise sensitive receptor for all but two construction related activities, those being trench filling and general site activities. Disruption due to construction would be temporary in nature with the nosiest activities expected to be associated with any minor road upgrade works, construction compound establishment and rock crushing at the borrow pit. This disturbance will however be temporary, only taking place over a few weeks of the entire 18 month construction period. In addition, construction plant will be properly maintained, where possible located near the centre of the site and nationally recognised guidance followed to ensure noise impacts are minimised.
12.4 During the operational phase the primary source of noise will be the forty turbines housed in the breakwater at sea. The only other significant source of noise will be the transformers and switchgear, which will be contained within the onshore control building. The maximum predicted noise emissions from the turbines were used to model predicted noise levels at the nearby dwellings. This maximum level will only occur infrequently, and will be substantially reduced by the breakwater structure and attenuation provided by the air vents. It is considered that the modelling represents the extreme worst case. The ES identifies potential noise reduction measures, these include:
• Thorough consideration will be given to noise emission levels at the detailed design stage; • Reductions in turbine noise will be implemented through aerodynamic design, acoustic treatment and the control strategy; • Reductions in overall plant noise will be implemented through appropriate design of plenum chamber and air intake/exit vents, taking due regard for environmental noise criteria; • Appropriate measures will be taken to maintain low levels of machinery vibration in order to prolong life of equipment and reduce noise levels; and • Transformers will be located indoors and transformer room design will consider acoustic aspects if necessary.
12.5 During the operational phase the impact significance under worst case meteorological conditions (quietest background noise level recorded) and worst case turbine emissions (maximum noise output) would be just perceptible above background noise if standing outside the nearest dwelling to the breakwater. However, given the likely high level of background noise, which could be expected when the scheme is at full generation, this effect is unlikely to be realised.
Policy Considerations Circular 10/1999: Planning and Noise 12.6 Circular 10/1999 acknowledges the role of planning authorities by stating: “…the planning system has a role to play in preventing and minimising the impact of noise through its influence over the location and design of new developments. It should aim to do this without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business”.
Planning Advice Note 56 (PAN 56): Planning and Noise 12.7 A number of recommendations are made in PAN 56 in relation to the control and prediction of noise. The guidance states that a noise impact assessment will assist planning authorities where developments could raise significant noise issues. The noise impact assessment should seek to: “Measure or predict and describe noise levels (including traffic noise) to be generated by the proposed development; or that the proposed development is to be subjected to criteria for assessing the impact of noise on its surroundings and outline measures available to reduce noise impact to acceptable levels”
12.8 Further guidance from PAN 56 in relation to construction noise states: “…Notice can be served in advance of works and site conditions set to control activities”.
Planning Advice Note 45 (PAN 45): Renewable Energy Technologies 12.9 Guidance on the planning and assessment of renewable technologies is detailed in PAN 45. Reference is made to hydro and shore-line wave power developments, and recognition is given to measures that may be used to mitigate noise:
“The reduction / elimination of noise is [can be] achieved by use of appropriate materials in the construction of the turbine generators and aerodynamic designs that minimise noise generation”.
Planning Advice Note 58 (PAN 58): Environmental Impact Assessment 12.10 PAN 58 identifies the need for a noise impact assessment to be carried out that includes consultation with planning authorities and consultees, where appropriate. The importance of the use of relevant indices and methods for noise assessment are noted in the guidance.
Planning Advice Note 50 (PAN 50) Annex A: The Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings 12.11 The role of Annex A of PAN 50 is to:
“…provide advice on how the planning system can be used to keep noise emissions from surface mineral workings within environmentally acceptable limits without imposing unreasonable burdens on minerals operators”.
Consultation Responses
Environmental Health Team 12.12 ‘According to their impact assessment, the main noise issues will be during construction and as long as they take appropriate measures to minimise this I have no further comments. Based on their figures the ongoing operation of the project should have minimal noise impact’.
Applicant Responses
12.13 No comments have been received by the Comhairle on this.
Key issues Arising
12.14 It is likely that if the mitigation measures outlined in the ES are implemented it is unlikely that noise emissions from the development, either during the construction or operational phases will cause problems to any properties within the vicinity. Nonetheless conditions attached to any consent would ensure that if they do arise there are appropriate mechanisms in place to deal with the issues. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL
Main Elements from Environmental Statement
Introduction 13.1 This section studies the effects of both the offshore and onshore aspects of the project on the landscape/seascape character and visual amenity of the local area. It covers all aspects of the project from construction through to operation and eventual decommissioning, though visualisations will concentrate on the operational phase, in particular the breakwater, fixed access link and control building, as this will have the most prolonged effect on the landscape/seascape. The effects studied involve both objective and subjective effects such as changes in perception of the local landscape and seascape.
13.2 The process of landscape character assessment (LCA) is used to assess these changes to enable better landscape planning, conservation, restoration, management and enhancement. LCA is based on the principle that all landscapes have a range of features and characteristics, which not only give them their appearance, but also contribute to their wider character, for example through historical, artistic and social associations.
Methodology 13.3 The methodology used for the assessment includes a baseline survey, identification of the effects and sensitive receptors, description and quantification of the changes to the baseline, and the evaluation of predicted effects, together with criteria used and the measures proposed to avoid, reduce, remedy or offset any negative effects.
Aims of the assessment and defining the study area 13.4 The initial stage of the landscape/seascape and visual assessment is to define the scope. This will critically influence the scale and level of detail of the assessment, the resources required, those who should be involved in its preparation, and the types of judgement that are needed to inform decisions.
Defining the sites to be assessed 13.5 All aspects of the SWEP project were clearly defined and included a description of the following: location; features present; and arrangement of those features.
Desk based assessment 13.6 A desktop investigation was undertaken identify sensitive viewpoints for the production of photomontages. The sites identified were a combination of those suggested by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) as well as those required from a cultural heritage perspective (in consultation with Historic Scotland).
Defining criteria for assessment 13.7 The determination of the sensitivity of the landscape/seascape resource to changes associated with the proposed development is based on interpretation of a combination of parameters, as follows:
• Pattern and scale of the landscape/seascape; • Visual enclosure/openness of views and distribution of visual receptors; • The scope for mitigation which would be in character with the existing landscape/seascape; and • The value placed on the landscape/seascape.
13.8 The sensitivity of visual receptors is based on an interpretation of a combination of parameters as follows:
• The location of the viewpoint; • The context of the view; • The activity of the receptor; and • The frequency and duration of the view.
13.9 The magnitude of change arising from the proposed development at any particular viewpoint is described as substantial, moderate, slight or negligible based on the interpretation of a combination of largely quantifiable parameters, as follows:
• Distance of the viewpoint from the development; • Duration of impact; • Angle of view in relation to main receptor activity; • Proportion of the field of view occupied by the development; • Background to the development; and • Extent of other built development visible, particularly vertical elements.
Field survey 13.10 The field survey, undertaken on the 29th and 30th August 2007, was used to confirm the visual influence of the developments, principle viewpoints and sensitive receptors identified during the desk based study.
13.11 Principle representative viewpoints within the study area were identified during the field visit. At each survey point both subjective and objective observations were recorded. Objective observations note the intrinsic qualities of the landscape itself while subjective observations record the response of the assessor.
Potential effects on landscape/seascape character
Summary of effects upon landscape/seascape resource 13.12 In examining the changes in the key characteristics of the existing landscape/seascape resource, the following are considered to be critical factors: • The landscape/seascape of the study area currently has a remote character with very few large-scale, man-made elements. The introduction of additional man-made structures will adversely affect the relatively undisturbed character of the bay and its immediate surrounds; • The development will be constructed in an area in which a man-made construction (the slipway) already exists, though this is barely noticeable in scale compared to the development proposed; • The establishment of the permanent infrastructure associated with the development is likely to result in the loss of a small area of marshland/grassland, however it is not considered that this will cause any substantial alterations to the coverage and pattern of land use within the study area; • The landscape of the study area currently has a strong horizontal emphasis, into which the development will introduce an additional horizontal element; • The development will introduce large, modern, geometric manmade structures into an area where built features are generally small-scale and of older origin (albeit in a relatively modern style) and where landform is irregular; • The open outlook which is characteristic of the ‘low rocky island coast’ SCT will be interrupted locally by the development, which will introduce a new dominant foreground focus which will be lit occasionally; • Additional road, sea and pedestrian traffic will be introduced into and concentrated within a small part of the study area where such movement is currently limited to a few visitors, fishermen, surfers, ramblers and dog walkers; • The development will be a permanent feature of the landscape of the study area.
13.13 Overall it is concluded that the development will have a moderate effect on the landscape/seascape of the study area as a whole. The following table provides a summary of the impact of each of the scheme phases on each individual landscape/seascape character type:
Potential visual effects and photomontages
Summary of effects on visual amenity 13.14 Analysis of the ZVI map has shown that the proposed development will result in a relatively limited area of visibility in the immediate vicinity of the development. Widespread views are not possible due to the undulating nature of the landscape in the area, and the settlements themselves will have a screening effect. The following sections describe the potential effects of the development in relation to sensitive visual receptors.
Settlements and local residents 13.15 The change associated with the proposed development in relation to visibility from residents will result in a moderate effect on visual amenity.
Transport routes 13.16 Overall, the change associated with the proposed development in relation to visibility from roads will be moderate, resulting in a moderate effect on visual amenity.
13.17 Overall, the change associated with the proposed development in relation to visibility from commercial shipping will result in a minor effect on visual amenity.
Recreational resources 13.18 It is considered that the change associated with the proposed development in relation to visibility to walkers and tourists will result in a moderate effect on visual amenity.
13.19 Overall, taking into account the number and types of viewers affected and the fact that a wave energy project is not inappropriate in this high energy environment (and will include a control building likely to be of interesting design) it is considered that the proposed development will have a moderate effect on visual amenity in the study area as a whole.
Effects of different design options 13.20 In the case of the alternative design options, the absence of a permanent fixed link to the breakwater would lower the magnitude of visual change. In terms of visual amenity, the magnitude of change from most viewpoints will be lessened, therefore lessening the overall impact of the development on visual amenity from moderate to minor. Overall it is considered the alternative design options for the proposed SWEP development will result in marginally lessened landscape/seascape and visual effects on the surrounding area when compared with worst case scenario (fixed link).
Summary and Conclusions 13.21 It is concluded that following mitigation, the proposed SWEP development will have a moderate effect on the landscape/seascape and a moderate effect on the visual amenity of the study area. Appendix 9 provides a photomontage of the development.
Policy Considerations 13.22 SPP1 emphasises the need to create good quality designs and spaces, and highlights the importance of design as a material consideration for planning applications.
13.23 Scottish Planning Policy 6 (SPP 6) Renewable Energy does not provide detailed guidance regarding landscape. It does however suggest there is a need to seek to address impacts upon local communities and that new development should reflect the scale and character of a landscape. SPP6 also suggests that care should be taken where landscape characteristics are more sensitive to developments than others – even where not designated. Finally, SPP6 points to NPPG14 and PAN 45 for further guidance regarding landscape impacts.
13.24 National Planning Policy Guideline 14 (NPPG 14) Natural Heritage - Under the sub heading Landscape Protection and Enhancement, the NPPG refers to the variety and diversity of Scotland’s landscape and states that:
“Many areas, for example in the Highlands and Islands, possess mountain and coastal landscapes which are valued nationally and internationally for their quality, extensiveness and wild land character.”
13.25 NPPG14 also says, ‘the most sensitive landscapes may have little or no capacity to accept new development. Some of Scotland’s remoter mountain and coastal areas possess an elemental quality from which many people derive psychological and spiritual benefits. Such areas are very sensitive to any form of development or intrusive human activity and planning authorities should take great care to safeguard their wild land character. This care should extend to the assessment of proposals for development outwith these areas which might adversely affect their wild land character.’(paragraph 16).
13.26 SNH – Wildness in Scotland’s Countryside states: “SNH identifies as its policy aim that there are parts of Scotland where the wild character of the landscape, its related recreational value and potential for nature are such that these areas should be safeguarded against inappropriate development or land use change. The only uses of these areas should be of a low key and sensitive nature, which do not detract from their wild qualities”
Scottish Government Planning for Natural Heritage: Planning Advice Note 60 (2000) 13.27 Paragraph 23 states the following: ‘…safeguarding and enhancing landscape character is an important planning objective.’ Furthermore, Natural Heritage planning can enhance the landscape through.
• ‘setting clear policy objectives in relation to landscapes distinctive to the development plan area; and • promoting high standards of siting and design and the use of appropriate materials.’
