ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Volume 3: Appendices

PHX-RDG-XX-XX-RP-T-00003

Appendices

Appendix 2.1 Informal Scoping Note Appendix 2.2 LPA Informal Scoping Response Appendix 4.1 Processes Note Appendix 6.1 Policies of the Wansbeck Local Plan Appendix 6.2 National Planning Policy Framework Policies Appendix 6.3 Policies Emerging Northumberland Local Plan Appendix 7.1 Ecological Appraisal Appendix 7.2 Ornithological Appraisal Appendix 7.3 Biodiversity Metric Appendix 7.4 Proposed Compensation Measures at Potland Burn Appendix 8.1 LVIA Methodology Appendix 8.2 Visualisation and ZTV Study Appendix 9.1 Transport Statement Appendix 9.2 Framework Travel Plan Appendix 10.1 Noise Legislation and Guidance Appendix 10.2 Construction Noise Calculations Appendix 10.3 Construction Road Traffic Calculations Appendix 10.4 Construction Vibration Appendix 10.5 Operational Road Traffic Scoping Assessment Appendix 10.6 Location Specific Parameter Differences Appendix 10.7 Operational Vehicles Noise Calculations Appendix 10.8 Noise and Vibration Survey Appendix 11.1 Policy and Legislation Appendix 11.2 Consultation with Northumberland County Council Appendix 11.3 Construction Dust Assessment Appendix 11.4 Model Input and Verification Appendix 11.5 Construction Phase Traffic Emission Results Appendix 11.6 Operational Phase Traffic Emission Results Appendix 11.7 Professional Experience Appendix 14.1 Major Accidents and Disasters Risk Table

Appendix 2.1 Informal Scoping Note

INFORMAL SCOPING NOTE: PROPOSED GIGAPLANT AT NEP3, BLYTH

ON BEHALF OF BRITISHVOLT

OCTOBER 2020

INFORMAL SCOPING NOTE: PROPOSED GIGAPLANT AT NEP3, BLYTH.

October 2020

Prepared for

Britishvolt

Prepared by Contact Ridge and Partners LLP Jenny Henderson Thornbury House Senior Planner 18 High Street [email protected] Cheltenham Gloucestershire Guy Wakefield GL50 1DZ Partner [email protected] Tel: 01242 230066

Version Control

Project 5013422 Issue Date October 2020 Originator JH Checked GW Version 1.1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 3 The Requirement for an Environmental Statement 3 Project Team 4 Report Structure 5 2. THE SITE AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 Application Site Context 6 Planning History 6 The Proposed Development 7 3. GENERAL APPROACH TO THE EIA ASSESSMENT 9 Content of the Environmental Statement 9 Consideration of Alternatives 10 Significance Criteria 10 Mitigation Measures and Residual Effects 11 Cumulative Effects 12 4. TOPICS WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 13 Ecology 13 Transport & Access 13 Noise 13 Air Quality 17 Climate Change 23 Major Accidents and Disasters 26 Socio-Economics 28 5. TOPICS WHERE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ARE UNLIKELY 30 Landscape and Visual Impact 30 Lighting 34 Hydrology and Flood Risk 38 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 43 Ground Conditions and Contamination 48 Coal Mining and Minerals 52 6. STRUCTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 56

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. This Scoping Report has been prepared on behalf of Britishvolt (the ‘Applicant’) in respect of an emerging application for a Battery Manufacturing Plant at Northumberland Energy Park Phase 3 (NEP3).

The Requirement for an Environmental Statement

1.2. The aim of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is to protect the environment by ensuring that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) grants planning permission for a project in full knowledge of the likely significant effects on the environment 1 . As set out in Regulation 4(1) of the EIA Regulations, an EIA is a process comprising three parts:

(a) “The preparation of an environmental statement;

(b) Any consultation, publication and notification required by, or by virtue of, these Regulations or any other enactment in respect of EIA development; and

1.3. Regulation 4(2) states an EIA must identify, describe and asses in an appropriate manner, in light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of the proposed development on the following factors:

(a) Population and human health;

(b) Biodiversity;

(d) Material asserts, cultural heritage and the landscape; and

(e) The interaction between the factors referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d).

1.4. The 2017 EIA Regulations categorise proposed developments into 2 types. Schedule 1 of the 2017 EIA Regulations lists developments that always require EIA, and Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations lists developments that may require EIA if it is considered that they could give rise to significant effects.

1.5. The application qualifies as EIA development under Schedule 2, Category 10 (a) which relates to ‘Infrastructure Projects’ of which the proposal would fall under ‘industrial estate development

1 PPG: Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 4-002-20140306.

projects’. Category 10 (a) sets out the threshold as the area of the development exceeding 0.5 hectares.

1.6. Regulation 6 of the EIA Regulations makes provision for a developer to request a ‘Screening Opinion’ from the LPA to ascertain whether an EIA is required if the development meets the above thresholds. This decision is based on the likelihood of significant environmental effects arising in relation to the development proposals. However, given the scale of the development, a Screening Opinion has not been requested from Northumberland County Council (NCC) and an Environmental Statement (ES) will be submitted with the application.

1.7. In accordance with Regulation 15(1) of the EIA Regulations 2017, ‘a person who is minded to make an EIA application may ask the relevant planning authority to state in writing their opinion as to the scope and level of detail to be provided in the Environmental Statement (a ‘scoping opinion’)’. This Scoping Report has been submitted informally to aid discussions with NCC regarding the scope of the EIA. However, a formal Scoping Request has not been submitted.

1.8. Whilst submitted on an informal basis, this Scoping Report provides the necessary information as set out in Regulation 15(2) under the EIA Regulations. This includes:

• a plan sufficient to identify the land (Appendix 1);

• a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development, including its location and technical capacity;

• an explanation of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment; and

• such other information or representations as the person making the request may wish to provide or make.

Project Team

1.9. This Scoping Report has been co-ordinated by Ridge and Partners LLP with input from the following competent experts (Table 1):

Table 1: Technical Experts

ORGANISATION CONSULTANT PROJECT ROLE/EIA INPUT

Guy Wakefield • EIA Co-ordination Ridge and Partners • Planning LLP Jenny Henderson

LDA Design Nicola Longland Landscape and Visual Impact

Penn Associates Rachel Penn Ecology and Nature Conservation

E3 Ecology Tony Martin

Northern Archaelogical Penny Middleton Heritage and Archaeology Associates

Crowd Dynamics Tommy O'Hagen Transport

Chris Rush Air Quality

Hoare Lea Karl Simpson Noise

Dominic Merrick Lighting

Ground Conditions and Contamination

Rolton Group Allan Rose Water Resources and Flood Risk

Coal Mining and Minerals

Ernst & Young LLP Colin Edwards Socio-economics

Joanna Wright Climate Change LUC Katie Norris Major Accidents and Disasters

1.10. The Project Team will be responsible for the preparation of the ES Chapters and Supporting Technical Reports that will accompany the planning application.

Report Structure

1.11. In terms of the structure of this report, the site context is provided at Chapter 2 which also includes a brief description of the nature and purpose of development. Chapter 3 sets out the general, approach, scope and methodology that the EIA will undertake. Chapter 4 outlines the topics with the potential for likely significant effects, which are scoped in for inclusion within the ES. Chapter 5 highlights those topics where significant effects are unlikely, that have been scoped out of the ES. Chapter 6 outlines the proposed structure of the ES including its technical chapters.

2. THE SITE AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Application Site Context

2.1. The site of the proposed development is located on previously developed land that was formerly used for the storage of coal for the former Blyth Power Station. The site consists of flat, low-lying land with exception to two PFA (pulverised fuel ash) mounds located in the north east of the site which rise up to 12m AOD and 24m AOD. The land is generally open apart from a number of scattered trees and scrub across the low-lying ground. Trees to the western slopes of the PFA mounds were planted approximately 20 years ago and are well established. Tree belts are found in the south-west of the site enclosing an area of 1930’s housing off Harbour View.

2.2. Other localised features include a railway line to the north of the site which continues south along the eastern boundary, albeit this section is now disused. Railway sidings are located in the north of the site associated with this infrastructure. A bridge over the railway to the east of the site provides a connection to the village of Cambois. Two water courses are found within the site, Maw Burn and Cow Gut, which flow in a west to east direction across the site. Both are culverted through the centre of the site. A line of electricity transmission pylons crosses the site generally along its western boundary in a north-south direction.

2.3. The proposed development is located within the area variously referred to as the ‘Cambois Zone of Economic Opportunity’, the ‘Blyth Estuary Strategic Employment Area’ or ‘Energy Central’. This location has historically been a focus for industry, including the former Blyth Power Station and industries associated with the River Blyth and the port. To the south of the site lies Northern Energy Park Phase 1 (NEP1). The site is allocated as a strategic employment site in the current development plan, with a view to this status continuing in the replacement Local Plan that is currently in the advanced stages of preparation.

2.4. The settlement of Cambois is found running along the coastline, generally east of the site. The majority of houses are Victorian/Edwardian terraces originally provided for workers of the coal industry associated with Cambois Colliery, now disused. Cambois Primary School is located east of the site off Cowgate. Allotment gardens are located immediately east of the site north of Harbour View. Closest residents to the site boundary are those within the housing area off Harbour View to the south-west of the site immediately adjacent to the site boundary and those off Wembley Gardens to the north at approximately 80m to the site boundary.

Planning History

2.5. The following applications are relevant to the application site:

• A Scoping request was submitted under reference 20/01835/SCOPE for or a single wind turbine with a tip height of up to circa 300m and a rotor diameter of up to 200m. The Scoping Opinion, dated 30th September 2020, sets out the matters that would need to be considered as part of the EIA. This Scoping Opinion provides a useful background to the site, which has informed this Scoping Note.

• In May 2008, planning permission was granted under application reference 07/00456/FUL for Erection of 2.4m high palisade fencing on boundary of former coal stocking area as amended by plans DS3288 and DS3289 dated 23//5/2008.

• In March 2002, planning permission was granted under application reference C/02/00011/CCM for Revised proposals for the final restoration and landscape works to the ash mound.

• In July 1996, planning permission was granted under application reference C/96/CC/34 for Details of working scheme for phases 2 & 3 submitted pursuant to condition nos. 37, 41, 47, 56, 59 & 60 of planning permission 91/F/GD1. Variation of condition no. 51of planning permission [dated 20.05.1996] in respect of water run-off.

• In June 1993, planning permission was granted under application C/93/CC/26 for Landscaping details submitted pursuant to condition nos. 45-48 of planning permission 91/F/GD1.

• In May 1991, planning permission was granted under application reference C/91/F/GD1 for an ash disposal scheme.

• In October 1979, planning permission was granted under application reference 88/0057 for an extension to provide cement silo, dust canopy and enlarged holding bay.

• In October 1979, planning permission was granted under application reference C/79/F/432 for alterations to existing coal delivery system by replacement of new MGR (merry-go- round) type wagons inc construction of 2 storey control building, new conveyor gantry and 2 floor lighting towers.

2.6. As part of this Scoping Note, other applications have also been considered, in particular the Screening Opinion for the development of an advanced manufacturing and technology facility at NEP1 (18/04279).

The Proposed Development

2.7. The proposed development for a new battery manufacturing plant comprises of a main building 269,000m2 in footprint with supporting ancillary buildings and structures for production of cutting edge and green battery cells.

2.8. The main manufacturing building height and massing will be optimised depending on the process layout ranging from 12/15m to a maximum of 30m where two levels of cell production are required.

2.9. Office facilities for up to 300 staff will be provided with an additional 870 people working in the operational areas at any point in time over 3 shifts.

2.10. 2040 carparking spaces will be provided for all employees which includes capacity for shift changes and visitors. Security gate houses will control access to site.

2.11. A logistics yard with level access vehicle doors and dock levellers into the main building which will facilitate deliveries of incoming raw materials and outgoing packaged end products.

2.12. The site will have a secure boundary set within a landscaped surroundings to controlled viewpoints on and off the site.

2.13. Storage of materials will be required on the service yard and will include waste and recycling centre, energy centre, power distribution substations and chiller areas as well as solvent and gas storage or generation facilities and fire suppression sprinkler tanks.

2.14. Sustainable drainage and ecological mitigation areas will be blended with the natural surroundings and landscaped perimeter of the site which will include external amenity areas for staff and visitors with cycle shelters to encourage sustainable transport options from nearby cycle networks.

3. GENERAL APPROACH TO THE EIA ASSESSMENT

3.1. This Chapter sets out the proposed general approach to the EIA and the scope and methodology for assessment.

Content of the Environmental Statement

3.2. In accordance with Regulation 18(1) of the EIA Regulations, subject to Regulation 9, an EIA application must be accompanied by an ES for the purposes of those Regulations.

3.3. Regulation 18(3) of the EIA Regulations defines an ES as a statement that at least includes:

a) “a description of the proposed development comprising information on the site, design, size and other relevant features of the development;

b) A description of the likely significant effects of the proposed development on the environment;

c) A description of any features of the proposed development, or measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset likely significant adverse effects on the environment;

d) A description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into account the effects of the development on the environment;

e) A non-technical summary of the information referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d); and

f) Any additional information specified in Schedule 4 relevant to the specific characteristics of the particular development or type of development and to the environmental features likely to be significantly affected.”

3.4. Regulation 18(4) of the EIA Regulations states an ES must be in accordance with the most recent scoping opinion or direction issued that complies with Regulation 15 or 16 of the EIA Regulations (albeit that the proposed development remains materially the same as the proposed development that was subject that scoping opinion or direction). Additionally, that ES should include information required for reaching a conclusion on the significant effects of the development on the environment and be prepared to take into account results of any relevant UK environmental assessment.

3.5. Regulation 18(5) of the EIA Regulations states an ES must be prepared by competent experts and accompanied by a statement from the developer outlining their relevant expertise or qualifications.

Consideration of Alternatives

3.6. Under Paragraph: 041 Reference ID: 4-041-20170728 of the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) it states “the 2017 Regulations do not require an applicant to consider alternatives. However, where alternatives have been considered, Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 requires the applicant to include in their Environmental Statement a description of the reasonable alternatives studied (for example in terms of development design, technology, location, size and scale) and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects.

3.7. The ES will present a description of the main alternatives that were considered by the Applicant prior to selection of the final development. This includes the following:

• ‘Alternative sites’ – the rationale behind choosing the application site.

• ‘Alternative designs’ – a description of the design alternatives considered as part of the design process.

• ‘Do nothing scenario’ – the consequence of no development taking place.

Significance Criteria

3.8. The main focus of the EIA process is the identification and evaluation of impacts and the assessment of ‘significance of effects’ of the project on the environment.

3.9. The method for assessing significance of effects can vary between environmental topics, which will be identified within individual chapters, but will generally be based on the environmental sensitivity (or value/importance) of a receptor and the magnitude of change from the baseline conditions. The sensitivity of the receptor will be assessed on a scale of high, moderate, low and negligible and the magnitude of change will be assessed on a scale of major, moderate, low and negligible.

3.10. The overall effect of significance will be calculated based on the interaction between magnitude and sensitivity, whereby the effects can be beneficial (positive), adverse (negative) or negligible (neutral). The significance matrix is set out below:

Level of Effect Matrix.

SENSITIVITY OF RECEPTOR MAGNITUDE High Moderate Low Negligible

Major Major Major/Moderate Moderate/Minor Negligible

Moderate Major/Moderate Moderate Minor Negligible

Low Moderate/Minor Minor Minor/Negligible Negligible

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

3.11. In terms of significance, the terms negligible, minor, moderate or major are typically used to identify the level of effect. The terms outlined in the above table have been defined as the following:

• Major (adverse or beneficial) – where the development would cause significant deterioration (or improvement) of the existing environment; • Moderate (adverse or beneficial) – where the development would cause noticeable deterioration (or improvement) to the existing environment; • Minor (adverse or beneficial) – where the development would cause perceptible deterioration (or improvement) to the existing environment; • Negligible – no discernible improvement or deterioration to the existing environment.

3.12. Unless otherwise stated in each topic assessment, effects are only considered to be ‘significant’ where they fall within the ‘moderate’ or ‘major’ category as shaded in the above table.

3.13. The applicability of these criteria is specific to each individual topic and is explained in detail in the individual chapters. Where possible, this will be based upon quantitative and accepted criteria, but where no such standards exist, value judgement and professional interpretation will be utilised.

3.14. In line with the EIA Regulations, the description of the likely significant effects will cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short-term, medium-term and long- term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development.

Mitigation Measures and Residual Effects

3.15. If adverse effects are identified, either during the construction or operational phases of development, mitigation measures to reduce and avoid these effects will be identified and detailed. These measures may relate to design, construction or operational management activities.

3.16. Any residual effects following the implementation of mitigation measures will be determined accordingly, and will then be re-examined against the established significance criteria scale.

Cumulative Effects

3.17. Schedule 4 (5)(e) of the EIA regulations requires a description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment resulting from ‘the cumulation of effects with other existing and/or approved projects, taking into account any existing environmental problems relating to areas of particular environmental importance likely to be affected or the use of natural resources’. The PPG, under Paragraph: 024 Reference ID: 4-024-20170728, states each application should be considered on its own merits. There are occasions, however, when other existing or approved development may be relevant in determining whether significant effects are likely as a consequence of a proposed development. The local planning authorities should always have regard to the possible cumulative effects arising from any existing or approved development.

3.18. There is no widely accepted methodology or best practice for the assessment of cumulative effects, although various guidance documents exist.

3.19. In assessing the cumulative impacts, all technical assessments will consider ‘inter-project effects’ and ‘intra-project effects’.

3.20. Inter-project effects are those effects of the proposed development and other committed developments in the vicinity of the site. We would be grateful if the LPA could provide an indication of existing or approved development that the LPA consider are likely to lead to significant cumulative effects when assessed alongside the proposed development.

3.21. Intra-project effects relate to the inter-relationship between topics and those effects of the proposed development which, when considered together, may have a combined effect on a receptor.

4. TOPICS WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS

4.1. The following topics are those that have the potential for likely significant effects as part of the proposed development and are therefore scoped into the ES. This includes:

• Ecology and Nature Conservation

• Transport and Access

• Noise

• Air Quality

• Climate Change

• Major Accidents and Disasters

• Socio-Economics

4.2. The Applicant respectfully requests the LPA to consider this information, and to confirm that the approach is acceptable. Should the LPA require changes to the approach, it is requested that those changes are identified as part of the Scoping process.

Ecology

4.3. A separate scoping note has been prepared by Penn Associates in respect of Ecology and Nature Conservation. This will be subject to separate discussions with the Council’s Biodiversity Officer.

Transport & Access

4.4. Separate scoping discussions are ongoing between Crowd Dynamics and the Highways Authority.

Noise

Baseline Conditions and Key Issues

Description of Surroundings

4.5. The local surroundings are a mixture of commercial and industrial premises, derelict industrial land, residential dwellings, a primary school and a church. Noise sources in the existing environment include the commercial and industrial operations, the local road network (A189 and local roads), freight train movements on the North Blyth Branch (Blyth and Tyne railway), the Port of Blyth and natural sounds from wildlife and the North Sea coastline.

Study Area

4.6. The study area for the proposed development will include land to the east of the A189, land south of the River Wansbeck and land north of the River Blyth covering East Sleekburn and Cambois.

Approach/Proposed Scope of Assessment

Identification of Significant Effects

4.7. A review has been conducted to identify which effects from noise and vibration associated with the demolition / construction and operational aspects of the proposed development are likely to be significant or not significant. The table below provides a summary of the significance allocated.

Table 1: Significance of Effect

DESCRIPTION OF EFFECT POTENTIAL NOT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT EFFECT EFFECT (SCOPED-IN TO EIA) (SCOPED-OUT OF EIA)

Demolition Noise Yes - - from concrete slab/base removal works

Demolition Vibration Yes - - from concrete slab/base removal works

Construction Noise Yes - - from driven piling works

Construction Noise - Yes - All site works (except demolition and piling)

Construction Noise Yes - - Road traffic

Construction Vibration Yes - - from driven piling works

Construction Vibration - Yes - All site works (except demolition and piling)

Construction Vibration - Yes - road traffic

Operational Noise Yes - - road traffic

Operational Noise Yes - - on-site vehicular activity

Operational Noise Yes - - on-site railway activity

Operational Noise - Yes - MEP building services plant including sub-station)

Operational Vibration - Yes

- All

4.8. Only the identified significant effects will be included in the EIA and reported in the ES.

4.9. The effects of existing environmental noise and vibration on the proposed development will not be assessed within the EIA as the proposed development is not sensitive to noise and vibration for planning purposes.

Sensitive Receptors

4.10. The following sensitive receptors have been identified for inclusion in the EIA and reporting of the ES for noise and vibration:

• Residential dwellings north of Brock Lane (along Sandfield Road, Northfield, Waterfield Road and Wilson Avenue);

• Residential dwellings at East Sleekburn (along Haverlock Mews and Barrington Park);

• Residential dwellings at Cambois (along Selbourne Terrace and Unity Terrace);

• Residential dwellings at Cambois (near Cambois Beach Parking);

• Residential dwellings at Cambois (along Wembley Gardens, North View and Wembley Terrace);

• Cambois Primary School;

• St Andrew’s Church, Cambois;

• NSL HVDC Converter Station at East Sleekburn;

• Fergusons Business Park (including Fergusons Ltd);

• Cambois Sewage Treatment Works; and

• Modern Architectural Stone premises, Cambois.

4.11. Some of the above sensitive receptors represent a grouping of individual sensitive receptors that are likely to experience similar effects for ease of reference.

4.12. It should be noted that not all the above sensitive receptors are subject to each and every potential significant effects. The ES will clearly report which sensitive receptors will be subject to each effect assessed.

Baseline Studies and Surveys

4.13. An environmental noise measurement survey will be undertaken to quantify ambient and background noise levels around the proposed development site boundary. Measurement positions will be selected to be representative of sensitive receptors to noise.

4.14. A background vibration survey is not intended to be undertaken as existing vibration affecting the proposed development site is not of concern and vibration effects to sensitive receptors will be based on an absolute magnitude not a change to baseline conditions.

4.15. The usage of the North Blyth Branch (Blyth and Tyne railway) will be studied by reference to published Network Rail information.

Methodology

4.16. The following outline methodology is proposed for assessment:

• A noise baseline survey will be conducted, and the results used to form the baseline conditions for the construction and operational assessments. Noise will be measured following the procedures of BS 4142 and BS 7445-2 using the same parameters required for assessment;

• Demolition and construction noise will be treated as a temporary activity. The assessment will give due regard to minimum worst case working distances. The predictive calculation methods of BS 5228-1 will be implemented. The assessment may also include reference to historical measured data;

• Demolition and construction vibration will also be treated as a temporary activity. Methods from BS 5228-2 and BS 6472-1 will be used in the assessment along with a worst case working location. The assessment may also include reference to historical measured data;

• Peak period demolition / construction road traffic and operational road traffic noise will be assessed from a combination of measured (where available) and predicted road traffic flows provided, and reference as may be necessary to noise levels measured during the survey. The assessment will be undertaken following the DMRB LA 111 methodology applicable. Depending on the resultant outcome, mitigation would firstly be considered within the Proposed Scheme design to control traffic flows past the affected area or to provide sound insulation improvements to existing receptors;

• BS 4142 would be used to assess the effect of on-site vehicular activity and railway activity. For the railway, noise predictions will include CRN calculations or environmental noise propagation calculations based on previously measured noise levels of similar operations. Historical data may be used to facilitate the assessment; and

• All calculations will be spreadsheet based samples and it is not intended to develop extensive computational noise maps.

4.17. The assessment of likely significant effects to sensitive receptors will consider the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude or magnitude of change to determine significance.

Conclusions

4.18. Given the scale of development, it is considered that the development would have potential for significant effects in terms of noise and vibration and should therefore be scoped into the ES. Only the above identified significant effects will be included in the EIA and reported in the ES. The effects of existing environmental noise and vibration on the proposed development will not be assessed within the EIA as the proposed development is not sensitive to noise and vibration for planning purposes.

Limitations and Assumptions

4.19. The following limitations and assumption have been identified at this time:

• The demolition / construction noise and vibration assessments rely on assumed outline plant details and working practices which may be subject to change when a Contractor is appointed for the works. Best endeavours will be made to ensure that similar plant from the standard noise and vibration databases of construction plant are used in the assessment. A worst case practical closest working position will be used in the assessment for activity plant;

• The road traffic flow data to be used in the demolition / construction and operational road traffic noise assessments is assumed to be sufficiently accurate to form the predicted noise levels; and

• The railway usage information will be obtained from Network Rail published timetables and is assumed to be sufficiently accurate for determining baseline conditions.

4.20. As the assessments are conducted, if any other limitations and assumptions become necessary these will be reported in the ES.

Air Quality

Baseline Conditions and Key Issues

4.21. There are currently no declared air quality management areas (AQMAs) within Northumberland County Councils (NCC’s) administrative area. Air quality monitoring data from diffusion tube sites

and automatic monitoring stations show that nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (both

PM10 and PM2.5) concentrations have consistently met national Air Quality Objective (AQO) limits.

4.22. NCC operate two automatic monitoring stations, Blyth Library and Cowpen Road, both of which are

located in the vicinity the Site and measure NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. Continuous 1-hour

NO2 monitoring ceased at Blyth Library in 2013 and ceased at Cowpen Road at the end of 2018.

4.23. Recent monitoring data for the automatic stations is detailed in Table 2 and a visual representation of the locations of the automatic monitoring sites is shown in Error! Reference source not found..

4.24. Table 2 shows that there have not been any exceedances of the annual mean NO2 objective at either

of the two local automatic monitoring stations between 2015 and 2019. Annual mean NO2 concentrations at the two monitoring stations over the five-year period are at least 55% below the objective threshold. There has however been a slight increase overall in the average annual mean

NO2 concentration across the two automatic monitoring stations between 2015 and 2019, although linear regression indicates that this upward trend is not statistically significant.

4.25. There have been no exceedances of the 1-hour mean NO2 objective at Cowpen Road, which is the only automatic monitoring station with available data.

4.26. Additionally, the annual and 24-hour mean PM10 and annual mean PM2.5 objectives have not been exceeded in any of the years between 2015 and 2019 at either of the two automatic monitoring stations.

4.27. As concentrations for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are well below the short and long-term objectives, it can be concluded that there are no key issues with the baseline data obtained from the local automatic monitoring stations.

Figure 1: Locations of diffusion tubes and automatic monitoring stations in the vicinity of the Site.

3 Table 2: Automatic Monitoring Data (NO2 and PM10 Concentrations (µg/m )) for automatic monitoring locations in the vicinity of the Site.

MONITORING STATION OBJECTIVE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 AND DISTANCE (KM) FROM SITE BOUNDARY (APPROX.)

NO2

Blyth Library, BL, Urban Annual mean (µg/m3) 13 17.9 13.4 15.5 14.3 Centre, 1.9 km Number of hours with N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A concentrations >200 µg/m3

Cowpen Road, CR, Roadside, Annual mean (µg/m3) 14 15 13.5 15.6 16.2 1.9 km Number of hours with 0 0 0 0 0 concentrations >200 µg/m3

PM10

Blyth Library, BL, Urban Annual mean (µg/m3) 13 17.9 13.4 15.5 14.3 Centre, 1.9 km Number of days with 2 8 4 1 3 concentrations > 50 µg/m3

Cowpen Road, CR, Roadside, Annual mean (µg/m3) 14 15 13.5 15.6 16.2 1.9 km Number of days with 2 0 0 1 6 concentrations > 50 µg/m3

PM2.5

Blyth Library, BL, Urban Annual mean (µg/m3) 6.0 7.1 6.2 7.3 8.0 Centre, 1.9 km

Cowpen Road, CR, Roadside, Annual mean (µg/m3) 6.1 5.8 5.5 6.7 7.2 1.9 km

Notes: N/A = No Data

4.28. NCC utilised diffusion tubes to monitor annual mean NO2 concentrations at 19 sites during 2019.

Table 3 provides the latest annual mean NO2 concentrations at the nearest diffusion tube locations to the Site.

3 4.29. The annual mean NO2 objective of 40 µg/m was not exceeded at any of the six diffusion tube sites

located in the vicinity of the Site between 2015 and 2019. Annual mean NO2 concentrations at the diffusion tubes sites are at least 22% lower than the objective threshold throughout the five-year

period. Overall, there has been a significant reduction in annual mean NO2 concentrations at all of the diffusion tube sites with five years’ worth of data between 2015 and 2019 (average across all sites apart from B16 in Table 3).

3 4.30. The 1-hour mean objective for NO2 is 200 µg/m and should not be exceeded more than 18 times within a year. Research carried out on behalf of Defra identified that exceedance of the 1-hour mean

3 NO2 objective are unlikely to occur where the annual mean is below 60 µg/m . The annual mean

concentrations shown in Table 3 therefore shows that the 1-hour mean NO2 objective is very unlikely to be exceeded at similar locations to Site. It is reasonable to assume that similar conditions prevail at the Site.

4.31. As such it can be concluded that there are no key issues with the baseline conditions obtained from the diffusion tube sites located in the vicinity of the Site.

3 Table 3: Diffusion Tube Data (annual mean NO2 Concentrations (µg/m )) for diffusion tube locations in the vicinity of the Site.

DIFFUSION DIFFUSION SITE TYPE APPROX. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TUBE ID TUBE NAME DISTANCE FROM APPLICATION SITE (KM)

B1 Waterloo Road, Urban Centre 2.0 27.0 29.0 31.0 31.4 27.8 Blyth

B3 Cowpen Rd. Roadside 1.9 32.0 32.0 23.0 22.3 31.0 West, Blyth

B11 Blyth YCMA, Urban Centre 2.0 26.0 26.0 27.0 26.8 21.2 Blyth

B16 24 Cowpen Roadside 1.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 23.7 Road

W17 Front Street Urban Centre 3.8 28.0 20.0 23.0 24.0 22.3 East, Bedlington

W21 Newbiggin Roadside 2.2 19.0 24.0 25.0 23.9 20.2 Road, Ashington

Notes: N/A = No Data

Approach/Proposed Scope of Assessment

Demolition and Construction

4.32. The change in traffic flows as a result of the construction of the proposed development is currently unknown. If the change in flow exceeds the criteria in the EPUK IAQM guidance, i.e. will be greater

than 100 Heavy duty vehicles as an annual average daily traffic (AADT), then the impact of this traffic on existing receptors will be assessed using ADMS Roads modelling software.

4.33. The most recent meteorological data will be used in conjunction with air quality data gathered during the same time period for the dispersion modelling, which will be for 2019.

4.34. Guidance from the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM)2 advises the need for a construction dust assessment if there are human receptors within 350m of the boundary of the site or within 50m of construction vehicle trackout routes, and if there are ecological receptors within 50m of the Site boundary of the trackout routes. There are sensitive human receptors within 350m of the Site boundary and within 50m of the potential construction vehicle routes, as well as ecological sites (Site of Special Scientific Interest and Special Protection Area (SPA)) within the 50m distance. As such a construction dust assessment will be undertaken.

4.35. Following the assessment of construction impacts, details of any mitigation measures required to avoid, reduce or compensate for any significant adverse impacts on air quality will be provided.

Operational

4.36. The proposed energy strategy is not currently known. If an energy combustion plant is utilised, operational impacts will be assessed by determining whether emissions exceed the criteria in Table 6.2 of the EPUK IAQM guidance. The air dispersion model ADMS-5 will be used to predict the

impacts of emissions on ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and PM2.5 at relevant receptors within and near to the proposed development.

4.37. It is anticipated that there will be an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) increase of 51 heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) during the operation of the proposed development, which is below the IAQM/EPUK criteria requiring detailed assessment of impact on existing receptors from emissions associated with HGVs i.e. change of more than 100 AADT HGVs. Therefore, the impact of HGVs can be scoped out. However, the expected trip generation for AADT LDVs is currently unknown. If the change in flow exceeds the criteria in the EPUK IAQM guidance, i.e. will be greater than 500 AADT, then the impact of this traffic on existing receptors will be assessed using ADMS Roads modelling software.

4.38. The most recent meteorological data will be used in conjunction with air quality data gathered during the same time period utilising local authority data for the dispersion modelling, which will be for 2019.

4.39. The predicted impacts on air quality at existing receptors will be assessed at individual receptors using the criteria given in the EPUK/IAQM’s guidance. Professional judgement by a suitably qualified

2 Institute of Air Quality Management (2016), IAQM Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction version 1.1 – [Online] (Last accessed: 26/06/20), Available: www.iaqm.co.uk/text/guidance/construction-dust-2014.pdf

air quality specialist will be used to determine whether over the affected area there is likely to be significant effect or not.

4.40. The adjacent ecological sites, the SPA Northumberland Marine, will also be considered as part of this assessment. A detailed assessment of the effects of Nitrogen deposition on the SPA will be undertaken using the same modelling scenarios for the road traffic modelling assessment and presented in a separate appendix if traffic flows associated from the proposed development distribute within proximity of these sites.

4.41. A transect of up to 200m will be created from the designated sites to the nearest applicable road

and pollutant concentrations of NOX and NH3 will be predicted at regular intervals along the transect.

4.42. The predicted pollutant concentrations will be compared against the critical load thresholds outlined on the APIS website that are appropriate for the designated site in question. These will be provided to the Project Ecologist to determine likely significant effects.

4.43. Predicted impacts from existing air quality on the proposed development will not be undertaken as the proposed development is non sensitive with no applicable AQO.

4.44. Following the assessment of operational impacts, details of any mitigation measures required to avoid, reduce or compensate for any significant adverse impacts on air quality will be provided.

Cumulative Effects

4.45. Cumulative effects will be considered inherently within the assessment of effect on existing and future receptors from road emissions as the future road traffic flow data used in the assessment will include any development currently within the planning system, and therefore, cumulative road traffic air emissions will be covered by default.

Conclusions

Potential Effects

4.46. An assessment of the significance of effects from dust emissions during demolition and construction activity will be scoped out of the ES due to inherent mitigation being included within the assessment to prevent any significant effects.

4.47. The impact of HGV flows during the operational phase of the proposed development is below the IAQM/EPUK criteria and as such will be scoped out of the ES.

4.48. As the baseline concentrations are well below the air quality objectives and the proposed development is non sensitive, the impact of the existing air quality on proposed receptors can be scoped out.

4.49. Aspects that may have potential significant effects and may need to be assessed within the ES once we receive further data, are listed below:

• The effect upon existing receptors from oxides of nitrogen and particulate (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions from the construction traffic of the Proposed Development (transport); and

• The effect upon existing receptors from oxides of nitrogen and particulate (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions from the operation of the Proposed Development (combustion plant and LDVs).

Limitations and Assumptions

4.50. To ensure transparency within the EIA process, the following limitations and assumptions have been identified.

• There is always some uncertainty regarding the prediction of air quality. This is associated with both the difficultly in simulating mathematically the very complex atmospheric process that affect pollutant concentrations and the uncertainties in the model input data. Where necessary conservative assumptions will be used. Additionally, the dispersion modelling results will be verified against measured data to minimise the risk of under-predicting future concentrations

• To further limit the uncertainties, the local air quality management tools provided by Defra will be used where appropriate;

Climate Change

4.51. The assessment will employ a twofold approach, as required by the 2017 EIA Regulations, which considers the following:

• Emissions reduction: The potential effects of the Proposed Development on climate change, with measures included in the project to reduce direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) referred to as climate change mitigation (not to be confused with ‘EIA mitigation’). This section will also consider the wider drivers for the project and related benefits in terms of combatting climate change;

• Climate change adaptation: The vulnerability of the Proposed Development to climate change, with measures included in the project to ensure resilience to climate change referred to as climate change adaptation. In accordance with the relevant guidance detailed below, this assessment will also consider whether the scale of projected climate change identified will fundamentally alter any baseline conditions or impact judgements included elsewhere and if so, whether further mitigation is required.

Baseline Conditions and Key Issues

4.52. In relation to the study area, the assessment will consider the effects of the proposed development on global climate, with specific reference to the climate changes expected in the UK. The effects of a changing climate on the proposed development will largely be assessed in relation to the site as defined by the site boundary and its immediate surrounds.

Emissions reduction

4.53. Data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is available from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. As this data presents information on GHG emissions at a local authority scale, it cannot be related directly to the assessment of emissions associated with the Proposed Development. It does, however, provide useful context with respect to the key current sources of GHG emissions.

4.54. The Proposed Development is located within the administrative boundary of Northumberland County Council. As such, the assessment will provide a breakdown of GHG emissions from sectors relevant to the Proposed Development within the Northumberland County administrative area.

Climate change adaptation

4.55. The effects of the changing climate on the proposed development will largely be assessed in relation to the site as defined by the site boundary and its immediate surrounds.

4.56. The baseline information for other receptors will be as identified in the respective technical chapters, with this assessment highlighting any cases where projected climate changes could alter the baseline conditions identified.

Approach/Proposed Scope of Assessment

4.57. Climate change is a relatively new topic within EIA. Guidance continues to evolve and there is no prescribed way in which climate change should be incorporated within wider assessment. However, existing guidance from the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) stresses that climate change should be integrated within the ES. Examples of inclusions within the ES can relate to the review of alternatives and the project design, how baseline environmental conditions may change with a changing climate and the resilience of mitigation measures to climate change.

4.58. The following guidance, produced by IEMA, will be used to inform the approach to assessment:

• The Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Evaluating their Significance (2017); and

• The Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation (updated 2020).

4.59. In considering future climate change scenarios, IEMA guidance recommends that the assessment be informed by the UK Climate Change Projections Website3. ‘Probabilistic' projections are provided for a range of variables including temperature, precipitation and sea level rise. Wind speeds and storm frequency/ intensity are presented separately as global modelling information is currently more limited. The current projections, UCKP18, released in November 2018, provide the most up to date climate change projections available and are presented for the UK as a whole and on a regional basis. It is proposed to use projections for the 2080s and ‘Representative Concentration Pathway’ (RCP) 8.5. As the most far-reaching projection, the 2080 scenario is considered to be appropriate for the design life of the project. IEMA’s guidance recommends the use of RCP8.5, the highest emissions scenario, as a precautionary approach. Information on wind speed, storms and sea level rise will also be considered, although data for wind and storms is not available at a regional level.

Emissions reduction

4.60. With respect to climate change mitigation and effect significance, as yet, there are no established thresholds for assessing the significance of an individual project’s contribution to climate change. However, the IEMA EIA Guide to Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions states the following (in section 6):

“GHG emissions have a combined environmental effect that is approaching a scientifically defined environmental limit, as such any GHG emissions or reductions from a project might be considered to be significant…..Therefore in the absence of any significance criteria or a defined threshold, it might be considered that all GHG emissions are significant and an EIA should ensure the project addresses their occurrence by taking mitigating action”.

4.61. Appendix C of the IEMA guidance also refers to the following principles:

“Where GHG emissions cannot be avoided, the EIA should aim to reduce residual significance of a project’s emissions at all stages”

“Where GHG emissions remain significant but cannot be further reduced… approaches to compensate the project’s remaining emissions should be considered.”

4.62. The significance of likely effects will therefore be determined with reference to stated commitments to reasonable and deliverable measures to reduce these emissions in accordance with established thresholds and/or other benchmarks for performance including relevant policy and guidance.

Climate change adaptation

4.63. With respect to climate change adaptation and effect significance, IEMA’s Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation explains that in determining significance, account should be taken of the susceptibility or resilience of a receptor to climate

3 https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/approach/collaboration/ukcp/key-results

change as well as the value of the receptor. A high value receptor that has very little resilience to changes in climatic conditions should be considered more likely to be significantly affected than a high value receptor that is very resilient to changes in climatic conditions. If there is uncertainty about how a receptor will adapt to a changing climate, then a precautionary approach should be adopted.

4.64. This assessment will collate information from other technical ES chapters. Where effects relating to climate change adaptation are identified in other chapters, they will be presented in this section using the methodology used to define effect significance within those assessments.

Conclusions

4.65. At this stage, a precautionary approach has been adopted and both climate change mitigation (emissions reduction) and climate change adaptation have been scoped in for further assessment. However, it is anticipated that once further consideration has been given to design measures, additional project commitments to carbon management/climate change resilience and to the emerging assessment findings for the other ES topic areas, likely significant effects will be limited.

Major Accidents and Disasters

4.66. The assessment will employ a twofold approach, as required by the 2017 EIA Regulations, which considers the following:

4.67. The three reasons why the major accidents and disasters topic needs to be scoped in for further consideration are to demonstrate:

• The proposed development would be no more vulnerable to major accidents and disasters than the surrounding areas or the existing buildings on-site.

• The proposed development would not be a source of hazard that could result in a major accident, nor would it interact with an external source of hazard.

• If an external disaster or incident was to occur the presence of the proposed development is not expected to increase the risk of serious harm to people or the environment.

4.68. At this early stage, further assessment is required to demonstrate that point two, and to a lesser extent, point three

Baseline Conditions and Key Issues

4.69. A list of risks that have historically occurred at the Site, and those that could potentially occur in the future, will be identified as the baseline and also inform the wider study area. Future risks will be informed by existing risk registers such as the Cabinet Office (2017) National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies.

4.70. For the assessment to remain proportionate, other studies and assessments undertaken on the Site for this application will be drawn on, including assessment findings from other disciplines such as ecology and drainage to determine receptors and pathways.

4.71. Aligning the receptors alongside the 'baseline risks' will identify the key issues at the Site and wider area. These will be taken forward for the major accidents and disasters topic assessment.

4.72. It is assumed at this stage that the proposed development would be no more vulnerable to major accidents and disasters than the surrounding areas.

Approach/Proposed Scope of Assessment

4.73. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, sets out a requirement for EIA to consider the risk of major accidents and/or disasters relevant to the Proposed Development:

"A description of the expected significant adverse effects of the development on the environment deriving from the vulnerability of the development to risks of major accidents and/or disasters which are relevant to the project concerned."

4.74. It is recognised that the 2017 EIA Regulations apply to a wide range of development types. It is reasonable to assume that Development types such as nuclear power stations and chemical installations would be more vulnerable to major accidents and/or disasters than the Proposed Development. It therefore follows that the consideration of the risks of major accidents and/ or disasters in the context of EIA needs to be proportionate to the likelihood of the risks.

