North Somerset Council REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE DATE OF MEETING: 9 OCTOBER 2013 SUBJECT OF REPORT: NATIONAL GRID -HINKLEY C CONNECTION TOWN OR PARISH: BANWELL, LOXTON, CHRISTON, WINSCOMBE AND SANDFORD, YATTON, CONGRESBURY, WESTON-SUPER-MARE, PUXTON, CHURCHILL, KENN, TICKENHAM, NAILSEA, BACKWELL, WRAXALL, CLAPTON-IN-GORDANO, PORTBURY, PORTISHEAD, EASTON-IN-GORDANO OFFICER/MEMBER PRESENTING: GRAHAM QUICK, LOCAL PLANNING TEAM LEADER KEY DECISION: NO RECOMMENDATIONS That National Grid be informed that: (i) the T Pylon design option is supported; (ii) subject to further assessment on the impact of undergrounding at the Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve, the Option B route which takes the 400kv line away from the M5 motorway is supported; (iii) the Green Route (cross country) for undergrounding the 132 kv line from Nailsea to Portishead is supported; (iv) the use of lattice pylons and the route for the 132kv route from the proposed Sandford Substation to the 132kv WsM AT route is supported; (v) the re-alignment of the Strawberry Line and the provision of a public car park should be incorporated into the design of the Sandford Substation; (vi) the route in the vicinity of Moorland Park should be moved further eastwards to create a greater distance between the proposed 400KV line and the gypsy and traveller site; (vii) further assessments are required to minimise the impact on Tickenham Church and a clear mitigation strategy agreed upon to lessen any impacts on this listed building; (vi) delegated authority be given to the Director of Development and Environment and Executive Member to: (a) submit further detailed comments on the Development Consent Order and the methodology and assessment of the proposals as part of the joint submission by all of the affected authorities and (b) where appropriate expand on the Council’s submission to take account of any material and significant concerns expressed by local councils; (vii) that officers continue to work jointly with other affected authorities and National Grid to secure appropriate requirements ( conditions ) ,sufficient mitigation measures and Section 106 contributions to control and offset any harm caused by these proposals; (viii) the detailed comments relating to the Preliminary Environmental Information Assessment (PEIR), proposed mitigation strategies and the lack of a Transport Assessment are noted and should be incorporated into the final Environmental Statement. SUMMARY OF REPORT 1.1 The report sets out the background, policy considerations and the key issues to be considered on the formal consultation undertaken by National Grid for the Hinkley C Connection Project. The report focuses on the key site specific issues. Detailed comments on the methodology, assessment and the accompanying Development Consent Order are currently being drafted by advisors to all the affected authorities and they will be forwarded to National Grid under delegated powers. 1.2 These advisors have been appointed by the affected authorities under the framework established by the Planning Performance Agreement with National Grid. There is no cost to the Council for this work 1.3 There are a significant amount of plans, reports etc that have been submitted as part of the consultation exercise. These are available on the National Grid’s website http://www.hinkleyconnection.co.uk/default.aspx and exhibition boards and plans will be on display at the Committee meeting. Each member of the committee will have access to a copy of the “Project Overview Report “ at the meeting. Where appropriate the document reference from the consultation material is referred to in the body of this Committee report POLICY 2.1 The 2008 Planning Act introduced a new planning system for applications to build nationally significant infrastructure facilities (NSIPs) in England and Wales. The new system covers applications for major energy generation, railways, ports, major roads, airports and water and waste infrastructure. Under the new system, national policy on infrastructure is set out in a series of new National Policy Statements (NPS). (i) National Policy 2.2 For energy-related NSIPs, there are two NPS s designated on 19th July 2011 that are relevant to the proposed development: overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1); and National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5). 2.3 EN-1 states that in considering any proposed development, and in particular when weighing its adverse impacts against its benefits, the following should be taken into account: its potential benefits including its contribution to meeting the need for energy infrastructure, job creation and any long term or wider benefits; and its potential adverse impacts, including any long term and cumulative adverse impacts, as well as any measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for any adverse impacts. 2.4 It goes on to note that, in this context, the relevant Secretary of State should take into account environmental, social and economic benefits and adverse impacts, at national, regional and local levels. The NPS provides guidance on assessment relevant to all energy projects which is supplemented by guidance specific to the project type. In the case of the Hinkley Point C Connection, the relevant guidance is to be found in the National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5). EN-1 recognises that “in most cases, there will be more than one technological approach by which it is possible to make such a connection or reinforce the network (for example, by overhead line or underground cable) and the costs and benefits of these alternatives should be properly considered ….” 2.5 Section 4.4 of EN-1 provides guidance on the consideration of alternative options for infrastructure projects, including the principles that should guide the relevant Secretary of State when deciding what weight to give to alternative options. This includes “alternative proposals which mean the necessary development could not proceed, for example because the alternative proposals are not commercially viable or alternative sites would not be physically suitable, can be excluded on the grounds that they are not important and relevant to the IPC’s decision”. 2.6 Good design is an important part of EN-1 which makes it clear that good design goes beyond physical appearance, with the functionality of an object, including fitness for purpose and sustainability, being equally as important. Paragraph 4.5.3 states that “the IPC should satisfy itself that the applicant has taken into account both functionality (including fitness for purpose and sustainability) and aesthetics (including its contribution to the quality of the area in which it would be located) as far as possible. Whilst the applicant may not have any or very limited choice in the physical appearance of some energy infrastructure, there may be opportunities for the applicant to demonstrate good design in terms of siting relative to existing landscape character, landform and vegetation.” 2.7 Paragraph 2.8.2 of EN-5 states that "Government does not believe that development of overhead lines is generally incompatible in principle with developers’ statutory duty under section 9 [sic] of the Electricity Act to have regard to amenity and to mitigate impacts. In practice new above ground electricity lines, whether supported by lattice steel pylons/pylons or wooden poles, can give rise to adverse landscape and visual impacts, dependent upon their scale, siting, degree of screening and the nature of the landscape and local environment through which they are routed. For the most part these impacts can be mitigated, however at particularly sensitive locations the potential adverse landscape and visual impacts of an overhead line proposal may make it unacceptable in planning terms, taking account of the specific local environment and context." 2.8 EN-5 goes on to say that although Government expects that overhead lines will often be appropriate and their effects can often be mitigated, where there are serious concerns about the potential adverse landscape and visual effects of a proposed overhead line, “the IPC will have to balance these against other relevant factors, including the need for the proposed infrastructure, the availability and cost of alternative sites and routes and methods of installation (including undergrounding)”. 2.9 EN-5 states that the main opportunities for mitigating potential adverse landscape and visual impacts of electricity networks infrastructure includes the “selection of the most suitable type and design of support structure (i.e. different lattice tower types, use of wooden poles etc.), in order to minimise the overall visual impact on the landscape”. N.B. In April 2012 the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) was abolished and transferred its property, rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State. Applications for major infrastructure projects were thereafter submitted to the Planning Inspectorate with a decision being made by the relevant Secretary of State. (ii) Local Policy 2.10 There is no Council policy on the siting of overhead electricity lines although, the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan and Core Strategy contains policies that seek to protect residents from harmful environmental effects and also protect the landscape from inappropriate development. DETAILS The consultation material consists of the following: 3.1 Volume 1: A guide to the consultation This section includes the plain English documents we have produced