13.28 Paragraph 24 states that ‘the SNH Landscape Character Assessment programme now covers the whole of Scotland. Its assessment reports, which generally cover individual local authority areas, summarise the evolution of the landscape, delineate landscape character areas, identify development pressures which may significantly affect landscape character, and provide broad guidelines for maintaining, restoring and enhancing landscape quality.’
PAN 58 Environmental Impact Assessment 13.29 Paragraph 47 emphasises that ‘the effects (positive as well as negative) generated by the project should be identified and evaluated for both the construction and operational stages. It is likely that each stage will have different impacts and in some cases the more significant effects will be during construction. The data gathered can and should feedback into the design process, in order that adverse environmental impacts can be addressed at an early stage.
13.30 Paragraph 33 stresses the import of using ‘environmental data to inform project design as a key function of EIA, for example a landscape assessment may suggest the optimum position for siting buildings to minimise their impact on the landscape. The detail contained in the EIA will increase as the project progresses and can be used iteratively in the design process.’ EIA assists in prevention of ‘impacts by choosing a site (or sites) which avoids environmentally sensitive features.’
NPPG 13 Coastal Planning 13.31 This NPPG: • sets out how planning can contribute to achieving sustainable development and also maintaining and enhancing biodiversity on the coast • highlights the need to distinguish between policies for the developed, undeveloped and isolated coast • indicates how planning authorities should respond to the risk of erosion and flooding in the coastal zone • outlines policy guidance for developments which may require a coastal location • identifies the action to be taken by planning authorities in their development plans and in development control decisions
NPPG 14 Natural Heritage; 13.32 Paragraph 74 states, ‘While in some circumstances it will be necessary to refuse planning permission on natural heritage grounds, authorities should always consider whether environmental concerns could be adequately addressed by modifying the development proposal or attaching appropriate planning conditions. In negotiating over development proposals, authorities should first seek to avoid any adverse effects on the natural heritage. Where this is not possible and other material considerations clearly outweigh any potential damage to the natural heritage, they should endeavour to minimise and mitigate the adverse effects and consider the scope for compensating measures. They should always encourage the retention and enhancement of features of natural heritage interest and seek to avoid the fragmentation or isolation of habitats.’
13.33 Structure Plan policies of relevance to this assessment: • DM1 Location of Development; • DM5 Availability of supporting infrastructure; • DM7 Assessment of Development Proposals; • DM9 Developer consultation and community benefit.
DM1 Location of development 13.34 Development proposals out with settlements and townships (i.e. open moorland, mountains, isolated or undeveloped coastlines and uninhabited islands) will only be supported when the proposal does not result in excessive additional public expenditure for site service and:
• A specific location need has been demonstrated; or • It is for the sustainable development of a natural resource; or • It avoids a significant detrimental effect on natural and built heritage
DM5 Availability of supporting infrastructure 13.35 All development proposals should have regard to the availability of supporting infrastructure (e.g. water, sewerage, power) and early consultation with service providers will be encouraged, particularly during the site selection process. In areas where there is insufficient capacity, prospective developers should liaise with the council and service providers regarding connections and, if necessary, either investigate suitable alternative sites or be willing to make a financial contribution to ensure adequate capacity. Improvements should be undertaken in environmentally sensitive ways e.g. the undergrounding of cables and pipes should be considered in importance.
DM7 Assessment of development proposals 13.36 In dealing with applications for development the Council will take into account of the requirements of other relevant Structure Plan policies and will ensure:
• Quality siting, landscaping and designs that incorporate sustainable management techniques; • No undue harm to neighbouring uses as a result of the development; • The impact on the natural heritage is fully considered; • There will be no pollution out with prescribed limits to air, land, fresh water or seas; • There will be no likelihood of causing harmful erosion.
DM9 Developer consultation and community benefit 13.37 Developers should be willing to negotiate with the Comhairle, statutory agencies and service providers at an early stage to ensure planning and environmental concerns are taken on board prior to the submission of a formal planning application. Where appropriate, the Comhairle will seek to maximise the opportunity for additional benefits to the local community arising from major development proposals through negotiations with developers and securing ‘planning agreements’. The integration of an element of art, sculpture, craftwork or interpretation material in important development schemes, buildings or open areas, particularly those to be accessed by the general public will be encouraged.
13.38 RM6 Coastal development Proposals within areas of undeveloped coast where no township settlement exists, and along isolated coastline, will be assessed against the criteria set out in DM1.
ED2 Development of alternative and renewable energy resources 13.39 Development proposals for hydro, solar, wave, tidal and wind (on-shore and offshore) energy schemes and associated infrastructure, including proposals for non-grid, domestic- scale schemes, will be viewed positively, subject to satisfactory assessment of all of the following:
• The impact on local communities and any other existing or proposed land uses and interests; • The impact, including cumulative impact, on natural and built heritage resources; • The local and wider benefits that the proposal may bring; • The adequacy of reinstated arrangements; • The requirements of other Structure Plan policies.
13.40 ED 14 Neighbour amenity The Council will work with other relevant agencies and landowners to safeguard neighbours from actives and uses that could have a detrimental impact on the amenity they enjoy. The Local Plan will also consider defining exclusion areas around activities and uses that give rise to poor amenity to ensure that future incompatible uses are not located in close proximity to them.
Consultation Responses
SNH
Landscape and visual amenity
13.41 The development area comprises the open sea, an area of low rocky coastline rising to small cliffs in places which forms the transition between land and sea, this in turn giving way to gently sloping croft land on the coastal fringe, backed by gently undulating peat moorland. These fall into three landscape/seascape character types, as described in the Western Isles Character Assessment and the Assessment of sensitivity and capacity of the Scottish seascape in relation to offshore wind farms; crofting one; boggy moorland one and low rocky island coast.’
13.42 The location of the proposal takes in three different landscape/seascape character types.
13.43 Crofting one is characterised by the strong, simple relationship between croft houses and landholdings, which combine with constant views outwards to sea and open moorland, giving the settlement a feeling of rural character. SNH believes that the proposed development will have moderate impact on the landscape character of the area, those effects being mainly localised to the immediate coastal area behind the bay. This is a significant impact.
13.44 Boggy moorland one is characterised by large scale, gently undulating peat moorlands indented with large and small lochs. SNH believe that there will be no impact on this landscape character type, as construction is minimal.
13.45 Low rocky island coast as described in the seascape character assessment is characterised as an exposed stretch of coastline where open views out to sea are backed by moorland. The intrusion of the breakwater could become a new focal point for large stretches of this coastline, especially with lighting into the night. This will result in a moderate impact on the existing seascape character of the area. This is a significant impact.
13.46 No landscape designations will be impacted upon, all landscape impacts are localised and the proposal makes use of and improves upon existing infrastructure where possible.
13.47 However, the environmental statement did not adequately address the extent of lighting. SNH is unclear as to how the judgement has been made that ‘it is expected that lighting associated with the development will have a minor impact on the local receptors’. We recommend that landbased lighting does not extend beyond the ground truthed visual envelope (figure 12-2b in ES)’.
Applicant Responses
13.48 No comments have been received from the developer.
Key Issues Arising
13.49 No landscape designations will be affected by the development and the various options for siting are generally acceptable in terms of fitting into the landscape. The siting and notional design of the control building are in principle acceptable but further approval, by the Comhairle, of the detailed design of the building should be a requirement of any consent
TRANSPORT AND ROUTE
Main Elements from Environmental Statement
14.1 In this part of the ES the effects of increased traffic in the area are assessed, covering transport and site access both via the land and sea, during construction, operational and decommissioning stages.
Marine traffic/navigational issues 14.2 The assessment of navigational risks has followed the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) Marine Guidance Note 275 ‘Proposed UK Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREI) – Guidance on Navigational Safety Issues’.
14.3 The proposed project site does not experience any large marine vessel, or transiting, vessel traffic. Large marine vessel off the west coast of Lewis will use the Deep Water Route (DWR) located approximately 11 km offshore Siadar Bay.
14.4 A local lobster and velvet crab fishery operates approximately ten vessels along the north west coast of Lewis, but fishing is mainly limited to the summer months due to the exposed nature of the coast. Stornoway Sea Angling Association also uses the area for fishing, launching their vessels from Bragar.
14.5 Due to the low levels of maritime traffic utilising the area of the proposed development and adherence to Northern Lighthouse Board and Maritime and Coastguard Agency guidance with regards navigational lighting on the breakwater and potential fixed link structures and vessels involved in the construction and operation of the project, the proposed development will not result in any significant impacts on navigation
14.6 The breakwater has the potential to provide additional shelter in the bay and which could enable increased use of the existing Siadar slipway to the benefit of local commercial and leisure users.
Onshore traffic issues 14.7 The A857 is the primary trunk road connecting Stornoway with the Siadar area and Port of Ness in the extreme north of the island. This road has the ability to take standard European 40 tonne HGVs. However, as parts of the road network on Lewis is built onto peat it is unclear what density of such vehicle use could be sustained without serious road damage.
14.8 The greatest traffic volumes associated with the SWEP project will be during the construction phase. At a maximum (assuming local construction of the concrete caissons onsite at Siadar and with the concrete batched in Stornoway) there will be on average a maximum of 16 HGV vehicle movements per day. This will add significantly to the baseline HGV traffic levels in the more remote areas away from Stornoway near to Siadar. Smaller vehicles such as cars and vans will also make frequent trips to site carrying materials and personnel.
14.9 Other traffic associated with the construction phase of the project will include lorries travelling between the potential borrow pit and construction compound. These vehicles will not impact on the public road network as a dedicated temporary borrow pit access track will be constructed.
14.10 Although the proposed SWEP development will lead to a significant increase in the number of HGV movements on the roads during construction, with the appropriate mitigation measures and traffic management scheme in place, the overall impact is expected to be insignificant.
14.11 There will be minimal road traffic associated with the operation of the SWEP. The turbines and other on site equipment will be subject to regular maintenance, which will require manned visits to the site. Under normal operating conditions it is expected there will be between one and five vehicle movements per week. This will not result in any significant impacts.
Policy Considerations 14.12 Advice with regard to transport impacts of new development are contained within SPP 17 and PAN 57 together with the Comhairle’s Structure Plan and Local Plan. The Comhairle Local Transport Strategy is also of relevance.
14.13 Taking into account the above policy context the key policy considerations (mainly from the Structure Plan policies DM7 and T2) in relation to this development are: • impact upon the existing infrastructure and off site impacts; • the adequacy of measures to ensure safe movement of traffic; • impact upon public transport; and • impact of the road improvements or traffic management measures on the environment.
Consultation Responses
The Chamber of Shipping 14.14 ‘The Chamber of Shipping has no objection to the proposed development’.
Northern Light House Board 14.15 ‘We would advise that until a final decision is made as to the method and design of any access to the structure, or the position of any slipway that may be constructed for boat access, we would find it difficult to advise on appropriate navigation lighting and marking to assist with safe approach to any proposed slipway or to the structure itself. ‘We would however advise that marking of the site during construction would be required, by means of a yellow spherical special mark buoy with a St Andrews cross topmark and a light flashing yellow every 5 secs approximately 500m to seaward of the works, and that any vessel or barges operating at the works shall exhibit signals in accordance with International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at sea 1972.’
Technical Services 14.16 Technical Services has no objection to the above project provided the following issues are addressed.
• A full photographic survey of all proposed vehicular routes must be done in conjunction with Technical Services. This will assess the current state of routes and will allow an assessment to be done on completion of the works where any damage must be corrected to at least its original equivalent standard, by the developer.
• If the caissons are constructed on site using offsite concrete batching, this will have a significant impact on the existing road network, which must be constantly monitored throughout the project and permanently reinstated in accordance with (1) above.
• The Institute of Environmental Assessment Guidelines on traffic state that assessment is required where HGV movements increase by more than 10% where there are sensitive receptors likely to be affected. All the routes being travelled are sensitive and will require continuous assessment in accordance with (1) and (2) above.
• Any surface damage to bitmac along the route will have to be permanently restricted to the Comhairle’s specification. The worst case scenario affecting the Comhairle’s road network is where the caissons are constructed on site with off site batching causing large and frequent volumes of HGV’s along the route. If the caissons were transported into place by sea the effect on the road network would not be as great. Even if the second option is chosen all the above points will still need to be addressed. The developer should submit a traffic management and damage reinstatement plan to the Comhairle prior to any work commencing
Applicant Responses 14.17 No comments have been received from the applicant
Key Issues arising
Marine traffic/navigational issues 14.18 The Lighthouse Board has provided advice on what markings would be required, which could be conditional on any consent granted.