4.75. As this is a relatively 'new' EIA topic, there is currently no prescribed method for undertaking this assessment. However, the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) recently published 'Major Accidents and Disasters in EIA: A Primer’ (the Primer)4 which provides a suggested methodology and a typical assessment approach. In line with the Primer and for the assessment to remain proportionate, only low-likelihood/high-consequence events would be considered in the ES. 'Appendix D: Identification record template' of the Primer will be used to 'audit' the assessment. Similarly, for the assessment to remain proportionate, risks covered by other legislations (Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA)) will be signposted in the ES and removed from the assessment.

4.76. When considering the baseline risks with the receptors, events and hazards which have no credible source-pathway-receptor linkage will be removed from the assessment.

4.77. The significance of the remaining risks alongside the relevant receptors and pathways will take into account the geographic area, duration of effects, severity of effects, sensitivity of receptors and

4 IEMA (2020) Major Accidents and Disasters in EIA: A Primer

effort required to restore any damage. Further discussion with the design, operator and EIA teams will also inform significance of effects.

Conclusion

4.78. The proposed development will be regulatory compatible and therefore measures will be in place to minimise significant effects. A precautionary approach has been adopted and following further assessment as part of the EIA, it is likely that no significant effects will be predicted.

Socio-Economics

Baseline Conditions/Key Issues

4.79. The baseline section of the ES will review local policy, to ensure that the ES is based on a full assessment of local socio-economic policy imperatives. The ES chapter will also examine existing socio-economic conditions in Northumberland, by using established statistical sources such as the Office for National Statistics (ONS), and any relevant data held by Northumberland County Council and its partners.

Approach/Proposed Scope of Assessment

4.80. Given the scale of development and new employment creation, it is anticipated that the development would have a significant effect in terms of socio-economic matters and should therefore be scoped into the ES.

4.81. The Socio-Economic Chapter of the ES will look to provide the following information:

• Local economic and social context, including:

o Current industrial focus

o Levels of unemployment

o Skills capabilities

o Growth and investment activity trends – historic and projections

o Local development plan and strategic needs assessment

o Alignment with regional and national strategic ambitions

• On-site job creation, including:

o Jobs supported by the site during its construction phase and subsequent operational phase

o Nature of the jobs created – highly skills vs lower skilled

o Training expected – e.g. apprenticeships

o Expected wages and salaries

o Proportion of employment drawn from the local population v/s attraction of new households into the area

o Direct gross value added (GVA) contribution

• Wider local impacts, such as:

o Local supply chain – reliance on local suppliers

o Clustering – evidence that the site may leverage in further investment by creating a hub of connected activities

o Broader investment impacts – e.g. housing, community facilities, or other commitments

o Links with local educational establishments

o Fiscal contributions – such as through business rates, council tax or other commitments

o Indirect gross value added (GVA) contribution

o Additionality considerations, such as potential displacement of economic activity from other sites

Conclusion

4.82. Given the scale of development and new employment creation, it is anticipated that the development would have a significant effect in terms of socio-economic matters and should therefore be scoped into the ES. The ES chapter will assess the potential effect of the Proposed Development on socio-economic conditions of the area, and will comprise a baseline assessment, a quantification of impacts and an assessment of the significance of these impacts, and any associated mitigation measures.

5. TOPICS WHERE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ARE UNLIKELY

5.1. A number of matters are proposed to be scoped out of the ES in light of desk-based research, professional judgement, and other information available. In light of this, and in line with the Regulation 4(2), these matters are not considered to result in significant environmental effects and are therefore proposed to be scoped out of the ES. However, the issues will be considered within the supporting documentation to the planning application.

5.2. The matters to be scoped out include:

• Landscape and Visual Impact

• Lighting

• Hydrology and Flood Risk

• Cultural Heritage

• Ground Conditions

• Coal Mining and Minerals

5.3. The following sets out the justification as to why these matters should be scoped out.

5.4. The Applicant respectfully requests the LPA to consider this information, and to confirm that the approach is acceptable. Should the LPA require changes to the approach, it is requested that those changes are identified as part of the Scoping process.

Landscape and Visual Impact

Baseline Conditions and Key Issues

Landscape Baseline

5.5. The proposed development site comprises generally of flat, low-lying land (not above 10m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum)) with exception to two PFA (pulverised fuel ash) mounds located in the north east of the site which rise up to 12m AOD and 24m AOD. Land use is predominantly brownfield with the site previously used for storing coal. The land is generally open apart from a number of scattered trees and scrub across the low-lying ground. Trees to the western slopes of the PFA mounds were planted approximately 20 years ago and are well established. Tree belts are found in the south-west of the site enclosing an area of 1930’s housing off Harbour View.

5.6. Other localised features include a railway line to the north of the site which continues south along the eastern boundary, albeit this section is now disused. Railway sidings are located in the north of

the site associated with this infrastructure. A bridge over the railway to the east of the site provides a connection to the village of Cambois. Two water courses are found within the site, Maw Burn and Cow Gut, which flow in a west to east direction across the site. Both are culverted through the centre of the site. A line of electricity transmission pylons crosses the site generally along its western boundary in a north-south direction.

5.7. The southern boundary of the site is marked by Harbour View, a local road that runs in an east-west direction. Northern Energy Park Phase I (NEP1) has been delivered to the south of this road which comprises a large-scale manufacturing plant. It is expected that Phase II of NEP will bring forward further large-scale industrial development. Immediately south west of the site, an additional large- scale industrial development has been built in the form of an electrical converter station. Medium scale industrial development is also located off Wembley Gardens to the north-west of the site.

5.8. Cambois is found running along the coastline, generally east of the site. The majority of houses are Victorian/Edwardian terraces originally provided for workers of the coal industry associated with Cambois Colliery, now disused. Cambois Primary School is located east of the site off Cowgate. Allotment gardens are located immediately east of the site north of Harbour View. Closest residents to the site boundary are those within the housing area off Harbour View to the south-west of the site immediately adjacent to the site boundary and those off Wembley Gardens to the north at approximately 80m to the site boundary.

National Character Areas

5.9. The development site lies within National Character Area (NCA) 13: South East Northumberland Coastal Plain, which covers approximately 30km of the coastal plain north of Newcastle Upon Tyne up to Amble.

5.10. The published profile for NCA 13 lists 8 key characteristics of this landscape. Those considered to be of most relevance to the development site include:

• “A wide, low-lying coastal plain with widespread urban and industrial development, extending north from the urban edge of Newcastle across the coastal plain, with mining towns and villages merging into rural landscape towards the north.

• Sweeping sandy beaches and rocky headlands remain within largely developed coast, along with mudflats and saltmarshes in river estuaries.

• Large-scale open cast coal mining sites and restored mine sites which include deep mine spoil heaps. Restoration has created large tracts of simple, relatively featureless agricultural land with strips of plantation.

• Limited woodland cover, confined to prominent blocks of mixed and coniferous woodland on reclaimed colliery sites, with broadleaved woods on steeper valley sides and within estate parkland.”

County/Local level landscape character

5.11. Northumberland Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) provides a County and Local level landscape character given Northumberland Council’s Unitary status. This LCA defines the landscape within the site and its surrounding area as the Blyth and Wansbeck Estuaries (LCA 41a). The key characteristics of this landscape are as follows:

• Intensively developed landscape, comprising a coastal urban edge.

• River mouths with mudflats or modified to form harbours.

• Large-scale industrial structures and former industrial sites.

• Fragmented farmland amongst urban development.

5.12. Other LCA’s close to the development site are LCA 42a: Ashington, Blyth and Cramlington located west of LCA 41a; and LCA 40a (Druridge Bay) and LCA 40b (Seaton Dunes) located north and south of LCA 41a respectively.

Designated Landscapes

5.13. There are no designated landscapes within the development site. The nearest landscape designations to the site are Northumberland National Park c. 25km to the west, Northumberland Coast AONB c. 20km north and the North Pennines AONB c. 40km south-west. It is considered that there would be no significant effects arising from the proposed development on these designations.

Visual Baseline

5.14. Many of the factors that influence the visual baseline have been discussed in the landscape baseline description provided and primarily relate to the low-lying topography of the Blyth and Wansbeck Estuaries, as well as the large-scale industrial nature of the local area founded on the former coal mining industry. Where trees are found, such as in the south-western corner of the site, these serve to frame, filter and foreshorten views across the site. The PFA mounds in the east of the site serve to foreshorten views into the remaining part of the site from views to the east, whereas the relative open boundary to the north of the site allow views across the majority of the development area.

5.15. The distribution of settlements where a high proportion of residential visual receptors are located can be found on Ordnance Survey mapping. The village of Cambois is the closest settlement to the site located generally along its eastern boundary. The site and its immediate context are sparsely

populated albeit that within 2km of the site boundary, the larger settlements of Blyth (south), Bedlington (west) and Ashington (north) are found.

5.16. Recreational visual receptors are widely distributed across the study area, including those using public footpaths within and immediately adjacent to the site (600/059, 600,062 and 600/054). The England Coast Path (ECP) National Trail is located east of the site following the beach c. 250m at its closest point to the site boundary, before heading west along Harbour View immediately south of the site. With regards to Sustrans National Cycle Routes (NCRs), NCR 1 is also found running east of the site (along Cowgate) before heading west along Harbour View immediately south of the site generally following the same route as the ECP. There are no regionally promoted long-distance walking routes within the study area. Other recreational destinations include Cambois Beach, Wansbeck Riverside Park, Newbiggin seaside resort and Sandy Bay Holiday Park.

Approach/Proposed Scope of Assessment

5.17. It is considered that the majority of landscape and visual receptors within 5km of the proposed development would not be subject to significant effects due to the existing industrial nature of the local context and the screening nature of a number of landscape features within the site (i.e. woodland blocks and PFA mounds). However, visual receptors associated with residents of Cambois in the north of the settlement (i.e. along Wembley Gardens) may experience significant effects due to the proximity of the proposed development, its scale and operations (i.e. lighting). As such, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) is proposed, which will outline these potential effects and how they have been reduced through appropriate mitigation.. The assessment would be undertaken in accordance with Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (Third Edition, 2013) and would provide a review of the existing landscape planning policy context, published sources of landscape character and visual appraisal of the study area and an assessment of the potential landscape and visual effects of the proposed development, both at the construction and operational phases.

5.18. A study area for the LVIA will be defined. Baseline information for the study area will be collated, which will include topography, landscape planning policy designations, published sources of landscape character, designated landscapes, typical photograph viewpoints and any other relevant information.

5.19. Assessments will be made during construction; on completion; and 15 years thereafter with the benefit of planting mitigation.

5.20. In accordance with current good practice, this assessment will address landscape and visual effects as separate issues. Landscape effects relate to both the effect on the physical features of the site, and on the landscape character of the site and surrounding area. Visual effects relate to effects on views of people from the surrounding area.

5.21. The landscape and visual impact assessment will also include a consideration of the likely effects of lighting associated with the proposed development.

5.22. The study area and a list of representative viewpoints for assessment would be agreed with Northumberland Council.

5.23. In summary the assessment will:

• Define the study area for the site LVIA, and identify representative viewpoints;

• Assess the susceptibility to change of the landscape and visual receptors (the receiving environment);

• Assess the magnitude of landscape and visual effects;

• Assess the significance of landscape and visual effects; and

• Identify requirements for any mitigation measures.

Conclusions

5.24. It is considered that landscape and visual matters can be scoped out of the EIA given that the site and local area are dominated by large-scale industrial development. The proposed development would be consistent with this existing character. Views towards the proposed development within the surrounding landscape would generally be of an industrial nature, where the proposed development, albeit of a larger scale to existing, would be congruous to the local area. Close distance visual receptors, such as those at Cambois, would be the most effected by the proposed development. The mitigation for the proposed development will seek to reduce effects to these receptors. An LVIA will be submitted alongside the planning application as a separate report in order to outline these potential effects and how they have been reduced through appropriate mitigation. As such, it is recommended that this matter is scoped out as all landscape effects and the majority of visual effects would not likely be significant.

Lighting

Baseline Conditions and Key Issues

5.25. The local surroundings are a mixture of commercial and industrial premises, derelict industrial land, residential dwellings, a primary school and a church. Light sources in the existing environment include the commercial and industrial operations, the local road network (A189 and local roads), freight train movements on the North Blyth Branch (Blyth and Tyne railway) and the Port of Blyth.

Approach/Proposed Scope of Assessment

5.26. Although it is intended that the Proposed Development be artificially lit during the hours of darkness there are no light sensitive designations that would be directly impacted by the Development within 200m of the proposals. A typical ZoI (Zone of Influence) for lighting is usually taken as 100m. There is potential for indirect secondary impacts on ecology and human receptors, as such it is proposed that these likely significant effects will be addressed elsewhere in the and application documents ES (e.g. in the Ecology ES Chapter and LVIA), but which would be informed by a lighting impact assessment.

5.27. For clarity to quantify the potential light impact from artificial lighting on a site a Lighting Impact Assessment is required. This is formulated by comparing current, site measured, baseline lighting levels (lux) pre the Proposed Development with those likely to exist post construction and operation of the Proposed Development (via the 3D modelling of a parameter plan lighting design) with a commentary on how both embedded and secondary mitigations will be implemented to ensure that light impact to a minimum.

5.28. The assessment would clarify all the known light pollution issues as identified by the following technical guidance and standards, and clarify their current best practise principles for tackling these issues:

• ILP Guidance on Undertaking Environmental Lighting Impact Assessments. (PLG 04)

• CIE 150: 2017 – Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations, 2nd Edition

• ILP Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light, 2020

• SLL Guide to Limiting Obtrusive Light, 2020

• SLL Lighting Handbook, 2009

• BS EN 12464 – 2, 2014 – Outdoor Work Spaces

• BS EN 5489 – 1, 2020 – Code of Practice for the design of road lighting

• LG 6 (CIBSE) – The Exterior Environment, 2016

• Bat Conservation Trust/ILP –Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK. Guidance Note: 08/18

• National and Local Policy

o National Planning Policy Framework 2019

o Current Local Policy and Strategy

5.29. The light assessment itself is proposed to be made up of three parts consisting of a baseline site survey, a lighting parameter plan and an Illumination Impact Profile (IIP). These three elements then make up the Lighting Impact Assessment (LIA) with each part informing the assessment which, collectively, gives a pre and post quantitative assessment of the artificial lighting to the Proposed Development. The exact activities for each part are set out below:

Site Survey and Report of Existing Baseline Lighting Scenario to Site and Adjacent Areas

5.30. This will consist of a 2 (two days), day and night-time, illuminance measurement survey. Following a desk top assessment, one person will attend the external survey area, during the hours of daylight and darkness (date and times to be agreed) to undertake existing baseline illuminance level measurement. Sample baseline illuminance measurements are recorded to ascertain the Site and sensitive receptor Environmental Zone classification. Vertical (1.5m above ground) and horizontal illuminance (ground) measurements are recorded at sensitive receptor locations. This is primarily based on residential receptors plus ecological/heritage receptors (identified by others) within a typical 50-100m predicted zone of influence from the Site boundary plus local ecological areas (eg SSSI) adjacent to the Site.

5.31. The baseline report will clarify all the known light pollution issues and will enable a review of the results against the criteria identified by the various lighting /environmental bodies, national/local policy and standards, includes:

• Summary of typical existing lighting products and sample illuminance levels relative to adjacent zones and use;

• Summary of Application Site existing lighting conditions in terms of lighting levels (lux), light quality and possible existing light pollution/encroachment/trespass scenario’s;

• Summary of baseline illuminance conditions at identified sensitive receptor locations;

• Application Site and surrounding area Environmental Zone rating as per ILP and CIE guidance.

• Primary focus of survey will be as sketch of corridor provided.

• Horizontal measurements in approximately 30 positions taken at 0m.

• Defined grid of vertical positions taken at 1.5m

• Note due to road safety issues some positions may not be safe to measure. Nearby measurements and professional judgement will be used.

External Lighting Parameter Plan

5.32. Where an light impact assessment is required, but the planning application does not include a detailed lighting scheme proposal, an environmental lighting designer will state and provide precautionary assumption on the type and typical locations of luminaire positions to meet current design guidance for the assessment of the expected obtrusive light impact.

5.33. In relation to the application this will be in the following format:

• Application Area – External operational parameters (report) plan

5.34. The Parameters will be specifically based on operational uses for an industrial site, car parks and thoroughfares on and around the Proposed Development based on the agreed architectural parameter plan. Excluded from this assessment will be internal lighting and external lighting associated with landscape / building feature and signage illumination.

5.35. In accordance with best practice guidance, embedded obtrusive light control measures will be employed within the Parameters to provide a considered and realistic assessment scenario.

5.36. This does not form a final lighting design deliverable but provides a scenario of what the precautionary and typical operational lighting approach would be on the assumption that future lighting design considers best practice standards and technology, as appropriate.

5.37. The final external lighting specification(s) and design(s) for the proposed development of the Site should be prepared by a specialist lighting engineer with due regard to outlined mitigation measures, obtrusive light guidance and the sensitivities of surrounding receptors.

Illumination Impact Profile (IIP) for the Lighting Parameters to Identified Sensitive Receptors

5.38. The intention of the IIP is to convey how the Proposed Developments will affect the illumination profile of the area and how that will comply with relevant policy, legislation requirements and best practise Design Guidance.

5.39. In accordance with current CIE guidance and the ILP Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light (2020) and in relation to the assessment, the following definitions are used in describing obtrusive lighting impact to environmental designations, ecology and existing residential:

• Direct Sky glow: the direct upward spill of light into the sky, which can cause a glowing effect and is often seen above cities when viewed from a dark area.

• Glare: the uncomfortable brightness of the light source against a dark background which results in dazzling the observer, which may cause nuisance to residents and a hazard to road users.

• Light Spill (vertical and horizontal): the spilling of light beyond the boundary of a property, which may cause nuisance to others

5.40. The Site, sensitive receptors and external lighting proposals (including embedded obtrusive light control mitigation measures) are modelled through industry recognised lighting software and the resultant calculated values are assessed against the baseline scenario and current guidance, for the Environmental Zone, to provide the Illumination Impact Profile of the Proposed Development.

5.41. If applicable and should impact exceed environmental light thresholds further secondary obtrusive light control mitigation measures are identified to advise the future Masterplan Development and Lighting Design deliverables.

Conclusions

5.42. Although it is intended that the Proposed Development be artificially lit during the hours of darkness there are no light sensitive designations that would be directly impacted by the Development within 200m of the proposals. As such, it is unlikely that there will be significant effects. A Lighting Impact Assessment will be prepared to accompany the planning application submission and this will feed into the LVIA and Ecological ES Chapter.

Hydrology and Flood Risk

Baseline Conditions and Key Issues

Site Description

5.43. The site’s former use was as a coal-stacking area for the now demolished coal-fired Blyth Power- Station A and B, located to the south of the proposed development site. As such it was occupied by large stacks of coal, imported generally by rail, that was stored until it was required by the power- station. Consequently, there were a number of structures associated with coal-delivery and handling, since demolished, but leaving a ground surface that comprises various large relic concrete slabs, tarmac access roads, buried structures, former railway sidings, with drains and ditches that served to collect and dispose of the associated rainwater run-off from the coal stacks and impermeable areas. Large areas of the site comprise of crushed-stone, pulverised fuel ash [FPA] waste and rough ground that would be classed as semi-permeable. The topography shows that the site level varies broadly from NW to SE, typically from 11.0m AOD to 7.0m AOD.

Existing water courses

5.44. Two water-courses cross the site in the form of semi-open ditches, pipes and culverts. The first, Maws Burn, enters the site at the NW corner, runs broadly west-east and exits the site at the eastern boundary adjacent to the footbridge to the disused mineral railway, before it continues east to discharge at the edge of the beach. Across the site, Maw Burn appears to flow primarily in pipes approximately 600-700mm diameter and has a similar headwall discharge size at the outfall at the beach. It would appear that a network of on-site drainage pipes discharge into the Maw Burn at various points along its length.

5.45. The second water-course, Cow Gut, enters the site at approximately mid-way along the western boundary and flows west-east to the western boundary, where it turns south and flows due-south, under Brock Lane, across the former power station site NEP1, before it discharges into the River Blyth Estuary near to the former Ash Dock. For a significant part of its length, it is pipe or culverted, typically in pipes approximately 600-700mm diameter at the western site boundary, gradually increasing to 1200mm diameter when it crosses the NEP1 site and discharges into the River Blyth Estuary. Similar to the Maws Burn, it appears to be the receptor for a network of on-site drainage pipes that discharge into it at various points along its length. The existing Cow Gut outfall has partially collapsed and it is understood that as part of the NEP1 development works, it is proposed to remediate the existing revetment and incorporate a flap-valve upstream of the outfall to prevent backflows into Cow Gut and consequently into any surface water drainage system which may discharge into the watercourse. Otherwise, within the constraints of the size of the culvert, Cow Gut has an un-restricted discharge rate into the River Blyth Estuary

5.46. There is evidence that some of the drainage to the south of the site discharges into a combined sewer in Brock Lane, owned by Northumbria Water, that discharges in a number of locations into the River Blyth.

Fluvial Flood risk

5.47. The Environment Agency (EA) Flood Map shows the majority of the development site to be within Flood Zone 1 (Low Probability of flooding. This is outside of the area which is at risk from extreme fluvial or tidal flooding. The majority of the site is therefore not at risk from inundation in a 1:1000- year event. However, there is a section of the site, in the south-east corner, that is within Flood Zone 2 and appears to be associated potential capacity issues of Cow Gut, at the headwall position before it crosses Brock Lane. Flood Zone 2 is land assessed as having between a 1:100 and 1:1,000 annual probability of river flooding in any year.

Surface Water Flood Risk

5.48. The Environment Agency (EA) on-line map shows the majority of the development site to be of ‘very low-risk’ of flooding. There are various very-localised areas of the site that are identified as being at ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’ risk of surface water flooding; these all appear to be associated with open channels, ditches and low-lying areas of the site where localised slopes in the impermeable surfaces capture and channel the overland flows of water into features, which were provided to fulfil this function. Any such features will be ‘lost’ as part of the general remediation of the site and any low- lying ground will be engineered by raising ground levels. Appropriate drainage systems will be provided for the development such that post-development surface water flooding is not an issue within the site boundary and no existing property or infrastructure will be at greater risk of flooding as a result of the proposed development. This will be undertaken during the detailed design of the site proposals.

5.49. To the south east of the site along Brock Lane there is an area at ‘medium’ and ‘high risk’ of surface water flooding. It is anticipated that this is a low-lying area along Brock Lane and that any surface water flooding would be captured within the highway drainage and not impact the proposed site. This part of Brock Lane is not the proposed access into, and out of the site and will therefore any flooding will not impair any access and egress routes.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

5.50. The Northumberland County Council Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment: Sept 2010 has been examined and does not to include reference to the general area of the site other than to the River Blyth Estuary and that in previous years tidal and fluvial flooding has occurred. The Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment: Oct 2015 states that that; ‘significant areas including access roads into the demolished Blyth Power Station site may be at medium to high risk from surface water flooding.’. This reference relates to the former power-station area of NEP-1 rather than that of the development site

Potential Sources of Flood Risk

5.51. Extreme fluvial flood events have the potential to cause rapid inundation of the development, potentially causing disruption to the use of the production buildings of the development, damage to the buildings, harm to the welfare of occupants and potentially preventing emergency access to properties and essential infrastructure. The majority of the site is within Flood Zone 1 and it is therefore outside of the area which is at risk from extreme fluvial or tidal flooding from the River Blyth.

5.52. The Cow Gut and Maw Burn water courses, that currently run predominantly in pipes and culverts, will be diverted to the boundary of the site, because they will lie under the proposed building development and will not thereafter be accessible for maintenance. There is always the potential for the outfall from Cow Gut to become blocked, to collapse or for the outfall to be breached which would cause flows to back-up and potentially flood land of the development. Therefore, it is proposed that the diverted Cow-Gut, Maws Burn and the drainage systems serving the development will feature a series of swales, open water-courses and culverted sections which will attenuate the flows within Cow Gut [and Maws Burn] and also serve to store water should the outfalls be temporarily compromised.

Approach/Proposed Scope of Assessment

Proposed Site Remediation

5.53. It is proposed that the site redevelopment will comprise of removing all surface features such as concrete slabs, tarmac access roads, buried structures, former railway sidings, drains and ditches to a depth of approximately 1m. This material will be crushed and re-used on site as fill. Some remodelling of the PFA mounds will be undertaken and such material will be used to fill the lower-

levels of the site, particularly the south-east corner and levels in this area will be raised to approx 4.5m AOD or higher. This latter provision will reduce the tendency for this area to flood and will likely result in the fluvial flood-risk category being ‘low-risk’. Site levels will be generally re-worked such that there is cut and fill from the north to the south of the site respectively of approximately 1m depth. This will have the effect of raising ground-levels in the areas classified as ‘low-risk’ or higher, thus reducing their risk of fluvial or tidal flooding. The scope of works and re-worked levels are subject to design.

Proposed Surface Water Drainage & attenuation

5.54. The majority of the development is within Flood Zone 1 and the Flood Risk Assessment will focus on the management of surface water to ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. The surface water strategy for the site will be developed in accordance with The Building Regulations Part H and SuDS. Historic site investigations inform that the superficial deposits within the site will have low to very-low permeability and therefore any soakaway or infiltrations system, the preferred priority of SuDS, will be ineffective. The permeability of the ground is subject to the outcome of tests to be undertaken as part of a ground investigation survey.

5.55. It is proposed that the surface water from the development will be collected by a series of on-site drainage systems that will convey the water to the diverted Maws Burn and Cow Gut, which will be open water-courses as much as possible and with culverted sections only where necessary. A series of swales and above ground storage features will be provided and integrated with the landscaping to attenuate the flows. It is proposed that the outfall of Cow Gut across the NEP1 site and discharge into the River Blyth will be retained. If this was approved by the EA, then subject to their agreement and because the River Blyth is tidal, an application for unrestricted discharge of surface water runoff would be sought. The discharge outfall of Maws Burn would also be retained, but it is proposed that the discharge rate for this outfall would not be increased and would be to a rate agreed with the EA. The current outfall rate for both outfalls, the on-site drainage network, attenuation and storage is subject to a design that is to be developed.

5.56. The detailed hydraulic design will be undertaken to provide a suitable surface water drainage solution for the proposed development. The design will aim to accommodate runoff from all events up to and including the 1:100-year event, inclusive of an allowance for climate change, without producing any unnecessary flooding off site.

Construction Phase

5.57. During the construction phase surface water runoff from the development will be controlled and mitigation put in place, to prevent any potentially contaminated runoff discharging into the Cow Gut, Maws Burn and River Blyth. The methodology will be developed as part of a remediation method statement and construction phase environmental assessment and method statements.

Foul Water Drainage

5.58. Foul water flows from the development are proposed to be calculated using the design flow of 0.6litres/second/hectare of developable land in accordance with Sewers for Adoption 7th Edition. This is subject to agreement with Northumbrian Water through a Pre-Development Enquiry to ascertain whether there is sufficient capacity within the foul/ combined network to accommodate the proposed foul flows from the development. It is anticipated that foul flows within the development will be discharged into the Northumbrian Water combined sewer network within Brock Lane and Wembley Way. Should insufficient capacity be available then discussions with Northumbrian Water will include attenuation to avoid peak discharge exceeding capacity and on-site treatment.

Conclusion

5.59. The ground levels within the site boundary will be engineered so that the development site is not within the EA’s indicative flood envelopes and post development is classed as being within Flood Risk Zone 1. Based on the compatibility of developments within each Flood Zone, set out within the Technical Guidance to the NPPF, the site will be suitable for all types of developments.

5.60. It is anticipated that the runoff from the impermeable surfaces and buildings will not be feasible via an infiltration system and will be discharged by an on-site drainage network to the diverted Maws Burn and Cow Gut watercourses. These will be changed from their predominantly culverted status to a combination of piped, culverted and open water courses with surface water attenuation provided by swales and above ground storage integrated with the landscaping. Whilst these feature will provide attenuation to surface water flow, it is considered that the flow in Cow Gut could be discharged at an unrestricted rate into the River Blyth; this is to be confirmed by the EA. Discussions should be held with the EA as to level of treatment required.

5.61. To be developed is a method statement detailing proposed mitigation during the construction phase for the whole site. During the construction phase surface water runoff from the development will be controlled and mitigation put in place, to prevent contaminated runoff discharging into the River Blyth, Cow Gut and Maws Burn.

5.62. Because of the low-risk of the site to flooding, the proposed system of improving the existing watercourses and the lack of impact to off-site areas, it is not considered that there will be significant effects as a result of the proposed development. It is proposed that the Flood Risk Assessment, the surface water drainage strategy and the foul water drainage strategy can be standalone reports to be submitted with the application, and scoped out of the ES.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Baseline Conditions

5.63. Northern Archaeological Associates Ltd (NAA) has a long association with the former Blyth Power Station site, having conducted a range of archaeological assessments covering both the coal stocking yard and the main power station site to the south of Sandfield Road. The aim of this previous work has been to establish the presence, and potential survival, of any archaeological remains associated with the site, as well as assess the likely impacts of new development on both designated and non-designated heritage assets.

5.64. In 2008 NAA prepared of a Cultural Heritage chapter for RWE Power as part of an earlier redevelopment proposal (NAA 2008a). Technical appendices submitted as part of the chapter were a detailed desk-based assessment (Appendix 14.2) and report on archaeological monitoring during geotechnical test pitting (Appendix 14.3) (NAA 2008b; NAA 2008c).

5.65. In 2016, NAA prepared a qualifying statement to inform a planning application for a phase of high level remediation and reclamation on land formerly occupied by the main Blyth A and B power stations on the south side of Sandfield Road (NAA 2016). The qualifying statement reviewed, summarised and updated the previous desk-based assessment to inform the preparation of an impact assessment and mitigation strategy. The level of detail provided by the qualifying statement was agreed in advance with Nick Best, the Northumberland County Council Archaeologist, and reflected the degree of information already available on the site.

5.66. As part of the same proposals, NAA completed a separate heritage statement, relating primarily to the Grade II listed West Staithes but also considering other designated and non-designated heritage assets in the vicinity (NAA 2017). This was followed in 2018 by a heritage impact assessment in advance of stabilising and remediation work (NAA 2018).

Designated sites

5.67. The only designated asset within the vicinity of the proposed development is the Grade II listed West Staithes (NHLE: 1041382), located on the south side of Sandfield Road, extending out into the estuary to the south-west of the Ash Dock. The staithes were built between 1912 and 1928 by the Blyth Harbour Commission as part of the Upper Harbour development. Only the seaward side of the structure is listed. It was originally designated Grade II* in 1986 but was subsequently downgraded to Grade II following an extensive fire in the 1990s, which destroyed much of the upper deck.

5.68. The listed staithes are of high (national) importance and high heritage significance, derived primarily from their historic and architectural interest with regards the layout and development of Blyth Harbour, and the expansion of the Northumberland coal trade in the early 20th century.

5.69. The Staithes Approach, which comprises the landward section of the structure, was built by the North Eastern Railway (NER) Company and used to transport coal wagons up onto the staithes to load the waiting ships, then carry the empty wagons away to the coal stocking yard to the north. The majority of the Staithes Approach was demolished in 1995. Documentary evidence shows the Approach originally extended north, crossing over Sandfield Road on a bridge, to connect with the coal stocking yard sidings. The Approach and abutments of the road bridge form part of the contextual setting of the West Staithes and given special regard under Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act. The setting of a designated asset is also afforded protection under NPPF (MHCLG 2019).

5.70. The only other listed building within the vicinity of the proposed development site is the Grade II listed Cambois War Memorial (MLN: 1391431). This is located to the east of St Andrews Church, c. 0.5km to the east of the development, which will be visible from the listed structure. Impact on the setting of the designated heritage asset will need further assessment; however, this is unlikely to be significant.

5.71. There are no Conservation Areas within the vicinity of the proposed development. The nearest are Blyth Bondicar Terrace, Blyth Central, and Blyth Heritage, all of which lie at some distance on the south side of the river. The Bedlington Conservation Area lies 5km west of the site. Views to and from all four conservation areas will need to be assessed; however, given distance from the site, and the extent of development all along the river frontage, it is consider unlikely there will be any significant effects.

Non designated heritage assets and archaeological potential

5.72. The previous desk-based assessment (NAA 2008b) concluded that prior to the construction of the coal stocking yard in the first quarter of the 20th century, the proposed development lay within a settled, farmed landscape.

5.73. No known sites predating the medieval period have been identified within the boundary of the proposed development area, although there is evidence of occupation across the wider coastal plain from the Mesolithic onwards. Flint artefacts from the Mesolithic (12,000 to 4,000 BC) and Neolithic/Early Bronze Age (4,000 to 1,500BC) have been recorded at several locations along the coast to the north of Blyth, including Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, North Seaton and the River Wansbeck. All suggest a degree of occupation along the coastal plain during the prehistoric period, probably seasonal encampments. Sea level was considerably lower at this time, the development area being several hundred metres inland and the River Blyth some way above its current tidal range. The site had probably attained its coastal position by the start of the Neolithic (4,000 BC).

5.74. Bronze Age (1,500 to 700 BC) finds have been recovered during past dredging operations within the River Blyth and from buried peat deposits beneath the coastal sand dunes to the south. Bronze Age burial sites are known from 1.5km and 3km to the west and north of the proposed development.

5.75. A number of enclosed and unenclosed farmstead sites and associated field systems have been recorded in the wider vicinity, potentially dating from the Late Bronze/Iron Age (700BC to 78AD) through to the Roman (AD78 – 410) period. An undated enclosure, formerly visible as a cropmark but now destroyed, has been recorded in the field to the west of the coal stocking yard. This may represent a late prehistoric or Romano-British farmstead. Further cropmark enclosures have been recorded 1-2km west and south-west of the development site.

5.76. A Viking burial is referenced on the Northumberland Historic Environment Record (HER 12074) within the boundary of the development. However, this is only an indicative position, located at the intersection of two grid squares. The burial was excavated in 1859 by Dr Ward and only later documented by Canon Greenwell, who refers to ‘a tumulus on the E. side of the R. Wansbeck’ in his notebooks (Alexander 1987). This suggest the burial was located further to the north and probably inland where the River Wansbeck runs north to south. There are no tumuli shown anywhere in the vicinity of the proposed development on the First edition OS map (1862).

5.77. By the mid-10th century, the area to the north of the River Blyth formed part of the ‘villa’ of Bedlingtonshire, under the ownership of the Bishop of Durham, and remained as a detached part of the County Palatine until 1844. The proposed development formed part of the medieval open field systems associated with the village of East Sleekburn, 1.2km to the west of the site. Small areas of ridge and furrow cultivation survive to the north and south-west of the coal stocking yard. Documentary evidence shows that the River Blyth was an important fishery and anchorage in the medieval period, and that salt-making on the foreshore was an important industry in the medieval and post-medieval periods.

5.78. The town of Blyth developed as a port during the 17th and 18th centuries, initially exporting salt, but later eclipsed by coal. It continued to expand throughout the 19th century, becoming one of the most important coal ports in the country, shipping 4,000,000 tons per annum by 1914. Construction of the Upper Harbour and West Staithes began in 1912, this included the dredging of the river channel, construction of the staithes, and laying of the Upper Harbour mineral line and associated sidings. These are shown fanning out across the coal stocking yard on the 1938 OS map.

5.79. Industrial development across the coal stocking yard continued throughout the 20th century with the opening of Blyth Power Station A in 1958 and B in 1962. Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) and Furnace Bottom Ash (FBA), both by-products of the coal-burning power station, where piped into settling ponds on the site and dried ash amassed in two mounds on the east side of the yard, with a third mound of colliery spoil in the north-west corner.

5.80. Blyth Power Station closed in 2001 and was demolished over the following two-year period. All structures related to the railway were removed, except for the bridge abutments. Today, all that remains visible at surface across the coal stocking yard are areas of hard standing, various structural foundations, concrete roads, an area of gravel ballast covering the former railway sidings, the PFA and FBA man-made lagoons and two ash mounds covered by established vegetation. The

significance of the former coal stocking yard remains will need to be fully assessed, particularly with regards to the setting of the listed West Staithes. However, prior to demolition the power station site and coal stocking yard were the subject of detailed building recording (Trueman 2003). This record is considered suitable to mitigate against the permanent loss of the asset arising from the proposed development.

5.81. Archaeological monitoring was conducted across the coal stocking yard during geotechnical investigations in 2008 (NAA 2008c). This identified areas of apparently undisturbed buried deposits, beneath the overburden and demolition debris. Based on the form of these deposits, their relative heights and association with late 19th and early 20th century pottery, they appeared to represent former buried ground surfaces associated with agricultural fields pre-dating the construction of the Upper Harbour. The depth of the overburden across the site varied considerably from 0.5m up to 3.7m, and comprised clays, red shale, crushed coal and PFA.

5.82. Evidence of the preserved buried ground surface was found spread across the area but was interspersed with pits where any evidence of earlier deposits had been completely truncated away. This indicated preservation across the site is likely to vary considerably. Areas of undisturbed ground, where conditions may be conducive to the preservation of unrecorded archaeological remains, if present, were identified in the south-west corner of the coal stocking yard. Discussions are underway to omit this area from the current development.

5.83. Other areas where archaeological preservation is potentially higher, is beneath the two ash mounds on the east side of the site, and along the northern boundary, where there is a small area of extant ridge and furrow. Elsewhere, survival of remains, if present, will be variably and the impact of later industrial activity across the site is likely to be considerable. Notably, no archaeological remains were identified during the monitoring of the geotechnical pits, and no artefacts were recovered across the site predating the late 19th century (NAA 2008c).

5.84. The potential for the preservation of palaeoenvironmental deposits associated with the two streams which cross the site – Cow Gut and Maw Burn - will need further consideration. If conditions are suitable, samples of sediments and specialist analysis of charcoal, cereal grains, pollen, molluscs and macro-environmental material may inform a greater understanding of the nature, use and development of the landscape over time.

Approach/Proposed Scope of Assessment

5.85. Initial consultation on archaeological issues was held with Nick Best, Northumberland County Council Archaeological Officer, on 15th October and are ongoing. Overall, given the level of information already available, the development proposals are not considered to have a significant effect on the cultural heritage of the site and will not require inclusion in the ES. Although there is the potential for the survival of archaeological remains in some areas of the former coal stocking

yard, measures to mitigate against any impact can be suitable implemented through planning condition.

5.86. Further archaeological assessment will be required to inform a suitable mitigation strategy as part of the planning process, this will comprise an updated desk-based assessment. This assessment will include a comprehensive review of the existing material in the light of the development proposals and any new information recorded on the HER; a site walkover inspection to assess present conditions; and detailed heritage impact assessment. A heritage statement will also need to be prepared relating to the impact on the Grade II listed West Staithes and Cambois war memorial. This will either form part of the desk-based assessment or a stand-alone separate document, depending on timescales.

5.87. All documentation will be prepared in accordance with the following professional standards and guidelines:

• National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG 2019);

• Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (Historic England 2015);

• Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England 2017);

• Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets (Historic England 2019);

• Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (Historic England 2008);

• Standard and Guidance for Desk-Based Assessment (CIfA 2017);

• Yorkshire, the Humber & the North East: A Regional Statement of Good Practice for Archaeology in the Development Process (South Yorkshire Archaeology Service 2018)

• Petts and Gerrard (2006) Shared Visions: The North-East Regional Research Framework for the Historic Environment.

5.88. In accordance with paragraph 189 of NPPF, the principal aim of both the desk-based assessment and heritage statement will be to provide Northumberland County Council with sufficient information to make an informed decision on the effects of the development proposals on the historic environment. It will include:

• an assessment of potential impact on the significance and setting of any affected heritage assets - both designated and non designated;

• identify any potential heritage constraint to the proposed works;

• identify the need for further field evaluation or survey;

• make mitigation recommendations to avoid or reduce any adverse impacts arising, and explore opportunities to reveal or enhance significance, and

• taking into account mitigation and planning balance, will consider if there is any conflict with national and local planning policy as this relates to heritage.

Conclusions

5.89. A number of archaeological assessments have been produced throughout the long planning history of the former Blyth Power Station site, detailing the archaeological potential of the coal stocking yard. Although the potential for the survival of archaeological deposits across the site remains, preservation is likely to be variable, especially given its later industrial use and extent of later demolition disturbance. The proposed development is therefore considered not to have significant effect on the cultural heritage of the area and will not warrant inclusion in the EIA.

5.90. Measures to suitably mitigate against any potential loss of heritage significance will be advanced through the planning process. This will initially comprise an updated desk-based assessment and heritage statement, with further evaluation to follow as required.

Ground Conditions and Contamination

Baseline Conditions and Key Issues

Site Description

5.91. The site’s former use was as a coal-stacking area for the now demolished coal-fired Blyth Power- Station A and B, located to the south of the proposed development site. As such it was occupied by large stacks of coal, imported generally by rail, stored in mounds and transported to the power station by overhead conveyor that crossed Brock Lane. The site comprises generally of large areas of tarmac and concrete slabs, roads, foundations, roads, tunnels, with concrete lined ditches, ex- railway sidings and similar that were associated with the handling of the coal and the required ancillary buildings and infrastructure. The tarmac and concrete hard-surfaces were installed to prevent loss of coal and the leaching of contaminants within the coal into the ground and into the groundwater

5.92. A significant feature of the site is the presence of two large mounds comprised of pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and furnace bottom ash (FBA) that are waste products of the power-generation process. The FBA is a product washed from the bottom of the power station boilers and from 1992 it was pumped as slurry into settlement lagoons in the southeast corner of the former coal stacking yard.

The FBA was removed from the lagoons when they were full. It is not known what quantity was removed from site as commercial waste, but significant volumes of PFA and FBA are stored on the eastern boundary of the former coal-stacking yard, in two land-fill mounds which are estimated to comprise a volume of approximately 640,000m3

Existing ground conditions

5.93. The site has been extensively surveyed over many years for various development proposals that have not progressed. The surveys have consisted of trial pits, boreholes and groundwater monitoring and include sampling of soils and groundwater which have been tested for contamination and the physical properties of the soils.

5.94. From those investigations, it is established that the site geology comprises of a superficial geology of made ground and overlying Blown Sand and Glacial Till, overlying Middle Coal Measures of the carboniferous series of rocks. The majority of the eastern part of the coal-stacking area is shown to be underlain by Made Ground deposits. The thickness of the glacial drift deposits increases from around 10m in the south and east of the site, to approaching 20m in the north-west.