Onshore traffic issues 14.19 The management of all traffic to and from the site is one which will require to be addressed more fully than is covered in the developers ES. Mitigation measures put forward in the ES are considered to be a starting point. Particularly as a definitive design has not been confirmed and there are options regarding how the project will be developed it is likely that a more comprehensive approach to traffic management would require to be agreed prior to any development commencing. Earlier in this report the question of whether the existing track along the shore could not be used rather than constructing a new one, this should be investigated further by the developer and agreed under the terms of a the traffic management plan. Furthermore, any offsite works required may be best dealt with through the use of planning agreements and the impacts of these developments themselves require to be considered carefully.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
Main Elements from Environmental Statement 15.1 The socio economic benefits of both the construction phase and the operational phase are analysed in this section of the ES, where possible the benefits were quantified for the local area (Barvas to Port of Ness), and the Western Isles as a whole. The following aspects were examined:
• Employment and income benefits from the work that will have been undertaken during the design and construction phase (2009-2011 as currently envisaged); • Employment and income benefits associated with the operation and maintenance of the facility (over up to 50 years); • Potential economic benefits from tourism generated by the project; • Recreational effects (positive and negative); • Other identifiable local benefits.
Construction Phase 15.2 During the construction phase of the project, employment and income benefits to the Western Isles will arise through work undertaken on the project by Western Isles companies and its workforce, and through materials and services sourced locally. Also personnel coming over to the Western Isles to work on contracts or deliver supplies will make local purchases Economic analysis has indicated that the construction phase would generate the most substantial benefits in the Western Isles. This phase will generate between approximately 30 and 70 full time job equivalents and between £780,000 and £1,775,000 in household income throughout the Western Isles. The longer term operation of the SWEP will result in 2.5 full time job equivalents and £62,500 per annum in household income in the Western Isles from the maintenance and repair activities. Tourism benefits in the longer term might generate 1.5 full time job equivalents and £25,000 per annum in household income.
Construction costs 15.3 Obviously a definitive cost could not be ascertained until the proposal has been put out to tender and a contractor appointed. However a best estimate shows that the project is likely to cost between £14M and £18M. The figure below indicates the approximate apportionment of expenditure on key scheme items.
Operational Phase 15.4 The presence of the project in the longer term will provide benefits for both local residents and tourists. The breakwater will offer improved shelter for boats and water sports between it and the shore, and if the existing slipway is refurbished this will increase use of this area of the coast by fishermen and recreational users. The location of car parking facilities at the shore, together with the provision of interpretation of the area’s natural and cultural heritage will increase public access and interest in the area. It states in the ES that these recreational benefits are difficult to quantify and will depend to a large extent on:
• Complementary development in and close to Siadar. • Guided walks that might be offered. • Use of the slipway by outdoor activity operators, local clubs, and individuals and groups. • How well the improved facilities are promoted.
15.5 During the operational phase of the project impacts will arise through routine inspection and maintenance, and repairs that might be required and periodic replacement of components and structures.
15.6 The longer term operation of the SWEP will result in 2.5 full time job equivalents and £62,500 per annum in household income in the Western Isles from the maintenance and repair activities. Tourism benefits in the longer term might generate 1.5 full time job equivalents and £25,000 per annum in household income.
15.7 The potential negative recreational impacts associated with the project relate to the presence of the breakwater affecting a local surf break at the southern side of Siadar Bay and the landscape and visual impacts from the project (discussed above).
15.8 The construction phase would generate the most substantial benefits in the Western Isles in the short term. As estimated above, these could total: • 30.5-72.5 FTE’s and £780,000-£1,775,000 in household income in the Western Isles. • 7.5-18 FTE’s and £195,000-£444,000 in household income in the local area.
15.9 The operational phase (maintenance and repairs) might generate: • 2.5 FTE’s and £62,500 per annum in household income in the W. Isles. • 0.5 FTE’s and £12,500 per annum in household income in the local area.
15.10 Tourism benefits, after an initial period, might generate: • 1.5 FTE’s and £25,000 per annum in household income in the Western Isles. • 1 FTE and £16,000 per annum in household income in the local area.
15.11 These annual operational and tourism benefits could last for up to 50 years (the design life of the project), although this could be extended.
15.12 Success, if it led to further comparable wave energy installations in the Western Isles, would multiply all of the above effects.
15.13 Other effects, not quantified, include increased scope for sea fishing, land rental income for Galson Estate Trust and local crofters, a potential role for UHI / Lews Castle College, and recreational benefits (walking, cycling, sightseeing and water sports).
15.14 On the above estimates, over the first 25 years of operation, operational and tourism benefits, added to the high scenario construction phase effects would total 172.5 FTE’s and £3,962,500 in additional household income in the Western Isles and 55.5 FTE’s and £1,156,500 in additional household income in the local area.
Policy Considerations 15.15 As indicated in Section 5 of this report the National Planning Framework (NPF) recognises the balance required between economic development and environmental stewardship. However, the NPF also acknowledges slow economic progress in the remoter areas of the Western Isles (para 40) and the economic fragility of the Western Isles as a whole is emphasised in para 175 and 176.
15.16 Energy infrastructure is identified as another key driver for change in the NPF, and in particular, the natural energy resources of Scotland's west coast is highlighted; along with the constraints of existing infrastructure. The NPF suggests that in terms of regenerating communities (as far as land use planning is concerned) the need for economic development should take into account the locations where need is the greatest. However, in terms of the quality of the environment, the NPF says ‘economic development must be closely integrated with the promotion of environmental quality. Areas of change must be seen as opportunities to create high quality environments’.
15.17 Scottish Planning Policy 2 (SPP2), Economic Development focuses on four themes where planning can contribute to economic development: providing a range of development opportunities (to ensure that there is a range and choice of sites for new employment opportunities throughout Scotland); securing new development in sustainable locations (to improve integration between transport and locations for development and to encourage more sustainable forms of development); safeguarding and enhancing the environment (to make sure that new development contributes to a high standard of quality and design and that the natural and built heritage is protected); and promoting a dialogue between councils and business (to encourage a positive culture of engagement and better understanding of the priorities of the business community and the role of the planning system in enhancing economic competitiveness).
15.18 SPP15, Planning for Rural Development suggests that the natural and historic environment has to be protected. However, if the national vision is to be realized (becoming more confident and forward looking, and both accepting change and benefiting from it), then planning policies will have to enable development in some areas which, hitherto, have not been considered suitable for development.
15.19 SPP15 states: • The Scottish Ministers ambitions for rural Scotland were set out in the document Rural Scotland, A New Approach. The overarching aim is to have a prosperous rural economy, with a stable or increasing population that is more balanced in terms of age structure and where rural communities have reasonable access to good quality services. The planning system can assist this by adopting a more welcoming stance to development in rural Scotland including the further refinement of the approach to diversification. The aim is not to see small settlements increase in size to the extent that they lose their identity, nor to suburbanise the Scottish countryside or to erode the high quality of its environment. Rather, it is to ensure that planning policy regimes are put in place to accommodate selective, modest growth. Most development should be foreseen, agreed and programmed to reflect the local circumstances. It can be different in scale and kind to what has occurred in the past but it should not be unexpected or unplanned. Wider economic and social objectives should also be considered, as should Scotland’s distinctive environment and heritage. • In the less populated areas there should be greater scope for more innovative planning policies. Scottish Ministers see considerable potential for encouraging diversification, distinctiveness and individuality e.g. promoting new ways of working from home, using renewable energy technologies, delivering tourism and recreation projects and developing activities such as aquaculture, equestrianism and many others… • Planning authorities should support a wide range of economic activity in rural areas and seek environmental enhancement through development at every opportunity.
15.20 In conclusion, SPP15 suggests that planning authorities should ensure that development meets the test of ‘appropriateness’ to the circumstances in their area.
15.21 SPP6 Renewable Energy, expects planning authorities to maximise environmental, economic and social benefits from renewable Energy Developments.
15.22 Applications are expected to contain details of the environmental social and economic benefits that will arise from a project, including the overall number of jobs and economic activity associated with the procurement, construction and operation of the development. SPP6 states that planning authorities should consider whether any such benefits could or should be secured by way of a planning condition or agreement
15.23 SPP6 recognises the role of voluntary agreements with developers and suggests that local authorities may wish to facilitate such agreements; so long as it is recognised that any benefit, including mechanisms for negotiating with communities, is offered entirely at the discretion of the developer. SPP6 is also clear that benefits that cannot be considered material in planning terms, should not be taken into account when assessing whether a specific proposal is acceptable or not.
15.24 SPP6 goes on to say that the scope for developments to contribute to national or local economic development priorities should be a material consideration when considering decisions.
15.25 The Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership ‘Creating Communities of the Future’ strategy puts a clear emphasis on renewable energy developments as a driver for future economic growth throughout the Western Isles.
15.26 The Comhairle’s Development Plan contains a range of policies relevant to this chapter. The main policies are from the Structure Plan:
15.27 SC2 Retain Population and Encourage In-migration The Comhairle will work with its Community Planning partners to develop targeted strategies which assist in retaining population and encourage in-migration of key groups such as entrepreneurs, the young and skilled and small business owners and managers.
15.28 DM9 Developer Consultation and Community Benefit Developers should be willing to negotiate with the Comhairle, statutory agencies and service providers at an early stage to ensure planning and environmental concerns are taken on board prior to the submission of a formal planning application. Where appropriate, the Comhairle will seek to maximise the opportunity for additional benefits to the local community arising from major development proposals through negotiations with developers and securing ‘planning agreements.
15.29 ED2 Development of Alternative and Renewable Energy Resources The Comhairle, in partnership with other public agencies and the private sector, will develop proposals that help realise the latent renewable energy development potential of the Western Isles. It will also promote improvements to the interconnector with the mainland to enable the export of energy. Development proposals for hydro, solar, wave, tidal and wind (on-shore and off-shore) energy schemes and associated infrastructure, including proposals for non-grid, domestic- scale schemes, will be viewed positively, subject to satisfactory assessment of all of the following: i) the impact on local communities and any other existing or proposed land uses and interests; ii) the impact, including cumulative impact, on natural and built heritage resources; iii) the local and wider benefits that the proposal may bring; iv) the adequacy of reinstatement arrangements; v) the requirements of other Structure Plan policies.
Non-permanent structures will normally be approved for a temporary period. Having regard to the above criteria, the Local Plan will identify potentially suitable sites including provision of safeguarding or exclusion areas to ensure that future neighbouring developments or activities do not undermine the viability of the energy resource.
15.30 ED5 Tourism Development The Comhairle will normally support proposals for sustainable tourism, including the provision of infrastructure and facilities. It is particularly keen on proposals that: i) provide opportunities for the enjoyment and interpretation of the natural and cultural heritage; ii) help to diversify the rural economy; iii) lengthen the tourism season; and iv) accord with the 2000-2005 Tourism in the Western Isles Strategic Plan. Proposals to upgrade existing tourist caravan and camping sites or establish well-designed new sites in suitable locations will be supported where they conform to the adopted Comhairle caravan policy. The Local Plan will identify specific sites suitable for tourism developments and facilities including visitor attractions.
15.31 HCL6 Countryside and Coastal Access The Comhairle will work with land managers, other public agencies and local communities to produce an access strategy to deliver enhanced access to the countryside and to the coast. It will also establish a local access forum and identify core footpath networks. Proposals that secure improvements to, and expansion of, the existing path network or facilitate greater access to, or enjoyment of, key natural and built heritage resources (e.g. beaches and coastline, mountains, moorland and lochs, archaeological and historic sites) will be viewed positively when: i) They have the support of land managers and the local community. ii) They do not threaten other activities or key features of heritage interest. iii) Due consideration has been made as to the appropriateness of providing way- marking, information boards, car parking and other facilities. iv) Account has been taken of the needs of persons with disabilities. Claimed rights of way and other public footpaths will be safeguarded from proposed developments and kept free of obstructions.
15.32 The Comhairle’s approved, ‘Considerations for renewable energy developments in the Western Isles, November 2004’ indicates broad policy support across the Western Isles for the development of renewables. With particular reference to this chapter of the report, the approved document indicates: • ‘Optimum benefit to, and mitigation of any adverse impact on, the social, economic and environmental well being of the Western Isles will be sought through contributions to the Western Isles Development Trust. Developers will be encouraged to reach agreement with the Western Isles Development Trust over such contributions. • Local communities will be encouraged to play an active role in the development of renewable energy and may wish to develop 'community owned' schemes either independently, or as part of schemes promoted by developers. • In its consideration of renewable energy development proposals, the Comhairle will consider… the method of procurement of contracts for construction and operation.’
Consultation Responses Economic Development 15.33 Comments have been provided by the Comhairle’s Economic Development Service. These are noted in full below.
Development Costs and Associated Impacts
15.34 According to the project Environmental Statement (ES): “The capital cost of the scheme will not be known definitely until the scheme has been put out to tender…” A budget price for the project has, however, been developed. This will be dependant upon a number of factors, in particular the inclusion, or otherwise, of a fixed link structure. The budget price has been placed at between £14m and £18m.
15.35 In addition to the above there are a range of other complicating factors that make a definitive statement in regard to the socio-economic impact extremely difficult. Key amongst these issues is whether the concrete caissons for the breakwater are constructed locally or are constructed remotely and floated to the site. For these reasons the ES is built around a series of scenarios. The following table summarises the scenarios and job creation impacts that the ES anticipates from the project.
SCENARIO 1. Construction 2. Construction 3. Construction of of of Caisson Caisson Caisson s On- s at s Site Arnish Elsewhe (FTE) (FTE) re (FTE) Mechanical and Electrical 9 9 9 Project Management / Design 1 1 1 Control Bldg / Grid Connect 7.5 7.5 7.5 Breakwater 36 29 10 Slipway 3.5 3.5 3.5 External Contractors Expend 6 6 3 Fixed Link 9.5 9.5 9.5
TOTAL 72.5 65.5 43.5
15.36 If the slipway and fixed link don’t proceed the impacts would be anticipated to be as follows:
SCENARIO 1. Construction 2. Construction 3. Construction of of of Caisson Caisson Caisson s On- s at s Site Arnish Elsewhe (FTE) (FTE) re (FTE) Mechanical and Electrical 9 9 9 Project Management / Design 1 1 1 Control Bldg / Grid Connect 7.5 7.5 7.5 Breakwater 36 29 10 External Contractors Expend 6 6 3
TOTAL 59.5 52.5 30.5
Operational Phase Impacts
15.37 The operational phase of the project will involve a number of activities such as maintenance (scheduled and unscheduled) and operational monitoring. The majority of systems will be self-checking and will operate for long periods unattended. The impact at the Outer Hebrides level of this activity is placed at 2.5 FTE. In addition to this the EI anticipates that there will be potential for tourism-related effects to be generated by the project. These have been placed at 1.5 FTE. The total operational phase effects identified are therefore 4 FTE.
15.38 In addition to the above there will be a lease arrangement between npower and Urras Oighreachd Gabhsainn. According to the ES the value of this lease has not yet been agreed and therefore impacts arising from the recycling of the lease income by the Urras have not been calculated in the ES.
Summary of Potential Economic Benefits
15.39 The EI gives a total “high case” impact of 172.5 FTE over the first 25 years of operation. This has been arrived at as follows:
72.5FTE (based on Scenario 1: Construction of Caissons on Site) 62.5FTE (based on 2.5 operational FTE per annum x 25 years) 37.5FTE (based on 1.5 tourism generated FTE per annum x 25 years) ------172.5 FTE ====
15.40 The “lower case” scenario would provide an impact of 130.5 FTE over the first 25 years of operation. This has been arrived at as follows:
30.5FTE (based on Scenario 3: Construction of Caissons Elsewhere) 62.5FTE (based on 2.5 operational FTE per annum x 25 years) 37.5FTE (based on 1.5 tourism generated FTE per annum x 25 years) ------130.5 FTE ====
Commentary on Potential Economic Impacts
15.41 It is important to note that the EI methodology for calculating job impacts is based on FTE job years. The normal convention would be to convert FTE job years into FTEs – an FTE being a job that lasts for 10 years. In this instance, therefore, the 172.5 FTE years outlined at 4.1 would convert into a total of 17.25 FTE and the 130.5 FTE at 4.2 would convert to 13.05 FTE. The Economic Development assessment utilises FTE in the conventional sense.
15.42 Due to the uncertainties relating to construction methodology and whether some elements of the project will or will not proceed, the EI has of necessity been built around a number of construction phase scenarios. The key determinant in these scenarios is whether the caissons will be built in the Outer Hebrides or elsewhere. This is the project element that represents the most cost and which will generate the greatest local impact. The level of construction impact will therefore be highly sensitive as to whether this element is constructed locally or not.
15.43 There is no clear definition in the EI in regard to how some of the anticipated expenditure figures have been arrived at. It is therefore difficult to replicate the results obtained in regard to job creation. There is no clear definition provided in regard to the multipliers utilised to calculate indirect and induced effects.
15.44 The EI does not present any relationship between the costs of the scheme and anticipated impacts. Relating cost to impact suggests that the total project will create a total of 20.36 FTE in the construction phase. This assumes a capital cost of £16m (central case for the £14m - £18m outlined in the EI). Converting that construction cost into employment has been undertaken by utilising data from the Annual Business Inquiry, which places average annual output per employee in the Outer Hebrides construction industry at £94,300. The estimate of person years of employment generated using the “output per employee” method is therefore 150.88, which translates into 15.08 FTE. The wider indirect and induced effects are assessed as being 5.28 FTE. This has been calculated utilising the Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) multipliers contained in the 2003 Western Isles Regional Accounts and applying the most appropriate multiplier – Construction, with a value of 1.35. This gives an overall impact 20.36 FTE.
15.45 By applying the “output per employee” approach to the various Scenarios outlined at 2.2 and 2.3 potential local contract values can be estimated. These local contract values would appear broadly in line with the scenarios and assumption outlined in the ES. They take into account that large elements of the project (the mechanical and electrical element, for example, is estimated to take up to two years and will be undertaken by engineers and support staff based in Inverness) will be procured out-with the Outer Hebrides.
15.46 Given the scenario based approach and uncertainties in regard to procurement the spread of job creation impact allocated to the construction phase, i.e. a high end of 7.25 FTE and a low end of 3.05 FTE appear generally appropriate.
15.47 How the operational impacts of 6.25 FTE over the 25 year life of the scheme are arrived at are outlined in the ES and appear to be reasonable.
15.48 A job creation impact of 3.75 FTE is attributed to tourism impacts arising from the implementation of the project. This is based on a range of assumptions in regard to increased recreational activity in and around the facility. These impacts cannot be tested or replicated and as such have been removed from the final overall impact.
Overall Impacts
15.49 Within and constraints and uncertainties outlined in the ES, the job creation figures are considered robust. The impacts have to be presented within a spread, however, as they will be highly sensitive to issues such as whether the caissons are constructed locally and whether elements such as the fixed link are actually constructed or not.
15.50 Overall impacts are as being as follows:
Construction 7.25 FTE (High Case) 3.05 FTE (Low Case)
Operation 6.25 FTE
Conclusion
15.51 The SWEP project will create a number of jobs in the construction and operation of the project as outlined at 6.2. Although the numbers are small and the totality is subject to a number of sensitivities, these will be important opportunities in the context of a fragile community, where the requirement for new employment is essential.
15.52 The key economic impacts arising from the project may be more strategic, however. These will include:
• putting in place an early commercial wave energy project, which demonstrates the technology and opens out the opportunities for replication;
• providing a “stepping stone” to realising larger scale wave energy projects in the Outer Hebrides and other parts of Scotland / UK;
• building a track record and reputation for the Outer Hebrides as a destination for marine energy projects;
• opening collaboration opportunities between the project and research institutions, in particular Lews Castle College.
SNH
Recreation and tourism 15.53 The main recreational interests in the development area are likely to be walking, surfing and wildlife watching. The construction may have both temporary and permanent effects, during construction and the subsequent operation of the project.
15.54 The ES assesses that the proposed development will have an overall moderate effect on visual amenity, for walkers, tourists and users of the A857. Onshore noise assessment predicts that the impact will be moderate or less with mitigation measures during construction, and generally minor during operation. The ES does not specifically assess the impacts on the general right of access, however we assume that the compound used during construction will be outwith access rights and certain structures such as the possible fixed link would not be accessible to the public during the construction phase, but this should not unduly restrict current or future public access. 15.55 The ES has been informed by consultation with various recreational interests, including RYA, Stornoway Canoe Club, divers, surfers, local boat owners and activity holiday providers, together with discussions with the Estate Ranger and Council Access Officer. Ongoing liaison with these groups would be important, and thus SNH is supportive of the commitment to maintain consultation with local and other stakeholders throughout all phases of the project. Comhairle Marine Resources Officer 15.56 The development will potentially have a small effect on any static gear activity in the area but this will be minimal.
Responses 15.57 No comments have been received from the developer.
Key Issues Arising 15.58 The facilitating of economic development is a key part of national level planning policy and strategy. However, national guidance is also very clear that the protection of the natural and built heritage is a key driver when considering proposals for change. The Comhairle’s Structure Plan also ensures that certain criteria are considered alongside economic development benefits.
15.59 Economic impacts, particularly those supporting local economic development strategies, are now seen as a material consideration for planning authorities when considering the merits renewable energy developments.
15.60 Applications are expected to contain details of the environmental, social and economic benefits that will arise from a project, including the overall number of jobs and economic activity associated with the procurement, construction and operation of the development. SPP6 also clearly states that planning authorities should consider whether any such benefits could or should be secured by way of a planning condition or agreement. The development would most likely benefit from a Planning Agreement to be put in place if it were to be supported by the Comhairle and/or the Scottish Government.
15.61 National guidance recognises the role of voluntary agreements (often planning agreements) with developers and suggests that local authorities may wish to facilitate such agreements so long as it is recognised that any benefit, including mechanisms for negotiating with communities, is offered entirely at the discretion of the developer. National guidance is also clear that benefits that cannot be considered material in planning terms should not be taken into account when assessing whether a specific proposal is acceptable or not.
15.62 Although the number of jobs likely to be generated as a result of this project is low, in the context of a fragile community they are considered to be important. As identified above other benefits could also accrue from the establishment of this ‘demonstration project’.
15.63 During the operational phase of the development the effect on those participating in walking, surfing and wildlife watching would be minimal. However the applicant claims that there will be an improved access to the sea. A refurbished existing slipway would benefit from the shelter and would become a more attractive investment for the local community than at the present situation. The ongoing consultation with interested groups including the including RYA, Stornoway Canoe Club, divers, surfers, local boat owners and activity holiday providers, together with discussions with the Estate Ranger and Council Access Officer is welcomed and should ensure the best possible utilisation of the facilities.
UNDERWATER NOISE AND ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS
Main Elements from Environmental Statement Underwater noise 16.1 This part of the ES examines the effects any under water noise generated by SWEP and electromagnetic effects are likely to have on the species within the vicinity. The proposed project site is in shallow waters, approximately 5 m water depth. The area consists primarily of hard substrate, with an exposed aspect subject to substantial wave action. As a result the ambient noise in the proposed project area is substantial. The electromagnetic levels in the area are essentially nil as there are no other sources of electromagnetism in the area.
Marine Mammals 16.2 Seals and cetaceans have been identified as being present in the project area. A survey of possible seal haul-out sites was carried out during the summer of 2007 during which seals were seen foraging in Siadar Bay. However, no haul-out sites were identified in the bay.
16.3 The Western Isles is a rich area for cetaceans, with 20 species recorded within 60 km of the coast, primarily sighted in and around headlands (such as the Butt of Lewis to the north), offshore islands and banks, the continental shelf and the area of sea between the Scottish mainland and the eastern coast of the Western Isles known as ‘The Minches’. Harbour porpoise tend to favour more sheltered locations. Based on the data presently available and the knowledge of cetacean populations in general around the UK the Siadar site is not expected to be frequently visited by cetaceans, and those in transit would tend to be further offshore in deeper waters. This was confirmed by consultation with the Sea Mammal Research Unit and Scottish Natural heritage. Although there does remain potential for cetacean presence in the area, the importance of the site for cetaceans is not considered to be high.
Fish and Shellfish 16.4 Sea trout are present in the River Siadar and migrate into the freshwater habitat of the River Siadar to spawn during May and June. The young fish will migrate into the marine environment during the months of October and November. The River Siadar is not currently a managed angling river. Eel, is the only other migratory fish likely to be affected by the development.
16.5 Sources of underwater noise associated with the project include marine dredging, underwater blasting, drill piling, vessel movements and turbine noise that may propagate into the water. The potential sensitivity of marine wildlife to underwater noise is a function of the frequency of the noise (Hz) as well as the noise sound level (dB). These noise sources identified above are generally low frequency. Drilling piling and dredging will be continuous noise sources over the periods of these activities, and any bedrock blasting required during seabed preparation will be a pulsed noise source.
Otters and Sea Turtles 16.6 Recent surveys indicate that there are otters in the area but there are no holts, couches or other rest areas present along the coastline. These are all located around the freshwater lochans.
16.7 The ES provides background information on species’ sensitivities to underwater noise.
Mitigation during the Construction Phase 16.8 Any occasional marine mammal e.g. seals or porpoises that might be present during the construction phase are expected to avoid the bay and its immediate surroundings during these noisy operations. During construction, the primary mitigation will be the presence of Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) during potentially ‘noisy’ operations such as dredging and drill-piling to spot cetacean activity and only allow these activities to commence once the cetacean has vacated into the pre defined safe area some distance from the works. MMO observations will follow the principles of the nationally recognised Joint Nature Conservation Committee guidance for minimising disturbance to marine mammals and draw on relevant experience from the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney.