5.95. The Glacial Till is comprised of three main characteristic materials. An upper red-brown till with a layer of gravels, sands, silts, boulder clays and a lower grey-brown till that is less sandy, with boulders and stiffer than the upper red-brown till. The lower levels typified by beds of sand and laminated clay. The solid geology is mainly formed by rocks of the Middle Coal measures and varies in depth typically 7-15m below AOD with the drift falling broadly south to north. The Middle Coal measures consist of varying beds of mudstones, silty mudstones, sandstones and coal and because these were laid in a predominantly marine environment, the depths, bedding and material can vary locally with depth by several metres.

5.96. The underlying geology contains coal seams and enquiries of the Coal Authority confirm that these seams have been previously worked to extract coal by the using a mixture of longwall/total excavation and pillar/stall techniques. As such, the site is within the likely zone of influence on the surface from seven seams of coal at 70m to 250m depth. The last known date that these seams were worked was 1967. The Coal Authority notes that ground movements from these workings should by now have ceased. The Coal Authority also notes that the site is within an area where coal is believed to exist at or close to the surface that may have been worked at some time in the past, but no evidence of this has been found during the various previous borehole investigations.

5.97. A fault line occurs in the solid geology, consistent with the general faults in the area, and run approximately NE. For the coal stack area, this fault lies in the SW corner of the site and has a reported downward throw to the west of approximately 15m. Other faults in the power-station site and the coastal site are also present and they are reported as having similar characteristics. These will have the effect of influencing still further the depth at which the solid geology will be found and the natural flow of aquifer groundwater associated with the hydrogeology. The Coal Measures strata

in the area are classified as a minor multi-layer aquifer and due to mining activity in the Northumberland area, it is not characterized as a source of high-quality ground water. The proximity of the River Blyth Estuary implies that there will likely be a hydraulic connection of the higher-layer aquifers with sea-water. The borehole and trial pits have recorded groundwater at various depths in the Glacial Till and these are considered to be associated with perched-groundwater held in the gravel areas within the Till. The flow of the hydrogeology is anticipated to be broadly NW to SE, but the variable solid geology will yield a commensurate complex groundwater flow.

5.98. Sampling and testing of the soil and water samples from trial pits and boreholes and the groundwater and gas monitoring have yielded only low-levels of potential contaminants, when they have been found. Typically, only localised concentrations of heavy metals, TPH, PAH, free product and asbestos were identified above commercial assessment criteria in the Made Ground and the PFA mounds. Chemical testing of the groundwater in the superficial deposits and bedrock aquifer within the site identified only very localised very marginally elevated concentrations of heavy metals, TPH, PAH at the southern boundary and did not determine elevated determinant concentrations at the northern boundary. As such, there is considered to be a very low risk of the groundwater in these areas laterally migrating and adversely impacting on the River Blyth. Further, the layered minor aquifer is confined below a minimum of 7m depth of low-permeability Glacial Till and made-ground; it is considered unlikely that the site is the source of the marginally elevated contaminants and these may be attributable to the wider industrial heritage of the area. Methane gas has been recorded at very low levels and is unlikely to impact significantly on the proposals for the development.

5.99. A detailed site investigation has been scoped to determine the on-site ground conditions, soil and groundwater contamination, ground-gas through a series of sampling and testing from trial-pits, boreholes and groundwater and gas monitoring wells. The results of the investigation will be used to classify the materials and to model the sources-pathway-receptor risk analysis for any contaminants for the remedial works, construction works and final-development works. It is proposed that groundwater and ground-gas will be sampled and monitored throughout the works.

Approach/Proposed Scope of Works

Proposed Site Remediation

5.100. It is proposed that the site redevelopment will comprise of removing all surface features such as concrete slabs, tarmac access roads, buried structures, former railway sidings, drains and ditches to a depth of approximately 1m. This material will be crushed and re-used on site as fill. Some remodelling of the PFA mounds will be undertaken and such material will be used to fill the lower- levels of the site, particularly the south-east corner and levels in this area will be raised to approximately 4.5m AOD or higher. The intent is to retain all material arising during construction within the site boundaries. Local hot-spots of ground found to be contaminated with concentrations of heavy metals, TPH, PAH, free product will be blended with other inert materials to reduce their concentrations to below the commercial assessment criteria or they will be retained in location as

appropriate, untreated, because the ultimate development will cap the site with impermeable construction which will prevent their mobilisation and migration. The normal model for source- pathway-receptor risk analysis will consider all such aspects as part of the remedial works proposals.

Construction Phase

5.101. After the site remediation, the immediate building development will be capped with the recovered crushed and recycled concrete; areas outside of the building footprint, to be developed later will be left as-is or capped with demolition arisings. Such arisings are anticipated to be clean and inert but will be tested and classified. The building foundations will have piled foundations and the ground bearing floor-slab will be on vibro-compacted ground (via stone or concrete columns). The piles are anticipated to be a combination of driven precast concrete piles and bored concrete piles; both systems will be engineered to ensure that they do not drag-down or give a pathway for any near- surface contaminants that may be present to lower ground strata or the minor-aquifers. In the final state, all such areas will be covered by impermeable construction and so this risk is only prevalent during the construction phase. Post development, end-users will be separated from the localised contamination in the Made Ground and shallow groundwaters by hardstanding. In landscaped areas a clean cover solution will also be adopted. As such, no pathway for direct contact or ingestion will exist. In addition, gas/ vapour protection measures and drinking water pipes non-permeable to hydrocarbons will also be installed within future built development.

5.102. A full risk analysis of the source-pathway-receptor will be undertaken as part of the remediation strategy and works, for both the temporary and permanent state of the development, to consider all aspects but in particular will consider the pathways to the various groundwater [hydrogeology and surface hydrology] receptors to ensure there is no migration of any of the low-levels of contamination to those receptors.

5.103. There is currently considered to be a low to very-low risk to adjacent site users from localised lateral migration of heavy metals, TPH, PAH free product and dissolved phase contamination in the shallow groundwater and the Made Ground coming into direct contact or ingestion by adjacent users. The limited elevated concentrations of heavy metals, TPHs and PAHs present a potential human health risk to construction workers and adjacent site users if mobilised as wind-blown dust, particularly where residential or commercial properties are immediately adjacent to such areas. However, the risk from exposure to contaminants in wind-blown dust is considered to be addressed by the adoption of dust suppression measures, or localised removal, during the works.

5.104. Information obtained from historic ground investigations, and to be confirmed by investigations specific to this development, suggest that the pollution risk from ground and groundwater conditions to Controlled Surface Waters in the form of the River Blyth, Cow Gut and Maws Burn to be a very low. The relatively flat topography of the site means there is a very low risk of surface water run-off impacted by localised heavy metals, TPH’s and PAH’s in the Made Ground and shallow groundwaters on site, temporarily entering the surface waters during construction and leachate from

exposed ground infiltrating and migrating off the site due to the shallow groundwaters largely being discontinuous and confined by low permeable Glacial Till. On completion of the built development and during operation there is a negligible risk of surface water infiltration causing subsequent lateral migration of, what are currently considered to be, localised contaminants into the River Blyth and off site. This is due to the final development comprising predominantly hardstanding areas and buildings, with only very localised areas of soft landscaping. As such, the presence of hardstanding and an appropriate surface water drainage system will restrict surface infiltration of rainfall and the potential for leachate generation. The existing PFA mounds, which will be left substantially unchanged and will be landscaped, have been shown in previous investigations to have very low leachate potential due to their density, height and low permeability. This will be confirmed as part of the further site investigations and risk analysis.

5.105. In view of the low risk to surface waters determined, no specific soil or groundwater remediation is determined to be warranted during the works to address risk to surface waters. Following construction of the development and during operation, there is a negligible risk of surface water infiltration causing subsequent lateral migration of localised contaminants into the River Blyth off site. This is due to the final development comprising predominantly hardstanding areas and built development, with only very localised areas of soft landscaping. As such, the presence of hardstanding and an appropriate surface water drainage system will restrict surface infiltration of rainfall and the potential for leachate generation.

Conclusion

5.106. Current available information from previous site investigations indicate that there are very marginally elevated levels of heavy metals, TPH, PAH free product in very localised areas of the development site; as such and because of the nature of the development, there is low to very-low risk of any of the temporary and permanent works impacting off-site receptors, particularly groundwaters. As such, there is unlikely to be a significant effect. A comprehensive site investigation will be undertaken to verify these initial considerations and the results will be used to develop and inform a full risk assessment for remediation, construction and construction details. As such, it is recommended that planning application considerations and information required under Policy Pol-1 and Pol-2 of the Northumberland Local Plan Publication Draft Plan should be outside the scope of the EIA.

Coal Mining and Minerals

Baseline Conditions and Key Issues

Site Description

5.107. The site’s former use was as a coal-stacking area for the now demolished coal-fired Blyth Power- Station A and B, located to the south of the proposed development site. As such it was occupied by

large stacks of coal, imported generally by rail, that was stored until it was required by the power- station. The site comprises of a superficial geology of made ground and overlying Alluvial Silts, Blown Sand and Glacial Till; overlying Middle Coal Measures of the carboniferous series of rocks. The majority of the eastern part of the coal-stacking area is shown to be underlain by Made Ground deposits. The thickness of the glacial drift deposits increases from around 10m in the south and east of the site, to approaching 20m in the north-west.

5.108. The Glacial Till is comprised of three main characteristic materials. An upper red-brown till with intermixed layers of gravels, sands, silts, boulder clays and a lower grey-brown till that is less sandy, with boulders and stiffer than the upper red-brown till. The lower levels are typified by beds of sand and laminated clay but because of their fluvial nature are interbedded and inconsistent in depth and thcikness. The Glacial Till does not contain any significant quantities of sands or gravels or clays that are banded/layered in a uniform manner such that they could be commercially extracted. They are intermixed and therefore do not meet the market requirement for clean sands, aggregates or clay materials

5.109. The solid geology is mainly formed by rocks of the Middle Coal measures and varies in depth typically 7-15m below AOD with the drift falling broadly south to north. The Middle Coal measures consist of varying beds of mudstones, silty mudstones, sandstones and coal and because these were laid in a predominantly marine environment, the depths, bedding and material can vary locally with depth by several metres. A fault line occurs in the solid geology, consistent with the general faults in the area, and run approximately NE. For the coal stack area, this fault lies in the SW corner of the site and has a reported downward throw to the west of approximately 15m. Other faults in the power-station site and the coastal site are also present and they are reported as having similar characteristics. These will have the effect of influencing still further the depth at which the solid geology will be found.

Approach/Proposed Scope of Assessment

Coal Mining

5.110. The site is within the likely zone of influence on the surface from seven seams of coal at 70m to 250m depth. The last known date that these seams were worked was 1967. Previous enquiries of the Coal Authority for this site, for previous planning applications notes that ground movements from these workings should by now have ceased. The Coal Authority also notes that the site is within an area where coal is believed to exist at or close to the surface that may have been worked at some time in the past though there are no records or evidence of this.

5.111. A ‘Pillars of Support Agreement’ dated 1957 applies to an area around Blyth A and B power station sites, now NEP1, was subsequently extended around 1975 to include an area including the southern portion of the coal stacking area. The majority of the coal mining plans pre-date these agreements, however some of the later plans do show an area of sterilization relating to the power station site

and the Pillar of Support Agreement. The principle of such an agreement is to limit the amount of coal extraction in any seam and to require a pilar and stall technique to be used, each of which would serve to limit the potential of seam collapse and thus surface settlement after the mine workings were completed.

5.112. It is proposed that a formal Coal Mining Risk Assessment will be prepared to support the planning application. But, give the history of mining on the site and the previous responses of the Coal Authority to various previous consultations made as part of planning applications, that the risk to development is considered low, it is anticipated that the outcome of a development specific risk assessment will also be low. It is therefore recommended that the Coal Mining Risk Assessment does not form part of the ES.

Coal extraction

5.113. The development site lies within a Minerals Safeguarding Area for coal identified under the Northumberland Minerals Local Plan Policy S3. The planning application will therefore include a mineral resource assessment that provides sufficient information to enable an understanding of the potential effects of the proposal on mineral safeguarding and the potential for prior extraction. Such an assessment will consider the economic value of the coal resource and consider the feasibility of mining the coal by open-cast extraction and the mining of coal by shaft. It would also include the impact on the local environment.

5.114. Open-cast extraction would have a significant and considerable adverse environmental impact on the neighbouring residential properties, the local infrastructure, the SSSI and SPA of the estuary and coast, access to the Battleship Wharf, NEP1, the North-Sea and villages of Cambois and East Sleekburn. These in themselves, would be unacceptable adverse effects on the residential amenity which is contradiction of Policy 55 (h) of the Northumberland Local Plan Core Strategy Pre- Submission Draft: Oct 2015. Such method of extraction would also require a depth of excavation and terracing of the excavations, to even the shallowest seam, which would make the extraction economically unfeasible and the depth of subsequent made-ground would potentially sterilize the site for future developments which mean Policy 55(g) and 55(j) of the Core Strategy applies.

5.115. Whilst the economic consideration of the extraction of coal by mining by coal shaft has not been rigorously considered, it is not considered that in the analysis, such methods would be economically feasible. This is due to the costs for surveys, start-up costs for acquiring the land, sinking the shafts, provision of all buildings, plant, machinery, coal washing, spoil disposal, environmental mitigations, coal-handling, rail infrastructure, roads and utilities, labour and administration costs, health and safety, dealing with groundwaters, permits, carbon and landfill taxes and decommissioning of mine at the end of the works. It is therefore considered that the cost of undertaking coal extraction will be in accordance with Policy 55(g) of the Northumberland Local Plan Core Strategy Pre-Submission Draft: Oct 2015 and consequently a formal mineral extraction feasibility study and report is not required.

Conclusion

5.116. Extraction of coal in the underlying un-worked coal seams by open-cast mining is environmentally unacceptable for the site location and in the analysis will prove to be economically unfeasible; the extraction by mine-shaft in the analysis will also prove to be uneconomically feasible. The proposed development would not lead to the unnecessary sterilisation of mineral resources within a Mineral Safeguarding Area. Therefore, it is not considered that the ES needs to include an assessment, in accordance with Policy 55(g) of the Northumberland Local Plan Core Strategy Pre-Submission Draft: Oct 2015, of the effect of the proposed development on the mineral resource beneath or adjacent to the site of the development.

5.117. Given the history of mining on the site and the previous responses of the Coal Authority to various previous consultations made as part of planning applications, it is considered that the risk to development is low. It is therefore anticipated that the outcome of a development specific coal mining risk assessment will also be low. A standalone Coal Mining Risk Assessment will be prepared as part of the application and it is not considered that this needs to form part of the ES.

6. STRUCTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

6.1. The ES will comprise the main report (Volume 1), Figures (Volume 2) and Appendices (Volume 3), as well as a Non-Technical Summary

6.2. The contents of Volume 1 would include:

CONTENT CHAPTERS

Chapter 1 – Introduction This Chapter summarises the background to the site and the Applicant, and the proposed development, the requirement and purpose of an EIA, and a summary of the structure of this ES and the project team involved.

Chapter 2 – Approach to EIA This Chapter outlines the approach to the EIA in order to meet the information required in an ES under the EIA Regulations.

Chapter 3 – Description of the Site and This Chapter provides a description of the site location, defined by the Surrounding Area Redline Boundary, and the surrounding area.

Chapter 4 – Consideration of Alternatives This Chapter outlines the description of the alternatives in terms of alternative site layouts during the evolution of its design.

Chapter 5 – Description of Development This Chapter provides a description of development.

Chapter 6 – Planning Policy Context This Chapter summarises the relevant national and local planning policy context against the proposed scheme.

Chapter 7 – Ecology and Nature Conservation

Chapter 8 – Transport and Access

Chapter 9 – Noise These Chapters provide a description of the existing baseline environment, the specific methods used to assess the potential Chapter 10 – Air Quality effects of the proposed scheme, an assessment of these effects and mitigation measures proposed to remove/reduce adverse effects for each receptor on a chapter-by-chapter basis. Chapter 11 – Socio-Economics

Chapter 12 – Climate Change

Chapter 13 – Major Accidents and Disasters

Chapter 14 – Cumulative Effects This Chapter assesses the potential for significant cumulative environmental effects associated with the proposed scheme.

Chapter 15 – Summary This Chapter provides a summary of effects for each of the technical assessment chapters of the ES. A summary of all proposed mitigation measures is also included.

6.3. To ensure consistency throughout the ES Chapters 7 to 13 will follow a standard structure as follows:

• Introduction

• Legislation and Policy

• Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

• Baseline Conditions

• Potential Effects

• Mitigation Measures and Residual Effects

• Cumulative Effects

• Conclusions

Appendix 2.2 LPA Informal Scoping Response

To: Our Ref:- Guy Wakefield BA Hons MRTPI Your Ref: - Partner Contact: For Ridge and Partners LLP Direct Line: 01670 625547 E-Mail: [email protected] Date: 12th January 2020

The Town and Country planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017

Informal Scoping Opinion of Northumberland County Council in relation to a proposed new battery manufacturing plant at the former Blyth Power Station yards, Cambois, Northumberland.

Introduction

This report constitutes the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) Informal Scoping Opinion in accordance with Regulation 17 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017. It sets out what the Local Planning Authority considers the scope and level of detail of the information to be provided in the Environmental Statement should be. The Council's Informal Opinion is based on the submission by Ridge and Partners 23rd October 2020 comprising:-

• Informal Scoping Note dated 23th October 2020 • Two supporting site location plans • Viewpoint list and drawing PHX-LDA-ZZ-ST-SK-A-00001 Proposed Viewpoint Locations with Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Study by LDA Design, dated 28th October. • Cumulative Sites Discussion Note v2, dated 4th December 2020

This Informal Opinion can only reflect the proposals as currently described by the Applicant.

The Informal Scoping Note submitted sets out that the proposal qualifies as EIA development under Schedule 2, Category 10 (a) which relates to ‘Infrastructure Projects’ of which the proposal would fall under ‘industrial estate development projects’. Category 10 (a) sets out the threshold as the area of the development exceeding 0.5 hectares. The applicant proposes to submit an Environmental Statement with a planning application for development.

The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal represents development that falls under Schedule 2, Category 10 (a) of the EIA Regulations 2017 because of the scale of the

1 development and the site area exceeding 0.5 hectares. It therefore represents EIA development.

This Informal Opinion should not be construed as implying that the LPA agrees with the information or comments provided in the letter requesting an opinion from the LPA. In particular, comments from the LPA in this Opinion are without prejudice to any later decisions taken (e.g. formal opinion or on submission of a planning application).

The Local Planning Authority reserves the right to change this Informal Scoping Opinion should such new information become available that the LPA considers materially alters the views set out in this Opinion.

Regulation 15(2) of the EIA Regulations states that a request for a scoping opinion must include:

(i) a plan sufficient to identify the land; (ii) a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development, including its location and technical capacity; (iii) an explanation of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment; and (iv) such other information or representations as the person making the request wish to provide or make. 3

Although an informal request, the LPA considers that the requirements above have been met.

Description of Proposals

Taken from the applicants Informal Scoping Note:

The proposed development for a new battery manufacturing plant comprises of a main building 269,000m2 in footprint with supporting ancillary buildings and structures for production of cutting edge and green battery cells.

The main manufacturing building height and massing will be optimised depending on the process layout ranging from 12/15m to a maximum of 30m where two levels of cell production are required.

Office facilities for up to 300 staff will be provided with an additional 870 people working in the operational areas at any point in time over 3 shifts.

2040 car parking spaces will be provided for all employees which includes capacity for shift changes and visitors. Security gate houses will control access to site.

A logistics yard with level access vehicle doors and dock levellers into the main building which will facilitate deliveries of incoming raw materials and outgoing packaged end products.

The site will have a secure boundary set within a landscaped surroundings to controlled viewpoints on and off the site.

Storage of materials will be required on the service yard and will include waste and recycling centre, energy centre, power distribution substations and chiller areas as well as solvent and gas storage or generation facilities and fire suppression sprinkler tanks.

Sustainable drainage and ecological mitigation areas will be blended with the natural surroundings and landscaped perimeter of the site which will include external amenity areas for staff and visitors with cycle shelters to encourage sustainable transport options from nearby cycle networks.

The Site

The site of the proposed development is located on previously developed land that was formerly used for the storage of coal for the former Blyth Power Station. The site measures approximately 97 hectares.

The proposed development is located within the area variously referred to as the ‘Cambois Zone of Economic Opportunity’, the ‘Blyth Estuary Strategic Employment Area’ or ‘Energy Central’. This location has historically been a focus for industry, including the former Blyth Power Station and industries associated with the River Blyth and the port.

The site is allocated as a strategic employment site in the current development plan, with a view to this status continuing in the emerging Local Plan that is currently in the advanced stages of preparation.

The settlements of Cambois and East Sleekburn are to the north east and south west of the site respectively. The railway is located to the north of the site. There is a cluster of residential housing to the south and industrial units to the North West.

Development Plan and Material Considerations

The ES is required to demonstrate full compliance with all relevant national and local planning policies. In this case extant development plan policy is provided by the ‘saved’ policies of the Wansbeck District Local Plan (July 2007). Existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of the NPPF. Due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).

Other material considerations are the relevant policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) (as amended) and relevant provisions in Planning Practice Guidance. Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Relevant policies in the emerging Northumberland Local Plan are also material considerations. The Publication Draft Plan (January 2019) was submitted to the Secretary of State on 29 May 2019. It is currently undergoing an Examination in Public and carries some weight in the assessment of planning applications. Paragraph 48 of the NPPF sets out the weight that can be attributed to the relevant policies.

Wansbeck Local Plan

The saved policies from the Wansbeck Local Plan that are considered to be relevant to this proposal are as follows:

Policy EMP3: Cambois zone of economic opportunity Policy GP5: Landscape character Policy GP10: Protection of sites of national importance for nature conservation Policy GP11: Sites of local or regional nature conservation significance Policy GP13: Biodiversity and wildlife networks Policy GP16: Setting of listed buildings Policy GP23: Development causing pollution or nuisance Policy GP25: Noise generating development Policy GP30: Visual impact

Northumberland Local Plan

The Northumberland Local Plan, Publication Draft Plan (January 2019) was submitted to the Secretary of State on 29 May 2019. It is currently undergoing an Examination in Public and carries some weight in the assessment of planning applications. Paragraph 48 of the NPPF sets out the weight that can be attributed to the relevant policies.

The policies from the emerging Northumberland Local Plan that are considered to be relevant to this proposal are as follows:

Policy STP 3: Principles of sustainable development Policy STP 5: Health and wellbeing Policy ECN 2: Blyth Estuary Strategic Employment Area Policy ENV 1: Approaches to assessing the impact of development on the natural, historic and built environment Policy ENV 2: Biodiversity and geodiversity Policy ENV 3: Landscape Policy ENV 7: Historic environment and heritage assets Policy POL 2: Pollution and air, soil and water quality Policy MIN 4: Mineral Safeguarding Areas

Contents of the Environmental Statement

Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2017 sets out the information that should be included in Environmental Statements.

The lnformal Scoping Note includes details of the scope of the proposed Environmental Statement, including a list of the proposed documents to be submitted and a proposed structure for the ES. Generally it is considered that these documents and structure are appropriate.

The ES should not be overly long and should be understandable to the general public. Ideally, it should not contain technical jargon or include technical data and calculations that can only be understood by experts. Technical words should always be explained where their use is unavoidable, and technical data can be provided in separate appendices.

A separate non-technical summary is also required in accordance with the 2017 Regulations. This should ideally be no more than 10 pages of easily reproducible text and illustrations. It should include information on the development, the main environmental impacts and the mitigating measures.

Consultation

The Informal Scoping Note sets out the proposed scope of the ES including the relevant topics to assess the environmental effects of the development.

As part of the scoping exercise, the following consultations have been carried out:

• NCC Ecology • NCC Public Protection • NCC Lead Local Flood Authority • NCC Highways • NCC Public Rights of Way • Wood Group Limited - commissioned by NCC to advise on landscape and visual impact • NCC Archaeology • NCC Building Conservation

Notably, consultations with external consultees have not been carried out due the confidentiality issues around the site to date. It is noted that a Formal Scoping Opinion will be submitted in due course.

The responses of consultees have been provided below as part of this response.

This scoping opinion, under Regulation 15(9) of the EIA Regulations, does not preclude the Local Planning Authority from requesting further information at a later stage under Regulation 25 of the EIA Regulations.

No indication of the likely success of an application for planning permission for the proposed development is implied in the expression of this opinion.

Likely Significant Effects of the Proposal

Ecology, Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

The current version of CIEEM’s Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment should be followed in the preparation of the Ecology chapter of the Environment Statement, and work should commence with a desk study to gather all relevant existing information for the site and its surroundings, including obtaining data from the Environmental Records and Information Centre North East.

An EcIA Checklist has been developed by CIEEM and the Association of Local Government Ecologists (ALGE), which provides a useful aide-memoire of the EcIA criteria.

The following ecological issues will need to be addressed in the EIA to be submitted with

5 the planning application:

Impacts on Statutory and Non-Statutory Designated Sites The proposed development site is not within any designated wildlife sites but is near the following designated sites:

Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar Site Northumberland Marine SPA Northumberland Shore SSSI Berwick to St Mary’s Marine Conservation Zone Coquet to St Mary’s Marine Conservation Zone Blyth Estuary Local Wildlife Site Wansbeck Estuary Local Wildlife Site

The LPA concur's with the applicant’s EIA scoping report that the key issues are:

• Potential for ornithological impacts on designated wildlife sites and their functionally related land though loss of habitats within the site, as well as indirect effects during construction (noise, vibration, visual etc.) and operation (increased recreational disturbance from employees, increased noise, lighting, road traffic etc.) • Potential for non-ornithological impacts: Indirect impacts on the statutory and non- statutory designated sites including from pollution (water, air, noise, light etc.) which could impact on nonornithological features associated with the Coquet to St Mary’s Marine Conservation Zone and the Blyth Estuary LWS.

Sufficient information should be included in the EIA to enable the LPA to undertake a Habitat Regulations Assessment of the proposal in relation to the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar Site and the Northumberland Marine SPA, and to establish whether there is a functional link with the Northumberland Shore

Other Ornithological Impacts The extensive nature of the site and varied habitats it contains are likely to lead to its used by a range of bird species during both breeding and non-breeding seasons. Accordingly the EIA should identify the species of conservation concern present on the site and assess direct impacts (habitat loss) and indirect impacts (such as noise, lighting, emissions to air or water) on them.

Impacts on Habitats The habitats present on the site should be identified and quantified using a standard methodology (Phase 1 or UK Hab), with details of the plant species present. If especially important habitats are found NVC surveys should be undertaken where this will provide clarity as to the habitat type present. If plant species of conservation concern are identified, this information should include the location of their populations within the site and an estimate of population size. Impacts on important habitats should then be assessed.

Impacts on Protected Species Surveys for all relevant protected species including bats, otter, badger and great crested newt should be undertaken and impacts on them assessed.

Impacts on Invertebrates

A population of grayling butterfly is known to present, and the potential for other invertebrate species of principal importance should be considered, and impacts assessed.

Mitigation, Compensation and Net Gain Once impacts have been identified and assessed, the mitigation hierarchy should be followed, avoiding impacts where possible, mitigating those that cannot be avoided and only considering compensation where impacts can neither be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated. The Defra 2.0 metric should be used to quantify onsite losses and potential gains which can be delivered through on and offsite habitat enhancement and creation. Biodiversity Net Gain will need to be demonstrated.

General Comments Ecological Impact Assessment is an iterative process, and survey and assessment work may need to be expanded to take account of new discoveries.

Landscape and Visual Impact

The applicant's Informal Scoping Note proposes to scope out landscape and visual impacts of the proposal. The LPA do not agree with the applicant’s submission. It is the Council's Informal Opinion that the landscape and visual impacts of the development should form part of the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment should consider the following:-

The impact of the development on landscape character having regards to The Northumberland Landscape Character Assessment Part A and Part B:-

• The county / local level landscape characterisation for the host LCA, Blyth and Wansbeck Estuaries (LCA 41a), as described within the Northumberland Landscape Character Assessment is quite generic and of limited use towards informing the scope of the LVIA. A site-specific landscape characterisation exercise should be undertaken considering historic landscape and drainage patterns and features as a means of informing site design, potential mitigation and landscape integration.

• The recommendations within Part B are more pertinent to the Proposed Development. The overarching guiding principle for the host LCA, Blyth and Wansbeck Estuaries (LCA 41a), is to Plan for active enhancement. ‘The approach in this landscape should be to plan for active enhancement.

In terms of visual impacts the Informal Scoping Note, viewpoint list and drawing PHX-LDA- ZZ-ST-SK-A-00001 Proposed Viewpoint Locations with Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Study provide viewpoint locations and also indicate which viewpoints will be represented with wirelines. The proposed viewpoints are generally acceptable. Some additional viewpoints or slight amendments are required including:-

• Cambois First School (To east near road) • Bedlington Station / West Sleekburn

Furthermore, the proposed 3km radius study area is generally considered to be acceptable and will include most potential receptors with the exception of the northern extent of Newbiggin at the Church point area.

At this stage it is anticipated that the Proposed Development will potentially result in Significant visual effects experienced by residents in Cambois, The Wilson Avenue area of East Sleekburn, Users of the England Coast Path, National Cycle Route No. 1, other local recreational routes and local road users. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate to include the visual assessment (and the landscape assessment) within the scope of the EIA.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment should also consider the night time effects of the development. The proposed development has the potential to introduce considerable light pollution. It is noted that a technical lighting assessment is proposed which is to be focused on a small study area. It would also be useful to include a night-time assessment, which could be appended to the LVIA, which includes up to 3 night-time viewpoints to aid understanding of effects on the night-time environment.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment should also consider design and mitigation having regards to:-

• design/massing surface finishes and implications on landscape and visual impact • minimising light spill / pollution and implications on landscape and visual impact • consider biodiversity implications • pedestrian / cycle linkages • sustainable drainage - sustainable drainage systems could be used to contribute to a distinctive landscape design and aid integration or reconnection to historic drainage courses (Two water courses are found within the site, Maw Burn and Cow Gut, which flow in a west to east direction across the site). • Strong green infrastructure

Impact on Residential Amenity

Noise

The applicants Informal Scoping Note sets out that the development is likely to have significant effect in terms of noise. The LPA agrees with this approach. The Council’s Public Health Protection Team advise that there are several potential noise impacts that may need to be covered in the EIA including:-

• Noise from the demolition and construction phase, in particular piling operations • Operational vehicle noise • Operational and construction transport noise

It is not currently anticipated that the operational process noise will need to be considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment although it would be subjected to a separate noise assessment for consideration during the planning phase.

It is noted that sensitive receptors have been identified and the methodology for assessment has been agreed.

Air Quality

As part of the Informal Scoping Note the applicant has submitted a proposal for an Air Quality Assessment. This is acceptable.

It is currently expected that air quality associated with transportation will need to be considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment.

The applicant has advised that an energy plant will be used on site and would fall under the medium combustion plant directive. Normally this would be sufficient to exclude the energy plant from the EIA; however, in this instance we need to consider the potential cumulative impact from the transportation sources and the energy plant operating together.

Operationally the site is expected to use chemicals to manufacture the batteries on site. Whilst these chemicals have a potential to impact on the environment, the site will be subject to regulation under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. These regulations included sector specific emission standards which the site will need to comply with. It is currently anticipated that the site will be regulated as an A2 site by Northumberland County Council. As such process emissions will all have to be below the legal standard and therefore we would not consider this to be significant and agree that process emissions can be scoped out the EIA.

Transport including Highways and Rights of Way

It is anticipated that highway matters will form part of the Environmental Impact Assessment, however at the present time insufficient information has been submitted to the LPA which would confirm this position. Consultee comments from the Council as Highway Authority are below:

The (former) Institute of Environmental Management’s Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic identifies that the effects of increase in road traffic from development cease to be negligible beyond an increase of 30% of the baseline AADT traffic flows for all traffic and for HGV movements. Without traffic or HGV flow figures for the existing network and that generated by the development we cannot screen out the need for an assessment at this stage. This does not take into account other effects that are generated as a result of changes in traffic flows, such as noise and air quality to which we cannot comment.

Traffic flows, including baseline flows and changes to traffic flows resultant from the development proposals are not included in the covering letter and therefore we cannot scope or screen out the requirement. Due to the scale of the development there remains a possibility that the AADT flows for three shifts plus office workers could trigger an impact on Brock Lane as a minimum although beyond that and on the A189 it is increasingly unlikely that it will do so. As the actual impacts in transport terms, and not EIA terms, are being assessed as part of the Transport Assessment, if the EIA is required only on Transport movement grounds, then there would be no benefit or requirement to do so. If the EIA is required for other topics, then a self-screening process using the anticipated vehicular numbers would be beneficial in respect of demonstrating the thresholds and therefore the impacts of the development.

Nevertheless and regardless of whether transport should form part of the Environmental Statement, the application will require a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Early engagement with Highways Development Management and Highways England is encouraged to agree the scope.

With regards to Public Rights of Way, Wansbeck Public Footpaths No54, 59 & No.62, marked pass through and adjacent to the proposed development site. The EIA for the development should consider what impact the proposal may have on public rights of way

9 and access by the public during the construction and operational phases of the project. Where an impact on the public right of way is identified and/or public access could be affected, the EIA should explain what mitigation measures and/or temporary closures or diversions are proposed.

Socio-economic Impacts

Given the scale of the development and new employment creation, it is anticipated that the development would have a significant effect in terms of socio-economic matters and should therefore be scoped into the ES. It is agreed that this is an acceptable approach. The report should contain a description and assessment of the likely significant effects on national, regional and local (as appropriate) receptors including potential employment and inward investment benefits.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impact can comprise the combination of effects from an individual site, the combination of effects from one or more sites in the locality and the effects over an extended period of time either from an individual site or a combination of sites in the locality. In this instance particular consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of the proposal in combination with other developments in the locality. The Cumulative Sites Discussion Note V2 submitted by the applicant is agreed.

Risks to Human Health

The applicant’s Informal Scoping Note includes this topic within the Environmental Impact Assessment however it is noted this is precautionary at this stage. Based on the information provided, the scale of development, the nature of the proposals and potential volume of chemicals on site, it is the opinion of the LPA that this topic should be included within the Environmental Impact Assessment.

The ES should include a description and assessment of the likely significant effects resulting from accidents and disasters applicable to the proposed development. The ES should make use of appropriate guidance to better understand the likelihood of an occurrence and the proposed development’s susceptibility to potential major accidents and hazards. The description and assessment should consider the vulnerability of the proposed development to a potential accident or disaster and also it’s potential to cause an accident or disaster. The assessment should specifically assess significant effects from the risks to human health, cultural heritage or the environment. Any measures that will be employed to prevent and control significant effects should be presented in the ES.

Climate Change

The EIA Regulations require, where relevant, a description of the likely significant effects from the impact of the project on climate and vulnerability of the project to climate change. The applicant’s Informal Scoping Note includes this topic within the Environmental Impact Assessment, however it is noted this is precautionary. Based on the information provided to date, the scale of development and the nature of the proposals it is the opinion of the LPA that this topic should be included within the Environmental Impact Assessment.

Effects which are unlikely to be significant

Contaminated Land and Ground Gas

The proposed development land is a brownfield site and therefore potentially impacted by historical contamination. Following consultation with the Council’s Public Health Protection Team it is not anticipated that this would be a topic for the Environmental Impact Assessment and can be considered through the planning process. Ground Investigation Reports Phase I and Phase II will be required with any planning application.

The site is partially located a High Risk Coal Mining Referral Area. The Coal Authority has confirmed that coal mining legacy issues do not need to form part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. However a Coal Mining Risk Assessment will be required with a planning application.

Hydrology and Flood risk

According to the Environment Agency flood zone maps, the site is located in Flood Zone 2. There are also two water courses within the site, Maw Burn and Cow Gut, which flow in a west to east direction across the site.

The Council as Lead Flood Authority agree that hydrology and flood risk issues will not give rise to significant effects, however a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy will be required with a planning application. Early discussions with the LLFA are encouraged regarding the scope of works and to agree discharge rates from the site.

Early discussions with the Environment Agency and Northumbrian Water are also encouraged.

Archaeology

The site is located in an Area of Archaeological Interest. The County Archaeologist having reviewed the applicants submission and taking into account previous phases of archaeological monitoring and assessment within and adjacent to the site considers the potential for significant unrecorded archaeological remains within the site to be low. The potential for the proposed development to generate significant environmental impacts in relation to archaeology is considered to be low. Archaeology is not required to form part of the Environmental Impact Assessment however an Archaeology Assessment will be required with a planning application.

Any archaeological remains within Built Heritage

The proposed development site does not contain any listed buildings. Neither is it located within or near a designated Conservation Area. However, we note that the site lies in proximity to listed buildings and consider that the development has the potential to affect their setting and significance. These are:

 Grade II listed Cambois War Memorial - due east of the proposed development site  Grade II listed Coal Staithes - due south of the proposed development site

The Council’s Building Conservation Officer accepts that the proposals are unlikely to cause significant impact directly to or on the setting of the identified listed buildings and above ground designated heritage assets.

Built Heritage is not required to form part of the Environmental Impact Assessment however a Heritage Impact Assessment (also known as a Heritage Statement) will be required with any planning application. The requirement for a Heritage Statement is born out of Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which requires an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.

Conclusion

The Local Planning Authority agrees with the applicant that the proposed development is EIA development requiring the submission of an ES in accordance with the EIA Regulations.

The views expressed by the County Council in this Scoping Opinion are informal and made in response to the informal request for a scoping opinion under Regulation 15 of the EIA Regulations.

This Opinion is provided in accordance with the 2017 EIA Regulations and has taken account of the nature and scale of the proposals.

The County Council has set out its comments, agreement and where necessary concerns to the information set out in the Scoping Report. This Scoping Opinion is informal and shall not preclude the Council from subsequently requiring the person who made the request to submit additional information in connection with an application for planning permission.

The Council reserves the right to revise its opinion in the light of new legislation or new information which comes to light during any planning application process. This Scoping Opinion does not represent the Council’s final view in relation to any future ES submitted in support of an application for planning permission.

If you have any queries about this matter, please contact Haley Marron.

Date of Informal Scoping Opinion: 13.01.2021

Signed: H Marron, BSc MTP MRTPI

Checked by: R Murfin

Appendix 4.1 Processes Note

BritishVolt Battery Manufacturing Plant Process Overview Britishvolt Battery Manufacturing Plant Overview of BritishVolt

The UK has been at the forefront of Lithium-ion technology and battery research for many years.

BritishVolt have identified the UK and specifically Blyth as the location to establish the first Lithium-ion battery manufacturing facility.

In line with the Governmental move toward electrification (2030), this proposal is aligned to support the UKs industrial strategy in generating manufacturing and job opportunities.

The facility is planned to be operational (Phase 1) by 2023 and at full capacity by 2027

A production capability of 30GWh. Equating to approximately 300,000 electric vehicle battery packs each year for the UK automotive industry Britishvolt Battery Manufacturing Plant Battery Manufacturing Process Overview

Lithium-Ion Battery manufacturing in the UK is extremely limited The Manufacture of Li batteries is dominated by China. Legislation & related HS&E standards are also limited.

The principles of manufacturing are known; it is the Electrochemistry that is the variable The chemical components used in the manufacture, differ dependent on the the energy/power requirements.

A battery Cell comprises of; Anode, Cathode, Separator & Electrolyte solution. Contained within a metallic cylinder or laminated pouch to create the ‘Cell’ Britishvolt Battery Manufacturing Plant Process Steps

There are 4 key processes to battery manufacturing: 1. Electrode Manufacturing ▪ Raw materials are combined to produce a slurry material, this is coated onto a metallic substrate producing individual Anode & Cathode electrodes ▪ The Anode & Cathode materials must be kept separate at all times to prevent contamination 2. Cell Assembly – Cylindrical, Pouch (Prismatic is a third option but not currently preferred) ▪ The Electrodes are brought together, but separated by a ‘Separator’ ▪ The electrolyte solution is injected into the cell ▪ At this point, the cell looks like a battery but is essentially electrically inert 3. Formation, Aging & Testing ▪ During the formation process, the cell receives it first electrical charge. ▪ A process of charging & discharging forms a protective layer (SEI) on the electrodes ▪ The SEI protects the active material from the electrolyte solution *SEI – Solid Electrolyte Interface 4. Module Assembly ▪ Individual cells are mechanically connected together to form the Module

* These process steps are indicative of a typical battery, chemistries and technologies Britishvolt Battery Manufacturing Plant Powder Wet Mixing Coating Drying Calendering SlittingSlitting Vacuum 1. Electrode Manufacturing Preparation Drying

1. Chemical components are brought together within a Mixing environment to form a Slurry *Segregation between the Anode & Cathode material is Critical 2. The Slurry is Coated onto the Copper (Anode) & Aluminum (Cathode) sheet 3. The Coated material passes through the Drying phase to evolve the Solvent vapour Anode = Water & Cathode = NMP The solvents are recovered for secondary use within the process 4. The Dried Coated material is re-wound and then passed through the Calendering process The Coated sheet is compressed to ≈ 100µ to electrochemically increase the energy density 5. The Slitting process slices the electrode into the precise width required for the Pouch or Cylindrical Cell 6. The smaller rolls are then Vacuum dried to removed any residual moisture

Critical elements of the process: Cathode coating, Calendering, Slitting and Vacuum drying activities are carried out in a Dry Environment (-40oC / -50oC RH) Stack, Tab Weld, Pouch Britishvolt Battery Manufacturing Plant Cut Electrodes Electrolyte Insertion and Pre-sealing Filling sealed 2. Cell Assembly - Pouch

1. The Electrodes are cut out for the respective Pouch 2. The Electrodes (Cathode & Anode) with the separator: ▪ Are stacked to form layers (Anode – Separator - Cathode - Separator – Anode.. etc) ▪ The Tabs are welding into place ▪ Inserted into the pouch ▪ Pouch is pre-sealed 3. Electrolyte solution is injected into the pouch 4. The Pouch is sealed

*All of the above carried out in a Dry Atmosphere (-40oC / -50oC RH)

Critical elements of the process: Cross contamination of the Electrode(s) to be avoided Britishvolt Battery Manufacturing Plant 2. Cell Assembly - Cylindrical Weld Notching & Insertion Electrolyte Cap Welded Clean, Label terminals Winding into Can Filling and Fitted

1. Bottom tab is welded in place 2. The electrode is cut (Notching) to size and rolled to form the ‘Jelly Roll” 3. The Jelly Roll is inserted into the Can 4. The Electrolyte Solution is injected into the can 5. The Top cap tab is welded in place 6. The Cap is fitted

*All of the above carried out in a Dry Atmosphere (-40oC / -50oC RH) 7. The exterior of the cylinder is washed with deionised water

Critical elements of the process: Cross contamination of the Electrode(s) to be avoided Electrolyte filling presents Fire Hazard Britishvolt Battery Manufacturing Plant

Degassing Pre-Charging High Testing Aging 3. Formation, Testing & Aging Formation Sealing Temperature Folding Aging Pouch only

1. Pre-charging of the cell 2. Formation – Charging and discharging of the Cells to multiple set points 3. Two different temperature aging areas. 4. *Pouch Cell Only ▪ Degassing ▪ Sealing the Pouch 5. Cell testing

Critical elements of the process Thermal events due to: Internal cell defect Britishvolt Battery Manufacturing Plant Module Cell Stacking and Welding Tabs Module Start of Line Inspection Clamping and Weld End of Line Test 4. Module Assembly Test and insertion Cells Verification

1. Formed Cells are inspected and then inserted into the customer defined Module Assembly 2. The Cells are Stacked into the Module casing and Clamped 3. The Tabs are welded and the Bus-Bar(s) fitted 4. The Module is then electrically tested

Critical elements of the process Cleanliness of the Tab contacts Welding activities to prevent misaligned welding causing Thermal event Britishvolt Battery Manufacturing Plant Summary

Key aspects of the Lithium-Ion manufacturing process

▪ Limited manufacturing of Lithium-ion batteries within the UK ▪ Specific working environments internally i.e. Dry room environment ▪ No anticipated excessive noise from the process ▪ No listed substances are planned to be discharged to sewage

▪ Environmental aspects relating to emissions to air and the control of hazardous materials will be addressed with the EHOs, HSE and other regulatory bodies within the respective applications for EPR, COMAH and Hazardous Substance Consent.