16.9 If blasting is required during seabed preparation activities this might affect sea trout during their migration to and from the River Siadar. Migration takes place during the months of October and November, and May and June. It is unlikely blasting will take place during the winter months of October and November, however if fish are prevented from entering the River in May and June they may not spawn in that particular year. The fish would however be expected to return to the river the following year once construction activities were complete.
16.10 All noisy activities are to be conducted over very short periods of time, thus reducing their overall impact. Vessel activities will be low in number and short in duration.
Mitigation during the Operational Phase 16.11 During the operational phase of the SWEP the noise generated by Wells turbines within the breakwater structure is expected to be the main source of underwater noise. Source noise frequencies for the turbines are within a low-medium frequency band and tonal in nature; however there is a lack of data available on the implications such a new technology will have for the underwater noise of the area. As a result, appropriate monitoring will be implemented in consultation with the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) who is developing a methodology for use within the marine renewables industry and Scottish Natural Heritage. This will provide useful data for this project and for future developments within the wave energy sector. Such data will assist greatly this young energy sectors future potential.
16.12 Any potential electromagnetic effects will be reduced by electromagnetic shielding
16.13 Npower renewables will be continuing consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage during the detailed design phase of the project to ascertain any necessary licensing requirements with regard to protected marine mammal species.
Policy Considerations 16.14 The main policy considerations relevant to this section relate to the conservation of natural habitats and species, which have been referred to in detail in previous sections. They include the following. • NPPG 13 Coastal Planning • NPPG 14 Natural Heritage • SPP6 Renewable Energy • PAN 45 Planning for Renewable Technologies • Western Isles Structure Plan (specifically policy RM11& RM12) • Western Isles Local Plan
Consultation Responses
Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust 16.15 During the construction phase the impacts on fish will be through noise and mechanical disruption. This is a significant short term impact and mitigation measures are proposed in the ES. The impact of operational noise on fish is unclear and it is possible that the wave scheme will have ongoing impacts on migratory fish by ‘scaring’ them from the Siadar river mouth. Unless information can be put forward to show that noise from the turbine will not disturb migratory fish we suggest that on going fresh water fish monitoring is carried out to detect any impacts.
SNH 16.16 ‘The noise emitted by the operational turbines is uncertain, as is the extent to which it will carry through the water. npower commits to monitoring of noise levels, and SNH strongly endorse this proposal. We request a summary report after an initial period of one month of monitoring, providing details of the monitoring undertaken and relating noise levels recorded to ambient noise and impacts, if any, upon cetaceans.’ Comhairle Environmental Health Team 16.17 There was no comment on this aspect of noise from Environmental Health.
Applicant Responses 16.18 No comments have been received from the developer.
Key issues Arising Construction Noise 16.19 It will be possible to mitigate against any adverse effects from underwater noise during the construction by careful timing, noisy activities being conducted over very short periods of time, and the presence of Marine Mammal Observers.
Operational Noise 16.20 The issues that remain outstanding are the extent and effect of the underwater noise emitted during the operational phase. The Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust do have concerns about the long term effects of this on other fisheries on the Westside but there is insufficient information available to determine what this may be. As this is in effect a demonstration project it would seem reasonable that the developer be required to monitor noise levels and also undertake fish surveys to establish the effects if any on the fish population. This could be required by condition.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Accidental/ Non Routine 17.1 Section 16 of the ES assesses the potential for accidents and the occurrence of events, which are likely to have an effect on the environment, from construction to decommissioning. During the process of the EIA a number of non routine and accidental scenarios that could result in environmental impacts were identified. These include leaks or spills of oils/fuels or lubricants from vehicles onshore and vessels offshore; collision between vessels and offshore structures during installation and construction etc.
17.2 For the offshore construction operation and decommissioning the following measures will be put in place; • All vessels will comply with necessary codes for oil pollution prevention • Vessels with a ‘track record’ of similar conditions will be used • Work to be carried out at appropriate times of year • Safe anchorages will be identified for boats en route to site • Emergency procedures will be developed
17.3 Similarly with the onshore development appropriate measures will be used to cover a range of scenarios.
• All operations to adhere to health and safety regulations • A fuelling area will be constructed in accordance with SEPA guidance. • A traffic management scheme will be developed • Emergency procedure will be in place before development commences
Aviation and Defence 17.4 The consultation responses to the Scottish Government from Civil aviation Authority, National Air Trafficing Services indicate that there are no objections to the development with regard to aviation issues. Similarly the Defence Estates has no safeguarding objections to this proposal.
Environmental Management/ Mitigation 17.5 The ES describes in this section how environmental management will be incorporated into the construction and installation, and on going operation of the project.
17.6 An essential part of the EIA process is mitigation and management planning and the development of an environmental management plan. An action checklist has been included in the ES and it is the developer’s intention that the EMP will evolve and be updated through the final design process prior to construction and installation.
REPRESENTATIONS 18.1 At the time of writing the report no representations had been received by the Comhairle. Only one representation had been submitted to the Scottish Government and that is in support of the development. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Role of the Planning Authority 19.1 It is important at this stage to establish the role of the Comhairle as Planning Authority in this process. In terms of applications made to the Scottish Government under Section 36 of the Electricity Act (1989) for developments generating electricity the Local authority is the principlal authority. However, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that the responsibility of the Planning Authority does not extend below the low tide mark and in this case most of the development occurs below that line. Nonetheless, the Comhairle is a consultee in this process and it would seem appropriate that it considers the development in terms of how it affects land within its responsibility and the development as a whole. Indeed the Scoping Opinion issued by the Scottish Government states that ‘although inshore developments are not subject to the land use planning system, the applicant should be aware of the following which will be of relevance to the proposed development.’ The Scoping Opinion then goes on to list a number of documents including Scottish Planning Policies (SPP), National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG), Planning Advice Notes (PAN), and the Western Isles Development Plan. It is however recognised that a number of different consents will be required for this development.
19.2 The aim of this report has been to provide a balanced representation of the issues concerned with this proposal. The report allows the Comhairle as Principal Consultee to reach a view on the development and the ES as submitted, and put forward a recommendation that it considers to be the appropriate planning decision, having taken into account the Development Plan and other relevant material considerations.
19.3 The view of the Comhairle would be forwarded to the Scottish Government for determination under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. The Comhairle has until 5 September 2008 to make its view known to the Scottish Government. Scottish Ministers will then take the final decision on the matter.
19.4 This section of the report turns firstly to key issues and conclusions from each of the main subject areas. The section then moves on to make general conclusions with regard to the proposed development, in particular providing conclusions on the balance of judgements required, to be in a position to make a recommendation to the Comhairle.
Discussion of Key Issues Terrestrial Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology 19.5 It is concluded that based on the ES and comments received from consultees and others that the development, in terms of terrestrial geology, hydrology and hydrogeology could proceed subject to planning conditions and satisfactory details relating to the final design of the project and the construction method statement/environmental management plan.
Terrestrial Habitats and Ecology 19.6 SNH object to the development unless certain conditions are met to protect the otter population in the area. These conditions are set out in their formal response and could form part of any consent. Although further surveys both before and after construction phases are required to satisfy the concerns raised there are no outstanding objections on ornithological grounds or on the impact to fish. On the basis of appropriate conditions being included, it can therefore be concluded that there are no outstanding issues relating to this section.
Marine Habitats and Ecology 19.7 It is concluded that based on the ES and comments received from consultees and others, that the development, (in terms of marine habitats and ecology) could proceed subject to: • a suitably qualified specialist to be employed on site (marine mammal observer); • appropriate management plans to be submitted and approved before development commenced; and • appropriate monitoring of fisheries, and • any necessary conditions.
Cultural Heritage- Terrestrial and Marine Although both Historic Scotland and the Comhairle Archaeologist have concerns over certain aspects of the development, these concerns are not of sufficient weight for either to object to the proposals.
19.8 The ES outlines several alternative ways in which the wave energy project could be developed and requests consent for all. There is therefore a range of potential impacts on the cultural heritage from each alternative. In order to minimise the effects locally the preferred options would be to source the aggregate out-with the area, construct the caissons off site and deliver them by sea, ensure the breakwater is accessible only by boat and locate the onshore control building adjacent to the existing Scottish Water works.
19.9 It is evident that there are preferred options but none of those variations suggested have been identified as unacceptable. There are however mitigation measures and conditions suggested to minimise and control any effect on the cultural heritage of the area.
Coastal Processes 19.10 It can be concluded that the development will not significantly affect any coastal processes but sufficient protection should be afforded to Scottish Water’s infrastructure.
Onshore Noise 19.11 It is accepted that there are unlikely to be any noise issues relating to the operational phase of this development. Nonetheless a precautionary condition to deal with any incidents that arise may be appropriate. Landscape and Visual 19.12 No landscape designations will be affected by the development and the various options for siting are generally acceptable in terms of fitting into the landscape. Providing the submission to and approval by the Comhairle is required for the detailed design of the various elements of the development, there are no significant concerns from a landscape or visual impact point of view.
Transport and Route Access 19.13 Providing appropriate markings are used there are no objections from a navigational point of view. It is also concluded that there is a clear need for the approval of a traffic management plan prior to the commencement of works. In general terms, the issues raised can be dealt with through planning conditions and considerations within a Section 75 Planning Agreement.
Socio- Economic Impact 19.14 The facilitating of economic development is a key part of national level planning policy and strategy. However, national guidance is also very clear that the protection of the natural and built heritage is a key driver when considering proposals for change. The Comhairle’s Structure Plan also ensures that certain criteria are considered alongside economic development benefits.
19.15 Economic impacts, particularly those supporting local economic development strategies, are now seen as a material consideration for planning authorities when considering the merits renewable energy developments.
19.16 Applications are expected to contain details of the environmental, social and economic benefits that will arise from a project, including the overall number of jobs and economic activity associated with the procurement, construction and operation of the development. SPP6 also clearly states that planning authorities should consider whether any such benefits could or should be secured by way of a planning condition or agreement. The development would most likely benefit from a Planning Agreement to be put in place if it were to be supported by the Comhairle and/or the Scottish Government.
19.17 National guidance recognises the role of voluntary agreements (often planning agreements) with developers and suggests that local authorities may wish to facilitate such agreements so long as it is recognised that any benefit, including mechanisms for negotiating with communities, is offered entirely at the discretion of the developer. National guidance is also clear that benefits that cannot be considered material in planning terms should not be taken into account when assessing whether a specific proposal is acceptable or not.
19.18 Although the number of jobs likely to be generated as a result of this project is low, in the context of a fragile community they are considered to be important. As identified above other benefits could also accrue from the establishment of this ‘demonstration project’.
19.19 During the operational phase of the development the effect on those participating in walking, surfing and wildlife watching would be minimal. However, the applicant claims that there will be an improved access to the sea. A refurbished existing slipway would benefit from the shelter and would become a more attractive investment for the local community than at the present situation. The ongoing consultation with interested groups including the RYA, Stornoway Canoe Club, divers, surfers, local boat owners and activity holiday providers, together with discussions with the Estate Ranger and Council Access Officer is welcomed and should ensure the best possible utilisation of the facilities.
Underwater Noise and Electromagnetic Effects 19.20 From information in the ES outlining mitigation measures and consultee responses it can be concluded that there are no objections to the development, providing; • marine mammal observers are employed, • noisy activities are conducted over very short periods, • careful timing during the construction phase, and • appropriate on-going fish surveys.
Other Material Considerations and Representations 19.21 There are no other material considerations that would preclude development.
Options for Development 19.22 The ES identifies several different options for development, and the applicant has made it clear in the ES that consent is sought for all the variations outlined. It states in paragraph 3.2.1 ‘the options presented in the ES are not options for the consenting authority to choose between, but necessary to ensure there is a viable scheme which can be taken forward once consent is received. Therefore, consent for all the options presented here is being sought.’
19.23 From the conclusions above it is clear that there would appear to be no significant overriding issues that warrant the Comhairle taking the view that any of the options outlined should be refused. Nonetheless it is suggested that the Comhairle has a responsibility to provide advice on what it considers is the best possible development solution. From the ES and analysis of the consultee responses and an assessment against planning policy it would appear that the following options below would have the least effect on the surrounding environment and cultural heritage. The main elements of the development are discussed below.
Borrow Pit 19.24 In order to minimise the environmental impact the preferred option would be to source rock out-with the site, and not developing the borrow pit identified in Appendix 2. It is acknowledged though that this may increase traffic to the site.