Appendix 6.1 Policies of the Wansbeck Local Plan

‘Saved’ policies of the Wansbeck Local Plan (July 2007)

1. The Wansbeck Local Plan was adopted in July 2007 and covered the time period up to 2011. Although the plan is now time expired, a number of policies have been saved and remain in force. Paragraph 213 of the NPPF states that “existing policies should not be considered out of date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of this Framework. Due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)”.

2. Part A of policy GP1 sets out that provided proposals are in accordance with other policies of the plan, development on previously developed sites and buildings within settlement limits, as defined on the Proposals Map will be permitted.

3. Policy GP4 sets out that new development should be located to reduce the need to travel and to minimise journey length. It should be accessible to all users by a choice of means of transport including buses, walking and cycling.

4. Policy GP5 in respect of landscape character sets out that development must respect the character of the District’s landscape. Proposed development will be assessed in terms of the siting, scale and design of buildings and materials, and the effect on distant views. Development which would have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of those areas which contribute most to the quality and distinctiveness of the local landscape will not be permitted. Such areas include the coast.

5. Policy GP6 seeks to protect trees, woodlands and hedgerows in the district and will encourage new planting, particularly of native species Development which would result in the loss of healthy trees which make an important contribution to the quality of the environment will not be permitted unless there are overriding social or economic benefits to the community and compensatory off-site provision of landscape infrastructure is made.

6. Policy GP10 considers sites of national importance for nature conservation and sets out that development proposals likely to affect sites designated will be subject to special scrutiny. Development which is likely to have an adverse effect will not be permitted, unless the authority is satisfied that:

a) The reasons for the development clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site including its importance in relation to the national network of sites; and

b) There are no reasonable alternatives of meeting this development need.

Where development affecting a site is permitted, the use of conditions and/ or planning agreements will be used to ensure the protection and enhancement of the site’s nature conservation interest or to provide compensatory measures for any harm.

7. Policy GP11 sets out that development likely to have an adverse effect on a site designated of local or regional importance to nature conservation will not be permitted unless the authority is satisfied that the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site including its importance in relation to the local or regional network of sites. If development is permitted which would cause damage to the nature conservation interest of a site, such damage should be kept to a minimum. Planning conditions and/ or agreements will be used to ensure compensatory measures are undertaken.

8. Policy GP13 sets out that the value to biodiversity of all sites proposed for development will be considered when planning applications are determined whether or not they are designated sites. Particular importance will be attached to the protection of priority habitats and species in Wansbeck. Where proposals affect a habitat which contributes, or could potentially contribute, to a network of natural habitats the developer will be required to protect and enhance the network.

9. Policy GP16 sets out that planning permission will not be granted for development which would have an adverse effect on the setting of a listed building. It must be acknowledged that this policy is not in accordance with the NPPF, which sets out that if ‘less than substantial harm’ is found then the balancing exercise in terms of the public benefits of proposals must be taken into account.

10. Policy GP20 sets out that development which would adversely affect a scheduled or other nationally important archaeological site, and/ or its setting, will only be permitted here:

a) There is no alternative solution; and

b) The development is in the national interest

Development which would affect other sites of archaeological significance will only be permitted if:

a) The archaeological remains would be preserved in situ as part of the proposals; or

b) The significance of the remains is outweighed by the need for and benefits of the development.

11. Policy GP21 sets out that where evidence suggests that a proposed development could disturb archaeological remains, the developers will be required, before their planning application is determined, to provide information on the character and extent of the remains and any measures they propose to mitigate the impact of development. A field evaluation will be required if judged necessary.

12. Policy GP22 sets out that developers are required to consider the risk to their development from flooding and erosion and to consider any possible effect of the development on flood risk or erosion

elsewhere. Development in areas of flood risk will not be permitted unless a flood risk assessment has been carried out and it can be demonstrated that:

a) There is no reasonable alternative development option available which would involve no risk or a lower risk of flooding; and

b) The development does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; and

c) Satisfactory protection measures can be carried out at the expense of the developer and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

13. Policy GP23 sets out that when determining planning application, the authority will consider whether a proposed development has the potential to cause pollution or nuisance. Planning permission will not be granted for development liable to cause significant harm to either:

a) Human health and safety

b) The amenity of local residents and other land users

c) The quality and enjoyment of all aspects of the environment.

14. Policy GP25 sets out that when determining planning applications, the authority will consider the levels and characteristics of any noise which may be generated as a result of permitting the development. The likely impact will be assessed in terms of the following:

a) Any disturbance to people living in the area; and

b) Any disturbance to other noise sensitive uses such as hospitals, schools, colleges, offices and community buildings and

c) Any effect on people’s enjoyment of the outdoor environment including gardens, parks, the coast and the countryside; and

d) Any disturbance to wildlife or livestock

e) Whether any potential conflict can be resolved by the use of planning conditions or obligations.

Proposals which would cause significant harm in terms of the above criteria will be refused.

15. Policy GP26 sets out that when determining planning applications for development which could be exposed to an existing or potential source of noise, the authority will consider the following:

a) The level and characteristics of the noise from existing activity; and

b) Whether the proposed use is particularly sensitive to noise

If after considering the above factors the authority concludes that the proposed development would not be compatible within the existing activity, the proposals will not be permitted.

16. Policy GP27 states that development involving the use, movement or storage of a hazardous substance will not be permitted if there is an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of its users or people occupying other land in the vicinity.

17. Policy GP28 states that development in the vicinity of an establishment where hazardous substances are known to be used, stored or transported, will not be permitted if there is an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of its users or occupiers.

18. Policy GP29 states that where there is reason to suspect that land is affected by contamination, applicants for planning permission will be required to submit a report of a desk study of previous uses of the site and their potential for contamination. Unless the study clearly demonstrates that the risk to the proposed uses from contamination is acceptable, furthermore detailed investigations will be required before the application is determined to assess the risks and identify and appraise the options for remediation. Development will only be permitted if sustainable and feasible remediation solutions are adopted to secure the removal of unacceptable risk and make the site suitable for its new use.

19. Policy GP30 sets out that all proposed development will be assessed in terms of its visual impact. Developments which in visual terms would cause significant harm to the character or quality of the surrounding environment will be refused.

20. Policy GP31 covers design and sets out that when considering any proposed development, the authority will require high standards of urban design to:

a) Promote character in townscape and landscape and establish local identity; and

b) Clearly define public and private spaces; and

c) Encourage accessibility; and

d) Make places with a clear image that is easy to understand, by providing recognisable routes, intersections and landmarks; and

e) Encourage adaptability through development that can respond to changing social, technological and economic conditions; and

f) Promote diversity and choice through a mix of compatible developments and uses that work together to create viable places that respond to local needs.

21. Policy GP32 in respect of landscaping sets out that developers are required to incorporate a high standard of landscape treatment in their developments. When submitting their planning applications, developers will be required to demonstrated that:

a) any existing landscape features of value including trees, shrubs, hedgerows and ponds, will be retained, protected and used to advantage as part of the development; and

b) new landscape features will be introduced which enhance the visual quality of the development, reduce its impact and provide habitat for the district’s wildlife; and

c) new landscape features to be introduced will be appropriate to the use and character of the development and its location; and

d) opportunities to create new public spaces and improve existing ones have been considered; and

e) arrangements will be made for the future management and maintenance of all landscaped areas, whether public or private

22. Policy GP34 sets out that developers are required to demonstrate that their developments have been designed to conserve energy and water resources. For all major developments the Council will require 10% of predicted energy requirements to be provided, on site, from renewable sources.

23. Policy GP35 sets out that development proposals will be expected to have regard to the objectives of ‘planning out crime’.

24. Policy EMP3 designates the land at Cambois (which the application site is located in) as a Zone of Economic Opportunity for development by businesses requiring large sites in non-estate locations. Proposals for development in classes B1, B2 and B8 will be permitted provided that:

a) The development cannot be accommodated in a designated general employment area elsewhere in the District; and

b) In the case of proposals for greenfield development, there are no suitable alternative previously development sites within the zone; and

c) The development will be carried out in a well-planned and co-ordinated manner; and

d) Proposals include a large amount of tree planting and other forms of landscaping.

Uses others than business, industrial and storage and distribution will only be permitted if the development has major social, economic or environmental benefits to the community and a more appropriate site cannot be found elsewhere.

Major environmental improvements will be sought throughout Cambois to enhance the environment for local residents and create new areas for recreation and wildlife as well as improving the attractiveness of the area to investors.

Reclamation and landscaping of the former Blyth Power Station and Coal Stocking Yards will be sought to remove dereliction and provide an attractive setting possible future employment development, including possible port related development.

25. Policy T6 considers the traffic implications of new development and sets out that the volume and character of traffic likely to be generated by and attracted to the proposed development will be considered. Proposals will only be permitted if:

a) The existing highway network is adequate to cope with any additional traffic resulting from the development or necessary improvement works will be carried out before the development goes ahead; and

b) The proposed arrangements for access and egress will allow the safe and efficient movement of vehicles; and

c) Internal circulation arrangements will be able to absorb vehicular traffic entering the site without queues forming on existing roads and will include measures to achieve safe traffic speeds; and

d) Adequate provision is made, in terms of safety and operating efficiency, for servicing and deliveries and for other heavy vehicles such as buses and emergency vehicles.

A transport assessment, including a travel plan and an assessment of accessibility where appropriate will be required to be submitted for proposals for development that will have significant transport implications.

26. Policy T7 sets out that developers should make appropriate provision in their developments, for the parking and motor vehicles and motorcycles. The appropriateness of this provision will depend on a number of factors including: the scale and type of development together with accessibility.

27. Policy REC1 seeks to safeguard a network of strategically important parks and open spaces as shown on the proposals map. Permission will not be granted for development on a designated site unless:

a) The predominantly open character of the area is maintained; and

b) The development is incidental and beneficial to the recreational or amenity use of the land.

28. Policy CF6 sets out that when considering all development proposals, the authority will take into account the availability of water supply, surface water drainage and sewage disposal facilities. Development will only be permitted if adequate services can be provided prior to occupation and without harm to the environment and existing uses. Sustainable drainage systems to control and manage surface water run-off should be incorporated into new development schemes. Proposals for the long-term maintenance and management of such systems should be established at the planning application stage.

Appendix 6.2 National Planning Policy Framework Policies

National Planning Policy Framework

1. The NPPF was revised and updated in February 2019. It sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. The NPPF must be taken into account in preparing the development plan and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Planning policies and decisions must also reflect relevant international obligations and statutory requirements.

2. Paragraph 7 is clear that the purpose of the planning system to is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

3. Paragraph 8 sets out that achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways. These objectives are economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 9 sets out that planning decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take local circumstances into account, to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area.

4. So that that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, paragraph 10 sets out that at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means that for decision taking as set out in paragraph 11c) approving development proposals that accord with an up to date Development Plan without delay.

5. Paragraph 38 sets out that LPAs should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. Decision makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

6. Paragraph 80 sets out that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. The approach taken should allow each area to build on its strengths, counter any weaknesses and address the challenges of the future. This is particularly important where Britain can be a global leader in driving innovation, and in areas with high levels of productivity, which should be able to capitalise on their performance and potential.

7. Paragraph 81 states that planning policies should be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan, allow for new and flexible working practices, and to enable a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances.

8. Paragraph 82 sets out that planning policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors. This includes making provision for clusters or networks of knowledge and data-driven, creative of high technology industries, and for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations.

9. Paragraph 102 sets out that transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan making and development proposals. So that:

a) The potential impacts of development on transport networks can be addressed;

b) Opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage are realised

c) Opportunities to promote walking, cycling, and public transport use are identified and pursued

d) The environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure can be identified, assessed and taken into account- including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains; and

e) Patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design of schemes and contribute to making high quality places

10. Paragraph 103 sets out that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable through limiting the need to travel and over a genuine choice of transport modes.

11. When considering development proposals paragraph 108 states that it should be ensured that

a) Appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be- or have been- taken up, given the type of development and its location.

b) Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and

c) Any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

12. Paragraph 109 is clear that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

13. Paragraph 110 sets out that applications for development should ensure that priority is given to pedestrian and cycle movements, addresses the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility, creates places that are safe, secure and attractive which minimises the scope for conflict, allows for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles and is designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles.

14. As stated in paragraph 111, all developments that generate a significant amount of movements should be required to produce a travel plan, and the application should be supported by a transport statement or transport assessment so that the likely impacts of the proposal can be assessed.

15. Paragraph 117 emphasises the importance of making the most effective use of land, and strategic policies should make as much use as possible of previously developed land.

16. Paragraph 118 is clear that substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land.

17. Paragraph 123 is clear that the creation of high-quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.

18. Paragraph 127 is clear that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:

a) Will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short-term but over the lifetime of the development;

b) Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping;

c) Are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, which not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increasing densities);

d) Establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit;

e) Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mis of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and

f) Create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and wellbeing, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

19. Paragraph 148 is clear that the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate.

20. Paragraph 155 sets out the inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk.

21. Paragraph 163 is clear that when determining planning applications, LPA’s should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

22. As set out in paragraph 165, major developments should incorporate sustainable drainage systems.

23. Paragraph 170 sets out that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. Preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should wherever possible help to improve local conditions. Remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded and derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

24. With regards to habitats and biodiversity, paragraph 175 sets out that when determining planning applications LPAs should:

a) If significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating in an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

b) Development on land within or outside a SSSI, and which is likely to have an adverse impact on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impacts on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of SSSI’s.

25. Paragraph 177 sets out that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), unless an appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site.

26. Paragraph 178 sets out that planning polices and decisions should ensure that the site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land instability and contamination. This includes risks arising from natural hazards or former activities such as mining and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation.

27. Paragraph 180 sets out that planning decisions should ensure that development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health,

living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so, they should

a) Mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse effects resulting from noise from new development- and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life;

b) Identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational value and amenity value for this reason; and

c) Limit the impact of lightly pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.

28. Paragraph 183 sets out the focus of planning policies should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes). Planning decisions should assume these regimes will operate effectively.

29. With regards to heritage assets, paragraph 189 sets out that in determining applications, LPAs should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affect, including any contribution made by its setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.

30. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, paragraph 193 places great weight on the asset’s conservation.

31. As set out in paragraph 196, where a development proposal will load to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

32. Paragraph 203 is clear that it is essential that there is a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, building, energy and goods that the country needs.

Appendix 6.3 Policies Emerging Northumberland Local Plan

Emerging Northumberland Local Plan

1. The Northumberland Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State in May 2019 and is currently undergoing examination. Initial phase 1 examination hearings took place between October 2019 and February 2020. A second phase of hearings took place in October and November 2020. The Council are currently awaiting the Inspectors preliminary conclusions on the plan and to conclude whether the plan is sound or can be made sound with modifications. Any main modifications will then be consulted on, prior to the Inspector issuing their final report.

2. At the current time and given the outstanding matters it is considered that only limited weight can be given to the policies within this plan.

3. The references to policy below are based on the Publication Draft Plan (Regulation 19) dated January 2019.

4. Once adopted, the Northumberland Local Plan will replace the ‘saved’ policies of the Wansbeck Local Plan and the previous Local Plans within the former Northumberland Districts. It will cover the period up to 2036.

5. The introductory text to this Plan emphasises the importance of the economy and jobs to the area. paragraph 3.4 sets out that that the Local Plan provides positive planning policies to enable development to take place and encourage economic vitality.

6. Policy STP2 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development as reflected in the NPPF. Proposals which accord with the policies in the Northumberland Local Plan will be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

7. Policy STP3 sets out that in applying the principle of sustainable development, proposals will be expected to provide a range of economic, social and environmental factors and adhere to the following principles where appropriate. This includes contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy across Northumberland, supporting more and better jobs.

8. Policy STP4 sets out that development proposals should mitigate climate change and contribute to meeting targets to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Development proposals should support adaptation to climate change, be resilient to climate change and not make neighbouring areas more susceptible to the negative impacts of climate change.

9. In respect of health and wellbeing. Policy STP5 sets out that development which promotes, supports and enhances the health and wellbeing of communities, residents, workers and visitors will be supported.

10. Policy STP6 sets out that development proposals, should seek to protect, improve and extend Northumberland’s green infrastructure. When determining planning applications, this includes securing net gains for biodiversity through the protection, creation and enhancement of coherent ecological networks. Integrating green infrastructure with sustainable drainage and the management of flood risk.

11. Policy ECN1 sets out that the plan will deliver economic growth, while safeguarding the environment and community well-being, so helping to deliver the objectives of the Council’s economic strategy. Development proposals will seek to deliver sufficient employment land and premises of the necessary range and quality and in the right locations to meet requirements. Facilitate the training and upskilling of the workforce.

12. Policy ECN2 covers the Blyth Estuary Strategic Employment Area and sets out that:

1. Land at Blyth Estuary is allocated as a ‘Strategic Employment Area’ within which the following sectors within the B-Class Industrial uses will be prioritised:

a) Low carbon and related environmental goods and services;

b) Offshore and sub-sea engineering;

c) Energy generation sectors with special emphasis on renewable and low carbon;

d) Development which will support and strengthen the economic role of the Port of Blyth.

2. Other sectors will also be supported within the defined area, particularly if they can demonstrate a link with or reliance on proximity to the above sectors, especially if they have significant land requirements and/ or require proximity to the port.

3. Development proposals in the above categories will be supported where there is no adverse impact upon:

a) Neighbouring sites of biodiversity importance, including the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar Site, the Northumberland Marine SPA, the Northumbria Shore SSSI, and the Blyth Estuary Local Wildlife Site, including the Mount Pleasant Peninsula; and

b) The Grade II listed Coal Staithes at the Former Blyth Power Station site.

4. Within the wider hinterland of the Blyth Estuary:

a) Favourable consideration will be given to proposals which will directly or indirectly support the growth of the Blyth Estuary Strategic Employment Area and its prioritised industrial sectors, especially on key employment sites in South East Northumberland;

b) Necessary infrastructure improvements will be sought that allow the smooth flow of goods to and from the Port of Blyth and wider Blyth Estuary Area.

13. Policy QOP1 sets out the design principles and states that proposals will be supported, when they meet a number of criteria. This includes:

• Making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness and contributes to a positive relationship between built and natural features, including landform and topography

• Creates or contributes to a strong sense of place and integrates the built form of the development with the site overall, and the wider local area;

• Incorporates high quality aesthetics, materials and detailing;

• Respects and enhances the natural and built environment, including heritage, environmental and ecological assets, and any significant views or landscape setting;

• Ensures that buildings and spaces are functional and adaptable for future uses;

• Facilitates an inclusive, comfortable, user-friendly and legible environment;

• Supports health and wellbeing and enhances quality of life;

• Supports positive social interaction and a safe and secure environment, including measures where relevant to reduce the risk of crime and the fear of crime;

• Protects general amenity;

• Incorporates, where possible, green infrastructure and opportunities to support wildlife, and contributes to net environmental gains, including for biodiversity;

• Makes provision for efficient use of resources;

• Responds to the climatic conditions of the location and avoids creation of adverse local climatic conditions;

• Mitigates climate change, and is adaptable to a changing climate; and

• Ensures the longevity of the buildings and spaces, and secures the social, economic and environmental benefits over the lifetime of the development.

14. Policy QOP2 sets out that development will be required to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users of the development and preserve the amenity of those living in, working in or visiting the local area.

15. Policy QOP3 sets out a number of principles in relation to the public realm.

16. Policy QOP4 sets out that where relevant, new development will be expected to incorporate well- designed landscaping and respond accordingly to any existing landscape features. This policy then sets out a number of criteria.

17. Policy QOP5 states that in order to minimise resource use, mitigate climate change and ensure development proposals are adaptable to a changing climate, they should seek to incorporate passive design measures which respond to existing and anticipated climatic conditions and improve the efficiency of heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting. Incorporate measures to reduce waste generated during construction including the recovery of materials on site and ensuring there is appropriate provision for recyclable and non-recyclable waste.

18. Policy TRA1 seeks to promote sustainable connections. This includes creating development which reduces the need to travel by car and promotes sustainable transport choices. This includes the delivery of cycle parking and supporting infrastructure. Requires development to be designed to enable charging of plug-in and ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations. Developments which generate a significant number of traffic movements will be required to be supported by Transport Assessments and Travel Plans.

19. Policy TRA2 looks at the effects of development on the transport network.

20. Policy TRA4 sets out that appropriate parking should be provided within developments in accordance with the parking standards.

21. Policy ENV1 looks at the approaches to assessing the impact of the development on the natural, historic and built environment. This seeks to ensure that Northumberland’s distinctiveness will be conserved, protected and enhanced. Greatest weight will be given to international and national designations.

22. In respect of biodiversity and geodiversity, policy ENV2 seeks to minimise impacts by avoiding significant harm through location and/ or design. Securing net biodiversity gains and/or wider ecological enhancements through new development. The Council expects the ecosystem approach to be applied in development through:

a) The conservation, restoration, enhancement, creation and/or (where appropriate) the recreation of priority habitats and the habitats of priority species;

b) The protection and enhancement of all ecological networks and links to promote migration, dispersal and genetic exchange, including the South East Northumberland Wildlife Network, as shown on the Policies Map, including its linkages with Newcastle and North Tyneside;

c) Measures that will buffer or extend existing sites of ecological value, support the development of the Border Uplands Nature Improvement Area and Northumberland Coalfield Nature Improvement Area or contribute to national or local biodiversity objectives;

d) Minimising any adverse effects on habitats and species caused by the wider impacts of development and its associated activities including:

i. Disturbance; or

ii. The inadvertent introduction of non-native species: or

iii. Reductions in water quality; or

iv. Other forms of pollution that would adversely affect wildlife;

The above to be achieved through precautionary measures including appropriate buffer zones and developer contributions to the Coastal Mitigation Service within zones shown on the Policies Map;

e) Maximising opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around development through additional built-in or planted features; and

f) Securing the continued management of those ecological features created, restored or enhanced as a result of development.

23. Policy ENV3 sets out that the contribution of the landscape to Northumberland’s environment, economy and communities will be recognised in assessing development proposals. Proposals affecting the character of the landscape will be expected to conserve and enhance important elements of that character. In assessing proposals in relation to landscape character, the guiding principles of the Northumberland Landscape Character Assessment will be applied.

24. Policy EN7 sets out that in respect of the historic environment and heritage assets, development proposals will be assessed and decisions made that ensure the conservation and enhancement of the significance, quality and integrity of Northumberland’s Heritage Assets and their settings.

25. Policy WAT3 sets out that in assessing development proposals the potential for both on and off- site flood risk from all potential sources will be measured. Development proposals will be required to demonstrate that development will be safe over its lifetime, taking account of climate change, will not increase flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reduce flood risk overall. Ensuring that built development proposals, including new roads, separate, minimise and control surface water runoff, with Sustainable Drainage Systems being the preferred approach. On previously developed sites, the peak surface water run off rate from the development should be as close as reasonably practicable to the greenfield run-off rate.

26. Policy WAT4 sets out that Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be incorporated into developments whenever necessary.

27. Policy POL1 sets out the development proposals will be supported where it can be demonstrated that unacceptable risks from land instability and contamination will be prevented by ensuring the development is appropriately located and that measures can be taken to effectively mitigate the impacts. Support will be given to proposals that allow for the beneficial remediation of contamination or unstable land.

28. Policy POL2 sets out that in respect of pollution and air, soil and water quality development will be required to:

• Maintain soil quality standards and protect the quality of any displaced soil through sustainable use by following the must up to date guidance from the government.

• Improve water quality standards in line with the requirements of policy WAT1.

• Maintain air quality standards and support improvements in any identified Air Quality Management Areas consistent with any local air quality action plans.

• Advice on the storage and handling of hazardous substances will be taken from the Health and Safety Executive.

Development proposals in locations where they would cause, or be put at unacceptable risk of harm from, or be adversely affected by pollution by virtue of the emissions of fumes, particles, effluent, radiation, smell, heat, light, noise or noxious substances will not be supported.

29. Policy MIN4 identifies mineral safeguarding areas. This sets out that applications for non-mineral related development in a Mineral Safeguarding Area are required to include an assessment of the effect of the proposed development on the mineral resource beneath of adjacent to the site of the development.

30. Policy INF1 sets out the to ensure that development is acceptable in planning terms, and unacceptable impacts are properly mitigated, proposals must demonstrate that there is sufficient appropriate physical, community, social and green infrastructure capacity, both on and off-site, to support the needs arising from the development. Where infrastructure necessary to serve new development is not available, or where existing infrastructure requires improvement due to capacity or other constraints associated with the impact of that development, planning permission will only be granted where suitable enforceable measures are put in place to secure the provision and maintenance of that new or improved infrastructure in a timely manner and prior to it first being needed to serve the development.

31. Policy INF5 sets out that development proposals that would result in the loss of land or buildings used for recreational use or the loss of Protected Open Space will not be supported.

32. Policy INF6 sets out that where it is not possible to address any unacceptable impacts of development through the use of planning conditions, planning obligations will be secured to ensure that otherwise unacceptable development can be made acceptable.

Appendix 7.1 Ecological Appraisal

COLOGY PPENDIX E A 7.1 F ORMER COAL STOCKING YARDS, CAMBOIS

FEBRUARY 2021

1 © E3 Ecology Ltd

CLIENT Britishvolt PROJECT NAME Project Phoenix, Cambois PROJECT NUMBER 6458

LEAD AUTHOR Dr Tony Martin POSITION Director CONTACT DETAILS [email protected]

REPORT VERSION STATUS DATE AUTHOR PROOF READ APPROVED R01 Draft Feb 2021 ADM MEM R02 Final 25.02.21 ADM JH R03 Final 26.02.21 ADM

This report has been prepared by E3 Ecology Limited and contains opinions and information produced with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client. Any recommendation, opinion or finding stated in this report is based on circumstances and facts as they existed at the time that E3 Ecology Limited performed the work and no explicit warranty is made in relation to the content of this report and E3 Ecology assumes no liability for any loss resulting from errors, omissions or misrepresentation made by others.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed by E3 Ecology Limited or the commissioning party, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by E3 Ecology Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided.

Nothing in this report constitutes legal opinion. If legal opinion is required the advice of a qualified legal professional should be secured.

The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by E3 Ecology save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned to us by another. It may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report.

Copyright to all written or recorded work howsoever held on whatever medium is vested in E3 Ecology Ltd. On settlement of all agreed fees, written work produced specifically for the named clients is thereafter regarded as joint copyright between the named client and E3 Ecology Ltd. No attempts should be made to reproduce any element of this report for commercial or other purposes, without explicit prior written permission from E3 Ecology Ltd.

2 © E3 Ecology Ltd

CONTENTS A. SUMMARY ...... 6 B. INTRODUCTION ...... 10 C. PLANNING POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ...... 12 C.1 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY ...... 12 C.2 PROTECTED SPECIES LEGISLATION ...... 14 C.3 INVASIVE SPECIES LEGISLATION ...... 15 C.4 PROTECTED SITE LEGISLATION ...... 16 C.5 PRIORITY SPECIES ...... 16 D. METHODOLOGY ...... 16 D.1 SCOPE OF STUDY ...... 16 D.2 DESK STUDY ...... 18 D.3 PRELIMINARY FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 19 D.3.1 PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY ...... 19 D.3.2 PRELIMINARY PROTECTED AND PRIORITY SPECIES APPRAISAL ...... 20 D.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS HABITAT MAPPING SURVEYS ...... 21 D.4 SPECIALIST SURVEYS ...... 21 D.4.1 BOTANICAL SURVEY ...... 21 D.4.2 BADGER AND OTTER SURVEY ...... 22 D.4.3 GREAT CRESTED NEWT SURVEY ...... 23 D.4.4 BAT SURVEY...... 26 D.4.5 INVERTEBRATES ...... 29 D.4.6 SURVEY CONSTRAINTS ...... 30 D.5 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 32 E. RESULTS ...... 34

E.1.1 EXISTING DATA ...... 34 E.1.2 MULTI AGENCY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR THE COUNTRYSIDE WEBSITEERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED...... 34 E.1.3 LOCAL RECORDS CENTRE ...... 36 E.1.4 OTHER LOCAL STUDIES ...... 43 E.2 FIELD SURVEY ...... 50 E.2.1 HABITATS ...... 50 E.2.2 TARGET NOTES ...... 66 E.2.3 INVASIVE SPECIES ...... 71 E.2.4 BOTANICAL SURVEY ...... 74 E.2.5 OTTER AND BADGER ...... 85 E.2.6 GREAT CRESTED NEWTS ...... 92 E.2.7 BATS ...... 97 E.2.8 INVERTEBRATES ...... 106 F. CONCLUSIONS ...... 119 F.1 OVERALL BOTANICAL DIVERSITY ...... 119 F.2 OTTER AND BADGER ...... 120 F.3 GREAT CRESTED NEWTS ...... 121 F.4 BATS ...... 121 F.5 INVERTEBRATES ...... 121 APPENDIX 1. STATUTORILY DESIGNATED SITES ...... 122 APPENDIX 2. UK BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN CRITERIA FOR OPEN MOSAIC HABITATS (BIODIVERSITY REPORTING AND INFORMATION GROUP, 2010) AND LUSH 2013 HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM ...... 124

3 © E3 Ecology Ltd

TABLES TABLE 1: NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: CONSERVING AND ENHANCING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 12 TABLE 2: SUMMARISED SPECIES LEGISLATION ...... 14 TABLE 3: SUMMARISED INVASIVE SPECIES LEGISLATION ...... 15 TABLE 4: BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN ...... 16 TABLE 5: GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL SUITABILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITES FOR BATS, BASED ON PRESENCE OF ROOSTING HABITAT FEATURES (TREES)...... 20 TABLE 6 HSI AND EDNA SURVEY TIMING AND WEATHER CONDITIONS ...... 26 TABLE 7 GUIDELINES ON THE NUMBER OF BAT ACTIVITY SURVEYS RECOMMENDED TO ACHIEVE A REASONABLE SURVEY EFFORT TO HABITAT SUITABILITY...... 27 TABLE 8SURVEY DATES AND TIMES ...... 27 TABLE 9TRANSECT SURVEY WEATHER CONDITIONS ...... 28 TABLE 10 BAT SURVEYORS: TRANSECT SURVEY ...... 28 TABLE 11REMOTE MONITORING SURVEY DATES AND SUMMARY WEATHER CONDITIONS ...... 28 TABLE 12: SURVEY DATES AND TIMES ...... 30 TABLE 13: SURVEY WEATHER CONDITIONS ...... 30 TABLE 14: SURVEYORS: ...... 30 TABLE 15: ECOLOGICAL RECEPTOR VALUATION ...... 32 TABLE 16: DESIGNATED SITES ...... 34 TABLE 17 LOCAL WILDLIFE SITES ...... 37 TABLE 18 RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SELECTED LEGALLY PROTECTED SPECIES WITHIN THE SITE ...... 40 TABLE 19 OTHER LOCAL STUDIES ...... 43 TABLE 20 PRIORITY SPECIES GROUPS POTENTIALLY PRESENT WITHIN THE ZOI OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 49 TABLE 21: SCHEDULE OF HABITATS PRESENT ON SITE ...... 52 TABLE 22 DEFRA BIODIVERSITY METRIC HEDGEROW AND LINES OF TREES CONDITION ASSESSMENT ...... 65 TABLE 23 TARGET NOTES...... 67 TABLE 24 INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN THE SITE ...... 71 TABLE 25 VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST ...... 75 TABLE 26 RELATIVE PLANT ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES ...... 77 TABLE 27: AXIOPHYTES SPECIES RECORDED IN THE SITE ...... 80 TABLE 28 ERIC NE BAT RECORDS WITHIN SITE AND 2KM SEARCH DISTANCE (SUPPLIED 6 NOV 2020) ...... 98 TABLE 29 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL SUITABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT SITES FOR BATS BASED ON THE PRESENCE OF HABITAT FEATURES WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE ...... 99 TABLE 30 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL SUITABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT SITES FOR BATS BASED ON THE PRESENCE OF POTENTIAL ROOST FEATURES ...... 100 TABLE 31RATES OF BAT ACTIVITY PER SPECIES RECORDED DURING BAT TRANSECT SURVEY 22/06/20 ...... 101 TABLE 32 RATES OF BAT ACTIVITY PER SPECIES RECORDED DURING BAT TRANSECT SURVEY 08/09/20 ...... 102 TABLE 33 NUMBER OF BAT PASSES PER SPECIES FOR THE 30/06/20 – 09/07/20 REMOTE MONITORING SURVEY PERIOD.. 103 TABLE 34 NUMBER OF BAT PASSES PER SPECIES FOR THE 14/09/20 – 24/09/20 REMOTE MONITORING SURVEY PERIOD.. 104 TABLE 35 ERIC INVERTEBRATE RECORDS FOR 1KM SEARCH AREA JAN 2020 ...... 108 TABLE 36 INVERTEBRATE SPECIES RECORDED DURING TRANSECT SURVEY 31-07-20 ...... 109 TABLE 37INVERTEBRATE SPECIES RECORDED DURING QUADRAT SURVEY 31-07-20 ...... 110 TABLE 38 TERRESTRIAL SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS 31-07-20 ...... 111 TABLE 39 LIST OF MOTH SPECIES RECORDED 09-07-2020 ...... 115 TABLE 40 CONSERVATION LISTINGS FOR GRAYLING BUTTERFLY IN ENGLAND ...... 116 TABLE 41 HABITATS WITHIN THE SITE WITH A HIGH PROPORTION OF AXIOPHYTE SPECIES RECORDED ...... 119 TABLE 42: BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN ...... 123

FIGURES FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION ...... 10 FIGURE 2:: PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT ...... 11 FIGURE 3: SITE EXTENT...... 17 FIGURE 4PONDS INCLUDED IN GCN RISK ASSESSMENT AND/OR EDNA SURVEYS WITHIN THE SITE AND 500M BUFFER ZONE AND KEY BARRIERS TO GCN MOVEMENT ...... 24 FIGURE 5 SITE 1 AND SITE 2 AREAS ...... 31 FIGURE 6: PROTECTED SITES WITHIN 2KM OF THE SITE ...... 37 FIGURE 7 LOCATION OF UK PRIORITY HABITATS MAPPED ON UK GOVERNMENT MAGIC MAPPING ...... 39 FIGURE 8: HABITAT MAP ...... 51 FIGURE 9 TARGET NOTE LOCATIONS ...... 67 FIGURE 10 INVASIVE SPECIES MAP ...... 73 FIGURE 11 OTTER AND BADGER TRANSECT ROUTES ...... 85 FIGURE 12BAT TRANSECT ROUTES AND REMOTE MONITORING EQUIPMENT POSITION: SURVEY 1 ...... 97

4 © E3 Ecology Ltd

FIGURE 13 SURVEY 2 BAT TRANSECT ROUTES AND REMOTE MONITORING EQUIPMENT POSITION: SURVEY 2 ...... 97 FIGURE 14 PLAN OF BAT TRANSECT SURVEY RESULTS 22/06/2020 ...... 101 FIGURE 15: PLAN OF BAT TRANSECT SURVEY 2 RESULTS 08/09/2020 ...... 102 FIGURE 16: PIE CHART SHOWING BAT REGISTRATIONS BY SPECIES 30/06/2020 – 09/07/20 FOR THE REMOTE MONITORING SURVEY ...... 104 FIGURE 17: PIE CHART SHOWING BAT REGISTRATIONS BY SPECIES 14/09/2020 – 24/09/20 FOR THE REMOTE MONITORING SURVEY ...... 104 FIGURE 18TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATE TRANSECT ROUTE AND QUADRAT SAMPLING LOCATION 31-07-20 ...... 106 FIGURE 19EXTRACT FROM NBN ATLAS FOR HIPPARCHIA SEMELE ...... 117

5 © E3 Ecology Ltd

A. SUMMARY E3 Ecology Ltd was commissioned by Britishvolt to undertake an ecological assessment of land at the former coal stocking yards, Cambois, to accompany a planning application. It is proposed to construct a battery gigaplant on the site.

This report presents results of fieldwork largely undertaken by Penn Associates Ecology Ltd (PAEL) between July 2019 and November 2020, and work undertaken by E3 Ecology after November 2020. Further fieldwork is planned to take place between February and June 2021. Surveys were undertaken during the Covid 19 pandemic which prevented spring 2020 work and delayed some elements of the study.

To address potential gaps in the survey work to date a review has also been undertaken of ecological surveys carried out in the wider local area. As this area is a focus for regeneration, and includes sites of international conservation value for birds, it has been very well studied over the last 10 years.

During the spring of 2021 additional surveys for bats, breeding birds, butterflies and to confirm the anticipated absence of common lizard from the development area will be undertaken. Given the depth of historical surveys undertaken at the site and a precautionary approach to assessment, the additional surveys are not anticipated to result in any significant changes in assessment of conservation value of the habitats and species present on site.

The site, also known as the Northumberland Energy Park 3 (NEP3), is an area (c.92ha) of brownfield land previously used as a coal stocking yard for the Blyth Power Station. The site is located in Cambois, north of the Blyth Estuary, Northumberland close to the North Sea coastline. The approximate central Ordnance Survey grid reference of the site is NZ298840. Use of the site as a coal stocking yard is understood to have ceased in the late 1990’s and the site is currently vacant.

Consultation with the Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website and the Environmental Records Information Centre for the North East (ERIC NE) identified that a Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site lies within 10km of the site: the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar (780m south-east). The site is designated for its breeding Arctic tern (2.92% of UK breeding population) and little tern (1.7% of UK breeding population) and its non-breeding turnstone (2.1% of Western Palearctic non-breeding population) and purple sandpiper (1.5% of non-breeding Eastern Atlantic population).

In addition, the Northumberland Marine SPA lies approximately 160m south-east of the site at its closest point and extends into the tidal areas of the adjacent estuaries. It supports 214,559 seabirds including Sandwich tern (4,324 individuals; 19.66% of GB population), common tern (2,572 individuals; 12.86% of GB population), Arctic tern (9,564 individuals; 9.02% of GB population), roseate tern (160 individuals; 93.02% of GB population), little tern (90 individuals; 2.37% of GB population), puffin (108,484 individuals; 1.05% of biogeographic population) and guillemot (65,751 individuals; 1.72% of biogeographic population). The coastal waters of the SPA are used by seabirds for foraging and maintenance functions.

If there are potential effects from the development on the SPAs, then a Habitat Regulations Assessment will be required.

A single Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designated for ornithology lies within 5km of the site. The Northumberland Shore SSSI (260m east at the closest point) supports internationally important numbers of turnstone and purple sandpiper, nationally important numbers of wintering sanderling, ringed plover, golden plover and redshank and a diverse range of other secondary species including wintering curlew, oystercatcher, dunlin, knot, bar-tailed 6 © E3 Ecology Ltd

godwit, lapwing, Arctic tern, little tern, both breeding, and eider through the year. The North Sea is also designated as a Marine Conservation Zone adjacent to the site, this zone does not extend into the adjacent estuaries. Inland SSSI’s comprise Willow Burn Pasture and Hawthorn Cottage Pasture. The site lies within a SSSI impact risk zone for this type of development.

ERIC identified two Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within 1km of the site – the Blyth Estuary LWS which is located c.300m south along with Castle Island and Wansbeck Estuary Local Wildlife Site and Local Nature Reserve to the north. These sites are associated with estuarine habitats and species including migratory and wintering birds, fish, harbour seal and otter.

The Magic website maps the majority of the site as Priority habitat: open mosaic habitat (draft status) with an area of Priority Habitat: Deciduous woodland (England) in the south western corner of the site. The eastern side of the PFA mounds lie within network enhancement zone 2.

The proposed site is an area of brownfield land, previously used as a coal stocking yard with rail sidings, settlement ponds and PFA mounds. The northern area primarily comprises bare ground, with open mosaic habitats, areas of neutral grassland with scattered scrub, and small areas of standing water. To the east are PFA mounds with coarse grassland and scrub/tree planting. To the south west is deciduous plantation woodland.

In the area immediately around the site, the main features of ecological interest are the Wansbeck Estuary to the north, the Blyth Estuary to the south and the Cambois coastline to the east, but there is also a varied mixture of other habitats and land uses close to the site including industry, brownfield land and plantation woodland belts.

A botanical survey was carried out in July 2020 with 154 vascular plant species recorded which is assessed as a relatively high number for a site of this size in south-east Northumberland. 91% of the species found were native species or archeophytes1. No species of national conservation importance were found, but 40 species (26% of the total) were of at least some recognised conservation interest. 37 of these species grow mainly in habitats of some nature conservation importance within Northumberland. One England Red List species was found, common cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium, which is listed as vulnerable (VU). Five of the other species found were listed as Near Threatened (NT) in Stroh et al. (2014): common eyebright Euphrasia nemorosa, wild strawberry Fragaria vesca, marsh cudweed Filago germanica, marsh ragwort Jacobaea aquatica and marsh arrowgrass Triglochin palustris. Five species listed in Stroh et al. (2014) were found in the areas of inundation vegetation. One species, sea beet Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima, is on the VC67 Rare Plant register, and was recorded in an area of inundation vegetation.

The most valuable individual habitat for plants on the site was the extensive areas of ephemeral/short perennial vegetation considered to be of county conservation value, though degraded by the presence of invasive species. The areas of inundation vegetation were the second most valuable habitat as they supported several species that have declined from wetland habitats elsewhere within lowland England. The woodland and scrub areas were relatively uninteresting in terms of vascular plant species composition. Although the sparsely- vegetated bare ground areas supported species of note that complemented the other habitats, there were relatively large areas of this habitat on the site and a relatively high proportion of these areas were mainly unvegetated. However, it is the mixture of different habitats on the site

1 An archeophyte is a plant species which is non-native to a geographical region, but which was an introduced species in ‘ancient’ times, rather than being a modern introduction. 7 © E3 Ecology Ltd

that was assessed as being important for the overall botanical diversity on the site rather than any one of the individual habitats.

Non-native and potentially invasive plant species were recorded within the survey area of which three (Cotoneaster, Rosa rugosa and New Zealand pigmyweed) are listed on schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (‘as amended) (the Act) and as such, are subject to legal controls relating to their release into the wild under Section 14 of the Act. Without adequate controls, development and/or management of the site could result in actions which could lead to in the release of schedule 9 plants into the wild and therefore ongoing consideration to their presence will be required through any development and land management undertaken of the site. Sea buckthorn established and spreading vigorously from planting and the garden escape Alchemilla mollis are also becoming dominant in places whilst Buddleja is also present.

Otter are known to be present in the local area, particularly using the two nearby rivers and their estuaries, and a possible spraint was recorded on a ditch adjacent to the PFA mounds. They are likely to move through the area at times but habitats are generally poor for the species. eDNA survey of all the ponds in 2020 indicates that great crested newts are likely to be absent, and previous recent surveys of the site support that conclusion. There is a GCN record from the pool on the Maw Burn, which is to be retained, from 2006. Frog, toad and smooth newt have been recorded in surveys from the site.

Transect and remote monitoring surveys of part of the site in summer and autumn 2020 recorded low levels of common pipistrelle activity, and occasional passes of soprano pipistrelle and Myotis species. Other work in the wider local area has reported similar results with additional records of noctule. There are no structures suitable for roosting bats on the site, and trees are predominantly early mature and largely lack potential roost features. The development area is considered to be of local value for bats.

Bird data is reported in detail in the ornithological report, but for completeness, the single breeding bird survey in 2020 recorded breeding ringed plover, little ringed plover and willow tit, indicating that the site supports birds of county and regional nature conservation value.

Non-breeding bird surveys recorded a total of 72 species using the site. At times over the winter the wetlands in the south east corner of the site was used as a high tide roost by over 1% of the SSSI population of redshank, ringed plover and curlew (secondary species). The ringed plover record was considered most likely to be an early returning breeding bird rather than a wintering bird. Willow tit and barn owl were recorded and are species of county importance. Golden plover use the site infrequently and generally in small numbers. In addition the site is well used by ringed plover during the migratory period.

A total of 483 flight lines of 36 species were recorded during vantage point surveys in the site and 500m buffer. VP surveys recorded osprey flying over the site, which is a species of regional value. VP surveys also recorded greenshank, short-eared owl and barn owl, which are species of county value. A single qualifying species (primary species) in the Northumberland Marine SPA, common tern, was recorded flying over the site. Ringed plover, golden plover and redshank were recorded flying over the site during VP surveys, which are present in nationally important numbers in the Northumberland Shore SSSI (primary species).

Badger are considered most likely to be absent from the site with no field signs recorded. Fox and roe deer breed on site and were often seen.

No reptiles were recorded on the site, but there are consultation records of common lizard from the local area, including the adjacent disused railway line and sand dunes nearby.

8 © E3 Ecology Ltd

The site supports grayling butterfly and is considered to be part of a wider network of habitats of regional value for the species. There are local records for wall butterfly and dingy skipper have been recorded south of the River Blyth. Open mosaic habitats are of high value for invertebrates and areas of the site are very forb rich with potential to support a good range of pollinator species. 26 species of moth were recorded.

Toad, smooth newt and frog have been recorded on site and habitats are suitable for hedgehog and brown hare, though none have been recorded.

9 © E3 Ecology Ltd

B. INTRODUCTION E3 Ecology Ltd was commissioned by Britishvolt to undertake an ecological assessment of land at the former coal stocking yards, Cambois, to accompany a planning application.

This report presents results of fieldwork largely undertaken by Penn Associates between spring and autumn 2020 and summarises data from previous survey work undertaken at and around the development site. Further fieldwork is planned to take place between February and June 2021 with additional surveys for bats, breeding birds, butterflies, and to confirm the anticipated absence of common lizard from the development area will be undertaken.

The purpose of this report is:  To identify key ecological constraints to the proposed development  To inform master-planning to allow significant ecological effects to be avoided or minimised wherever possible  To allow likely mitigation or compensation measures to be developed

The site is located at grid reference NZ 298 841 and is illustrated below in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION (Reproduced under licence from Google Earth Pro.)

It is proposed to construct a battery gigaplant, and an indicative plan is illustrated below. Most of the northern area of the site is to be developed. The PFA mounds to the east and the woodland belts to the south west are largely retained. The south eastern wetlands are to be retained and invasive shrub species removed. The southern area of brownfield land will be restored, invasive species removed, and stoned up ready for future development.

10 © E3 Ecology Ltd

FIGURE 2:: PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT (Provided by LDA)

11 © E3 Ecology Ltd

C. PLANNING POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

C.1 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY The table below details the key paragraphs from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)2 relating to the natural environment:

TABLE 1: NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: CONSERVING AND ENHANCING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Statement Paragraph Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; 170 d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate. Plans should: distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites; allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework3; take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of 171 habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries. Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads4. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development5 other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the 172 public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated. Within areas defined as Heritage Coast (and that do not already fall within one of the designated areas mentioned in paragraph 172), planning policies and decisions should be consistent with the 173 special character of the area and the importance of its conservation. Major development within a Heritage Coast is unlikely to be appropriate, unless it is compatible with its special character. To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: 174

2 National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Department for Communities and Local Government, 3 Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality. 4 English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 provides further guidance and information about their statutory purposes, management and other matters. 5 For the purposes of paragraphs 172 and 173, whether a proposal is ‘major development’ is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined. 12 © E3 Ecology Ltd

TABLE 1: NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: CONSERVING AND ENHANCING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Statement Paragraph a) Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity6; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation7; and

b) promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:

a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely 175 impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons8 and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity. The following should be given the same protection as habitats sites: a) potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation; b) listed or proposed Ramsar sites9; and 176 c) sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on habitats sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site (either alone or in combination with other 177 plans or projects), unless an appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site.

Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, places a duty on all public authorities in England and Wales to have regard, in the exercise of their functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.

Planning Practice Guidance10 states:  Planning authorities need to consider the potential impacts of development on protected and priority species, and the scope to avoid or mitigate any impacts when considering site allocations or planning applications. (para. 016)

6 Circular 06/2005 provides further guidance in respect of statutory obligations for biodiversity and geological conservation and their impact within the planning system. 7 Where areas that are part of the Nature Recovery Network are identified in plans, it may be appropriate to specify the types of development that may be suitable within them. 8 For example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat. 9 Potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation and proposed Ramsar sites are sites on which Government has initiated public consultation on the scientific case for designation as a Special Protection Area, candidate Special Area of Conservation or Ramsar site. 10 Planning Practice Guidance: Natural Environment (www.planningguidance.communities.gov) Updated July 2019 13 © E3 Ecology Ltd

 Information on biodiversity and geodiversity impacts and opportunities needs to inform all stages of development (including site selection and design, pre-application consultation and the application itself). An ecological survey will be necessary in advance of a planning application if the type and location of development could have a significant impact on biodiversity and existing information is lacking or inadequate. (para. 018)  Even where an Environmental Impact Assessment is not needed, it might still be appropriate to undertake an ecological survey, for example, where protected species may be present or where biodiverse habitats may be lost. (para. 018)  As with other supporting information, local planning authorities should require ecological surveys only where clearly justified. Assessments should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposed and the likely impact on biodiversity. (para. 018)  The National Planning Policy Framework encourages net gains for biodiversity to be sought through planning policies and decisions. Biodiversity net gain delivers measurable improvements for biodiversity by creating or enhancing habitats in association with development. Biodiversity net gain can be achieved on-site, off-site or through a combination of on-site and off-site measures. (para. 022)

C.2 PROTECTED SPECIES LEGISLATION The table below details the relevant legislation for those protected species that may be present on this site.

TABLE 2: SUMMARISED SPECIES LEGISLATION Species Relevant Legislation Level of Protection  Protection under the Wildlife and The WCA (1981) and The Conservation of Habitats Countryside Act (WCA) (1981) and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended)make it (Listed on Schedule 5) - as amended an offence to:  Classified as protected species under Bats  Intentionally kill, injure, or take any species of The Conservation of Habitats and (All species) bat Species Regulations 2017 (as  Intentionally or recklessly disturb bats amended)  Intentionally or recklessly damage destroy or  Bats are also protected by the Wild obstruct access to bat roosts Mammals (Protection) Act 1996  Protection under the Wildlife and The WCA (1981) and The Conservation of Habitats Countryside Act (WCA) (1981) and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended)make it (Listed on Schedule 5) - as amended an offence to:  Classified as protected species under  intentionally kill, injure, or take otters Otter The Conservation of Habitats and  intentionally or recklessly disturb otters Species Regulations 2017 (as  intentionally or recklessly amage destroy or amended) obstruct access to otter holts or any place used  Otters are also protected by the Wild by the animal for shelter or protection Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 The WCA (1981) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended)make it  Protection under the Wildlife and an offence to: Countryside Act (WCA) (1981)  intentionally kill, injure, or take great crested Great (Listed on Schedule 5) - as amended newts Crested  Classified as protected species under  intentionally or recklessly disturb great crested Newt The Conservation of Habitats and newts Species Regulations 2017 (as  intentionally or recklessly damage destroy or amended) obstruct access to any place used by the animal for shelter or protection The WCA (1981) makes it an offence to:  Full protection under the Wildlife and Red  intentionally kill, injure, or take red squirrels Countryside Act (WCA) (1981) Squirrel  intentionally or recklessly damage destroy or (Listed on Schedule 5) - as amended obstruct access to any place used by the animal

14 © E3 Ecology Ltd

TABLE 2: SUMMARISED SPECIES LEGISLATION Species Relevant Legislation Level of Protection  Red squirrels are also protected by for shelter or protection or disturb red squirrels the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act whilst they are using such a place. 1996 The WCA (1981) makes it an offence to (with exceptions for certain species):  Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird  Intentionally take, damage or destroy nests in  Protection under the Wildlife and use or being built (including ground nesting Countryside Act (1981) as amended Birds birds) with the exception of some species  Intentionally take, damage or destroy eggs listed in Schedule 2 of the Act  Species listed on Schedule 1 of the WCA or their dependant young are afforded additional protection from disturbance whilst they are at their nests The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly:  Damage a badger sett or any part of it  Protection of Badgers Act 1992  Destroy a badger sett Badger  Badgers are also protected by the  Obstruct access to, or any entrance of a badger Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 sett  Disturb a badger whilst it is occupying a badger sett The WCA (1981) makes it an offence to:  Full protection under the Wildlife and  intentionally kill, injure, or take water voles Countryside Act (WCA) (1981)  intentionally or recklessly damage destroy or Water Vole (Listed on Schedule 5) - as amended obstruct access to any place used by the animal  Water voles are also protected by the for shelter or protection or disturb water voles Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 whilst they are using such a place Common reptiles (Slow- The WCA (1981) makes it an offence to: worm,  intentionally kill or injure these animals  Partially protected by the Wildlife and Adder,  sell, offer for sale, advertise for sale, possess or Countryside Act Grass transport for the purposes of selling any live or Snake, dead animals or part of these animals Common Lizard)

Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act) the offence in section 9(4) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 of damaging a place of shelter or disturbing those species given full protection under the act is extended to cover reckless damage or disturbance.

C.3 INVASIVE SPECIES LEGISLATION The table below details the legislation in relation to invasive species and lists those invasive species most likely to be found in this region.

TABLE 3: SUMMARISED INVASIVE SPECIES LEGISLATION Species (Covered by the Legislation and Relevant Legislation Description of Offence most likely to be found in this Region) Section 14 of the WCA (1981) states: Himalayan balsam Listed on Part II of Schedule 9  if any person plants or otherwise Cotoneaster of the Wildlife and Countryside causes to grow in the wild any plant Montbretia Act (1981 as amended) which is included in Part II of Japanese knotweed

15 © E3 Ecology Ltd

TABLE 3: SUMMARISED INVASIVE SPECIES LEGISLATION Species (Covered by the Legislation and Relevant Legislation Description of Offence most likely to be found in this Region) Schedule 9, he shall be guilty of an Giant hogweed offence. Rhododendron Crassula

C.4 PROTECTED SITE LEGISLATION Details of the legislation surrounding protected sites are provided in the appendices.

C.5 PRIORITY SPECIES Although not afforded any legal protection, national priority species (species of principal importance, as listed in Section 41 of the NERC Act (2006)), and local and regional priority species, as detailed within the relevant biodiversity action plans, are material considerations in the planning process and as such have been assessed accordingly within this report.

The table below details the local biodiversity action plan relevant to the area within which this site lies, and the species/species groups and habitats listed as priorities within the plan.

TABLE 4: BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN Northumberland Biodiversity Action Plan Species Habitats Built Barn Owl Bats Black Grouse Blanket Bog Brownfield Land Environment Calaminarian Coastal Fen, Marsh & Coastal Birds Common Seal Dingy Skipper Grassland heathland Swamp Gardens & Heather Lowland Dormouse Farmland Birds Freshwater Fish Allotments Moorland Heathland Lowland Freshwater Great Crested Maritime Cliffs & Native Garden Birds Meadows & Pearl Mussel Newt Slopes Woodland Pastures Ponds, Lakes & Recreational & Grey Seal Hedgehog Otter Reedbed Reservoirs Amenity Space River Jelly Rivers & Rocky Shore, Red Squirrel Upland Waders Saline Lagoons Lichen Streams Reefs & Islands Violet Water Rock- Saltmarsh & Transport Water Vole Sand Dunes Crystalwort bristle Mudflat Corridors White-Clawed Trees & Upland Hay Whin Grassland Crayfish Hedgerows Meadows

D. METHODOLOGY

D.1 SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of the study, in terms of the survey area and the desk study area, is based on professional judgement. The likely zone of influence of the proposal has been considered, including both potential direct effects such as habitat loss and potential indirect effects such as disturbance. Consideration has been given to potential effects both during the construction and operational phases of the development.

For this site the survey area comprised the green line boundary as defined within the figure below. The desk study included an assessment of land-use in the surrounding area and a data search covering a 2km buffer zone (see below for further detail).

16 © E3 Ecology Ltd

The following types of ecological receptors have been considered:  Statutorily designated sites for nature conservation  Non-statutorily designated sites for nature conservation  Species protected by law  Species and/or habitats listed under the NERC Act (2009) as being of principal importance for conservation of biodiversity  Species and/or habitats listed in relevant local biodiversity action plans

Consultation has been undertaken with the Ecologist at Northumberland County Council, and with Natural England through their discretionary advice service, regarding the scope of the assessment.

FIGURE 3: SITE EXTENT (Reproduced under licence from Google Earth Pro.)

17 © E3 Ecology Ltd

D.2 DESK STUDY Initially, the site was assessed from aerial photographs and 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey maps. In addition, a search was made of the MAGIC website11 for all statutorily protected sites for nature conservation within 2km of the survey area.

Pre-existing records of protected and priority species within 1km of GR: NZ295842 were supplied by the North East Environmental Records Information Centre (ERIC) in January 2020 with a further ERIC data request fulfilled in November 2020 for the wider site and a 2km search area from the site boundary.

Reference was also made to other ecological survey reports held by PAEL which provide additional site specific and contextual information regarding species distribution within the Zone of Influence of the site. A schedule of the reports reviewed is provided.

The absence of a record for a locality cannot be taken as confirmation that the species is absent; rather it may reflect lack of survey effort. It should also be noted that data records reflect historic rather than current distribution. Pre-existing data therefore needs to be interpreted in an informed manner, however, these datasets do provide valuable information regarding the general distribution of species within any given region.

The distance over which the presence of a species is significant in terms of the risk assessment varies from species to species depending upon a species’ typical home range, commuting and foraging distance etc.. For example, a search distance of 500m from the site boundary is used for great crested newts (GCN) which is derived from assumed maximum GCN foraging distances12; whereas the presence of an otter record, for example, within 1km of the site would be regarded as significant where there is potential habitat connectivity for this species. Search distances might extend beyond 1km where more mobile species are known to have local populations such as curlew.

D.2.1.1 Protected, Priority and Legally Controlled Species Risk Assessment

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal uses a risk-based assessment process to establish the likelihood of legally protected and controlled plants and animals and UK priority species being present on site. This is necessary as several plant and animal species in the UK are afforded protection through legislation which can make it illegal to undertake works that have the potential to harm or disturb them. Furthermore, UK Government policy states that ‘It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making a decision13’ (para 93).

D.2.1.2 First Stage Species Risk Assessment Process The risk assessment process weighs up a range of factors that influence species presence e.g. habitat type, connectivity, species ecology, local records, habitat management etc. and assigns a level of probability to species presence on the site. Where a risk of protected species presence is identified then further surveys are typically recommended to confirm the presence and status

11 MAGIC Website: www.magic.gov.uk 12 English Nature 2001. Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines 13 ODPM Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System 18 © E3 Ecology Ltd

of a species so that a mitigation strategy can be devised if required, and/or measures are proposed to avoid the risk of an adverse impact on the species of interest e.g. through appropriate timing of works.

The assessment process also considers the potential for national and regional priority14 species to be present within the site based on desktop records, species observations made during the site visit and a habitat assessment. Given that over 900 species are listed under section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 with many additional species identified as regional priorities in the UK and local Biodiversity Action Plans as well as regional red data books etc, and that many species groups require specialist survey techniques to identify their presence, then this risk process should be regarded as indicative of the likely presence of species groups based on the habitat characteristics of a site.

Note that the results of the risk assessment and faunal surveys are applicable only at the time at which they are undertaken. The biodiversity status of a site changes with both the passage of time and site conditions, therefore, should there be a change in site conditions or a significant lapse of time (c. 12-18 months15) prior to development starting then checking surveys for protected species may be required to confirm their status on site, and hence ensure compliance with relevant protected species legislation.

Where a risk of a species being present is identified then further consideration is given to the species in the impact assessment and/or recommendations are made for further survey. Where the risk of a species being present is assessed as very low or negligible then no further consideration is given to the species in this assessment.

D.3 PRELIMINARY FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY

D.3.1 PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY

D.3.1.1 Survey Methods The field survey of the proposed site was conducted using the methodology of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s Phase 1 Habitat Survey, as outlined in their habitat-mapping manual16. Each parcel of land was assessed by a trained surveyor and classified as one of ninety habitat types. These were then mapped and the habitat information supplemented by dominant and indicator species codes and target notes where appropriate. Where areas within the study area do not fall into the Phase 1 Habitat Survey classification, alternative methods of classification have been used.

D.3.1.2 Survey Equipment The following equipment was used during the phase 1 habitat survey:  Binoculars  Digital Camera

14 Defined as species included in the List of Habitats and Species of Principal Importance in England under Section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. 15 CIEEM Advice Note on the Lifespan of Ecological Reports and Surveys April 2019 16 Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey, A Technique For Environmental Audit, JNCC, 2010 19 © E3 Ecology Ltd

D.3.2 PRELIMINARY PROTECTED AND PRIORITY SPECIES APPRAISAL

D.3.2.1 Survey Methods Where there is a risk of legally protected species and/or otherwise notable species17 being present, an initial appraisal was completed to inform the proposals. This appraisal included the following key elements:

 Structures and trees were assessed for the risk of supporting roosting bats (see below).  Wetlands, where present, were reviewed for their potential use by great crested newt, otter and water voles,  If present, any trackways regularly used by badger were noted and any badger sett usage assessed by the presence of freshly dug earth or bedding at the entrance.  The suitability of the suite of habitats present for use by reptiles was assessed.  Likely use of the site by birds was assessed from the species seen during the survey, and the habitats present.  Potential use by otherwise notable species was determined based on the broad habitat types present on site, any recent records obtained through the desk study and the geographical distribution of the species. Where specific habitat requirements for notable species have been recorded on site these have been noted, and used as part of this appraisal. The species groups assessed are limited to birds, freshwater fish, amphibians, reptiles, terrestrial mammals, butterflies and dragonflies.

A preliminary assessment, based on inspection from within the site boundary, was made of any trees affected by the proposed development. Trees were inspected and assessed for their potential to support roosting bats and were categorised as negligible, low, moderate or high suitability for roosting bats based on guidelines provided within the Bat Conservation Trust Bat Survey: Good Practice Guidelines18 and detailed within the table below.

TABLE 5: GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL SUITABILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITES FOR BATS, BASED ON PRESENCE OF ROOSTING HABITAT FEATURES (TREES) (TO BE APPLIED USING PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT, TABLE 4.1 BAT SURVEY GUIDELINES) Suitability Roosting Habitats Negligible Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by roosting bats. Low A tree of sufficient size and age to contain potential roost features but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential. Moderate A tree with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (with respect to roost type only – the assessments in this table are made irrespective of species conservation status, which is established after presence is confirmed). High A tree with one or more potential roost site that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat.

The assessment is based upon the age and species of the tree, the presence of features with potential to support roosting bats and the location of the tree and habitats present in the surrounding area. Any potential roosting locations and field signs that could indicate bat use, such as droppings, staining and scratch marks were noted.

Where it is considered likely that there is a significant risk of protected or otherwise notable species being affected or where habitats are of particularly high value additional specialist

17 To include national priority species as listed in Section 41 of the NERC Act (2006) and local or regional priority species as listed within the relevant Biodiversity Action Plan 18 Collins, J. (ed) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition). Bat Conservation Trust 20 © E3 Ecology Ltd

survey work has been recommended. Further survey work may also be recommended where development proposals have the potential to affect statutorily designated sites in the vicinity.

D.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS HABITAT MAPPING SURVEYS Date Surveyor Time ToC Wind speed Precipitation Cloud cover 18/07/2019 Rachel Penn 13.00 - 16oC Moderate Dry MCIEEM, 16.00 breeze 30% cloud cover CEnv 29/01/2020 Rachel Penn 10.00 – 5oC Moderate Dry MCIEEM, 12.00 breeze 50% cloud cover CEnv 22-06-20 Rachel Penn 09.00 - 11oC Moderate Dry MCIEEM, 15.00 breeze 50% cloud cover CEnv 10-07-20 Rachel Penn 10.00 – 14oC Moderate Dry/light precipitation MCIEEM, 12.00 breeze 90% cloud cover CEnv 22-10-20 Rachel Penn 09-00 – 13oC Moderate Dry MCIEEM, 11.00 breeze 10% cloud cover CEnv 04-11-20 Rachel Penn 9.45 - 10oC Calm Dry MCIEEM, 1300 0% cloud cover CEnv

D.4 SPECIALIST SURVEYS

D.4.1 BOTANICAL SURVEY The fieldwork was completed undertaken on 10th July and 11th December 2020 by John O’Reilly BA(Ed) MSc MCIEEM CEnv of Ptyxis Ecology, a highly skilled botanist based in northern England. The weather was warm and mostly dry with occasional light showers. Representative parts of the site were accessed apart from the section of road in the extreme south that was locked, this area was viewed from the adjacent fenceline.

Each discrete area of habitat was searched systematically for vascular plants. A list of vascular plants was compiled by ticking off each new species as it was found on a standard BSBI (Botanical Society of the British Isles) field card covering vascular plant species in VC67 (South Northumberland). Any species found which were not listed on the card were added to the back. Notes were also compiled on the most frequent bryophyte species growing in each of the main habitats, but a comprehensive bryophyte survey was not undertaken.

Additional surveys of the site were undertaken by John in December 2020, resurveying specifically for axiophyte distribution in different habitat areas that would help to assess the conservation value of the habitats present. Whilst this is not an ideal time of year for such survey, John is sufficiently skilled and familiar with the site from the summer work to provide useful data.

Brief notes were also made on any vegetation types that resembled National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities or sub-communities (Rodwell 1991-2000), however it was concluded during the course of the survey that much of the vegetation did not closely resemble any of the NVC definitions. At the end of the survey estimates of the relative abundance of each species in each of the main habitats on the site were recorded using the DAFOR (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional, Rare) scale.

21 © E3 Ecology Ltd

The locations of plants listed under section 14 and schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended) were recorded as 10-figure grid references with a GPS. During the survey, notes were compiled on where the species of most conservation interest were found on the site.

Small specimens of plants that could not be identified with certainty in the field were collected for later close examination. Each sample was collected in a separate packet with notes on its location and habitat. Samples were identified by observing and comparing their features with the species accounts and keys in Stace (2019). Finally, following examination of all of the collected specimens, any necessary adjustments were made to the species lists and estimates of relative abundance.

The national conservation statuses of the plant species were checked in the following sources: Nationally Rare, Nationally Scarce, GB Red List species and Species of Principal Importance in England in JNCC (2020); and UKBAP Priority Species in BRIG (2007). The England Red List for vascular plants (Stroh et al. 2014) was also checked. This list included many species that are still reasonably common in parts of England, but are of conservation concern in England as a whole due to significant declines in their lowland populations.

Local conservation status of the plant species was checked using the current Rare Plant Register for VC67 (Groom et al. 2000) and the list of plants regarded as axiophytes in VC67 (Walker 2018). Axiophytes (BSBI undated) are plants that mainly, or only, grow in semi-natural habitats of some conservation interest.

Native/archaeophyte/neophyte status was assessed using Preston et al. (2002). Archaeophytes and neophytes are species considered to have been introduced by humans to Britain, but which have now become established in the wild. Archaeophytes are species which were naturalised prior to 1500 AD, while neophytes became naturalised more recently. Species taxonomy and nomenclature in this report follows Stace (2019) for vascular plants and Hill et al. (2008) for bryophytes. Note that there have been recent name changes for some common vascular plant species.

D.4.2 BADGER AND OTTER SURVEY Walkover surveys for badger, otter and other mammal activity were undertaken over different seasons to better assess use.

Date Surveyor Time ToC Wind speed Precipitation Cloud cover 18/07/2019 Rachel 13.00 - 16oC Moderate Dry Penn 16.00 breeze 30% cloud cover MCIEEM, CEnv 29/01/2020 Rachel 10.00 – 5oC Moderate Dry Penn 12.00 breeze 50% cloud cover MCIEEM, CEnv 22-06-20 Rachel 09.00 - 11oC Moderate Dry Penn 15.00 breeze 50% cloud cover MCIEEM, CEnv 10-07-20 Rachel 10.00 – 14oC Moderate Dry/light Penn 12.00 breeze precipitation MCIEEM, 90% cloud cover CEnv

22-10-20 Rachel 09-00 – 13oC Moderate Dry Penn 11.00 breeze 10% cloud cover MCIEEM, CEnv 04-11-20 Rachel 9.45 - 10oC Calm Dry Penn 1300 0% cloud cover MCIEEM, CEnv 08-02-21 Richard 9.00- 0oC Moderate Snow showers Thompson 13.00 breeze E BSc MSc 15-02-21 Richard 13.30- 10oC F2 SW Dry 40% cloud Thompson 16.30 BSc MSc

Land within the site was walked by the surveyor following a transect which focussed on the habitats assessed as being most optimal for badger foraging, sett formation etc. and picked up habitats potentially used by otter. The surveyor looked for field signs of badger and otter using Opticron field binoculars 8x32 to aid distant viewing of the habitat first prior to closer inspection. During the transect surveys there were stopping points made at each of the four permanent waterbodies within the site with each waterbody observed quietly from a distance prior to a closer walk around its edge looking for footprints and spraints. The site is secured by a metal palisade fence with the gaps between the pales potentially too small to permit badger access, the risk of badger accessing the site from adjacent land was therefore assessed as very low but the potential for a badger population to be contained within the site was identified. The land outside of the site on its western boundary and to the north of the site was regularly walked by PAEL as part of ecological monitoring associated with the North Sea Link (NSL) project during from March 2018 until April 2020 during which any field signs for badger were also recorded. Whilst the results of the latter surveys are not in the public domain, Site Inspection sheets were completed for each survey visit, and the surveys added to the surveyor’s general knowledge of badger activity in the locality of the site, adding confidence to the survey results.

D.4.3 GREAT CRESTED NEWT SURVEY

The objectives of this survey and appraisal were to establish the risk of great crested newts being present on or within 500m of the site. This assessment was undertaken in accordance with UK planning guidance which states that ‘It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making a decision19’ (para 93).

The habitat suitability index (HSI) can be used to calculate habitat quality and likelihood of great crested newt presence with environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys acceptable for determining presence/probable absence of GCN.

Impacts on GCN populations are considered to be greatest within proximity to breeding ponds (within 50m), where GCN populations are likely to be highest, and will reduce with increasing

19 ODPM Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System 23 © E3 Ecology Ltd

distance from breeding GCN ponds to a maximum likely distance of c500m from breeding ponds20.

Waterbodies present within 500m of the site were identified using large-scale 1:10,000 base maps in conjunction with colour 1:25,000 OS base maps from Ordnance Survey (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk) and aerial photographs from Google Earth (www.maps.google.co.uk) . These were assessed for their connectivity with the site, using both mapped features and a site-based habitat assessment.

GCN data records within the site and within 2km of it provided by the Environmental Records Information Centre (ERIC) was reviewed. Other desk top assessment undertaken comprised Magic mapping EPS GCN licence returns, the NBN Atlas and data provided by RWE.

FIGURE 4PONDS INCLUDED IN GCN RISK ASSESSMENT AND/OR EDNA SURVEYS WITHIN THE SITE AND 500M BUFFER ZONE AND KEY BARRIERS TO GCN MOVEMENT

, Pond Screening and Terrestrial Habitat Assessment Three pools (W1, W2 and W3 ) and one waterbody that is part of a stream (W6) were identified within the site by PAEL through site walkover surveys and desktop assessment (OS 1:50,000 mapping). No waterbodies are mapped between 0-50m of the site boundary, 1 waterbody is

20 English Nature (2001) Great crested newt mitigation guidelines; https://www.gov.uk/great-crested-newts- surveys-and-mitigation-for-development-projects#survey-methods; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-crested-newts-apply-for-a-mitigation-licence Method Statement template for GCN Licence 24 © E3 Ecology Ltd

mapped between 50-250m (W7) and one between 250-500m (W8). Ground truthing surveys undertaken in July 2020 found no evidence of W7 or W8 on the ground with W7 being a motorcross site with bare soil at the mapped pond location and W8 a grass ley field at the time of survey. W1 tested negative for GCN eDNA. In addition to the waterbodies identified by PAEL (W1, W2, W3 and W6) EcoNorth identified waterbodies referred to as W4 and W5 and undertook eDNA testing of W2 – 6 inclusive in 2020 with all results being negative. As such, of the permanent standing waterbodies identified by PAEL in Feb 2020 within the site and 500m of it, all were subject to eDNA analysis in 2020.

PAEL identified additional areas of standing water within the site during the Oct – Nov 2020 Phase 1 habitat survey which are considered to be mostly seasonal as well as pools in the NCC wader compensation land to the north of the site of which a small number are located within 500m of the site. The NCC wader ponds are recent in origin (constructed c.2017), mostly seasonal in character and were subject to considerable disturbance during 2019/2020 through excavation of the North Sea Link cable route which also went through arable land in the western part of the site.

Major barriers to GCN movement are identified west and south of the site (the A189 dualled road, Brock Lane and the former Blyth Power station site which is under remediation and the new Converter Station which is under construction in 2020 with high levels of ground disturbance and materials movement). Residential areas north of the site and industrial units west of the site are identified as minor barriers to GCN movement.

The potential value of the terrestrial habitat within the development site to GCN was also assessed taking into consideration the habitats present within the site, the connectivity to the local pond network and other factors such as potential barriers to dispersal. Consideration was also given to the habitats present in the wider area.

GCN eDNA Water Sampling Natural England has accepted eDNA test results as evidence of presence or absence of GCN since 2015. Sampling for the presence of great crested newts is undertaken during the breeding season by collecting a water sample from a pond, followed by analysis in a specialist lab for evidence of eDNA (environmental DNA). When Great Crested Newts (GCN) inhabit a pond, cells containing their DNA is continually sloughed off into the water. Water samples are collected from ponds during the period when great crested newts are most likely to be inhabiting ponds (15th April – 30th June) in accordance with Natural England’s approved protocol (WC1067)21 and analysed for the presence of great crested newt environmental DNA (eDNA) to assess presence or absence.

Site Specific Survey Method One eDNA water sampling kit, purchased from the ADAS test laboratory in the 2020 GCN breeding season, was used to take water samples from W1 with all sampling undertaken in

21 Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Griffiths RA, Foster J, Wilkinson J, Arnett A, Williams P and Dunn F 2014. Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Appendix 5. Technical advice note for field and laboratory sampling of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) environmental DNA. Freshwater Habitats Trust, Oxford. 25 © E3 Ecology Ltd

accordance with the water sampling techniques set out Natural England’s approved protocol (WC1067)22 and as set out on the ADAS eDNA Survey Protocol23.

Survey Equipment and Personnel

The survey equipment used comprised:  ADAS GCN eDNA test kits.

TABLE 6 HSI AND EDNA SURVEY TIMING AND WEATHER CONDITIONS Date/ Surveyors Start End Start/ Wind Precipitation Survey Time Time end speed Cloud cover Scope ToC 22/06/20 Rachel Penn 10.00 12.00 11oC Moderate Dry HSI and MCIEEM CEnv breeze 50% cloud eDNA Water cover Sampling Rachel Forsyth MCIEEM (Licensed GCN Surveyor) 2016- 20313-CLS-CLS

D.4.4 BAT SURVEY A review of pre-existing bat survey data was undertaken followed by a daytime habitat assessment of the site in June 2020 to establish the potential of the habitats within the site to support roosting, foraging, socialising and commuting bats in accordance with criteria defined in the Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines (Collins 2016)24

Bat activity surveys were carried out to establish the extent of bat foraging and commuting within the survey area with a transect survey and 10 days static monitoring undertaken in the period June -July 2020 and September 2020. The spring survey window was missed due to Covid restrictions.

Pre-survey Data Search The Environmental Records Information Centre North East provided data in January 2020 on bat records within 1km of the survey site which was updated in Nov 2020 to cover the site and a 2km search area from it. Magic mapping was also consulted to establish if there were designed sites within 2km of the proposed development site which cited bat populations as the reason for designation, and for bat licence returns.

Survey Effort The site was walked to assess the presence of potential bat roosting features in either structures or trees.

22 Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Griffiths RA, Foster J, Wilkinson J, Arnett A, Williams P and Dunn F 2014. Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Appendix 5. Technical advice note for field and laboratory sampling of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) environmental DNA. Freshwater Habitats Trust, Oxford. 23 https://www.adas.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Services/eDNA/eDNA%20Protocol%202018%20V2_1.pdf 24 Collins, J. (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists, Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd edition, Bat Conservation Trust (referenced as Collins 2016). 26 © E3 Ecology Ltd

TABLE 7 GUIDELINES ON THE NUMBER OF BAT ACTIVITY SURVEYS RECOMMENDED TO ACHIEVE A REASONABLE SURVEY EFFORT TO HABITAT SUITABILITY. Bat Habitat Moderate Suitability High Suitability Low Suitability* One survey visit per month (April Up to two survey visits per One survey visit per season to October**) in appropriate month (April to October**) in (spring, summer, autumn) in weather conditions for bats. At appropriate weather conditions appropriate weather conditions least one survey should for bats. At least one of the for bats. Further survey may be comprise dusk and pre-dawn (or surveys should comprise dusk required if these survey visits dusk to dawn) within one 24- and pre-dawn (or dusk to dawn) reveal higher levels of bat hour period. within one 24-hour period. activity than predicted by habitat alone. *Where habitat has been classified as low suitability for bats, an ecologist should make a professional judgement on how to proceed based on all of the evidence available. It may or may not be appropriate for bat activity surveys to be carried out in low suitability habitats. ** April, September and October surveys are both weather and location dependent. Conditions may become more unsuitable in these months, which may reduce the length of the survey season.

Transect Survey Two bat transect survey were undertaken, one in June and one in Sept, by two surveyors walking two fixed routes. These routes were different for each of the two surveys. Each transect was walked a minimum of twice during each survey and all bat activity along the routes was recorded, using both visual observation and bat registrations recorded on bat detectors.

All data was recorded using Anabat Scout detectors to allow confirmation of species identification through sonogram analysis. Where bats were recorded the location and timing of the record was noted on survey sheets and field maps with any further relevant information relating to the behaviour of the bat(s) also recorded such as the numbers of bats detected, type of activity (feeding/social/commuting), flight paths and species (as far as is practicable). Where echolocation frequency was recorded near 50kHz these have been recorded as pipistrelle-50 as they are insufficiently diagnostic to be determined as common or soprano pipistrelle.

Transect surveys were undertaken in favourable weather conditions for the time of year and all calls identified to species where practicable.

Remote/Static Monitoring Survey Remote monitoring was carried out using an Anabat Swift detector with the unit set up to record all activity from dusk until dawn for 10 consecutive days, during two separate surveys (30/06/20- 09/07/20 and 14/09/20-23/09/20. The Anabat swift was mounted 2 metres above the ground on a tripod, along with a Davis Vantage Vue weather station to record temperature, rainfall and wind speed. Data was analysed using Anabat Insight with calls identified to species where practicable. Weather data was extracted using Davis Weatherview software for analysis.

TABLE 8SURVEY DATES AND TIMES Date Start time End time Sunset/ Survey sunrise time 22/06/20 21:35 23:50 21:50 Transect 30/06/20 – 09/07/20 Sunset Sunrise - Remote Monitoring 08/09/20 04:25 06:40 06:25 Transect 14/09/20 – 24/09/20 Sunset Sunrise Remote Monitoring

TABLE 9TRANSECT SURVEY WEATHER CONDITIONS Cloud Start End Sunset/ Start End Wind Date Precipitation Cover Temperature Temperature sunrise Time Time (mph) (%) (0C) (0C) 22/06/20 21:50 21:35 23:50 0 10 5 18 17 14/09/20 06:25 04:25 06:40 0 90 10 16 16

TABLE 10 BAT SURVEYORS: TRANSECT SURVEY Name Licence Qualificatio Profession Experience ns al Membershi p Tim Sexton 2020-44753- BSc (Hons) MCIEEM 16+ years of bat survey CLS-CLS experience Michael Marston - - - 2 years of bat survey experience

TABLE 11REMOTE MONITORING SURVEY DATES AND SUMMARY WEATHER CONDITIONS Survey 1: June – July 2020 Precipitati Mean Wind Start End Date Sunset Sunrise on Speed Temperature Temperatur (mm) (mph) (0C) e (0C) 30/06/20 21.49 04:30 0 3.9 14.9 12.2 01/07/20 21:48 04:31 0.75 3.6 11.7 11.0 02/07/20 21:48 04:32 1.0 2.7 13.0 11.9 03/07/20 21:47 04:33 1.0 3.0 16.1 12.3 04/07/20 21:46 04:34 6.59 9.9 16.9 16.0 05/07/20 21:46 04:35 1.1 15.5* 11.7 10.7 06/07/20 21:45 04:36 0 8.1 13.9 9.8 07/07/20 21:44 04:37 0 2.0 13.2 11.8 08/07/20 21:43 04:39 0.75 6.7 12.5 11.7 09/07/20 21:42 04”40 6.3 2.1 12.9 11.3 *wind speed calculated from figures from www.wunderground.com as weather station anemometer was inactive.

Survey 2: September 2020 Precipitati Mean Wind Start End Date Sunset Sunrise on Speed Temperature Temperatur (mm) (mph) (0C) e (0C) 14/09/20 19:24 06:38 0 0.3 13.7 11.4 15/09/20 19:22 06:40 0.25 6.5 16.3 13.2 16/09/20 19:19 06:42 0.25 3.3 13.1 10.4 17/09/20 19:17 06:44 0 2.5 13.4 4.9 18/09/20 19:14 06:46 0 6.4 13.3 12.6 19/09/20 19:12 06:47 1.25 4.2 13.1 12.6 20/09/20 19:09 06:49 0.25 2.6 12.9 6.7 21/09/20 19:06 06:51 0 5.9 15.4 12.8 22/09/20 19:04 06:53 6.34 4.4 16.3 10.7 23/09/20 19:01 06:55 7.86 5.2 9.8 4.4

D.4.5 INVERTEBRATES The invertebrate fauna of the field and ground layer was sampled through a combination of transect walking, ground searching, spot sampling and sweep netting which is consistent with the standardised protocols adopted during the development by Natural England (NE) of the Invertebrate Species-habitat Information System (ISIS) for Site Condition Monitoring.

A transect of brownfield land c. 800 metres in length was slowly walked twice taking c. 1 hour for each transect during which all terrestrial invertebrates observed were recorded and their location marked. During the walked transects, stops were made at six quadrat locations (each 3m2 in area) with the transect route and quadrat locations selected using professional judgement to be both broadly representative of the habitats present within the open brownfield areas, and especially for the specialist species associated with post-industrial sites. At each quadrat location, the ground was searched for terrestrial invertebrates with spot sampling and sweep netting also undertaken for up to c.30 minutes, during which all visible invertebrates were recorded. The survey was undertaken between the period 10.00 – 16.00 before and after which invertebrate activity falls away as temperatures are typically cooler.

Transect walking comprised slowly walking a pre-defined transect route during which invertebrates in flight or at rest on vegetation were recorded and their location plotted on a transect map.

Ground searching comprised time spent turning stones and dead wood and grubbing amongst grass roots and plant litter within a different part of the sample location targeted for searching over time.