Caisson construction methodology 19.25 Remote construction option (1b) would cause minimal damage to the terrestrial habitats and ecology, the cultural heritage, the landscape and visual impact, reduce the effect of construction noise, the volume of traffic and the impact on the road. This would be the preferred option for this element.
Operations and maintenance access to the breakwater 19.26 Boat access from onsite slipway option (2c) would reduce the amount of construction required, with associated reduction in the physical impact on the environment. This is suggested to be the preferred option but construction of a causeway and fixed link may be preferable from an operational point of view and may also afford the opportunity for additional uses.
Onshore Control Building 19.27 Locating the control building adjacent to existing Scottish Water works option (3b) would have less impact on the scheduled monument and would also be acceptable in terms of fitting into the landscape.
19.28 Although these are preferred options it is accepted that the conditions on the west side of Lewis will be different to operate within.
19.29 As there are three main elements to the development each with various options the number of different scenarios for development is considerable. This in itself presents some difficulties in providing precise, relevant and necessary conditions at this time. Those suggested in Appendix 1 are therefore designed to cover the preferred options and matters raised in this Report. It is however likely that further discussion between the consultees and the Scottish Government may see changes either in the form of an addendum or in terms of the conditions deemed appropriate.
RECOMMENDATIONS
20.1 In general terms, a local authority has four principal options with regard to Section 36 applications:
1. Recommend that the Scottish Ministers approve the application subject to certain terms and conditions to be met to the satisfaction of the appropriate authorities including the Comhairle;
2. Ask for additional time to consider the proposal;
3. Recommend to the Scottish Ministers that the Comhairle objects to the application on such policy grounds that cannot be dealt with by conditions or agreement(s). (NB noting that if the Comhairle, as principal consultee, recommends refusal/objects this would trigger a Public Inquiry); or
4. Request that a Public Inquiry be held.
20.2 After reviewing the application details and having reached the conclusions noted in the previous section of this report, it is recommended that the:
• Comhairle be of the view that Scottish Ministers approve the application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 subject to all of the terms and conditions contained at Appendix 1 of this Report;
• Comhairle be of the view that the preferred option for development is as detailed in paragraphs 19.24 and 19.27 above;
• Chief Executive be authorised to enter into negotiations with the developer and other relevant interests to prepare a Planning Agreement;
• Comhairle inform Scottish Ministers that it is of the view that there is no public interest in holding a Public Local Inquiry for the Pairc Wind Farm proposal; and
• that given the different options put forward in the application delegated authority may be required to amend the Comhairle’s proposed conditions during any negotiations with the developer and the Scottish Government on the preferred development option.
APPENDIX 1
SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS
SIADAR WAVE ENERGY PROJECT
Condition 1 The development to which this permission relates shall commence within five years from the date of this permission. Reason To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1997.
Condition 2 This consent shall expire on 30 September 2058. Within two years of the expiry date the equipment and other fixtures associated with the development shall be removed and the site restored in accordance with the approved Decommissioning and Restoration Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Comhairle as planning authority unless a renewal of permission has previously been granted. Reason To maintain a measure of control over temporary development in the interests of visual amenity and to allow the size and make up of the development to be re- assessed in the light of renewable energy production technology and opportunities prevailing at that time.
Condition 3 Before development commences, details of the final siting and design of the project shall be submitted for approval by the Comhairle. No part of the development to which this permission relates shall commence until the Comhairle has issued approval of the details in writing. The development shall then be carried out and retained throughout the life of the development in compliance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Comhairle as planning authority. Reason To define the permission and to avoid doubt.
Condition 4 The following Management Plans shall be submitted to the Comhairle: a. Transportation Management Plan (including any off-site works schedule referred to in the Section 75 agreement). b. Construction Method Statement /Environmental Management Plan covering: (i) Nature Mitigation and Compensation . (ii) Fisheries Management. (iii) Rock extraction, batching plant and water extraction. (iv) Pollution. (v) Health and Safety. (vi) Peat Management. (vii) Post Construction Restoration. (viii) Timescale of construction . (ix) Waste management (Site Waste Management Plan). c. Outline Decommissioning and Restoration Management Plan .
No part of the development to which this permission relates shall commence until the Comhairle has issued approval of a, b, c of the Management Plans in writing. The development shall then be carried out and retained throughout the life of the development in compliance with the approved Management Plans unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Comhairle as planning authority. Reason In order to ensure proper management of the development.
Condition 5 Details of the siting, design, materials and colours to be used for the external walls, roofs, windows and doors of the control building; details of the siting and external appearance of any temporary compound buildings or fixed plant and machinery; and details of the precise nature, siting, size and colour of the active breakwater and associated structures shall be submitted for approval by the Comhairle. No part of the development to which this permission relates shall commence until the Comhairle has issued approval of the details in writing. The development shall then be carried out and retained throughout the life of the development in compliance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Comhairle as planning authority. Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
Condition 6 The Construction Method Statement referred to in Condition 3 shall include and comply with the terms of Conditions listed below. No part of the development to which this permission relates shall commence until the Comhairle has issued approval of the Construction Method Statement. The development shall then be carried out and retained throughout the life of the development in compliance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Comhairle as planning authority. Reason In order to ensure proper management of the development.
Condition 7 The Outline and final Decommissioning and Restoration Management Plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Comhairle as planning authority as agreed in the Section 75 Agreement. All decommissioning and restoration work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan to the satisfaction of the Comhairle. Reason In order to ensure proper management of the development.
Condition 8 Before Development commences arrangements shall be agreed between the applicant and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar for the appointment during construction of a marine mammal observer, ecologist and an archaeologist. Reason In order to ensure proper management of the development.
Condition 9 The developer shall afford access on the site at all reasonable times to the archaeologist, ecologist and marine mammal observer appointed in accordance with Condition 8 (and/or to their nominees) and shall allow them to observe work in progress and record items of interest and finds. Notification of the commencement date shall be given by the developer to the archaeologist, ecologist and marine mammal observer in writing not less than 14 days before development commences and, thereafter throughout the life of the construction works, a weekly written notification of the proposed programme of works for the following four weeks or for a period to be agreed beforehand in writing with the planning authority, shall be submitted to the archaeologist, ecologist and marine mammal observer. Any concerns raised by the archaeologist, ecologist and marine mammal observer over the programme or methods of working shall, in the first instance, be referred to the developer and, if not resolved by mutual agreement, shall be referred to the Comhairle as planning authority. Reason In order to ensure proper management of the development and proper recording and protection of items of archaeological or ecological interest.
Condition 10 Before development commences on site, details of a scheme for monitoring the impact of the development on birds and fish shall be submitted for the written approval of the Comhairle in consultation with SNH and the Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust. An annual report, over the first three years of operation summarising the results of monitoring, shall be submitted to the Comhairle for consideration and for suggestions for any remedial, mitigation or compensation action. Reason In order to establish effective monitoring in the interests of ornithology.
Condition 11 Details of the method for monitoring design and construction of site roads and clarification of the observational method shall be submitted (The Observational Method in ground engineering is a continuous, managed, integrated, process of design, construction control, monitoring and review that enables previously defined modifications to be incorporated during or after construction as appropriate. All these aspects have to be demonstrably robust. The objective is to achieve greater overall economy without compromising safety. CIRIA Report 185). Reason In order to ensure proper management of the development.
Condition 12 All parking associated with the construction and maintenance of the site shall be accommodated within the areas demarcated as working areas/compounds unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Comhairle as Planning Authority. Reason To ensure site ground disturbance is kept to a minimum in the interests of nature conservation.
Condition 13 Details of arrangements to be made to ensure no spread of mud or other materials onto the public highways shall be submitted for approval by the Comhairle. Reason In order to ensure safety of traffic on the public highway.
Condition 14 In respect to any borrow pit and construction site consented, details of the proposed operation and restoration work shall be submitted to the Comhairle. The submission will establish the following details at the borrow pit and construction site rock source and batching plant area: a) Site set up, including details of any buildings, plant and machinery; b) Drainage, and management of site run off; c) Dust control methods; d) Overburden Storage; e) Extraction methods; f) Restoration plans, specifications and timescale and a ZVI diagram. Restoration shall be undertaken in accordance with the terms and details approved following submission in accordance with f) above. Reason In order to ensure proper planning control over the design and operation of the rock source/quarry areas.
Condition 15 Details of foul drainage arrangements for all forms of permanent or temporary accommodation shall be submitted for approval by the Comhairle. Reason In the interests of public health.
Condition 16 Details of water supply arrangements, both during construction and subsequently, shall be submitted for approval by the Comhairle. Reason In the interests of public health and to ensure protection of the local water supply system.
Condition 17 A detailed drainage plan including a Drainage Impact Assessment shall be submitted for approval by the Comhairle before the development commences. Reason To ensure minimal impact on the site hydrology.
Condition 18 Details of a method statement for discharges from dewatering operations shall be submitted for approval by the Comhairle. Such method statement shall require that no water from foundation dewatering operations shall be discharged directly into a watercourse. Where necessary, settling ponds and buffer strips shall be installed to remove sediment from pumped water. This statement shall include best practice in accordance with Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s Advice. Reason In order to ensure proper management of the development in the interests of the habitat, fauna and fisheries.
Condition 19 Details shall be submitted for approval by the Comhairle, of the design, flow rates and likely effluent composition of discharges to the water environment and dilution available in receiving waters at low flow conditions for each any of the proposed discharges. Reason In order to prevent pollution and silting in the interests of the habitat, fauna and fisheries.
Condition 20 Details of pollution prevention methods, taking account of SEPA’s Guidance regarding use and design of oil interceptors and requiring provision of oil spill kits at fuel depots and on each on site vehicle, shall be submitted for approval by the Comhairle. Reason In order to prevent pollution in the interests of public health the habitat, fauna and fisheries.
Condition 21 Unless agreed otherwise in writing beforehand by the Comhairle, Construction work, (including any form of quarrying, blasting, crushing or batching) shall take place only within the hours of 0700 to 1900 Mondays to Saturdays and not at all on Sundays. Any construction activity involving audible noise at the nearest noise sensitive property, from cutting, hammering or welding shall be subject to the foregoing hours, unless specific exceptions have received the prior approval of the Comhairle as Planning Authority in writing. Reason In order to protect the occupants of nearby premises from nuisance caused by noise and disturbance.
Condition 22 Unless agreed otherwise by the Comhairle (for example under the terms of the Transportation Management Plan) throughout the life of the development to which this permission relates, access to the site by heavy goods vehicles shall be restricted to 0700 to 1900 on Mondays to Fridays and from 0700 to 12 noon on Saturdays with no such access on Sundays. Reason In order to protect the occupants of nearby premises from nuisance caused by noise and disturbance.
Condition 23 Details of the location and methods for any blasting operations (to include a method statement from a qualified shot blaster) which are to be undertaken in any part of the development are to be submitted to and approved by the Comhairle. Any blasting on the site shall be undertaken in accordance with the details approved in compliance with this condition unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Comhairle. Reason In order to safeguard birds, fish and other fauna and the safety and amenities of people and structures in the area.
Condition 24 Details of the methods and locations for measuring any blasting which is to be undertaken to prepare the site shall be submitted for approval by the Comhairle. Reason In order to safeguard birds, fish and other fauna and the safety and amenities of people and structures in the area.
Condition 25 Following compliance with conditions 23 and 24, the results of the first blast shall be referred to the Comhairle as planning authority and no further blasts shall be undertaken until the planning authority has indicated in writing that it is satisfied with the blasting methods being used, where after blasting shall continue in accordance with these methods throughout the period of blasting to the satisfaction of the Comhairle. Reason In order to safeguard birds, fish and other fauna and the safety and amenities of people and structures in the area.
Condition 26 Noise from activities involved in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall be limited to a level of 55 dB LAeq 10hr at any time at any residential property. Providing that this condition shall only apply to dwellings or other Noise Sensitive Premises existing at the date of this Permission. Reason In order to protect the occupants of nearby premises from nuisance caused by noise and disturbance.
Condition 27 Unless otherwise specified below, all construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with good practice as set out in BS5228 (1997) Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites. Reason In order to protect the occupants of nearby premises from nuisance caused by noise and disturbance.
Condition 28 At the request of the Comhairle as Planning Authority, following a valid complaint to the Comhairle relating to noise emissions from the construction phase, the developer shall measure, at its own expense, the level of noise emissions from the site, by the methodology in Annex E of BS 5228 (1997) Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites. Reason In order to protect the occupants of nearby premises from nuisance caused by noise and disturbance.