Spot sampling involved time spent using a net to collect large and active species (or simple observation of readily identifiable species). Collecting points included plants in flower, bare earth/substrates where bees and flies were searching for their own nesting burrows or those of other species to parasitise.

Sweep netting involved rapidly sweeping a net from side to side through herbaceous vegetation and inspecting and emptying the net after every ten to twenty sweeps.

Observations and identification of terrestrial invertebrates recorded was assisted by 8 x 32 binoculars, a 10x magnification hand lens with specimen pots, a pooter and sweep net. Photographic records made using Canon 7D camera with a 200mm Canon lens, and Canon 100mm macro lens. Some identification of invertebrates was carried out in the field with samples sorted and identified in the laboratory. Where possible specimens were identified to species.

Night-time Moth Light Trap Survey Moths play important roles in many ecosystems as pollinators, herbivores, and prey for a wide range of species such as birds and bats, with the distribution and ecology of moths relatively well known in comparison to many other invertebrates. In recent decades, steep declines of moth populations have been observed, e.g. in Great Britain, the abundance of macro-moths decreased by 28% between 1968 and 2007 with such declines expected to have cascading effects at both higher (bats, birds) and lower (plants) trophic levels due to the keystone role of moths in many ecosystems.

In addition to the daytime invertebrate survey, a single two hour night-time survey was undertaken in early July 2020 to obtain baseline data regarding moth populations within the site. A light trap was set up at Ordnance Survey GR: NZ2995 8363, which was selected due to its 29 © E3 Ecology Ltd

location on the margins of semi-mature woodland within the site as well as close to open mosaic habitat and grassland. A 125 mercury vapour light was illuminated on a tripod standing on a white sheet with the light run for 2 hours after sunset. All moths observed during the survey period were identified in the field prior to release. The risk of capturing protected moth species such as the European Protected Species (EPS) Fisher’s estuarine moth was assessed as negligible due to the site location and therefore no requirement for a licence was identified in advance of the moth trapping survey.

TABLE 12: SURVEY DATES AND TIMES Date Start End Sunset Survey Type Surveyor(s) time time 22/06/2020 12.00 14.00 N/A Open Mosaic Habitat and Dr Rachel Penn Terrestrial Invertebrate Assessment 09/07/2020 21:46 23:46 21:42 Moth Light Trap Tim Sexton Tom Tams 12:00 16:00 N/A Terrestrial Invertebrate: Tim Sexton 31/07/2020 Transect and Quadrat Survey

TABLE 13: SURVEY WEATHER CONDITIONS Cloud Cover Wind Date Precipitation Start T (0C) End T (0C) (%) (mph) Moderate 22/06/2020 Dry 50% 11oC 11oC breeze 09/07/2020 Dry 80% 15mph 12oC - 10mph gusting 31/07/2020 Dry 20% 23oC - to 20mph

TABLE 14: SURVEYORS: Name Qualifications Professional Experience Membership Dr Rachel BSC Hons, PhD MCIEEM 30 years ecological survey and assessment Penn CEnv Tim Sexton BSc (Hons) MCIEEM 15+ years of ecological survey experience Tom Tams Northumberland County Moth Recorder 25 years’ experience of moth recording.

D.4.6 SURVEY CONSTRAINTS

This report presents results of fieldwork and reporting largely undertaken by or on behalf of Dr Rachel Penn of Penn Associates Ecology Ltd (PAEL) between July 2019 and November 2020, and work undertaken by E3 Ecology after November 2020 when Rachel finished consultancy and started working for the Woodland Trust. Surveys were undertaken during the Covid 19 pandemic which prevented spring 2020 work and delayed some elements of the study.

Initial work was undertaken for a proposed wind turbine test site (Site 1 in figure below), with the brief being extended to include the wider site (Site 2) in October 2020.

FIGURE 5 SITE 1 AND SITE 2 AREAS

Bat transect routes and remote monitoring locations will provide suitable data for the main development site, but are likely to under-estimate bat activity associated with the higher quality habitats to the eastern edge of the site and at the south western woodland. However, these areas are largely unaffected by the proposals. The surveys did not provide repeat data for the same transect route and remote monitoring location. A survey planned for Spring 2020 could not be undertaken due to Covid-19 movement restrictions, and so to date, one summer and one autumn survey period have been completed.

The invertebrate survey area focussed on the open mosaic habitat within and around site 1, as this was the habitat assessed as that most likely to host invertebrates of conservation status in the UK as well as that most likely to be lost or disturbed to the proposed development. As such the invertebrate activity recorded will not be representative of the site as a whole

As a result of the development changes and the Covid 19 pandemic there are some gaps in the survey data that will be addressed through ongoing survey work whilst the application is submitted and prior to determination. During the spring of 2021 additional surveys for bats, breeding birds, butterflies and to confirm the anticipate absence of common lizard from the development area will be undertaken. The potential effects of these survey constraints have been minimised through assessment of previous studies covering the site and its setting: as a regeneration area there have been many local studies over the last 10 years, and through application of the precautionary principle. Given the depth of historical surveys undertaken at the site and a precautionary approach to assessment, the additional surveys are not anticipated to result in any significant changes in assessment of conservation value of the habitats and species present on site.

The site is dominated by artificial habitats that do not match standard habitat types well. Habitat classifications, mapping and condition assessments are to be regarded as a highly simplified model of complex and highly variable mosaic plant communities. Habitat areas are approximated, based on measurements derived from mapping assisted by aerial photography and informed by ground truthing.

D.5 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The relative value of the ecological receptors (habitats, species and designated sites) was assessed using a geographical frame of reference. For designated sites this is generally a straightforward process with the assigned designation generally being indicative of a particular value, e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest are designated under national legislation and are therefore generally considered to be receptors of national value. The assignment of value to non-designated receptors is less straightforward and as recognised by the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment produced by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management25, is a complex and subjective process and requires the application of professional judgement.

When assessing the value of species and habitats, relevant documents and legislation are considered including the lists of species and habitat of principal importance annexed to the NERC Act (2006) and those provided within relevant local Biodiversity Action Plans. Data provided through consultation is also considered. These data sources can provide context at a local, regional and national scale.

The table below provides examples of receptors of value at different geographical scales.

TABLE 15: ECOLOGICAL RECEPTOR VALUATION Level of Value Examples An internationally designated site or candidate site. A site meeting criteria for international designation. A substantial* area of a habitat listed on Annex I of the EC Habitats Directive or smaller areas International of such habitat, which are considered likely to be essential to maintain the functionality of a larger whole. The site is of functional importance** to a species population with internationally important numbers (i.e. >1% of the biogeographic population) A nationally designated site. A substantial* area of a habitat listed as a Habitat of Principal Importance within Section 41 of the NERC Act (2006) or smaller areas of such habitat, which are considered likely to be National essential to maintain the functionality of a larger whole. The site is of functional importance** to a species population with nationally important numbers (i.e. >1% of the national population) An area of habitat that falls slightly below the criteria necessary for designation as a SSSI but is considered of greater than county value. Regional The site is of functional importance** to a species population with regionally important numbers (i.e. >1% of the regional population) A Local Wildlife Site (LWS) or equivalent, designated at a County level A substantial* area of a habitat listed within the relevant County Biodiversity Action plan or County smaller areas of such habitat, which are considered likely to be essential to maintain the functionality of a larger whole. The site is of functional importance** to a species population of county value (i.e. >1% of the county population) District A Local Wildlife Site (LWS) or equivalent, designated at a District level

25 Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland - Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal 32 © E3 Ecology Ltd

TABLE 15: ECOLOGICAL RECEPTOR VALUATION Level of Value Examples A substantial* area of a habitat listed within the relevant District Biodiversity Action plan or smaller areas of such habitat, which are considered likely to be essential to maintain the functionality of a larger whole. The site is of functional importance** to a species population of district value (i.e. >1% of the district population) Area of habitat or species population considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource Parish within the context of the parish. Local Nature Reserves Habitats and species that contribute to local biodiversity but are not exceptional in the context Local of the parish. Low Habitats that are unexceptional and common to the local area. *Substantial defined as ‘of considerable size or value within that area based on professional judgement, rather than a small, inconsequential area’ ** Functional importance defined as ‘a feature which, based on professional judgement, is of importance to the day to day functioning of the population, the loss of which would have a detectable adverse effect on that population’,

E. RESULTS

E.1.1 EXISTING DATA The site, also known as the Northumberland Energy Park 3 (NEP3), is an area (c.92ha) of brownfield land previously used as a coal stocking yard for the Blyth Power Station. The site is located in Cambois, north of the Blyth Estuary, Northumberland close to the North Sea coastline. The approximate central Ordnance Survey grid reference is NZ298840. Use of the site as a coal stocking yard is understood to have ceased in the late 1990’s and the site is not currently in use by the site owners.

From aerial photographs the bare areas of the site have started to revegetate with grassland and scrub over the last 20 years, and planting on the PFA mounds to the east and the woodland belts at the south west corner of the site have matured. Any remaining structures within the site had been demolished by 2006. A sub-station lies just outside the site boundary.

E.1.2 MULTI AGENCY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR THE COUNTRYSIDE WEBSITE The table below details the internationally and nationally statutorily designated sites in the surrounding area. The table below details all internationally designated sites within 10km of the site and all nationally designated sites within 5km.

TABLE 16: DESIGNATED SITES Designation Site Name Reason for Designation Distance from Site Breeding Arctic tern (2.92% of UK breeding population) and little tern (1.7% of UK breeding population); non-breeding purple sandpiper (1.6% of the East Atlantic Flyway non-breeding population); Ramsar Northumbria Coast 780m south-east non-breeding turnstone (2.6% of the East Atlantic Flyway non-breeding population). Also supports nationally important numbers of sanderling, ringed plover and redshank Breeding Arctic tern (2.92% of UK breeding population) and little tern (1.7% of UK breeding population); non-breeding purple sandpiper (1.6% of the East Atlantic Flyway non-breeding population); Special Protection Area Northumbria Coast 780m south-east non-breeding turnstone (2.6% of the East Atlantic Flyway non-breeding population). Also supports nationally important numbers of sanderling, ringed plover and redshank An internationally important seabird assemblage of over 214,669 individuals use the coastal waters for foraging and maintenance. Species include Sandwich tern (4,324 individuals; 19.66% of GB population), common tern (2,572 160m south-east individuals; 12.86% of GB population), Northumberland and wrapping Special Protection Area Arctic tern (9,564 individuals; 9.02% of Marine around into the GB population), roseate tern (160 adjacent estuaries. individuals; 93.02% of GB population), little tern (90 individuals; 2.37% of GB population), puffin (108,484 individuals; 1.05% of biogeographic population) and guillemot (65,751 individuals; 1.72% of biogeographic population)

The site has been designated in 260m east recognition of its nationally important numbers of eider duck. The eider is a species of sea duck which feeds on marine molluscs which can be found on Berwick to St Mary’s the inshore waters of the Northumberland Marine Conservation Zone MCZ coast throughout the year. The Farne Islands and Coquet Island are important local breeding sites for the bird. The site stretches from Berwick-upon-Tweed in the north to St Mary’s Island in the south and covers an area of 634 km2 This site helps protects several different 260m east types of rock and sediment on the shoreline and on the seabed. The seabed protected by this site is made up of rock, sand, mud and sediment. This range of habitats provides a home for a large variety of life. For example, the coarse sediment is home to animals such as bristleworms, sand mason worms, small shrimp-like animals, burrowing anemones, and cockles. Rocks in shallow water (infralittoral rocks) are a habitat for kelp and red seaweed, whilst the deep water (circalittoral) rock is a habitat for cup coral, sea-fans, and Coquet to St Mary’s Marine Conservation Zone anemones, and sponges. These complex MCZ habitats and communities also support mobile species such as starfish, sea urchins, crabs, and lobsters. The site also supports a range of intertidal habitats, which are above water at low tide and underwater at high tide. One of these habitats is intertidal underboulder communities. Boulders create shaded areas that provide a refuge to sea squirts, sea mats, and sponges. The undersides of the boulder provide a habitat for animals like sea slugs, long-clawed porcelain crabs and brittlestars, which shelter and feed in the damp shaded conditions. The Northumberland Shore includes most 300m south and of the coastline between the Scottish 260m east border and the Tyne Estuary. This complements the Lindisfarne SSSI, which it abuts, in providing important wintering grounds for shore birds, and it is of international, or national significance for six species, purple sandpiper, turnstone, Northumberland SSSI sanderling, golden plover, ringed plover Shore SSSI and redshank.

The Northumberland Shore as a whole is used by a wide variety of other shorebirds in winter, including up to 400 curlew, 1000 oystercatcher, 2000 dunlin, 600 knot, 150 bar-tailed godwit and 4000 lapwing Willow Burn Pasture Willow Burn Pasture is an area of 4.6km west SSSI SSSI unimproved species-rich neutral

grassland established on former ridge and furrow cultivation, and now managed as pasture. There has been some invasion by scrub, and wetter areas support tall herb communities. Cresswell and An earth science site - Cresswell and 5.0km north east SSSI Newbiggin Shores Newbiggin Shores is important for both SSSI Westphalian and Quaternary studies Hawthorn Cottage Hawthorn Cottage Pasture comprises an 5.2km north west Pasture SSSI unimproved neutral grassland in an area of former ridge and furrow cultivation. It is a valuable example of a habitat which is now scarce in Northumberland and the surviving sites are under increasing SSSI threat from further agricultural intensification and urban development. The site includes both an area of dry grassland currently managed as pasture and an adjacent area of marshy grassland.

As the proposed development site is located within the Zone of Impact (ZoI) of the Northumbria Coast SPA and Ramsar sites and the Northumberland Marine SPA, any application for development will fall under the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) process as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2017 (as amended). In summary, all plans and projects (including planning applications) which are not directly connected with, or necessary for, the conservation management of an SPA, SAC or Ramsar site, require consideration as to whether the plan or project is likely to have significant effects on that site. This consideration (referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment screening) takes into account the potential effects both of the plan/project itself and in combination with other plans or projects. Where the potential for likely significant effects cannot be excluded, a competent authority (typically the planning authority) must make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan or project for that site, in view of the site’s conservation objectives. The competent authority may agree to the plan or project only after having ruled out adverse effects on the integrity of the site. Where an adverse effect on the site’s integrity cannot be ruled out, and where there are no alternative solutions, the plan or project can only proceed if there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest and if the necessary compensatory measures can be secured.

For this site the LPA have indicated that they will undertake the HRA screening

E.1.3 LOCAL RECORDS CENTRE The local records centre provided information regarding statutory and non-statutory designated sites, illustrated below.

FIGURE 6: PROTECTED SITES WITHIN 2KM OF THE SITE (Provided by ERIC NE)

TABLE 17 LOCAL WILDLIFE SITES Local Wildlife Sites Site Name Conservation Features Distance from Site at Closest Point Blyth Estuary Estuarine habitats include mudflats and saltmarsh with associated species including 300m south LWS overwintering and breeding populations of wetland bird species along with other species associated with estuarine habitats including migratory fish, otter and harbour seals Castle Island Estuarine habitats include mudflats and saltmarsh with migratory fish and otter. Castle 640m north and Wansbeck Island, located in the Wansbeck Estuary, has been a Local Nature Reserve since 2003. Estuary Local The estuary is designated on account of its estuarine flora and fauna and is a popular Wildlife Site and year-round bird watching site with regular use by migratory and wintering waders Local Nature including Curlew Sandpiper, Green Sandpiper, Greenshank, Little Stint, Spotted Reserve Redshank and Wood Sandpiper as well as more unusual records including Great White Egret, Little Egret, Spoonbill and Temminck’s Stint.

The site is located within the South East Northumberland Coastal Plain with the UK Government Magic website26 mapping ‘slowly permeable seasonally wet slightly acid but base-rich loamy and clayey soils’.

Section 41 (S41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. The list has been drawn up in consultation with Natural England, as required by the Act. The S41 list is used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when carrying out their normal functions.

Fifty-six habitats of principal importance are included on the S41 list. These are all the habitats in England that were identified as requiring action in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) and continue to be regarded conservation priorities in the subsequent UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. They include terrestrial habitats such as upland hay meadows to lowland mixed deciduous woodland, and freshwater and marine habitats such as ponds and subtidal sands and gravels.

NERC Habitats of Principal Importance Mapped within the Site The Magic website maps UK priority habitats for conservation, although coverage should not be regarded as comprehensive or definitive. Habitat types are given below with a map extract presented in Fig 7 and mapping colours given in brackets below to aid location.

The majority of the site is mapped as Priority habitat: open mosaic habitat (draft) (blue hatch) with area of Priority Habitat: Deciduous woodland (England) (green shade) in the south western corner of the site.

Outside but in proximity to the site are Priority Habitats mudflats (dark brown shade) plotted on the Sleekburn estuary 330m south of the site with patches of coastal saltmarsh (olive green) and coastal sand dunes (dark orange) mapped c.300m east of the site on the Northumberland coastline.

FIGURE 7 LOCATION OF UK PRIORITY HABITATS MAPPED ON UK GOVERNMENT MAGIC MAPPING27

Natural England added Habitat Networks to Magic mapping in May 2020 which includes Network Enhancement and Expansion Zones which are to be used at a strategic and local level to assist in the delivery of a Nature Recovery Network in accordance with the UK’s Government Defra’s 25 year Environment Plan.28

Land along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site is mapped by Natural England as forming part of a Network Enhancement Zone 2 (fine beige hatch) which extends along the Cambois coastline and encompasses the Blyth, Sleekburn and Wansbeck rivers and their estuaries.

E.1.3.1 Desk-top Study

Available records for species of conservation value excluding birds, which are addressed in the ornithological report, are reviewed in the table below.

27 http://www.magic.gov.uk/magicmap.aspx accessed 10/11/20. Red oval shows general site location. 28 Crick, H. Q. P., Crosher, I. E., Mainstone, C. P., Taylor S. D., Wharton, A., Langford, P., Larwood, J., Lusardi, J., Appleton, D., Brotherton, P. N. M., Duffield, S. J. & Macgregor N. A. (2020) Nature Networks Evidence Handbook. Natural England Research Report NERR081. Natural England, York

TABLE 18 RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SELECTED LEGALLY PROTECTED SPECIES WITHIN THE SITE Species Conservation Known status based on Desktop Data Review and Site Survey plus Habitat Summary Risk Status Suitability Assessment Mammals Bats EPS29 ERIC Records: Common pipistrelle and noctule records for 1km search High risk of low numbers of foraging WCA (Sch distance dating from 2006. Daubenton (peak count 2), whiskered (peak bats (common and soprano 5)30 count 2) and Nathusius (peak count 1) bats recorded for Sleekburn estuary pipistrelle, noctule) on site with (Sept 2019). Noctule bat at Sleekburn Grange Farm. No confirmed roost higher risk areas the woodland edge sites. and wetlands. Potential for foraging Other 3rd Party Records: Low numbers of Common pipistrelle (45 kHz) Nathusius foraging over the with occasional soprano pipistrelle (55 kHz) and noctule records with most wetlands. activity associated with the river corridor habitats. PAEL Records/Assessment: Habitat of low value foraging potential with Low number of PRF’s identified in mix of wetland, woodland and woodland edge, grassland and early woodland in south west part of site. succession with moderate connectivity to the wider countryside include woodlands, rivers etc Eurasian EPS ERIC Records: 30 records of European otter (including breeding otter) High potential for otter to move otter WCA (Sch 5) 1987-2018 from the Blyth, Wansbeck and Sleekburn estuaries through the study area and Other 3rd Party Records: spraint or prints recorded on adjacent estuaries potentially lie up with low risk of PAEL Records/Assessment: Possible otter spraints recorded on wider disturbance, with moderate site in July 2019 near settling ponds no confirmed otter sightings or signs. connectivity provided by the streams Ponds, watercourses and ditches within site provides potential cover and and ditches. movement routes for otter Low risk of otter holts and breeding areas due to low food availability. Water vole WCA (Sch 5) ERIC Records: No records of water vole within the search area. Mink No confirmed water vole records for records from 1990’s the site or locality. Wetland habitats within the site are suitable but low

29 European Protected Species as identified in Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive as implemented in the UK through the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations (2017) as amended. 30Species protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

Species Conservation Known status based on Desktop Data Review and Site Survey plus Habitat Summary Risk Status Suitability Assessment Other 3rd Records: TEP reported no evidence of water voles was found on risk given absence of known any of the ponds or ditches in the former Blyth Power Station site. Eco North populations within the locality. observed no signs of water vole. PAEL Records/Assessment: Ditches and pools within the site provide suitable habitat potentially suitable habitat for water vole but site isolated from known populations and no confirmed signs of activity Eurasian Badger Act ERIC Records: 11 records from 1996-2018. The majority of records are No confirmed badger records for the badger roadside deaths associated with the A189. site. Other 3rd Party Records: No badger records provided by TEP or Eco North Habitats suitable for foraging and in their phase 1 habitat surveys of former Blyth power station site, there breeding badger but low risk due to were however limitations to this survey due to dense scrub preventing poor connectivity. access to some areas. PAEL Records/Assessment: There are habitats within the survey boundary that are suitable for foraging badgers (woodland/grassland) but no evidence of badger activity (historic or current) was found during the walkover surveys. Palisade fencing around the site would significantly reduce the risk of colonisation of the site from adjacent land. Red EPS ERIC Records: ERIC holds 60 records of red squirrel within the search area No confirmed red squirrel records for squirrel WCA (Sch 5) with the most recent 2015. The closest record is 700m at Cambois school the site. Woodland habitat within the with most records obtained for Sleekburn, Bedlington and Ashington areas. site is potentially suitable but low risk 12 local records of grey squirrel. due to restricted nature of red squirrel Other 3rd Party Records: RSNE website31 had 5 recent (within last 6 populations in this part of north east months when checked in June 2020) sightings of red squirrel at Bedlington England and displacement by grey Station and one (Oct 2019) c. 2km NW of the site and west of the A189 squirrel. suggesting small populations are present within the locality. PAEL Records/Assessment: No sightings of red squirrel within the site or indirect evidence e.g. dreys’s or feeding remains. Woodlands within site

31 https://www.rsne.org.uk/sightings accessed 13-02-20

Species Conservation Known status based on Desktop Data Review and Site Survey plus Habitat Summary Risk Status Suitability Assessment suitable for foraging and breeding with good connectivity to adjacent mixed woodland

Birds WCA (Sch 1) Refer to PAEL NEP 3 Ornithology Report: June – October 2020 Herptiles Reptiles WCA (Sch 5 ERIC Records: No reptile records within the search area Open bare areas of low suitability but partial) Other 3rd Party Records: TEP report that White Young Green recorded a habitats improve to the east where common lizard in the grassland area to the south-east of the existing sub- the PFA mounds have good station in 2007, as well as two records along the coast in the dune but the connectivity to the disused railway veracity of this report cannot be established. Eco North recorded no reptiles line habitats. during a systematic reptile survey in 2013. Report of common lizard on disused railway line adjacent to the site from Bird Club member PAEL Records/Assessment: Habitat of moderate suitability with areas of stony soils and adjacent grassland which has low - moderate connectivity to the coastal dunes from where there are unconfirmed records of common lizard. Great EPS MAGIC: There are no GCN records within 2km No confirmed GCN within the site crested WCA (Sch 5) ERIC Records: Holds 2 records of 2 GCN (1 male and 1 female) at with 2020 eDNA surveys negative for newt Cambois (exact location unspecified) for 1/6/2006. The records hold the the permanent wetlands within the same date and so maybe a repeat record. There is also 1 record for a site. licensed translocation from East Hartford, Cramlington dating from 2004 and a record for GCN at Bomarsund fishery ponds, Bedlington 2005-2006. Other 3rd Party Records: NPower EA scoping study 2007 reports 2 adult GCN recorded in the ‘Maw Burn pond’ during a field study of the coal stocking yard in 2006 and is the likely source of the ERIC record. The Maw Burn pond is speculated to be a waterbody located at GR: NZ30198418 adjacent to Maw Burn but this is not confirmed due to insufficient information in the report. All subsequent surveys have been negative for GCN.

Species Conservation Known status based on Desktop Data Review and Site Survey plus Habitat Summary Risk Status Suitability Assessment Aecom undertook conventional GCN surveys of 7 wetlands in the Former Blyth Power Station site south of Harbour View (Brock Lane) in 2015 with no GCN recorded.

Eco North surveyed a ditch south of Harbour View in 2013 with no evidence of great crested newts found. They subsequently undertook conventional GCN surveys of 5 waterbodies within the site with no GCN recorded.

The NBN Atlas identifies the closest confirmed GCN records to the site c. 2km west of the site in the Choppington/Bedlington area with the A189 a major barrier to GCN dispersal from these populations.

RWE provided PAEL with the results of a GCN eDNA survey undertaken in Spring 2020 by EcoNorth, of five waterbodies located within 500m of the site. No GCN eDNA was recorded in any of the five waterbodies sampled.

E.1.4 OTHER LOCAL STUDIES

A range of existing reports for the site and local area were also reviewed for ecological information and are detailed in the table below.

TABLE 19 OTHER LOCAL STUDIES Report Title Author Commissioning Date Geographic Ecological Scope Summary of Results/Conclusions as it Relates Body Scope to the former coal stocking yards

National Grid 400kV Electricity Substation Ref: 16/03929/FUL Planned Start date: 2020

Report Title Author Commissioning Date Geographic Ecological Scope Summary of Results/Conclusions as it Relates Body Scope to the former coal stocking yards

Blyth Substation Aecom National Grid Sep 2016 Site area Habitat Regulations No likely significant effects have been identified on Electricity Assessment the Natura 2000 sites at the screening stage, it is Transmission concluded that the next stage of the HRA (Task 2 - Appropriate Assessment) does not need to be undertaken for the works Blyth Substation Aecom National Grid Jun 2016 Site area Technical Note - Blyth No foreseeable impact on SPA bird species. No Electricity Land Use Survey with reason to believe that land use changes present a Transmission respect to Qualifying significant consideration for the interpretation of the Bird Use wintering bird surveys carried out in 2014 – 15 in support of the application. Blyth Substation Aecom National Grid Sep 2015 Site area Bat Survey Report Low activity levels were recorded by three bat Electricity species (common and soprano pipistrelle and Transmission noctule). Common pipistrelle accounted for 85% of the total bat activity recorded on the site. Potential roosting features was restricted to a small building located in the north of the site. No evidence of roosting bats was recorded in this building during the surveys. Blyth Substation Aecom National Grid Sep 2015 Bank of R Blyth Otter Survey Report No evidence of otter was identified along the survey Electricity south of the site area during the survey visits (April and Aug 2015). Transmission There are features within the survey area that could be utilised by otter for commuting, resting, shelter and foraging, perhaps on a transient basis. Blyth Substation Aecom National Grid Jul 2015 Site area plus Breeding Bird Survey See row below Electricity adjacent land Report Transmission Terrestrial bird assemblage includes a range of species largely typical of the habitats available within the site (reedbeds, scrub, hedgerows and grassland) including predominantly warblers, finches, tits, thrushes and buntings, a number of which are species of conservation concern listed on one or more of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Red and Amber Lists, Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act Schedule 41 and the Northumberland Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). There were no species listed as specially protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended (the “WCA”) nor were any species recorded that are listed as reasons for designation of the adjacent Northumbria Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar sites or the Northumberland Shore Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Report Title Author Commissioning Date Geographic Ecological Scope Summary of Results/Conclusions as it Relates Body Scope to the former coal stocking yards

A number of high tide roosts were observed at various locations above high water on the Sleek Burn and the River Blyth estuary. At this time of year, the abandoned coal staithes further downstream hold some importance as mixed gull, wader and tern roost sites. The hard standing and bare substrates within the existing substation enclosure are used occasionally by small numbers of feeding roosting waders and gulls on an opportunistic basis when wet conditions create soft muds and ephemeral pools on which these species can feed. Blyth Substation Aecom National Grid Jul 2015 Site area Reptile Survey No reptiles were recorded during any of the 7 survey Electricity visits (Apr – Jun 15) Transmission Blyth Substation Aecom National Grid Jul 2015 7 ponds and 1 Great Crested Newt A small to medium population size class of breeding Electricity ditch within site Survey common newts (smooth / palmate) was identified Transmission and up to 250m across the ponds on site. Common toad and of it common frog were also found to be breeding in the ponds on site. The common toad population appeared particularly healthy, with a peak count of 60+ toads being recorded on one visit at Pond G. Blyth Substation Jacobs National Grid Oct 2015 Blyth Estuary Wintering Bird Survey Surveys focused on the recording of those species Electricity Intertidal and - 2014/15 included within the citations of the Northumbria Transmission adjacent Coast SPA and/or Northumberland Shore SSSI. Of habitats those species nine were recorded; oystercatcher, lapwing, ringed plover, curlew, bar-tailed godwit, knot, dunlin and redshank. The only species included within the aforementioned citations not observed were little tern, purple sandpiper, sanderling and golden plover. Records of SPA/SSSI birds foraging in the inter-tidal portion of the survey area were widespread. However, the tip of the Mount Pleasant peninsula was a favoured area for oystercatcher, ringed plover, curlew and dunlin. Although records of redshank were widespread, in contrast to other species, they were regularly recorded utilising the Sleek Burn. Blyth Substation Jacobs National Grid Oct 2014 3 habitat Grayling Survey Sixteen grayling sightings were recorded during the Electricity compartments Report survey. The number of individuals recorded during Transmission within site area the survey suggests a relatively small population, which on its own is unlikely to be sustainable in the

Report Title Author Commissioning Date Geographic Ecological Scope Summary of Results/Conclusions as it Relates Body Scope to the former coal stocking yards

medium to longer term and of no more than local value. However, grayling is known to be present at a number of sites within the Cambois and North Blyth area (SKM Enviros, 2012) and the individuals recorded during this survey are considered likely to form part of a larger metapopulation within the Cambois / North Blyth area. As such the site population of grayling is probably considered to form part of a population of regional importance Sightings were concentrated around one location situated within the boundary of the former Blyth Power Station.

Norway Electrical Interconnector Project Ecological Assessment TEP/E3 National Grid Feb 2014 Western part of Phase 1 habitat No evidence of badger was found of the Cambois and NSN Link East Sleekburn survey No evidence of otter was recorded East Sleekburn Area site excluding Great crested newt No GCN were recorded, although small numbers of the footprint of survey common toad, common frog and smooth newt were former power Bat activity survey present. station and the carried out in 2013 by White Young Green recorded a common lizard in ash dock. E3 Ecology the grassland area to the south-east of the existing sub-station in 2007, as well as two records along the Land to the north coast in the dune grassland. west of the site Limited bat activity was recorded across the site, as far north as with the hedgerows providing only limited the River commuting and foraging habitat for the local Wansbeck is population. The majority of the passes recorded also included were common pipistrelle (45 kHz) with small numbers of soprano pipistrelle (55 kHz) and noctule recorded. Winter and Breeding TEP National Grid June 2014 As above Winter and Breeding The TEP winter bird survey undertaken in 2012- Bird Survey 2012 to NSN Link Ltd Bird Survey 2012 to 2013 recorded a peak count of four for the SPA 2014 2014 species turnstone and no purple sandpiper were recorded during the survey. Two little tern were recorded on inter-tidal habitat within the proposed

Report Title Author Commissioning Date Geographic Ecological Scope Summary of Results/Conclusions as it Relates Body Scope to the former coal stocking yards

landfall on one occasion in the 2013 breeding bird survey. The little tern were observed loafing but were not nesting within the survey area. Sanderling was the most numerous Northumberland Shore SSSI species recorded within the proposed landfall site during the winter bird survey 2012-2013; a peak count of 22 individuals being recorded. Smaller numbers of the SSSI species oystercatcher, curlew, redshank and lapwing were also occasionally recorded. Redshank were more numerous on the north shore of the river Wansbeck, 500m to the north of the landfall site, but outside direct line of site of the works area. In the 2013-14 winter bird survey the only SPA species recorded on the Blyth/Sleekburn estuaries was turnstone. With a peak count of three observed on the Mount Pleasant peninsula. Overall the findings of the TEP winter and breeding bird surveys 2012-2014 concur with those reported in the Cambois – Blyth wader study with regards to the low value of the Cambois beach for SPA and SSSI bird species. Blyth Offshore Demonstrator Wind Farm Site Ref: EDF BODL: 15/03850/DISCON Planned construction date: ongoing Great Crested Newt Eco North BODL Jun 2015 1 ditch within Great crested newt No great crested newts were recorded on any of the Survey LDO site and 4 survey survey visits. Smooth newts and common toads ponds north of were the dominant species recorded on the surveys Brock Lane with palmate newt and common frog also recorded. Blyth Offshore Demonstration Site (Grid Connection) Extended Phase 1 Eco North Narec March Proposed route Phase 1 habitat Habitats on site were dominated by areas of Habitat Survey 2013 of cable survey and mapping unmanaged rough semi- improved neutral connection grassland, short ephemeral communities and between landfall grasses colonising bare ground, bare ground at Cambois and hard standing. beach, and a

Report Title Author Commissioning Date Geographic Ecological Scope Summary of Results/Conclusions as it Relates Body Scope to the former coal stocking yards

proposed electricity substation in East Sleekburn site Great Crested Newt Eco North Narec July 2013 Ditch in western Great crested newt No great crested newts were recorded on any of the Survey part of East survey survey visits. Sleekburn site Smooth newts and common toads were the dominant species recorded on the surveys and palmate newt and common frog also recorded. Reptile and Butterfly Eco North Narec Oct 2013 Proposed route Reptile surveys. No evidence of reptiles was identified on the site or Survey Report of cable Butterfly surveys immediate surrounds. connection Butterfly surveys identified the presence of grayling between landfall butterfly on and adjacent to the site. at Cambois No dingy skipper were reported, however the beach, and a habitats surrounding the site appeared to proposed be suitable for this species comprising of a mixture electricity of open basking habitats and including some substation in extensive areas of the preferred larval food plant of East Sleekburn birds foot trefoil Lotus site corniculatus. Other Projects North Blyth Renewable Ecology Renewable Jan 2011 Not reviewed for this project Energy Project: Consulting Energy Systems Wintering bird survey 2009-10

Blyth Cambois Wader SKM NCC Jul 2011 Blyth Cambois Not reviewed for this project Bird Survey Enviros coastal strip

Risk Assessment for Priority Species present within 1km of Site The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act came into force on 1st Oct 2006. Section 41 (S41) of the Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. Over 900 species of principal importance were included on the S41 list; these are the species found in England which were identified as requiring action under the UK BAP and which continued to be regarded as conservation priorities under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.

Based on the desktop data reviewed for the site and the habitat assessment it is considered that the priority species groups listed in table 20 have the potential to be present on or adjacent to the site.

TABLE 20 PRIORITY SPECIES GROUPS POTENTIALLY PRESENT WITHIN THE ZOI OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Species Group Species (either confirmed as present within the site or within 1km Risk assessment search distance) Birds See Ornithological Report.

Invertebrates ERIC Records: small heath, grayling, wall Confirmed presence of Other 3rd Party Records: Jacobs recorded a small population of grayling and high risk grayling in the former Blyth Power station site 2014. EcoNorth of other NERC s41 recorded grayling south of Harbour Road in 2013. Butterfly species including dingy Conservation have abundant grayling records in local area but no skipper and wall dingy skipper. butterflies and other PAEL sightings and risk assessment: High numbers of groups including grayling in flight during July 2019 survey associated with wetland species ephemeral and short perennial vegetation and grassland. Risk of dingy skipper and wall present based on habitat type and availability but presence not confirmed Small mammals ERIC Records: West European hedgehog (11 records dating for High risk of hedgehog the site and 2km buffer zone. from 2012) presence Other 3rd Party Records: No other records PAEL sightings and risk assessment: No records. Habitats are optimal for hedgehog. Amphibians ERIC Records: Common toad, 3 records 2006 - 2012 for Confirmed presence of Cambois area common toad in the Other 3rd Party Records: EcoNorth recorded toads in the site in site 2015 PAEL sightings and risk assessment: Very high risk of common toads in pond and other wetland habitats within the site

Legally Controlled Species Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) (referred to as the WCA) lists invasive, non-native plants and animals which are established in the wild in England and Wales and are subject to legal controls due to the threat they pose to native species. Under section 14 of the WCA it is illegal to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant listed in Schedule 9 Part ii. Failure to comply with the legislation, which can include moving contaminated soil or plant cuttings, can result in a fine or imprisonment. As such, where these species are recorded on a site, an invasive, non-native species control and eradication strategy will be required, should development proceed on this site, to ensure legal compliance.

A number of invasive non-native plant species have been recorded within the site including the legally controlled New Zealand pigmyweed, Japanese rose, Cotoneaster species and pirri pirri burr

E.2 FIELD SURVEY

E.2.1 HABITATS

The habitats present within the survey area are illustrated within the figure below. Habitats are present as complex mosaics and transitions, particularly in the brownfield areas, so this is a simplification showing the dominant communities.

The condition of the majority of each habitat type is assessed using criteria given in the Defra Biodiversity Metric Technical Supplement 2019, recognising that there is variability across the site with regards to condition. Habitat distinctiveness categories are also given for each habitat type where they are defined in the Biodiversity Metric 2.0.

TABLE 21: SCHEDULE OF HABITATS PRESENT ON SITE

Phase Name UK Priority Habitat Condition33 1 Code Status32 A1.3.2 Woodland – mixed- plantation No Moderate A2.1 Scrub-dense/continuous Yes Good though sea buckthorn present A2.2 Scrub - scattered No Good though sea buckthorn present B2 Neutral grassland Some areas likely to Good qualify as lowland meadow status. Some areas have calcareous or acidic characteristics B5 Marsh/marshy grassland No Moderate F2 Marginal/Inundation Vegetation No Moderate34 Crassula present in one pond G1.2 Standing water – mesotrophic Yes Moderate G1.2 Standing water – mesotrophic No Moderate (ditches) G2 Running water - mesotrophic Yes- rivers and streams Poor J1.1 Arable No Na J1.2 Amenity grassland No Poor Ephemeral/short perennial Yes - Open mosaic Moderate though piri piri bur, sea J1.3 habitats on previously buckthorn, cotoneaster and developed land Alchemilla present J2.3.2 Hedge - species-poor with trees Yes Poor J3.6 Building No Not applicable J4 Bare ground with early succession No Not applicable

32 Defined as habitats included in the List of Habitats and Species of Principal Importance in England under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and taking into account habitat condition as assessed on site. 33 Assessed in accordance with criteria contained in Natural England JP029 2019 Defra Biodiversity metric 2.0 Technical Supplement for those habitat types contained in the supplement: ditch, grassland, pond, scrub, sparsely vegetated, wetland. woodland. The habitat condition is based on an assessment of the condition of the majority of that habitat type within the site with some sections being of higher or lower condition. Habitat distinctiveness categories are also given where they are defined in JP029. 34 Natural England JP029 states: Aquatic Marginal Vegetation is a habitat type listed within UK Habitat classification. When applying the biodiversity metric always record as the component of the river, lake or pond Priority Habitat that it sits adjacent to. 52 © E3 Ecology Ltd

E.2.1.1 Woodland – mixed- plantation

There are blocks of semi-mature, mixed plantation woodland present, principally on the western and eastern site boundaries which appear to have been planted c. 50 -70 years ago. The arboricultural assessment classified the majority of trees as class C with none in class A. The trees are mostly pole form due to close spacing with sycamore, ash, white poplar, silver birch and common alder frequent and occasional Scots pine, Corsican pine and wild cherry. Pedunculate oak is present with a higher proportion of shrub species such as hawthorn and hazel in woodland on the western site boundary whilst woodlands on damper soils e.g. along the eastern boundary and adjacent to the Maw Burn support a higher percentage of willow including crack willow and goat willow. The ground flora is generally species-poor with common nettle, wood avens and bramble widespread. Tussock grass and rushes are present on wetter soils.

Non-native tree species present include grey alder (hybrid), holm oak, Swedish whitebeam, Norway maple, Chinese privet and Corsican pine.

The majority of trees within the site are too small in stature to support potential bat roost features but a small number of trees in woodland on the south western boundary contained potential bat roost features (PRF’s). Refer to TN17.

Habitat Condition: Moderate  Clearly fails at least 2 of the good condition criteria below OR invasive non-native plants are 5-20% OR where non-native species comprise more than 20% of the canopy, the woodland should be recorded as either non-native plantation or mixed woodland.  A mixed woodland is woodland with native and non-native species. (This includes woodlands established by planting and by natural regeneration.)  Trees of similar age and height structure throughout the woodland.  Little standing or fallen deadwood present.

Assessment against good criteria:  Pass - This should be an area of trees with complete canopy cover  Pass - Native species are dominant. Non-native and invasive species account for less than 10% of the vegetation cover.

 Fail -A diverse age and height structure of the trees  Pass - Free from damage [Bark stripping; Browse line; Damage shoot tips] (in the last five years) from stock or wild mammals with less than 20% of vegetation being browsed.  Fail - There should be evidence of successful (i.e. not browsed off before it gets well established) tree regeneration such as seedlings, saplings and young trees.  Fail - Standing and fallen dead wood of over 20 cm diameter are present including fallen large dead branches/stems and stumps.  N/A - Wetland habitat if they exist within the wood has little sign of drainage or channel straightening.  Pass - The area is protected from damage by agricultural and other adjacent operations.  Pass - There should be no evidence of inappropriate management (e.g. deep ruts, animal poaching or compaction).  Pass - Invasive non-native plants are below 5% (see list below).  Pass - No signs of significant nutrient enrichment present.  Variable - More than 3 different native trees and 3 shrub species in an average 10 m radius.  Indicator of poor condition: Original planting lines, or remains of planting lines, can be seen.

E.2.1.2 Scrub-dense/continuous

There are areas of dense/continuous scrub across the site which vary significantly in species composition and include self-sown seedling and sapling trees, in particular silver birch, willow and alder. Sea buckthorn is widespread across the site including on areas of open mosaic habitat and in grasslands (TN4). It has been controlled historically through cutting but remains prevalent.

The mounds which form the eastern part of the site (comprised of Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) and Furnace Basal Ash (FBA)) support stands of continuous broom and gorse (see photo above ) (TN43) whilst there are linear lengths of mixed shrub (hawthorn, willow, blackthorn, bramble) along Maw Burn and the north western site boundary.

Scrub of high distinctiveness: sea buckthorn (on the east coast) Scrub of lower distinctiveness: Bramble; Blackthorn, Hawthorn; Gorse (unless as a low growing component of heathland habitat); Mixed scrub. Habitat condition: Good  There are at least three woody species, with no one species comprising more than 75% of the cover (except common juniper, sea buckthorn or box, which can be 100% cover).  There is a good age range – a mixture of seedlings, saplings, young shrubs and mature shrubs.  Pernicious weeds and invasive species make up less than 5% of the ground cover.  The scrub has a well-developed edge with un-grazed tall herbs.  There are many clearings and glades within the scrub.

E.2.1.3 Scrub-scattered

Scattered scrub with young self-sown trees is widespread in particular in areas of grassland and open mosaic habitat, including on areas of hard standing with the plants growing through cracks in the surfacing (TN24), as well as adjacent to the drainage ditches where the additional water source has assisted their establishment. Habitat condition: Good As for dense/continuous scrub

E.2.1.4 Neutral grassland

All grassland on the site has currently been classified as neutral but there is a high degree of variability in its species composition and pockets of calcareous and acidic grassland reflecting the diversity of substrates on site. The grassland does not have a good fit with either the Phase 1 improved or semi-improved categories and therefore this sub-division is not applied.

The most frequent grasses in this habitat included red fescue, false oat-grass, creeping bent, Yorkshire fog, common bent and cock’s-foot. The most frequent wild flower species included common bird’s-foot-trefoil, common restharrow, daisy, ribwort plantain, tufted vetch, common knapweed and common mouse-ear.

None of the grassland is currently managed but there is grazing by roe deer and rabbits.

Grassland on PFA/FPA Mounds

This grassland appears to have been sown, probably on a topsoil covering over the PFA/FBA (TN11). The species present include cocksfoot, creeping bent, red fescue with some common forb species including wild carrot, red clover, coltsfoot, vetches and scattered gorse/broom scrub. Habitat Condition: Moderate  Semi-improved grassland occurs on a wide range of soils and may be derived from higher quality Priority Habitat grassland habitats in poor condition. Often as they deteriorate following nutrient inputs or lack of management. Typical grasses include: cock’s-foot, common bent, creeping bent, crested dog’s-tail, false oat-grass, meadow fescue, meadow foxtail, red fescue, sweet vernal grass, Timothy, tufted hair-grass and Yorkshire-fog.  Total cover of wildflowers and sedges less than 30%, excluding white clover, creeping buttercup and injurious weeds

Other Grassland

Strips of land between the former coal stocking areas and on the site margins are vegetated with species-rich grassland which is mostly established on stony substrates which vary from being freely draining to having impeded drainage (TN7, 31, 35). The substrates are highly variable and include areas of clinker, soil, crushed brick and concrete with species composition reflecting the variation in pH as well as moisture content. There are extensive areas of grasslands in the north eastern part of the site adjacent to former railway sidings which are mostly level but some areas here and on the western boundary of the coal stocking yards are hummocky suggesting ground disturbance with associated variations in soil moisture and hence species mix.

The grasslands are dominated by grasses which range from vigorous tussock forming species such as Yorkshire fog, false oat grass and cocksfoot to more open sward which is dominated by fine-leaved grass species including fescues. Some of the grasslands have high species diversity which includes forb species of locally restricted distribution such as eyebright. Some of the grassland may have been sown but the majority appears to have established through natural succession from early succession and ephemeral/short perennial habitats with a continuum between these habitat types.

Habitat Condition: Good  Wildflower and sedges above 30% excluding white clover Trifolium repens, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens and injurious weeds.  Meets all the condition criteria with only minor variation.  None of the indicators of poor condition are present

E.2.1.5 Marsh/marshy grassland

There is an extensive flat area of marshy grassland to the east of the former railway sidings which is dominated by tussock grass, reed canary grass and Juncus species (TN38) with smaller areas of marshy grassland scattered across the site where there is impeded drainage, for example between tarmacked coal stocking areas, in a linear ditch towards the southern boundary (TN 39 and 42). Damp grassland around the former settling ponds in the south east corner of the site supports several hundred orchid spikes (TN4) with areas of marshy grassland also present adjacent to the Maw Burn in the eastern part of the site (TN 14) with meadowsweet indicative of damp soil conditions. Snipe were present in good numbers in some of the areas of marshy grassland in November 2020.

E.2.1.6 Marginal/Inundation Vegetation

Marginal and inundation vegetation is associated with areas of the majority of standing water but is highly variable in character across the site. The two settlement lagoons in the south east corner of the site support patches of marginal Juncus and Carex species with the western ‘wildlife’ pond c.80% covered with inundation vegetation which provides cover for nesting waterfowl e.g. moorhen but also contains areas dominated by Crassula.

There are patches on inundation vegetation in the northern part of the site including on the western boundary of the coal stocking areas (TN28), associated with one of the drainage ditches (TN32) where common reed dominates and stonewort are present and associated with Maw Burn (TN39). Snipe were present in some of the areas of inundation vegetation in November 2020.

Habitat condition: Moderate35

35 Natural England JP029 states: Aquatic Marginal Vegetation is a habitat type listed within UK Habitat classification. When applying the biodiversity metric always record as the component of the river, lake or pond Priority Habitat that it sits adjacent to

E.2.1.7 Standing water – mesotrophic

There are two large former settling ponds in the south eastern part of the site which appear to be permanently wet (TN 6) and support aquatic plants and animals including a flock of .c25 juvenile curlew observed in October 2020 as well as shelduck, mallard and gulls. There is a pond in the western part of the survey area which is referred to as the ‘wildlife pond’ by RWE employees who noted this pond had been used as a demonstration area for school groups (TN 26).

Several other areas of standing water were observed across the site during the October and November 2020 surveys which are assessed to be seasonal in nature based on the absence of aquatic vegetation (TN29, 31, 39). The water quality appeared visually good in all of the areas of standing water.

Habitat condition: Moderate  Non-native species comprise more than 10% of the vegetation (western pond only) 60 © E3 Ecology Ltd

 There is insufficient extent of semi natural riparian land.  Moderate shading of non-woodland ponds (western pond only)  Submerged and floating plants are limited but still presence

E.2.1.8 Standing water – mesotrophic (ditches)

Open concrete drains, which encircle the coal stocking areas, supported varying amounts of standing water and vegetation. Some of the ditches, such as the ditch north of the central mound, are blocked by silt and support a bed of common reed with stoneworts (TN32). Others are colonised by marginal vegetation include reedmace, rush and sedge species along with dense bryophyte mats, grasses and in some cases young willow scrub. A small proportion of the ditches were devoid of water and/or vegetation.

Habitat condition: Moderate Good condition failed due to insufficient water levels in the majority of the ditches and the limited plant species present.

E.2.1.9 Running water - mesotrophic

The site was historically drained by two watercourses, the Mar Burn (northern section) and Cow Gut (southern section), which flow from northwest to south east before discharging into the Blyth Estuary to the south. Extensive lengths of the watercourses are culverted underground but some sections flow above ground within the site although in modified and diverted channels. The steam channels appear to have been straightened and re-routed (at least in sections) with earth mounding forming the banks along some sections (TN 14 and 15). The stream channels were c.2m wide with aquatic and inundation vegetation present and a low water flow. A short section of the banks of the Maw Burn had been reinforced with stone gabions in the east of the site whilst a section of the stream had been widened to form an online pond area with abundant inundation vegetation (TN13). Lengths of the Maw Burn banks support continuous scrub – mostly hawthorn, blackthorn, rose and bramble.

A ditch which carries water around the eastern side of the PFA/FBA mounds is also categorised as running water habitat due to its size (2m width), evidence of flow and natural (albeit modified) channel form. Although there was evidence of water pollution (a dense white sediment) at one point, there was an extensive cottongrass bed downstream of the pollution point suggestive of acidic water conditions (TN40).

Habitat Condition: Not defined36

E.2.1.10 Arable (grass ley) There is a single arable field to the west of the site which was under a grass ley at the time of survey (TN25).

Habitat Condition: Poor

E.2.1.11 Amenity grassland There is a parcel of amenity grassland north of the Northfield housing area in the south west corner of the site.

Habitat condition: Poor Amenity grasslands is characterised by vegetation dominated by a few fast-growing grasses on fertile, neutral soils frequently characterised by an abundance of rye-grass Lolium spp. (above 25% cover) and white clover Trifolium repens. These grasslands are typically either managed as pasture or mown regularly for silage production or in non-agricultural contexts for recreation and amenity purposes.

E.2.1.12 Disturbed land – ephemeral/short perennial

36 Natural England JP029 states that the rivers and streams condition assessment requires detailed desktop and field assessment which requires surveyors to be accredited to use the River Metric Survey and be suitably qualified / experienced to identify the sources of modifications on the site and their potential solutions. Maw Burn and Cow Gut are highly modified watercourses within the site and therefore have been classified as poor condition for the purposes of this PEAR but a more detailed River Metric Survey by an accredited surveyor would be required to confirm this assessment

Extensive areas of the site have been hard-surfaced with the main substrate types comprising free-draining brick/concrete rubble, tarmac and concrete areas. Each of these substrate types supports a slightly different vegetation type which reflect their varying chemical and physical characteristics and length of time since disturbance. Areas of crushed brick and concrete rubble areas support species-rich ephemeral/short perennial vegetation with plants such as vipers bugloss, coltsfoot, birds-foot trefoil, plantains, yellow-wort, common centaury, St John’s wort and a variety of umbellifers including wild carrot (TN41). The vegetation is typically less than 250mm in height and was associated with high butterfly and day-flying moth populations when surveyed in July 2019 and June – July 2020.

Habitat condition for Sparsely Vegetated and Rock Habitat Type: Moderate  Meets all good condition criteria except for that it has been created through human activity and natural processes over considerable time, but is an important wildlife and habitat resource in its present form.  Good Condition criteria:  Cover of bracken, scrub and trees less than 25%.  Cover of weed (for example, creeping and spear thistles, docks, brambles, common ragwort and common nettle) or non-native species less than 1%.  Less than 50% of live leaves (broad-leaved plants), fronds (ferns) or shoots (dwarf shrubs) show signs of grazing or browsing.  None of the indicators of poor condition are present:  Cover of undesirable species below 5% (the presence of pirri pirri burr is noted with % cover variable sea buckthorn has been cut over wide areas).  Species rich with good example of habitat matching description

E.2.1.13 Hedge species-rich with trees

There is a single Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense dominated hedgerow to c.3m height along the southern and part of the eastern site boundary with Sargents cherry Prunus sargentii trees (TN1) and non-native Cotoneaster present in this area.

Habitat condition: Poor

TABLE 22 DEFRA BIODIVERSITY METRIC HEDGEROW AND LINES OF TREES CONDITION ASSESSMENT37 Functional Attribute Criteria (minimum requirement for J2.3.2 Groups favourable condition) A1 Height >1.5m average along length Pass A2 Width >1.5m average along length Pass B1 Gap – hedge Gap between ground and base of canopy Fail base <0.5m for >90% length (unless line of trees) B2 Gap – hedge Gaps make up <10% of total length and no Fail canopy canopy gaps >5m continuity C1 Undisturbed >1m width of undisturbed ground with perennial Pass ground and herbaceous vegetation for >90% of length perennial measured from outer edge of hedgerow and is vegetation present on one side of the hedge (at least) C2 Invasive and >1.5m average along length Fail neophyte species D2 Current Damage >1.5m average along length Pass Overall Condition Score Total of 3 failures and failures in 2 functional Poor groups (B and C)

E.2.1.14 Building There is a single electricity sub-station (Harbour View) just outside the south western corner of the site (TN 19).

E.2.1.15 Bare ground with early succession

E.2.1.16

37 Source: Natural England JP029 2019 Defra Biodiversity metric 2.0 Technical Supplement Tables TS1.2 and 1.3 65 © E3 Ecology Ltd

The site supports an extensive and diverse community of early succession plant communities on areas of hard standing which reflect the variability in the physical and chemical characteristics of the substrate which range from high pH areas associated with concrete to lower pH on areas of coal residue. The plant communities include lower plants (lichens, mosses and liverworts etc), succulents such as stonecrops, cudweed and low growing, early flowering species (NR41). Plant growth is concentrated where nutrient levels are slightly elevated (e.g dunging patches) and/or where ground moisture is elevated e.g cracks in tarmac, shaded areas of hard standing. Areas of ballast associated with the former railway sidings support a slightly different, more ruderal flora (TN37).

This habitat type forms a continuum with ephemeral/short perennial plant communities.

Large parts of the site are hard surfaced (tarmac and concrete) with no vegetation, this includes parts of the former coal stocking yards and access tracks.

Habitat condition: Not applicable

E.2.2 TARGET NOTES

FIGURE 9 TARGET NOTE LOCATIONS TABLE 23 TARGET NOTES 1 Plantation and self-sown trees and shrubs along southern site boundary. Mostly rowan Sorbus aucuparia, alder Alnus glutinosa and Sargents cherry Prunus sp to c. 5m, semi-mature with Cotoneaster sp (WCA schedule 9 legally controlled species) with wild rose Rosa rugosa, Rosa arvensis. Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense hedgerow along fenceline (3m height) with hawthorn, willow, spindle Euonymus europaea, dogwood Cornus sanguinea, gorse Ulex europaeus and bramble Rubus fruticosus.

2 Self-sown scattered trees. Young silver birch Betula pendula and willow Salix cinerea from 1-5m on sub-base/thin soils 3 Dense and wide-spread ornamental and native shrubs Cotoneaster horizontalis (WCA schedule 9 legally controlled species) with native sea buckthorn Hippophae rhamnoides 4 Early succession mosaic grading into neutral/calcareous and marshy grassland on thin mineral soils adjacent to settling ponds Several hundred orchid spikes present including Northern marsh orchid Dactylorhiza purpurella, early purple orchid Orchis mascula and potentially orchid hybrids. On thicker soils, coltsfoot Tussilago farfara, red fescue, willowherb Epilobium sp. On thinner soils, open mosaic habitat with abundant yellow-wort Blackstonia perfoliata and black medick Medicago lupulina. 5 Planted and self-sown alder, grey willow with poplar Populus sp. to 8m along concrete ramps with field maple Acer campestre and dog wood. 6 Settling ponds. Two concrete lined sloping basins holding water. No floating aquatics but inundation vegetation around west, east and south margins up to 4m in width with greater pond sedge Carex riparia, jointed rush Juncus articulatus/acutiflorus? with bulrush Typha latifolia Thick slime algal and bryophyte growth of concrete surfaces. 25 juvenile curlew roosting on western settling pond during high tide Oct 2020 2 pairs shelduck Jun 2020 7 Open mosaic with neutral and marshy grassland. 67 © E3 Ecology Ltd

Flat grassy areas with localized marshy grassland below former loading bays with terraced land rising to the east. Pockets of open mosaic habitat on thinner soils with yellow-wort and Sedum sp. Squirrel-tailed barley Hordeum jubatum at base on loading bays with tussock grass Deschampsia cespitosa on wetter soils. Pirri-pirri burr Acaena novae-zelandiae (invasive, non-native) extensive on thinner soils. 8 Scattered trees and Scrub Planted tree and shrub group with Swedish whitebeam Sorbus intermedia, ash Fraxinus excelsior, dogwood and invasive, non- native Cotoneaster. 9 Plantation tree group to c10m. Corsican pine (Pinus nigra), non-native oak (holm oak Quercus ilex) with willow, silver birch and alder adjacent to stream 10 Stream corridor. Stream flows in southerly direction in a mud channel c. 2m width with a steady flow at time of survey. Steep-bank sides in places with whin-stone bank reinforcement. Inundation vegetation includes area of Typha with floating pondweed Lemna sp. and watercress Nasturtium officinale. Banks vegetated with neutral grassland with tall-herb vegetation and low native scrub including yarrow Achillea millefolium, common nettle Urtica dioica, coltsfoot, meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria, hogweed Heracleum sphondylium, bittersweet Solanum dulcamara and hairy willowherb Epilobium hirsutum with dog rose and bramble. 11 Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and furnace bottom ash (FBA) Mounds. Neutral grassland. The mounds supports established neutral grassland with creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera, red fescue Festuca rubra, wild carrot Daucus carota, coltsfoot, thistle Cirsium arvense, sow thistle Sonchus arvensis, clover Trifolium repens and yarrow with patches of bramble -dense in places on the lower mounds. Roe deer (herd of c.15) were foraging on this area and a fox observed. 12 Mixed plantation woodland to c. 6-10m height. The western facing slopes of the PFA and FBA mounds have been planted with woodland which reaches an average of 6m in height over a sparse understorey due to shading. Tree and shrub species include: whitebeam, grey willow, pine (Pinus nigra), grey alder (Alnus incana), sycamore, alder, rowan, with gorse, sea buckthorn, field maple, blackthorn and elder Sambucus nigra. A similar species mix is present adjacent to the Maw Burn stream with the addition of ash. Willow-tit present. 13 Maw Burn The Maw Burn follows modified channels with steep grassed sides which open out into a pond area and marshy grassland towards the western site boundary. The stream and pond supports inundation vegetation including reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea with rush Juncus effusus, J articulatus and greater pond sedge. 14 Maw Burn marshy grassland dominated by meadowsweet and tussock grass with dense bramble and fox earth 15 Cow Gut 2m wide, exposed mud/stone channel with patches of Typha and neutral grassland on the banks with dense bramble and scattered hawthorn 16 Scattered Alder and Birch Trees Self sown pioneer woodland (c. 8m) with hawthorn dominated hedgerow along southern boundary of site over early succession flora. 17 Plantation Woodland (semi-mature) with PRF’s Dense, pole form ash, sycamore, poplar dominated with occasional non-native pine (to 15m) with hawthorn, dogwood, elder as shrub layer and species poor ground flora (Urtica dioica, D. cespitosa, Geum urbanum, Cirsium sp, Epilobium hirsutum, Ranunculus repens). Shrub only species below pylon easement with flock of foraging goldfinch Carduelis carduelis feeding on thistle heads. Potential bat roost features (PRF) present in a small number (c. 3) of the trees consisting of 2 wind torn upper limbs (c.8-10m agl) and a rot hole in trunk (c. 5m agl). 18 Ornamental Shrub Beds A tarmac path with tall (c.3m), dense ornamental dogwood Cornus sanguinea shrub beds to the west and avenue of silver birch (c.7m height) separating the site from adjacent residential areas. Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyhrrula pair observed feeding in shrubbery Nov 2020. 19 Harbour View Substation with Semimature Broadleaved Woodland (outside site boundary)

Small brick-built electricity sub-station surrounded by dense semi-mature woodland (broadleaved) comprising, sycamore, silver birch, alder to c. 10 height with blackthorn Prunus spinosa, privet Ligustrum vulgare. A concrete-lined drainage ditch runs adjacent to the tarmac track just north of the substation entrance. The substation has well-fitting double doors facing east and a single air vent on the west face with no voids on the north or south faces. It is flat asphalt roofed with a wooden fascia board holding the gutter. There is no evidence of potential bat roost features or evidence of bat activity. The doors and fascia boards were in a good state of repair with no voids or cavities visible. Bat roost risk: low 20 Mixed Woodland (c.15m height) Willow (Salix fragilis) dominated plantation woodland with pine, alder and sycamore and hawthorn over Deschampsia cespitosa, Arrhenatherum elatius, Rubus fruticosus, Cirsium sp, Prunella vulgaris. Evidence of some recent management with inter-planting of cherry, rowan, oak in tree guards in northern section. Some dead standing timber. 21 Privet Avenue A dense stand of arching privet (c. 3m) with hawthorn adjacent to site boundary with metal palisade fence on western boundary. Evidence of human activity in site including coppicing and log stores. 22 Broadleaved Boundary Woodland (c.15m height) Plantation woodland on western site boundary dominated by sycamore, poplar with ash, silver birch, blackthorn, hawthorn, hazel, dog rose, privet with Holcus lanatus, A elatius, R fruticosus, U dioica as ground flora and margin of neutral grassland in locations. 23 Former Weighbridge Concrete paths and tracks with Sedum and bryophytes and early succession flora on raised sub-base areas adjacent to tracks. 24 Ditch- concrete lined with neutral grassland Shallow standing water with areas of sediment colonised by low inundation vegetation including Juncus and grasses. Predominantly bare tarmac to east and neutral grassland (Dactylis glomerata, D. cespitosa, Festuca rubra Centaurea nigra, Daucus carota, Plantago lanceolata, Potentilla reptans, Trifolium pratense with scattered shrubs (hawthorn) to west. 25 Arable with grass ley Area heavily disturbed by deep trenching in 2019/20 to enable laying of North Sea Link cables to converter station. Subject to seasonal waterlogging 26 Wildlife Pond Secluded area of open standing water with inundation vegetation including Carex, Typha sp. as well as invasive non-native New Zealand pygmy weed (covering c80% pond area). Surrounded by plantation alder, pine, silver birch to c.6m with neutral grassland grading into early succession communities with waxcap fungi and Blackstonia perfoliata. Roost site for up to 8 herons plus nesting waterfowl Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 27 Neutral grassland with scattered scrub (c. 6m height) and marshy grassland/inundation vegetation with drainage ditch Willow (S. caprea) blackthorn, hawthorn and Malus (domesticated variety) over neutral grassland on hummocks with inundation vegetation in hollows and drainage ditch (Carex acutiformis sp, Juncus, Typha) and Lemna sp. and filamentous algae in drainage ditch which had slight flow. 28 Clinker/Cinder Mounds with early succession, grassland and small mammal activity To the west of the ditch are cinder/clinker mounds with early succession (B perfoliata, Hypericum sp.) grading into grassland (Poa sp, D carota, Hieracium sp, T pratense, Vicia sp,)) with bare ground on NW face. Small mammal hole (c. 30cm diameter) dug into mound with rabbit droppings at entrance. 29 Standing water below Central Mound Two areas of standing water covering an area of c. 80m2 each to c. 30cm depth with clear water over stony substrate (Nov 2020). Phragmites present in small quantities in western wetland with grass (Agrostis stolonifera) present under the water in section suggesting seasonal nature of pond. Curlew Numenius arquata (3 no. present) roosting in wetlands Nov 2020. 30 Central Mound A circular disposal mounds to the north which rises to c.5m agl and have areas of bare substrate (waste material including clinker) to the north and sheer unvegetated, silt-like faces to the south (potential sand martin nesting habitat). Vegetated parts of the mound support early succession

grading into patchy neutral grassland with D glomerata, Festuca ovina and rubra, T repens, B perfoliata). 31 Standing Water and Neutral Grassland Areas of standing water (seasonal) present November 2020 on sub base between two areas of tarmac with neutral grassland 32 Concrete lined ditch with inundation vegetation Extensive linear stand of Phragmites communis along ditch which is filled close to top of ditch with sediment with Carex sp and Equisetum sp and areas of standing open water supporting stoneworts (Chara sp). 33 Scrub over early succession Self-sown scattered scrub Salix sp, Hippophae rhamnoides, Betula pendula, Pinus sp to c.5m 34 Maw Burn Stream habitat in 2m wide semi-natural mud/earth channel with dense inundation vegetation in the channel (Typha). The land is mounded steeply to the north and south with dense scrub (mostly Hippophae rhamnoides, Rubus fruticosus with self-sown silver birch). Scrub on western boundary including C monogyna, Rosa sp, Pinus sp and Salix sp.

Further east the Maw Burn continues in a more open channel with less scrub and soil mounding. Typha and Phragmites present in the channel with a slow flow evident. 35 Historic Silt Lagoons Deep water signs indicative of past open water but the area now supports early succession and neutral/marshy grassland with a level surface suggesting this is the location of former silt ponds (now infilled). There is a single area of standing water which supported 3 snipe Gallinago gallinago roosting in Nov 2020. Extensive D cespitosa with scattered Salix and self-sown B pendula, Pinus.

36 Standing Water Area of standing water with stony base c. 50m2 in area c.20cm deep. Clear water. Dragonfly quartering over the pond. Carex and occasional Typha suggesting maybe permanently flooded. 37 Former Railway Sidings Areas of whin ballast with ruderal vegetation (Rubus fruticosus, Anagallis arvensis, Epilobium hirsutum) 38 Marshy Grassland An extensive, flat area of marshy grassland to the north east of railway sidings with D cespitosa, Phalaris arundinacea, Juncus sp. with scrub (Ulex europaeus, Salix caprea, and dense Cystius scoparius) around the margins. 39 Grassland, Scrub and Standing water with Marshy Grassland and Inundation vegetation adjacent to Maw Burn Hummocky grassland with dense broom and gorse scrub plus standing water in base of hummocks with Typha and D cespitosa. 3 snipe present in November 2020. Hawthorn scrub with occasional self sown rowan (c.4m) lining the course of the Maw Burn. 40 Running Water Ditch with slow water flow and dense white sediment coating base of the channel and vegetation within the ditch (foul smelling). Marginal/inundation vegetation includes Juncus, Carex, Typha with extensive areas of cotton grass (Eriophorum sp) dominant in places suggestive of acid water.

41 Early Succession Substrate of clinker/crushed brick with c. 60:40 vegetation to bare ground 42 Ditch Dry depression with scattered Salix and marshy grassland. Snipe (1) roosting on ground and kestrel roosting in low shrub Nov 2020. 43 Scrub Dense gorse and broom scrub associated with PFA mounds

E.2.3 INVASIVE SPECIES TABLE 24 INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN THE SITE Ladies mantle (garden escape)

Alchemilla mollis

Jun 2020

Widespread on early succession habitat particularly in south of site

OS GR Location: central point NZ299837 with extensive spread

Pirri-pirri burr Acaena novae-zelandiae

June 2020

Widespread on early succession habitat across the site

New Zealand pygmyweed

June 2020

Crassula helmsii

Listed on schedule 9 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and so subject to legal controls

OS GR Location: NZ296839 in ‘wildlife pond’

Cotoneaster

Cotoneaster horizontalis + other Cotoneaster species. Widespread in SE corner of site and scattered elsewhere

Listed on schedule 9 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and so subject to legal controls

OS GR Locations: NZ30228349 NZ30168375 NZ30338340 NZ29668445 NZ30058442 but may also be at other locations Japanese rose Rosa rugosa

Present within site at southern site entrance by balancing lagoons OS GR Locations: NZ30238343 but may also be at other locations

Listed on schedule 9 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and so subject to legal controls

Buddleia

Widespread on early succession habitat across the site

FIGURE 10 INVASIVE SPECIES MAP

Habitats adjacent to the site Land north of the site is occupied by a freight railway line with horse grazed pastures and the Northumberland County Council wader mitigation land, which is conservation grazed grassland with seasonal wetlands. Land to the west is bare ground (a motor cross track) with mixed plantation woodland and agricultural land. Land to the east is former railway marshalling yards (disused) with semi-improved grassland and the village of Cambois. Land to the south of the site is the former Blyth power Station site which is currently under remediation with the Blyth Estuary and harbour to the south of that.

E.2.4 BOTANICAL SURVEY

No species were found with any of the following national conservation statuses: Nationally Rare, Nationally Scarce, GB Red List, Species of Principal Importance in England or, UKBAP Priority Species.

One England Red List species was found, common cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium, which is listed as vulnerable (VU). Although this species remains common in upland habitats in England, it is red listed because it has declined from many former wetland habitats in lowland England.

Five of the other species found were listed as Near Threatened (NT) in Stroh et al. (2014): common eyebright Euphrasia nemorosa, wild strawberry Fragaria vesca, marsh cudweed Filago germanica, marsh ragwort Jacobaea aquatica and marsh arrowgrass Triglochin palustris. One taxon was listed as Waiting List (WL) in Stroh et al. (2014): downy birch Betula pubescens subsp. pubescens. Five of the seven species listed in Stroh et al. (2014) were found in the areas of inundation vegetation.

One species, sea beet Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima, found was listed on the VC67 Rare Plant register. This was also found in an area of inundation vegetation.

37 out of a total of 154 species (24%) recorded on the site were considered to be axiophytes in VC67 with 76% of the 37 species found in the ephemeral/short perennial habitat defined as axiophytes (see Tables below). Axiophytes are plants which have a strong association with habitats considered to be of high merit for conservation.

The most abundant axiophyte on the site was lesser hawkbit, which was most abundant in the ephemeral/short perennial areas, but also grew in inundation vegetation and sparsely vegetated bare ground. The other axiophytes that were most frequent on the site also mainly grew in the ephemeral/short perennial vegetation, but two (common knapweed and tufted vetch) were more frequent in the neutral grassland and one (common fleabane) was more frequent in the inundation vegetation.

TABLE 25 VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST Notes: ERed column gives England Red List (Stroh et al. 2014) status: NT = Near Threatened; WL = Waiting List; VU = Vulnerable. 67AX column identifies species listed as axiophytes in VC67 (BSBI undated). Alien column identifies native/alien status according to Preston et al. (2002): arc = archaeophyte; nat = native; neo = neophyte.

Scientific name Common name ERed 67AX Alien Acaena novae-zelandiae Pirri-pirr-bur neo Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore neo Aegopodium podagraria Ground-elder arc Agrostis canina Velvet bent nat Agrostis capillaris Common bent nat Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bent nat Aira caryophyllea Silver hair-grass y nat Aira praecox Early hair-grass y nat Alnus glutinosa Alder nat Alnus incana Grey alder neo Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal-grass nat Anthriscus sylvestris Cow parsley nat Anthyllis vulneraria ssp. vulneraria Kidney vetch y nat Arenaria serpyllifolia ssp. serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved sandwort y nat Arrhenatherum elatius False oat-grass nat Artemisia vulgaris Mugwort arc Bellis perennis Daisy nat Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima Sea beet nat Betula pendula Silver birch nat Betula pubescens ssp. pubescens Downy birch WL nat Blackstonia perfoliata Yellow-wort nat Cardamine pratensis Cuckooflower nat Carex flacca Glaucous sedge nat Carex hirta Hairy sedge nat Carex pendula Pendulous sedge nat Centaurea nigra Common knapweed y nat Centaurium erythraea Common centaury y nat Cerastium fontanum ssp. vulgare Common mouse-ear nat Cerastium glomeratum Sticky mouse-ear nat Chamaenerion angustifolium Rosebay willowherb nat Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle nat Cirsium vulgare Spear thistle nat Cortaderia richardii Early Pampas-grass neo Corylus avellana Hazel y nat Cotoneaster sp. a cotoneaster neo Crassula helmsii New Zealand pigmyweed neo Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn nat Crepis capillaris Smooth hawk's-beard nat Cynosurus cristatus Crested dog's-tail nat Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot nat Dactylorhiza fuchsii Common spotted-orchid y nat Dactylorhiza purpurella Northern marsh-orchid y nat Daucus carota ssp. carota Wild carrot y nat Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair-grass nat Dryopteris filix-mas Male-fern nat Echium vulgare Viper's-bugloss y nat Eleocharis palustris ssp. waltersii Common spike-rush nat Elymus repens Common couch nat Epilobium montanum Broad-leaved willowherb nat Epilobium obscurum Short-fruited willowherb nat 75 © E3 Ecology Ltd

Scientific name Common name ERed 67AX Alien Epilobium palustre Marsh willowherb y nat Epilobium parviflorum Hoary willowherb nat Equisetum arvense Field horsetail nat Erigeron acris Blue fleabane y nat Eriophorum angustifolium Common cottongrass VU y nat Euphrasia nemorosa Common eyebright NT y nat Festuca ovina ssp. ovina Sheep's-fescue nat Festuca rubra Red fescue nat Filago germanica Common cudweed NT y nat Fragaria vesca Wild strawberry NT y nat Fraxinus excelsior Ash nat Galium aparine Cleavers nat Geranium molle Dove's-foot crane's-bill nat Geum urbanum Wood avens nat Heracleum sphondylium ssp. sphondylium Hogweed nat Hieracium agg. Hawkweed y nat Hippophae rhamnoides Sea-buckthorn neo Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog nat Hypericum perforatum Perforate St John's-wort y nat Hypochaeris radicata Cat's-ear nat Jacobaea aquatica ssp. aquatica Marsh ragwort NT nat Jacobaea erucifolia Hoary ragwort nat Jacobaea vulgaris Common ragwort nat Juncus articulatus Jointed rush nat Juncus conglomeratus Compact rush nat Juncus effusus Soft-rush nat Juncus inflexus Hard rush nat Koeleria macrantha Crested hair-grass y nat Lathyrus pratensis Meadow vetchling nat Lemna minor Common duckweed nat Leontodon saxatilis Lesser hawkbit y nat Linaria vulgaris Common toadflax nat Linum catharticum Fairy flax y nat Lotus corniculatus Common bird's-foot-trefoil nat Luzula campestris Field wood-rush nat Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel y nat Malva moschata Musk-mallow y nat Medicago lupulina Black medick nat Melilotus altissimus Tall melilot arc Mentha aquatica Water mint y nat Myosotis arvensis Field forget-me-not arc Odontites vernus Red bartsia y nat Ononis repens Common restharrow y nat Pastinaca sylvatica ssp. sylvestris Wild parsnip nat Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary-grass nat Pilosella officinarum Mouse-ear-hawkweed y nat Pinus contorta ssp. latifolia Lodgepole pine neo Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain nat Plantago maritima Sea plantain y nat Poa annua Annual meadow-grass nat Poa trivialis Rough meadow-grass nat Populus x canescens Grey poplar neo Potentilla anserina Silverweed nat Potentilla reptans Creeping cinquefoil nat Prunella vulgaris Selfheal nat Prunus domestica Wild plum arc Prunus spinosa Blackthorn nat Pulicaria dysenterica Common fleabane y nat 76 © E3 Ecology Ltd

Scientific name Common name ERed 67AX Alien Quercus robur Pedunculate oak nat Ranunculus acris ssp. acris Meadow buttercup nat Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup nat Reseda lutea Wild mignonette nat Reseda luteola Weld arc Rhinanthus minor ssp. minor Yellow-rattle y nat Ribes uva-crispa Gooseberry neo Rosa canina s.s. Dog-rose nat Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble nat Rumex acetosella ssp. acetosella Sheep's sorrel y nat Rumex crispus ssp. crispus Curled dock nat Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved dock nat Sagina procumbens Procumbent pearlwort nat Salix alba White willow arc Salix caprea ssp. caprea Goat willow nat Salix cinerea ssp. oleifolia Grey willow nat Sambucus nigra Elder nat Schoenoplectus lacustris Common club-rush nat Scorzoneroides autumnalis Autumn hawkbit nat Sedum acre Biting stonecrop nat Sedum album White stonecrop arc Senecio inaequidens Narrow-leaved ragwort neo Senecio viscosus Sticky groundsel neo Sonchus arvensis Perennial sowthistle nat Sonchus asper Prickly sowthistle nat Sonchus oleraceus Smooth sowthistle nat Sorbus aria Common whitebeam neo Sorbus aucuparia Rowan nat Sorbus intermedia Swedish whitebeam neo Stellaria graminea Lesser stitchwort y nat Stellaria media Common chickweed nat Taraxacum agg. Dandelion nat Torilis japonica Upright hedge-parsley nat Tragopogon pratensis ssp. minor Goat's-beard nat Trifolium campestre Hop trefoil y nat Trifolium pratense Red clover nat Trifolium repens White clover nat Triglochin palustris Marsh arrowgrass NT y nat Tripleurospermum inodorum Scentless mayweed arc Tussilago farfara Colt's-foot nat Typha latifolia Bulrush nat Urtica dioica ssp. dioica Common nettle nat Verbascum thapsus Great mullein nat Veronica arvensis Wall speedwell nat Vicia cracca Tufted vetch y nat Viola riviniana Common dog-violet y nat

TABLE 26 RELATIVE PLANT ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES Relative abundance: a = abundant, f = frequent, o = occasional, r = rare.

Column headings:  BG = Sparsely-vegetated bare ground  ES = Ephemeral/short perennial  NG = Neutral grassland  IN = Inundation vegetation 77 © E3 Ecology Ltd

 MR = Marginal vegetation  WD = woodland  Site = whole site

Scientific name BG ES NG IN MR WD Site Acaena novae-zelandiae r r Acer pseudoplatanus r o o Aegopodium podagraria o o Agrostis canina r r Agrostis capillaris o f f Agrostis stolonifera o f a a Aira caryophyllea r r Aira praecox o o Alnus glutinosa o f o Alnus incana r r Anthoxanthum odoratum r r Anthriscus sylvestris r r Anthyllis vulneraria f r o Arenaria serpyllifolia r r Arrhenatherum elatius r a r f Artemisia vulgaris r r Bellis perennis o f f Beta vulgaris r r Betula pendula r r o o Betula pubescens r r r Blackstonia perfoliata f f Cardamine pratensis r r Carex flacca o r o o Carex hirta r r Carex pendula r r Centaurea nigra r f f Centaurium erythraea f f Cerastium fontanum r f f Cerastium glomeratum r o o Chamerion angustifolium r r Cirsium arvense o o Cirsium vulgare r o o Cortaderia richardii r r Corylus avellana r r Cotoneaster sp. r r Crassula helmsii a r Crataegus monogyna o o o Crepis capillaris r f r f Cynosurus cristatus r r Dactylis glomerata r f r f Dactylorhiza fuchsii o r o Dactylorhiza purpurella r r Daucus carota r f r f Deschampsia cespitosa r o r o Dryopteris filix-mas r r Echium vulgare r r Eleocharis palustris o r o Elymus repens r r Epilobium montanum r r Epilobium obscurum r r Epilobium palustre r r Epilobium parviflorum r r Equisetum arvense r o o Erigeron acris r f f 78 © E3 Ecology Ltd

Scientific name BG ES NG IN MR WD Site Eriophorum angustifolium r r r Euphrasia nemorosa r r Festuca ovina r r Festuca rubra f a r a Filago germanica r o o Fragaria vesca o o Fraxinus excelsior r r o o Galium aparine r o o Geranium molle o o Geum urbanum o o Heracleum sphondylium r r r Hieracium agg. r f f Hippophae rhamnoides f f r f Holcus lanatus o f r r f Hypericum perforatum f o f Hypochaeris radicata o o o Jacobaea aquatica r r Jacobaea erucifolius o r o Jacobaea vulgaris r o r o Juncus articulatus f f o Juncus conglomeratus r r Juncus effusus r o o Juncus inflexus f o Koeleria macrantha o o Lathyrus pratensis r o o Lemna minor o o Leontodon saxatilis o a f a Linaria vulgaris r r r Linum catharticum r f f Lotus corniculatus a f a Luzula campestris o r o Lysimachia arvensis r r r Malva moschata r r Medicago lupulina f o r f Melilotus altissimus r r r Mentha aquatica r r r Myosotis arvensis r r r Odontites vernus r r r Ononis repens f f f Pastinaca sylvatica r o o f Phalaris arundinacea r r Pilosella officinarum r f r r f Pinus contorta r r Plantago lanceolata o f f Plantago maritima f o Poa annua r o o Poa trivialis r f o Populus x canescens r r Potentilla anserina r r o o Potentilla reptans r o o Prunella vulgaris f o f Prunus domestica r r Prunus spinosa r r Pulicaria dysenterica r f f Quercus robur r r Ranunculus acris r o r o Ranunculus repens r o r o Reseda lutea o f f 79 © E3 Ecology Ltd

Scientific name BG ES NG IN MR WD Site Reseda luteola o o Rhinanthus minor r r Ribes uva-crispa r r Rosa canina s.s. r o f r r f Rubus fruticosus agg. o f a r a a Rumex acetosella r r Rumex crispus o o r o Rumex obtusifolius r r r Sagina procumbens r r Salix alba r r Salix caprea r r Salix cinerea o r o Sambucus nigra r r Schoenoplectus lacustris r r Scorzoneroides autumnalis r f r o f Sedum acre f o f Sedum album f o f Senecio inaequidens f r f Senecio viscosus r o o Sonchus arvensis o f f Sonchus asper r r Sonchus oleraceus r r r Sorbus aria r r Sorbus aucuparia r r r Sorbus intermedia r r r Stellaria graminea r r r Stellaria media r r Taraxacum agg. r o r o Torilis japonica f o Tragopogon pratensis o r o Trifolium campestre r r Trifolium pratense o r o Trifolium repens o r o Triglochin palustris r r Tripleurospermum inodorum o r o Tussilago farfara r o o Typha latifolia o o o Urtica dioica r o o Verbascum thapsus r r Veronica arvensis r r Vicia cracca o f f Viola riviniana r r

TABLE 27: AXIOPHYTES SPECIES RECORDED IN THE SITE

Scientific name Common name Aira caryophyllea Silver hair-grass Aira praecox Early hair-grass Anthyllis vulneraria Kidney vetch Arenaria serpyllifolia Thyme-leaved sandwort Centaurea nigra Common knapweed Centaurium erythraea Common centaury Corylus avellana Hazel Dactylorhiza fuchsii Common spotted-orchid Dactylorhiza purpurella Northern marsh-orchid Daucus carota Wild carrot Echium vulgare Viper's-bugloss

Epilobium palustre Marsh willowherb Erigeron acris Blue fleabane Eriophorum angustifolium Common cottongrass Euphrasia nemorosa Common eyebright Filago germanica Common cudweed Fragaria vesca Wild strawberry Hieracium agg. Hawkweed Hypericum perforatum Perforate St John's-wort Koeleria macrantha Crested hair-grass Leontodon saxatilis Lesser hawkbit Linum catharticum Fairy flax Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Malva moschata Musk-mallow Mentha aquatica Water mint Odontites vernus Red bartsia Ononis repens Common restharrow Pilosella officinarum Mouse-ear-hawkweed Plantago maritima Sea plantain Pulicaria dysenterica Common fleabane Rhinanthus minor Yellow-rattle Rumex acetosella Sheep's sorrel Stellaria graminea Lesser stitchwort Trifolium campestre Hop trefoil Triglochin palustris Marsh arrowgrass Vicia cracca Tufted vetch Viola riviniana Common dog-violet

The figure and table below gives axiophyte and invasive species locations across the site.