Condition 29 No part of the development to which this planning permission relates shall commence until details of measures to be followed for the suppression of dust during construction of any part of the development have been submitted to and approved by the Comhairle as planning authority. The approved measures shall then be implemented before development starts and shall be retained throughout construction to the satisfaction of the Comhairle. Reason In the interests of the health, safety and amenity of people in the vicinity
Condition 30 Details of the reinstatement of the construction site and the hard standings for the picker and details of the reinstatement of land disturbed by the insertion of underground cables shall be submitted for approval by the Comhairle. Such details shall include provision for reinstatement of the edges of the access tracks to leave them at the minimum width needed to allow necessary service access during the operational period. The details to be submitted shall also include storage of removed peat/soil and type of hard standing to be formed and details of the vegetation types to be used. Such reinstatement shall be carried out up to the base mounting and retained throughout the life of the development in compliance with the approved details. Reason To reduce the impact of the proposed development into the surrounding landscape in the interests of nature conservation and visual amenity
Condition 31 The approved reinstatement shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme referred to in Condition 30 and shall be carried out progressively within 12 months of commissioning of the development unless any variation of the approved scheme has been agreed in writing by the Comhairle as planning authority beforehand. The approved reinstatement scheme shall then be maintained throughout the life of the development. Reason In order to ensure the implementation of the approved landscaping in the interests of the amenity of the area.
Condition 32 All land disturbed by the insertion of underground cables shall be reinstated within six months of completion of the said works to the satisfaction of the Comhairle as planning authority. Reason In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation.
Condition 33 All compound, laydown and materials storage areas shall be constructed with a geotextile or geogrid base unless agreed otherwise beforehand in writing with the Comhairle. Prior to the creation of any such areas, full details for their restoration shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Within six months of the development becoming operational, all temporary buildings, containers, machinery and equipment shall be removed and the temporary compound/laydown area and materials storage area shall be fully restored to the satisfaction of the Comhairle. Reason In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation.
Condition 34 At the request of the planning authority, following a valid complaint to the planning authority relating to noise emissions from the active breakwater or control building, the company shall measure, at its own expense the level of noise emissions from the site. The measurement and calculation of noise levels shall be undertaken in accordance with “The Assessment & Rating of Noise from Wind Farms”, September 1996, ETSU report number ETSU-R-97 having regard to paragraphs 1-3 and 5-11 inclusive, of the Schedule, pages 95 to 97; and Supplementary Guidance Notes to the Planning Obligation, pages 99 to 109. Reason To quantify the loss of amenity at noise sensitive premises resulting from the operation of the development.
Condition 35 Should the noise levels in the foregoing condition be exceeded, the company shall take steps to ensure that noise emissions from the SWEP are reduced to the aforementioned noise levels or less. Reason To ensure adequate mitigation is in place to protect amenity at noise sensitive premises.
Condition 36 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (“the Scheme”) which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the planning authority. The Scheme shall specify the appointed archaeological contracting company, their staffing and qualifications, and set out measures for the preservation, interpretation and recording of archaeological remains on the application site and, as a minimum shall make provision for the following:
(i) An advance 10% evaluation on top soil/peat strip in all excavated areas below 250 metres AOD, including cabling, access tracks, borrow pits, crane hard standings, control building and any other ground disturbance works; (ii) Advance 10% evaluation of the area of any development within 20m of the visible edge of any archaeological remains regardless of elevation AOD; (iii) Provision for the excavation of identified sites, or preservation in situ and appropriate re-routing/relocation of elements of the development as appropriate; (iv) A full watching brief on all remaining unexcavated areas of ground disturbance; (v) Provision for the paleoenvironmental sampling of any basins located during the stripping of top soil/peat, an appropriate sampling for other purposes, including but not limited to, dating, species identification and soil micromorphology; (vi) The recording of archaeological remains which are not to remain in situ and the disposal of finds via the Scottish Archaeological Finds Allocation Panel as required by law; (vii) Appropriate arrangements for the publication of results of the archaeological work.
Reason In order to protect cultural heritage.
Condition 37 No development shall take place until fencing has been erected, in a manner to be agreed with the planning authority, to protect identified sites of archaeological importance which may be near the development during construction and no works shall take place within the area inside that fencing without the prior agreement of the planning authority. Reason In order to protect cultural heritage.
Condition 38 The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to the Comhairle Archaeologist or such other archaeological organisation acceptable to the planning authority and to the archaeological officer appointed pursuant to the Scheme, and shall allow them to observe work in progress and record items of interest and finds. Information as to whom the Comhairle Archaeologist or other archaeological organisation should contact on site shall be given to the planning authority in writing not less than 14 days before development commences. Reason In order to protect cultural heritage.
Condition 39 Within six months of the cessation of regular use of the SWEP, such apparatus, associated hard standing, any other fitments associated with the development shall be removed and the site restored in accordance with the approved Decommissioning and Restoration Management Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Comhairle. In the event of the cessation of regular use of the SWEP, any associated machinery or materials meteorological masts shall also be removed and the site restored in accordance with the approved Decommissioning and Restoration Management Plan. For the purpose of definition, “the cessation of regular use” shall be defined as not being in use for a continual period of six months. Reason In order to safeguard the natural qualities of the site.
Condition 40 No symbols, signs, logos or other lettering (other than those required for health and safety reasons) shall be displayed on any part of the development nor any other buildings or structures without the written consent of the Comhairle. Reason In order to minimise the visual impact of the proposals in the interests of visual amenity.
Condition 41 Throughout the life of the development any extraneous spoil produced in the course of the development shall be tipped only in locations that have previously been agreed in writing as part of the Construction Method Statement with the Comhairle in consultation with the Environmental Management Committee. Reason In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation.
Condition 42 All of the transmission lines within the site, relating to this development, shall be underground. Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in order to safeguard amenities, landscape, natural and built heritage resources.
Condition 43 Throughout the life of the development the following measures shall be implemented in respect to protection of otters, unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Comhairle or superseded by the terms of any agreed Nature Mitigation and Compensation Management Plan: • Works must be kept to a minimum within 100m of shelters; • There will be no blasting except within 2 hours of dawn or dusk; • All pipelines and culverts must be capped at the end of each working day to prevent otter becoming entrapped; • Water quality must be adequately protected; • The otter population shall be monitored before during and after construction; • Mammal culverts and fencing shall be installed around any road upgrades; • Implementation of all other measures specified in the ES to mitigate impacts on otter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Comhairle, in consultation with SNH. Reason In order to safeguard otters.
Condition 44 Before development commences a lighting scheme for the construction and operational phases consisting of details of lighting splays shall be submitted to the Comhairle for approval. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Comhairle. Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the area
Condition 45 Rock is to be sourced from out-with the site and the borrow pit and related access road identified in Figure 3.2 of the Environmental Statement is not consented. Reason In order to define the permission and in the interests of minimising unnecessary environmental impacts around the site.
Condition 46 The caisson construction be remote from the site and the related compound and the launch slipway identified in Figure 3.2 of the Environmental Statement is not consented and a smaller compound of up to 1.5 hectares is approved. Reason In order to define the permission and in the interests of minimising unnecessary environmental impacts around the site.
In addition to the above conditions, please note the following informatives. These informatives are not planning conditions, rather they are given for your instruction and help.
1 Existing services (such as water mains, electricity wires or telephone lines) shall be protected. You may be liable for any damage that is caused by any works or use associated with the development. Any advice regarding lines of services which has been received by the Comhairle in dealing with your application is enclosed for your information. This cannot be taken as definitive and must be verified on site and through discussion with the appropriate service providers (e.g. Scottish Water, Hydro-Electric or BT). In Stornoway you should contact Transco (free phone, Susiephone System – 0800 800333) to check for the presence of gas plant before commencing any development.
2 It would make sense for you to try to co-ordinate the installation of services. For example, BT could install a cable in the same trench as your water supply or drainage system. Contact the relevant service providers when work is about to commence.
3 The proposed antifoulant system should be agreed with SEPA prior to implementation.
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 3
APPENDIX 4
Control Building Indicative Elevations Fig 3.7b and 3.7b
Control building – Indicative north east elevation. Structure to the right of the longhouse is the viewing platform from which to see the breakwater structure in situ
Control building – Indicative south west elevation of the proposed longhouse designed control building
APPENDIX 5 SEPA’s consultation response
Our Ref: CM/FJV/ EA/2006/2415/3 Your Ref: 1S36/08-09
FAO Fred O’Hara
If telephoning ask for: Energy and Telecommunications Division The Scottish Government Cerian MacInnes Meridian Court 5 Cadogan Street 26 May 2008 Glasgow G2 6AT
Dear Sir
ELECTRICITY ACT 1989 THE ELECTRICITY WORKS (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2000 SECTION 36 APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED SIDAR WAVE ENERGY PROJECT AT SIADAR, ISLE OF LEWIS WESTERN ISLES
Thank you for consulting SEPA on the above proposals. SEPA comments as follows. These comments are without prejudice to SEPA's consideration of any elements controlled through environmental regulation administered by SEPA.
Summary SEPA is satisfied with proposals in a planning context and considers that the mitigation measures identified within the Environmental Statement (ES) can form the basis of a more detailed construction method statement and be secured through various planning conditions as detailed below.
1. Caisson Manufacturing 1.1 SEPA notes the options in Table 3.1 to manufacture the caissons for the breakwater on site or at an existing site such as Arnish or Kishorn. Section 3 of the ES highlights the considerable increase in environmental impacts that caisson manufacture on site would generate including the need for an 8.5Ha construction area, increased aggregates and pollution prevention and minimisation measures.
1.2 SEPA’s preference is to minimise the environmental impact and therefore for the avoidance of doubt SEPA would support the remote manufacture of the caisson’s in order to mitigate the need for the 8.5Ha construction area and associated environmental impacts.
2. Access to Breakwater 2.1 Again SEPA notes the options in Table 3.1 for a permanent fixed link to the breakwater or the use of a new or upgraded existing slipway. SEPA is unclear why a permanent fixed link would be required and section 3.11.2 states that boat access would be adequate for operational needs. Again Section 3 of the ES highlights the increased environmental impact of utilising a fixed link including need for up to 70 000m3 of aggregate, increased pollution risk and increased impact upon the wave and tidal regimes in the area. SEPA notes from Figure 3-1 the options to upgrade an existing slipway or to construct a new slipway. SEPA’s preference would be to minimise the need for increased aggregate and to limit development to existing infrastructure where possible. The Scottish Government Page 2 26 May 2008 EA/2006/2415/3
2.2 As above SEPA’s preference is to minimise the environmental impact and therefore for the avoidance of doubt SEPA would support the re-use of the existing slip way rather than the fixed link as it would minimise the need for aggregates and additional pollution risks but would also maintain the tidal interchanges within the area.
2.3 SEPA notes from figure 3-2 that use of the existing slip way would also involve the construction of a temporary access track from the borrow pit to the slip way including watercourse crossings however there is an existing public road between the borrow pit and existing slip way. It is unclear why the existing public road could not be utilised and therefore SEPA’s preference would be that the public road was utilised minimising watercourse crossings and disturbance to the marine environment.
3. Construction Compound Location 3.1 It is SEPA’s understanding from Figure 3-1 Option 3 that the construction compound would be located adjacent to the proposed control building if the existing slip way is utilised and caissons are manufactured off site.
3.2 SEPA does not object to this proposal provided a condition is applied ensuring the compound is located adjacent to the control building as shown on Figure 3-1 Option 3.
4. Pollution Prevention 4.1 SEPA welcomes the general mitigation principles and pollution prevention measures set out in of the ES and welcomes the applicant’s intention to produce an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). SEPA requests that a condition is applied requiring the submission to and approval by the determining authority, in consultation with SEPA [and other bodies such as SNH, should this be desired], of a full site specific EMP, submission to be a minimum of one month prior to commencement of development. It should incorporate detailed pollution avoidance and mitigation measures for all construction elements potentially capable of giving rise to pollution, including the proposed borrow pit. The following however are especially highlighted.
i) Detailed measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation or discolouration along with monitoring proposals and contingency plans.
ii) Monitoring proposals and contingency and emergency plans. SEPA would expect this to include the establishment of an environmental checklist to monitor and plan construction activities, specifically: • Proposals for daily visual inspections and the recording of required environmental actions (for example, in relation to silt management or peat stability); • Proposals for planning activities in light of the weather (up to 3 day forecast), particularly in relation to heavy rain. Various commercial companies and the Met Office can provide (at a cost) three to five day forecasts tailor made for an individual site; • Details of temporary soil, peat and vegetation storage areas and management to prevent environmental impact. The Scottish Government Page 3 26 May 2008 EA/2006/2415/3
iii) Specific measures to address silt-laden run-off from temporary and permanent access tracks and other engineering operations.
iv) Proposals and mitigation measures for the dewatering of excavations. Of specific relevance is demonstration that there is sufficient area to allow settlement of silty water and if not other appropriate means for treating the dirty water.
v) Specific measures to prevent entry of cement materials to watercourses and mitigation relating to concrete batching. The potential polluting effects of cement in watercourses is well known.
vi) The location and design of bulk storage of fuel or oils and its subsequent use. SEPA notes and welcomes the proposals outlined for stores to have impervious bases and be placed within a secure bund. The use of drip trays and the like are also noted. All vehicles and plant should be regularly inspected, with particular emphasis on hydraulic hoses, for fuel and oil leaks. Oil spill kits will need to be maintained on site. Details of the any transformer area bunding should also be submitted.
vii) Permanent drainage arrangements for the control building and borrow pit access track based on sustainable drainage principles. Please note that surface water discharges should not be directed to any watercourses;
viii) Details of on-site welfare facilities including foul drainage and waste facilities. It is SEPA’s understanding that foul drainage arrangements associated with the temporary construction compounds are to be sealed units with waste transported away from the site and disposed of using standard waste handling facilities.
ix) Arrangements for the appointment of a site ecologist/environmental scientist to supervise operations on site during construction. SEPA requests that the site ecologist be present on site during the whole construction period and have the authority to stop work and implement remedial work with immediate effect.
x) Full details of the borrow pit as detailed in Section 9 of this letter.