Axiophytes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Aira caryophyllea o Anthyllis vulneraria o f Carex otrubae f r Centaurea nigra f o r f f r o Centaurium erythraea f Corylus avellana a Dactylorhiza sp. f Daucus carota f r o f f r f o o o r r o r Echium vulgare o r Eriophorum angustifolium f Euphrasia arctica Filago germanica o Fragaria vesca r o r r o o Hypericum perforatum f o o o o o r Leontodon saxatilis r f f f o f f r a r o f Lichens o r o r r r r r r r o Linum catharticum o o r r o f f r r r Mentha aquatica f Odontites vernus r f Pilosella officinarum r r r a f r Pulicaria dysenterica r o o o f o o f Triglochin palustris o Vicia cracca r

Invasive species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Acaena novae- zelandiae o o r o r r Alchemilla mollis o a r Buddleja davidii r Cotoneaster sp. a r r o Crassula hemlsii a Hippophae rhamnoides r f f f f f r r o a f r

Axiophytes 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Aira caryophyllea Anthyllis vulneraria Carex otrubae r Centaurea nigra a f o f r o r o f o o o 0 o r o o Corylus avellana Dactylorhiza sp. o r Daucus carota o f o f o f f f o Echium vulgare r r o Euphrasia arctica o Filago germanica r r o r Fragaria vesca o o o o o Leontodon saxatilis f a o f f f Lichens o f o o f r f a o o f o f o Linum catharticum r o o o o Mentha aquatica Odontites vernus a f o r Pilosella officinarum o f f r f o o o Triglochin palustris Vicia cracca

Invasive species 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 o r o Alchemilla mollis r Buddleja davidii Cotoneaster sp. d o a Crassula hemlsii o

E.2.5 OTTER AND BADGER Transects were walked to record otter and badger field signs.

FIGURE 11 OTTER AND BADGER TRANSECT ROUTES Badger

Pre-existing survey data: when consulted in November 2020, ERIC provided 11 badger records within a 2km search distance from it with most of the records considered to be roadside deaths associated with the A189 which is located c.300m west of the site at its closest point.

Habitat Suitability: The site contains blocks and belts of mixed plantation woodland, mostly in the southern part, which is potentially suitable habitat for breeding, foraging and commuting badgers. Land adjacent to this section of this site is in residential use with public rights of way present which are regularly used for recreation, including by dog walkers, reducing the risk of badger activity.

The wooded and grassed sections of the Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA)/Furnace Bottom Ash (FBA) mounds within the eastern parts of site, and the soil mounds adjacent to Maw Burn provide potentially suitable badger foraging and sett formation habitat but with no evidence of activity. Sett construction within much of the site the site is constrained by the hard-surfaced nature of the majority of the site and its exposed character.

Evidence of Badger Presence: No evidence of badger activity was recorded within the site or on adjacent land.

Otter

Pre-existing survey data: when consulted in November 2020, the local biological record centre provided 30 records of European otter (including breeding otter) 1987-2018 from the Blyth, Wansbeck and Sleekburn estuaries. The majority of the otter records are for the Wansbeck Estuary located c. 600m north of the site with a lower number of records for the Blyth and Sleekburn estuary south of the site.

Habitat Suitability: The site contains several waterbodies (both permanent and seasonal) with inundation/marginal vegetation and ditches with areas of marshy grassland, scrub and woodland in close proximity. It is not known if any of the waterbodies supports fish but amphibians are present. There are also open, concrete lined drains which were constructed to carry surface runoff water from the coal stocks. Streams (the Cow Gut and Maw Burn) are partially culverted (below ground) within the site. The open drains were mostly dry when surveyed in the summer months in 2019 and 2020 with varying amounts of water depending upon location when viewed in the winter months. There was a visible water flow in the open sections of Cow Gut and Maw Burn and some of the perimeter drains around the PFA/FBA mounds during the survey periods.

The site was assessed as providing sub-optimal habitat for otter, due to the absence of high- quality foraging habitat, but there are numerous potential otter lying up area with the open drains and water courses providing possible otter commuting routes through the site. Connectivity with areas of known otter activity is poor with areas of pasture, a local road and freight line separating the site from the Wansbeck estuary to the north. Brock Lane (a minor road to the south) and the former Blyth Power station site (currently under remediation and subject to intensive earth moving activity) separate the site from the Blyth and Sleekburn estuary to the south with Cow Gut in a covered culvert under the Blyth power station site which would further reduce the risk of otter movement along the watercourse.

Evidence of Otter Presence: No confirmed evidence of otter activity was recorded within the site. A possible otter spraint was recorded on a concrete base supporting a sluice gate in the wider site at GR: NZ302841 adjacent to the Maw Burn (small fish bones visible) in July 2019. When this area was re-surveyed during 2020 no evidence of otter activity was found and the sluice gate railings were observed to support a large quantity of guano suggesting it is a regular bird perch site. A second possible very weathered spraint was recorded by a ditch on the western boundary of the PFA mounds in February 2021.

Other Mammals Field signs of red fox were observed during the otter and badger survey including scats, bird kill sites and mammal tracks with a red fox and cubs viewed July 2020 with at least one and potentially more fox dens located within the site.

Roe deer were also recorded on each survey occasion including fawns in July 2020, along with extensive deer tracks and slots. The RWE’s site manager reported a population of approximately 12-15 roe deer contained within the site with the security fencing preventing movement of deer in or out.

E.2.6 GREAT CRESTED NEWTS Although there is a record of great crested newt (1 male and 1 female) from the Maw Burn in 2006, there have been numerous subsequent surveys of the pond with none recorded. eDNA

survey of the ponds in 2020 by PAEL and Econorth indicated that the species is most likely to be absent. Pond W1 had an HSI score of 0.84 suggesting excellent potential for GCN.

Great Crested Newt eDNA Lab Analysis Reports

E.2.7 BATS

FIGURE 12BAT TRANSECT ROUTES AND REMOTE MONITORING EQUIPMENT POSITION: SURVEY 1

FIGURE 13 SURVEY 2 BAT TRANSECT ROUTES AND REMOTE MONITORING EQUIPMENT POSITION: SURVEY 2

Data provided by the Environmental Records Information Centre (ERIC) in January and updated on 6th Nov 2020 for a 2km search distance from the site boundary returned 24 records for bats which were located in the Sleekburn, Mount Pleasant and Wansbeck area. The majority of records are for low numbers of common pipistrelle with single noctule, Daubenton, Whiskered and Nathusius records with the latter located in the the Wansbeck area to the north.

It should be noted that the absence of a record for a locality cannot be taken as confirmation that the species is absent; rather it may reflect lack of survey effort or no recent surveys.

TABLE 28 ERIC NE BAT RECORDS WITHIN SITE AND 2KM SEARCH DISTANCE (SUPPLIED 6 NOV 2020)

OS Grid Taxon Vernacular Abundance Details Location Reference Bats caught during trapping session at night using a Harp Trap. Bats River Wansbeck Myotis Daubenton's released. adult male Estuary, West daubentonii Bat 2 Count Habitat: Estuaries Sleekburn NZ28058548 Bats caught during trapping session at night using a Harp Trap. Bats released. (1 male & 1 River Wansbeck Myotis Whiskered female), adult Habitat: Estuary, West mystacinus Bat 2 Count Estuaries Sleekburn NZ28058548 Sleekburn Nyctalus noctula Noctule Bat 1 Count Grange Farm NZ300840 Bat caught during trapping session at night using a Harp Trap. Bat River Wansbeck Pipistrellus Nathusius's released. adult male Estuary, West nathusii Pipistrelle 1 Count Habitat: Estuaries Sleekburn NZ28058548 Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrelle 1 Count NZ278827 Bat caught during trapping session at night using a Harp Trap. Bat River Wansbeck Pipistrellus Common released. adult female Estuary, West pipistrellus Pipistrelle 1 Count Habitat: Estuaries Sleekburn NZ28058548 Pipistrellus Common 1 Count of Live bat identified in the pipistrellus Pipistrelle roost hand NZ28698649 Foraging at House, Pipistrellus Common Commuting Feeding pipistrellus Pipistrelle 3 Count From West Ashington NZ2886 old stables, Pipistrellus Common Mount Pleasant pipistrellus Pipistrelle 1 Count Farm NZ300840 Allotment Pipistrellus Common gardens, north of pipistrellus Pipistrelle 1 Count power station NZ300840 farmyard, Pipistrellus Common Sleekburn pipistrellus Pipistrelle 1 Count Grange Farm NZ300840 north of Pipistrellus Common Sleekburn pipistrellus Pipistrelle 1 Count Grange Farm NZ300840

OS Grid Taxon Vernacular Abundance Details Location Reference Pipistrellus Common Mount Pleasant pipistrellus Pipistrelle 2 Count Farm NZ300840 Pipistrellus Common pipistrellus Pipistrelle 1 Count NZ300840 Pipistrellus Common Bates' Colliery, pipistrellus Pipistrelle 2 Count Feeding Blyth NZ301820 Pipistrellus Common Bates' Colliery, pipistrellus Pipistrelle 3 Count Feeding Blyth NZ301820 Pipistrellus Common Bates' Colliery, pipistrellus Pipistrelle 4 Count Feeding Blyth NZ301820 Pipistrellus Common pipistrellus Pipistrelle 2 Count Feeding Bates Colliery NZ301820 Pipistrellus Common pipistrellus Pipistrelle 3 Count Feeding Bates Colliery NZ301820 Pipistrellus Common pipistrellus Pipistrelle 4 Count Feeding Bates Colliery NZ301820 Pipistrellus Common Bates' Colliery, pipistrellus Pipistrelle 1 Count Feeding Blyth NZ305823 Pipistrellus Common pipistrellus Pipistrelle 1 Count Feeding Bates Colliery NZ305823 Pipistrellus Soprano pygmaeus Pipistrelle 1 Count NZ278827 Bats caught during trapping session at night using a Harp Trap. Bats released. (1 male & 2 River Wansbeck Pipistrellus Soprano female), adult Habitat: Estuary, West pygmaeus Pipistrelle 3 Count Estuaries Sleekburn NZ28058548 Pipistrellus Soprano pygmaeus Pipistrelle 1 Count Foraging at House Ashington NZ2886

Habitat Assessment Based on the habitat mapping the site is assessed as being of low suitability for commuting, socialising and foraging bats using BCT guidelines (Table 29). The areas of bare ground, ephemeral and short perennial vegetation, neutral grassland, inundation vegetation, pond and woodland all provide potential habitat for a diversity of invertebrates which could attract foraging and socialising bats. Tree lines and groups within the site provide connectivity with residential development south of the site which could potentially host bat roosts.

TABLE 29 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL SUITABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT SITES FOR BATS BASED ON THE PRESENCE OF HABITAT FEATURES WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE38

Suitability Commuting and foraging habitats Negligible Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by commuting or foraging bats. Low Habitat that could be used by small numbers of commuting bats such as a gappy hedgerow or un-vegetated stream, but isolated, i.e. not very well connected to the surrounding landscape by other habitat. Suitable, but isolated habitat that could be used by small numbers of foraging bats such as a lone tree (not in a parkland situation) or a patch of scrub.

38 Source: Table 4.1 Collins, J. (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists, Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd edition, Bat Conservation Trust 99 © E3 Ecology Ltd

Suitability Commuting and foraging habitats Moderate Continuous habitat connected to the wider landscape that could be used by bats for commuting such as lines of trees and scrub or linked back gardens. Habitat that is connected to the wider landscape that could be used by bats for foraging such as trees, scrub, grassland or water. High Continuous, high-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by commuting bats such as river valleys, streams, hedgerows, lines of trees and woodland edge. High-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by foraging bats such as broadleaved woodland tree lined watercourses and grazed parkland. Site is close to and connected to known roosts.

Bat Roost Assessment There are no buildings within the site to provide potential bat roost features (PRF’s). There are belts of semi-mature trees with the majority of trees less than 5m in height and those which are taller (grouped in the south eastern part of the survey area) generally spindly due to their close-growing form with clear stems. Very limited potential roost features (PRF’s) were observed in the trees (TN17) within or adjacent to the survey area. No evidence of underground voids within the site were noted during the daytime habitat assessment; however, there are underground culverts carrying Cow Gut with these assessed as very low risk for bats due to the variable water flows within them which would pose a significant drowning risk to bats.

The is residential development of various ages within proximity to the site with the Northfield development located c. 60m east of the site access and older buildings associated with Cambois village located some 700m east of the site which could potentially host bat roosts.

Overall, the risk of bat roosts being present within or directly adjacent to the site is assessed as negligible.

TABLE 30 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL SUITABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT SITES FOR BATS BASED ON THE PRESENCE OF POTENTIAL ROOST FEATURES39

Roosting Roosting Habitat Features Potential Negligible Negligible features that could be used by roosting bats

Low A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bats opportunistically. However, these potential roost sites do not provide enough space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions, and/or suitable surrounding habitat to eb use don a regular basis by a large number of bats (i.e. low risk mating/hibernation sites) A tree of sufficient size and age to contain PRFs but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential Moderate A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status High A structure or tree with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer

39 Source: Table 4.1 Collins, J. (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists, Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd edition, Bat Conservation Trust 100 © E3 Ecology Ltd

Roosting Roosting Habitat Features Potential periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat

Bat Transect Survey

Survey 1: June – July 2020 Common pipistrelle was the only bat species recorded during the transect surveys with bat activity was concentrated over scrub and standing water to the north and north east of the survey area. There were also 4 bat passes (Common pipistrelle) recorded near the edge of the site to the west and south.

The June 2020 transect survey recorded approximately 30 bat passes in total, which was considered, using professional judgement, to be a low number for the survey area of this size. A maximum of two bats were identified at any one time within the survey area, with most of the observations being of single bats.

TABLE 31RATES OF BAT ACTIVITY PER SPECIES RECORDED DURING BAT TRANSECT SURVEY 22/06/20 Transect 1

Species Number of Bat Passes During Mean Number of Bat 22 June 20 Transect Passes/Hour Transect 1 Common Pip 11 5.5 Total 11 5.5 Transect 2 Common Pip 19 9.5 Total 19 9.5

FIGURE 14 PLAN OF BAT TRANSECT SURVEY RESULTS 22/06/2020

Survey 2: September 2020 Common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle were the only bat species recorded during the transect surveys with bat activity concentrated in the lee of woodland, sheltered from the prevailing westerly wind . The majority of bats (88%) were recorded were on Transect 2.

The September 2020 transect survey recorded approximately 102 bat passes in total, which was considered, using professional judgement, to be a moderate number for the survey area of this size. A maximum of two bats were identified at any one time within the survey area, with most of the observations being of single bats.

TABLE 32 RATES OF BAT ACTIVITY PER SPECIES RECORDED DURING BAT TRANSECT SURVEY 08/09/20 Transect 2

Species Number of Bat Passes During Mean Number of Bat 08 Sept 20 Transect Passes/Hour Transect 1 Common Pip 11 4.9 Soprano Pip 1 0.4 Total 12 5.3 Transect 2 Common Pip 78 34.7 Soprano Pip 12 5.3 Total 90 40

FIGURE 15: PLAN OF BAT TRANSECT SURVEY 2 RESULTS 08/09/2020

Remote Monitoring

Survey 1: June – July 2020 The remote monitoring detector recorded 70 bat passes over a total of 10 survey nights, which equates to 8 passes per night or approximately 1.16 passes per hour. Two different species were recorded; common pipistrelle (61), Myotis (1); 8 pipistrelle-50 were recorded (which could be either common or soprano pipistrelle with insufficient data to identify the registrations to species level) (Table 33). The species recorded included one that was not recorded during the transect survey: Myotis.

The mean number of nightly passes recorded by the static detector in the remote monitoring period was 7 which is assessed as being a very low level of activity. Of the 7 passes per night, most were common pipistrelle (87.15%), the second commonest record was of pipistrelle-50 with 11.43%. Myotis was recorded once, with 1.42% of passes attributable to these species.

TABLE 33 NUMBER OF BAT PASSES PER SPECIES FOR THE 30/06/20 – 09/07/20 REMOTE MONITORING SURVEY PERIOD.

Species Mean Number of Bat Mean Number of Bat Percentage Passes per Night Passes per hour (%) of Passes/ Species/ Night Common Pipistrelle 6.1 1.02 87.15 Pipistrelle-50 0.8 0.13 11.43 Myotis 0.1 0.02 1.42 Total 7 1.17 100 103 © E3 Ecology Ltd

FIGURE 16: PIE CHART SHOWING BAT REGISTRATIONS BY SPECIES 30/06/2020 – 09/07/20 FOR THE REMOTE MONITORING SURVEY

1% 12%

87%

Common pipistrelle Pipistrelle-50 Myotis

Survey 2: September 2020 The remote monitoring detector recorded 129 bat passes over a total of 10 survey nights, which equates to 12.9 passes per night or approximately 1.12 passes per hour. Three different species were recorded: common pipistrelle (105), soprano pipistrelle (16) and Myotis (6) and pipistrelle-50 (2) were recorded (which could be either common or soprano pipistrelle with insufficient data to identify the registrations to species level). The species recorded included one that was not recorded during the transect survey: Myotis.

The mean number of nightly passes recorded by the static detector in the remote monitoring period was 12.9 which is assessed as being a very low level of activity. Of the 12.9 passes per night, most were common pipistrelle (78.78%), the second commonest record was of soprano pipistrelle with 15.15%. Myotis was recorded six times, with 4.54% of passes attributable to these species.

TABLE 34 NUMBER OF BAT PASSES PER SPECIES FOR THE 14/09/20 – 24/09/20 REMOTE MONITORING SURVEY PERIOD.

Species Mean Number of Bat Mean Number of Bat Percentage Passes per Night Passes per hour (%) of Passes/ Species/ Night Common pipistrelle 10.5 0.91 81.40 Soprano pipistrelle 1.6 0.14 12.40 Pipistrelle-50 0.2 0.02 1.55 Myotis 0.6 0.05 4.65 Total 12.9 1.12 100

FIGURE 17: PIE CHART SHOWING BAT REGISTRATIONS BY SPECIES 14/09/2020 – 24/09/20 FOR THE REMOTE MONITORING SURVEY

2%5% 12%

81%

Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrelle-50 Myotis

During the June -July 2020 surveys (transect and remote monitoring), common pipistrelles were the first bats recorded on site, first recordings of this species ranged from 30 to 83 minutes after sunset indicating that there are unlikely to be bat roosts in the local vicinity with pipistrelle bats typically emerging c.20mins after sunset and earlier during warm weather40.

The June – July 2020 transect surveys recorded low levels of bat activity across the survey area, with common pipistrelle being the only species recorded at an average of 15 bat passes per hour. Activity within the site was predominantly common pipistrelle bats, with 100% of bats recorded belonging to this species during the transect survey and 87.15% during the static monitoring (98.58% including Pipistrelle-50*). 1 Myotis bat pass was recorded during 10 days of static recording. Bat activity was limited to foraging in areas of scrub around the periphery of the proposed turbine site particularly to the north and north east of the site where there is scrub and standing water.

Bat activity recorded from the June – July 2020 static monitoring did not show any characteristic feeding buzzes, suggesting bats are commuting past this area. Average number of bat passes, recorded by the remote monitoring equipment, was very low at 1.17 per hour with this figure providing an indication of bat activity and use of a site, not total bat numbers. During the September 2020 remote monitoring survey, common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle were first recorded 44 minutes to 5 hours after sunset indicating that there are unlikely to be bat roosts in the local vicinity.

The September 2020 transect survey recorded medium levels of bat activity, with common pipistrelle being the prevalent species recorded at an average of 39.1 bat passes per hour followed by soprano pipistrelles at 5.8 passes per hour. Activity within the site was predominantly common pipistrelle bats, with 86.3% of bats recorded belonging to this species during the transect survey and 81.4% during the static monitoring. 6 Myotis bat passes were recorded during 10 days of static recording. Bat activity was limited to foraging in areas in the lee of woodland sheltered from the prevailing westerly wind. A single common pipistrelle was recorded in the open. Last bats were recorded 34 minutes before sunrise suggesting there is a roost nearby.

The September 2020 remote monitoring survey did not show any characteristic feeding buzzes, suggesting bats are commuting past this area. Average number of bat passes,

recorded by the remote monitoring equipment, was very low at 1.12 per hour with this figure providing an indication of bat activity and use of a site, not total bat numbers.

There was a high level of consistency between the June/July 2020 surveys and the September 2020 surveys, with both surveys indicative of:  common pipistrelle bat being the most prevalent species present on site with lower levels of soprano pipistrelle and Myotis species  a low risk of bat roosts within close proximity to the survey area,  remote monitoring indicative of commuting rather than foraging bats at the monitor location;  very low levels of bat activity recorded by remote monitoring.

The principle difference between the Autumn compared to the Summer 2020 survey was that the Autumn survey recorded moderate levels of bat activity during the transect survey where as the Summer recorded low levels, with this difference attributed to the different transect route followed in the September 2020 which encompassed a greater area of woodland edge habitat where bats were foraging. Another factor which could result in a difference between the Summer and Autumn surveys is that the former was a dusk survey and the latter a dawn survey, with bat activity exhibiting diurnal as well as seasonal variation.

E.2.8 INVERTEBRATES FIGURE 18TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATE TRANSECT ROUTE AND QUADRAT SAMPLING LOCATION 31-07-20

Pre-existing Data ERIC Records: The local environmental records centre, ERIC NE provided the invertebrate records listed below within a 1km search area of the central grid reference NZ295842 when consulted on the 27-02-20 for UK protected and notable species. There are high counts and a 106 © E3 Ecology Ltd

large number of records of two UK priority butterfly species (grayling and wall) with a single, dated record of small heath. There is also a dated record of the UK priority moth species - garden moth for Cambois which dates from the 1970’s.

When re-consulted in Nov 2020 for records of protected and priority species covering a 2km buffer zone, ERIC provided the following additional records (summarised):

Least minor moth Photedes captiuncula– 1 record 1830-1982 Wall Lasiommata megera – 112 records Grayling Hipparchia semele – 61 records Dingy skipper Erynnis tages – 2 records Small heath Coenonympha pamphilus – 1 record.

TABLE 35 ERIC INVERTEBRATE RECORDS FOR 1KM SEARCH AREA JAN 2020

Common Scientific Name Number Peak Date of Most Closest Species Conservation Name of Count RecentRecord Recorded Status Records Distance Small Coenonympha 1 1 12/08/1999 2 figure BAP-2007, Heath pamphilus) GR England NERC_S.41 RedList GB Grayling Hipparchia 32 29 13/07/2010 2 figure BAP-2007, semele GR England NERC_S.41 RedList GB Resident to Northumberland with a stronghold at Cambois (Butterfly Conservation – North East Branch). Wall Lasiommata 36 21 22/08/2013 500m BAP-2007, megera England NERC_S.41 RedList GB Garden Arctia caja 1 2 20/08/1973 4 figure BAP-2007, Tiger GR England NERC_S.41 RedList GB

Local grayling records were plotted as a heat map to better indicate local distribution, though it should be noted that generally the site was inaccessible to the public which is likely to have reduced the informal recording data from the site but there are records with counts of over 100 adults from 2006.

Other Third Party Reports: data reviewed for the PAEL Northumberland Energy Park PEAR March 2020 provides further records of grayling obtained for the former Blyth Power station site in 2013 and 2014 with PAEL making incidental observations of high numbers of grayling on site during a site walk-over survey undertaken in July 2019. Habitat Assessment The habitat assessment process established that those parts of the site identified in the PAEL Phase 1 survey as bare ground and early succession habitat meet the UK Biodiversity Action Plan criteria for the UK Priority habitat: Open Mosaic Habitat. Fieldwork established that the site is of ‘moderate’ value for the following features which can be associated with terrestrial invertebrate quality:

 Presence of structural patchwork  Presence of habitat connectivity  Presence of ecoclines  Presence of bare earth; And ‘minor’ value for:

 Presence of Presence of Spring- and Autumn Nectar-Sources  Presence of Botanically Poor Wetland Features  Presence of Still Air Habitats. The site held no value for the following features:

 Presence of Decaying Timber  Rotational Management.

Transect Survey A total of 16 invertebrate records of 10 species were obtained during the walked transect with the most frequent order observed being Lepitoptera (butterflies and moths). Of note was the presence of Grayling butterfly, a NERC s41 species, which had previously been recorded on the Blyth Power Station site. Two bumblebee species were recorded along with a saw fly and then single representatives from the Coloeptera, Orthoptera and Diptera orders.

TABLE 36 INVERTEBRATE SPECIES RECORDED DURING TRANSECT SURVEY 31-07-20 Order Common Name Scientific Name Peak Total Conservation Count Count Status Lepidoptera Meadow Brown Maniola jurtina 3 4 - Lepidoptera Grayling Hipparchia semele 1 3 BAP-2007, England NERC_S.41 RedList GB Lepidoptera Small Copper Lycaena phlaeas 1 1 - Lepidoptera Six-spot Burnet Zygaena filipendulae 2 2 - Hymenoptera Red-tailed Bumblebee Bombus lapidarius 1 1 - Hymenoptera White-tailed Bombus lucorum 1 1 - bumblebee Hymenoptera Saw Fly Tenthredo arcuata 1 - Coleoptera 7-spot Ladybird Coccinella 1 1 - septempunctata Orthoptera Common Field Chorthippus 1 1 - Grasshopper brunneus

Diptera Marsh Snipe Fly Rhagio tringarius 1 1 -

TABLE 37INVERTEBRATE SPECIES RECORDED DURING QUADRAT SURVEY 31-07-20 S1 NZ 29804 83854 Habitats: Bare ground – stony (sub-base) >50% Ephemeral/short perennial

Species: Black ant Lasius niger Common wasp Vespula vulgaris Brown-lipped snail Cepaea nemoralis (shell only)

S2 NZ 29837 83920 Habitats: Bare ground – soil <50% Ephemeral/short perennial Neutral grassland

Species European brown garden snail Helix aspersa (shell only) Grayling Hipparchia semele Common Field Grasshopper Chorthippus brunneus

S3 NZ 29818 84076 Habitats: Bare ground – stony <50% Ephemeral/short perennial Bryophyte lawn Plant litter (dead)

Species: Brown-lipped snail Cepaea nemoralis (shell only) Flesh Fly Sarcophaga sp.

S4 NZ 29751 84135 Habitats: Bare ground – stony >50%

Species: No species recorded.

S5 NZ 29673 84099

Habitats: Neutral grassland Marshy grassland Innundation vegetation

Species: Common Field Grasshopper Chorthippus brunneus Small copper Lycaena phlaeas Common Froghopper Philaenus spumarius

S6 NZ 29702 83910 Habitats: Neutral grassland

Species: Brown-lipped snail Cepaea nemoralis (shell only) Black ant Lasius niger

TABLE 38 TERRESTRIAL SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS 31-07-20

Small copper Lycaena phlaeas Grayling Hipparchia semele

Meadow brown Maniola jurtina Six-spot burnet Zygaena filipendulae

Black ant Lasius niger Common wasp Vespula vulgaris

White-tailed bumblebee Bombus lucorum 7-spot Ladybird Coccinella septempunctata

Common Field Grasshopper Chorthippus Flesh Fly Sarcophaga sp. brunneus

Saw Fly Tenthredo arcuate Marsh Snipe Fly Rhagio tringarius

European brown garden snail Helix aspersa Brown-lipped snail Cepaea nemoralis

A total of 52 moths of 26 species were recorded with none of the species listed as UK species of principal importance for conservation under the NERC Act s41..

TABLE 39 LIST OF MOTH SPECIES RECORDED 09-07-2020 Scientific Name Common Name Total UK Distribution41 Habitat /Food Plant No. Priority Species: NERC S41 Apamea lithoxylaea Light Arches 2 No Fairly common Dry pasture Apamea monoglypha Dark Arches 4 No Common Grassland Autographa jota Plain Golden Y 1 No Fairly common Various including Urtica dioica Campaea margaritaria Light Emerald 4 No Fairly common Deciduous trees Cidaria fulvata Barred Yellow 3 No Widespread Woodland/scrub but local Rosa canina Dysstroma truncata Common 1 No Common Wide variety of Marbled Carpet typically low growing plants Eucosma a moth 2 No Relatively Sonchus arvensis obumbratana uncommon Eupithecia indigata Ochreous Pug 1 No Widespread Coniferous woodland but local Pinus sylvestris/Larix sp Euthrix potatoria Drinker 3 No Fairly common Grasses and reeds in southern England, less common in northern England Gillmeria ochrodactyla Tansy Plume 1 No Locally Tanacetum vulgare common in some parts of UK Habrosyne pyritoides Buff Arches 2 No Fairly common Rubus sp. southern England, absent Scotland. On northern part of its range Idaea aversata ab. Riband Wave 1 No Common Rumex sp and remutata [non-banded Taraxicum sp form] Lobesia abscisana a moth 2 No Local in Cirsium arvense southern England, less frequent in northern areas Monochroa cytisella a moth 1 No Widespread Pteridum aquilinum where foodplant present Mythimna ferrago Clay 1 No Relatively Grasses and low common growing plants e.g

Scientific Name Common Name Total UK Distribution41 Habitat /Food Plant No. Priority Species: NERC S41 Taraxicum sp and Stellaria sp. Noctua pronuba Large Yellow 2 No Relatively Grasses and Underwing abundant herbaceous plants Nola cucullatella Short-cloaked 4 No Widespread Prunus spinosa, Moth and Crataegus sp and moderately Malus sp. common Notocelia trimaculana a moth 4 No Quite common Crataegus sp and widespread Notocelia Bramble Shoot 2 No Common and Woodland and uddmanniana Moth widely woodland edge edge distributed Rubus fruticosus species Opisthograptis Brimstone Moth 2 No Common and Trees and bushes luteolata widespread including Crataegus monogyna and Prunus spinosa Ourapteryx Swallow-tailed 2 No Reasonably Trees and shrubs sambucaria Moth common Hedera helix Pasiphila rectangulata Green Pug 1 No Fairly common Woodland, parks and gardens Malus and Pyrus sp and other fruit trees Pyrausta purpuralis a moth 1 No Widespread Dry grassland/chalkland Mentha sp.and Thymus sp Scoparia ambigualis a moth 1 No Common Not specified Scoparia subfusca a moth 1 No fairly common Picris hieracioides and Tussilago farfara Scotopteryx Shaded Broad- 3 No Widespread Open habitats chenopodiata bar and fairly Vicia and Trifolium common

TABLE 40 CONSERVATION LISTINGS FOR GRAYLING BUTTERFLY IN ENGLAND

Conservation Listing Status of Grayling Butterfly Hipparchia semele NERC S41 Biodiversity List42 E.2.8.1 Listed as a species of principal principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity 2014 IUCN Red List43 Listed 2017 as species of ‘Least Concern’ UK Biodiversity Action Plan Listed on Butterfly Conservation 2007 Priority Species Northumberland BAP Not listed Butterfly Conservation44 High priority

42 Listed on S41 Master for Publication 2014 spreadsheet issued by Natural England 43 https://www.iucnredlist.org/search?query=Hipparchia%20semele&searchType=species 44 https://butterfly-conservation.org/butterflies/grayling 116 © E3 Ecology Ltd

Grayling Status in Northumberland The Grayling is resident to Northumberland with strongholds in the coastal dunes, especially Holy Island. Graylings are frequently seen in the sand dunes of Northumberland although it is rare to see them in large numbers. In 2015 there was a total of 109 Grayling sightings which was higher than in 2014 but less than in 2006 when there was 612. The first sighting in Northumberland was the 2nd July and the last on the 24th August on Holy island45.

FIGURE 19EXTRACT FROM NBN ATLAS FOR HIPPARCHIA SEMELE

Habitat: Graylings are associated with coastal habitats such as dunes, saltmarsh, undercliffs and clifftop and inland with dry heathland, chalk grassland, old quarries, earthworks and derelict industrial sites - such as old spoil heaps and very occasionally in open woodland on stony ground. These sites have in common, areas of dry and well-drained soils with sparse vegetation and abundant bare ground in open positions.

Whilst the breeding status of Grayling on site was not confirmed by the July 2020 survey, a number of this butterflies larval foodplants were present including Sheep’s fescue (Festuca ovina), Red Fescue (F. rubra) and Tufted Hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa). Given the isolation of this site from other potentially suitable Grayling populations and the presence of suitable larval food plants, it is highly likely that the site is a Grayling breeding site. The peak flight time for Grayling is in July – August and therefore the survey was undertaken at an optimal time of year to record Grayling.

Moth Assessment With over 2500 UK moth species described, the site supports c.1% of known species. This relatively high number of the UK moth population represented on the site reflects the variety of habitats present on the site and in the locality with the species recorded indicative of open

mosaic and grassland habitats as well as both deciduous and coniferous woodland. Whilst the majority of species recorded were common or fairly common in the UK, some species were close to their northern limit e.g Buff Arches, Drinker.

F. CONCLUSIONS

F.1 OVERALL BOTANICAL DIVERSITY 154 species were recorded; the majority (91%) of the plant species found were native species or archaeophytes. There are several factors that are considered to contribute to the floristic diversity on this site:

 Areas with dry, stony substrates with little or no topsoil, allow a range of plants to become established, usually without any species dominating, at least in the early stages;  The variation in the size and chemical composition of the substrates present (which included areas assessed as likely to be of high pH e.g. crushed concrete and areas with a probable lower pH e.g. former coal stocking areas) provide a wide variety of ecological niches suitable for different species;  The variation in topography, with flat areas, slopes and damp hollows provides further habitat diversity;  The management of the site is minimal, with current management directed at controlling species regarded by the owners as non-desirable (principally sea buckthorn) with no management practices that are harmful to the majority of plants e.g. widespread herbicide application.

Vascular plants of conservation interest None of the plant species found were very rare, or of very high conservation interest. However, a relatively large (26%) proportion of the species found were of some conservation interest. These were species typically found in habitats of relatively high nature conservation interest locally, species thought to be declining in England, or species rare in South Northumberland. 11 of these species were frequent to abundant on the site.

One England Red List species was found, common cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium, which is listed as vulnerable (VU). Five of the other species found were listed as Near Threatened (NT) in Stroh et al. (2014): common eyebright Euphrasia nemorosa, wild strawberry Fragaria vesca, marsh cudweed Filago germanica, marsh ragwort Jacobaea aquatica and marsh arrowgrass Triglochin palustris. One species, sea beet Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima, found was listed on the VC67 Rare Plant register. This was also found in an area of inundation vegetation.

37 out of a total of 154 species (24%) recorded on the site were considered to be axiophytes in VC6746 with 76% of the 37 species found in the ephemeral/short perennial habitat defined as axiophytes. Axiophytes are plants which have a strong association with habitats considered to be of high merit for conservation.

TABLE 41 HABITATS WITHIN THE SITE WITH A HIGH PROPORTION OF AXIOPHYTE SPECIES RECORDED

Habitat No. of Axiophyte Total Number of Percentage of Total Species Plant Species Species which were Recorded in this Recorded in this Axiophytes Habitat Habitat Ephemeral/short perennial 28 37 76%

46 Northumberland is divided into two vice counties - VC67 (South Northumberland) and VC68 (North Northumberland) for biological recording purposes. 119 © E3 Ecology Ltd

Sparsely vegetated bare 9 33 27% ground Marginal vegetation 3 12 25% inundation vegetation 9 37 24%

Potentially invasive, non-native species Several invasive, non-native plant species were found in the survey area of which three (Cotoneaster, Rosa rugosa and New Zealand pigmyweed) are listed on schedule 9 of the WCA, and as such are subject to legal controls. New Zealand pigmyweed was confined to the pond, but it dominated the vegetation in the entire pond. Alchemilla mollis is becoming dominant in some of the southern areas of open mosaic habitat, sea buckthorn is locally dominant and seeding strongly, and Buddleja is establishing in open mosaic areas.

Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (‘as amended) (the Act) aims to prevent the release into the wild of certain plants and animals which may cause ecological, environmental, or socio-economic harm. To achieve this section 14 prohibits the introduction into the wild of any species of plant listed in Schedule 9 to the Act. In the main, Schedule 9 lists non-native species that are already established in the wild, but which continue to pose a conservation threat to native biodiversity and habitats, such that further releases should be regulated. Without adequate controls, development and/or management of the site could result in actions which could result in the release of schedule 9 plants into the wild and therefore ongoing consideration to their presence will be required through any development and land management undertaken of the site.

Value of the different habitats for plants The most valuable individual habitat for plants on the site was the extensive areas of ephemeral/short perennial vegetation considered to be of county conservation value. The areas of inundation vegetation were probably the second most valuable habitat as they supported several species that have declined from wetland habitats elsewhere within lowland England. However, it was the combination of all of the habitats on the site that led to the site being so diverse. In particular, the areas of neutral grassland, inundation vegetation, sparsely vegetated bare ground and marginal vegetation all complemented the ephemeral/short perennial vegetation, providing niches for additional plant species. Only the woodland and scrub areas were relatively uninteresting in terms of vascular plant species composition.

Although the sparsely vegetated bare ground areas supported species of note that complemented the other habitats, there were relatively large areas of this habitat on the site and a relatively high proportion of these areas were largely unvegetated.

F.2 OTTER AND BADGER From the surveys undertaken of the site and the adjacent land it is known that otter are present in the local area, and use both estuaries. Field signs of use of the site were inconclusive, but suitable habitats are present for it to be used as a commuting route and occasional foraging area for otter and it is concluded that the species is likely to use the site at times.

No evidence for the presence of badger was recorded from the site or from adjacent land and they are most likely to be absent.

F.3 GREAT CRESTED NEWTS eDNA survey of the ponds in 2020 by PAEL and Econorth indicated that the species is most likely to be absent and this conclusion is supported by a number of earlier studies.

F.4 BATS Bat activity on site was heavily dominated by common pipistrelle, and this finding is consistent with other work in the local area. Activity levels were low and soprano pipistrelle and Myotis bats were unfrequently recorded. Overall, the site is considered to be of no more than local conservation value for bats.

F.5 INVERTEBRATES Of the species recorded during the terrestrial invertebrate survey, only one (the Grayling butterfly) was identified as holding special conservation status. However due to the restricted survey schedule, other UK priority species may be present on site but not recorded during the July 2020 survey with the habitats identified as potentially suitable for the following butterfly species:

 Dingy Skipper - foodplant Common Bird’s-foot-trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) recorded on-site. Historical records within 2km of site. Peak flight time: May – June.  Wall – foodplant Cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) recorded on-site. Historical records exist (ERIC NE). Peak flight time: May – June.

Overall, the site is considered to be part of a wider local network of sites of regional conservation value for Grayling.

. APPENDIX 1. STATUTORILY DESIGNATED SITES Ramsar Site Ramsar sites are designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, agreed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971. The Convention recognises wetlands as important ecosystems and includes a range of wetland types from marsh to both fresh and salt water habitats. The wetlands can also include additional areas adjacent to the main water-bodies such as river banks or coastal areas where appropriate.

Special Protection Area (SPA) SPAs are classified by the UK Government under the EC Birds Directive and comprise areas which are important for both rare and migratory birds.

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) SACs are designated under the EC Habitats Directive and are areas which have been identified as best representing the range and variety of habitats and (non-bird) species listed on Annexes I and II to the Directive. SACs are designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 unless they are offshore.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) SSSIs are designated as sites which are examples of important flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features. They are notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 with improved provisions introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

National Nature Reserve (NNR) NNRs are designated by Natural England under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and support important ecosystems which are managed for conservation. They may also provide important opportunities for recreation and scientific study.

Country Parks Country Parks are statutorily designated and managed by local authorities in England and Wales under the Countryside Act 1968. They do not necessarily have any nature conservation importance, but provide opportunities for recreation and leisure near urban areas.

Local Nature Reserves (LNR) LNRs are designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 by local authorities in consultation with Natural England. They are managed for nature conservation and used as a recreational and educational resource.

Non-Statutorily Designated Sites Non-Governmental Organisation Property These are sites of biodiversity importance which are managed as reserves by a range of NGOs. Examples include sites owned by the RSPB, the Woodland Trust and the Wildlife Trusts.

Local Wildlife Site (LWS) These are sites defined within the local plans under the Town and Country Planning system and are material considerations of any planning application determination. They are designated by the local authority although criteria for designation can vary between authorities. Priority Species Although not afforded any legal protection, national priority species (species of principal importance, as listed in Section 41 of the NERC Act (2006)), and local and regional priority species, as detailed within the relevant biodiversity action plans, are material considerations in the planning process and as such have been assessed accordingly within this report.

UK Post 2010 Framework The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework published July 2012, covers the period from 2011 to 2020. The framework enables work at a “UK level” to achieve the ‘Aichi Biodiversity Targets’ and the aims of the EU biodiversity strategy. Most work that was previously carried out under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) is now focused at the country level though many of the tools developed under the UK BAP remain of use; for example, lists of priority habitats and species. The lists of priority species and habitats agreed under UK BAP still form the basis of much biodiversity work in the countries. The Framework reflects a revised direction for nature conservation, towards an approach that aims to consider the management of the environment in a holistic manner, and to acknowledge the importance of nature in decision-making and as such is an important document implemented by the four countries.

BAP lists include both rare and common species whose populations’ have declined. On most sites it is likely to be the common species that are likely to be present, resulting in local to district value depending on numbers.

The tables below detail the bird species/groups listed as priorities within the biodiversity action plans of the main Local Planning Authorities’ within the north-east of England.

TABLE 42: BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN Northumberland Biodiversity Action Plan Species/Species Groups Barn Owl Black Grouse Coastal Birds Farmland Birds Garden Birds Upland Waders

APPENDIX 2. UK BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN CRITERIA FOR OPEN MOSAIC HABITATS (BIODIVERSITY REPORTING AND INFORMATION GROUP, 2010) AND LUSH 2013 HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM BAP Criterion Lush 2013 Assessment Criertia Criterion met for Site 1 The area of open mosaic habitat is at All potential OMH sites in the Yes least 0.25 ha in size inventory or on the website should be at least 0.25 ha. The area of other sites surveyed will need to be determined. 2 Known history of disturbance at the site One or more of the following have Yes or evidence that soil has been removed been recorded for question 10 on or severely modified by previous use(s) the survey form: of the site. Extraneous  Known history of disturbance materials/substrates such as industrial  Severely modified by previous use spoil may have been added.  Extraneous material or substrates added 3 The site contains some vegetation. This One or more vegetation types from Yes will comprise early successional the following groups have been communities consisting mainly of recorded for question 18 on the stress-tolerant species (e.g. indicative of survey form: low nutrient status or drought). Early  Early successional vegetation with successional communities are the exception of Bare ground composed of  Grassland (a) annuals, or  Herb dominated (b) mosses/liverworts, or  Heathland (c) lichens, or  Inundation vegetation or (d) ruderals, or seasonally wet areas (e) inundation species, or (f) open grassland, or (g) flower-rich grassland, or (h) heathland. 4 The site contains unvegetated, loose Bare ground or Sparse vegetation Yes bare substrate and pools may be have been recorded for question 18 present. on the survey form. 5 The site shows spatial variation, forming See 4 and 5 above. Yes a mosaic of one or more of the early successional communities (a)–(h) above (criterion 3) plus bare substrate, within 0.25 ha.