4.2 When drawing up the mitigation measures the developer should note the good practice guidance referred to in the appendix to this letter. In relation to tendering, the following guidance in section 10.2 of CIRIA C648 should specifically be noted: “One of the main drivers for environmental improvements is pressure applied by clients through standards laid down in contract documentation. Contracts should specify exact requirements for water pollution prevention in order to encourage high standards and to allow for like for like tender evaluation”.
4.3 As stated above contingency measures for unexpected bad weather and proposals for planning activities in light of the weather forecast should be included within the construction method statement. Construction activities should avoid the wettest periods when pollution is more likely and more difficult to manage. SEPA requests that construction does not take place close to sensitive receptors during wet periods. On this basis SEPA requests that the applicant identifies sensitive construction activities, sensitive receptors and sensitive The Scottish Government Page 4 26 May 2008 EA/2006/2415/3
periods or conditions through the EMP and details how works will be programmed in light of this.
5. The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (As amended) 5.1 SEPA notes the proposed water abstraction from the River Siadar for concrete batching and the freshwater blade cleaning system. SEPA also notes the proposed bridge crossings for the borrow pit access track. On the basis of the information available and without prejudice to the determination of any corresponding application(s) for CAR authorisation, SEPA expects these proposals to fall into Category 1 - “proposal accords with WFD objectives – ‘capable’ of being authorised”.
5.2 It is SEPA’s understanding that no other watercourse engineering is proposed and Section 6.5.14 states that the a minimum buffer of 200m to any watercourse will be applied. SEPA welcomes this buffer zone and requests that for the avoidance of doubt these minimum distances are secured through planning condition with the exceptions of the proposed water abstraction and borrow pit access track watercourse crossings.
6. Oil Storage 6.1 SEPA welcomes the proposal for the on shore electrical infrastructure to be enclosed within a building. SEPA advises that any transformer areas should be bunded in accordance with SEPA’s guidelines for Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks - PPG2. SEPA requests that transformer bunding details should be submitted as part of the EMP as requested below.
6.2 SEPA notes from Table S-1 of the Non Technical Summary that fuel storage is proposed only at the site compound. SEPA has no objections to this element provided it is located within the site compound and a condition is applied ensuring that this occurs.
7. Concrete Batching 7.1 The ES states that concrete batching may be proposed. SEPA has no objections to this element provided it is located within the site compound and a condition is applied ensuring that this occurs.
8. Air quality 8.1 SEPA welcomes the applicant’s consideration of air quality. The crushing of rock or grading or screening of rock or any road stone coating process, except where they are unlikely to result in the release into the air of particulate matter, are Part B prescribed processes under Section 3.5 of The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (PPC).
8.2 Other aspects of the process will have to be controlled by planning therefore SEPA recommends that a dust management strategy would need to be a condition of any consent. Further advice should be sought from the environmental health officers at the local authority.
9. Borrow Pit 9.1 SEPA notes the proposed borrow pit and associated pollution control measures. SEPA does not object to this proposal provided full details of the proposed borrow pit and associated pollution control are secured by condition and are provided within the EMP (as requested above).
The Scottish Government Page 5 26 May 2008 EA/2006/2415/3
9.2 This information should cover, in relation to water, at least the information set out within Planning Advice Note 50: Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings in relation to surface water (pages 24-25) and, where relevant, in relation to groundwater (pages 22 –23). Information on the proposed depth of the excavation compared to the actual topography, the proposed restoration profile, proposed drainage and settlement traps, turf and overburden removal and storage for reinstatement should be submitted.
10. Waste Management and Construction Materials 10.1 SEPA notes the proposals for a borrow pit and notes that indigenous materials including peat from site excavations will also be utilised to provide backfill. SEPA requests that a condition is applied requiring the submission to and approval by the determining authority, in consultation with SEPA, of a full site specific Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP), submission to be a minimum of one month prior to commencement of development.
10.2 Paragraph 51 of the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP10) on Planning for Waste management promotes the use of Site Waste Management Plans (SWMP) with all new planning applications. The SWMP shall detail the measures for managing and minimising waste produced during construction. Further information on the preparation of these plans can be obtained from Envirowise (http://www.envirowise.gov.uk/scotland) or the Department of Trade and Industry http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/site_waste_management_plan.c32a4d8d.pdf.
10.3 SEPA seeks in relation to substantial new development that developers demonstrate that the development includes construction practices to minimise the use of raw materials and maximise the use of secondary aggregates and recycled or renewable materials. Further information is available from AggRegan (www.aggregain.org.uk);
10.4 A number of comments are made throughout the ES regarding the handling, use, storage and disposal of surplus material, however, no coherent consideration of waste minimisation and management seems to have taken place. Given the scale of the project there are likely to be significant volumes of surplus soils and peat which if it is not disposed of appropriately could cause significant environmental harm. Please note that waste peat or soil from excavations spread on this land would not necessarily be to ecological benefit; if excavated peat or soil is to be used in landscaping the site, then this should be included in the plans, and not dealt with in an ad-hoc fashion as it arises. 10.5 The SWMP should also include a soils balance carried out to demonstrate need for importation/export of materials including any backfill of excavations. Given experience on other sites, clarification is sought specifically on whether or not waste materials are to be imported. Clarification of the amount of any surplus materials to be permanently deposited in mounds and scale of these mounds should also be included.
10.6 SEPA encourages the recovery and reuse of controlled waste provided that it is in accordance with the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. The applicant should note the regulatory advice below. The developer should note that SEPA has produced guidance to assist in the consideration as to whether any particular material is waste, which is available on SEPA’s website at http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/guidance/waste/is_it_waste_v2.pdf The Scottish Government Page 6 26 May 2008 EA/2006/2415/3
11. Ecological Interests of Relevance to SEPA 11.1 SEPA welcomes the applicant’s intention to produce a site restoration plan once construction is complete. SEPA requests that full details of this agreed as a condition of any consent. Further guidance on any restoration should also be sought from SNH.
11.2 It is SEPA's experience on similar projects that it is best practice to employ an environmental scientist/project ecologist during the whole construction period and ensures environmental best practice is adhered to. SEPA therefore requests that a condition is applied requiring the employment of an environmental scientist/project ecologist who should be present on site during the whole construction period and have the authority to modify construction practices in order to protect ecological interests. For the avoidance of doubt SEPA advises that these specialist roles should include powers for work to stop and implement remedial work with immediate effect.
12. Decommissioning and Final Site Restoration 12.1 SEPA welcomes the applicant’s intention to produce a decommissioning method statement. SEPA requests that a condition is applied seeking a Decommissioning Plan to be submitted and approved by the determining body, submission to be a minimum of one year prior to operations ceasing.
If you have any queries relating to this matter please contact Cerian MacInnes on 01349 860415 or email at [email protected].
Yours faithfully
Cerian MacInnes Planning Unit (North)
Ecopy: Stuart Baird, SEPA, Stornoway Ecopy: Mark Williams, SEPA, Riccarton Ecopy: Janet Khan, SEPA, Riccarton
REGULATORY ADVICE FOR THE APPLICANT
Local SEPA Office: Western Isles - 2 James Square, James Street, Stornoway HS1 2QN Tel: 01851 706477
The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (as amended) (CAR) From 1 April 2006 the above regulations replace the Control of Pollution Act and Groundwater Regulations. These new regulations not only control discharges to watercourses and land but also cover abstractions, impoundments and engineering works within and in the vicinity of inland surface waters. This means that activities such as culverting, ditch clearing, dredging, bridging and damming all now require to be authorised under CAR.
In order to ensure proportionate controls over activities, the Regulations provide for three levels of control: General Binding Rules (GBRs), Registrations and Water Use Licences. If SEPA considers that GBRs or a Registration will not provide sufficient environmental protection, SEPA can require a higher level of control. For example, SEPA could require an activity which was covered by GBRs to be Registered or even Licensed. Any person undertaking an activity which falls within the scope of the GBRs do not have to contact SEPA but must abide by any rule laid out in the Regulations which relates to their activity. However, an application must be made to SEPA for a Registration or Licence. SEPA has 30 days for determining an application for Registration and 4 months for a Licence; this should be taken into consideration when planning works. CAR allows a variety of different authorisable activities at the one site to be covered by a single licence.
The publication ‘The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005: A Practical Guide’ provides very useful advice on CAR and it is recommended that all applicants consult this document which is available both from the website (www.sepa.org.uk/wfd/index.htm) and from local SEPA offices to determine whether an application for authorisation is required for the development.
The Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 The Regulations apply to any kind of container which is being used and which is stored on premises above ground, whether inside or outside a building. These include fixed tanks, intermediate bulk containers, drums (oil drums or similar containers used for storing oil) or mobile bowsers. The range of premises covered by the Regulations is wide including land and mobile plant but does not include storage of oil in vehicles or vessels.
It is not necessary for storage facilities to be registered with SEPA however applicants should ensure compliance with the Regulations. Full details of the requirements can be found from SEPA’s website at: www.sepa.org.uk/regulation/oilstorage2006/index.htm.
The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (PPC) The above regulations are concerned with prevention or minimisation of emissions to air, water and soil, as well as waste, from industrial and agricultural installations.
The applicant should note that the proposed crushing of rock or grading or screening of rock or any road stone coating process, except where they are unlikely to result in the release into the air of particulate matter, are Part B prescribed processes under Section 3.5 of The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (PPC).
Further details on PPC can be found at www.sepa.org.uk/ppc/index.htm
Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 1994 (as amended) SEPA encourages waste minimisation whenever possible. Further details can be found on SEPA's website (found at www.sepa.org.uk/wastemin/index.htm).
SEPA similarly encourages the recovery and reuse of controlled waste, such as soils from other sites provided that it is in accordance with the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. Any proposals for reuse or recycling of materials, such as soils from other sites, may require to be registered with SEPA under a Waste Management Exemption. There are specific criteria which if met will constitute an exemption from licensing under these Regulations (namely Paragraph 35 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations). These exemptions are required to be registered by SEPA and the details must be forwarded to the relevant SEPA office. Applicants should first consult SEPA’s website at www.sepa.org.uk/regulation/waste/exemptions.htm and then contact the local SEPA office for further advice.
POLLUTION PREVENTION ADVICE
In addition to the requirements of legislation the following good practice guidance should be considered when developing and an appropriate strategy for prevention pollution from the development:
• Pollution Prevention Guidance note PPG2: Above ground storage tanks (SEPA);
• Pollution Prevention Guidance note PPG4: Disposal of sewage where no mains drainage is available (SEPA);
• Pollution Prevention Guidance note PPG5: Works in, near or liable to affect Watercourses (SEPA);
• Pollution Prevention Guidance note PPG6 - Working at Construction and Demolition Sites (SEPA);
• Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites – Guidance for consultants and contractors (CIRIA C532);
• Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Sites – Site Guide (CIRIA 649);
• Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects – Technical Guidance – (CIRIA C648); SEPA Special Requirements for Civil Engineering Contracts for the Prevention of Pollution V2 (2006) (SEPA) • SEPA Guidance on the Special Requirements for Civil Engineering Contracts V2 (2006) (SEPA)
• SEPA Code of Practice - ‘Mineral extraction code of practice for the owners and operators of quarries and other mineral extraction sites’;
• CIRIA C697 SuDS manual
• The Small Environmental Guidance for Construction Works (SEPA/CIRIA); and
• Forests and Water Guidelines: Fourth Edition (Forestry Commission)
SEPA would expect to see the principles contained within this guidance to be incorporated within any construction method statement requested.
APPENDIX 6
APPENDIX 7
APPENDIX 8
APPENDIX 9